Talk:Alexander Scriabin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Promethean Chords

When I type in the word 'promethean chords' I always come up to a composition by Scriabin. I think it was used in his later work, to describe whenever he used a handful of notes to create one enormous chord on the piano. Is Scriabin the only guy who used Promethean Chords in his work? I think maybe a scholar or a hardcore piano musician may be able to help clarify this.

Hm. I always thought that people were talking about "The Promethean Chord"; using the name to refer to a specific chord shape that Scriabin invented (as far as you can "invent" a chord, anyway). It's mentioned in the film The Caveman's Valentine (for which we don't seem to have an article). The "Caveman," as he's called, describes it as... Well, I don't remember exactly. Something like "Nothing but a minor 7th with a bunch of hocus-pocus suspensions thrown in." I know he said "with a bunch of hocus-pocus suspensions thrown in," but I don't remember what the first part really was. ("Suspensions" are certain pitches, usually a 2nd or a 4th, used in a chord where a 3rd would ordinarily be used. Sorry, that's a very bad explanation. But for an idea of what they sound like: those last three chords in Bach's "Tocatta and Fugue" are, in order, a Sus4, Sus2, and major chord, all with the same root note)Marksman45 03:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
See the very stubby Synthetic chord. Hyacinth 11:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synaesthesia speculation

I'm seeing a possible contradiction between articles re/ Scriabin's ability/condition... This article refers to Scriabin as a synesthete, yet the synaesthesia article claims: Alexander Scriabin may have been, but probably wasn't, a synesthete. The color system he described and which he used in pieces such as Prometheus, unlike most systems and synaesthetic experience, line up with the circle of fifths, indicating that it was a thought out system that was also influenced by his theosophic readings, and based on Sir Isaac Newton's Optics. -- Ds13 20:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with the assertions on Synestheia that Scriabin probably wasn't a synesthetete (of course, because I added it). Check the external links at the bottom, those are what I based this conclusion on. Hyacinth 21:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Sources & Synaesthesia

I think sources like Samson 1977 and Rudhyar 1926b (presumably books) should be listed in a References section. These sources are at least as important as external links.

