# Incredible Balakirev Mazurka no. 6 is now on Teafruitbat's channel



## clavichorder

Its an incredible piece that most have not heard, because people don't pay enough attention to Balakirev's other piano music.




Also his nocturne no. 3





This channel is incredible, its what got me into the clavichord, so exploration is encouraged.


----------



## Ukko

Thanks for the links. For my comprehension of Balakirev' music, relelatory.


----------



## Sofronitsky

Paper thin music.. just like Kabalevsky and Khachaturian. I honestly can't enjoy this music. I guess it's my loss.


----------



## Aramis

I didn't enjoy the mazurka. It's rather uninteresting + the performance and piano timbre are so DRYYYY


----------



## clavichorder

That's an awesome compliment hilltroll, I shared it because it was revelatory to me too.


----------



## Ukko

clavichorder said:


> That's an awesome compliment hilltroll, I shared it because it was revelatory to me too.


Hmm. This may be an instance of 'giveth, and taketh away'. I have never been able to get a good handle on Balakirev's (via his music) influence in the circle of composers (Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Cui... etc.) that has been assigned to him by historians. The mazurka and nocturne you pointed me to have increased the size of my database-for-understanding. After reflection, that music isn't as significant as I initially thought - because I don't know what value Balakirev placed on it.

That said, I still thank you for directing me to the pieces.


----------



## Taneyev

Have it by late and lamented Ronald Smith. Beautiful piece IMO.


----------



## clavichorder

In terms of Balakirev's influence, its my understanding that he was an instigator and pioneer(and one of the earliest and most effective)of using material inspired by oriental and other ethnic folk melodies to give music its truly "Russian" sound as we know it today. I don't think Glinka or Tchaikovsky used such melodies to shape the Russian sound nearly to the extent Balakirev did. The Mazurka especially is a good example of this, except that it is from after Balakirev's composing hiatus, so in a time when his unchanged style was dated where it had once been up to the current and original.


----------



## clavichorder

Odnoposoff said:


> Have it by late and lamented Ronald Smith. Beautiful piece IMO.


I've heard of Ronald Smith's recording, I really need that one.


----------



## Aramis

clavichorder said:


> In terms of Balakirev's influence, its my understanding that he was an instigator and pioneer(and one of the earliest and most effective)of using material inspired by oriental and other ethnic folk melodies to give music its truly "Russian" sound as we know it today. I don't think Glinka or Tchaikovsky used such melodies to shape the Russian sound nearly to the extent Balakirev did. The Mazurka especially is a good example of this, except that it is from after Balakirev's composing hiatus, so in a time when his unchanged style was dated where it had once been up to the current and original.


It's quite weird to hear such things considering that:

- It's hardly original when composer who was twelve years old in the moment of Chopin's death writes mazurka for piano 
- Mazurka has absolutely nothing to do with "truely Russian sound", unless by "as we know it today" you mean some misinformed view on musical map of the world
- I don't know what contact with clear (non-classical) Russian folk music you had but it's certainly odd to claim that such mazurka has more Russian character than works of Tchaikovsky and others


----------



## clavichorder

Well, I think you are being too hard on it frankly.

But, point by point:

First point, I did mention that Balakirev wrote this Mazurka at a later date when his style was dated. But your point is that he got it from Chopin, well, so did Scriabin and Rachmaninoff, later composers.

Next points, the form that the piece is written within is not the same thing as its melodic and harmonic content, which is what I was saying was talking about. You're right, I don't know anything about Russian folk music, but I was talking oriental and other ethnic music, and my argument was based on the fact that I heard from Grove's dictionary that Balakirev and Liapunov did actually go out hunting for ethnic music, and I think it was in countries south of Russia, closer to the middle east. Grove's says that Balakirev was the one who encouraged the five to use exotic melodies, and I am pretty certain that it was also leadership by example for a time.


----------



## Aramis

> Next points, the form that the piece is written within is not the same thing as its melodic and harmonic content


Well, sure - but to be honest I can't feel any great imitation or reference to any folk characterictics in this piece. I live in part of the world where it's natural to "feel" Russian character as it's something that you hear from the neightbourhood, I don't need title like "trepak" to recognize the influence, yet here I see nothing outstanding.

