Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (top left) and The Five (counter-clockwise from bottom left): Mily Balakirev, Csar Cui, Alexander Borodin,Modest Mussorgsky, and Nikolai RimskyKorsakov.
In mid- to late-19th-century Russia, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and a group of composers known as The Fivehad differing opinions on the nature of classical Russian music, specifically whether it should follow Western or native compositional practices. Though he displayed musical talent at an early age, Tchaikovsky decided to study music professionally only after three years' employment as a civil servant. As an adult at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory, he learned from Anton Rubinstein and Nikolai Zaremba how to compose in the manner of Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. Tchaikovsky wanted to write professional compositions of such quality that would stand up to Western scrutiny and thus transcend national barriers, yet remain distinctively Russian in melody, rhythm and other compositional characteristics. To this end, he learned to accommodate and, in some ways, amend Western classical rules of composition to the demands of his unique style; in this manner, he would follow neither his teachers nor his nationalistic contemporaries in The Five. The Five, also known as The Mighty Handful (Russian: , Moguchaya kuchka), was a circle of composers who met in Saint Petersburg in the years 18561870. They were a branch of the Romantic Nationalist movement in Russia and shared similar goals with the Abramtsevo

Colony and Russian Revivalin the sphere of fine arts. Made up of composers Mily Balakirev, Alexander Borodin, Csar Cui, Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, The Five wanted to produce a specifically Russian kind of art music, rather than one that imitated older European music or relied on European-style conservatory training. While The Five also looked to Europe for compositional models, they focused on works by musically progressive contemporaries such as Frdric Chopin, Franz Liszt and Robert Schumann. The Five also believed in using the melodic, harmonic, tonal and rhythmic properties of Russian folk song, along with exotic melodic, harmonic and rhythmic elements from music originating in the middle- and far-eastern parts of the Russian Empire (a practice that would become known as musical orientalism), as compositional devices in their own works. While Tchaikovsky himself used folk songs in some of his works, for the most part he tried to follow Western practices of composition, especially in terms of tonality and tonal progression. Also, unlike Tchaikovsky, none of The Five was academically trained in composition; in fact, their leader, Balakirev, considered academicism a threat to musical imagination. Along with criticVladimir Stasov, who supported The Five, Balakirev attacked the Conservatory and Rubinstein relentlessly both orally and in print.[1] As Tchaikovsky had become Rubinstein's best-known student, he was initially considered by association as a natural target for attack, especially as fodder for Cui's printed critical reviews. [2] This attitude changed slightly when Rubinstein left the Saint Petersburg musical scene in 1867. In 1869 Tchaikovsky entered into a working relationship with Balakirev; the result was Tchaikovsky's first recognized masterpiece, the fantasy-overture Romeo and Juliet, a work which The Five wholeheartedly embraced.[3] When Tchaikovsky wrote a positive review of RimskyKorsakov's Fantasy on Serbian Themes he was welcomed into the circle, despite concerns about the academic nature of his musical background.[4] The finale of his Second Symphony, nicknamed theLittle Russian, was also received enthusiastically by the group on its first performance in 1872. [5] Tchaikovsky remained friendly but never intimate with most of The Five, ambivalent about their music; their goals and aesthetics did not match his.[6] He took pains to ensure his musical independence from them as well as from the conservative faction at the Conservatory an outcome facilitated by his acceptance of a professorship at the Moscow Conservatory offered to him by Nikolai Rubinstein, Anton's brother.[7] When Rimsky-Korsakov was offered a professorship at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory after Zaremba had left, it was to Tchaikovsky that he turned for advice and guidance.[8] Later, when Rimsky-Korsakov was under pressure from his fellow nationalists for his change in attitude on music education and his own intensive studies in music, [9]Tchaikovsky continued to support him morally, telling him that he fully applauded what he was doing and admired both his artistic modesty and his strength of character.[10] In the 1880s, long after the members of The Five had gone their separate ways, another group called the Belyayev circle took up where they left off. Tchaikovsky enjoyed close relations with the leading members of this groupAlexander Glazunov, Anatoly Lyadov and, by then, Rimsky-Korsakov.[11]

Contents
[hide]

1 Prologue: Growing debate

o o o o

1.1 What Is Russia 1.2 Embracing the West 1.3 Russian music without Russianness 1.4 Budding, conflicted nationalism 2.1 Tchaikovsky 2.2 The Five 2.3 Rubinstein and the Saint Petersburg Conservatory 2.4 Difference in Russianness 3.1 Balakirev