On a sidenote, I think the synaesthesia-issue is out of place in its present form. The part about synaesthesia seems to be inspired by only one (extensive) online source which tries to argue against Scriabin experiencing the physiological condition of synaesthesia. It is a little strange to learn from an article like this that 'Scriabin most likely was NOT a physiological synaesthete' (as if the reader thought he was, or heard someone say he was). It would be better to cover the debate as a whole instead of attacking a position that isn't even mentioned before. But then, how relevant is this issue altogether? Which important sources do consider Scriabin to be a synaesthete; or why is it so important to argue against this position? - Strangeloop (talk) 09:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By "out of place" you mean incorrect? Examples of the position that he was a synaesthete include wikipedia (obviously you'll have to wait for other examples):
  • [1]: "The colors used for each pitch were actually derived from Scriabin's synaesthesia, a condition wherein one experiences stimulus in one sense in response to real stimulus in another sense. In Scriabin's case individual pitches and even chords produced a sensation of color or colors (see clavier à lumières for the colors)."
  • [2]: "Scriabin selected the colors based on his synaesthetic experience."
The article does not state, out of the blue, that some position never before encountered by the reader is not true. You actually left out the exact words you disagree with: "Though often considered derived from Scriabin's synaesthesia..."
Do you disagree that he was not a synaesthete? Do you actually disagree that no one thought or thinks he was? Do you think that the information regarding influences on his synaesthetic system hurt the article?
Considering that you appear to be requesting someone make a correction you yourself are unable to make or determine is necessary, what would your standard be for "relevance" and the "importance" of sources? Hyacinth 20:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't disagree with what the article says, let me be clear about that. By 'out of place' I do not mean 'incorrect'; note the addition in its present form. My main point is just that the way the article now talks about Scriabin's (non)synaestesia is maybe not the most logical way to talk about the issue in the context of the article. When I read this article for the very first time (which was recently), the paragraph in question did strike me as being phrased a little illogical; I literally thought 'Huh? As if I thought he was or as if the article mentioned he was considered to be - did I miss something?'.
Well, maybe I did miss something, namely the phrase you are (rightly) quoting: 'Though often considered...'. But that's exactly my point: I would think that is too meager. I think the article would benefit from sketching the debate (if there is any) more fully, before attacking whatever assertion. And if there is no debate, it might be more appropriate to say something like 'Judging from works like Prometheus: TPoF, one might consider Scriabin to be synaesthetic. However, the fact that so and so (color system) indicates that this conclusion is unwarranted.'
Concerning your last point, some clarification seems in place indeed. By using the words 'relevant' and 'important', I do not mean 'relevancy' or 'importance' judging from some absolute standard. I used this concepts with regard to the context the article provides; thus, I was asking something like: 'In the article (in its present form), how relevant or important is the debate (again, if there is any debate) about Scriabin's synaesthesia? And what sources exactly do advance the position that is attacked in the article?'. If there would be no clear sources outside of Wikipedia, this would not render the issue irrelevant; one could always say something like I proposed above ('one might consider...').
I hope I'm being clear now. Once more I want to stress that I don't disagree with any of the conclusions being drawn in the article. In short, maybe the issue at hand boils down to this: the phrase 'though often considered' is not very encyclopedic unless there is provided some source; if there is no clear source, the point could be restated like I proposed above. - Strangeloop (talk) 22:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • John Harrison (2001). Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing, ISBN 0192632450: "In fact, there is considerable doubt about the legitimacy of Scriabin's claim, or rather the claims made on his behalf, as we shall discuss in Chapter 5." (p.31-2)
  • Victoria Finlay (2003). Color: A Natural History of the Palette, ISBN 0345444: "Scriabin was synaesthetic, which meant his brain made connections between things that the majority of people do not believe to be fundamentally connected." (p.196)
  • B. M. Galeyev and I. L. Vanechkina (August 2001). "Was Scriabin a Synesthete?", Leonardo, Vol. 34, Issue 4, pp. 357 - 362: "authors conclude that the nature of Scriabin’s 'color-tonal' analogies was associative, i.e. psychological; accordingly, the existing belief that Scriabin was a distinctive, unique 'synesthete' who really saw the sounds of music—that is, literally had an ability for 'co-sensations'— is placed in doubt."
Hyacinth

[edit] Hands

I'm gonna nitpick at something, if I may. The article says, "...became a noted pianist despite his small hands with a span of barely over an octave." I'm a bit confused; "barely over an octave" is quite a distance on a piano, and not one that someone with small hands (at least not what I would call small hands) could span.

A photo example. This photograph shows my hand, which (to my mind,at least) have a somewhat larger span than average, spanning across one octave on a piano with standard-sized keys. (By extending my thumb to a nearly 90 degree angle from my hand and my pinky to a 45 degree angle, I can accurately reach the next two white keys past that octave)Marksman45 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but your piano could use some repairs! (see photo) Grover cleveland 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Relatively speaking, that is a small handspan. Fredrick Chopin used ninths in many of his works such as the fantasy impromptu. Beethoven wrote a tenth to be rolled(i can't remember which work). Liszt commonly uses tenths and even elevenths like in his consolations. Anton rubenstein wrote 11ths in Melody in F. Rachmaninoff could play 13ths and I personally can play a 12th so I'd say that's a pretty small handspan. I find it interesting that scriabin wrote 11th's in his op 8 no 12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewy5714 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! What a mustache!

See above.

[edit] Scriabin vs. Schoenberg & Stravinsky

I'm the user who added the February 2006 derogatory comment about Scriabin's comparison with Stravinsky and Schoenberg. I now have a user name: Atavi.

All in all, I agree that the comment is unnecessary, but only to who are familiar with all three composers. I suppose POV means "point of view". I disagree that it is a point of view. I understand that Schoenberg is widely recognised as one of the most important composers of the 20th century and Stravinsky is also quite important, if only for his Rite of Spring. On the other hand I dare say that Scriabin is a minor composer. What I think is that I am pointing out a 20th century analogue of a Baroque, Alessandro Scarlatti (or even J.S. Bach as far as Schoenberg goes) versus Tommaso Redi (I hope I am not doing an injustice to Redi by comparing him to Scriabin) distinction. This might be useful for those who are not familiar with the work of all composers involved.

