Glazunov, Alexander (EN)

Glazunov Alexander Konstantinovich, *10 August (29 July) 1865 Saint Petersburg, †21 March 1936 Paris, a Russian composer, conductor, and pedagogue. His mother was a pianist, and he himself displayed exceptional musical abilities at an early age – his hearing and photographic musical memory became legendary. He initially studied piano with N. Elenkovsky, but already as an 11-year-old he turned toward composition. In 1879, M. Balakirev recommended him to the guidance of N. Rimsky-Korsakov. Within less than two years – during which a lifelong friendship developed between teacher and student – Glazunov made such rapid progress that further formal instruction in composition became unnecessary. The success of his Symphony No. 1, conducted by Balakirev in 1882, as well as his String Quartet No. 1, secured the young composer, not yet twenty, a strong position among the elite of Russian composers, especially within the so-called Belyayev Circle. Thanks to the patron M. Belyayev, Glazunov travelled across Western Europe, meeting, among others, F. Liszt in Weimar. In 1889, he conducted his Symphony No. 2 at the World Exhibition in Paris. Further travels in the mid-1890s, following a brief creative crisis, allowed him to become more familiar with contemporary European music. Earlier, Glazunov had worked with Rimsky-Korsakov on completing the final works of the recently deceased Alexander Borodin (d. 1887). In 1899 he was appointed professor of composition at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory. However, in 1905 he, like Ladov, Taneyev and others, resigned in protest against the dismissal of Rimsky-Korsakov, who had shown solidarity with striking students. Public pressure eventually forced the authorities to reverse their decision, and on 16 December 1905 Glazunov was appointed director of the Conservatory, a position he retained even after the October Revolution. Numerous foreign travels – including to Paris in 1907, where he conducted the last of the Russian Historical Concerts, and to England, where he received honorary doctorates in music from both Oxford and Cambridge – along with his administrative duties at the Conservatory, led to a gradual reduction in his creative output.

After the revolution in 1917, Alexander Glazunov – although avoiding any ideological declarations – actively participated in the movement for the popularisation of music. He intensified his conducting activity, giving concerts for rural communities and the military, and took part in the formation of artistic associations. In 1927 he played a prominent role in Beethoven commemorative celebrations, also appearing as a travelling lecturer. He was widely regarded as the most outstanding figure in Russian musical life and was supported by Anatoly Lunacharsky. In 1922, on the 40th anniversary of his creative activity, he was awarded the title of People’s Artist of the USSR. At the end of 1928, he embarked on a concert tour covering Portugal, Spain, France, England, Czechoslovakia, Poland (1930), the Netherlands, and later the United States. He did not return to his homeland after this journey, although he formally remained director of the Leningrad Conservatory until 1930, with Maxim Steinberg acting in his place. In 1932 he settled in Paris, where he promoted Russian and Soviet music and joined the Soviet committee for the 25th anniversary of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s death. At the same time, he almost completely ceased composing; his last substantial work was the orchestral Poème épique. In 1972, Glazunov’s remains were transferred to the USSR and ceremonially buried in Saint Petersburg (formerly Leningrad).

Alexander Glazunov was undoubtedly the most outstanding representative of the so-called Saint Petersburg School, identified with the circle of pupils of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. Over time, he came to be regarded as the principal heir to the Russian musical tradition of the 19th century, and his output represents perhaps the strongest achievement in Russian symphonic and chamber music at the turn of the century.

