Musical criticism. What is objective music criticism? Selected works of teachers

MUSIC CRITICISM AND SCIENCE

The profound transformative processes that characterize the development of Russian musical culture in the post-reform period were directly reflected in the criticism of the 1970s and 1980s. Criticism served not only as a sensitive barometer of public opinion, but also as an active participant in all large and small events in the field of music. It reflected the growing authority of Russian musical art, cultivated the tastes of the audience, paved the way for the recognition of new creative phenomena, explained their meaning and value, trying to influence both composers and listeners and organizations on which the staging of concert business, the work of opera theaters depended. , musical educational institutions.

When one gets acquainted with the periodical press of these decades, the first thing that attracts attention is a huge amount of a wide variety of materials about music, from a brief chronicle note to a large, serious magazine article or a detailed newspaper feuilleton. Not a single noticeable fact of musical life passed the attention of the press, many events became the subject of wide discussion and heated debate on the pages of numerous newspapers and magazines of various profiles and different socio-political orientations.

The circle of people writing about music was also wide. Among them we meet both ordinary newspaper reporters, who judged any phenomena of current life with equal ease, and educated amateurs, who, however, did not possess the necessary knowledge in order to express fully qualified judgments on musical issues. But the face of criticism was determined by people who combined the breadth of a general cultural outlook with a deep understanding of art and a clearly expressed aesthetic position, which they consistently defended in their published speeches. Among them were V. V. Stasov, Ts. A. Cui, G. A. Laroche and some other figures, not so big and influential, but highly professional and interested in the fate of Russian music.

A staunch supporter of the "new Russian musical school" Stasov, whose views had already been fully defined in the previous decade, continued to defend its ideas with the same energy and temperament. He ardently supported the work of Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov and denounced the inertia and conservatism of reactionary circles, unable to understand his great innovative significance. In the article “Cuttings in Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov,” Stasov wrote indignantly about the brutal arbitrariness of the leadership of the imperial theaters in relation to the highest examples of Russian opera art. The director's refusal to stage Khovanshchina evoked the same angry response. “Fortunately,” he wrote in this connection, “there is a court of history. 120 ). Stasov was convinced that the truly great would find its way to people and the time would come when advanced Russian art would be recognized throughout the world.

Stasov's musical views and assessments are most fully presented in a series of articles under the general title "Twenty-Five Years of Russian Art", which is not only an overview of Russian painting, sculpture, architecture and music for a quarter-century period from the second half of the 50s to the beginning of the 80s, but also a combative declaration of new artistic trends in this significant time for Russian culture. Describing the main features of the new Russian musical school, Stasov notes, first of all, "the absence of prejudices and blind faith": "Starting with Glinka," he writes, "Russian music is distinguished by complete independence of thought and view of what has been created so far in music." “Another big feature that characterizes the new school is the desire for nationality.” - "In connection with the folk, Russian element," Stasov notes further, "there is another element that makes up the characteristic difference of the new Russian musical school. This is the eastern element." - "Finally, another feature that characterizes the new Russian musical school is an extreme inclination towards program music" ( , 150 ).

It should be emphasized that, fighting for the independence of Russian music and its close connection with the folk soil, Stasov was alien to any kind of national narrow-mindedness. “... I don’t think at all,” he remarks, “to put our school above other European schools – it would be a task that is both absurd and funny. Every nation has its own great people and great deeds” (, 152 . At the same time, in this work, as in a number of other published speeches by Stasov, a group, "directive" bias has affected. Considering the Balakirev Circle as the bearer of true nationality in music, he underestimated the importance of Tchaikovsky in Russian artistic culture. Recognizing his outstanding creative talent, Stasov reproached the composer for "eclecticism and unbridled, indiscriminate polywriting," which, in his opinion, is a disastrous result of conservatory training. Only a few programmatic symphonic works by Tchaikovsky met with his unconditional approval.

Cui, who continued his work as a reviewer until the end of the century, spoke from positions that were close in many respects to Stasov's. Like Stasov, he rejected everything that bore the stamp of the "conservative spirit", and had a biased negative attitude towards most of Tchaikovsky's work. At the same time, Cui did not possess the firmness and consistency of convictions inherent in Stasov. In his penchant for negative assessments, he did not spare his comrades in the Balakirev circle either. His review of "Boris Godunov" full of petty nit-picking and some other printed speeches, in which the works of composers close to the "Mighty Handful" were criticized, were perceived by Stasov as a betrayal of the ideals of the school. In the article "A sad catastrophe", published in 1888, he listed all the facts of Cui's "apostasy", accusing him of "renegacy" and "transition to a hostile camp." "... Ts. A. Cui," Stasov declared, "showed the rear of the new Russian musical school, turning to face the opposite camp" (, 51 ).

This accusation was not entirely substantiated. Rejecting some of the extremes of the 60s, Cui remained on the whole in the "Kuchkist" positions, but the subjective narrowness of his views did not allow him to understand and correctly evaluate many outstanding creative phenomena both in Russian and in foreign music of the last third of the century.

In the 70s, the bright and interesting, but at the same time extremely complex, contradictory personality of Laroche is fully revealed. His ideological and aesthetic positions, clearly articulated in early articles of the late 60s - early 70s - "Glinka and his significance in the history of music", "Thoughts on musical education in Russia", "Historical method of teaching music theory", - he continued unfailingly to defend throughout his subsequent activities. Considering the peak of musical development the period from Palestrina and Orlando Lasso to Mozart, Laroche treated much of contemporary music with undisguised criticism and prejudice. "In my opinion, this is a period of decline ..." - he wrote in connection with the St. Petersburg premiere of "The Snow Maiden" by Rimsky-Korsakov (, 884 ).

But the liveliness of perception, the delicate instinct of the musician often took precedence in him over his dogmatic commitment to the classically clear, simple and integral art of the old masters. Not without a touch of bitterness, Laroche admitted in the same article: “Saying the “age of decline”, I hasten to add that I personally like decadence to a certain extent, that I, like others, succumb to the charm of a colorful and immodest outfit, coquettish and defiant movement, fake, but deftly forged beauty "(, 890 ).

Laroche's articles, especially those of the 1980s, are sometimes filled with skeptical, sometimes confessional in tone reflections on the paths of contemporary musical art, about where the innovative discoveries of Wagner, Liszt, representatives of the "new Russian musical school" lead, what are the criteria for genuine progress in music .

Perhaps most clearly these contradictions manifested themselves in the interpretation of the question of program music. Never tired of emphasizing his complete solidarity with Hanslick's views, Laroche theoretically denounced program music as a false art form. But this did not prevent him from highly appreciating such works as, for example, Rimsky-Korsakov's Antar or Liszt's Faust Symphony. “No matter how much you deny musical painting and musical poetry in theory,” Laroche admitted, “in practice there will never be a shortage of composers whose imagination merges with musical creativity ... our feeling willingly believes in a mysterious relationship between melody and human character, a picture of nature , emotional mood or historical event" ( , 122 . In another article, Laroche argued that music can convey both external phenomena and philosophical motives "by means of very close and understandable analogies" ( , 252 ).

It is wrong to imagine Laroche as an inveterate conservative who rejected everything new. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the dogmatism of aesthetic views often led him to one-sided and unfairly biased assessments of works of outstanding artistic significance. Of the Russian composers, Laroche fully and without any reservations accepted only Glinka, in whose music he found the perfect embodiment of the classical ideal of crystal clarity, balance and purity of style. In an article devoted to the publication of the orchestral score of "Ruslan and Lyudmila" in 1879, Laroche wrote: "Glinka is our musical Pushkin ... Both of them - Glinka and Pushkin - in their clear, flawless, peaceful, marble beauty make a striking contrast with that spirit of stormy and vague unrest, which soon after them embraced the sphere of those arts in which they reigned "(, 202 ).

We will not dwell on the question of the extent to which this characteristic corresponds to our idea of ​​​​the author of "Eugene Onegin" and " Bronze Horseman", and about Glinka with his "Life for the Tsar", "Prince Kholmsky", dramatic romances of recent years. We are currently interested in Larosh's assessment of the post-Glinka period of Russian music not as a continuation and development of the Glinka tradition, but as a contrast to his work. He ends his article with an expression of the hope that modern Russian composers will follow Glinka's example and "once again find that impeccable style, that flexibility and depth of content, that ideal elegance, that sublime flight, of which our domestic music once already presented an example in the person of Glinka" (, 204 ).

Among the Russian contemporaries of Laroche, Tchaikovsky was closest to him, to whose work he devoted a large number of articles imbued with sincere sympathy, and sometimes with ardent love. With all this, not everything in the music of this composer, highly valued by him, Laroche could unconditionally accept and approve. His attitude towards Tchaikovsky was complex, contradictory, subject to constant fluctuations. Sometimes, by his own admission, he seemed "almost an opponent of Tchaikovsky" (, 83 ). In 1876, he wrote, objecting to the opinion of Tchaikovsky as an artist of the classical type, standing on positions opposite to the “crazy innovators of the bunch”: “G. Tchaikovsky is incomparably closer to extreme left of the musical parliament than to the moderate right, and only the distorted and broken reflection that the musical parties of the West have found among us in Russia can explain that Mr. Tchaikovsky seems to some to be a musician of tradition and classicism" ( , 83 ).

Shortly after Tchaikovsky's death, Laroche admitted quite frankly: “... I love Pyotr Ilyich very much as a composer, but I really love him very much; there are others in whose name I am comparatively cold towards him" ( , 195 ). And in fact, reading the reviews of Laroche on some of the works of A. G. Rubinstein, one can come to the conclusion that the work of this artist was more in line with his aesthetic ideal. In one of Laroche's articles, we find the following highly revealing description of Rubinstein's work: "... He stands somewhat apart from the national movement that has embraced Russian music since the death of Glinka. Rubinstein has remained with us and will probably always remain a representative of the universal human element in music , an element necessary in art, immature and subject to all the hobbies of youth. The more passionately the writer of these lines defended, throughout his career, the Russian direction and the cult of Glinka, the more he realizes the need for a reasonable counterbalance to the extremes into which any direction can fall "(, 228 ).

How wrong Laroche was in opposing the national to the universal has already been shown in the not too distant future. Those Russian composers of the "extreme left" national trend turned out to be closest to the West, whose work was completely rejected by Laroche or accepted with great reservations.

One of the significant pages in the history of Russian musical-critical thought was Tchaikovsky's short, but bright and deeply meaningful activity as a permanent observer of Moscow musical life. Replacing in the weekly "Modern Chronicle" Laroche, who left for St. Petersburg, Tchaikovsky then worked for four years in the newspaper "Russian Vedomosti". Once he called this work of his "musical and concert everyday life of Moscow." However, in terms of the depth of his judgments, the seriousness of his approach to evaluating various musical phenomena, his critical activity goes far beyond the usual reviewer's information.

Highly appreciating the educational and propagandistic value of musical criticism, Tchaikovsky repeatedly reminded that judgments about music should be based on a solid philosophical and theoretical foundation and serve to educate the audience's aesthetic taste. His own assessments differ, as a rule, in breadth and objectivity. Of course, Tchaikovsky had his likes and dislikes, but even in relation to distant and alien phenomena, he usually maintained a restrained, tactful tone if he found something artistically valuable in them. All of Tchaikovsky's critical activity is imbued with an ardent love for Russian music and a desire to promote its recognition in the circles of the general public. That is why he so resolutely condemned the unacceptably dismissive attitude of the Moscow theater directorate towards the Russian opera, and wrote with indignation about the careless performance of Glinka's brilliant masterpieces on the Moscow opera stage.

Among contemporary music critics, Tchaikovsky singled out Laroche as the most serious and widely educated, noting his deeply respectful attitude to the classical heritage, and condemned the "boyishness" of Cui and his like-minded people, "with naive self-confidence, subverting both Bach and Handel from their unattainable heights, and Mozart, and Mendelssohn, and even Wagner." At the same time, he did not share the Hanslickian views of his friend and his skepticism towards the innovative trends of our time. Tchaikovsky was convinced that with all the difficulties that stand in the way of the development of Russian musical culture, "nevertheless, the time we are experiencing will take one of the brilliant pages in the history of Russian art" (, 113 ).

Rostislav (F. M. Tolstoy) continued to publish until the end of the 70s, publishing his lengthy, but watery and lightweight in tone and substance judgments, Musical Conversations, in various periodicals. However, at that time he seemed to his contemporaries to be an obsolete figure and could not have any influence on public opinion. In his activity, retrograde tendencies come through more and more clearly, and if he sometimes tried to flirt with representatives of new trends in Russian music, then he did it clumsily and unconvincingly. "Someone Rostislav, now completely forgotten, but in the 40s and 50s a very famous music critic from St. Petersburg," Stasov said about him shortly after his death (, 230 ).

In the 1980s, new names of music critics attracted public attention, among which we should first of all name N. D. Kashkin and S. N. Kruglikov. Kashkin's articles and notes appeared from time to time earlier in Moskovskiye Vedomosti and some other printed publications, but his music-critical activity acquired a permanent, systematic character only from the mid-80s. Not distinguished by a special originality of thought, Kashkin's judgments are for the most part calmly objective and benevolent, although in relation to some composers of the Balakirei circle he allowed unreasonably negative assessments.

The brighter and more temperamental Kruglikov, at the same time, often fell into extremes and polemical exaggerations. Speaking in the early 80s in the Sovremennye Izvestiya newspaper under the pseudonym "Old Musician", which he soon replaced with another one - "New Musician", Kruglikov was something like the plenipotentiary of the "Mighty Handful" in the Moscow press. His first critical experiments were marked by the influence not only of Cui's views, but also of Cui's literary style itself. Expressing his opinions in a categorical, peremptory form, he resolutely rejected the music of the pre-Beethoven period and everything that bore the stamp of "classicism", traditionalism, academic moderation in the use of the latest musical means: "the classical dryness of the Mozart quintet", "we were treated to a boring Mozart symphony ", "dry Taneyev overture", "Tchaikovsky's violin concerto is weak" - such is the nature of Kruglikov's critical sentences in the early years of his musical and literary activity.

In later times, his views changed significantly and became much broader. He was, in his own words, "almost ready to repent of his past transgressions." In the 1908 article “The Old and the Arch-Old in Music,” Kruglikov wrote with some self-irony: “About 25 years ago, although I was hiding behind the pseudonym “Old Musician”, I considered it an especially bold feat to think wickedly about Mozart and in this sense report my thoughts to the reader about "Don Juan" ... Now something different is happening to me ... I confess - with great pleasure I went to listen to Mozart's "Don Juan" at the Solodovnikovsky Theater.

