Support us financially by purchasing from

Boris Lyatoshynsky (1895-1968)
Symphony No. 1 in A major, Op. 2
Symphony No. 2 in B minor, Op. 26
Symphony No. 3 in B minor, Op. 50
Symphony No. 4 in B minor, Op. 63
Symphony No. 5 in C major 'Slavonic', Op. 67
Grazhyna (1955)
Ukrainian State Symphony Orchestra/Theodore Kuchar
rec. 1993-94, Kiev, Ukraine
NAXOS 8.503303 [3 CDs: 189]

In a canny/opportunist piece of marketing Naxos have repackaged their previous releases of the five symphonies of Boris Lyatoshynsky – “the father of 20^th Century Ukrainian music” - into a three-disc ‘box’. As with similar sets in the past this simply means creating a new cardboard slip case to contain the previously available standard jewel-case CDs. In turn these were a 2014 repackaging on Naxos of the original 1993/4 releases on Marco Polo. As far as I can tell there has been no new remastering or recoupling for this ‘new’ release so previous purchasers can look away now. For those who are interested there is an economy of scale – the single discs are still available in the UK for around the now-standard £10.00 each whereas this 3-disc set can be found for £20.50 – so in effect a 3 for 2 offer.

Lyatoshynsky’s life spans a pretty turbulent time in his country’s history. His youthful Symphony No.1 was written at the very start of the Russian Revolution and across the cycle of five symphonies there is a sense – apart from any musical values – of the composer writing music that had to be in step with the political climate of the Soviet Union as a whole. I had not heard these recordings before and there is a distinct impression of a return in time to an earlier style of performing and recording. All five of the symphonies were recorded by Thoedore Kuchar and his Ukrainian State SO in a fairly intensive period between June 1993 and May 1994. The Soviet Union had collapsed at the end of 1991 and the very sound of this orchestra is still clearly of the Soviet period. The recordings too combine a lack of sophistication and detail with a rather flat soundstage set within a resonant acoustic. But if all that sounds like a litany of negatives not necessarily so. All of the above combine to make a wonderfully idiomatic and characterful sound so reminiscent of the old Melodiya LP’s of previous decades. However it does not make a particularly comfortable listening experience especially over an extended period of time.

Symphony No.1 has the opus no.2 and is a young man’s work completed when the composer was just twenty four. He had studied at Kiev Conservatory under with Reinhold Glière whose musical influence is clearly audible. But Scriabin is the overwhelming presence in this work. Everything from the restless and thick orchestral textures, the harmonic ambiguity and the ecstatic climaxes speak of a composer in the thrall of the older man’s music and aesthetic. That it does not ultimately just sound like watered-down Scriabin is a credit to Lyatoshynsky’s individual personality even if at this stage it is far from fully formed. The playing of the Ukrainian State SO matches the music rather well – vigorous and dynamic, not exactly polished but fully in tune with the idiom. The work is in three movements with the central Molto Lento written and performed first under the standalone title of Lyric Poem. Certainly this is the most impressive section of the work with Lyatoshynsky’s fluid use of harmony and musical motifs creating an individual and rather impressive musical picture. The outer movements try rather hard to fulfil the perceived requirements of struggling dramatic first movement and festive finale but as effectively a student work it is impressive. Kuchar in his own brief liner contribution makes the point that early on after the Revolution artists were encouraged to express themselves in individual ways relevant to the parts of the Soviet Union they were from.

By the late 1920’s this cultural thaw was well and truly over. When Lyatoshynsky wrote his Symphony No.2 Op.26 Stalin was in power and “Social Realism” was the order of the day. Quite exactly what that meant is still open to debate. In the liner Kuchar offers the following definition; “a doctrine by which artworks had to promote a sense of the collective and positive human destiny and purpose”. But even that is so vague to essentially to allow those in power to find something to disapprove in just about any work they took against. Such it was with this symphony which remained unheard for nearly thirty years – much the same fate as befell Shostakovich’s Symphony No.4 from much the same time. Ukraine itself as a culturally autonomous region was brutally suppressed with the Holodomor wheat famine of 1932-33 the most brutal and inhumane example of the repression. No real suprise that the Symphony No.2 reflects these turbulent times. Lyatoshynsky’s musical voice has evolved considerably since the preceding work. The outer movements especially are tense and often violent with the brief quieter and slower passages offering momentary respite – not calm but more of a musical ceasefire. Again the harshness of the recording – which at times seems overwhelmed by the weight and complexity of the writing – somehow serves the spirit of the music even when it does not allow the listener to hear as much detail with the clarity that perhaps would be preferable. The symphony is again in three movements with the central Lento e tranquillo (alla ballata) offering relative peace in the midst of the stormy movements that frame it. Certainly the third and last movement does not offer any of the sense of celebration that the equivalent part of the first movement contained. About two minutes from the end of the work [track 3 5:46] Lyatoshysky sets up a baleful march figure over some searing string writing that does help bring this compact – 30:00 – symphony to an impressive albeit tragic close. Interesting to compare Lyatoshynsky’s handling of his orchestra with say Shostakovich in his Symphony No.4 especially since they were both written at exactly the same time. Without a doubt Shostakovich is far more radical in his musical material and how he handles it instrumentally – easy to imagine that the reason for the work’s ban was because it was simply too individual and too unusual to be considered able to fulfil the populist remit at the heart of Socialist Realism. Conversely, Lyatoshynsky does write in what might be now considered a post Romantic way – the harmony might be harsh and complex but the basic structure and handling of the material is not as radical. However, the context of the work and the mood it inhabits clearly are contrary to the agit-prop optimism required by the State.

