Question by fierydog: Explain the significance of Modest Mussorgsky?
He is known for Pictures at an Exhibition and Night on Bald Mountain. Both of which are compositions I don’t even like. Well I guess I like the latter one, but think they are both overrated. How is he so highly regarded with so few notable compositions? What makes him better than Mily Balakirev or Cesar Cui? There certainly must be much more to his merit than his compositions, he must have done something revolutionary to be considered a great? What did he do? Serious question, don’t patronize me just explain why.
FYI to you two: I am listening to the whole opera Boris Godunov right now. First impression: to me it fits on the same level of the ballet Spartacus. But obviously this opera is 3 hours long so long way to go. My problem is why did Rimsky-Korsakov have to edit nearly all of his works!?
Answers and Views:
Answer by King of the Rats
Maybe he was the inspiration for the name of the band Modest Mouse?
Read all the answers in the comments.
Know better? Leave your own answer!
petr b says
First, re-audition "Night on Bald Mountain" in its original orchestration by the composer (there is now a recent recording available.) What was done to it by later arranger-orchestrators was an aesthetically criminal 'bland-ization' of a relatively good-crazy modern work, with touches of bitonality: the later versions are 'ironed out,' notes were changed! What was done is a bit like giving the problematical genius kid Ritalin to shut him up ~ "Philistines performs surgery on work of genius."
Listen to his most amazing and often disturbing song cycle "The Nursery," and the "Songs and Dances of Death."
Then to the full length Opera, Boris Godunov, uncut with all the choral scenes beautifully written direct in the Russian liturgical style, long before any other Russian dared.
The composer was very concerned with and successful in imbuing the vocal works with verismo, i.e. true to life, the inner psychology of the narrator in the songs, the inner character of his Opera personages. This includes a rawness which while readily consumed in Europe by general audiences in the form of Verdi operas was not so readily received by the Russian art-consuming audience, an extremely tiny minority of upper middle class and the titled wealthy, still living within a feudal system and far more conservative than their European audience counterpart.
More than the other "Russian Five" and other Russian nationalist composers, he got more to the true core of embodying Russian folk music and the national Ethos in his music. Other Russians of the period (imho) are all tinged with more European influenced vocabulary and style, by dint of their training and / or sensibility – or both. (That is why I find many of them neither here nor there, and bland.)
Rimsky-Korsakov's 'Russian-ness' is quite genuine enough, with much of the writing more than wonderful, yet it seems at times nearly a tourist post card notion compared to the immediacy and directness of Mussorgsky's. I believe Mussorgsky was not even thinking of audience, and the other Russian composers as more part of the social pack, were. (Personally, I admire the hell out of any artist who is not thinking of – therefore out of danger of pandering to – their audience.)
Boris Godunov was rejected at least once, if not twice (perhaps for reasons of political caution, perhaps too, because there was no Diva – female -starring role – a more plainly overly cautious bourgeois reasoning.) Balakirev refused to accept or conduct the original completed orchestration of Night on Bald Mountain.
There is more truly original 'forward' musical invention and innovation – and successful, too – in that original orchestration of Night on Bald Mountain than by any other Russian of the period.
It seems it is only very recently that Mussorgsky's original orchestrations have been dusted off and come back into circulation, now being performed and recorded. I heard a recording just within this last year of the (original) Night on Bald Mountain which completely revised my assessment (and enjoyment) of that piece. It is rather like seeing the before and after of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel with its centuries of dirt removed – i.e. revelatory. (For centuries, art historians were resolute that Michelangelo was not a colorist. After the cleaning, turns out the man was a colorist.)
A truly great and innovative composer who, due to pathology and early addiction to alcohol, which accounts for all those 'projected' and unfinished works; left much undone, much barely finished, and a relative small output. (though the full length Boris Godunov should be enough to put any composer permanently on the charts….)
Best regards.
P.s. I think the piano score of "Pictures" almost wholly successful, with one glaring exception; the finale is not successful as piano music.
P.p.s. If you think 'Spartacus' can hold the stub of a snubbed candle to 'Boris Gudanov,' Houston, we have a problem! I'm thinking you need to forget having heard the Mussorgsky you think less of and your (former) opinion of it at the door, and try to anew. Forget all else and that which came after and listen to it as if you were a contemporary – always the best way to listen to anything.
del_icious_manager says
Musorgsky's greatest contribution to music was his epic opera 'Boris Godunov'. His other opera 'Khovanshchina' was also a great achievement, albeit unfinished on his death. His 'Songs and Dances of Death' are also very fine. You need to look beyond the pot-boilers to discover Musorgsky's true importance as a composer. Cui was a minor miniaturist of relatively little importance. I have already given you my opinion on Balakirev in your earlier question dedicated to him.