Already at the end of the 80s, Kruglikov's judgments became much broader and more unbiased compared to his first published speeches. Six years later, he writes about the overture "Oresteia" by Taneyev, which he unconditionally condemned in 1883 as a dry, stillborn work: work" ( , 133 ). He evaluates the work of Tchaikovsky differently: “G. Tchaikovsky, as the author of Onegin, is an undoubted representative of the latest operatic aspirations ... everything that expresses the new opera warehouse is close and understandable to Mr. Tchaikovsky ”(, 81 ).

A fairly wide range of names represented another group of critics of the conservative-protective camp, with undisguised hostility to the advanced innovative trends in Russian musical art. None of them encroached on the authority of Glinka; acceptable, but nothing more, was the work of Tchaikovsky for them. However, everything that came out of the pen of the composers of the "new Russian school", they treated with rude spitefulness, while allowing the most harsh expressions, often going beyond the limits of permissible literary etiquette.

One of the representatives of this group, A. S. Famintsyn, appeared in print as early as 1867, having won notoriety by declaring that all the music of the “new Russian school is nothing more than a series of trepaks” . His later judgments about the composers of this hated group remain at the same level. School dogmatism was strangely combined in Famintsyn's views with admiration for Wagner, although understood very narrowly and superficially.

In 1870–1871 Famintsyn published in his journal "Musical Season" (1870 - 1871, No. 1, 3, 7, 8, 14, 20) a number of essays called "Aesthetic Etudes", which in a sense have the significance of his artistic platform. From the very first essay, the author, according to the just remark of Yu. A. Kremlev, "plunges into a swamp of truisms" ( , 541 ). In a meaningful tone, he reports well-known, elementary truths, for example, that the material of music is musical tones, that its main elements are melody, harmony and rhythm, etc. Famintsyn does not do without polemical attacks against those who "put boots and bread higher the great works of Shakespeare and Raphael", presenting in such a crudely caricatured form the position of Chernyshevsky, who argued that life is higher than art.

If in some of his views (for example, comparing music with architecture in the spirit of Hanslick), Famintsyn approached Laroche, then his narrow schoolboy pedantry and limited judgment are such a sharp contrast to the freedom and brilliance with which Laroche defended his, albeit often paradoxical, thoughts, that any comparison of these two figures is unlawful. With regard to stylistically neutral phenomena, Famintsyn sometimes expressed quite sound critical judgments, but as soon as he touched on the works of one of the "Kuchkists", bias, complete misunderstanding and unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to delve into the composer's intention immediately manifested themselves.

At the end of the 1980s, Famintsyn retired from music criticism and devoted himself with great success to studying the origins of Russian folk songs, the history of folk musical instruments and the musical life of Ancient Rus'.

In many respects close to Famintsyn is his colleague N. F. Solovyov, a musician of an academic type, who for a long time was a professor at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, a poorly gifted composer and a music critic limited in his views. If in his work he tried to master new harmonic and orchestral achievements, then his critical activity is an example of conservative inertia and roughness of judgment. Like Famintsyn, Solovyov attacked the composers of the "new Russian school" with particular bitterness. He called the "Mighty Handful" "a gang", the music of "Boris Godunov" - "garbage", "Prince Igor" compared with the scenery, written "not with a brush, but with a mop or broom". These gems of literary sophistication can quite convincingly characterize Solovyov's attitude to a number of major phenomena of contemporary Russian music.

The prolific critic and composer M. M. Ivanov, the “composing reviewer,” as he was called in his time, became an odious person in the music world because of the extreme reactionary nature of his positions. Having appeared in the press in 1875, Ivanov, at the beginning of his critical activity, was friendly to the "Mighty Handful", but soon became one of its most vicious opponents. Cui wrote about this unexpected sharp turn: “G. Ivanov is more of a music politician than a music critic, and in this respect he is remarkable for his "opportunism", that "heartfelt ease" with which he changes his beliefs depending on the demands of his political career. He began by declaring himself an ardent supporter of the aspirations of the "new Russian school" and a fanatical supporter of its leaders (see many numbers of "Bees"). When, with the help of the latter, who considered him mediocre, but convinced, he settled down and established himself in the newspaper in which he still works, Mr. Ivanov adhered to the opposite convictions ... "(, 246 ).

V. S. Baskin also belonged to the same group of critics of the conservative way of thinking, who were hostile to the “new Russian school”, differing from his like-minded people described above, except for the lack of independence of judgments. In his views he went through the same evolution as Ivanov. Sympathetically responding to "Boris Godunov" in 1874, Baskin soon became one of the worst enemies of the "new Russian school", following Solovyov, he called the "Mighty Handful" - a gang, and the word "innovators" wrote only in quotation marks. Ten years later, he published a monographic essay on Mussorgsky's work, which is largely a criticism of the creative positions of the Mighty Handful (). At the same time, Baskin takes the pose of a defender of true realism, opposing to it the "neorealism" of the "Kuchkists" and replacing the concept of naturalism with this invented term. “Neorealism,” Baskin broadcasts, “requires the truth in the literal sense, a strict nature, punctual reproduction of reality, that is, a mechanical copying of reality ... Neorealists lose sight of one of the main elements as an unnecessary thing - creativity ... "(, 6) .

In other words, Baskin, nothing less than nothing, denies the works of Mussorgsky, Borodin, Balakirev, Rimsky-Korsakov in the creative beginning, that is, he takes them beyond the bounds of the artistic. Neither Laroche nor even Famintsyn reached such an assertion. Exalting in every way the melody as the only element of music capable of influencing a wide mass of listeners, Baskin believed that strong drama and tragedy are contraindicated in music by its very nature. Therefore, even in the work of Tchaikovsky, whom he highly appreciated, he was repelled by such moments as the scene of the burning of Joanna at the stake in The Maid of Orleans or the end of the scene in the dungeon from Mazepa, leaving "an impression that is heavy, not dramatic, repulsive, not touching" ( , 273 ). The strongest contrast that the figure of a drunken Cossack brings to the tragic situation of the execution scene, according to Baskin, is just "a" crude farce "invented to please the latest realism" (, 274 ).

With such sharp differences in views between critics of various persuasions and directions, disputes and fierce polemical fights inevitably arose. The range of disagreements in the assessment of creative phenomena from enthusiastic praise reached a complete and unconditional denial. Sometimes (for example, in relation to "Boris Godunov" and other works of Mussorgsky), the position of the critic was determined not only by aesthetic, but also by socio-political factors. But it would be gross simplification to reduce the struggle of different points of view in the field of musical criticism entirely to a confrontation of political interests.

So Laroche, whose musical ideals were turned to the past, was by no means a retrograde in his social views. When Cui published the article "The Dutch child of Mr. Katkov, or Mr. Laroche", emphasizing his closeness to the reactionary publicist N.M. Katkov, in whose journal Laroche collaborated with Russkiy Vestnik, this was simply a polemical device. Cooperation in this or that press organ by no means meant complete solidarity with the views of its editor or publisher. Not sympathetic to the ideas of the revolutionary democrats, Laroche was also far from unconditional acceptance of the post-reform Russian reality. “Who does not know,” he once wrote, “that most of us live poorly and that the Russian climate is ruthless, not only in the direct, but also in the figurative sense?” ( , 277 ). He was a "typical gradualist liberal" who believed in progress, but did not close his eyes to the dark, hard sides of reality.

The variety of views and assessments that distinguishes the musical press of the period under review reflects the abundance and complexity of the paths of Russian art, the struggle and interweaving of various currents in creativity itself. If this reflection was not always accurate, complicated by personal predilections and a tendentious sharpening of both positive and negative judgments, then on the whole, musical criticism of the 19th century is a most valuable document that makes it possible to understand the atmosphere in which the development of Russian music proceeded.

As in previous decades, the main field of activity for people writing about music remained the general periodical press - newspapers, as well as some of the literary and art magazines, which provided space for articles and materials on musical issues. Attempts were made to publish special music magazines, but their existence turned out to be short-lived. In 1871, Famintsyn's "Musical Season" ceased to be published, having been published for less than two years. The life span of the weekly Musical Leaflet (1872–1877) was somewhat longer. The main role was played by the same Famintsyn, of the authoritative critics in the Musical Leaflet, only Laroche collaborated for some time. The Russian Musical Bulletin (1885-1888) adhered to a different orientation, in which Cui was regularly published, and Kruglikov published correspondence from Moscow, signing them with the pseudonym "New Muscovite". The "Bayan" magazine, published from 1880 to 1890, also stood in the positions of the "new Russian school".

There were also mixed publications on music and theatre. Such is the new Nuvelliste, which was called a newspaper, but since 1878 has been published only eight times a year. The daily newspaper Theater and Life, founded in 1884, also paid attention to music. Finally, we should mention the general art magazine Art (1883-1884), on the pages of which quite authoritative music critics sometimes appeared.

However, the materials of these special press organs make up only an insignificant part of the entire huge mass of articles, essays, notes on music, reviews of current musical life or reports on its individual events, which Russian periodicals contain in just two decades (1871-1890). The number of newspapers and magazines of a general type (not counting special publications that are far from art in their profile) published in Russia during this period of time is not tens, but hundreds, and if not all of them, then a significant part of them paid more or less attention to music.

Musical criticism developed not only in the two largest centers of the country, St. Petersburg and Moscow, but also in many other cities, where branches of the RMS were created, which contributed to the development of musical education and concert activity, opera houses arose, and a circle of people was formed who showed a serious interest in music. The local press widely covered all the notable events of the musical life. Since the end of the 70s, L. A. Kupernik, the father of the writer T. L. Shchepkina-Kupernik, systematically published articles on music in the newspaper Kievlyanin. Later, V. A. Chechott, who received his musical education in St. Petersburg, became a permanent contributor to the same newspaper and began his musical-critical activity here in the second half of the 70s. P. P. Sokalsky, one of the founders and champions of the Ukrainian national opera, collaborated in the Odessa Herald, and then the Novorossiysk Telegraph. His nephew V.I. Since the mid-1980s, the Georgian composer and teacher G. O. Korganov, who paid primary attention to the productions of the Tiflis Russian Opera, wrote about music in the largest newspaper in Transcaucasia, Kavkaz.

A number of major events that marked the beginning of the 1970s in Russian music brought a whole range of large and complex problems before criticism. At the same time, some of the previous questions are silent by themselves, losing their sharpness and relevance; works around which controversy until recently was in full swing receive unanimous recognition, and there are no doubts and disagreements in their assessment.

Cui wrote in connection with the resumption of Ruslan and Lyudmila on the stage of the Mariinsky Theater in 1871: “When in 1864 I printed that, in terms of merit, quality, beauty of music, Ruslan was the first opera in the world, which then rained down on me thunders... And now... how sympathetically accepted by all journalism is the resumption of "Ruslan", what an inalienable right of citizenship Russian music has received. It is hard to believe that such a revolution, such a huge step forward could be made in such a short time, but it is a fact "().

With the death of Serov, the dispute between "Ruslanists" and "anti-Ruslanists" that caused such stormy passions in journals at the end of the previous decade, ends. Only once did Tchaikovsky touch upon this dispute, joining Serov’s opinion that “...“ A Life for the Tsar ”is an opera and an excellent one, and“ Ruslan ”is a series of charming illustrations for the fantastic scenes of Pushkin’s naive poem” (, 53 ). But this belated response did not provoke a resumption of controversy: by that time both operas by Glinka had firmly established themselves on the leading stages of the country, having received the same citizenship rights.

The close attention of critics was attracted by new works by Russian composers, which often received sharply opposite assessments in the press - from enthusiastically apologetic to devastatingly negative. In the disputes and struggle of opinions around individual works, more general questions of an aesthetic nature surfaced, various ideological and artistic positions were determined.

Relatively unanimous assessment was received by A. N. Serov's "Enemy Force" (staged after the death of the author in April 1871). She owed her success primarily to the plot, unusual for the opera of that time, from a simple real folk life. Cui found this plot "incomparable", extraordinarily grateful. “I don’t know the best opera plot,” he wrote. “His drama is simple, truthful and amazing ... The choice of such a plot does Serov the greatest honor ... "().

Rostislav (F. Tolstoy) devoted a whole series of articles to "The Enemy Force", as well as to Serov's two previous operas. “Russian life beats throughout the opera and the Russian spirit breathes from every note,” he exclaimed enthusiastically, and compared the orchestration in dramatic moments with Wagner's (, No. 112). However, his final conclusion was rather ambiguous: “In conclusion, let us say that the operas of the late A. N. Serov represent three broad steps in terms of independence and nationality in the following ascending order: Judith, Rogneda and in relation to the depth of musical thought and partly texture and forms in the reverse order, i.e., that “Judith” stands above all, and then “Rogneda” and, finally, “Enemy Force” ”(, N ° 124). Laroche spoke even sharper, finding perhaps the only merit of "The Enemy Force" in the fact that the composer "in places quite deftly imitated the tone of Russian folk music." Like "Rogneda", this last opera by Serov, according to Laroche, strikes "an unusual after" Judith "decline in creative forces and, moreover, a decline in the author's elegant taste" ( , 90 ).

Of a more fundamental nature were the disputes around the "Stone Guest", which appeared on the same stage a year later than "Enemy Force". They concerned not only and perhaps even not so much the merits and demerits of the work itself, but rather general questions of operatic aesthetics, dramatic principles and means of musical depiction of images and situations. For representatives of the "new Russian school" "The Stone Guest" was a work of program, an immutable example of how an opera should be written. This point of view is most fully expressed in Cui's article "The Stone Guest" by Pushkin and Dargomyzhsky. “This is the first experience of an opera-drama,” Cui wrote, “strictly sustained from the first to the last note, without the slightest concession to the former lies and routine ... a great, inimitable example, and it is impossible to treat the opera business differently now” (, 197, 205 ) . Entirely shared the same view and Stasov. In the article "Twenty-five Years of Russian Art", written already a decade after the premiere, he evaluates "The Stone Guest" as "the ingenious cornerstone of the coming new period of musical drama" ( , 158 ).

Other critics recognized the undoubted merits of the work - the fidelity of the recitation, the subtlety of the writing, the abundance of interesting coloristic finds - but the path that Dargomyzhsky took in this last opera was considered false and erroneous. Of greatest interest are the reviews of Laroche, for whom The Stone Guest served as a source of in-depth reflections on the nature of the operatic genre and the ways of its development. At the first meeting, he was captivated by the bold novelty of the idea and the richness of the composer's creative imagination. In connection with the announcement of a subscription to the clavier of The Stone Guest, Laroche wrote: “The author of these lines had the good fortune to get acquainted with this brilliant work in manuscript and in proof sheets, and learned from this acquaintance that The Stone Guest is one of the greatest phenomena in the spiritual life of Russia and that it is destined to significantly influence the future fate of the operatic style in our country, and perhaps in Western Europe" ( , 8 ).