Lyatoshynsky did not return to symphonic form until 1951 with his Symphony No.3 in B minor Op.50. This remains to this day Lyatoshynsky’s best-known and most highly regarded symphony. Yet it too was not immune from party criticism. This time in four movements the finale was originally entitled “Peace will defeat War” but the Soviet censors were not happy and insisted that the movement was substantially rewritten with the epigraph removed. It took Lyatoshynsky three years and the death of Stalin to accede to this demand but even that was not enough which led to a delay in the premiere until 1955 after further revisions. Kirill Karabits with his Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra have recorded a much-praised version of this work which uniquely (I think) for a recorded performance reinstates the original finale. This is a performance I have not heard – a situation I intend to rectify. By some way this is Lyatoshynsky’s biggest symphony – in this performance it runs to 46:40 – and it is a powerfully impressive work. Interestingly, Lyatoshynsky seems to have reinforced his neo-Romantic credentials so while the harmonic language remains quite dissonant and harsh the gestures they support, the way in which the large but traditional orchestra is handled is distinctly of an earlier age. Several times in this work Lyatoshynsky seems to evoke old Russian Orthodox chants although according to the Chandos booklet notes these are more folksong in origin. What is clear is that the conflict – a common feature in all the Lyatoshynsky symphonies – seems here to be between “war” and “peace”. The slow movement is placed second – Andante con moto – and it is an especially impressive part of the work. Whereas in his earlier symphonies the central/slow movement appeared to act as a oasis of comparative calm from the drama that surrounds it, here Lyatoshynsky ratchets the emotional temperature even higher. The music starts with an almost bland certainly naive three note figure that repeats obsessively and in doing so takes on a more threatening character which another folksong/chant tries to dispel – neatly characterised in the Chandos booklet as a “vision of an implacable terrifying war machine”. The scherzo revisits a nightmarish battlefield again in a brutal evocation of man’s destructive nature. All of the movements to this point have been played with the passion and vigour that has characterised these discs. There is still a significant issue with the actual recording quality and a certain rawness to the playing but it has to be said this does in some way add to the sheer explicit drama of the work. This recording uses Lyatoshynsky’s revised finale whereas the Chandos disc reverts to the original one which academics now believe to be the ‘preferred’ option. Certainly there is an emotional jolt for the listener when hearing the revised movement. Put in the most simplistic terms this is now in a festive major/happy key whereas the previous three are unrelentingly dark minor key affairs. Of course with the benefit of hindsight it is very easy to read political expedience into Lyatoshynsky’s choice but my feeling is that the jarring difference in mood would register regardless of knowledge of the work’s context and complex creation. The two versions share basic musical material and certainly the original version still shares with the revision a more positive mood the sense of ultimate ‘victory’ is much harder won. Both share a closing passage where the full brass blaze out the chant/folksong over pealing bells and swirling harps. After the dark drama of the music earlier in the work it makes for an uplifting and impressive ending.