2 Drawing sides
o o o o

3 With The Five

o

3.1.1 Initial correspondence 3.1.2 Writing Romeo and Juliet

o o o o

3.2 Rimsky-Korsakov 3.3 Stasov, The Tempest and the Little Russian symphony 3.4 Tchaikovsky's private concerns about The Five 3.5 Balakirev returns

4 Belyayev circle 5 Legacy 6 References

o

6.1 Bibliography

Prologue: Growing debate[edit]

With the exception of Mikhail Glinka, who became the first "truly Russian" composer,[12] the only music indigenous to Russia before Tchaikovsky's birthday in 1840 were folk and sacred music; the Russian Orthodox Church's proscription of secular music had effectively stifled its development.[13] Starting in the 17th century, European musicians and composers were invited by the Imperial Court to fill this void. An Italian opera company was established there after the first presentation of an opera in Russia in 1731 and senior position of court music director and court conductor were created. However, while these positions were held by a string of distinguished composers, they were all foreigners.[14] Likewise, while the first public concert in Russia had taken place in 1746 and though public concerts had become a common occurrence by the end of the century, most concerts took place in the homes of the aristocracy and were similarly dominated by

foreigners.[15] (Exceptions were public concerts held during the six weeks of Lent, when the theaters were closed.[16]) The cultural schism that resulted in Russia's identity crisis began with the arrival of the first foreign artists. The lower classes, mindful of the then-recent expulsion of foreign rulers during the Time of Troubles and resurgence of the Orthodox church that followed, viewed Europeans with suspicion and branded them as heretics and infidels.[17] As the upper classes adapted European social and artistic graces and spoke French instead of Russian to distinguish themselves from those under them,[18] the lower classes watched "a culture [they] regarded as the creation of the Antichrist"[19] By the end of the 18th century, the split between peasant and noble had become acute.[20] The state and the church failed to promote an image of Russianness that would bridge this gap and appeal to a broad spectrum of people. Neither did they offer a narrative of Russia's history and traditions that would unify the populace.[21] An imperial consciousness, based on French and German social and cultural values asserted itself in the army and upper classes but differed markedly from what of the peasants, clergymen and tradesmen considered true Russianness.[22]

What Is Russia[edit]

Pyotr Chaadayev
Beginning in the 1830s, Russian intelligentsia debated the issue of whether artists negated their Russianness when they borrowed from European culture or took vital steps toward renewing and developing Russian culture.[23] This discussion began in earnest with a "Philosophical Letter" by Pyotr Chaadayev, printed in a journal called The Telescope in September 1836 (and written, ironically enough, in French). Chaadayev called Russia a cultural non-entity hanging in stasis between Europe and Asia and seriously questioned its past and future.[24] "Alone in the world, we have given nothing to the world, learned nothing from the world and bestowed not a single idea upon the fund of human ideas," he wrote. "We have not contributed in any way to the progress of the human spirit and

whatever has come to us from that progress we have disfigured."[25] He added that, while Russia might have been able to imitate the West, it had failed to internalize its moral values and ideas. [26] While the reaction of Tsar Nicholas I was swift (he had the philosopher declared insane and sent off for medical observation), the effect of Chaadayev's letter was deep and lasting.[27] His message was actually one that many thinking Russians had believed for some time. Author and historian Nikolai Karamzin, for instance, had concluded from his travels through Europe that Russians had become Westernized only superficially, acting in European fashion but thinking according to native traditions and mindset.[28] In doing so, Europeanized Russians betrayed a split identity.[28]However, the fact that Chaadayev made his pronouncement a public one brought the matter to the forefront of conversation. His letter tapped into a deep-seated insecurity common among Russians about their self-identity and was seen as a pronouncement on Russian culture as it had existed since Peter the Greatprecarious and shallow, lacking organic development and ethnic substance.[29] This point, while difficult to accept, was also impossible to ignore.[30] The question which arose from it, which would take Russians the rest of the century to answer, was, very simply, "What is Russia?" [31] Two groups sought to answer this question. Slavophiles claimed that Chaadayev was mistaken. They idealized Russian history before Peter the Great[27]and claimed the country possessed a distinct culture, rooted in Byzantium and spread by the Russian Orthodox Church.[30] The challenge with Russian culture originated with Peter, who had imposed Western principles upon the nation in the interest of peristroika (translated in English as "restructuring" or "rebuilding").[32] The Zapadniki ("Westernizers"), on the other hand, lauded Peter as a patriot who wanted to reform his country and bring it on a par with Europe.[33] Looking forward instead of backward, they saw Russia as a youthful and inexperienced but with the potential of becoming the most advanced European civilization by borrowing from Europe and turning its liabilities into assets.[34]