But after Laroche heard "The Stone Guest" from the stage, his assessment acquires new nuances and becomes more restrained. Without denying the high purely musical merits of Dargomyzhsky's opera, he finds that many of these merits elude the listener in the theater and can be fully appreciated only with careful examination at close range: “The Stone Guest is a purely armchair work; This chamber music literally." "The scene exists not for a dozen faces, but for thousands ... Subtle and sharp strokes with which Dargomyzhsky sets off Pushkin's text; the voice of passion, sometimes strikingly correctly noticed by him in simple colloquial speech and conveyed musically; an abundance of bold, sometimes very happy harmonic turns; rich poetry details (unfortunately, some details) - that's what rewards you for the work of more study of details "(, 86, 87 ).

In addition to a relatively brief newspaper review, Laroche devoted a detailed article to The Stone Guest in the Moscow journal Russky Vestnik. Repeating the thoughts already expressed earlier that “this is music for the few”, that Dargomyzhsky is “mainly a talent for details and characteristics”, he at the same time recognizes the great importance of the opera not only in the artistic, but in general in the intellectual life of Russia. Laroche especially highlights the scene in the cemetery, built on one harmonic motif (the succession of whole tones), which he calls the "horror motif". Although Laroche finds such a follow-up pretentious and painful, “but in this pretentiousness, - in his opinion, there is a kind of power, and the feeling of horror that fettered Leporello and Don Juan is involuntarily transmitted to the listener ... "(, 894 ).

In connection with the staging of Rimsky-Korsakov's The Maid of Pskov in 1873, reproaches, already familiar to the work of the Kuchkists, were repeated for ugly extremes of direction, "eccentricity", "anti-aestheticism", etc. Cui's review stood out in its benevolent tone, although not devoid of criticism. Cui considered the main shortcomings of the work to be the absence of “continuously flowing musical speech, as in The Stone Guest ... an inextricable link between the word and the musical phrase” (, 216 .

None of the Russian operas, not excluding The Stone Guest, aroused such a storm of passions and revealed such a sharp divergence of opinion as Boris Godunov, which appeared on the stage a year later (see). All reviewers noted the unconditional success of Mussorgsky's opera with the public, but most of them also unanimously declared it to be an imperfect work and not able to withstand strict and demanding criticism. There is no need to dwell on the openly hostile reviews of reactionary critics like Solovyov, who perceived the music of "Boris" as "one continuous cacophony", something "wild and ugly". Even Baskin had to recognize this judgment as "biased". Famintsyn, without denying the composer's talent, with his inherent schoolboy pedantry, caught in Boris parallel fifths, unresolved dissonances and other violations of "musical grammar" that create "a heavy, unhealthy, stinking atmosphere of Mr. Mussorgsky's musical contemplation" .

Much more thoughtful and serious is the opinion of Laroche, in whom "Boris Godunov" aroused conflicting emotions. Not sympathizing with the direction of Mussorgsky's work, Laroche could not help but succumb to the power of his enormous talent and realized that with the advent of "Boris" a new major and strong artistic personality had entered Russian music. Acquaintance with three scenes from "Boris Godunov", performed on the stage of the Mariinsky Theater in 1873, before the production of the opera as a whole, made an unexpected, almost overwhelming impression on him. “The composer, whom I mentally advised to take flight, struck me with the completely unexpected beauty of his operatic excerpts,” Laroche admitted frankly, “so that after the scenes I heard from Boris Godunov, I was forced to significantly change my opinion about Mussorgsky” (, 120 ). Noting the "originality and originality of fantasy", the "powerful nature" of the author of "Boris", Laroche gives him undeniable primacy among the members of the Balakirev circle, and pays special attention to Mussorgsky's orchestral skills. All three scenes performed, according to the critic, "are instrumented luxuriously, variously, brightly and extremely effectively" ( , 122 ). Paradoxical curiosity! - exactly what many later considered Mussorgsky's weakest, was rated very highly by his first critics.

Laroche's subsequent reviews of "Boris Godunov" are much more critical. In a short report on the production of "Boris" written a few days after the premiere (), he acknowledges the undoubted success of Mussorgsky's opera, but attributes this success mainly to the interest in the national historical plot and the excellent performance of the artists. But soon Laroche had to abandon this opinion and admit that "the success of Mussorgsky's Boris can hardly be called a matter of the minute." In a more detailed article "The Thinking Realist in Russian Opera" (), despite all the accusations of "amateurism and ineptness", "poor development", etc., he does not deny that the author of the opera is a major composer who "can be liked, maybe even entertain."

Laroche's article is a frank but honest confession of an adversary who does not seek to belittle an artist alien to him, although he does not rejoice at his success. “It is regrettable to see,” he writes with a feeling of bitterness and disappointment, “that our musical realist has been given great abilities. It would be a thousand times more pleasant if his method of composing was practiced only by mediocre artists…”

One of the points of accusation against Mussorgsky, put forward in many reviews, was the free handling of Pushkin's text: reductions and rearrangements, the introduction of new scenes and episodes, the change in poetic meter in certain places, etc. This is common in opera practice and inevitable when translating a literary plot into the language of another art, rethinking served as a pretext for Mussorgsky's opponents to reproach him for disrespect for the legacy of the great poet.

From these positions, the well-known literary critic N. N. Strakhov condemned his opera, setting out his thoughts on the stage interpretation of "Boris Godunov" in the form of three letters to the editor of the magazine-newspaper "Citizen" F. M. Dostoevsky. Without denying Mussorgsky's work the well-known artistic merit and integrity of the idea, Strakhov cannot reconcile himself with the way the historical plot is interpreted in the opera, the title of which reads: "Boris Godunov" after Pushkin and Karamzin. "In general, if you consider all the details of Mr. Mussorgsky's opera, then you get some very strange general conclusion. The direction of the entire opera is accusatory, a very long-standing and well-known direction ... the people are exposed as rude, drunken, oppressed and embittered" (, 99–100 ).

All i's are dotted here. For an opponent of the revolutionary-democratic ideology of Strakhov, who is inclined towards a Slavophile idealization of old Rus', the accusatory pathos of Mussorgsky's opera, the realistic sharpness and courage with which the composer exposes the irreconcilable antagonism of the people and the autocracy, are unacceptable, first of all. In a hidden or explicit form, this motive is present in most of the negative reviews about Boris Godunov.

It is interesting to contrast Strakhov's critical judgments with the response to Mussorgsky's opera by another writer, far from the events of musical life and disputes between different musical groups and trends, the prominent populist publicist N.K. Mikhailovsky. Several paragraphs that he devotes to "Boris Godunov" in "Literary and Journal Notes" are not actually written about the work itself, but about it. Mikhailovsky admits that he has not been to any performance of the opera, but acquaintance with Laroche's review drew his attention to it. “However, what an amazing and beautiful phenomenon,” he exclaims, “I missed, chained to literature, but more or less following various aspects of the spiritual development of our fatherland. In fact, our musicians have so far received so much from the people, he has given them so many wonderful motives, that it is high time to pay them back at least a little bit, within the limits of music, of course. It's time to finally bring him to the opera, not only in the stereotypical form of "warriors, maidens, people." G. Mussorgsky took this step "(, 199 ).

The heaviest blow to the author of "Boris Godunov" was inflicted by Cui, precisely because he came from his own camp. His review of the premiere of "Boris", published in "St. Petersburg Vedomosti" dated February 6, 1874 (No. 37), differed significantly in tone from the unconditionally laudatory article that appeared a year earlier about the performance at the Mariinsky Theater of three scenes from Mussorgsky's opera (). In the already mentioned article "A Sad Catastrophe", Stasov begins the list of Cui's "treason" precisely from this ill-fated review. But if you carefully follow the attitude of Cui to "Boris Godunov", it turns out that this turn was not so unexpected. Reporting on the new Russian opera, when the composer's work on the score was not yet fully completed, Cui noted that "there are major shortcomings in this opera, but there are also remarkable advantages." In connection with the performance of the coronation scene in one of the RMS concerts, he also wrote about the "insufficient musicality" of this scene, admitting, however, that in the theater, "with scenery and actors," it can make a more satisfactory impression.

The review of 1874 is characterized by a similar duality. As in the previous year, Cui is most satisfied with the inn scene, which contains "a lot of original humor, a lot of music". He finds the folk scene near Kromy excellent in novelty, originality and the strength of the impression it makes. In the scene in the tower, which is central in its dramatic significance, the most successful, according to Cui, are the “background” episodes of a genre character (the story about Popinka is “the height of perfection”). Stricter than before, Cui reacted to the "Polish" act, highlighting only the lyrically passionate and inspirational final duet.

The article is speckled with such expressions as "chopped recitative", "scatteredness of musical thoughts", the desire for "rough decorative onomatopoeia", indicating that Cui, like all other critics, was unable to penetrate into the essence of the innovative discoveries of Mussorgsky and the main thing in the composer's intention escaped his attention. Recognizing the "strong and original" talent of the author of Boris, he considers the opera to be immature, premature, written too hastily and not self-critically. As a result, Cui's negative judgments outweigh what he finds good and successful in Boris Godunov.

The position he took aroused malevolent satisfaction in the camp of the opponents of the "new Russian school." “Here's a surprise,” Baskin ironically, “which could not be expected from a comrade in a circle, in terms of ideas and ideals in music; that's really "one does not know one's own"! What is this? .. The opinion of a Kuchkist about a Kuchkist ”(, 62 ).

Cui later tried to soften his critical judgments of Mussorgsky. In an essay about the late composer, published shortly after the death of the author of "Boris" in the newspaper "Voice", and then, two years later, reproduced with minor changes in the weekly "Art", Cui admits that Mussorgsky "follows Glinka and Dargomyzhsky and occupies a place of honor in the history of our music." Without refraining from some critical remarks here either, he emphasizes that "in Mussorgsky's musical nature, it was not these shortcomings that prevailed, but high creative qualities that belong only to the most remarkable artists" (, 177 ).

Quite sympathetically, Cui also spoke of "Khovanshchina" in connection with its performance in the play of the Music and Drama Circle in 1886. Among the few and meager responses from the press to this production, which has been staged only a few times, its review in the pages of the Musical Review is distinguished by its comparatively detailed character and the high overall assessment of Mussorgsky's folk musical drama. After remarking on some fragmentation of the composition and the lack of a consistent dramatic development, Cui continues: “But on the other hand, in depicting individual scenes, especially folk ones, he said a new word and has few rivals. For this, he had everything: sincere feeling, thematic richness, excellent recitation, the abyss of life, observation, inexhaustible humor, true expressions ... "Weighing all the pros and cons, the critic summarizes:" There is so much talent, strength, depth of feeling in the music of the opera that "Khovanshchina" should be ranked among major works, even among large the number of our most talented operas "( , 162 ).

"Boris Godunov" again attracts the attention of critics in connection with the Moscow production of 1888. But the responses of the press to this event did not contain anything fundamentally new in comparison with the judgments already expressed earlier. Still strongly rejects "Boris" Laroche. Kashkin's response is more restrained in tone, but on the whole it is also negative. Recognizing that "Mussorgsky was nevertheless a very talented person by nature", Kashkin nevertheless characterizes "Boris" as "some kind of continuous denial of music, presented in sound forms" ( , 181 ). Further, as they say, nowhere!

Kruglikov took a different position. Arguing with Laroche and other detractors of Mussorgsky, he notes that many of the discoveries of the author of "Boris" have already become public property, and further writes: soul, so passionately seeking and able to find motives for its broad powerful inspirations in the everyday poignant manifestations of Russian life, be able to relate at least decently "().

But Kruglikov's article is not free from reservations either. "Passionate frenzied leap after an inspired dream", in his opinion, led the composer to some extremes. Highly appreciating the enormous and original talent of Mussorgsky, Kruglikov, following Cui, writes about the "chopped recitative", sometimes reaching the "depersonalization of the singer musically", and other shortcomings of the opera.

The dispute about what type of operatic dramaturgy should be considered more rational and justified, initiated by The Stone Guest, reappears when Cui's Angelo is staged based on the drama of the same name by V. Hugo. Stasov praised this opera as "the most mature, the highest" creation of the composer, "a magnificent example of melodic recitative, full of drama, veracity of feeling and passion" (, 186 ). However, time has shown that this assessment is clearly exaggerated and biased. Far in its figurative structure from the interests of Russian realistic art of the 19th century and dull in music, the work turned out to be a transient phenomenon in the history of Russian opera, leaving no noticeable trace on itself.

Laroche pointed to the paradoxical, from his point of view, gravitation of Cui's elegant lyricist, "not devoid of sincere and tender feelings, but alien to strength and bold flight," to violently romantic plots with sharp, "hitting effect" melodramatic situations and implausibly exaggerated passions and characters. Cui's appeal to Victor Hugo seems to critics to be an "unequal marriage", which could not but lead to a number of internal artistic contradictions: "Instead of a scenery that produces an illusion at a great distance, we are given a huge miniature, an extensive conglomerate of the smallest figures and the smallest details" (, 187 ). The music of "Angelo", Laroche writes, "is sometimes beautiful, sometimes deliberately ugly. Beautiful are those places where Cui remains true to himself, where he allowed himself to write in his characteristic feminine soft, Schumannian euphonious way ... Those places of the new score where Cui strove to depict human anger, cruelty and deceit, where, contrary to his nature, he tried to be not only grandiose, but also terrible "(, 188 ). The accusation of the "deliberate ugliness" of the music can hardly be considered sufficiently substantiated. Here, the conservative features of Laroche's aesthetics come into play, to whom "tearing sounds" are heard in a simple sequence of increased triads. But on the whole, his assessment of the opera is certainly correct, and he rightly sees in "Angelo", as in the previously written "Ratcliff", the composer's well-known violence against the nature of his talent. Laroche was also able to sensitively catch in this work the symptoms of Cui's emerging departure from the positions that he so firmly and confidently defended in the 60s and early 70s. “There are signs,” the critic notes, “that a worm of doubt has already crept into his conviction, which is still whole and undisturbed by anything” ( , 191 ). In less than ten years, he will write about this renunciation as a fait accompli: “Now that he [Kui] began to publish new compositions faster and faster, he comes across pages written in the most popular way, melodic turns and whole melodies, in whom the recent aesthetic revolutionary is simply unrecognizable" ( , 993 ).

Cui's special place among the representatives of the "new Russian school" was also noted by such a vicious opponent as Ivanov, who emphasized that the author of "Angelo", adhering to the "principle of musical truth in his opera ... did not reach the application of those extreme conclusions that can still be drawn from this principle."

