Aram Khachaturian: Symphonie Nr.3 "Simfoniya A-Poema" auf CD

Product Information

In the musical art of the 20th century, permeated with tragedy and reflection, often even an emotional and intellectual detachment, the musical legacy of Aram Khachaturian (1903–1978) presents itself as an “island of joy”. His music is an embodiment of vigor and unfeigned optimism. Bright colors and contrasts had aroused the inevitable associations with the world of visual arts. Possibly one of the best comparisons with the realm the visual arts had been made by composer and musicologist Boris Asafiev: in the mid-1930s he called Khachaturian the “Rubens of our times,” while his music was dubbed as the art of “the high Renaissance”.

Khachaturian is virtually the first composer of the East to become a classic in the West. At the base of his art lies Armenian folklore (the tumultuous, impulsive or, on the other hand, endlessly plaintive improvisations of the folk singers, the ashugs) as well as the 19th and 20th century European tradition (the “Eastern” pages of the music of the “Mighty Five,” especially Borodin and Rimsky-Korsakov and the novel ideas of Prokofiev and Ravel in the sphere of musical language and orchestration). The endless monody of the East and the finite, symmetrical and, of course, the polyphonic musical form of the West present themselves as the principles of musical organization, in many ways, antithetical to each other, which had combined together in Khachaturian’s musical legacy.

In Khachaturian’s first masterpiece, the Concerto for Piano and Orchestra in D flat major, composed in 1936, his own personal style is organically intertwined with the groundwork of the genre’s history. A priority for the composer was the romantic model of the piano concerto. The key, the sound image and the textural aspect of the concerto’s initial theme are close to the theme of the introduction of Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto, whereas the general principles of the dialogue between the piano and the orchestra are similar to Rachmaninov’s Piano Concertos. However, there are two more composers contemporary to Khachaturian, whose influence should be especially noted.

The concerto’s overall construction (the initial theme being repeated in the Coda of the final, third movement), as well as the character of the piano part in general (graphical qualities, as well as an accentuation of percussive sounds) demonstrate a similarity between Khachaturian’s Concerto and Prokofiev’s First Piano Concerto (composed in the same key). In particular, the themes of the primary theme groups of both concertos are very close to each other. Let us observe that from the time of the Conservatory years, when (in Myaskovsky’s composition class) the two composers had made their factual acquaintance, Prokofiev’s music had remained for Khachaturian a strongest impression and creative impulse in the sphere of contemporary music. Another contemporary composer, who had influenced first of all Khachaturian’s harmonic language and orchestral style was Maurice Ravel.

That for Khachaturian the main sense for utilizing sonata form is, first of all, in establishing the contrast between the themes-images, we are convinced by the first movement of the Concerto Allegro ma non troppo e maestoso, in D flat major). The monumental romantic main theme, endowed with a flavor of Eastern exoticism, is stated in the first movement three times: at the beginning of the exposition, at the beginning of the recapitulation and after a spacious cadenza, in the place of the coda. Its middle section presents itself as a concentration of piano virtuosity. The coupling of the motives with the intervals of seconds and thirds presents itself as the basis for intonation of the main theme, which, somehow or other, is related to all of the composition’s thematic material.

A different aspect of the image of the East is demonstrated by the secondary theme, stated first in the orchestra (by the solo oboe, in the vein of its relative in the woodwind family – the duduk), then passing into the lengthy piano solo, improvisational in its character. This practically the first cadenza is answered by a second one at the end of the recapitulation. This last one is extensive, complex in its musical language and varied in terms of its virtuosity. Khachaturian had emphasized many times how much he was indebted to the first performers of his compositions – David Oistrakh, Leonid Kogan, Svyatoslav Knushevitsky and, of course, Lev Oborin, to whom the Concerto is dedicated. In the latter case Oborin (at the beginning of his career being not only a pianist but a composer) had become in many ways a co-author of Khachaturian, being able to endow the piano sound with a virtuoso brilliance and a contemporary color.

