Sergei Ivanovich Taneyev |

Sergey Taneyev

Taneyev was great and brilliant in his moral personality and his exceptionally sacred attitude towards art. L. Sabaneev

In Russian music of the turn of the century, S. Taneyev occupies a very special place. An outstanding musical and public figure, teacher, pianist, the first major musicologist in Russia, a man of rare moral virtues, Taneyev was a recognized authority in the cultural life of his time. However, the main work of his life, composing, did not immediately find true recognition. The reason is not that Taneyev is a radical innovator, noticeably ahead of his time. On the contrary, much of his music was perceived by his contemporaries as outdated, as the fruit of “professorial learning”, dry office work. Taneyev’s interest in the old masters, in J.S. Bach, W.A. Mozart, seemed strange and untimely, he was surprised by his adherence to classical forms and genres. Only later did the understanding of the historical correctness of Taneyev come, who was looking for a solid support for Russian music in the pan-European heritage, striving for a universal breadth of creative tasks.

Among the representatives of the old noble family of the Taneyevs, there were musically gifted art lovers – such was Ivan Ilyich, the father of the future composer. The boy’s early talent was supported in the family, and in 1866 he was appointed to the newly opened Moscow Conservatory. Within its walls, Taneyev became a student of P. Tchaikovsky and N. Rubinshtein, two of the largest figures in musical Russia. A brilliant graduation from the conservatory in 1875 (Taneyev was the first in its history to be awarded the Grand Gold Medal) opens up broad prospects for the young musician. This is a variety of concert activities, and teaching, and in-depth composer work. But first Taneyev makes a trip abroad.

Staying in Paris, contact with the European cultural environment had a strong impact on the receptive twenty-year-old artist. Taneyev undertakes a severe reassessment of what he has achieved in his homeland and comes to the conclusion that his education, both musical and general humanitarian, is insufficient. Having outlined a solid plan, he begins hard work on expanding his horizons. This work continued throughout his life, thanks to which Taneyev was able to become on a par with the most educated people of his time.

The same systematic purposefulness is inherent in Taneyev’s composing activity. He wanted to practically master the treasures of the European musical tradition, to rethink it on his native Russian soil. In general, as the young composer believed, Russian music lacks historical rootedness, it must assimilate the experience of classical European forms – primarily polyphonic ones. A disciple and follower of Tchaikovsky, Taneyev finds his own way, synthesizing romantic lyricism and classicist austerity of expression. This combination is very essential for Taneyev’s style, starting from the composer’s earliest experiences. The first peak here was one of his best works – the cantata “John of Damascus” (1884), which marked the beginning of the secular version of this genre in Russian music.

Choral music is an important part of Taneyev’s heritage. The composer understood the choral genre as a sphere of high generalization, epic, philosophical reflection. Hence the major stroke, the monumentality of his choral compositions. The choice of poets is also natural: F. Tyutchev, Ya. Polonsky, K. Balmont, in whose verses Taneyev emphasizes the images of spontaneity, the grandeur of the picture of the world. And there is a certain symbolism in the fact that Taneyev’s creative path is framed by two cantatas – the lyrically heartfelt “John of Damascus” based on the poem by A. K. Tolstoy and the monumental fresco “After reading the psalm” at st. A. Khomyakov, the final work of the composer.

Oratorio is also inherent in Taneyev’s most large-scale creation – the opera trilogy “Oresteia” (according to Aeschylus, 1894). In his attitude to opera, Taneyev seems to go against the current: despite all the undoubted connections with the Russian epic tradition (Ruslan and Lyudmila by M. Glinka, Judith by A. Serov), Oresteia is outside the leading trends of the opera theater of its time. Taneyev is interested in the individual as a manifestation of the universal, in ancient Greek tragedy he is looking for what he was looking for in art in general – the eternal and ideal, the moral idea in a classically perfect incarnation. The darkness of crimes is opposed by reason and light – the central idea of ​​classical art is reaffirmed in the Oresteia.

The Symphony in C minor, one of the pinnacles of Russian instrumental music, carries the same meaning. Taneyev achieved in the symphony a genuine synthesis of Russian and European, primarily Beethoven’s tradition. The concept of the symphony affirms the victory of a clear harmonic beginning, in which the harsh drama of the 1st movement is resolved. The cyclic four-part structure of the work, the composition of individual parts are based on classical principles, interpreted in a very peculiar way. Thus, the idea of ​​intonational unity is transformed by Taneyev into a method of branched leitmotif connections, providing a special coherence of cyclic development. In this, one can feel the undoubted influence of romanticism, the experience of F. Liszt and R. Wagner, interpreted, however, in terms of classically clear forms.

