Miaskovsky - some guidance needed

[Christopher]

So, this website has proved its worth to me (as if that were necessary!).   Miaskovsky has long been a composer I just didn't understand, or "get".  So, after going through this thread, I did an audit of how many times people recommended various of him symphonies, and the results were as follows:

21 - six recommendations
27 - four
6 - three
17 - three
15 - three
5 - two
9 - two
16 - two
19 - two
24 - two
2,3,22,23,25 - one each

So, I am now working my way down the list in that order and am becoming a major Miaskovsky fan.   Thanks everyone for that!

[britishcomposer]

Ah, I have overlooked this!

May I disturb your fine statistics? 

My vote will be No. 5, but if I had two votes I would add No. 27 as well!

[eschiss1]

*goes in and adds a recommendation of no.20, not intentionally to complicate things, but because it deserves it - though if I had only one vote I probably used it already...*

[semloh]

Christopher - as a Myaskovsky fan myself, that's good to hear. 

Putting on my cynics hat ( ) I wonder how many people making recommendations actually do so on the basis of beng familiar with all of them! You can't recommend what you don't know, and since the 21st and 27th are the most familiar to listeners, those will be the ones most often recommended. 

Then again recommendations might be very changeable - the other day I said I prefer the 21st and 5th, but the truth is probably "the last one I listened to"

I think there's a lot to be said for working through them chronologically, so you get a feel for his musical development. What do you think, vandermolen?

[britishcomposer]

Eric, can you give a reason for your recommendation? No. 20 is perhaps the one I couldn't warm to. I thought it quite bland.
Or have I missed something?
Maybe it's Svetlanov? Or my low-quality BBC-Player recording? 
BTW, I know them all, too, though not all as well as I know 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27

[Christopher]

Christopher - as a Myaskovsky fan myself, that's good to hear. 

Putting on my cynics hat ( ) I wonder how many people making recommendations actually do so on the basis of beng familiar with all of them! You can't recommend what you don't know, and since the 21st and 27th are the most familiar to listeners, those will be the ones most often recommended. 

Then again recommendations might be very changeable - the other day I said I prefer the 21st and 5th, but the truth is probably "the last one I listened to"

I think there's a lot to be said for working through them chronologically, so you get a feel for his musical development. What do you think, vandermolen?

In some situations there's a case to be made for following the wisdom of crowds, and this is possiblyone of them.  Unless you are an incorrigible curmudgeon, there is a good chance you will like what a lot of other (similar-minded) people have likes.  I reject the chronological argument though.  You wouldn't read a writer's earlier works before reading their masterpieces, in fact the earlier works might put you off altogether.  Start with the best, and if they really really appeal, explore the other works.  Same, for me, applies to music.

Anyway, I have been spending a most enjoyable evening watching the re-opening of the Bolshoi live on TV here in Moscow, and they have included in the programme one of my favourite unsing pieces (though by a VERY sung composer) - "Nature and Love" by Tchaikovsky.  You might be able to watch it on http://www.youtube.com/bolshoi ....

[eschiss1]

In re 20: It could be any of those, but I did study part of the score myself after borrowing it from the library- familiarity might have something to do with it. (Though Taruskin praises 20 based I think just on Svetlanov's recording and for the same reasons I would- the strong effect made by the slow movement together with the apotheosis of its themes in the finale's coda, among the most - unfettered?..- music I know from the composer.)

[semloh]

I reject the chronological argument though.  You wouldn't read a writer's earlier works before reading their masterpieces, in fact the earlier works might put you off altogether.  Start with the best, and if they really really appeal, explore the other works.  Same, for me, applies to music.

Sounds a reasonable argument, Christopher. 
But I think it's still an instructive thing to do later down the track...  I've certainly taken to doing it with more familiar 'sets' of music - e.g. the Haydn string quartets, the Mozart piano concertos, and the Beethoven piano sonatas, but I confess I've never done it with the Myaskovsky symphonies, although I keep meaning to!    

(I asked vandermolen, by the way, because he is an avowed Myaskovsky fan! My apologies if I appeared to exclude others )

[vandermolen]

Christopher - as a Myaskovsky fan myself, that's good to hear. 

Putting on my cynics hat ( ) I wonder how many people making recommendations actually do so on the basis of beng familiar with all of them! You can't recommend what you don't know, and since the 21st and 27th are the most familiar to listeners, those will be the ones most often recommended. 