The dominating image of the second movement (Andante con anima, in A minor) is a splendid theme in its beauty, being completely Armenian in its spirit: starting out with a melancholy air, in its development it gradually acquires the features of the traditional for Armenian folklore image of the dirge. The more interesting the fact is that, according to the composer himself, the theme is in reality a Tbilisi street song, altered to the point of unrecognizability, moreover, one that is “rather lightweight in its content”. The theme of the second movement is an example of Khachaturian’s delicate work with folk material, which he (in this Concerto as is in numerous other works) had preferred to direct quotation. In one of its statements the theme is given to the flexatone , an instrument, which was invented in the early 1920’s and meant predominantly for popular and jazz orchestras; it endows the sound with a sense of delicacy and fragility.

The third movement (Allegro brillante) starts with a bright, characteristically bravura theme (in C major), reminiscent of Prokofiev. However, upon undergoing development, its color likewise comes close to the Finale of Shostakovich’s First Piano Concerto (in the similarity of keys and also in incorporating the trumpet as the second soloist). The form of the Finale is similar to sonata form, however the continuous thematic renewal becomes more important than thematic development itself. The recapitulation is considerably shortened and finishes off with another large-scale cadenza for the soloist, which leads in its turn to the fourth statement of the main theme of the first movement in the composition’s main key (D flat major).

“I sincerely wanted to compose for the thirtieth anniversary of the October Revolution something large, solemn and extraordinary. I sought for means for expressing my grandiose ideas. (…) I wanted to write such a composition, in which the listener would perceive my unwritten program. I wanted to express in this composition a feeling of happiness and pride of the Soviet people for their great (…) Motherland. However, as it seems, I was mistaken in my choice of technical means. (…) got carried away with the outward form of things, and could not duly observe a sense of measure.” This is how Khachaturian spoke in January 1948, at the conference of prominent Soviet musical figures at the Central Committee of the Communist Party about his Third Symphony (Symphony-Poem) in C major for orchestra, 15 trumpets and organ. In the choice of the unusual ensemble, most likely, the composer had felt the influence of Prokofiev: his “Ode to the End of the War” was written for symphony orchestra, eight harps and four pianos.

The premiere of the work took place in Leningrad on December 13, 1947, with the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra; the Moscow premiere took place on December 25 of that year, but this time with the participation of the USSR State Symphony Orchestra. In both concerts the organ part was performed by Isay Braudo, and the conductor was Yevgeny Mravinsky. Both premieres were very successful, which is why the subsequent devastating condemnation, carried out only a month later by the Party activists, was even more unexpected.

A contemporary view of the Third Symphony should most likely be a two-sided one: on one hand Khachaturian was not able to adjust the “outward” form of a “jubilee composition” with the “inward,” psychological form, while, on the other hand, in the Symphony one could discern a search on the part of the composer for a new musical language and new contrasts of sound. This is especially noticeable in the juxtaposition of the dazzling fanfare motive of the trumpets with a tumultuous organ improvisation and, subsequently, in the sharply dissonant combination of these sound layers.

The one-movement Symphony is essentially in Sonata form; the main theme of its first theme group is presented by a trumpet fanfare; the theme of the subsidiary theme group (likewise in C major) is “relatively Eastern,” reminiscent of either an Eastern or a Spanish theme. In the coda, the subsidiary theme presents itself as a grandiose dance in a brilliant orchestral “attire”. A continuous accumulation of orchestral effects increases the “Spanish” associations (for instance, with Ravel’s “Bolero”), as well as similarities of certain fragments of Debussy’s and De Falla’s music. (melody. su)

Rezensionen

FonoForum 11/07: "Das Konzert erfährt hier eine ebenso temperamentvolle wie souveräne Interpretation durch Yakov Flier, den Lehrer von Michail Pletnev.​"