Taneyev’s contribution to the field of chamber instrumental music is very significant. The Russian chamber ensemble owes its flourishing to him, which largely determined the further development of the genre in the Soviet era in the works of N. Myaskovsky, D. Shostakovich, V. Shebalin. Taneyev’s talent perfectly corresponded to the structure of chamber music-making, which, according to B. Asafiev, “has its own bias in content, especially in the sphere of sublime intellectual, in the field of contemplation and reflection.” Strict selection, economy of expressive means, polished writing, necessary in chamber genres, have always remained an ideal for Taneyev. Polyphony, organic to the composer’s style, is widely used in his string quartets, in ensembles with the participation of the piano – Trio, Quartet and Quintet, one of the most perfect creations of the composer. The exceptionally melodic richness of the ensembles, especially their slow parts, the flexibility and breadth of the development of thematics, close to the free, fluid forms of the folk song.

Melodic diversity is characteristic of Taneyev’s romances, many of which have gained wide popularity. Both the traditional lyrical and pictorial, narrative-ballad types of romance are equally close to the composer’s individuality. Demandingly referring to the picture of a poetic text, Taneyev considered the word to be the defining artistic element of the whole. It is noteworthy that he was one of the first to call romances “poems for voice and piano”.

The high intellectualism inherent in Taneyev’s nature was most directly expressed in his musicological works, as well as in his broad, truly ascetic pedagogical activity. Taneyev’s scientific interests stemmed from his composing ideas. So, according to B. Yavorsky, he “was keenly interested in how such masters as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven achieved their technique.” And it is natural that Taneyev’s largest theoretical study “Mobile counterpoint of strict writing” is devoted to polyphony.

Taneyev was a born teacher. First of all, because he developed his own creative method quite consciously and could teach others what he himself had learned. The center of gravity was not the individual style, but the general, universal principles of musical composition. That is why the creative image of the composers who passed through Taneyev’s class is so different. S. Rachmaninov, A. Scriabin, N. Medtner, An. Alexandrov, S. Vasilenko, R. Glier, A. Grechaninov, S. Lyapunov, Z. Paliashvili, A. Stanchinsky and many others – Taneyev was able to give each of them the general basis on which the individuality of the student flourished.

The diverse creative activity of Taneyev, which was untimely interrupted in 1915, was of great importance for Russian art. According to Asafiev, “Taneyev… was the source of the great cultural revolution in Russian music, the last word of which is far from being said…”

S. Savenko

Sergei Ivanovich Taneyev is the greatest composer of the turn of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries. Student of N. G. Rubinstein and Tchaikovsky, teacher of Scriabin, Rachmaninov, Medtner. Together with Tchaikovsky, he is the head of the Moscow composer school. Its historical place is comparable to that which Glazunov occupied in St. Petersburg. In this generation of musicians, in particular, the two named composers began to show a convergence of the creative features of the New Russian School and the student of Anton Rubinstein – Tchaikovsky; for the pupils of Glazunov and Taneyev, this process will still advance significantly.

Taneyev’s creative life was very intense and multifaceted. The activities of Taneyev, a scientist, pianist, teacher, are inextricably linked with the work of Taneyev, a composer. Interpenetration, testifying to the integrity of musical thinking, can be traced, for example, in Taneyev’s attitude to polyphony: in the history of Russian musical culture, he acts both as the author of innovative studies “Mobile counterpoint of strict writing” and “Teaching about the canon”, and as a teacher of counterpoint courses developed by him and fugues at the Moscow Conservatory, and as the creator of musical works, including for piano, in which polyphony is a powerful means of figurative characterization and shaping.

Taneyev is one of the greatest pianists of his time. In his repertoire, enlightening attitudes were clearly revealed: the complete absence of virtuoso pieces of the salon type (which was rare even in the 70s and 80s), the inclusion in the programs of works that were rarely heard or played for the first time (in particular, new works by Tchaikovsky and Arensky). He was an outstanding ensemble player, performed with L. S. Auer, G. Venyavsky, A. V. Verzhbilovich, the Czech Quartet, performed piano parts in chamber compositions by Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and his own. In the field of piano pedagogy, Taneyev was the immediate successor and successor of N. G. Rubinshtein. Taneyev’s role in the formation of the Moscow pianistic school is not limited to teaching piano at the conservatory. Great was the influence of Taneyev’s pianism on the composers who studied in his theoretical classes, on the piano repertoire they created.

