Prelude Op. 3 No. 2 by Sergei Rachmaninoff and Prelude Op. 11 No. 10 by Alexander Scriabin: Two Facets of Drama

Veretennikov Sergey Associate Professor; Music Education Department; Moscow State Institute of Culture 141406, Russia, Moscow region, Khimki, Bibliotechnaya str., 7K.2 severet@yandex.ru

Savost'yanov Maksim Alekseevich Artist of the Pop Symphony Orchestra; Krasnodar State Philharmonic named after G.F.Ponomarenko 350000, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Krasnaya str., 55, office 1 vmutrombmax@yandex.ru

Today, the comparative method is increasingly effective in studying musical compositions. When works that are similar in style, the composer's, and the time of writing are studied in comparison, the more common features we find, the more distinctly the differences and peculiarities of each composition appear.

In this context, let's consider two dramatic miniatures written by composers close in style from a young age: Sergei Rachmaninov's Prelude Op. 3 No. 2 and Alexander Scriabin's Prelude Op. 11 No. 10.

Rachmaninov wrote his prelude in 1892. It is well known that he immediately became popular. Scriabin's prelude was written in 1894. In 1892, both Scriabin and Rachmaninov graduated from the Moscow Conservatory at the same time. Rachmaninov repeatedly performed his prelude from the moment he wrote it to 1894. Here are some performances: the first performance on September 26, 1892, in the 18th Symphony Concert at the Electric Exhibition in Moscow ^{[1, p.116]}, December 28, 1892 ^{[1, p. 119]}, and January 27, 1893 ^{[1, p.123]} in Kharkov, January 31, 1894, at the first copyright a concert in the Small Hall of the Noble Assembly ^{[1, p.149]}. In 1893, this prelude was played abroad for the first time by Alexander Ziloti, where the prelude received brilliant reviews ^{[2, p.109]}. In early 1894, Alexander Gutheil published Rachmaninov's "Five Pieces" Op. 3, including his Prelude in C-sharp minor. These historical facts allow us to assume with a high degree of probability that by the time of writing his prelude, Op. 11 No. 10, Scriabin could have been familiar with Rachmaninov's prelude, Op. 3 No. 2.

Rachmaninov's prelude, Op. 3 No. 2 and Scriabin's prelude Op. 11 No. 10 are united by several parameters: one genre, one tonality, a similar time of creation, and some similar features in imagery, drama, form, texture, and harmony. From the point of view of symbolic content, both preludes are dramatic dialogues, the struggle of two principles: fatality and humanity. There is a single dramatic message: from pleading requests in the first parts through contrasting middle parts to powerful bell-ringing in dynamized reprises and the final constructions on the piano. In both preludes in the reprises, two opposite beginnings combine into a single dramatic flow. At the same time, the Scriabin prelude is much more concise. It is threefold, unlike the bipartite prelude by Rachmaninov.

The first part. Let's pay attention to the same textural principle of constructing the initial themes, showing two opposite emotional spheres: the opposition of deliberate intonations in the lower register to harmonized melodic aching phrases in the upper (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The initial constructions of Rachmaninov's prelude (right) and Scriabin's prelude (left).

In these topics, we emphasize the difference between the "broken" melodic relief, as if loosening the foundations, in Scriabin (within the framework of one motif, the direction of melodic movement often changes) as opposed to the smoother ("embracing," "gathering") melodic relief in Rachmaninov, when the direction of intonation movement is from the bass and further in the motif, harmonized by choral chords, does not change so often.

The "fatal" three-tone imperative in the bass in Rachmaninov's prelude and Scriabin's prelude corresponds to a laconic dotted exclamation in the middle register, also expressing a volitional imperative.

At the end of Rachmaninov's first phrases and Scriabin's first sentences, the pulsation of alternating bass and chord increases in the same way (Figure 2).

The harmonies of the opening themes of both preludes, for all their individuality, have some points of contact. The first harmony of Rachmaninov's prelude is a tonic C-sharp minor triad (t35). The first harmony of Scriabin's prelude differs from Rachmaninoff's only by one sound, "la," which gives the initial harmony astringency and sophistication (VI56, taking into account the bass). But Rachmaninov also has this "la" sound, which is only given in the horizontal carrying out of the "fatal" motif in the bass. Scriabin heard this "la" as part of the vertical. Here the words of T.N. Levoy, said in connection with the plays of Scriabin's Op.57, about the debate of "extension and simultaneity," about the "transition of time into space," when the horizontal relief (in this case, the relief of the "fatal" motif of Rachmaninov's prelude with the note "la"), "it passes" into the harmonic vertical (in this case, the vertical of the initial harmony of Scriabin's prelude) ^{[3, p.28]}. Next, let's pay attention to the harmonies that complete the first intonation fragment of the "plea" in both cases. For both authors, this is "re#-fa x-la (#)-do#." The difference is only in one sound. This sound is again "la": Scriabin's la-bekar, left over from the previous harmony, and Rachmaninov's la-sharp. This la-bekar again conveys the greater astringency of Scriabin's harmony. Note that if Rachmaninov has this harmony at the end of the league and the unstressed time of the beat, then Scriabin exacerbates the tension by placing such harmony on a relatively strong time of the beat.

