SERGEI TANEYEV: TCHAIKOVSKY'S HEIR OR THE RUSSIAN BACH?

Taneyev

© Gavin Dixon 2009


back to articles index

back to homepage
SERGEI TANEYEV: TCHAIKOVSKY'S HEIR OR THE RUSSIAN BACH?




Unfortunately for Sergei Taneyev, his music has long been held in high respect. His intellectual rigour, cosmopolitan outlook and above all his mastery of counterpoint have attached a reverence to Taneyev’s name for successive generations of Russian musicians. But love for his music has remained in short supply, and engagement with Taneyev’s Romantic expression has remained distant at best. A reputation for compositional greatness is rarely founded on craftsmanship alone, but Taneyev’s technical accomplishment has even had the reverse effect, and respect for his skill has become the greatest impediment to appreciation of his music.

Taneyev’s reputation as a teacher has been a contributing factor. He succeeded Tchaikovsky as director of the Moscow Conservatory and his pupils included Lyapunov, Glière, Scriabin and Rachmaninov. Advocates for the music of these last two composers have struggled to maintain for them reputations for academic rigour, and Taneyev’s erudition has been repeatedly called into service on their behalf. Taneyev himself studied with Tchaikovsky, and his music forms a stylistic link between the works of his more famous teacher and pupils. Tchaikovsky’s voice can be heard in Taneyev’s classical approach to form and his cautious engagement with Russian folk idioms. His legacy to Rachmaninov is manifest in the maximalist approach both composers take to large scale forms, particularly the symphony and the cantata. His musical influence on Scriabin is open to question, but the two composers were close friends, and the tendency of each composer to pursue esoteric and often megalomaniac projects can only have been mutually reinforced through their friendship.

But Taneyev’s music also stands apart from its historical context. Structural thinking dominated Taneyev’s work, and the composition of individual works would usually begin with the planning of a structural scheme, filling in the details, the orchestration, phrase structures and foreground textures at a later stage. This approach is almost unique in the history of Russian music, and owes more to Taneyev’s study of German music than to any of his Russian predecessors. It has led to his being called ‘the Russian Brahms’, at least by his advocates, who have been keen to promote the surety of his compositional technique and his ability to apply techniques learnt from his study of musical history without compromising the individuality of his work.

Traditions of church polyphony were the historical models closest to Taneyev’s heart. The skill with which he wove polyphonic intricacies into his own music led Tchaikovsky to an even more prestigious comparison, dubbing him ‘the Russian Bach’. And Bach had been one of Taneyev’s earliest inspirations, although from his later student years his attentions were increasingly drawn to the polyphonists of the Renaissance, in particular to Ockeghem, Josquin and Lassus. He was an avid student of this music and its techniques at the Moscow Conservatory and later an influential teacher of it at the same institution. His magnum opus on the subject Podvizhnoy kontrapunkt strogogo pis'ma [Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style], secured his reputation within his lifetime as Russia’s leading expert on polyphony. Kousevitsky later described the work as ‘one of the greatest musical treatises ever written’, although more recent readers, especially of the English translation (tr. G. Ackley Brower, Boston, 1962), have found it somewhat dry.

Taneyev’s life story is also something of a disappointment compared to some of his more flamboyant contemporaries. He never married and was cared for throughout his adult life by his childhood nanny. He was a model staff member at the Moscow Conservatory, and his career there was neither tainted nor enlivened by even the suggestion of scandal. One incident of celebrity love entanglement is associated with his name, but it appears to have occurred without any impropriety or even knowledge on his part. In 1895, Taneyev became acquainted with Tolstoy, and in the following years was a regular visitor to Tolstoy’s country estate Yasnaya Polyana. During one of these visits, Tolstoy’s wife became briefly infatuated by the composer. The incident had painful resonances for the author, whose recent story The Kreutzer Sonata covered very similar ground. Taneyev’s ignorance that any of this was taking place around him corroborates his honourable reputation, but also suggests a certain naivety that may explain the straightforward nature of his other personal and professional relationships.