In the output of Glazunov, the long-standing dilemma faced by earlier generations of European composers – between absolute and programmatic music – found a somewhat delayed reflection. In his case, this tension was shaped by two native traditions: the ideology of the The Mighty Handful and the more classicising aesthetic of the Belyayev Circle. Glazunov did not develop a fully independent path between these tendencies. In rhapsodies, fantasies, symphonic poems, programmatic overtures, and similar works, he leaned toward the loosely defined ideals of the “Mighty Handful” (e.g. Stenka Razin), while in symphonies, concertos, suites, serenades, and string quartets he showed classicising tendencies. As a result, his vast output lacks both a unified aesthetic and a distinct sonic identity, relying instead on a widely used Russian musical idiom of the time, strongly marked by references to folk music. Throughout his fifty years of compositional activity, Glazunov’s technical development proceeded without significant innovation in musical language, consisting instead of the refinement of techniques acquired during his studies. Although some works achieved lasting popularity (such as the ballet Raymonda and the Violin Concerto) and others are of undeniable artistic value (e.g. Symphonies No. 4 and No. 6), the gap between Glazunov and his European contemporaries – such as Gustav Mahler, Richard Strauss, Jean Sibelius, and Claude Debussy – gradually widened. This refinement of technique manifested primarily in the polishing of contrapuntal and instrumental means and became a kind of secondary artistic ideology, most fully realised in Symphony No. 8. In this and similar works, Glazunov achieved highly sophisticated textural results which, despite relatively conventional thematic material and traditional formal design, ensured the attractiveness of his best compositions. Elaborate yet always clearly orchestrated contrapuntal combinations, serving as the basis for extensive developmental writing, together with a strong sense of formal proportion and often elevated expression, gave his symphonic output a truly monumental character. This approach later influenced composers such as D. Shostakovich and N. Myaskovsky. However, Glazunov’s technical refinement remained firmly rooted in the same tonal foundations, which led to a certain stylistic stagnation and was likely one of the reasons for the decline of his creative output after 1905. Even in his later Paris period works – marked by more subtle expressive nuances and technical sophistication (such as the final fugato of the Concerto for saxophone and string orchestra) – he continued to employ the same basic set of compositional tools. Thus, Glazunov, whose early career was hailed as a revelation in Russian music, ended his compositional life in a position close to that of an outsider. Among younger Russian composers, he was often regarded as a representative of musical conservatism (as reflected in comments by S. Prokofiev), despite the fact that in his pedagogical work he was highly respected for his diligence and organisational achievements, including securing autonomy for the conservatory, establishing its symphony orchestra, and founding its opera studio.

Glazunov possessed outstanding talent, but one that was essentially static and not inclined toward experimentation in an era of profound musical transformation. In the development of European music, he did not play a major role; however, in the history of Russian music his significance is considerable, as is the artistic and intellectual value of his most important works. He created a monumental style in Russian symphonic music, introducing a form of symphonic expression that – outside of occasional achievements by A. Borodin and Tchaikovsky – had previously been relatively weakly represented. He also focused, like S. Taneyev, on issues of counterpoint and polyphony, and the artistic results he achieved through these techniques were so convincing that they contributed to a renewed interest in Russia in music based on the art of voice-leading. Through his emphasis on craftsmanship, he reinforced in Russian music a sense of the value of solid technical mastery. Finally, he created a large body of works readily accepted by audiences, well aligned with the aesthetic that later became widespread in the USSR, but – unlike opportunistic or purely ideological art – still offering genuine artistic value.

Literature: A. Glazounov. Catalogue complet des oeuvres, Leipzig 1935; A.K. Glazunov. Pis’ma, stat’i, vospominaniya, ed. M. Ganina, 2 volumes, Moscow 1958; Glazunov. Issledovaniya, materialy, publikatsii, pis’ma, ed. J. Keldysh, A. Ossovskiy, E. Yazovitskaya, M. Yankovskiy, 2 volumes, Leningrad 1959–60 (contains a list of Glazunov’s works); A. Ossovskiy A. Glazunov, Saint Petersburg 1907; V. Belyayev A. Glazunov, Saint Petersburg 1922; W. Dzierżanowski A. Glazunov, Moscow 1922; I. Glebov (B. Asafyev) A. Glazunov, Leningrad 1924; G. Fyodorova A. Glazunov, Leningrad 1947, 2nd ed. 1961; W. Vanslav Simfonicheskoe tvorchestvo A. Glazunova, Moscow 1950; A. Glazunov ed. H. Günther, Bonn 1955; M. Ganina A. Glazunov. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, Leningrad 1961.