Taneyev played an outstanding role in the development of Russian vocational education. In the field of music theory, his activities were in two main directions: teaching compulsory courses and educating composers in music theory classes. He directly connected the mastery of harmony, polyphony, instrumentation, the course of forms with the mastery of composition. Mastery “acquired for him a value that exceeded the boundaries of handicraft and technical work … and contained, along with practical data on how to embody and build music, logical studies of the elements of music as thinking,” B. V. Asafiev argued. Being the director of the conservatory in the second half of the 80s, and in subsequent years an active figure in musical education, Taneyev was especially concerned about the level of musical and theoretical training of young musicians-performers, about the democratization of the life of the conservatory. He was among the organizers and active participants of the People’s Conservatory, many educational circles, the scientific society “Musical and Theoretical Library”.

Taneyev paid much attention to the study of folk musical creativity. He recorded and processed about thirty Ukrainian songs, worked on Russian folklore. In the summer of 1885, he traveled to the North Caucasus and Svaneti, where he recorded songs and instrumental tunes of the peoples of the North Caucasus. The article “On the Music of the Mountain Tatars”, written on the basis of personal observations, is the first historical and theoretical study of the folklore of the Caucasus. Taneyev actively participated in the work of the Moscow Musical and Ethnographic Commission, published in collections of its works.

Taneyev’s biography is not rich in events – neither twists of fate that abruptly change the course of life, nor “romantic” incidents. A student of the Moscow Conservatory of the first intake, he was associated with his native educational institution for almost four decades and left its walls in 1905, in solidarity with his St. Petersburg colleagues and friends – Rimsky-Korsakov and Glazunov. Taneyev’s activities took place almost exclusively in Russia. Immediately after graduating from the conservatory in 1875, he made a trip with N. G. Rubinstein to Greece and Italy; he lived in Paris for quite a long time in the second half of the 70s and in 1880, but later, in the 1900s, he traveled only for a short time to Germany and the Czech Republic to participate in the performance of his compositions. In 1913, Sergei Ivanovich visited Salzburg, where he worked on materials from the Mozart archive.

S. I. Taneev is one of the most educated musicians of his time. Characteristic for Russian composers of the last quarter of a century, the expansion of the intonational base of creativity in Taneyev is based on a deep, comprehensive knowledge of the musical literature of different eras, knowledge acquired by him primarily at the conservatory, and then as a listener of concerts in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Paris. The most important factor in Taneyev’s auditory experience is pedagogical work at the conservatory, the “pedagogical” way of thinking as the assimilation of the past accumulated by artistic experience. Over time, Taneyev began to form his own library (now kept at the Moscow Conservatory), and his acquaintance with musical literature acquires additional features: along with playing, “eye” reading. Taneyev’s experience and outlook is not only the experience of a listener of concerts, but also of a tireless “reader” of music. All this was reflected in the formation of style.

The initial events of Taneyev’s musical biography are peculiar. Unlike almost all Russian composers of the XNUMXth century, he did not begin his musical professionalization with composition; his first compositions arose in the process and as a result of systematic student studies, and this also determined the genre composition and stylistic features of his early works.

Understanding the features of Taneyev’s work implies a broad musical and historical context. One can say enough about Tchaikovsky without even mentioning the creations of the masters of strict style and baroque. But it is impossible to highlight the content, concepts, style, musical language of Taneyev’s compositions without referring to the work of composers of the Dutch school, Bach and Handel, Viennese classics, Western European romantic composers. And, of course, Russian composers – Bortnyansky, Glinka, A. Rubinstein, Tchaikovsky, and Taneyev’s contemporaries – St. Petersburg masters, and a galaxy of his students, as well as Russian masters of subsequent decades, up to the present day.

This reflects the personal characteristics of Taneyev, “coinciding” with the characteristics of the era. The historicism of artistic thinking, so characteristic of the second half and especially the end of the XNUMXth century, was highly characteristic of Taneyev. Studies in history from a young age, a positivist attitude to the historical process, were reflected in the circle of Taneyev’s reading known to us, as part of his library, in interest in museum collections, especially ancient casts, organized by I. V. Tsvetaev, who was close to him (now the Museum of Fine Arts ). In the building of this museum, both a Greek courtyard and a Renaissance courtyard appeared, an Egyptian hall for displaying Egyptian collections, etc. Planned, necessary multi-style.

A new attitude towards heritage formed new principles of style formation. Western European researchers define the style of architecture of the second half of the XNUMXth century with the term “historicism”; in our specialized literature, the concept of “eclecticism” is affirmed – by no means in an evaluative sense, but as a definition of “a special artistic phenomenon inherent in the XNUMXth century.” In the architecture of the era lived “past” styles; architects looked both in gothic and in classicism as starting points for modern solutions. Artistic pluralism manifested itself in a very multifaceted way in Russian literature of that time. Based on the active processing of various sources, unique, “synthetic” style alloys were created – as, for example, in the work of Dostoevsky. The same applies to music.