Didn't cause much controversy May night"Rimsky-Korsakov, met by critics, in general, calmly and benevolently. The article of the same Ivanov "The Beginning of the End" () stands out with its sensational heading. This statement of the critic refers, however, not to the peer-reviewed opera, which he evaluates quite positively, but to Approving the composer for the departure from the "extremes" that found expression in "Boris Godunov" and "Pskovityanka", Ivanov certifies "May Night" as the first truly national "Kuchkist" opera. An ambiguous assessment could have not only Ivanov, of course, should have liked the soft, gentle humor and poetic fantasy of May Night more than the freedom-loving pathos of Mussorgsky's and Rimsky-Korsakov's historical plays.

Ivanov's hostile attitude towards the "new Russian school" was openly manifested in connection with the production of Rimsky-Korsakov's The Snow Maiden at the Mariinsky Theater in early 1882. The Novoye Vremya critic, who has finally slipped into reactionary positions, reproaches the composers of The Mighty Handful for their inability to write lively and interestingly for the theater, for the fact that the pursuit of some kind of “quasi-stage truth” leads them, as it were, to dullness and monotony of color. It is hard to imagine that this could be said about one of the most poetic works of such a master of sound painting as Rimsky-Korsakov! In The Snow Maiden, Ivanov claims, the listener's attention "is supported only by folk songs (the parts of Lel and the choir) or fakes to these songs" (, 670 ).

In connection with this last remark, we can recall the words of the author of the opera himself: “Musical reviewers, having noticed two or three melodies in The Snow Maiden, as well as in May Night from the collection of folk songs (they could not notice more, since they themselves do not know well folk art), declared me incapable of creating my own melodies, stubbornly repeating such an opinion at every opportunity ... Once I even got angry at one of these antics. Shortly after the production of The Snow Maiden, on the occasion of the performance by someone of Lel's 3rd song, M. M. Ivanov published, as it were, a remark in passing that this play was written in folk theme. I replied with a letter to the editor, in which I asked them to point out to me the folk theme from which the melody of Lel's 3rd song was borrowed. Of course, no instructions followed" (, 177 ).

More benevolent in tone, Cui's comments were also, in essence, quite critical. Approaching the evaluation of Rimsky-Korsakov's operas with the criteria of The Stone Guest, he noted in them, first of all, the shortcomings of vocal recitation. "May Night", according to Cui, despite the successful choice of plot and interesting harmonic finds of the composer, in general - "a small, shallow, but elegant, beautiful work" (). Responding to the premiere of The Snow Maiden at the Mariinsky Theatre, he again reproaches Rimsky-Korsakov for the lack of flexibility in opera forms and the absence of "free recitatives". “All this taken together,” Cui summarizes, “even with the highest qualities of music when it is performed on stage, it dampens the impression of the musician and completely destroys the impression of an ordinary listener” (). However, a little later he expressed a more just judgment about this outstanding work; evaluating The Snow Maiden as one of the best Russian operas, "chef d" ouevre of Mr. Rimsky-Korsakov, "he considered it possible to compare it even with Glinka's Ruslan ().

Tchaikovsky's operatic work was not immediately understood and appreciated. Each of his new operas was reproached for "immaturity", "misunderstanding of the opera business", lack of mastery of "dramatic forms". Even the closest and most sympathetic critics formed the opinion that he was not a theatrical composer and opera was alien to the nature of his talent. “... I rank Tchaikovsky as an opera composer,” wrote Laroche, “I put much lower than the same Tchaikovsky as a chamber and especially symphonic composer ... He is not an opera composer par excellence. This has been said hundreds of times in the press and outside it” (, 196 ). Nevertheless, it was Laroche who, more soberly and objectively than any other critic, was able to evaluate Tchaikovsky's operatic work, and even recognizing one or another of his operas as a failure, sought to understand the reasons for the failure and separate the weak and unconvincing from the valuable and impressive. Thus, in his review of the St. Petersburg premiere of Oprichnik, he blames the composer for insufficient attention to the requirements of theatrics, but notes the purely musical merits of this opera. Laroche criticized Tchaikovsky's next opera, The Blacksmith Vakula, not so much for artistic shortcomings as for its direction, seeing in this work the influence of the "new Russian school" alien and unsympathetic to him. At the same time, he recognizes the undoubted merits of the opera. The vocal recitation in Vakula, according to Laroche, “is more correct than in Oprichnik, and one can only rejoice at this, in some comic places it is distinguished by accuracy and humor” (, 91 ). The second edition of the opera, called Cherevichki, satisfied Laroche much more and forced him to remove most of his critical remarks.

Laroche turned out to be more insightful than others in evaluating "Eugene Onegin" as one of the peaks operatic creativity Tchaikovsky. After the first performance of "Onegin" in a student performance of the Moscow Conservatory, most of the critics were at a loss before the novelty and unusualness of this work. "Lovely thing" - so spoke the most sympathetic reviewers. Many people found Tchaikovsky's "lyrical scenes" boring because of the lack of effects common on the opera stage, and reproaches were heard for a free attitude to Pushkin's text.

Laroche's first impression was also somewhat vague. Welcoming the composer's break with the "preachers of musical ugliness" (read - "Mighty bunch"), he asked the question: "Forever?" The choice of plot seemed risky to him, but “whether the plot is good or bad, Tchaikovsky liked it, and the music of his “lyrical scenes” testifies to the inspiring love with which the musician cherished this plot.” And despite a number of fundamental objections that Tchaikovsky's attitude to the poetic text aroused in him, Laroche eventually admits that "the composer has never been himself to such an extent as in these lyrical scenes" ( , 104 ).

When, five years after this conservative performance, "Eugene Onegin" was first staged at the Mariinsky Theater, Laroche's voice was not heard in the press. As for the rest of the criticism, it reacted to Tchaikovsky's new opera with almost unanimous condemnation. “Eugene Onegin contributes nothing to our art. There is not a single new word in his music”; “as the opera Eugene Onegin is a stillborn work, undeniably untenable and weak”; "lengthiness, monotony, lethargy" and only "separate glimpses of inspiration"; the opera "is not able to impress the masses" - such was the general tone of the reviews.

A detailed assessment of the significance of "Eugene Onegin" is given by Laroche quite a few years later in a large generalizing article "Tchaikovsky as a Dramatic Composer", where he considers this opera not only as one of the highest creative achievements of its author, but also as a work that marked a new direction in Russian opera art, close to the modern realistic story and novel. “Pyotr Ilyich's striving for realism, for 'life-to-life truth in sounds',” writes Laroche, “this time was clear and definite. A fan of Dickens and Thackeray, Gogol and Leo Tolstoy, he wanted through music and without changing the fundamental principles of elegant form, to depict reality, if not as clearly and convexly, then still in the same direction "(, 222 ). The fact that the action of the opera takes place “close to us, in natural lighting, under conditions as everyday and real as possible”, that the participants in the drama are ordinary living faces, whose experiences are close to modern man, is, according to Laroche, the reason for the enormous, exceptional popularity this work.

Laroche considered the Queen of Spades to be a continuation of the same "real direction", but although this may seem paradoxical at first glance, she turned out to be alien and unsympathetic to him. He did not respond to the first production of The Queen of Spades with a single word, although he was present at the performance along with other friends of the composer. About the reason for this strange silence, he wrote later: "Until I figured out either feelings or thoughts, I'm not good at criticism" (, 255 ). Laroche's intention to write a separate sketch about the opera after Tchaikovsky's death also remained unfulfilled. On the pages devoted to The Queen of Spades, in the article "Tchaikovsky as a Dramatic Composer", he tries to sort out the chaos of conflicting thoughts and impressions that arose when he got acquainted with this work. The tragic power of Tchaikovsky's music could not but capture Laroche, but he would like to see his beloved composer different, more clear, bright, "reconciled". Therefore, he is attracted not by the main, central in meaning scenes of the "Lama of Spades", but rather by its external sides, what constitutes the background, the "entourage" of the action. “Although I refrain from a final and detailed judgment about the music itself,” writes Laroche, “I, however, allow myself to remark that the score enchants with brilliance, a variety of details, that Tchaikovsky’s desire for popularity does not and cannot mean sacrificing the richness of harmony and general solidity of texture, and that often the parts that are “lightest” in character are of the most musical value ”(, 258 ).

In general, the metropolitan press reacted negatively to The Queen of Spades, not finding anything new in it compared to Tchaikovsky's previous operatic works. The opera received a different attitude from Moscow critics. Kashkin rated it as an outstanding event, which "overshadows all current events in musical life" (, 147 ). His impression of the new opera is "strong and deep", in some places even "stunning". The critic especially notes the psychological veracity of the images of The Queen of Spades, which "do not look like stereotyped impersonal opera figures, on the contrary, they are all living people with certain characters and positions" (, 172 ). And although Kashkin has so far refrained from making a final judgment, there is no doubt for him that “The Queen of Spades will take one of the highest places in Russian opera literature” (, 177 ).

The year 1890 was marked in the life of the Russian opera theater by another major event- staging "Prince Igor". This time the press was extremely unanimous in their appreciation of Borodin's opera. Almost all reviewers, despite individual private differences, recognized her outstanding artistic value and considered worthy to take a place next to "Ruslan and Lyudmila". The author of an anonymous article in Nedelya compared Borodin with the "prophetic Boyan" and characterized his opera as "one of the most precious and expressive works of the Russian musical school, the first after Ruslan". Another critic, noting the "lively, bright, joyful impression" from music, imbued with a deep national identity, expressed confidence that the name of its author, "little known during his lifetime, will become popular as one of the gifted Russian composers" .

In the general chorus of praise, only the obviously tendentious reviews of Solovyov and Ivanov sounded dissonant. The first of them claimed that Borodin was not capable of "broad operatic writing", and criticized the music of "Prince Igor" for not meeting the stage requirements, without denying, however, that on the whole it was "quite beautiful". Attributing the success of the opera with the public to a luxurious production and excellent artistic performance, he remarked, not without malevolent hope: “If the opera Prince Igor does not arouse the interest of the public at the next performances, then only the music is to blame.” However, the success of "Igor" not only did not fall, but, on the contrary, increased with each performance. Stasov had every reason to write a month after the premiere: "Despite all sorts of retrogrades and haters, not listening to them even out of the corner of their ear, she [the public] fell in love with Borodin's opera and, it seems, will forever remain her sincere admirer" (, 203 ).

The production of "Prince Igor" received a wide response in the Moscow press as well. Among the many messages and reviews, the informative and thoughtful articles by Kruglikov in The Artist (1890, book 11) and Kashkin in Russkiye Vedomosti (1890, October 29) stand out, not only laudatory, but even enthusiastic in tone. Kashkin finds it difficult to single out the strongest places in the opera: “Everything is so whole and complete, so full of musical interest that attention does not weaken for a minute, and the impression remains irresistible ... I positively forgot where I was, and only an explosion of applause brought me to myself ".

Such a unanimous recognition of "Prince Igor" testified to the changes that had taken place in public opinion in relation to the work of composers of the "new Russian school", and foreshadowed the brilliant triumphs of Russian opera at home and abroad.

Critics paid much less attention to works of the symphonic and chamber instrumental genres than to opera. Rarely did such fierce polemical fights ensued around them, which the appearance of almost every new work of a Russian composer on the opera stage caused. Even Laroche, who frankly admitted his dislike for opera, always wrote about it with particular fervor and often devoted several large articles to new operas, while he could respond to a symphony even by a composer he loved with only one brief note. This situation is explained by the real place of opera and instrumental genres in the musical interests of Russian society. The enormous popularity of the opera house among the widest sections of the public forced critics to follow the processes taking place in it with close attention. At the same time, of course, she could not pass by the outstanding achievements of Russian symphony, which experienced a high and bright heyday in the 70s and 80s.

As noted above, one of the main points of contention in music criticism in the second half of the 19th century was the question of program music. This or that attitude to this issue often determined the evaluation of individual works. Therefore, for example, critics of the "Kuchkist" orientation rated Tchaikovsky's "Romeo and Juliet", "The Tempest" and "Francesca da Rimini" much higher than his symphonies. Stasov classified these compositions as "unusually large creations of new music" and considered them the pinnacle of everything written by the composer (, 192 ). Cui agreed with him, hailing "Romeo and Juliet" as "a very remarkable and extremely talented work", especially admiring the beauty and poetry of the lyrical theme of the side part: "It is difficult to describe all its warmth, passion, fascination, poetry ... This theme can compete with the happiest inspirations in all music "().

Far from being so unambiguous was Laroche's attitude towards them, despite all his love for Tchaikovsky. Or maybe it was thanks to this love that he tried to warn the composer from what he thought was a wrong path. Recognizing the undoubted artistic merit of these works, he invariably accompanied his assessments with critical reservations. In "Romeo" Laroche finds "happy melodic thoughts, nobility of harmonies, remarkable mastery of instrumentation and the poetic charm of many details", but these qualities, in his opinion, "hid the whole from the majority", in which "there is a very noticeable lack of unity" (, 34–35 ). "The Tempest" gives him a reason for a direct conversation about the negative impact on Tchaikovsky's "bad programmatic direction" ( , 73–74 . In connection with Francesca, Laroche again returns to the same question. “The advantages and disadvantages of this score by Tchaikovsky,” he notes, “only confirm for the hundredth time what could be observed in almost all compositions of this alluring and dangerous kind. In an effort to rise above itself, music falls below itself” (, 73–74 ).

Laroche believed that by composing program music, Tchaikovsky betrayed his creative nature, the true vocation of which is "symphonic music without a program." Therefore, he warmly welcomed the appearance of his Second and Third Symphonies, without resorting to reservations of the same kind. "A work that stands at a European height", "a capital phenomenon not only in Russian, but also in European music" - in such expressions he writes about both symphonies. The mastery of thematic development, which distinguishes some parts of the Second Symphony, allows Laroche even to recall the names of Mozart and Beethoven: "If I were not afraid to use the sacred name in vain, I would say that in that power and in that grace with which Mr. Tchaikovsky plays his themes and makes them serve his intentions, there is something Mozartian ... "(, 35 ).

The "Kuchkist" critics reacted differently to the same works of Tchaikovsky, in which the composer's appeal to the classical forms of unprogrammed symphonism caused obvious disappointment. It would seem that the Second Symphony, replete with genre-characteristic elements, should have turned out to be close to the tendencies of the "new Russian school". But that did not happen. Cui gave her a sharply negative assessment, noting that "this symphony in its entirety is significantly inferior to Mr. Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet overture." "Length, often bad taste and triviality, an unpleasant mixture of Russian folk with Western European" - these, in his opinion, are the main shortcomings of the symphony ().