Embracing the West[edit]

Peter the Great

While Peter the Great is generally credited with opening Russia to the West, the influx and influence of Western musicians actually began during the reign of Ivan IV (also known as Ivan the Terrible). While not a music lover himself, Peter saw European-based entertainments as a mark of civilization and did nothing to curb what was by then a regular influx of foreign composers, singers and instrumentalists to the Imperial court.[35] The court imported Italian opera during the reign of the three empresses (Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine the Great);[36] the resulting craze by the 1780s spilled over to the musical world of Saint Petersburg, with two companies, the Italian and the Russian Opera, giving productions in the city. Western artists became as much in demand as Western music, which displaced local artists entirely.[37] A series of Europeans occupied the posts of court conductor and court composer, beginning in the mid-1750s, among them Baldassare Galuppi, Tommaso Traetta, Domenico Cimarosa and Vicente Martn y Soler. Galuppi also wrote music for the Orthodox church during his tenure.[38] The combination of large financial rewards for these positions and an increased spirit of cosmopolitanism encouraged them and others to flock to Saint Petersburg.[37] The Imperial court was one avenue through which the penchant for Western culture spread. Another was the Cadet Corps, established in 1732 to train young noblemen in the finer points of foreign etiquette, dress, arts and language to prepare them for diplomatic and military service. Some cadets were sent abroad for further study.[39] A third path was through young nobles who went to universities in France and Germany. At first, they were sent by their families; later they did so at their personal choice.[19] As more of these men returned home, the Petrine spirit with which they had been instilled filtered through the rest of the upper classes.[40] Possessing Western art, listening to French or Italian music and acting like Europeans became status symbols that set landowners apart from the serfs who worked under them and were looked upon as a matter of pride.[41] Foreign travel also became paramount, with the Grand Tour becoming "a virtual rite of passage for the aristocracy."[42] Meanwhile, the lower classes, which regarded all things European as unholy and heathenistic due to foreign intervention in the Time of Troubles, watched as their masters "imbibed and propagated a culture ... regarded as a creation of the Antichrist."[19] This rift between classes grew as the practices among the upper classes of speaking mainly French and conducting their daily lives by European conventions became increasingly ingrained.[43]

Russian music without Russianness[edit]

Catterino Cavos
Because of the demand from the aristocracy for European music, Russian classical composers attempted to write in Western style. When they did so, however, they were hampered by limited skills. More fortunate individuals such asMaxim Berezovsky and Dmitry Bortniansky were sent to Italy for further training.[44] Mikhail Glinka also studied in Italy and Germany. Before writing in his own style, he gained the attention of high society by composing dance music and a number of works imitative of Rossini, Mozart and Beethoven.[45] The leading Russian opera composer other than Glinka was Alexey Verstovsky, who patterned his works after those of German composer Carl Maria von Weber.[44] On the streets of Saint Petersburg, folk song initially prevailed as peasants moved into the city. However, it became assimilated with arias and songs from European operas, French and Italian dances and later Gypsy elements into a new genre called rossiyskaya pensnya (translated as "Russian song"). Only the lyrics and melodies remained Russian; the other elements of the songs conformed to Western practice.[46] These songs, also called romansy(romances), became known for their beauty and dark eroticism and popular among a wide range of Russian music lovers. Glinka composed romansy, as did Vladimir Sokalsky and a number of other lesser-known composers, and their qualities may have found their way into Tchaikovsky's music, as well.[47] Enthusiasm for original Russian folk song among the cultural elite received a boost between 1820 and 1850 when they rediscovered the protyazhnaya. Known for the extreme beauty of its lyrics and originality of its music, its words was taken as a model by poets such as Alexander Pushkin and Anton Delvig. Composers eventually investigated these songs for their musical possibilities, as well. While some of them were adapted to Western styles, on a whole their irregular rhythms, variable tempos, abundant melismas and unstable tonality were too far removed from European music for those used to more Western-oriented romansy.[48]