Then again recommendations might be very changeable - the other day I said I prefer the 21st and 5th, but the truth is probably "the last one I listened to"

I think there's a lot to be said for working through them chronologically, so you get a feel for his musical development. What do you think, vandermolen?

Have been away so sorry not to have responded before. I don't have a strong view on how you discover Miaskovsky/or Myaskovsky - I prefer the former spelling. His music is so little known (even in Russia I think) that I regard it as great to discover it at all. I do know all the symphonies as I have the Warner box + the Olympia/Alto issues of the same recordings + various other single issues. I think that the chronological approach makes very good sense too and agree that we probably recommend what we are most familiar with and often the first recording we have heard, if more than one is available. Recently someone recommended Symphony No 26 to me, which is really good - I had largely ignored it before. A biography in English by Gregor Tassie should be published early next year - hopefully this will lead to more interest.

Of the (even) lesser known symphonies I'd recommend No 16 for its wonderful slow movement (inspired by an air disaster), No 8 also for it's slow movement, which I've seen described as the work of 'a Delius of the Steppes'! Also No 3 and 26. 15 is a great introduction to Miaskovsky too and don't forget the wonderfully eloquent Cello Sonata No 2, which I love.

[eschiss1]

At least his name though is not so little known in Russia- even not very classical-music-minded people I meet here who hail from there have heard of him more often, based on conversations, than people here have heard of comparable US composers, I would venture to say.

[vandermolen]

At least his name though is not so little known in Russia- even not very classical-music-minded people I meet here who hail from there have heard of him more often, based on conversations, than people here have heard of comparable US composers, I would venture to say.

That's good news. On the two occasions I was there - once to the USSR and more recently I was surprised, especially on my earlier visit on the lack of recordings of his music. When I asked for any recordings in Melodiya the main record shop in Leningrad (as it was then called) I was regarded as if raving mad (this was in 1985 however). It's good to hear how things have changed.

[eschiss1]

actually, I'm not sure when my (few) encounters with people here were, and as they were quite possibly college students there was a bias statistically there. (Just as my surprise in learning - in a different brief conversation again- that someone I met knew of- and may have known, or known someone who knew, Evgeny K. Golubev, should have been mediated by the fact that the person I was talking to, while not a music professor at the college I was at- a community college where I was taking some very good computer courses - was a professor all-same, and one from the former USSR (this was in 1999 or 2000. I hope too that she wasn't confusing him with the once-politician - Moscow mayor I think?- Evgeny Golubev (yes, seriously...) - but I think she did know who I meant from my memory of the conversation )

(I love this area. anyway. but am on the flip side not that surprised that Myaskovsky's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse. His name I gather survives- maybe - and maybe only as a teacher. His music, I can believe, does not (there?) or didn't. Hopefully the situation has improved.
Taruskin wrote a brief article when Svetlanov's set first came out about what he thought about it. I tend to agree with the gist - including his praise, yes, for the 20th in particular (maybe biased by the fact that it had eluded even "tied-in" collectors with big collections of broadcast tapes for ages- symphonies 4, 14 and 20? nope- nothing here... are you sure we can't interest you in ( .... ) ? So for the longest time the most complete collections of recorded Myask. symphonies were 24 symphonies full (not counting the 3 sinfoniettas, different versions of the same symphony, etc.) 14 is only ok I guess (I think I will warm to it), 4 is impressive but I prefer 3 and 5 in their different ways, but 20 in its warm-hearted way has somehow captured mine... go figure... though my two favorite Myas. symphonies remain 2 and 3, still. Though that's not counting the wonderful quartets! ... (I've been a fan for awhile myself and apologize for the tone Never been to the USSR or anywhere that was part of it, though.)
If you (always speaking generally- none of this is directed solely to vandermolen of course, else it would be a P.M. ...! ) can catch symphony no.10 in London next year, I think it's a good idea. I rather doubt I can...

[vandermolen]

Interesting post - I must pay more attention to nos 2 and 20 which I'm less familiar with. I was very fortunate to hear nos 6 and 21 live in London in recent years and to get the chance to speak to Jurowski, the conductor of No 6, who was extremely pleasant to talk to.

[rbrianm]

I agree that the 21st is a near masterpiece, but I also think the 25th is just as great (it makes me think of Magnard's 4th, which is my favorite "Franckian" symphony along side d'Indy's 2nd).

[Mark Thomas]

Welcome, rbrianm.