His teaching reputation aside, Taneyev was best known in his lifetime as a pianist. He was an early champion of Tchaikovsky’s piano works, giving the first Moscow performance of Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto, premiering the Second and completing the one movement version of the Third, which had been left unfinished at Tchaikovsky’s death. Taneyev had first come to public attention on the piano, accompanying the celebrated violinist Leopold Auer. The pair toured Russia in 1876, the year after Taneyev’s graduation, and many of Taneyev’s works for solo violin were written at the behest of his early collaborator. His Suite de Concert Op. 28 was written to showcase Auer’s virtuoso talents. The work is a concerto, in function if not in form, the violin backed by a full Romantic orchestra, yet performing a series of movements based on baroque dance forms. Contemporary and baroque are combined here without even the suggestion of neo-classical irony, in stark contrast to Stravinsky’s later use of similar Baroque forms. Tchaikovsky’s Variations of a Rococo Theme better demonstrates the type of engagement with the 18th century that Taneyev seeks; formal elegance and a conformity to generic expectations of tempo and meter, but phrasing, orchestration and scale that are unmistakably late Romantic. The Suite has recently been recorded on the Chandos label by Lydia Mordkovitch with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and Neeme Järvi (CHAN10491). It is coupled with the Rimsky-Korsakov Violin Concerto, and both are fully deserving of the increased attention the disc has brought. It is to Taneyev’s credit that his work gets star billing on this disc, a rare example of his work superseding that of his counterpart at the St Petersburg Conservatory. The range of comparisons that the performance has drawn demonstrates the subtle variety in Mordkovitch’s performance, but also the number of influences, both Russian and European, that Taneyev had absorbed by the time of his later works. Composers invoked by reviewers include Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Saint-Saëns and even Paganini.

Such a cosmopolitan approach came easily to Taneyev. There was no antagonism between himself and the Russian nationalists of his day - the Mighty Handful, their pupils and successors - but Taneyev’s interest in Russian folk culture and folk music was less passionate and less political. Like Tchaikovsky, he included Russian folk melodies in his works, but as a lingua franca, a shared musical inheritance without any specific political message. He also collected folksongs in the (non-Slavic) Caucuses in the 1880s, publishing transcriptions on his return to Moscow. In terms of technique, the strongest international influence on Taneyev’s music came from Germany, his minutely planned thematic relationships and movement forms (especially large-scale sonata forms) drawing on the legacy of Beethoven and its refinements in Brahms.. He had an interest in mythology, but that of ancient Greece rather than pagan Russia. His only opera, and the grandest musical project of his career, was a treatment of The Oresteia of Aeschylus. It occupied him for seven years, but the effort was rewarded by the considerable success of its premiere production at the Marinsky in 1895. Admirers included Stanislavsky and Rimsky-Korsakov, who wrote in his autobiography ‘for all its strict premeditation [The Oresteia] was striking in its wealth of beauty and expressiveness’. The proviso is telling, and the meticulous formal structuring that Taneyev applied to all his music leaves little scope for a narrative to unfold at its own pace. Unfortunately, modern audiences have had little opportunity to decide for themselves as the work has been neglected since the composer’s death. A Deutsche Gramaphon LP by the Belorussian State Opera (2709 097) was issued on CD but has since been deleted. Unevenness of musical invention was the complaint raised most frequently by contemporary commentators, and the modern assumption that worthy musical material is let down by weak dramatic treatment has led to the overture surviving in the repertoire longer than the opera itself. The overture is well represented on CD, the most recent recording by the Philharmonia under Neeme Järvi (CHAN8953).

Järvi couples the overture with another of Taneyev’s better known works, the Fourth Symphony. He was an unconfident symphonist, initially numbering this work as his first, thereby relegating the earlier three to the status of student exercises. Taneyev’s reticence to promote his earlier symphonies stems, perhaps, from his close association with Tchaikovsky, one of the greatest symphonists of the 19th century. Nevertheless, Taneyev’s Fourth in particular has had a continuous performance history (at least in Russia) ever since its premiere in 1898. When Rimsky-Korsakov set his composition pupil Igor Stravinsky the task of composing a symphony, his advice was to study Taneyev’s recently published Fourth for guidance. The Fourth remains popular on record, Rozhdestvensky has recorded it twice (Chant du Monde LDC278 931 and Melodiya CM 04117-8), and recordings are also available by the London Symphony Orchestra under Yuri Ahronovich (RL30372 NLA) and the prosaically titled Moscow Radio and TV Symphony Orchestra under Peter Tiboris (Bridge 9034). These recordings span the 1970s to the early 1990s, but in terms of both sound quality and availability are superseded by the Järvi release. The First and Third Symphonies have proved a popular pairing in recent years, comfortably occupying the duration of a compact disc. Thomas Sanderling has recorded the pair for Naxos with the Novosibirsk Academic Symphony Orchestra (8 570336), as has Valery Polynasky with the Russian State Symphony Orchestra (CHAN10390). The Second Symphony is incomplete, but the two finished movements are available as a coupling with the Fourth Symphony on the Polyansky recording and on the Marco Polo release by Stephen Genzenhauser with the Warsaw Philharmonic (223196). Of the first three symphonies, the Third is probably the most worthy of attention. Its most distinctive feature is the first movement, which derives its momentum from a cross-accented triple metre. It is not a completely original idea (Schumann’s Rhenish Symphony is its notably German inspiration), but in combination with Taneyev’s structural planning and carefully orchestrated textures it gives the ideal balance of rigour and energy.

