Surprisingly he is also very much in tune with French impressionism, though undoubtedly has his own flavor and more intensity. The symphonic works in particular I'd call Russian impressionism.
I read somewhere that Scriabin was not a « real » synesthete and his color association was arbitrary, out of a system he designed rather than a real association of senses
There is some evidence in both directions and it's something I will _definitely_ get into when I remake this video to be far more in-depth in the (hopefully near) future.
I love your videos! But I would love to see a longer version of this that goes more into his music. Also, a longer version of the one about Bartok. I feel like they got short changed
I have done three remakes of old videos in this history of the channel, and have planned on doing a handful more from these early days-Scriabin and Ives being high up on the list. The time it takes to make a video, however, is extremely prohibitive, especially considering how many requests for _new_ videos I have (over 350 as of this writing).
I’m loving your words and dialogue but I’m transfixed on the the Etude in the background...it causing me to miss what you’re saying...I wouldn’t have music in the background or turn it way down..
You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG about Scriabin's harmonic practices-e.g., the "mystic chord" is A13#11 in third inversion in a voicing which, yes, favors fourths. But it is the result of a very natural progression through the byways of a developing, perfectly tonal language. In fact, all the cockamamie chords in the late works are understandable as altered dominant 13th chords, treated eventually as sonorities and, in some sense, one could say "serialized". But that's to misunderstand the procedure, that's to do dopey Allen Forte analysis on music that doesn't work that way, and didn't evolve that way. The "serialization" is based on perfectly tonal harmonic practices-the transpositions are almost always at the distance of a minor third, the sort of transposition that Wagner and a gazillion other lesser composers often used. You need to look into this a helluva lot more closely, classical nerd. Your information is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Why are you so angry about this? Such capitalization is the equivalent of yelling, in Internet terms. I _do_ hope that I conduct myself in such a way that pertinent critiques will stand out as points for discussion in a civilized manner. I have yet to encounter any compelling Scriabin analysis that treats his late music in the context of traditional triadic harmony. Serial _analytical_ practices come closer to giving us an idea of his unique and idiosyncratic style, much as serial analytical practices can help us understand the music of Stravinsky. Music does not have to be serial in order for us to get something out of using serialist analytical tools. Scriabin took tonality up to a breaking point, and so analysts have to rely on post-tonal theories to get inside the music and see what he was up to. I have-since this video was published (which, mind you, is _ancient_ as far as the history of this channel is concerned)-seen some interesting takes as to whether or not there _was_ a single "Mystic chord" from which Scriabin worked. However, the basic belief that Scriabin's harmonic language was filled with fourths is borne out by quotes from the man himself from the Scriabin book you can see on my shelf, and I see no reason to doubt the veracity of that source.
I'm not angry in the least, but you are seriously misguided. If you actually went through the music, you would see the progression clear as day. Go through the Dover edition of the Poemes and Preludes. You will see the thirteenth chords, resolving, more or less normally, then left hanging, suspended over tonic pedals, frequently, and then finally uncoupled, i.e., treated as independent sonorities. To say the harmony is "based on fourths" is, well, how to put it politely? Just dead wrong. Ask any competent jazz musician to play the chords in Scriabin's Sonatas from the Sixth on (with the exception of 10, where he flirts with major and minor again), they'll tell you what I'm telling you in no uncertain terms. The Seventh Sonata, for example, contains two chords, x13b9#11 and x13#11. Wanna go on thinking they're "fourth chords" ? (whatever those are, perhaps Schoenberg's 1st Chamber Symphony uses them), knock yourself out.
Once again, might I point out that Scriabin was _quoted_ as saying that he intentionally tried to use harmonies based off of stacks of fourths? Not only did he say this, but he said it in a way that was uncharacteristically not self-aggrandizing, which is much more useful for musicologists than, say, "I am the apotheosis of world creation," which is another of his unique aphorisms. Because this is a channel that is based around music history, I consider the assumption that he was thinking in terms of fourths and their alterations a perfectly reasonable claim, and a perfectly reasonable _starting point_ for analytical work. It's certainly true that if you stack enough fourths, you can rearrange those notes into tertiary structures, but just because tertiary structures can be found does not mean that, in Scriabin's highly advanced language, that they were the starting point from which he derived the fourths. And it's not accurate to say that Scriabin dealt in fourths _exclusively,_ but it _was_ very much a part of how he was thinking about harmony in new and radical ways, and it was not dissimilar to Schoenberg or his European contemporaries. To discount this as merely an alteration of traditional chords would make them easier to analyze from a traditional perspective, but it doesn't square with the musicological consensus.
Yes, you can do it the opposite way, too, which is precisely why I brought up Scriabin's own analysis. As you have presented no counterargument for that point, I'll settle for the impasse.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
Please redo this! I would love to see a longer video on this genius
same
same
Surprisingly he is also very much in tune with French impressionism, though undoubtedly has his own flavor and more intensity. The symphonic works in particular I'd call Russian impressionism.
A very underrated composer. While I’m not to fond of his orchestral works, I do love his music for piano.
I would love to see more on Scriabin
I read somewhere that Scriabin was not a « real » synesthete and his color association was arbitrary, out of a system he designed rather than a real association of senses
There is some evidence in both directions and it's something I will _definitely_ get into when I remake this video to be far more in-depth in the (hopefully near) future.