In the light of the above comparisons, Taneyev’s active interest in the heritage of European music, in its main styles, does not appear as “relic” (a word from a review of the “Mozartian” work of this composer is the quartet in E-flat major), but as a sign of his own (and future!) time. In the same row – the choice of an ancient plot for the only completed opera “Oresteia” – a choice that seemed so strange to critics of the opera and so natural in the XNUMXth century.

The artist’s predilection for certain areas of figurativeness, means of expression, stylistic layers is largely determined by his biography, mental make-up, and temperament. Numerous and varied documents – manuscripts, letters, diaries, memoirs of contemporaries – illuminate Taneyev’s personality traits with sufficient completeness. They depict the image of a person who harnesses the elements of feelings with the power of reason, who is fond of philosophy (most of all – Spinoza), mathematics, chess, who believes in social progress and the possibility of a reasonable arrangement of life.

In relation to Taneyev, the concept of “intellectualism” is often and rightly used. It is not easy to deduce this statement from the realm of the sensed into the realm of evidence. One of the first confirmations is a creative interest in styles marked by intellectualism – the High Renaissance, late Baroque and Classicism, as well as in genres and forms that most clearly reflected the general laws of thinking, primarily sonata-symphonic. This is the unity of consciously set goals and artistic decisions inherent in Taneyev: this is how the idea of ​​“Russian polyphony” germinated, carried through a number of experimental works and giving truly artistic shoots in “John of Damascus”; this is how the style of the Viennese classics was mastered; the features of the musical dramaturgy of most large, mature cycles were determined as a special type of monothematism. This type of monothematism itself highlights the procedural nature that accompanies the thought act to a greater extent than the “life of feelings”, hence the need for cyclical forms and special concern for the finals – the results of development. The defining quality is the conceptuality, the philosophical significance of music; such a character of thematism was formed, in which musical themes are interpreted rather as a thesis to be developed, rather than a “self-worthy” musical image (for example, having a song character). The methods of his work also testify to Taneyev’s intellectualism.

Intellectualism and faith in reason are inherent in artists who, relatively speaking, belong to the “classical” type. The essential features of this type of creative personality are manifested in the desire for clarity, assertiveness, harmony, completeness, for the disclosure of regularity, universality, beauty. It would be wrong, however, to imagine the inner world of Taneyev as serene, devoid of contradictions. One of the important driving forces for this artist is the struggle between the artist and the thinker. The first considered it natural to follow the path of Tchaikovsky and others – to create works intended for performance in concerts, to write in the established manner. So many romances, early symphonies arose. The second was irresistibly attracted to reflections, to theoretical and, to no lesser extent, historical comprehension of composer’s work, to scientific and creative experiment. On this path, the Netherlandish Fantasy on a Russian Theme, mature instrumental and choral cycles, and the Mobile Counterpoint of Strict Writing arose. Taneyev’s creative path is largely the history of ideas and their implementation.

All these general provisions are concretized in the facts of Taneyev’s biography, in the typology of his music manuscripts, the nature of the creative process, the epistolary (where an outstanding document stands out – his correspondence with P. I. Tchaikovsky), and finally, in the diaries.

* * *

Taneyev’s legacy as a composer is great and varied. Very individual – and at the same time very indicative – is the genre composition of this heritage; it is important for understanding the historical and stylistic problems of Taneyev’s work. The absence of program-symphonic compositions, ballets (in both cases – not even a single idea); only one realized opera, moreover, extremely “atypical” in terms of literary source and plot; four symphonies, of which one was published by the author almost two decades before the end of his career. Along with this – two lyric-philosophical cantatas (partly a revival, but one might say, the birth of a genre), dozens of choral compositions. And finally, the main thing – twenty chamber-instrumental cycles.

To some genres, Taneyev, as it were, gave new life on Russian soil. Others were filled with significance that was not inherent in them before. Other genres, internally changing, accompany the composer throughout his life – romances, choirs. As for instrumental music, one or another genre comes to the fore in different periods of creative activity. It can be assumed that in the years of maturity of the composer, the chosen genre mainly has the function, if not style-forming, then, as it were, “style-representing”. Having created in 1896-1898 a symphony in C minor – the fourth in a row – Taneyev did not write more symphonies. Until 1905, his exclusive attention in the field of instrumental music was given to string ensembles. In the last decade of his life, ensembles with the participation of the piano have become the most important. The choice of the performing staff reflects a close connection with the ideological and artistic side of music.

