Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Is Mussorgsky's Pictures worth the time?

You may find this Gresham lecture interesting:

I would say, not to be controversial, that the Picture is probably not the most Russian like composition of Moussorgski, if one means Russian in the sense of typical folk based music using the harmonic and melodic Russian idiom, but it is certainly one of his most stylistically representative. The situation of the more sophisticated music listened by the Russian aristocracy is more complex, as Saint Petersburg was a very cosmopolitan city, largely influenced by western music, French in particular, but also German, …

Even though most of Moussorgski friends, in the group of Five, wanted to revive the typical Russian music, their conception of what was a Russian music differed greatly from Moussorgski point of view and realisations. Thus, it is in a sense difficult to define generically what is truly Russian and what is not. Some of the rearrangement of Moussorgski pieces by his friends like Rimsky-Korsakov do show a great difference of perspective.

Even if the Picture is in fact very representative of Moussorgski stylistic principles and musical idiom, it is actually not as typically Russian as many of his other compositions. Even though Moussorgski was supposedly a great pianist, he composed very little for the solo piano (but he did used it for melodies), and most of his early compositions are more western than Russian. His most representative Russian pieces are his vocal compositions, Boris Godounov (and his other unfinished operas) of course, but also the very many songs and melodies. These, BTW are almost never played, the Russian language being a barrier, but even Russian singers rarely recorded them and almost never perform them.

To a large extent Picture is imitating the vocal language, choral and descriptive music. And like many of his compositions, it is not depicting the pictures per se but to a large extent a psychological/character based state of mind. The pianistic side is debatable (ie whether it is well suited to a piano is a side discussion), as the rough, irregular and abrupt aspect of it is rather typical of Moussorgki general style. So that part is actually what contributes to make the piece rather unique. Moussorgski was not highly skilled harmonically and his orchestral abilities were not quite as developed as those of some of his friends like Rimsky-K (which he himself recognized) and so to an extent it is difficult to sort out what in his rough style is due to a deliberate choice and what is related to inexperience. But of course only the end result is important.

Though some of the pieces are based on folk tunes like Promenade and the Great Gate of Kiev, many others of the individual pieces are not “Russian”. And the names given by Moussorgki clearly show various influences, French, italien, polish, medieval and eastern style with some hints of tzigane flavour. So in a sense, Picture is a mixed bag of various styles, some more western like, with a general background of Russian context and flavour. A certainly curious and unique composition.

The French composers considered highly Moussorgski (for various reasons) like Debussy and Ravel and used some of his ideas and contributed largely to make his music known. It is in fact Ravel version of the piece that made it famous and still is the most frequently played and recorded. Ravel knew and understood very well the Moussorgski approach and unique musical character. So his orchestral version is in fact very faithfull to the spirit of the piece, his Russian character (where the melody is indeed folk tune based) and the principles used by Moussorgski. It brings out well the specific character of each piece (in addition of being more aligned with the vocal nature of the composition), even if it uses different expressive devices.

The addition of magnificent colors enhances the expressiveness of the music. That said, a piano and an orchestra version can not be the same. What is specific to the piano version can not be replicated in an orchestral one, the size and the number of instruments do modify the perception.
And Ravel certainly added some of his own color and unique style in the orchestration (like any great composer should) so in a sense it is a mixed piece in between Moussorsgki and Ravel. Some of the rough edges are erased but on the other end, the music is more lavish and expressive of the initial intent, probably more than what Moussorgski himself could have done given his relative lack of technique. The interpretation also plays a large role and the piece is often played too slowly. One should listen the version of Igor Markevitch or more conventional Eugene Ormandy (extremely well recorded).

Sidokar, just for information, were your comments in response to Marina Frolova-Walker's lecture?

Hi, not at all, in fact i posted a few minutes after you. I wrote that this morning. The lecture is quite long, so i will listen as time permits but just based on a few minutes of the beginning, it looks quite thorough and interesting. Certainly very informative.

That's what I thought, but I wondered if you might be a journalist! Good to know before listening to the lecture again after three months.

Thanks for that: I've heard Marina Frolova-Walker on BBC Radio 3 quite a few times discussing Russian music, especially on Record Review, where it's evident why she considers "Russianness" in performing Russian music is of great importance.