True, another time he spoke of this symphony more favorably, referring it, along with Francesca, Vakula the Blacksmith and the Second Quartet, to the best works of Tchaikovsky (). Everything written by the composer later met with an unconditionally negative assessment from him. In 1884, Cui wrote in one of his regular music reviews: “Recently I had to talk about Messrs. Rubinstein and Tchaikovsky, now about Mussorgsky, Balakirev and Borodin. What a huge difference between these two groups! And those people are talented, and they have good works, but what a modest role they will play in the history of art, how little they have done to move forward! But they could, especially Mr. Tchaikovsky "().

The only symphonic work of the mature Tchaikovsky that earned Cui's praise is the symphony "Manfred", in which the critic saw a direct continuation of the line of creativity coming from early program works. Approving the very idea of ​​​​the work, Cui highly appreciates its first part, which, according to him, “belongs, along with Francesca, to the best pages of Tchaikovsky in terms of depth of conception and unity in development” (, 361 ).

However, the most mature and significant of the symphonies of this composer did not meet with real understanding from critics who generally treated his work with unconditional sympathy, including Laroche. About the Fourth Symphony, he writes far from being in such enthusiastic tones as about the two previous ones. Already in the first phrase of his review, there is a shade of some doubt: "This symphony, huge in size, in conception represents one of those courageous, exceptional attempts that composers so willingly embark on when they begin to get tired of praise for more or less normal works" (, 101 ). Tchaikovsky, as Laroche notes further, goes beyond the established concept of the symphony, striving to "capture a much wider area than the ordinary symphony." He is embarrassed, in particular, by the sharp contrasts between thematic sections, the combination of a "tragic accent" with the carefree rhythm of a ballet "knee". The finale seems to him too noisy, reminiscent of "Wagner in his early, uncomplicated period, when (as, for example, in" Rienzi ") the musicians simply blew into his shoulder blades" ( , 101 ).

Laroche's overall assessment of the symphony remains uncertain. He never expresses his attitude to what he sees as a manifestation of "exclusivity" and deviation from the "norm". This is all the more noteworthy because Laroche did not respond at all to Tchaikovsky's last two symphonies. Something kept him from an open public statement about these peaks of Tchaikovsky's symphony. But in the article "P. I. Tchaikovsky as a Dramatic Composer", which touches on a wide range of issues related to Tchaikovsky's work, there is a phrase that can, I think, serve as a "clue" for understanding this circumstance. “In the incomplete form that seems to us to be his field, a single moment takes on an accidental, sometimes exaggerated significance, and the gloomy pessimism of the “Pathetic Symphony” seems to us the key to the whole lyricism of Tchaikovsky, while it is quite possible that under normal circumstances the amazing and peculiar score was would be no more than an episode, as [would be] an echo of the past experienced and far away from the past "(, 268–269 ).

The third suite of Tchaikovsky, about which Laroche wrote with enthusiasm and animation, gives him reason to talk about the "antitheses" of the composer's creative nature ( , 119 ). "Festive major" and "poetry of bitterness and suffering", "a mixture of subtlety of nuance, subtlety of feeling with an undisguised love of massive overwhelming power", "a musical nature reminiscent of the luminaries of the 18th century" and a penchant for "new ways in art" - these are some of the these antitheses that characterize the "rich and peculiar spiritual world" of the artist, whose complex creative nature irresistibly attracted, but often puzzled Laroche. In the listed series of antitheses, the first member turned out to be more to his liking. This explains the genuine admiration that the Third Suite, bright in color, devoid of intense struggle of passions and sharp dramatic clashes, aroused in him.

Among the composers of the "new Russian school" the work of Borodin caused especially fierce disputes. Unlike "Prince Igor", his Second Symphony was met by most of the critics sharply negatively. Stasov and Cui turned out to be almost the only defenders of it, considering this symphony as one of the highest achievements of Russian national symphony. But even between them there were some disagreements in the assessment of its individual aspects. If Stasov, admiring the "ancient Russian heroic warehouse" of the symphony, at the same time reproached the composer for the fact that he "did not want to take the side of the radical innovators and preferred to keep the former conditional forms approved by tradition" (, 188 ), then Cui, on the contrary, emphasized in her "sharpness of thought and expression", not softened by "Western conventionally worked out and consecrated by custom forms" ( , 336 ).

Of all the negative reviews about Borodin's work, perhaps the most merciless belongs to Laroche, who saw in him only an amusing, although perhaps talented, witty curiosity. Devoting several paragraphs to the recently deceased composer in his next musical review, he writes about his music: “I don’t want to say at all that it was a wild cacophony, devoid of any positive element. No, in this unprecedented witticism, an innate beauty breaks through every now and then: a good caricature does not consist in depriving the original of any human likeness. Unfortunately, Borodin wrote completely "in earnest", and the people of his circle believe that symphonic music will really follow the path he has planned" (, 853 ).

The range of discrepancies in the assessment of the symphonic works of Balakirev and Rimsky-Korsakov was not so sharp. "Tamara" and "Rus" (a new version of the overture "1000 years") by Balakirev, which appeared after a long creative silence of the composer, were generally met with interest and sympathy by critics, except for such sworn enemies of the "new Russian school" as Famintsyn and like him. Cui's review of the first performance of "Tamara" stood out in his enthusiastic tone: "She strikes with the strength and depth of passion ... the brightness of oriental color ... diversity, brilliance, novelty, originality, and most of all, the boundless beauty of a wide conclusion" (). The rest of the reviews were more restrained, but at least respectful. Even Solovyov, despite some critical remarks, noted moments "charming in terms of music and orchestral color" ().

A characteristic example for Laroche of the contradiction between the dogmatism of general aesthetic views and the immediacy of perception of a sensitive critic is the article "On Program Music and Rimsky-Korsakov's Antar in Particular", written in connection with the performance of Korsakov's symphony in a concert of the Free Music School. Devoting most of the article to criticism of programming in instrumental music, the author hastens to make a reservation: “All this, of course, cannot be attributed to a separate work; Whatever the shortcomings of the school to which "Antar" belongs, it is a talented and brilliant example of this school ... From a purely musical side, "Antar" strikes with the sympathetic, elegant nature that expresses itself in it, and the gift for the richest color, squandered everywhere with inexhaustible luxury "(, 76 ).

With the same sympathy, Laroche reacted to the next major symphonic work by Rimsky-Korsakov - the Third Symphony. Challenging the opinion of some of the composer's friends and associates, who saw in it a renunciation of the principles of the "new Russian school", he wrote: "Symphony quite belongs to the school ... and judging only by it, then the modern Mr. Rimsky-Korsakov is still much more to the left than the one whom we recognized ten years ago from his First Symphony "(, 136 ). But this statement by no means sounds reproachful in the mouth of Laroche. On the contrary, he believes that if Rimsky-Korsakov had renounced the precepts of the school and moved to the conservative camp, then "at the same time, the freshness of thoughts, the variety of harmonies, the brilliance of color would have decreased instead of increasing" (, 136 ), and one could only regret such a transformation.

In assessing the Korsakov symphony, Tchaikovsky was also close to Laroche, seeing in it the features of the transitional state experienced by the composer: hence, on the one hand, “dryness, coldness, lack of content”, and on the other hand, “the charm of details”, “the elegant chiselling of the slightest stroke”, and at the same time "a strong, extremely talented, plastic, elegant creative individuality constantly shines through." Summarizing his assessment, Tchaikovsky expresses confidence that “when Mr. Rimsky-Korsakov, after the fermentation that obviously takes place in his musical organism, finally reaches a firmly established stage of development, he will probably develop into the most important symphonist of our time ...” ( , 228 ). The further creative path of Rimsky-Korsakov as a symphonist fully justified this forecast.

Among the composers whose work was at the center of the disputes unfolding on the pages of the periodical press was A. G. Rubinshtein. As unanimous was his assessment as a brilliant, unparalleled pianist, opinions about Rubinstein's composer's work were just as sharply divergent. Noting the “phenomenal pianistic talent” of Rubinstein, Stasov wrote: “But his creative ability and inspiration are on a completely different level than piano performance, his numerous works in all kinds ... do not rise above secondary importance. The exceptions are, firstly, some compositions in the oriental style: such are the original dances in the "Demon" and in "Feramors" for orchestra, "Persian Songs" for voice. Secondly, other compositions in a humorous kind ... Rubinstein had no ability at all for compositions in the style of Russian nationality ... "(, 193 ).

The opinion about Rubinstein as a "non-Russian" composer was also expressed by Laroche in the 1960s, reproaching him for a "false attitude towards the Russian element", "faking" a Russian character. In the future, however, Laroche refuses such categorical judgments and even finds some of his works on Russian themes extremely successful, although he does not deny that Rubinstein "stands somewhat apart from that national movement that has gripped Russian music since the death of Glinka." As for the academic moderation of style, for which the "Kuchkists" criticized Rubinstein, Laroche justifies it by the need for "a reasonable counterbalance to the extremes into which any trend can fall" ( , 228 ).

In the 80s, the attention of critics was attracted by a young generation of composers who were students and followers of the older masters of the "sixties" generation. The names of Glazunov, Taneyev, Lyadov, Arensky and others who, together with them, began their creative path at that time, are increasingly appearing on the pages of the press.

The St. Petersburg press unanimously welcomed the fact that the sixteen-year-old schoolboy Glazunov performed a symphony, unprecedented in Russian music, testifying not only to a strong talent, but also to the sufficient technical equipment of its author. Cui, who owns the most detailed review, wrote: “Nobody started so early and so well except Mendelssohn, who wrote his Midsummer Night’s Dream overture at the age of 18.” “Despite his extremely young age,” Cui continues, “Glazunov is already a complete musician and a strong technician ... He is completely capable of expressing what he wants, and in the way he wants. Everything is harmonious, correct, clear ... In a word, seventeen-year-old Glazunov is composer fully armed with talent and knowledge" ( , 306 ).

Perhaps there is some exaggeration in this assessment, caused by the desire to support and encourage the novice composer. Instructing him, Cui warned: "May the young composer not be carried away by this success; failures may also await him in the future, but he should not be embarrassed by these failures" (, 308 ). Cui responded just as kindly to the following works by Glazunov - to the overture "Stenka Razin", the overture to Greek themes, noting with satisfaction his creative growth and seriousness.

More difficult was the attitude of criticism towards another prominent composer of the same generation - Taneyev. His classicistic aspirations, the features of retrospectivism characteristic of some works, caused sharp and often unfair attacks in the press. For quite a long time, there was an opinion with Taneyev as an artist far from modernity, interested only in formal problems. Kruglikov wrote about his early quartet in C major: "Incomprehensible in our time, especially for a Russian, some kind of conscious Mozart-like themes and a fake for classical boredom in their development; very good contrapuntal technique, but complete disregard for the luxurious means of modern harmony ; lack of poetry, inspiration; work felt everywhere, only conscientious and skillful work "(, 163 ).

This review is quite typical, only occasionally voices of approval and support were heard. So Laroche, having become acquainted with Taneyev's symphony in D minor (apparently, not yet in the final version), noted "that this extremely young artist has rich inclinations and that we have the right to expect a brilliant musical career from him" (, 155 ).

With greater sympathy than other works of early Taneyev, the cantata "John of Damascus" was greeted. Kruglikov spoke approvingly of her after the first performance in Moscow in 1884 (). The performance of the cantata in St. Petersburg by the students of the conservatory caused a very positive response from Cui. Paying attention to the saturation of the texture with polyphonic elements, he remarks: "All this is not only interesting and impeccable in Taneyev, but beautiful." “But for all the importance of technology,” Cui continues, “it alone is not enough for a work of art, expressiveness is also needed, musical thoughts are needed. The expressiveness in Taneyev’s cantata is complete; the right mood is sustained entirely” (, 380 ).

At the beginning of 1888, Cui's sensational article "Fathers and Sons" appeared, where he summed up the completed cycle of Belyaev's Russian symphony concerts and expressed some general thoughts about the composers of the younger generation, who would have to take over from Borodin, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov. Some of the symptoms found in their work cause concern in Cui: insufficient attention to the quality of the thematic material and predominant concern for external effects, unjustified complexity and far-fetched designs. As a result, he comes to the conclusion that "children" do not have the qualities that allowed the "fathers" to create great creations that can live long in the minds of people: "Nature endowed the fathers with such generous gifts that she might save the next ones for her grandchildren "( , 386 ).

Not everything can unconditionally agree with Cui. Some of his assessments are overly pointed, some are "situational" in nature and are explained by the specific moment when the article was written. So Glazunov, who is given the most attention in it, experienced a time of searching at the turn of the 80s and 90s and succumbed to extraneous influences, but in the end these searches led him to develop his own clear and balanced style. However, the main idea about the well-known secondary nature of the work of the young "Belyayevites", the absence among them of such bright and strong personalities as the best of the composers of the "sixties" generation possessed, is certainly true. What Cui writes about coincides in many respects with the pages of Rimsky-Korsakov's Chronicle, devoted to a comparative description of the Balakirev and Belyaevsky circles.

Another big problem is inextricably linked with the most important, fundamental issue of the ways of Russian musical art - the assessment and critical development of world musical experience. It was necessary to determine the attitude towards something new that was born abroad and, with growing international ties in the post-reform period, quickly became known in Russia. Disputes about certain phenomena of Western music that arose in previous decades were far from exhausted.

One of the central ones continued to be the "Wagnerian problem". Each new production of "Lohengrin" and "Tannhäuser" caused conflicting assessments and a clash of opinions concerning not only the performance itself, but also the composer's work as a whole, his views and principles of operatic dramaturgy. Particularly rich food for the discussion of these issues was provided by the performance of the entire tetralogy "The Ring of the Nibelungen" at the opening of the Wagnerian "Theater of Solemn Performances" in Bayreuth, which was attended by a number of leading Russian musical figures.

This event was widely discussed in Russian periodicals, giving rise to a general question about the significance of Wagner's work in the history of music. Most of the published performances once again confirmed the alienness of his ideas and stylistic principles to the main trends in the development of Russian musical art. Famintsyn, who remained faithful to his apologetic Wagnerianism, was left almost completely alone. But the enormous scale of the phenomenon called Wagner was obvious to everyone. Cui, who published a detailed account of the Bayreuth premiere of "The Ring" (), was far from his once expressed opinion that "Wagner as a composer is completely mediocre", and extremely highly appreciated the coloristic skill of the German composer, the richness of his orchestral and harmonic colors: "Wagner is a colorist wonderful and owns huge orchestral masses. The colors of his orchestra are dazzling, always true and at the same time noble. He does not abuse his instrumental masses. Where necessary, he has an overwhelming power, where necessary - the sound of his orchestra is soft and gentle. As a faithful and artistic color, the "Nibelungen Ring" is an exemplary and irreproachable work ... "(, 13–14 ).