Russian opera was not entirely neglected but it was not being written entirely by Russians, either. Catterino Cavos, a Venetian composer, was a strong advocate and wrote all his mature operas to Russian librettos. Cavos served on the staff of the Imperial Theaters and was in charge of Russian-language opera at the Bolshoi Kamenny Theatre. His Ivan Susanin, written in 1815, told the story of the peasant who saved the first Tsar from the Poles. Glinka would resurrect the subject two decades later for A Life for the Tsar.[44]

Budding, conflicted nationalism[edit]

See also: Russian Enlightenment

Mikhail Glinka
A budding interest in Russian nationalism, which led to the debate between Slavophiles and Westernizers, came as a result of the elite's exposure to the teachings of the Enlightenment during their education and travels. This Western European movement espoused, among other things, strong ideas about national identity and values. It inspired Russian writers to develop a national literary language distinct from the Church Slavonic and others to collect folk songs and study popular customs. In 1818, the Imperial government commissioned Karamzin to write his History of the Russian State, which he finished six years later. This tome met a growing need for historical understanding and national self-affirmation in the wake of the Napoleonic Warsin short, the assurance that Russia had a solid history and an active role to play in international politics [49]and did so with a text both accessible and engaging, aimed intentionally at non-specialists.[50] Through it and his fiction, Karamzin also showed that modern Russian was a more than adequate vehicle for literature.[51] However, since the language employed a syntax and diction based on French and contained a number of loanwords from European languages, its adaptation by the literary community was controversial and widened the cultural rift between classes still further.[51] In 1836, Glinka's opera A Life for the Tsar was premiered in Saint Petersburg. This was an event long-awaited by the intelligentsia. The opera was the first conceived by a Russian composer on a grand scale, set to a Russian text and patriotic in its appeal.[52] Its plot fit neatly into the doctrine

of Official Nationality being promulgated by Nicholas I, thus assuring Imperial approval.[53] In formal and stylistic terms, A Life was very much an Italian opera but also showed a sophisticated thematic structure and a boldness in orchestral scoring.[52] It was the first tragic opera to enter the Russian repertore, with Ivan Susanin's death at the end underlining and adding gravitas to the patriotism running through the whole opera. (In Cavos's version, Ivan is spared at the last minute.)[54] It was also the first Russian opera where the music continued throughout, uninterrupted by spoken dialogue.[52] Moreoverand this is what amazed contemporaries about the workthe music included folk songs and Russian national idioms, incorporating them into the drama. Glinka meant his use of folk songs to reflect the presence of popular characters in the opera, rather than an overt attempt at nationalism.[55] Nor do they play a major part in the opera.[56] Nevertheless, despite a few derogatory comments about Glinka's use of "coachman's music," A Life became popular enough to earn obtain permanent repertory status, the first Russian opera to do so in that country.[57] Ironically, the success of Rossini's Semiramide earlier the same season was what allowed A Life to be staged at all, with virtually all the cast fromSemiramide retained for A Life. Despite A Life's success, the furor over Semiramide aroused an overwhelming demand for Italian opera. This proved a setback for Russian opera in general and particularly for Glinka's next opera, Ruslan and Lyudmila when it was produced in 1842. Its failure prompted Glinka to leave Russia; he died in exile.[58]

Drawing sides[edit]
Despite Glinka's gaining international attention,[59] the admiration of Liszt and Berlioz for his music[59] and his heralding by the latter as "among the outstanding composers of his time",[60] Russian aristocrats remained focused exclusively on foreign music.[61] The stratification of Russian society hindered Russia's development of classical music. Musicians belonged among the lowest ranks in society, with no official status and no more rights than peasants. Painters, sculptors and actors were considered "free artists." Musicians were not. Unless a musician was also a wealthy aristocrat, the only way he could earn a living was to teach in an academy or work in one of the Imperial Theaters. In both cases, he served the Russian state on the lowest level of the hierarchy. [62] Music itself was bound by class structure, as well, and held only a modest role in public life. It was still considered a privilege of the aristocracy and remained largely in the European-styled salons of the major palaces.[63] Nobles spent enormous sums on musical performances for their exclusive enjoyment and hosted visiting artists such as Clara Schumann and Franz Liszt. There were no ongoing concert societies, no critical press and no public eagerly anticipating new works. No competent level of music education existed. Private tutors were available in some cities but tended to be badly trained. Anyone desiring a quality education had to travel abroad.[64] Composer and pianist Anton Rubinstein's founding of the Russian Musical Society in 1859 and the Saint Petersburg Conservatory three years later were giant steps toward remedying this situation

