Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found

3 Pieces Op. 2: No. 2. Prelude in B Major
Alexander Scriabin Lyrics


No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
Comments from YouTube:

monition

You can really hear Scriabin's early influences at the time of his upcoming.

Minister_Of_Films26

@Aldo Ringo His profile picture is cursed

Aldo Ringo

Change your profile picture plz

Scriabinist

Chopinesque but Scriabinesque. This menage a trois is definitely an amazing youthful work

Aldo Ringo

This teenager was a genius

Sirwan

Interesting interpretive decision at 01:32, where the pianist plays a 2:3 polyrhythm on the 6th bar of the score. She plays that in the left hand instead of the quaver and two semiquavers pair on the third beat

Sirwan

Is there an edition with that detail? I quite like the novelty in the sound it produces

Ryan Power

Very nice early scriabin

Seigneur ReefShark

@sandryushka I understand totally your point. Personnaly, I'm an absolute fan of both romantic, late romantic, and post-scriabinism at the same time. I am really happy that you mentionned Medtner (my favorite!). I think theres pratically always melody in post-scriabinists works, but indeed harder to perceive, as the atmosphere, the colors, and the emotions given are probably the most importants aspects of these works. Then, all of course depends of the listener taste. I didn't get any real theory lessons for now, so I won't talk about things I'm not sure to know much about. I hope my message is understandable ahah. Don't worry for the long tirades, I love talking about these eras and their representants with people. Most of the time, its quite enriching!

sandryushka

Seigneur ReefShark Thank you for such a kind comment and wish! I think my difficulty with “post-Scriabinism” (not an official term, but I think you get what I mean) is that it seems to lose all those unforgettable melodies that are so typical of romantics, late romantics, symbolists, etc. Many people find it clichéd, but I find that without melody and its development (say in big sonata-form-like pieces, still found today) there’s not that much “firmness” to a given piece, altogether, and music looks more like a disjointed gathering of musical textures than an actual piece (for example take much of what we call modern movie music - I agree, its functionality is different to that of the more symphonic/sonata form works of old - but as I said above, melody and its development are crucial to structuring a piece properly: Nicolai Medtner spoke of this at length in his work ‘Muse and Fashion’, written in 1935). I’ve been into what we can call with the vague term “classical/academic music” for quite a considerable length of time (six years by now) for my relatively short life so far, but after numerous attempts to get into atonality every other one just throws me back deeper into my theories about melody, functional harmony, etc. I think it’s much more useful to “stretch” tonal harmony and melody even further than what Rachmaninoff did with it, while never losing a footing in the “tonal” aspects of it, as opposed to scrapping tonality altogether and venturing forth into completely new musical worlds. Sometimes, exploration can become counter-productive,where instead of developing what we have we keep finding new and new stuff and eventually get buried under all of its novel mass.

Sorry if this is too long a tirade or diatribe - I’m not trying to quarrel with you! I’m just presenting my perception, so please don’t be phased by its somewhat imperative tone!

More Comments

More Versions