Laroche, noting such a striking change in the views of his opponent, did not miss the opportunity to mock Cui's "headless Wagnerism". But, in essence, there was no significant difference between them in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Wagner's work. "... My high opinion of Wagner's talent did not waver... My aversion to his theory intensified" - this is how Laroche briefly formulates the general impression he got from his acquaintance with Wagner's tetralogy. “Wagner has always been a colorist,” he continues, “a musician of temperament and sensuality, a bold and unbridled nature, a one-sided, but powerful and sympathetic creator. The colorist in him developed significantly and refined, the melodist fell to an amazing degree ... Perhaps the unconscious feeling of this decline forced Wagner to take to an extreme the method of guiding motives he introduced into dramatic music" ( , 205 ).

Cui also explained the introduction of the system of leitmotifs into the opera - as a universal method of characterizing characters and objects - by the poverty of the composer's melodic talent. He considered the main defect of this system to be the schematization of the depiction of human images, in which, out of the whole wealth of character traits, psychological properties, one stands out. The constant return of mostly brief motifs leads, in his opinion, to tedious monotony: "You will feel satiety, especially if these topics are found not in one, but in four operas" (, 9 ).

The general opinion about the author of Der Ring des Nibelungen, prevailing among most Russian critics, was that Wagner was a brilliant symphonist, who perfectly mastered all the colors of the orchestra, in the art of sound painting unparalleled among contemporary composers, but that in opera he goes on the wrong path. Tchaikovsky wrote, summing up his impressions from listening to all four parts of this grandiose cycle: “I endured a vague recollection of many amazing beauties, especially symphonic ones ... I endured reverent surprise at the enormous talent and his unprecedentedly rich technique; I endured doubts about the fidelity of the Wagnerian view of opera ... "( , 328 ). Fifteen years later, in a brief note written at the request of the American newspaper "Morning Journal" he repeats the same view: "Wagner was a great symphonist, but not an opera composer" ( , 329 ).

In one of his later articles, Laroche, who constantly turned to Wagner, to reflections on the reasons for the irresistible impact of his music and the equally stubborn rejection of his operatic principles by many musicians, correctly and accurately determines what exactly in Wagner's work turned out to be unacceptable for Russian composers: "... he swims in the elements. Figure [it would be more accurate to say "personality". – Yu.K.] he succeeds least of all. To describe a person, as Mozart and Glinka were able to do, to a much lesser, but still respectable degree, Meyerbeer, he succeeds as little as to sketch a solid outline of a melody. Its triumph begins where the human recedes into the background, where the melody becomes, although not superfluous, but replaceable, where you need to convey the mass impression of an indifferent environment, where you can luxuriate in dissonances, in modulations and combinations of orchestral instruments "(, 314 ).

Cui expressed approximately the same idea: “... the absence of personal will in the characters is especially difficult; they are all unfortunate, irresponsible puppets acting solely by the will of fate. This impotence of will gives the whole plot a gloomy character, makes a difficult impression, but still makes the audience indifferent to the heroes of Wagner, of which only Sigmund, Sieglinde, Brünnhilde arouse sympathy" (, 31 ).

Despite all the differences in the nature of their talent, the focus of artistic interests, the choice of expressive means and techniques of musical writing, the focus of attention of Russian composers of the 19th century was a living person with his real experiences, existing and acting in a certain living environment. Therefore, they were alien to the Wagnerian romantic symbolism, colored with the tones of Schopenhauer's pessimism, although many of them could not resist the conquering power and extraordinary coloristic richness of his music. A critical attitude also evoked its quality, which Rimsky-Korsakov defined with the words "monotony of luxury." Tchaikovsky drew attention to the redundancy of bright, thick and rich orchestral-harmonic colors: "Wealth is too plentiful; constantly straining our attention, it finally tires him ..." With all this, Tchaikovsky could not help but admit that "as a composer, Wagner, undoubtedly , one of the most remarkable personalities in the second half of our century, and his influence on music is enormous" ( , 329 ).

Sharing the general assessment of the significance of Wagner's work that has developed among Russian musicians, Laroche at the same time considered it necessary to establish a certain line between Wagner, the author of The Ring of the Nibelungen, and the earlier Wagner, the creator of such works as Tannhäuser and Lohengrin. Stating the great success of Tannhäuser, staged in St. Petersburg in 1877, he wrote: “Wagner’s opponents can only rejoice at the success of this score, written animatedly, sincerely and at the same time with a skillful and prudent hand. Rejoice not only because they do not have no personal malice towards a gifted musician, but also because all the details of success serve as new and brilliant, confirmation of the justice of their view of opera "(, 229 ). In another article by Laroche, we read: “The Wagnerists of the latest formation do not recognize either one or the other opera, since they run counter to the theory set forth in the Opera und Drama and practically applied in the Nibelungen; but this faction of Wagnerists is still drawn primarily from specialists, that is, from writers and musicians, the mass of the public sees things differently. We love Wagner very much, but we love it precisely for Tannhäuser and partly for Lohengrin. 251 ).

In his judgments, Laroche reflects the real course of assimilation of Wagner's work in Russia. "Tannhäuser" and "Lohengrin", still retaining a connection with tradition romantic opera the first half of the century, could be relatively easily assimilated by the Russian public of the 60s and 70s. The Nibelungen, with the exception of individual orchestral episodes that sounded on the concert stage, remained unknown to her, while most musicians could only know Wagner's tetralogy from the score. The mature works of the German operatic reformer, in which his operatic and dramatic principles were most fully and consistently embodied, were widely recognized in Russia, sometimes even acquiring the character of a cult, already at the turn of the new century.

Critical reflection required a number of new names and works that were part of Russian musical life in this period. On this basis, sometimes disagreements and disputes arose, although not so stormy, but reflecting different musical, aesthetic and creative trends. One of these new phenomena, which attracted the close attention of critics and many composers, was Bizet's Carmen, staged in an Italian opera in 1878. From Tchaikovsky's letters it is known what admiration the opera of the French composer aroused in him. Press reviews were more restrained. Cui found many attractive aspects in the character of Bizet's talent: "He had a lot of life, brilliance, enthusiasm, grace, wit, taste, color. Bizet was a melodist - though not wide (like a good half of modern composers), but his short melodic phrases beautiful, natural and flowing freely, he is a wonderful harmonist, fresh, piquant, spicy and also completely natural. He is a first-rate instrument." But with all this, according to Cui, Bizet "did not have the depth and strength of passion." “The dramatic scenes in Carmen,” he claims, “are completely insignificant,” which, however, is not such a big flaw, since “fortunately, in this opera, domestic and local scenes prevail over lyrical and dramatic scenes” ().

It is clear that Cui took "Carmen" very superficially, paying attention only to the external side of the work and passing by what determined its significance as one of the pinnacles of realistic operatic drama in the 19th century. Later, he tried to soften his sentence, noting in the article “Two Foreign Composers” that “probably Bizet would have managed to get out on an independent road (“Carmen” serves as a guarantee in this), but his early death prevented him from doing so” (, 422 ). However, this cursory remark does not cancel the earlier assessment.

Much more deeply and truly managed to appreciate the outstanding innovative value of "Carmen" Laroche. In a meaningful, thoughtfully written article about Bizet's opera, he notes, first of all, the novelty of the plot from the life of the social lower classes, although borrowed from the long-written short story by Mérimée, but not inferior to "the most extreme manifestations of modern real fiction" (, 239 ). And although "the local color, the original costume of poetic Spain brightens things up to some extent," but "the colorful costume is not a farce rag draping a soulless hanger; underneath it beats the pulse of true passion." Unlike Bizet's earlier operas, in which, with all the melodic richness and juiciness of color, "the inner content, the warmth of the heart recede significantly into the background", in "Carmen", according to Laroche, the main thing is the life drama. “The highest point in the part of Carmen and almost the pearl of the entire score” is that “moment where she ceases to be Carmen, where the element of tavern and gypsy completely falls silent in her”, according to Laroche - the scene of fortune-telling in the third act (, 244 ).

The other side of this opera, which especially attracts criticism, consists in the combination of novelty and freshness of the musical language with the traditional form. This way of updating the opera genre seems to Laroche the most reasonable and fruitful. “How good it would be,” he writes, “if our young composer talents learned Bizet's point of view! No one is bothering to turn back the movement of history, to return to the days of Mozart and Haydn, to deprive art of all that brilliance, all the impressive wealth that it acquired during the 19th century ... Our desires are turned in the other direction: we would like to combine the great acquisitions of our century with the great beginnings developed by the previous one, the combination of rich color with an impeccable pattern, luxurious harmonies with a transparent form. It is in this sense that phenomena like "Carmen" are especially important and precious" (, 247 ).

In the article "P. I. Tchaikovsky as a Dramatic Composer", Laroche returns to the question of the innovative meaning of "Carmen", characterizing it as a "turning point" in the history of opera, the source of all "modern operatic realism", despite the romantic flavor of the setting in which the action unfolds: “From the realm of history, historical anecdote, legend, fairy tale and myth, modern opera in the person of Carmen has decisively stepped into the realm of modern real life, although for the first time in an emergency” ( , 221 ).

It is no coincidence that when speaking about Tchaikovsky's operatic work, Laroche refers to Carmen. In this work he finds the prototype of the "petty-bourgeois opera" (as he defines the modern kind of opera from the life of ordinary people), to which he refers, along with the "Country Honor" of the Italian verist Mascagni, also "Eugene Onegin" and "The Queen of Spades". Comparison of works so different in nature and degree of artistic value may seem unexpected and insufficiently substantiated. But one cannot fail to admit that Laroche correctly grasped one of the trends characterizing the development of operatic creativity in the last quarter of the 19th century. Let us note that Tchaikovsky also spoke very sympathetically about "Country Honor" as a work "almost irresistibly sympathetic and attractive to the public." Mascagni, in his words, "understood that at present the spirit of realism, rapprochement with the truth of life is everywhere ... that a person with his passions and sorrows is more understandable and closer to us than the gods and demigods of Valhalla" (, 369 ).

The later works of Verdi, which became famous in Russia in the late 80s, gave new fuel to the debate about Italian opera. Laroche noticed a tendency to update the composer's style already in Aida. Disputing the opinion about the decline of Verdi's talent, that his "brilliant time" had passed, the critic wrote: "... "Aida" is the highest point that the composer's inspiration and art have hitherto reached; in beauty of motives, it is little or not inferior to the most beloved operas of his purely Italian period, while in decoration, harmony and instrumentation, in dramatic and local coloring, it surpasses them to an amazing degree ”(, 151 ).

With particular interest and at the same time with a clear predilection, critics reacted to Othello. The novelty of the opera was obvious, but it was mostly evaluated negatively. The composer was reproached for lack of independence, the desire to "forge" the manner of Wagner. Cui unexpectedly brings Othello closer to The Stone Guest as an opera of predominantly declamatory style, but at the same time finds in it "a complete decline in creative, melodic talent" (). In the long article A Few Words on Modern Opera Forms, confirming this assessment, he writes: “... Don Carlos, Aida, Othello represent the progressive decline of Verdi, but at the same time a progressive turn towards new forms, based on the demands of dramatic truth" ( , 415 ).

This time, his constant opponent Baskin, who almost literally repeats the words of his opponent (), completely agreed with Kui. However, for Baskin, who believed that the power of the impact of Italian opera comes down "exclusively to the melody", and even reproached Tchaikovsky for wanting to say "something unusual in the field of recitative" in "Eugene Onegin", such a position is quite natural.

The most objectively able to evaluate the new that appears in the later works of Verdi, Tchaikovsky, who saw in them the result of a natural creative evolution, and by no means a rejection of his individuality and the traditions of his domestic art. “A sad occurrence,” he wrote in his Autobiographical Description of a Journey Abroad in 1888. – The ingenious old man Verdi in "Aida" and "Othello" opens up new paths for Italian musicians, not in the least straying towards Germanism (for it is absolutely in vain that many believe that Verdi is following in the footsteps of Wagner), his young compatriots are heading to Germany and trying to acquire laurels in the fatherland of Beethoven, Schumann at the cost of a violent rebirth ... "(, 354 ).

Among the new composer names that attracted the persistent attention of Russian music critics in the 70s and 80s is the name of Brahms, whose works were often heard during this period from the concert stage. However, the work of this composer did not win sympathy in Russia, despite the fact that a number of performers, mostly foreign ones, persistently sought to promote it. Critics of various trends and ways of thinking treated Brahms with the same coldness and indifference, and often with openly expressed antipathy, although they did not deny the purely professional merits of his music. “Brahms,” notes Cui, “belongs to those persons who deserve the most complete and sincere respect, but with whom they avoid society for fear of deadly, overwhelming boredom” (). For Tchaikovsky, he is "one of those ordinary composers with whom German music is so rich" ( , 76 ).

Laroche found such an attitude towards Brahms unfair and reproached his fellow writers for "a certain prejudice" against modern German instrumental music. “To an unaccustomed ear,” he wrote, “from the first time it may seem that Brahms is original; but after listening and getting used to the gifted master, we find that his originality is not fake, but natural. He is characterized by compressed power, powerful dissonance, courageous rhythm ... "( , 112 ).

However, subsequent reviews of Laroche on the works of Brahms differ sharply in tone from this very positive assessment. "German Requiem" did not cause him any feelings, except for "gray and oppressive boredom." At another time, he seems to be reluctantly writing: "I have to relive the not entirely pleasant memory of Brahms' S-moll symphony, glorified by German reviewers abroad and full of pretensions, but dry, boring and devoid of nerve and inspiration, and even technically not representing any interesting task. "( , 167 ).

Similar were the reviews of other critics. For comparison, here are two short excerpts from Ivanov's reviews: "In the [first] symphony of Brahms, there is little individuality, little value ... We meet with Beethoven's manner, then with Mendelssohn's, then, finally, with the influence of Wagner and very little notice the features that characterize the composer himself "( , 1 ). "Brahms' Second Symphony does not represent anything outstanding either in content or in terms of the degree of talent of its author ... This work was coldly received by the public" (, 3 ).

The reason for such a unanimous rejection of the work of Brahms was, as one might assume, a certain isolation, restraint of expression inherent in his music. Under the cover of external severity, criticism failed to feel the penetrating warmth of feeling, although balanced by strict intellectual discipline.

Grieg's music evoked a completely different attitude. Tchaikovsky wrote, comparing him with a German symphonist: “Perhaps Grieg has much less skill than Brahms, the structure of his playing is less exalted, goals and aspirations are not so broad, and there seems to be no encroachment into the bottomless depth at all, but on the other hand, he is more understandable and more related to us, for he is deeply human" (, 345 ).