but also highly controversial ones. Critic Vladimir Stasov and a group of amateur composers called The Five, who believed in developing Russian music independent of European practices, saw Rubinstein's efforts as antipathetic and fought against him.[65]Rubinstein did not fight back. Instead, he concentrated on shepherding his premiere class of students through the Conservatory and did not allow them to take sides.[66] Among this group was a young legal clerk named Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.[67]

Tchaikovsky[edit]
See also: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Tchaikovsky in his teens.

Tchaikovsky was born in 1840 in Votkinsk, a small town in present-day Udmurtia, formerly the Imperial Russian province ofVyatka. A precocious pupil, he began piano lessons at the age of five, and could read music as adeptly as his teacher within three years. However, his parents' passion for his musical talent soon cooled. In 1850, the family decided to send Tchaikovsky to the Imperial School of Jurisprudence in Saint Petersburg. This establishment mainly served the lesser nobility or gentry, and would prepare him for a career as a civil servant. As the minimum age for acceptance was 12, Tchaikovsky was sent by his family to board at the Imperial School of Jurisprudence's preparatory school in Saint Petersburg, 800 miles (1,300 km) from his family home in Alapayevsk.[68] Once Tchaikovsky came of age for acceptance, he was transferred to the Imperial School of Jurisprudence to begin a seven-year course of studies.[69] Music was not a priority at the School,[70] but Tchaikovsky regularly attended the theater and the opera with other students.[71]He was fond of works by Rossini, Bellini, Verdi and Mozart. Piano manufacturer Franz Becker made occasional visits to the School as a token music teacher. This was the only formal music instruction Tchaikovsky received there. From 1855 the composer's father, Ilya Tchaikovsky, funded private lessons with Rudolph Kndinger, a well-known piano teacher fromNuremberg, and questioned Kndinger about a musical career for his son. Kndinger replied

that nothing suggested a potential composer or even a fine performer. Tchaikovsky was told to finish his course and then try for a post in the Ministry of Justice.[72] Tchaikovsky graduated on May 25, 1859 with the rank of titular counselor, a low rung on the civil service ladder. On June 15, he was appointed to the Ministry of Justice in Saint Petersburg. Six months later he became a junior assistant and two months after that, a senior assistant. Tchaikovsky remained there for the rest of his three-year civil service career.[73] In 1861, Tchaikovsky attended classes in music theory organized by the Russian Musical Society and taught by Nikolai Zaremba. A year later he followed Zaremba to the Saint Petersburg Conservatory. Tchaikovsky would not give up his Ministry post "until I am quite certain that I am destined to be a musician rather than a civil servant."[74] From 1862 to 1865 he studied harmony, counterpoint and fugue with Zaremba, while Rubinstein taught him instrumentation and composition.[67] In 1863 he abandoned his civil service career and studied music full-time, graduating in December 1865.

The Five[edit]
See also: The Five Around Christmas 1855, Glinka was visited by Alexander Ulybyshev, a rich Russian amateur critic, and his 18-year-old protg Mily Balakirev, who was reportedly on his way to becoming a great pianist.[75] Balakirev played his fantasy based on themes from A Life for the Tsar for Glinka. Glinka, pleasantly surprised, praised Balakirev as a musician with a bright future.[75]

Portrait of (left to right) Mily Balakirev, Vladimir Odoevsky andMikhail Glinka by Ilya Repin.
In 1856, Balakirev and critic Vladimir Stasov, who publicly espoused a nationalist agenda for Russian arts, started gathering young composers through whom to spread ideas and gain a following.[76] First to meet with them that year was Csar Cui, an army officer who specialized in the science of