Taneyev’s composer’s biography demonstrates relentless growth and development. The path traversed from the first romances related to the sphere of domestic music-making to the innovative cycles of “poems for voice and piano” is enormous; from small and uncomplicated three choirs published in 1881 to grand cycles of op. 27 and op. 35 to the words of Y. Polonsky and K. Balmont; from the early instrumental ensembles, which were not published during the author’s lifetime, to a kind of “chamber symphony” – the piano quintet in G minor. The second cantata – “After reading the psalm” both completes and crowns Taneyev’s work. It is truly the final work, although, of course, it was not conceived as such; the composer was going to live and work for a long time and intensively. We are aware of Taneyev’s unfulfilled concrete plans.

In addition, a huge number of ideas that arose throughout Taneyev’s life remained unfulfilled to the end. Even after three symphonies, several quartets and trios, a sonata for violin and piano, dozens of orchestral, piano and vocal pieces were published posthumously – all this was left by the author in the archive – even now it would be possible to publish a large volume of scattered materials. This is the second part of the quartet in C minor, and the materials of the cantatas “The Legend of the Cathedral of Constance” and “Three Palms” of the opera “Hero and Leander”, many instrumental pieces. A “counter-parallel” arises with Tchaikovsky, who either rejected the idea, or plunged headlong into the work, or, finally, used the material in other compositions. Not a single sketch that was somehow formalized could be thrown forever, because behind each there was a vital, emotional, personal impulse, a particle of oneself was invested in each. The nature of Taneyev’s creative impulses is different, and the plans for his compositions look different. So, for example, the plan of the unrealized plan of the piano sonata in F major provides for the number, order, keys of the parts, even the details of the tonal plan: “Side part in the main tone / Scherzo f-moll 2/4 / Andante Des-dur / Finale”.

Tchaikovsky also happened to draw up plans for future major works. The project of the symphony “Life” (1891) is known: “The first part is all an impulse, confidence, a thirst for activity. Should be short (final death is the result of destruction. The second part is love; third disappointment; the fourth ends with a fading (also short). Like Taneyev, Tchaikovsky outlines parts of the cycle, but there is a fundamental difference between these projects. Tchaikovsky’s idea is directly related to life experiences – most of Taneyev’s intentions realize the meaningful possibilities of the expressive means of music. Of course, there is no reason to excommunicate Taneyev’s works from living life, its emotions and collisions, but the measure of mediation in them is different. This kind of typological differences was shown by L. A. Mazel; they shed light on the reasons for the insufficient intelligibility of Taneyev’s music, the insufficient popularity of many of its beautiful pages. But they, let us add on our own, also characterize the composer of a romantic warehouse – and the creator who gravitates towards classicism; different eras.

The main thing in Taneyev’s style can be defined as a plurality of sources with internal unity and integrity (understood as a correlation between individual aspects and components of the musical language). Miscellaneous here is radically processed, subject to the dominant will and purpose of the artist. The organic nature (and the degree of this organicity in certain works) of the implementation of different stylistic sources, being an auditory category and thus, as it were, empirical, is revealed in the process of analyzing the texts of compositions. In the literature about Taneyev, a fair idea has long been expressed that the influences of classical music and the work of romantic composers are embodied in his works, the influence of Tchaikovsky is very strong, and that it is this combination that largely determines the originality of Taneyev’s style. The combination of features of musical romanticism and classical art – the late baroque and the Viennese classics – was a kind of sign of the times. Personality traits, the appeal of thoughts to world culture, the desire to find support in the ageless foundations of musical art – all this determined, as mentioned above, Taneyev’s inclination towards musical classicism. But his art, which began in the Romantic era, bears many of the hallmarks of that powerful nineteenth-century style. The well-known confrontation between the individual style and the style of the epoch expressed itself quite clearly in Taneyev’s music.

Taneyev is a profoundly Russian artist, although the national nature of his work manifests itself more indirectly than among his older (Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov) and younger (Rakhmaninov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev) contemporaries. Among the aspects of the multilateral connection of Taneyev’s work with the widely understood folk musical tradition, we note the melodic nature, as well as – which, however, is less significant for him – the implementation (mainly in early works) of melodic, harmonic and structural features of folklore samples.

But other aspects are no less important, and the main one among them is to what extent the artist is the son of his country at a certain moment in its history, to what extent he reflects the worldview, the mentality of his contemporaries. The intensity of the emotional transmission of the world of a Russian person in the last quarter of the XNUMXth – the first decades of the XNUMXth century in Taneyev’s music is not so great as to embody the aspirations of the time in his works (as can be said about geniuses – Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninov). But Taneyev had a definite and rather close connection with time; he expressed the spiritual world of the best part of the Russian intelligentsia, with its high ethics, faith in the bright future of mankind, its connection with the best in the heritage of national culture. The inseparability of the ethical and aesthetic, restraint and chastity in reflecting reality and expressing feelings distinguish Russian art throughout its development and are one of the features of the national character in art. The enlightening nature of Taneyev’s music and all his aspirations in the field of creativity is also part of the cultural democratic tradition of Russia.