Other aspects of Grieg's work are emphasized by Cui, who also speaks of him in general with sympathy: "Grieg occupies a prominent place among modern composers; he has his own individuality. His music has enthusiasm, piquancy, freshness, brilliance, he flaunts the originality of dissonances, unexpected transitions of harmonizations, sometimes pretentious, but far from ordinary. ( , 27–28 ).

In general, however, criticism did not pay much attention to the Norwegian composer, whose works gained more popularity in everyday life than on the concert stage.

Notable advances have been made in some areas of musical science. One of its most important tasks is the publication of documents related to the activities of outstanding representatives of the national musical art, the coverage of their life and creative path. Interest in the personalities of major musicians, especially those who left, whose works received wide public recognition, increased in wide readership. At the end of the 1960s, Dargomyzhsky died, Serov soon followed him, and in the 1980s Mussorgsky and Borodin passed away. It was important to collect and preserve in a timely manner everything that helps to understand their human and artistic appearance, to penetrate deeper into the essence of their creative ideas and aspirations.

Great merit belongs in this respect to Stasov. He always tried immediately, without postponing for the future, to consolidate the memory of the departed artist and make everything known about him a common property. In a biographical sketch of Mussorgsky, which appeared in print one and a half to two months after the death of the composer, Stasov wrote: "Our fatherland is so meager in information about its most outstanding sons in terms of talent and creativity, like no other land in Europe" (, 51 ). And he strove, as far as he could, to fill this gap in the areas of music and fine arts that were closest to him.

In 1875, Stasov published the letters of Dargomyzhsky, handed to him by a number of people, with the attachment of the full text of the "Autobiographical Note" printed earlier with abbreviations and some other materials, as well as part of Serov's letters addressed to him. The principle of strict documentation is also observed by Stasov in the work "Modest Petrovich Mussorgsky", where he, in his own words, sought to "collect from Mussorgsky's relatives, friends and acquaintances all the currently available oral and written materials concerning this remarkable person." Widely used in this lively and vividly written essay are also Stasov's personal memories of the composer and his entourage.

The work provides interesting information about the history of the creation of some of Mussorgsky's works, a detailed scenario of his unfinished opera "Salambo" and a number of other valuable information unknown from other sources. But there are also controversial points. So, Stasov was wrong in assessing his works late period, believing that by the end of his life the composer's talent began to weaken. But as the first serious and thorough work on the creative path of the author of "Boris Godunov", written from the position of his ardent defender and propagandist, Stasov's work was a major event for its time, and in many respects has not lost its significance even today.

Also, immediately after the death of the composer, a biography of Borodin was written, published with a small selection of his letters in 1887 and republished in a significantly expanded form two years later ().

Of great value are the Stasov publications of Glinka's legacy, whose memory he continued to serve with unfailing fidelity. Among these publications are such as the original plan of "Ruslan and Lyudmila", Glinka's letters to V. F. Shirkov, the composer's closest collaborator in writing the libretto of this opera. The largest in volume and significance is the edition of Glinka's Notes (1887), which included two previous publications as an appendix.

A lot of various materials on the history of Russian musical culture were published in "Russian Starina" and other periodicals of the same type. The genre of popular science biography, designed for a wide readership, developed especially intensively. P. A. Trifonov, who studied music theory under the guidance of Rimsky-Korsakov, worked fruitfully in this genre. His biographical sketches of Russian (Dargomyzhsky, Mussorgsky, Borodin) and foreign (Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner) composers were published in Vestnik Evropy during the 80s and early 90s, some of them then appeared in expanded form as a separate edition. Unlike biographical works Stasov, these essays did not contain new documentary material, but were written seriously, conscientiously, with knowledge of the literature and the subject, and fulfilled their purpose quite satisfactorily.

Associated with the Belyaev circle, Trifonov shared mainly "Kuchkist" positions, but he strove to be objective and did not give his work a polemical orientation. In Liszt's biography, the author emphasizes his attentive and interested attitude to the work of Russian composers. In Liszt's own works, some parts of which are "perfectly sustained in the style of old church music", the author notes the closeness "to the nature of the singing of Orthodox music" ( , 174 ). Much attention in the essay on Schumann (Vestnik Evropy, 1885, books 8–9) is given to the composer's impressions of his trip to Russia in 1843 and his Russian acquaintances.

The essay "Richard Wagner" ("Bulletin of Europe", 1884, books 3-4) differs from others in its sharply critical character, in which Trifonov repeats the reproaches against the author of the "Ring of the Nibelung" expressed by Stasov, Cui and other Russian critics. The main ones are reduced to the inexpressiveness of vocal speech and the preponderance of the orchestra over the voices of the characters. Trifonov admits that in Der Ring des Nibelungen there are indeed outstanding places of artistic interest, namely, places "not vocal, but instrumental", but as works of musical and dramatic operas by Wagner, in his opinion, they are untenable. As for the purely biographical side, it is presented here quite correctly.

Some researchers sought to shed light on the little-studied phenomena of Russian musical culture of its initial periods. Famintsyn's works "Buffoons in Rus'" (St. Petersburg, 1889), "Gusli. Russian folk instrument" (St. Petersburg, 1890), "Domra and related: musical instruments of the Russian people" (St. Petersburg, 1891) contain interesting and useful factual material. ). Despite the large number of new studies that have appeared in the time that has elapsed since their publication, these works have not yet completely lost their scientific significance.

In the "Essay on the History of Music in Russia" by P. D. Perepelitsyn, published as an appendix to the translation of A. Dommer's book "A Guide to the Study of the History of Music" (Moscow, 1884), a relatively large place is given to the 18th century. The author does not try to belittle the achievements of Russian composers of this century, appreciating, in particular, the work of Fomin. But on the whole, his review is very incomplete, largely random, the reason for which is both the compressed volume of the Essay and, mainly, the almost complete lack of development of sources at that time. "Essay on the history of music in Russia in cultural and social terms" (St. Petersburg, 1879) by the once famous writer V. O. Mikhnevich is full of facts, often anecdotal, from the field of musical life, but does not contain any information about music itself.

Much more significant progress was made in the study of the church singing art of Ancient Rus'. The research activity of DV Razumovsky continued to develop fruitfully. Among his works published in the period under review, first of all, an essay on znamenny chant, placed in the first volume of the fundamental publication "The Circle of Ancient Church Singing of Znamenny Chant" (Moscow, 1884), should be named.

In the 80s, the first works of one of the largest scientists in the field of Russian musical medieval studies, S. V. Smolensky, appeared. Among his merits is the introduction into scientific circulation of the most valuable monuments of ancient Russian singing art. In 1887, he published a description of the so-called Resurrection Hermology of the XIII century with photocopies of some sheets of the manuscript. This is the first, albeit fragmentary, printed reproduction of a monument of Znamenny writing of such an ancient origin. A year later, "The Alphabet of the Znamenny Letter of the Elder Alexander Mezenets (1668)" was published, edited and with a detailed commentary by Smolensky, which is an excellent guide to reading hook notation. To complete the review of the most important publications in this area, we should name the first of the series of studies by I. I. Voznesensky, devoted to new varieties of singing art of the 17th century: "Big Znamenny Chant" (Kiev, 1887; correctly - chant) and "Kiev chant" (Riga , 1890) . Drawing on extensive handwritten material, the author characterizes the main intonation-melodic features and the structure of the chants of these chants.

The 70–80s can be considered a new stage in the development of Russian musical folklore. If researchers of folk song have not yet completely freed themselves from certain outdated theoretical schemes, then these schemes are preserved as a kind of artificial and, in essence, no longer a "working" superstructure. The main patterns of the structure of the Russian folk song are derived from direct observation of its existence in the environment in which it was born and continues to live. This leads to fundamentally important discoveries, forcing a partial revision or correction of previously prevailing ideas.

One of these discoveries was the establishment of the polyphonic nature of folk singing. This observation was first made by Yu. N. Melgunov, who noted in the introduction to the collection Russian Songs Recorded Directly from the Voices of the People (Issue 1–2, St. Petersburg; 1879–1885) that the songs are sung in the choir not in unison, but with various undertones and variants of the main melody. Previous researchers considered the folk song only in terms of monophony and compared it with oriental monodic cultures. True, Serov noted in the article "Folk Song as a Subject of Science" that "the people in their impromptu choirs do not always sing in unison," but he did not draw the proper conclusions from this fact. Melgunov tried to reconstruct folk polyphony, but this experience of his turned out to be insufficiently convincing, since he does not reproduce the choral texture with all its features, but gives a very conditional and approximate piano arrangement.

A further step in the study of Russian folk polyphony was N. Palchikov's collection "Peasant Songs Recorded in the Village of Nikolaevka, Menzelinsky District, Ufa Province" (St. Petersburg, 1888). Observing folk singing in one rural area for a long time, the compiler of the collection came to the conclusion that “there are no voices in it “only accompanying” a well-known motive. Each voice reproduces a tune (melody) in its own way, and the sum of these tunes is what should be called a "song", since it is reproduced in its entirety, with all shades, exclusively in a peasant choir, and not with a sole performance. ( , 5 ).

The method used by Palchikov to recreate the polyphonic structure of songs is imperfect; he would record the chant from individual members of the choir and then give a summary of all the individual variations. Such a simple summation of voices cannot give a true idea of ​​the polyphonic sound of a song in a folk choir. Palchikov himself notes that “during a choral performance, the singers strictly follow each other, get along ... and in places that are especially bright, defining the mood or turn of the melody, they adhere to some monotonous performance of a well-known figure.” A completely reliable recording of folk polyphony could only be achieved with the help of sound recording equipment, which began to be used in the folklore-collecting work of Russian researchers of folk art from the end of the 19th century.

In the collection of N. M. Lopatin and V. P. Prokunin "Russian Folk Lyrical Songs" (1889), a special task was set for a comparative analysis of various local versions of the same songs. “In various places in Russia,” Lopatin writes in the introduction to the collection, “the same song often changes beyond recognition. Even in one village, especially a lyrical song, you can hear it sung in one way at one end, and in a completely different way at the other ... "( , 57 ). It is possible, according to the author, to understand a song as a living artistic organism only by comparing its various variants, taking into account the specific conditions of its existence. The compilers take the lyrical folk song as the subject of their study, since on its material one can more clearly trace the formation of new variants in the process of migration than on the ritual song, which more steadily retains its form due to its connection with a certain ritual or game action.

Each of the songs included in the collection is provided with an indication of the place of its recording, which is a mandatory requirement of modern folklore, but in the 80s of the last century it was just beginning to enter practice. In addition, analytical essays are devoted to individual songs, in which their different textual and melodic versions are compared. The inseparable connection between the text and the tune in the folk song was one of the starting points of the compilers of the collection: "Departure from the correct arrangement of the text entails a change in the tune; the changed tune often requires a different arrangement of the words... folk song, to arrange the words in it according to its melody, and it is absolutely impossible for the melody, even if correctly and accurately recorded, to substitute the text of the song, written down or carelessly and adjusted to the usual poetic size, or written down from the retelling of the singer, and not under his singing " ( , 44–45 ).

The principles of the study of folk songs, which formed the basis of the collection by Lopatin and Prokunin, were undoubtedly progressive in nature and were largely new for their time. At the same time, the compilers turned out to be not quite consistent, placing in the collection, along with their own recordings, songs borrowed from previously published collections, without checking the degree of their reliability. In this regard, their scientific positions are somewhat ambivalent.

Wide attention was attracted by the book of the Ukrainian researcher P. P. Sokalsky "Russian folk music Great Russian and Little Russian in their melodic and rhythmic structure", published posthumously in 1888. It was the first theoretical work of this magnitude, devoted to the song folklore of the East Slavic peoples. A number of provisions underlying that work had already been expressed by Serov, Melgunov and others , but Sokalsky for the first time tried to reduce individual thoughts and observations on the modal and rhythmic features of Russian and Ukrainian folk songs into a single coherent system. At the same time, he could not avoid schematism and some exaggerations. However, despite its weaknesses, Sokalsky's work aroused research thought and gave impetus to the further development of the issues raised in it, and this is its undeniable positive significance.

The starting point of Sokalsky's theoretical calculations is the position that when analyzing the modal structure of a Russian folk song, one cannot proceed from the octave scale, since in many of its samples the melody range does not exceed quarts or fifths. He considers the oldest songs in the range of the "unfulfilled quart", i.e., a non-semitone sequence of three steps within the quart range.

The merit of Sokalsky is that he first drew attention to the widespread use of anhemitonic scales in Russian folk songs, which, according to Serov, are peculiar only to the music of the peoples of the "yellow race". However, an observation that was true in itself was absolutized by Sokalsky and turned into a kind of universal law. “The fact is,” he writes, “that the scale is called “Chinese” in vain. It should be called not by the name of the people, but by the name of the era, i.e., the scale of the "epoch of the quart" as a whole historical phase in musical development through which the most ancient music of all peoples passed" ( , 41 ) . Proceeding from this position, Sokalsky establishes three historical stages in the development of modal thinking: “the era of the fourth, the era of the fifth and the era of the third”, and the era of the third, marked by “the appearance of an introductory tone into the octave, more accurately indicated by the tonic and tonality”, is considered by him as a transition to full diatonic.

Subsequent studies have shown the failure of this rigid scheme (see: 80 for a critique of it). Among the songs of ancient origin, there are quite a few whose melody revolves within two or three adjacent steps, not reaching the volume of a quart, and those whose scale significantly exceeds the quart range. The absolute primacy of anhemitonics is also not confirmed.

But if Sokalsky's general theory is vulnerable and can cause serious objections, then the melodic analysis of individual songs contains a number of interesting and valuable observations. Some of the thoughts expressed by him testify to the subtle observation of the author and are generally recognized in modern folklore. For example, about the relativity of the concept of tonic as applied to a folk song and about the fact that the main foundation of a melody is not always the lower tone of the scale. Of course, Sokalsky's statement is true with the inextricable connection between poetic and musical rhythm in a folk song and the impossibility of considering its meter-rhythmic structure without this connection.

Some provisions of Sokalsky's work received special development in studies devoted to individual problems of folk tverstvo. Such is Famintsyn's work on anhemitonic scales in the folklore of European peoples. Like Sokalsky, Famintsyn considers anhemitonics a universal stage in the development of musical thinking and pays special attention to its manifestations in Russian folk art. The German philologist Rudolf Westphal, who collaborated with Melgunov in the study of folk songs, pays special attention in his works to issues of musical rhythm: to conclusions very close to those made by Sokalsky. Noting the discrepancy between song stresses and grammatical stresses, Westphal writes: "There is no doubt that in no folk song one should try to determine the size and rhythm from one word of the text: if it is not possible to use the help of a melody, determining the size is unthinkable" (, 145 ).

