Boris Asaf'ev and the Soviet Musicology - E-thesis

qualities “rational and intuitive” and those of Asaf’ev “subjective and objective” are not
terminologically parallel, their meaning is analogous. Bergson’s rationality leads
towards “impersonality” whereas Asaf’ev’s objective qualities of a composer lead to
“psychological indifference”.
On Asaf’ev’s scale Čajkovskij is considered a more subjective composer than
Musogrskij, and Musorgskij more subjective than Glazunov or Rimskij-Korsakov who
are classified as ‘objective observers’. As a result Asaf’ev concludes: The pathway
leading from for example Čajkovskij must not be seen in his epigones, such as Arenskij,
“but in places where there is not a single particle of external imitation or even similarity
of creative nature [--]” but rather, similar to him
in the degree of their exertion of the creative impulse both in profundity and continuity of
immersion in the genuine element of music. But one does not wish to await the rebirth of
that emotional quality which is valuable in him, but pitiful among his followers. For that
reason the pathway from Čajkovskij lies in surmounting the infectious element – a
personal peculiarity of him – and deepening and strengthening the element of subjectivity
as a whole. 273
Shortly, Asaf’ev holds that the pathway leading from the Russian classics is not an
imitation but more or less consists of psychological qualities: creative spirit and special
features on the scale of subjectivity–objectivity. As an example of this he grounds and
claims Mjaskovskij of being a kind of spiritual heir of Čajkovskij and Prokof’ev of
being an heir of Skrjabin.
Asaf’ev’s article reveals the close ties to the second generation of Symbolists. He talks
about “mystical qualities” and uses expressions as “creative/vital impulse”,
“superhuman”, etc. Asaf’ev’s evaluation of Skrjabin’s creativity illustrates clearly his
attitude to the Symbolist movement:
273 Ibid., pp. 243–244.
“Čajkovskij had no choice but to die – if not physically, then creatively – after his contact
with the ultimate boundary (accessible to our intuition) of perception of the superhuman
[--] Whereas Čajkovskij could not release himself his whole life long from the sphere of
75