Should I approach it like mazurka? Actually it's one of less mazurka-like mazurkas I've heard.

I don't want to bash Balakirev, I have nothing against the man but I really don't see what's the big deal about the work presented in this thread.


----------



## clavichorder

Aramis said:


> Well, sure - but to be honest I can't feel any great imitation or reference to any folk characterictics in this piece. I live in part of the world where it's natural to "feel" Russian character as it's something that you hear from the neightbourhood, I don't need title like "trepak" to recognize the influence, yet here I see nothing outstanding.
> 
> Should I approach it like mazurka? Actually it's one of less mazurka-like mazurkas I've heard.
> 
> I don't want to bash Balakirev, I have nothing against the man but I really don't see what's the big deal about the work presented in this thread.


Seems that you don't like this music that is likely influenced by, middle eastern and oriental melodies, being called Russian. I think of it as Russian, because I feel the passion of this music, to me Russian classical music is passionate and whether it gets its melodic content from exotic or local influences, so be it. Now, if its not a very authentic imitation of the oriental and exotic, that's aside from the point, which is that it somehow is melodically and in some ways harmonically very unlike anything european.

I think its a fantastic piece, its very dramatic, I don't see "paper thin" in it, and I see no resemblance to Kabalevksy or Khatchaturian, who are far more modern. It feels direct to the heart and in that way it seems Russian. If you don't like my friend's playing, there is Ronald Smith. The form is not that of a typical Mazurka and that is why I like it. I like it better than most Chopin mazurkas, because of several great melodies.

I didn't realize it would be so controversial to call it fantastic in the heading.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I don't find it controversial. I recognize Russian music when I hear it, regardless of the form. It's something I feel more than know. I love Mazurkas personally, about as much as Waltzes. I never heard the work before, but it was very nice to listen to, except a better recording would be preferred on my part.

Don't let these people get you down, Clavichorder, I'm with you.  I've been where you are dozens of times.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Seems that you don't like this music that is likely influenced by, middle eastern and oriental melodies, being called Russian. I think of it as Russian, because I feel the passion of this music, to me Russian classical music is passionate and whether it gets its melodic content from exotic or local influences, so be it. Now, if its not a very authentic imitation of the oriental and exotic, that's aside from the point, which is that it somehow is melodically and in some ways harmonically very unlike anything european.
> 
> I think its a fantastic piece, its very dramatic, I don't see "paper thin" in it, and I see no resemblance to Kabalevksy or Khatchaturian, who are far more modern. It feels direct to the heart and in that way it seems Russian. If you don't like my friend's playing, there is Ronald Smith. The form is not that of a typical Mazurka and that is why I like it. I like it better than most Chopin mazurkas, because of several great melodies.
> 
> I didn't realize it would be so controversial to call it fantastic in the heading.


They are really good pieces and I don't see them as paper thin at all. I'm not necessarily directing this to anyone on this forum but I feel like some people should realize that a piece of music doesn't have to be over-the-top-makes-you-burst-into-tears romantic to be beautiful and expressive. Hey, I love the over the top romantic music just as much as the next guy, but theres more to music than that and many different types and levels of expression.


----------



## JSK

I am a big fan of Balakirev, in part because I am a pianist who loves Rimsky-Korsakov. Lots of Balakirev's piano works, including many of the mazurkas and waltzes, sometimes come across as somewhat colorless but he did write a few excellent, though rather overlooked piano works. Anybody here know "The Lark" or his late piano sonata?


----------



## clavichorder

JSK said:


> I am a big fan of Balakirev, in part because I am a pianist who loves Rimsky-Korsakov. Lots of Balakirev's piano works, including many of the mazurkas and waltzes, sometimes come across as somewhat colorless but he did write a few excellent, though rather overlooked piano works. Anybody here know "The Lark" or his late piano sonata?


I don't know the Lark, but his late piano sonata is one of the best russian sonatas in the repertoire in my opinion. Its the one with his great 5th mazurka(the masterpiece of the set) as its second movement right?


----------