Taneyev himself considered counterpoint to be the basis of his art, an attitude that elevated the vocal over the instrumental in both historical and practical terms. He was happy to experiment with the application of strict counterpoint to unusual contexts, fugal settings of Russian folk music for example, but was conscious that liturgical vocal music provided both the source and the most appropriate platform for these techniques. His published works are framed by two great cantatas on religious themes, John of Damascus his Opus 1, and At the Reading of a Psalm Opus 36, his last completed work. The two cantatas give different perspectives on the role of polyphony in liturgical music, the first focussing on the robust, clear lines of Russian Orthodox word setting, the second introducing more Western Classical and Romantic techniques, although to a similarly Orthodox text.

The second cantata exemplifies Taneyev’s approach to large scale composition. His careful structural planning is evident from the works finely balanced form, its 70 minute span divided into three movements, each further subdivided into three sections. There is evidence to suggest that Taneyev modelled the work on Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis, in particular its hybrid generic character, combining a polyphonic liturgical setting with the expansive elaborations of a secular cantata. The work requires concentrated listening but generously repays the listener’s commitment. Choral polyphony, in every imaginable form, is the order of the day. The three subsections of the first movement demonstrate the progressive intensity of the choral interactivity and are labelled: Chorus, Double Chorus, Triple Fugue. The orchestra guides the ear through the complex webs of the choral writing, and Taneyev makes imaginative use of the available sound colours. The bass clarinet, for example, predominates in the misterioso opening passage, and the large brass section is employed in a variety of contexts, not just the climaxes, but also for short solos to highlight significant vocal lines. The music moves between duple and triple time with some regularity (a distinctive Taneyev trait), varying the pace without interrupting the lyrical flow of the choral textures. The second movement introduces the quartet of solo singers. Again like the Missa Solemnis, the reduced textures of the solo voice sound as essential to the overall conception as the tutti choruses, and despite Taneyev’s obsession with form, there is never any sense here of interlude, let alone of transition. The third movement returns to the polyphonic complexities of the first, again creating constant variety of texture and pace, all underpinned by a definite, but never arbitrary structural scheme. The cantata was completed in the last months of Taneyev’s life, and his mastery of compositional technique, of form, of modulation and above all, of counterpoint served him well right up to this final climax. Practicalities have made performances of the Second Cantata a rarity. Its most fervent champion in recent years has been Mikhail Pletnev, who has toured it round the major cities of Europe. He has also released a recording with his Russian National Orchestra (PentaTone Classics 5186 038). This is a fine performance, and the SACD sound is an added bonus, elucidating in the inner complexities of Taneyev’s polyphony. And details of orchestration and counterpoint that could seem fussy or over-intellectual in lesser hands are rendered as essential ingredients to the work’s expressive totality. This is the essence of Taneyev, and both the performance and the work achieve his paradoxical ideal of rigorous detailing combined with deep lyrical expressivity.

Taneyev’s career as a pianist provided continuity in his life between the compositional peaks of these large scale projects, but works written specifically for the instrument are few. A small quantity of solo piano music appeared throughout Taneyev’s life, and the most famous today is perhaps his virtuosic Prelude and Fugue in G sharp minor Op. 29, which was played by Van Cliburn in the early rounds of the Tchaikovsky competition in 1958, and which has since been recorded by Vladimir Ashkenazy. In his later years, Taneyev increasingly turned to chamber music, both as a performer and a composer. He resigned his teaching post at the Moscow Conservatoire in 1905 in protest at the then director’s harsh treatment of some students who had been involved in the uprising. The move proved fortuitous as it allowed Taneyev to devote himself more wholeheartedly to playing the piano in chamber ensembles. This environment suited Taneyev’s creative instincts, and the works written for chamber ensemble with piano in the last decade of his life are among his most successful. Chamber music without piano had been an important part of Taneyev’s earlier career. The string quartet was a favoured form, and his nine are now available in complete sets by the American Carpe Deum Quartet on Naxos and by the Taneyev Quartet on the Russian label Northern Flowers. His quartets exemplify the combination of architecture and counterpoint that underpin his style. In many cases the results resemble the models of Schumann and Brahms. Yet Taneyev suffers through comparison with the German Romantics; his would seem a distinctive, even revolutionary, art where it not for the fact that so many German composers got there first.