@@ClassicalNerd May music bless you mate.
We need a updated analysis on this amazing composer! Maybe a video on Ben Johnston or pederescki would be cool too!
Duly noted: lentovivace.com/classicalnerd.html
You should redo this
RE DO!
Can I ask why you say this?
@@benthepen3336 it's low quality
@@Cryseris Low quality in its research or its in literal video quality?
@@benthepen3336 both, scriabin deserver a lot more than a 4 minuet video
I love your videos! But I would love to see a longer version of this that goes more into his music. Also, a longer version of the one about Bartok. I feel like they got short changed
I have done three remakes of old videos in this history of the channel, and have planned on doing a handful more from these early days-Scriabin and Ives being high up on the list. The time it takes to make a video, however, is extremely prohibitive, especially considering how many requests for _new_ videos I have (over 350 as of this writing).
@@ClassicalNerd we all appreciate the work you if you do
OUTSTANDING debates in the comments. You guys are awesome 👍🙏♥️
Who are those mystical composers you mentioned who followed in his influence?
If you redo this in greater detail I will love you forever
I’m loving your words and dialogue but I’m transfixed on the the Etude in the background...it causing me to miss what you’re saying...I wouldn’t have music in the background or turn it way down..
I love this étude!❤
Scriabin looks like a mini Claude Debussy
1:45
You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG about Scriabin's harmonic practices-e.g., the "mystic chord" is A13#11 in third inversion in a voicing which, yes, favors fourths. But it is the result of a very natural progression through the byways of a developing, perfectly tonal language. In fact, all the cockamamie chords in the late works are understandable as altered dominant 13th chords, treated eventually as sonorities and, in some sense, one could say "serialized". But that's to misunderstand the procedure, that's to do dopey Allen Forte analysis on music that doesn't work that way, and didn't evolve that way. The "serialization" is based on perfectly tonal harmonic practices-the transpositions are almost always at the distance of a minor third, the sort of transposition that Wagner and a gazillion other lesser composers often used. You need to look into this a helluva lot more closely, classical nerd. Your information is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Why are you so angry about this? Such capitalization is the equivalent of yelling, in Internet terms. I _do_ hope that I conduct myself in such a way that pertinent critiques will stand out as points for discussion in a civilized manner.
I have yet to encounter any compelling Scriabin analysis that treats his late music in the context of traditional triadic harmony. Serial _analytical_ practices come closer to giving us an idea of his unique and idiosyncratic style, much as serial analytical practices can help us understand the music of Stravinsky. Music does not have to be serial in order for us to get something out of using serialist analytical tools. Scriabin took tonality up to a breaking point, and so analysts have to rely on post-tonal theories to get inside the music and see what he was up to.
I have-since this video was published (which, mind you, is _ancient_ as far as the history of this channel is concerned)-seen some interesting takes as to whether or not there _was_ a single "Mystic chord" from which Scriabin worked. However, the basic belief that Scriabin's harmonic language was filled with fourths is borne out by quotes from the man himself from the Scriabin book you can see on my shelf, and I see no reason to doubt the veracity of that source.
I'm not angry in the least, but you are seriously misguided. If you actually went through the music, you would see the progression clear as day. Go through the Dover edition of the Poemes and Preludes. You will see the thirteenth chords, resolving, more or less normally, then left hanging, suspended over tonic pedals, frequently, and then finally uncoupled, i.e., treated as independent sonorities. To say the harmony is "based on fourths" is, well, how to put it politely? Just dead wrong. Ask any competent jazz musician to play the chords in Scriabin's Sonatas from the Sixth on (with the exception of 10, where he flirts with major and minor again), they'll tell you what I'm telling you in no uncertain terms. The Seventh Sonata, for example, contains two chords, x13b9#11 and x13#11. Wanna go on thinking they're "fourth chords" ? (whatever those are, perhaps Schoenberg's 1st Chamber Symphony uses them), knock yourself out.
Once again, might I point out that Scriabin was _quoted_ as saying that he intentionally tried to use harmonies based off of stacks of fourths? Not only did he say this, but he said it in a way that was uncharacteristically not self-aggrandizing, which is much more useful for musicologists than, say, "I am the apotheosis of world creation," which is another of his unique aphorisms. Because this is a channel that is based around music history, I consider the assumption that he was thinking in terms of fourths and their alterations a perfectly reasonable claim, and a perfectly reasonable _starting point_ for analytical work.
It's certainly true that if you stack enough fourths, you can rearrange those notes into tertiary structures, but just because tertiary structures can be found does not mean that, in Scriabin's highly advanced language, that they were the starting point from which he derived the fourths. And it's not accurate to say that Scriabin dealt in fourths _exclusively,_ but it _was_ very much a part of how he was thinking about harmony in new and radical ways, and it was not dissimilar to Schoenberg or his European contemporaries. To discount this as merely an alteration of traditional chords would make them easier to analyze from a traditional perspective, but it doesn't square with the musicological consensus.
Yes, you can do it the opposite way, too, which is precisely why I brought up Scriabin's own analysis. As you have presented no counterargument for that point, I'll settle for the impasse.