Atavi, you're a great contributor to Wikipedia but this is unworthy of you. The relative "importance" of composers is obviously a value judgment or opinion, not an objective fact about which no reasonable observer could disagree, and can therefore be POV unless it is clearly attributed to a source. You obviously don't think much of Scriabin: many others (including me) do. As I'm sure you know it's not the role of Wikipedia editors to insert their own judgments about these things.
Out of interest, how "important" would J.S. Bach himself have been considered before around 1800? We know that during his lifetime he was considered far less eminent than rivals such as Handel and Telemann. This just goes to show how ephemeral judgments about the apparent "importance" of musical figures (perhaps even Schoenberg) could be.
Keep up the good work on the music articles. Grover cleveland 06:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Grover cleveland, thank you for your praise.
As far as Scriabin goes, I can't say you wrong in any of your points.
Especially the apparent importance of composers does seem to change enormously in the course of time: Telemann, Bach, Vivaldi, Mahler and the list is endless.
In the end I'm not qualified to make a judgement about Scriabin's value, so I didn't pursue this. I know by now that personal opinions shouldn't be inserted, but unfortunately I didn't know at the time.
Anyway, on to new things, and of course I must requite:
Keep up the good work.
---Atavi 08:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of death

I've always read that he contracted septicaemia after an insect bite became infected. Here we say it came from a shaving cut. What's the truth? JackofOz 05:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that he had a type of boil on his upper lip, which was infected. I don't think anyone knows precisely what caused it, although from our Boil article, it seems that shaving can cause boils, but I don't think we can say for sure either way. Perhaps it would be better to just say he died of blood poisoning from an infected wound or something. Mak (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We need a reference for the cause of death. Stewy5714 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link from CNN

FYI. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julian calendar

Why would it be necessary to point out that he was born on a date based on the Julian calendar? Was Russia using a different calendar in 1872 such that the distinction is necessary? --Easter Monkey 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia switched to the Gregorian calendar at some time in the early 20th century: I don't remember exactly when. It's customary to indicate which calendar is used for dates around this era. Grover cleveland 06:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Russia switched on 14 February 1918 - see Gregorian Calendar#Adoption. -- JackofOz 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

For all you crazy, wannabe synesthetes.

This user is a mad pianist like Alexander Scriabin.

 Stewy5714 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Orginization

The article should not have a reference and bibliography section. That is a bit redundant. I'll try to fix this. Also I will add a See Also section.  Stewy5714 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the article should be structured better. It is part of wikipedia composers project so it should at least try to follow the general outline of composer articles. Does anyone have any ideas?  Stewy5714 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have some comments...

I just read the section on Scriabin and Rachmaninoff in Harold C. Schonberg's work, "The Lives of the Great Composers" and it says that Scriabin graduated from the Moscow conservatory with the "Little" gold medal. The Wikipedia article flatly says Scriabin failed his composition classes and did not graduate. Also referencing Schonberg's work, perhaps we should have more quotations made by Scriabin himself and showcasing his strange, cryptic writings and later obsessions. His plans for "Mysterium" seemed insane.

I don't know if it's correct to say he was one of the precursors to serialism and atonality. His late works are harsh, dissonant, and emphasize texture, to be sure, but he never actually used serialism and I don't think the modernist ideal of creating a completely "new" musical system as associated with Schoenberg and the modernist movement was his goal. I would liken his use of the synthetic chord more to late impressionism, with all their emphasis on harmonic ambiguity (whole-tone scale, octatonic scale, etc.).

It should be worth noting that both he and Rachmaninoff were formidable pianists. Scriabin toured and gave concerts.