fortifications. Modest Mussorgsky, a Preobrazhensky Lifeguard officer, joined them in 1857; Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, a naval cadet, in 1861; and Alexander Borodin, a chemist, in 1862. Balakirev, Borodin, Cui, Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov composed in their spare time, and all five of them were young men in 1862, with Rimsky-Korsakov at just 18 the youngest and Borodin the oldest at 28.[77]All five were essentially self-taught and eschewed conservative and "routine" musical techniques.[78] They became known as the kuchka, variously translated as The Five, The Russian Five and The Mighty Handful after a review written by Stasov about their music. Stasov wrote, "May God grant that [the audience retains] for ever a memory of how much poetry, feeling, talent and ability is possessed by the small but already mighty handful [moguchaya kuchka] of Russian musicians".[79] The term moguchaya kuchka, which literally means "mighty little heap", stuck,[78] although Stasov referred to them in print generally as the "New Russian School."[80] The aim of this group was to create an independent Russian school of music in the footsteps of Glinka.[81] They were to strive for "national character," gravitate toward "Oriental" (by that they meant near-Eastern) melodies and favor program music over absolutein other words, symphonic poems and related music over symphonies, concertos and chamber music.[82] To create this Russian style of classical music, Stasov wrote that the group incorporated four characteristics. The first was a rejection of academicism and fixed Western forms of composition. The second was the incorporation of musical elements from eastern nations inside the Russian empire; this was a quality that would later become known as musical orientalism. The third was a progressive and anti-academic approach to music. The fourth was the incorporation of compositional devices linked with folk music. These four points would distinguish the Five from its contemporaries in the cosmopolitan camp of composition.[83] According to musicologist Richard Taruskin, Stasov's greatest issue was "defending the noble tradition of Russian autodidactism against the inroads of academic professionalism."[82] In other words, such Western institutions as conservatories and other means of public music education were to be disallowed, their existence in Russia to be fought at all costs, and the writing of New Russian music to be done by non-professionals.[84] With this crucial position, Taruskin writes, the very nature of Stasov and Balakirev's movement was "curiously skewed." Among Russian painters, a similar nationalistic trend had been following a familiar patternthat of "young mavericks against the entrenched establishment."[84] In Russian classical music, there was no such establishment against which to fight. Professional musicians, almost by definition, had been nearly all foreigners since the reign of the three empresses in the 18th century. The only native Russians who practiced music were dilettantes among the upper classesthe same classes from which came Glinka, Stasov, Balakirev and the rest of The Five. Therefore, The Five were not fighting against the status quo. They were the status quo.[84]

Rubinstein and the Saint Petersburg Conservatory[edit]

The person out to upturn the status quoa position normally occupied by groups like The Fivewas Anton Rubinstein, a famous Russian pianist who had lived, performed and composed in Western and Central Europe before he returned to Russia in 1858.[84] The experience of German musical life had influenced not only his development as a composer but also shaped his views on the place of music in society. In Germany, music was treated as great art and an exaltation of the human spirit, enjoying a prestige unthinkable in Russia. He had come to realize that professional musical training was essential, and that higher musical education was a prerequisite for building a musical culture.[85]

Anton Rubinstein on the podium as portrayed by Ilya Repin.

Rubinstein saw Russia as a musical desert compared to Paris, Berlin and Leipzig, whose music conservatories he had visited. Musical life flourished in those places; composers were held in high regard, and musicians were wholeheartedly devoted to their art.[86] With a similar ideal in mind for Russia, he had conceived an idea for a conservatory in Russia years before his 1858 return, and had finally aroused the interest of influential people to help him realize the idea. Rubinstein's first step was to found the Russian Musical Society (RMS) in 1859. Its objectives were to educate people in music, cultivate their musical tastes and develop their talents in that area of their lives.[87][88] The first priority upon which the RMS acted was to expose the music of native composers to the public. It invitedAlexander Dargomyzhsky, Gavriil Lomakin, Prince Odoyevsky and Carl Schuberth to form a committee to review manuscripts for possible performance.[89] Mussorgsky and Cui received the first performances of their works through the RMS, both under Rubinstein's baton. The fourth concert of the 1859 season included Cui's Scherzo in F major and the seventh concert Mussorgsky's Scherzo in B-flat major.[90] This was in addition to a considerable amount of Western European music. Within a few seasons, the public had heard the complete symphonies, overtures and piano concertos of Beethoven, oratorios by Handel, cantatas by Bach, operas by Gluck and works by Schumann andSchubert. Russian music was also performed. Operas by Glinka, Dargomyzhsky,

