Talk:Alexander Scriabin

Template:Composers

Synaesthesia speculation

I'm seeing a possible contradiction between articles re/ Scriabin's ability/condition... This article refers to Scriabin as a synesthete, yet the synaesthesia article claims: Alexander Scriabin may have been, but probably wasn't, a synesthete. The color system he described and which he used in pieces such as Prometheus, unlike most systems and synaesthetic experience, line up with the circle of fifths, indicating that it was a thought out system that was also influenced by his theosophic readings, and based on Sir Isaac Newton's Optics. -- Ds13 20:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with the assertions on Synestheia that Scriabin probably wasn't a synesthetete (of course, because I added it). Check the external links at the bottom, those are what I based this conclusion on. Hyacinth 21:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sources & Synaesthesia

I think sources like Samson 1977 and Rudhyar 1926b (presumably books) should be listed in a References section. These sources are at least as important as external links.

On a sidenote, I think the synaesthesia-issue is out of place in its present form. The part about synaesthesia seems to be inspired by only one (extensive) online source which tries to argue against Scriabin experiencing the physiological condition of synaesthesia. It is a little strange to learn from an article like this that 'Scriabin most likely was NOT a physiological synaesthete' (as if the reader thought he was, or heard someone say he was). It would be better to cover the debate as a whole instead of attacking a position that isn't even mentioned before. But then, how relevant is this issue altogether? Which important sources do consider Scriabin to be a synaesthete; or why is it so important to argue against this position? - Strangeloop (talk) 09:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By "out of place" you mean incorrect? Examples of the position that he was a synaesthete include wikipedia (obviously you'll have to wait for other examples):

• [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alexander_Scriabin&oldid=5576830): "The colors used for each pitch were actually derived from Scriabin's synaesthesia, a condition wherein one experiences stimulus in one sense in response to real stimulus in another sense. In Scriabin's case individual pitches and even chords produced a sensation of color or colors (see clavier à lumières for the colors)."
• [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Synaesthesia&oldid=2051328): "Scriabin selected the colors based on his synaesthetic experience."

The article does not state, out of the blue, that some position never before encountered by the reader is not true. You actually left out the exact words you disagree with: "Though often considered derived from Scriabin's synaesthesia..."

Do you disagree that he was not a synaesthete? Do you actually disagree that no one thought or thinks he was? Do you think that the information regarding influences on his synaesthetic system hurt the article?

Considering that you appear to be requesting someone make a correction you yourself are unable to make or determine is necessary, what would your standard be for "relevance" and the "importance" of sources? Hyacinth 20:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what the article says, let me be clear about that. By 'out of place' I do not mean 'incorrect'; note the addition in its present form. My main point is just that the way the article now talks about Scriabin's (non)synaestesia is maybe not the most logical way to talk about the issue in the context of the article. When I read this article for the very first time (which was recently), the paragraph in question did strike me as being phrased a little illogical; I literally thought 'Huh? As if I thought he was or as if the article mentioned he was considered to be - did I miss something?'.

Well, maybe I did miss something, namely the phrase you are (rightly) quoting: 'Though often considered...'. But that's exactly my point: I would think that is too meager. I think the article would benefit from sketching the debate (if there is any) more fully, before attacking whatever assertion. And if there is no debate, it might be more appropriate to say something like 'Judging from works like Prometheus: TPoF, one might consider Scriabin to be synaesthetic. However, the fact that so and so (color system) indicates that this conclusion is unwarranted.'

Concerning your last point, some clarification seems in place indeed. By using the words 'relevant' and 'important', I do not mean 'relevancy' or 'importance' judging from some absolute standard. I used this concepts with regard to the context the article provides; thus, I was asking something like: 'In the article (in its present form), how relevant or important is the debate (again, if there is any debate) about Scriabin's synaesthesia? And what sources exactly do advance the position that is attacked in the article?'. If there would be no clear sources outside of Wikipedia, this would not render the issue irrelevant; one could always say something like I proposed above ('one might consider...').

I hope I'm being clear now. Once more I want to stress that I don't disagree with any of the conclusions being drawn in the article. In short, maybe the issue at hand boils down to this: the phrase 'though often considered' is not very encyclopedic unless there is provided some source; if there is no clear source, the point could be restated like I proposed above. - Strangeloop (talk) 22:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• John Harrison (2001). Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing, ISBN 0192632450: "In fact, there is considerable doubt about the legitimacy of Scriabin's claim, or rather the claims made on his behalf, as we shall discuss in Chapter 5." (p.31-2)
• Victoria Finlay (2003). Color: A Natural History of the Palette, ISBN 0345444: "Scriabin was synaesthetic, which meant his brain made connections between things that the majority of people do not believe to be fundamentally connected." (p.196)