Romantic Tonality 09:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Romantic Tonality completely, and made some hopefully appropriate revisions. I understand the Symbolism association might be debated, but I do feel it is a more appropriate emphasis than serialism or atonality. The biographical info I obtained from some Russian sites (eg. http://www.melody.ru/styles/klassika/face/html/skrab1.shtml) and didn't bother to reference. Unfortunately, I do not own Faubion Bower's purportedly excellent book.
This article really could use some work!.. As usual, the mirroring of Wikipedia means that it has a heavier presence in webspace than it merits. Fully welcoming feedback! Eliezg 09:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

I ALSO have some comments. I recently included Scriabin's bisexuality as documented in Faubion Bowers autobiography of the composer, however, UN-surprisingly this was transformed and then omitted altogether. I thought that wikipedia remained an objective medium, despite some peoples revulsion at the fact that the composer perhaps was impartial to a bit of manly lovin'. So where has it gone?

I have reinserted the material regarding Scriabin's sexuality. As it is proprely cited, it should not have been removed.THD3 18:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character

Why was my addition on Scriabin's chracter removed!? This is the second time this has happened! I could not add citations because the i.p. on this computer was blocked for some absurd reason. My initial addition on Scriabins possible homosexual encounters where removed because someone was unhapy, now yet another person has deemed my additions 'unworthy'. What on eart was wrong with the 'character' section i added. I am currently reading Faubion Bowers' biogrpahy of the composer and a pattern is emerging of my additions being altered, or else completely eradicated! WHY? Ahh, now i see, unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Well, it can be verified by Faubion Bowers biography of the composer. And as for the 'unencyclopedic' traits; i think that is absurd. Becaus ei comment on his meek and effeminate nature? Does that shatter Scriabin's character to shards? No, it was his nature, it is documented by MANY of Scriabin's peers, contemporaries and critics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.253.170 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the passage in question:
Scriabin was a very delicate man; soft in physique and manner. His upbringing was overseen by 3 women (his grandmother, great aunt and aunt) who doted and fussed over the young "Sasha", turning him into a precocious child. His excessive manners and immaculate appearance possibly arose from this atmosphere. He was often described as effeminate; one American reviewer commented that the only thing redeeming Scriabin from effeminacy was his beard and mustache. Nor was Scriabin a keen drinker. Despite immaculate appearance and mannerisms, it is perhaps surprising to note that Scriabin was woefully forgetful. Family members were asked to purchase him second hand items such as gloves and umbrellas on account of the manifold instances in which he lost such items. It is also said that Scriabin was an incredibly charming and magnetic man who "cast spells" on even passive listeners and audiences with his character.
There doesn't seem to be any content here per se that is patently inappropriate for a Wikipedia biography. His physical frailty, aversion to drink, forgetfulness, upbringing by women, powerful charisma all contribute to the understanding of an musician whose whose art and philosophy was probably not too far removed from a strong and idiosyncratic personality. These are all also widely confirmed and fully "verifiable" assertions. Blanket removal was probably uncalled for, especially since such gestures can be taken personally and no one should be discouraged from contributing.
However, this passage does need major revision. The most important problems are:
  • it was placed arbitrarily in the "Biography" section between "Conservatory" and "Career". A separate section (perhaps on "Personality and Philosophy" including the similarly misplaced "Philosophy" subsection under "Music") would be more appropriate.
  • "soft in physique and manner" is not very well put ... does that mean his muscles were flabby? his handshake was squishy?;
  • "cast spells ... with his character" is somewhere between cliche and nonsense;
  • There are lots of peacock and weasel terms and other ways in which the passage can fairly be considered unencyclopedic in style. Some examples: "it is perhaps surprising" (peacock); "Is is also said that ... incredible charming and magnetic" (weasely and not dispassionate);
  • There are many (not "manifold"!) examples of language that is distractingly flowery, vague, and occasionally just incorrect: "excessive manners"; "woefully forgetful"; "keen drinking"; "manifold instances".
  • The whole thing needs a smattering of references, especially the anecdotal data.
If the passage were reworked and integrated in an appropriate way in the flow of the article, I certainly think that it would benefit.
Best, Eliezg 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


All right, i see your problems. However, i think it would be more helpful if those of us trying to contribute weren't poached for our inability to use Wikipedia's editing system. My lack of knowledge had me putting the issues i had on his sexuality and character in the "i have some comments" here due to a insufficient knowledge of Wikipedia's 'constructive savoire faire'. The citations which were not supplied in the character section can be found in Faubion Bower's biography.