Another aspect of the national soil of art, which is very relevant in relation to the Taneyev heritage, is its inseparability from the professional Russian musical tradition. This connection is not static, but evolutionary and mobile. And if the early works of Taneyev evoke the names of Bortnyansky, Glinka, and especially Tchaikovsky, then in later periods the names of Glazunov, Scriabin, Rachmaninov join those named. The first compositions of Taneyev, the same age as the first symphonies of Tchaikovsky, also absorbed a lot from the aesthetics and poetics of “Kuchkism”; the latter interact with the tendencies and artistic experience of younger contemporaries, who themselves were in many ways the heirs of Taneyev.

Taneyev’s response to Western “modernism” (more specifically, to the musical phenomena of late Romanticism, Impressionism, and early Expressionism) was in many ways historically limited, but also had important implications for Russian music. With Taneyev and (to a certain extent, thanks to him) with other Russian composers of the beginning and first half of our century, the movement towards new phenomena in musical creativity was carried out without breaking with the generally significant that was accumulated in European music. There was also a downside to this: the danger of academism. In the best works of Taneyev himself, it was not realized in this capacity, but in the works of his numerous (and now forgotten) students and epigones it was clearly identified. However, the same can be noted in the schools of Rimsky-Korsakov and Glazunov – in cases where the attitude towards heritage was passive.

The main figurative spheres of Taneyev’s instrumental music, embodied in many cycles: effective-dramatic (first sonata allegri, finales); philosophical, lyrical-meditative (most brightly – Adagio); scherzo: Taneyev is completely alien to the spheres of ugliness, evil, sarcasm. The high degree of objectification of the inner world of a person reflected in Taneyev’s music, the demonstration of the process, the flow of emotions and reflections create a fusion of the lyrical and the epic. Taneyev’s intellectualism, his broad humanitarian education manifested itself in his work in many ways and deeply. First of all, this is the composer’s desire to recreate in music a complete picture of being, contradictory and unified. The foundation of the leading constructive principle (cyclic, sonata-symphonic forms) was a universal philosophical idea. Content in Taneyev’s music is realized primarily through the saturation of the fabric with intonation-thematic processes. This is how one can understand the words of B. V. Asafiev: “Only a few Russian composers think of form in a living, unceasing synthesis. Such was S. I. Taneev. He bequeathed to Russian music in his legacy a wonderful implementation of Western symmetrical schemes, reviving the flow of symphonism in them … “.

An analysis of Taneyev’s major cyclical works reveals the mechanisms for subordinating the means of expression to the ideological and figurative side of music. One of them, as mentioned, was the principle of monothematism, which ensures the integrity of the cycles, as well as the final role of the finals, which are of particular importance for the ideological, artistic and proper musical features of Taneyev’s cycles. The meaning of the last parts as a conclusion, resolution of the conflict is provided by the purposefulness of the means, the strongest of which is the consistent development of the leitme and other topics, their combination, transformation and synthesis. But the composer asserted the finality of the finals long before monothematism as a leading principle reigned in his music. In the quartet in B-flat minor op. 4 the final statement in B-flat major is the result of a single line of development. In the quartet in D minor, op. 7 an arch is created: the cycle ends with a repetition of the theme of the first part. Double fugue of the quartet finale in C major, op. 5 unites the thematic of this part.

Other means and features of Taneyev’s musical language, primarily polyphony, have the same functional significance. There is no doubt the connection between the composer’s polyphonic thinking and his appeal to the instrumental ensemble and the choir (or vocal ensemble) as the leading genres. The melodic lines of four or five instruments or voices assumed and determined the leading role of thematics, which is inherent in any polyphony. The emerging contrast-thematic connections reflected and, on the other hand, provided a monothematic system for constructing cycles. Intonational-thematic unity, monothematism as a musical and dramatic principle and polyphony as the most important way of developing musical thoughts are a triad, the components of which are inseparable in Taneyev’s music.

One can talk about Taneyev’s tendency towards linearism primarily in connection with polyphonic processes, the polyphonic nature of his musical thinking. Four or five equal voices of a quartet, quintet, choir imply, among other things, a melodically mobile bass, which, with a clear expression of harmonic functions, limits the “omnipotence” of the latter. “For modern music, the harmony of which is gradually losing its tonal connection, the binding force of contrapuntal forms should be especially valuable,” Taneyev wrote, revealing, as in other cases, the unity of theoretical understanding and creative practice.