But two of his chamber works with piano, the Piano Trio Op.22 and the Piano Quintet Op.30, offer something genuinely different. The lyricism that distinguishes Tchaikovsky’s chamber music is evident here, but both works have a harder edge and a more declamatory style, creating a real sense of direction and purpose. The Quintet in particular demonstrates how Taneyev’s twin obsessions, counterpoint and musical form, can meaningfully combine. Its first movement is a clearly articulated sonata structure, the success of each passage closely linked to its formal function: the introduction slow, the exposition declamatory, the development a web of polyphonic intrigue and the recapitulation emboldened through its stern sense of inevitability. Repeated octave Ds in the piano left hand drive home this sense of return, introducing first the recapitulation and then the coda. By contrast, the scherzo is nimble and airy, flaunting the economy of its means as it weaves a series of filigree textures from a simple four note motif consisting two repeated notes, a downward octave jump and an upward fifth. The adagio is a passacaglia, a genre with an impressive reputation for inspiring great composers (Purcell, Bach, Britten) to excel themselves in contrapuntal invention. This is Taneyev’s chance to shine, his ground bass is a slightly elaborated descending scale, repeated every two bars throughout the movement. The surety of this structural principle emboldens the composer to elaborate the melodic upper parts with expressive abandon. The movement is as polyphonic as any Taneyev wrote, but without any sense of oppressive discipline. And the finale recalls the greatest of Tchaikovsky’s concluding rondos, the Second Piano Concerto, perhaps, or the First String Quartet. Like Tchaikovsky, Taneyev is able to invoke the atmosphere of a Russian folk dance without any compromise to his urbane sophistication, harnessing its addictive energy to create a passionate and dramatic conclusion to the work.

Similarities with Tchaikovsky’s chamber music could explain (if any explanation were needed) why the Piano Quintet has remained one of Taneyev’s most popular works. Its recording history spans the 20th century, with a notable recording by the Beethoven Quartet and Maria Yudina (Melodiya D06339-40) only recently superseded by an all-star line up masterminded by Mikhail Pletnev on DG (00289 477 5419). This last is a spectacular achievement from Pletnev, who proves himself an equally persuasive advocate of Taneyev’s music at the piano as at the podium, and assembles a quartet of string players whose consummate musicianship matches his own high standards: Vadim Repin, Ilya Gringolts, Nobuko Imai and Lynn Harrell. The collaboration started out as a one off event at the Verbier Festival in Switzerland in 2003, later leading to a studio recording. The coupling is with the Piano Trio Op.22 (a work of almost equal standing), and the disc offers the ideal introduction to Taneyev’s art. His is a diverse output, of course, but with the addition of Pletnev’s Second Cantata recording and perhaps the Suite de Concert played by Lydia Mordkovitch, a modest outlay can provide access to some of the most engaging and accomplished of Taneyev’s works in recordings that show them at their very best.

All star performances of Taneyev’s chamber music are more common than his reputation would suggest. Stephen Isserlis (whose grandfather was a pupil of Taneyev) organised a high profile celebration of the composer’s work at the Wigmore Hall in 2002, and Martha Agerich exercised her considerable influence to bring about another at the Lugano Festival in 2006. Taneyev is not performed with the regularity that his devotees would like, but when the opportunity arises to hear his work, it is more often than not from the very best performers. It is reassuring that musicians of this calibre are sympathetic to Taneyev’s aims. His often stated commitment to formal principles underpins his work with a sense of honesty that stands apart from the anti-intellectual currents in of the Romanticism of his day. This quality draws Taneyev’s musical philosophy close to that of Stravinsky (another admirer rather than lover of Taneyev’s work) and the obsession with counterpoint that runs through both composers music could also be seen as a similarity. But their attitudes to musical history separate the two composers. Both looked to the past for inspiration and technical insight, but for Taneyev there was never any question of pastiche. Taneyev was at heart a Romantic, and the insights gathered from his academic study of form and counterpoint were always at the service of a deep personal expressivity. The difficulty of Taneyev’s project is reflected in his relatively modest output and a tendency towards anonymity in his lesser works. But Taneyev’s greatest music, his cantatas, his Fourth Symphony and especially his chamber works with piano, realise a distinctive and accomplished composing voice. Intense poetry and deep intellect are the foundations of this music. Occasional conflict between them is inevitable, but Taneyev’s greatest works achieve a union of head and heart that few other composers could match.



© Gavin Dixon 2009