Hi there. If you would care to provide some specific page references from the biography and perhaps add some quotations from it, it would make it easier for the material to be included in the article.--Atavi (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration of S's name

I knew, when planning to look at the Wikipedia article of Scriabin, that by some process a choice would have been made as to which spelling to use to transliterate his name into English. (In fact, I am relying on Wikipedia for the "standard" spelling of foreign, transliterated names - maybe not a good idea?) Can anyone shed light on how they arrived at "Scriabin" for the title of the article, rather than "Skryabin"? I assume it is probably simply that more occurrences of "Scriabin" can be found on search engines, but I would like to know how the decision was made. I also think that, for research purposes and for transparency, it would be nice if somewhere in the fine print of articles such as this with transliterations which may be questioned there was a brief note as to how/when/by whom a potentially controversial transliteration was arrived at. Thanks! Dveej 11:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps a comment on the, many different eglish translations - well lets be honest - spellings - of a name might be nice. However, i wonder if the reason that Scriabin was chosen was simple that is how his name is commonly spelledÀ5� in English and would just help people find the entry. It is after all the spelling most often - if not always - used on English additions of his work. English spellings - whether Scriabin, Skryabin, etc are simply relative anyway and a matter of some contention. Perhaps you could add a section at the beginning listing the various spellings? Then adding a section on the rational for those spellings? Crowleys Aunt 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Why, exactly, was a neutrality tag put on this page? Is it appropriate to do so without any justification? Eliezg 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I just have to second the query regarding the reasoning behind the "neutrality" tag. Why exactly is it here? Although i dislike personally editing WIKI pages this tag just seems silly - and a reminder of the nonsense that tends to be connected with any WIKI entry that has any connection with the esoteric. Unless reason is given shortly - and I can remember how - I will remove the tag Crowleys Aunt 11:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot determine any legitimate reason for a neutrality tag to be added. If someone added a POV statement like "Scriabin is the greatest composer ever" then it would be legitimate. I am sending a request to the poster asking why the tag was added.THD3 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There has been no response as to why the tag was added. I am deleting it.THD3 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it has been a while since i've last logged in. I'm glad you have removed the neutrality tag, it was improper. I believe my reason was for the statement, "No composer has had more scorn heaped or greater love bestowed...". Leo Tolstoy once described Scriabin's music as "a sincere expression of genius". I completely overlooked the reference and carelessly added the tag. I have been known to do things like that around midnight...  Stewy5714 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

As per Wikipedia:Trivia sections I've moved these facts to the talk page, where you might want to discuss if they are important enough to be incorporated into the article or should just be deleted. Tim Vickers 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

  • A comparison of the creative trajectories of Rachmaninov and Scriabin has fueled psychoanalytic speculation on the distinction between talent and genius.[1]
  • The graphic above depicting a colored keyboard is not entirely correct: the colors shown do not relate to the particular tones of the twelve-tone system, but to the tonalities starting with those keys. Also note that Scriabin did not, as far as this theory is concerned, recognize a difference between a major and a minor tonality of the same name (for example: c-minor and C-Major).

[edit] Reorganization of Biography section

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to reorganize the biography section. I feel it does not give enough information about his later career and that it could be sectioned better. Why is there a line talking about his son's death under the "death" section?  Stewy5714talk 21:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but there are some unbelievable, sloppy mistakes! Mix ups in chronology and a horribly muffled relation to events and times! Then there are just some plain wrong things! It seems so arbitrary. I'm working on drastically improving this section and have begun. I don't know how to cite, or structure or add any fancy titles. So i will add the content and whomever can fiddle around with the headings and organization of the material. Aaron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.157.149 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll add the references to the material if you tell me where you got it in the edit summary.  Stewy5714talk 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)