Next, look at a fragment of the increase in textured pulsation at the end of the constructions: These are the harmonies of the third bar of Rachmaninov's prelude and the last two harmonies of Scriabin's prelude. Two chords complete the construction of each composition: a sentence by Scriabin and a phrase by Rachmaninov (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Rachmaninov's prelude (left) and Scriabin's (right): increased pulsation and Neapolitan flavor.

One of these chords in both cases is phonically felt as Neapolitan: in Rachmaninov, it is the first harmony before the dominant chord; in Scriabin, it is the second harmony on the dominant bass after the cadence. If Rachmaninov's Neapolitan painting is clearly felt phonically, Scriabin's Neapolitan component can be isolated in the chord itself (without the bass). But the presence of cadence and bass re# fundamentally affects the perception of the chord function: we hear the dominant unambiguously. A "Neapolitan" coloring gives these fragments rigor and concentration.

Rachmaninov completes the first part by repeating the main motif twice. This repetition is associated with Russian epic folklore, where repetitions of phrases often occur. The first part of Rachmaninov ends with a descending intonation, and Scriabin decides to end with an ascending one. The melody rises a sexta. Unlike Rachmaninov, the transition to the second part of Scriabin is carried out concisely through a single sound, "mi" (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Completion of the first parts of Rachmaninov's prelude (left) and Scriabin's prelude (right).

Chopin used a similar technique (lasting a lonely sound) on the edges of the form in his ballads, emphasizing the moments of switching between time layers (present, past, and future) ^{[4, p.78]}. In the Scriabin prelude, such a switch from the present to the past (memory) can also be imagined.

The middle parts. In comparing the light transparent middle of the prelude Op. 11 No. 10 by Scriabin with the gloomy, "epic" middle part of Rachmaninov's prelude Op. 3 No. 2, Scriabin's laconism is felt especially vividly: 29 bars of the repeated period with an expanded second sentence by Rachmaninov and a four-stroke sentence by Scriabin. M.K. Mikhailov writes: "Rachmaninoff, with his 'concertina,' was mostly far from the trends of a more intimate chamber order, which formed an essential feature of the work of early Scriabin" ^{[5, p.181]}. The material of the middle sections of both works has intonational connections with the materials of the first parts. In both preludes, emotional and tempo movements occur here after the conditional static of the first movements: agitato in Op. 3 No. 2 and con anima in Op. 11 No. 10. Rachmaninoff's chromatic descending intonations are contrasted with the ascending Scriabin chromatics, which carry a dreamy image and some questionability. Note that we see the same chromatic movement, only in the bass, in the Rachmaninoff middle movement (bars 26–27). Typically, Rachmaninoff conducts the theme on legato in the prelude of Op.3 No. 2 is contrasted with the characteristic Scriabin technique, "staccato under the league," which later became a distinctive feature of the composer's style, which A.I. Nikolaeva characterized as "flight" ^{[6, p.76]}. In both preludes, the middle parts lead us from the piano at the beginning through a significant amplification of the sound at the end to the culminating reprise constructions on fff.

Reprises. Both plays have powerful dramatic climaxes. Both composers emphasize the notes of the theme in both reprises with accents. But the nature of the drama of these reprises is different.

Scriabin halves the reprise of the theme: he compresses two sentences of the first part into one, cutting off the second phrases of each of these sentences. Thus, instead of an eight-stroke construction of the theme of the first part, we have a four-stroke reprise. As a result, the acceleration and compression of time (the effect of a "black hole") is created, and there is a sharp increase in frequency and confusion of breathing and tension. Movement at the climax suddenly stops at the subdominant, creating a feeling of internal breakdown. Destruction, rupture—this is how you can characterize the idea of both the climax and the entire prelude. This is justified by the aesthetic position of Scriabin, who, formulated by the ideologist of symbolism, V.V. Ivanov "cast his vote for accelerating the destructive and regenerative catastrophe of the world" ^{[7, p. 193]}. From the position of the two-part reprise form, which is traditionally considered the main concept of the form of this prelude, the main musical idea ends here. But the powerful energy of the movement, abruptly interrupted on the subdominant (and not on the tonic), brings out by inertia a musical thought in addition, which, due to the sound after the subdominant, and not after the tonic, we cannot consider as a code. Researcher of Scriabins preludes, I.A. Brodova, believes that here, according to the well-known theory of V.P. Bobrovsky, "The two-part reprise form modulates into a simple three-part one with a shortened middle and a dynamized reprise-coda" ^{[8, p.71]}. The energy of the forward movement, which was unexpectedly interrupted, is so strong that the entire reprise feels like one period to the end.