Rubinstein himself and others were staged. Though its efforts, the RMS helped create a broad listening public by taking music out of the salons of the aristocracy and making it available to everyone.[91] A few weeks after the Society's premiere concert, Rubinstein started organizing music classes, which were open to everyone.[91] Interest in these classes grew until Rubinstein founded the Saint Petersburg Conservatory in 1862.[88] Rubinstein had barely founded the Conservatory when a sharp difference of opinion broke out between musical radicals and traditionalists.[92] Rubinstein was in the latter camp, which was suspicious or hostile to new trends in music, wishing instead to preserve in their own works the best in the Western traditions of the recent past. The radicals, eager to further explore musical territories to form their own styles and techniques, broke into two factions. One, The Five, was inspired by the works of Franz Liszt and Robert Schumann. The other, led by composer and critic Alexander Serov, chose Richard Wagner as its inspiration. Each of these groupingstwo radical and one traditionalistchampioned a different aesthetic ideal, along with a distinct concept of the essence and function and music. At stake was a conflict of progressive and conservative musical idealsmore specifically, the distinction between abstract and program music, as well as between a music-oriented and a realistic opera aesthetic. Fueling the issue further was a suggestion by German music historian August Wilhelm Ambros that the Austro-German musical hegemonythat had dominated classical music up to that time was rapidly ending and that it was time for Russia and America to take up their responsibilities. This view was received warmly and encouragingly in Russia.[6] According to musicologist Francis Maes, Rubinstein could not be accused of any lack of artistic integrity.[93] He fought for change and progress in musical life in Russia. Only his musical tastes were conservativefrom Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven to the early Romantics up to Chopin. Liszt and Wagner were not included. Neither did he welcome many ideas then new about music, including the role of nationalism in classical music. For Rubinstein, national music existed only in folk song and folk dance. There was no place for national music in larger works, especially not in opera.[93] Rubinstein's public reaction to the attacks was simply not to react. His classes and concerts were well attended, so he felt no reply was actually necessary. He even forbade his students to take sides. Before long, Serov and Balakirev were fighting over the importance of Glinka in Russian music and Rubinstein could go, at least for the moment, in peace.[66] He matriculated his first class of graduates from the Conservatoryamong them Tchaikovsky.[94]

Difference in Russianness[edit]
Tchaikovsky and The Five were all thoroughly Russian in their sentiments.[95] At the same time, historian Orlando Figes writes, they were also Europeans, with both their cultural identitiesRussian and European"intertwined and mutually dependent in a number of ways. However, hard they might have tried, it was impossible for Russians such as these to suppress either part of their identity".[96] Complicating this matter for European Russians were the two very different modes of

behavior they were expected to display. At Court, in the theater and in the salons and ballrooms of Saint Petersburg, they were expected to act according to a very complex and formal code of conduct, as Europeans were perceived to behave, and in doing so, "they performed their European manners almost like actors on a public stage".[96] This code was so strictly enforced that in 1810 G.A. RimskyKorsakov, a distant relation of the composer, was discharged from the Preobrazhensky Lifeguard regiment for unbuttoning the top button of his uniform at a dinner following a ball.[97] Only in private could members of the upper classes relax, act more naturally and allow their native Russian habits to prevail.[96] For the Russian aristocracy and upper classes, "Europe" essentially became not only a place but also a region of the mind inhabited through education, language, religion and general attitude.[98] Foreign education, culture and arts became preferred. French, not Russian, became the spoken and written language. Foreign customs became preferred over native ones. This desire for all things European lead to a cultural schism among the upper classes and aristocracy. This schism, in turn, helped feed a myth that these classes had "lost" their Russianness in their struggle to act and become more European. Dispelling this notion and defining what being Russian actually meant would become a struggle in its own right. The part over which Tchaikovsky, Stasov and The Five struggled was how to actually define Russianness in classical music and how it should actually sound.[95] A clue to the answer they sought lies in their divergent attitudes to Glinka's two operas. The Five gravitated toward Ruslan and Lyudmila, Glinka's more musically radical opera, with attitudes and techniques veering sharply away from Western practice.[61] Tchaikovsky was more attracted to A Life for the Tsar, which was the first Russian opera in the Russian repertoire in which the hero dies at the end, making it the first tragic opera written in Russia, and also the first Russian opera entirely sung, with no spoken recitative whatever.[54] Written before Ruslan, A Life differed in being more rooted in Western musical techniques. Even so, its subject and basic musical material remained overtly Russian.[56]