Along with contrast, imitation polyphony is of great importance. Fugues and fugue forms, like Taneyev’s work as a whole, are a complex alloy. S. S. Skrebkov wrote about the “synthetic features” of Taneyev’s fugues using the example of string quintets. Taneyev’s polyphonic technique is subordinated to holistic artistic tasks, and this is indirectly evidenced by the fact that in his mature years (with the only exception – the fugue in the piano cycle op. 29) he did not write independent fugues. Taneyev’s instrumental fugues are part or section of a major form or cycle. In this he follows the traditions of Mozart, Beethoven, and partly Schumann, developing and enriching them. There are many fugue forms in Taneyev’s chamber cycles, and they appear, as a rule, in the finals, moreover, in a reprise or coda (quartet in C major op. 5, string quintet op. 16, piano quartet op. 20). The strengthening of the final sections by fugues also occurs in the variational cycles (for example, in the string quintet op. 14). The tendency to generalize the material is evidenced by the composer’s commitment to multi-dark fugues, and the latter often incorporate the thematic not only of the finale itself, but also of the previous parts. This achieves purposefulness and cohesion of cycles.

The new attitude to the chamber genre led to the enlargement, symphonization of the chamber style, its monumentalization through complex developed forms. In this genre sphere, various modifications of classical forms are observed, primarily sonata, which is used not only in the extreme, but also in the middle parts of the cycles. So, in the quartet in A minor, op. 11, all four movements include sonata form. The divertissement (second movement) is a complex three-movement form, where the extreme movements are written in sonata form; at the same time, there are features of a rondo in the Divertissement. The third movement (Adagio) approaches a developed sonata form, comparable in some respects to the first movement of Schumann’s sonata in F sharp minor. Often there is a pushing apart of the usual boundaries of parts and individual sections. For example, in the scherzo of the piano quintet in G minor, the first section is written in a complex three-part form with an episode, the trio is a free fugato. The tendency to modify leads to the appearance of mixed, “modulating” forms (the third part of the quartet in A major, op. 13 — with features of a complex tripartite and rondo), to an individualized interpretation of the parts of the cycle (in the scherzo of the piano trio in D major, op. 22, the second section — trio — variation cycle).

It can be assumed that Taneyev’s active creative attitude to the problems of form was also a consciously set task. In a letter to M. I. Tchaikovsky dated December 17, 1910, discussing the direction of the work of some of the “recent” Western European composers, he asks questions: “Why is the desire for novelty limited to only two areas – harmony and instrumentation? Why, along with this, not only is nothing new in the field of counterpoint noticeable, but, on the contrary, this aspect is in great decline compared to the past? Why not only do the possibilities inherent in them not develop in the field of forms, but the forms themselves become smaller and fall into decay? At the same time, Taneyev was convinced that the sonata form “surpasses all others in its diversity, richness and versatility.” Thus, the views and creative practice of the composer demonstrate the dialectic of stabilizing and modifying tendencies.

Emphasizing the “one-sidedness” of development and the “corruption” of the musical language associated with it, Taneyev adds in the quoted letter to M. I. Tchaikovsky: to novelty. On the contrary, I consider the repetition of what was said a long time ago to be useless, and the lack of originality in the composition makes me completely indifferent to it <...>. It is possible that in the course of time the present innovations will eventually lead to the rebirth of the musical language, just as the corruption of the Latin language by the barbarians led several centuries later to the emergence of new languages.

* * *

The “epoch of Taneyev” is not one, but at least two epochs. His first, youthful compositions are “the same age” as the early works of Tchaikovsky, and the latter were created simultaneously with the quite mature opuses of Stravinsky, Myaskovsky, Prokofiev. Taneyev grew up and took shape in decades when the positions of musical romanticism were strong and, one might say, dominated. At the same time, seeing the processes of the near future, the composer reflected the tendency towards the revival of the norms of classicism and baroque, which manifested itself in German (Brahms and especially later Reger) and French (Frank, d’Andy) music.

Taneyev’s belonging to two eras gave rise to the drama of an outwardly prosperous life, a misunderstanding of his aspirations even by close musicians. Many of his ideas, tastes, passions seemed then strange, cut off from the surrounding artistic reality, and even retrograde. The historical distance makes it possible to “fit” Taneyev into the picture of his contemporary life. It turns out that its connections with the main demands and trends of the national culture are organic and multiple, although they do not lie on the surface. Taneyev, with all his originality, with the fundamental features of his worldview and attitude, is the son of his time and his country. The experience of the development of art in the XNUMXth century makes it possible to discern the promising traits of a musician that anticipate this century.

