Approximate and Convenient Time Signatures

Many of Alexander Scriabin’s preludes feature quixotic or rhythmically inaccurate notation, including time signatures that do not correlate with rhythmic events in the foreground. From the standpoint of performance practice, I introduce an interpretive approach that focusses on rubato as a causal factor of Scriabin’s notational idiosyncrasies and argue that they represent an act of selfanalysis, pointing to a conscious imprint of pre-compositional planning on the final product in the choice of metric notation. In this study, preludes are classified according to two criteria: (1) the type of primary metrical dissonance they engender, which includes Type A rubato, i.e., an expressive anticipation or ornamentation of the melodic line against the accompaniment in strict time, and Type B rubato – temporary displacement of the entire texture; and (2) the type of approximation in time signature notation. The focus of this study are the early preludes (up to 1903) as Scriabin’s attention in the later preludes appears to increasingly turn toward the harmonic dissonance and away from rubato and hand synchronisation issues. I present notational variants to three preludes from op. 11 that serve as an investigative tool into Scriabin’s compositional process. Finally, I offer suggestions regarding performance considerations as well as the historical evaluation of Scriabin’s oeuvre in light of the analyses presented in this study.