In general, it should be recognized that the results of Russian musical folklore in the 70s and 80s were quite significant. And if the researchers of folk art could not yet completely free themselves from outdated theoretical ideas, then the scope of observations on specific forms of existence of a folk song was significantly expanded, which made it possible to deepen its understanding and come to some new conclusions and generalizations that have retained their scientific value to this day.

Works in the field of music theory, appearing in the 70s and 80s, were dictated mainly by the needs of music education and had a practical pedagogical orientation. Such are the textbooks of harmony by Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov, intended for the corresponding training courses at the Moscow and St. Petersburg Conservatories.

Tchaikovsky's Guide to the Practical Study of Harmony summarizes his personal experience of teaching this course at the Moscow Conservatory. As the author emphasizes in the preface, his book "does not delve into the essence and cause of musical-harmonic phenomena, does not try to discover the principle that binds the rules that determine harmonic beauty into scientific unity, but sets out in a possible sequence the indications derived by empirical means for novice musicians who are looking for a guide. in my attempts to compose" ( , 3 ).

In general, the textbook is of a traditional nature and does not contain significant new points compared to the established system of teaching harmony, but the characteristic emphasis gives it special attention to the melodic side of the chord connection. “The true beauty of harmony,” writes Tchaikovsky, “is not that the chords are arranged in one way or another, but that the voices, not embarrassed by either one or the other way, would evoke this or that arrangement of the chord by their properties” ( , 43 ). Based on this principle, Tchaikovsky gives tasks for harmonizing not only the bass and upper voices, but also the middle voices.

"Textbook of Harmony" by Rimsky-Korsakov, published in the first edition in 1884, is distinguished by a more detailed presentation of the rules of harmonic writing. It is possible that this is precisely why he stayed longer in pedagogical practice than Tchaikovsky's "Guide", and was reprinted many times until the middle of our century. A step forward was Rimsky-Korsakov's complete rejection of the rudiments of the general bass theory. In tasks on bass harmonization, he lacks digitalization and focuses on harmonizing the upper voice.

Among the educational and theoretical works of Russian composers, L. Bussler's Strict Style translated by S. I. Taneev (Moscow, 1885) should be mentioned. Taneyev's own works on polyphony, far beyond the scope and content of a textbook (as well as Rimsky-Korsakov's "Guide to Instrumentation"), were completed later.

A special place in the musical-theoretical literature of the period under review is occupied by two textbooks on church singing, the creation of which was caused by the growing interest in this area of ​​Russian musical art: Tchaikovsky's "A Concise Textbook of Harmony" (1875) and "Harmonization of Old Russian church singing according to Hellenic and Byzantine theory" (1886) Yu. K. Arnold. The works of both authors are written from different positions and have different addresses. Tchaikovsky, destining his textbook for regents and teachers of choral singing, focuses on the established practice of church singing. In its main part, his textbook is an abbreviated summary of the information available in the "Guide to the Practical Study of Harmony" previously written by him. What is new is only the introduction of examples from the works of recognized authors of church music, mainly Bortnyansky.

Arnold had another task - to promote the renewal of church singing art on the basis of the revival of old melodies in harmonic forms that most correspond to their modal and intonational nature. Without denying the artistic merits of Bortnyansky's work, Arnold claims that "in the spirit of his time, he in everything and always showed himself to be the pet of the Italian, and not the Russian muse" (, 5 ). Arnold is equally critical of the work of the composers of the later generation Turchaninov and A.F. Lvov, in whom the ancient Russian tunes are "forcibly squeezed into unsuitable foreign clothes" (, 6 ). Since the Russian singing manuals of the 16th-17th centuries do not contain direct indications on this matter, Arnold turns to ancient musical theory to derive the rules for harmonizing ancient cult melodies. “It is truly strange,” he remarks, “how the former, such great zeal, who showed such great zeal for the restoration of Russian church singing, completely ... forgot about the documented fact that the entire apparatus of church music went to Russia directly from the Byzantines, the direct successors of the ancient Hellenic art!” ( , 13 ).

Based on this erroneous, although still quite widespread at that time, view, Arnold produces complex theoretical calculations that make his work unreadable and completely unsuitable as a teaching aid. Concerning practical advice, then they are reduced to a few elementary rules: the basis of harmony should be a triad, a seventh chord is allowed occasionally, mainly in cadence, altered sounds are possible with intratonal deviations, the use of an introductory tone and ending on a tonic sound is excluded. The only (for 252 pages of text!) example of harmonization of the melody is sustained in the usual choral warehouse.

The first general works on the history of music had a pedagogical orientation - "Essay on the General History of Music" (St. Petersburg, 1883) by L. A. Sacchetti and "Essays on the History of Music from Ancient Times to the Half of the 19th Century" (M., 1888) by A. S. Razmadze. The title of the latter reads: "Compiled from lectures given by the author at the Moscow Conservatory." Both works are of a compilation nature and do not represent independent scientific value. Sacchetti, in the preface to his book, admitted: “Specialists who are familiar with the capital works on this subject will not find anything essentially new in my book ...” He addressed the general public, “interested in music and looking for serious moral pleasures in this art,” suggesting also that the book can serve as a manual for students of conservatories. As in most foreign musical-historical works of that time, Sacchetti focuses on the pre-classical period and gives only a brief overview of the most important musical phenomena of the 19th century, refraining from any assessments. So, about Wagner, he writes that his work "belongs not to the field of history, but to criticism", and after summary aesthetic views of the German operatic reformer, limit yourself to a simple list of his main works. The music of the Slavic peoples is singled out as a separate section, but the distribution of material in this section suffers from the same disproportion. Sacchetti does not concern the work of still living composers at all, therefore we do not meet in the book the names of either Borodin, or Rimsky-Korsakov, or Tchaikovsky, although by that time they had already passed a fairly significant segment of their creative path.

For all its shortcomings, Sacchetti's work still has advantages over Razmadze's loose, verbose book, in which musical samples are of main interest. old music until the beginning of the 18th century.

The period of the 1970s and 1980s was one of the most interesting and fruitful in the development of Russian thought about music. The appearance of many new outstanding works by the greatest Russian composers of the post-Glinka era, acquaintance with new phenomena of foreign music, and finally, general profound changes in the structure of musical life - all this provided rich food for printed disputes and discussions, which often took on a very sharp form. In the process of these discussions, the significance of the new, which at first acquaintance sometimes struck and puzzled with its unusualness, was realized, different aesthetic positions and different evaluation criteria were determined. Much of what worried the musical community at that time became a thing of the past and became the property of history, but a number of disagreements persisted later, remaining the subject of controversy for decades.

As for the actual musical science, it developed unevenly. Undoubtedly, successes in the field of folklore and the study of ancient Russian singing art. Following the tradition established in the 1960s by Odoevsky, Stasov and Razumovsky, their immediate successors Smolensky and Voznesensky set the primary task of searching for and analyzing authentic manuscripts of the Russian musical Middle Ages. The publication of documentary materials related to the life and work of Glinka, Dargomyzhsky, Serov, Mussorgsky, Borodin lays the foundation for the future history of Russian music of the classical period. Less significant are the achievements of theoretical musicology, which still remained subordinate to the practical tasks of musical education and was not defined as an independent scientific discipline.

In general, the Russian thought about music became more mature, the range of its interests and observations expanded, new questions of a creative and aesthetic order were raised, which had a vital relevance for the national musical culture. And the fierce disputes that unfolded on the pages of newspapers and magazines reflected the real complexity and diversity of the ways of its development.

Chapter I. Musical criticism in the system of a holistic cultural model.

§ 1. Cross axiology of modern culture and musical criticism.

§2. Axiology "inside" musical criticism system and process).

§3. Dialectic of objective and subjective.

§4. The situation of artistic perception is an intramusical aspect).

Chapter II. Musical criticism as a type of information and as part of information processes.

§1. informatization processes.

§2. Censorship, propaganda and music criticism.

§3. Musical criticism as a kind of information.

§4. Information environment.

§5. Relationship between music criticism and journalism trends.

§6. Regional aspect.

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Musical Art", 17.00.02 VAK code

• Charles Baudelaire and the formation of literary and artistic journalism in France: the first half - the middle of the 19th century. 2000, candidate of philological sciences Solodovnikova, Tatyana Yurievna

• Theoretical problems of Soviet musical criticism at the present stage 1984, candidate of art criticism Kuznetsova, Larisa Panfilovna

• Musical culture in the Soviet political system of the 1950s - 1980s: Historical and cultural aspect of the study 1999, doctor of culture. Sciences Bogdanova, Alla Vladimirovna

• Cultural and educational potential of Russian musical critical thought in the middle of the 19th - early 20th centuries. 2008, candidate of cultural studies Sekotova, Elena Vladimirovna

• Media criticism in the theory and practice of journalism 2003, Doctor of Philology Korochensky, Alexander Petrovich

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Modern musical criticism and its influence on national culture"

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Musical Art", Ukrainian, Anna Vadimovna

List of references for dissertation research candidate of art history Ukrainian, Anna Vadimovna, 2006

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through recognition original texts dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Stasov considered art and music criticism to be the main business of his life. From 1847 he systematically appeared in the press with articles on literature, art, and music. An encyclopedic figure, Stasov impressed with his versatility of interests (articles on Russian and foreign music, painting, sculpture, architecture, research and collecting works in the field of archeology, history, philology, folklore, etc.). Adhering to advanced democratic views, Stasov in his critical activity relied on the principles of the aesthetics of Russian revolutionary democrats - V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, H.G. Chernyshevsky. He considered realism and nationality to be the foundations of advanced contemporary art. Stasov fought against academic art, far from life, the official center of which in Russia was the St. Petersburg Empire Academy of Arts, for realistic art, for the democratization of art and life. A man of great erudition, having friendly relations with many leading artists, musicians, writers, Stasov was a mentor and adviser for a number of them, a defender against the attacks of reactionary official criticism.

Stasov's musical-critical activity, which began in 1847 ("Musical Review" in "Notes of the Fatherland"), embraces more than half a century and is a vivid and vivid reflection of the history of our music during this period of time.

Having begun at a dull and sad time in Russian life in general and Russian art in particular, it continued in an era of awakening and a remarkable rise in artistic creativity, the formation of a young Russian musical school, its struggle with routine and its gradual recognition not only here in Russia, but also on West.

In countless magazine and newspaper articles, Stasov responded to every somewhat remarkable event in the life of our new music school, ardently and convincingly interpreting the meaning of new works, fiercely repelling the attacks of opponents of the new direction.

Not being a real specialist musician (composer or theorist), but having received a general musical education, which he expanded and deepened by independent studies and acquaintance with outstanding works of Western art (not only new, but also old - old Italians, Bach, etc. .), Stasov went little into a specially technical analysis of the formal side of the musical works being analyzed, but with all the more fervor defended their aesthetic and historical significance.

Guided by an ardent love for his native art and its best figures, a natural critical flair, a clear awareness of the historical necessity of the national direction of art and an unshakable faith in its final triumph, Stasov could sometimes go too far in expressing his enthusiastic passion, but comparatively rarely made mistakes in general assessment everything significant, talented and original.

By this he connected his name with the history of our national music for the second half of the 19th century.

In terms of sincerity of conviction, disinterested enthusiasm, vehemence of presentation and feverish energy, Stasov stands completely apart not only among our music critics, but also among European ones.

In this respect, he somewhat resembles Belinsky, leaving aside, of course, any comparison of their literary talents and significance.

It is to Stasov's great merit before Russian art that his unobtrusive work as a friend and adviser of our composers should be placed (Starting with Serov, whose friend Stasov was for a long series of years, and ending with representatives of the young Russian school - Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Cui, Glazunov, etc.), who discussed with them their artistic intentions, details of the script and libretto, busied themselves with their personal affairs and contributed to the perpetuation of their memory after their death (the biography of Glinka, for a long time the only one we have, the biographies of Mussorgsky and our other composers, publication of their letters, various memoirs and biographical materials, etc.). Stasov did a lot as a historian of music (Russian and European).

European art his articles and brochures are devoted to: "L" "abbe Santini et sa collection musicale a Rome" (Florence, 1854; Russian translation in the "Library for Reading", for 1852), a lengthy description of the autographs of foreign musicians belonging to the Imperial Public Library ( "Domestic Notes", 1856), "Liszt, Schumann and Berlioz in Russia" ("Severny Vestnik", 1889, Nos. 7 and 8; an extract from here "Liszt in Russia" was printed with some additions in the "Russian Musical Newspaper" 1896, No. 8-9), "Letters of a great man" (Fr. Liszt, "Northern Herald", 1893), "New Biography of Liszt" ("Northern Herald", 1894) and other Articles on the history of Russian music: "What is beautiful demestvennaya singing" ("Proceedings of the Imperial Archaeological Society", 1863, vol. V), a description of Glinka's manuscripts ("Report of the Imperial Public Library for 1857"), a number articles in the III volume of his works, including: "Our music for the last 25 years" ("Bulletin of Europe", 1883, No. 10), "Brakes of Russian Art" (ibid., 1885, Nos. 5--6) and others .; biographical essay "N.A. Rimsky-Korsakov" ("Northern Herald", 1899, No. 12), "German organs among Russian amateurs" ("Historical Bulletin", 1890, No. 11), "In memory of M.I. Glinka" ("Historical Bulletin", 1892, No. 11, etc.), "Ruslan and Lyudmila" by M.I. Glinka, on the 50th anniversary of the opera "(" Yearbook of the Imperial Theaters "1891--92 and ed.), "Glinka's Assistant" (Baron F.A. Rahl; "Russian Antiquity", 1893, No. 11; about him " Yearbook of the Imperial Theatres", 1892--93), biographical sketch by Ts.A. Cui ("Artist", 1894, No. 2); biographical sketch by M.A. Belyaev ("Russian Musical Newspaper", 1895, No. 2), "Russian and foreign operas performed at the Imperial theaters in Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries" ("Russian Musical Newspaper", 1898, nos. 1, 2, 3, etc.), "Composition attributed to Bortnyansky" (project for printing hook singing ; in the "Russian Musical Newspaper", 1900, No. 47), etc. Stasov's editions of the letters of Glinka, Dargomyzhsky, Serov, Borodin, Mussorgsky, Prince Odoevsky, Liszt, etc., are of great importance. The collection of materials for the history of the Russian church singing, compiled by Stasov in the late 50s and handed over by him to the famous musical archaeologist D.V. Razumovsky, who used it for his major work on church singing in Russia.