Another decade – near enough – was to pass before Lyatoshynsky returned to symphonic form writing his last two symphonies in – for him – quite close proximity – Symphony No.4 Op.63 in 1963 and his last Symphony No.5 Op.67 ‘Slavonic’ two years later. Both works are substantially shorter than the rather epic No.3 – each are sub twenty-eight minutes in these performances - and both return to Lyatoshynsky’s seemingly preferred three movement structure. A decade on from the death of Stalin, the hope that the strictures of “Socialist Realism” might be relaxed proved short-lived. The new Soviet leadership with Leonid Brezhnev at its head sought “Russification” (now that sounds familiar in these current times....) of the Slavic peoples including Ukraine. However, the first performance of Lyatoshynsky’s Symphony No.4 was widely praised with glowing comparisons made to other contemporary composers. In the liner note Marianna Kopystia characterises the work as a symphony of “conflicting viewpoints [with] juxtaposed extremes”. A glowing review of the first performance also noted the way in which Lyatoshynsky “fused contemporary musical language in an essential tonal framework which also incorporated Ukrainian folk-music”. This battle of extremes is something that featured in the previous symphonies too and can be heard as an enduring characteristic of the composer. Certainly conflict and struggle dominate this movement. Clearly Lyatoshynsky developed in the three decades between the second and fourth symphonies but in some ways perhaps more intriguing is how recognisably he is the same composer. For sure the explicit use of folk-music models is more clearly defined but the harsh juxtaposition of musical material and harmony recurs. Even in the slow movements Lyatoshynsky rarely finds repose or tranquillity. That is true of the second movement Lento tenebroso – andante. I rather like the sepulchral low brass writing over shuddering strings – another example of where the playing and recording style aids the ominous musical atmosphere. According to the liner the secondary theme here is based on a “Peredzvoniv” which is a church bell melody. A cor anglais – Lyatoshynsky reserves this instrument for many of his most despairing melodies across the entire cycle - intones a bleak song over swirling harps and glockenspiel. Where this instrumental combination might often create a mood of light and air, it offers little hope here. Without a pause the closing Allegro molto risoluto starts well characterised in the liner as “highly rhythmical, often nervy and grotesque”. Aggressive action and sullen stasis are again a staple feature although in the closing bars the Peredzvoniv in a serene and major key bringing the symphony to a relatively abrupt but certainly unexpected end.

Lyatoshynsky had been exploring his Slavonic musical heritage since the early 1950’s in a series of compositions which explicitly included “Slavonic” in their titles. Hard not to see in this an implicitly political message over and above the musical interest and richness. Especially since the opening of his Symphony No.5 Op.67 ‘Slavonic’ includes a theme based on a song praising the hero Il’ya Muromets the folk-hero who was reputed to have saved the city of Kiev from invaders. Of course, this might also be an acknowledgement of his teacher Glière whose most famous work is the epic symphony about that same hero. For the avoidance of doubt the symphony opens with six unison horns playing this melody. They are soon joined by the rest of the bras playing the same melody albeit in canon and in different keys. This then plunges into a characteristically energetic and fraught movement. Throughout the symphony Lyatoshynsky draws on melodies from across the Slavic nations including (the former) Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. But again important to point out that his treatment of these tunes is complex and unconventional. These are most certainly not simple or naive treatments of attractive melodies. The tunes themselves are often buried deep in the orchestral texture and Lyatoshynsky’s choice of the melodies seems as much to do with the implicit message in the melody as anything else.

The central Lento e mesto is based on two Bulgarian songs and is again imbued with a sense of loss and tragedy. Again the cor anglais followed by the wind solos offers some brief release but in Lyatoshynsky you do feel that darkness is never that far away. Massed horns and brass open the finale which leads into a rather brusque and heavy folk-dance – “a growing sense of unrest and inner conflict” is the liner’s view although at the very end the Il’ya Muromets theme is brought back giving the work not just a satisfying sense of cyclical form but also underlying the extra-musical significance of this melody. I can imagine that in the current nightmarish situation in Ukraine the closing pages of Lyatoshynsky’s final symphony must have enormous resonance and power for the people of that country. The overlapping of Church bells, solemn brass motifs and the Il’ya Muromets theme makes for an unmistakeably proud declaration of national and cultural identity.

It is impossible to listen to this group of works in isolation from the global events that dominate in 2022. So perhaps it is harder than normal to make an objective assessment of the enduring quality of these five major symphonies. Although I do know the cycle of performances under Vladimir Gnedash amongst others on Russian Disc (oh the irony) I had never listened in a concentrated and focussed manner to the five symphonies in order. Aside from the youthful No.1 there is a powerful consistency to Lyatoshynsky’s writing which is genuinely remarkable given the extra-musical pressures and dangers he faced as a creative artist. My respect for these works has certainly increased although I must admit the unrelenting bleakness of much of the music makes for a testing listening experience. The four Russian Discs are valuable for collectors as the additional space allows for rarer works including the Slavonic Piano Concerto, the Romeo and Juliet Ballet Suite and other shorter works. The recordings are older than this Naxos cycle and feature similarly characterful playing and recording – they are also a lot rarer/more expensive. That being the case, there is no competition for a complete cycle. The Chandos disc is valuable for the quality of the performance and recording as well as the use of the original finale in Symphony No.3. There is an alternative for Symphonies 4&5 on CPO that I have not heard. Other than those two discs this is pretty much the only choice for those wishing to sample Lyatoshynsky’s uncompromising musical voice. Never a comfortable listen but never unimpressive either.

Nick Barnard

Previous review: Rob Barnett

B09YNF5MR1
lyatoshynsky-complete-symphonies
9329022--boris-lyatoshynsky-complete-symphonies