I learnt a lot of new things from the lecture too, and Donohoe is one of the few Western pianists who understands how to perform Russian music .

The Gresham lecture is worthwhile.

none of the above honoured contributors of this thread have actually answered the question: are the 'Pictures at an exhibition' worth the time? The time to listen to them: yes! The time to practise them: yes. The time to belittle them: no!. The time to consider them as a masterpiece: yes. The time not to discuss anymore the value of this unmistaken 'pièce de résistance': indeed. (I don't like Beethoven's 8th symphony, but I do ackowledge that it is a masterpiece).

If you like Pictures at an Exhibition, it's one of those works that you'll have forever. It's definitely worth it.

Not sure, I think they are magnificent when played on organ, and I did not ever hear a piano version getting anywhere near that. But if you feel you can get anywhere near the organ version, I think it's worth spending a lot of time on.

I listened to an organ arrangement and it works very well. Quite impressive.

I think the question of whether this work in its piano solo form is "worth the time" to bring it to performance level (not taking into account whether it is worthy of listening or of the greatness which some ascribe to it) is the interrogative equivalent of preaching to the choir. Those who have brought the work to a performance level most likely did so because they thought the work worthy of the time and effort and they enthusiastically say so.

Those less enamoured of the work would most likely be of the opinion that its technical challenges would not be worth the amount of effort (sweat, blood and tears) expended for the lesser rewards provided.

Regards,

Thank you wouter79 for observing the Organ version of pictures! I heard an amazing player give a very clean and full bodied thrilling performance of pictures in Oakland California about 12+ years ago. The organ is a tracker style instrument which means when you depress the key there is a mechanism directly opening air into the pipe... Instant touch with the air, which adds clarity. This instrument has three 32-foot stops of full length pipes! The soundi of Great Gate of Kiev easily rivaled an orchestra. Performer Ronald McKean has a CD offered on Amazon of pictures and also Liszt’s “BACH.”


https://www.amazon.com/Rosales-Opus...mp;qid=1618463233&s=music&sr=1-1

Good to hear, yes this piece fits excellent on organ. And yes, having a more advanced control system that switch very close to the pipe helps a lot for the player.
Amazingly I understand the good organ players can anticipate and compensate the delays by pressing keys early. This delay is not constant over the keyboard but depends on the register, the pitch of the note, the distance from the player to the pipes, etc, and can be pretty large. And at the same time they are also reading not 2 but 3 bars at least, and using their hands also to switch registers and their feet to play more notes. Unbelievable

I fell in love with the work as a teenager, and learned it back then. I got to play it a few times over the years, including a broadcast over Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from a recital at the National Gallery of Canada. I've even played it as a "background" music at an art gallery opening.

It's a demanding work, particularly the Limoges and Baba-Yaga, but it was a tremendous amount of fun not only to learn, but to perform.

But you can only decide whether it's worth your time. As a non-professional pianist, I play only for my pleasure, but I've worked on and performed pieces which I've found to be far more challenging than the Pictures: Liszt Sonata, Alkan Grande Sonate, Alkan etudes in c-minor, e-flat-minor, g#-minor, e-minor, Beethoven Op.111, Ravel Scarbo, Medtner Forgotten Melodies, etc. for example.

I guess exactly what I was wondering is will it take extra time to maintain it in my repertoire after I've mastered it? That is does it take above average practice to maintain it? It seems like it's a little bit more mentally slippery than some other stuff I've seen.

Hey hold your horses.

"Mastering it" (or anything close to it) in itself is quite a feat -- and, if one is capable of that, and provided that one likes the piece enough and is OK with the process of learning a very large piece -- "mastering it" in itself is enough of a thing to make it "worth the time."

Those extra questions you're asking are kinda like, if I make a billion dollars, how hard will it be to deal with that.

So true. I don't know how I let myself get complacent like that. The proper word instead of 'mastered' is 'brought it to tempo with no outright stretches of obscene pianistic flatulence'...bittwnosoopf, if you will. Also, is more than one word (some may notice this). Is a bit of a marble-mouthed expression, perhaps the imprecise shorthand of mastered isn't the worst mistake. 'Learned' is probably the closest to a correct one-word description for the state I'm describing.