For all these reasons, the life of Taneyev’s music from the very beginning was very difficult, and this was reflected both in the very functioning of his works (the number and quality of performances), and in their perception by contemporaries. Taneyev’s reputation as an insufficiently emotional composer is determined to a large extent by the criteria of his era. A huge amount of material is provided by lifetime criticism. The reviews reveal both the characteristic perception and the phenomenon of “untimeliness” of Taneyev’s art. Almost all the most prominent critics wrote about Taneyev: Ts. A. Cui, G. A. Larosh, N. D. Kashkin, then S. N. Kruglikov, V. G. Karatygin, Yu. Findeizen, A. V. Ossovsky, L. L. Sabaneev and others. The most interesting reviews are contained in letters to Taneyev by Tchaikovsky, Glazunov, in letters and “Chronicles …” by Rimsky-Korsakov.

There are many insightful judgments in articles and reviews. Almost everyone paid tribute to the outstanding mastery of the composer. But no less important are the “pages of misunderstanding”. And if, in relation to early works, numerous reproaches of rationalism, imitation of the classics are understandable and to a certain extent fair, then the articles of the 90s and early 900s are of a different nature. This is mostly criticism from positions of romanticism and, in relation to opera, psychological realism. The assimilation of the styles of the past could not yet be assessed as a pattern and was perceived as retrospective or stylistic unevenness, heterogeneity. A student, friend, author of articles and memoirs about Taneyev – Yu. D. Engel wrote in an obituary: “Following Scriabin, the creator of the music of the future, death takes Taneyev, whose art was most deeply rooted in the ideals of music of the distant past.”

But in the second decade of the 1913th century, a basis had already arisen for a more complete understanding of the historical and stylistic problems of Taneyev’s music. In this regard, of interest are the articles by V. G. Karatygin, and not only those devoted to Taneyev. In a XNUMX article, “The Newest Trends in Western European Music,” he links—speaking primarily of Frank and Reger—the revival of classical norms with musical “modernity.” In another article, the critic expressed a fruitful idea about Taneyev as a direct successor to one of the lines of Glinka’s legacy. Comparing the historical mission of Taneyev and Brahms, the pathos of which consisted in the exaltation of the classical tradition in the era of late romanticism, Karatygin even argued that “the historical significance of Taneyev for Russia is greater than that of Brahms for Germany”, where “the classical tradition has always been extremely strong, strong and defensive “. In Russia, however, the truly classical tradition, coming from Glinka, was less developed than other lines of Glinka’s creativity. However, in the same article, Karatygin characterizes Taneyev as a composer, “several centuries late to be born into the world”; the reason for the lack of love for his music, the critic sees in its inconsistency with “the artistic and psychological foundations of modernity, with its pronounced aspirations for the predominant development of harmonic and coloristic elements of musical art.” The convergence of the names of Glinka and Taneyev was one of the favorite thoughts of B. V. Asafiev, who created a number of works about Taneyev and saw in his work and activity the continuation of the most important trends in Russian musical culture: beautifully severe in his work, then for him, after a number of decades of the evolution of Russian music after the death of Glinka, S. I. Taneyev, both theoretically and creatively. The scientist here means the application of polyphonic technique (including strict writing) to Russian melos.

The concepts and methodology of his student B. L. Yavorsky were largely based on the study of Taneyev’s composer and scientific work.

In the 1940s, the idea of ​​a connection between the work of Taneyev and Russian Soviet composers – N. Ya. Myaskovsky, V. Ya. Shebalin, D. D. Shostakovich – owned by Vl. V. Protopopov. His works are the most significant contribution to the study of Taneyev’s style and musical language after Asafiev, and the collection of articles compiled by him, published in 1947, served as a collective monograph. Many materials covering the life and work of Taneyev are contained in the documented biographical book of G. B. Bernandt. L. Z. Korabelnikova’s monograph “Creativity of S. I. Taneyev: Historical and Stylistic Research” is devoted to the consideration of the historical and stylistic problems of Taneyev’s composer heritage on the basis of his richest archive and in the context of the artistic culture of the era.

The personification of the connection between two centuries – two epochs, a constantly renewing tradition, Taneyev in his own way strove “to new shores”, and many of his ideas and incarnations reached the shores of modernity.

L. Korabelnikova

• Chamber-instrumental creativity of Taneyev →
• Taneyev’s romances →
• Choral works of Taneyev →
• Notes by Taneyev on the margins of the clavier of The Queen of Spades