Nevertheless, it cannot be called a full-fledged reprise of the three-part form because the middle part is too short. The form lacks the poise of a classical three-parter. This balance of the first movement and the reprise, followed by a full-fledged coda, is fully present in Rachmaninov's prelude. The form of this prelude is a simple three-part reprise. Here, the reprise almost completely repeats the first part, only the texture is even more saturated, and the sound dynamics increase. "Stability of form," the proportionality of sentences, and smooth (not broken) melodic line explain the energy of unification, "conciliarity," greater narrative in the reprise of Rachmaninov's prelude, in contrast to the destructive energy in the less "proportional" form of Scriabin's prelude. Another factor that brings these two compositions closer together is the bell effect present in the reprises of both preludes. Scriabin's bell-ring is more impulsive and intense. In Rachmaninov, bell-ringing, for all its power, brings regularity and calmness; it is more melodious, with a long humming continuation after the bell strikes.

Final constructions. A characteristic technique peculiar to the final constructions of both pieces is the use of the bell tonic organ point "C-sharp." In Scriabin, it becomes the key idea in the reprise. It appears at the beginning of the reprise as octaves in quarters in the bass on ff (sharper than Rachmaninov's basses, where the bass is a "whip"). Its pulsation gradually increases; it moves into the middle register, moving from accompaniment to melodic voice. The three frenzied-sounding C-sharp on the sff symbolize a compressed, collapsed space. These "magical" elements of Scriabin's music—ostinateness, rhythmic, and harmonic "charm"—will later become features of the composer's style. ^{[3, p.18]}.

In conclusion, the pulsation of this sustained sound is enlarged again, and it becomes the final sound of Scriabin's prelude, broadcasting the aesthetics of extinction. It feels like something has snapped (Chekhov's "the sound of a broken string"). If Scriabin's conclusion in sustained C sharp conveys the complete devastation and destruction of the world, then Rachmaninov's tonic organ point bell, due to the regularity and chorality of the texture, sounds conciliatory, preserving inner harmony and harmony, emphasizes the inviolability of the foundations of the world. Together with the "sunset" bell chords, this organ point refers to the introduction to the Second Concert (where the bass and chord will change the order). The alternations of the harmonies of the subdominant sphere, coloring the tonic organ point in both preludes, also have points of contact. In Scriabin, it is S35- VI35- II7- t35. Rachmaninov begins with the sixth stage and ends with the same turnover as in Scriabin: II7 (taking into account basa- II2) – t35. At the same time, Rachmaninov's major VI sounds enlightened (as if in A major), while Scriabin's sounds just minor and scary. A peculiar compositional arch for both preludes is the fifth "C-sharp G-sharp," with which both pieces begin and end (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The endings (fifth C-sharp-G-sharp) of the prelude by Scriabin (left) and Rachmaninov (right).

In Rachmaninov, this fifth is a descending interval in the bass (imperative). At the end of the piece, it is ascending in the upper register (interrogative and, at the same time, conciliatory). In Scriabin, the same fifth is not decomposed. According to his principle of conciseness, it is taken simultaneously. This fifth refers us to the opening chant of the first movement of Beethoven's Sonata No. 14 Op. 27 No. 2, as well as to the end of Chopin's posthumous nocturne, also in C-sharp minor.

Once again, we emphasize that one of the key factors that allows us to compare these two preludes is the general tonality. As a continuation of the musical ideas of the prelude Op. 11 No. 10 in the same key, the etude Op. 42 No. 5 acts akin to the prelude not only tonally but also in dramatic imagery and bellies, starting with the same harmony and low-second intonation in the melody. The same fifth, "C-sharp and G-sharp," form an arch between the beginning and the end of the work. Many years later, Rachmaninov will write an etude-painting, Op. 33, tonally, figuratively, texturally echoing the prelude Op. 3 No. 2. For both composers, there is a dynamization in the following works in C-sharp minor, an aggravation of the drama of the key of C-sharp minor.

Conclusions. The similarities between the two preludes make it possible to see individual characteristics more clearly. Some of them later became characteristic features of the composers' styles. Scriabin has laconism at the level of form, phrases, "flight" as a compositional device (according to A. Nikolaeva) in the middle part, incipient future suggestive ostinateness, a kind of bell-like (sharp, dramatic, "nervous"), saturation, "tartness" of the harmonic language, abrupt mood changes (as a result, sudden strong dynamic contrasts). Rachmaninov has a rich texture and vocal nature of concert scale concerning texture, dynamics, duration of presentation, wide breathing, and powerful but "calm" bell-ringing. The first fatal imperative of Rachmaninov's prelude in one form or another will pass through all the composer's work (for example, the First, Second, and Third concertos, the Prelude Des-dur) ^[9].

All of the above allows us to talk about the differences in the imagery and semantic content of the two dramatic works. Rachmaninov's prelude, for all its drama, shows us an epic, conciliar image associated with narrative, inner strength, and powerful but calm unfolding. The prelude of Scriabin transmits to us, to a greater extent, according to the ideology of Russian symbolism, the energy of destruction for the sake of future creation (a lonely sound remained). "The break with the old shrine was this destructive creativity," V.V. Ivanov wrote about Scriabin ^{[7, p. 193]}.