BaL 4.06.16 - Tchaikovsky: Symphony no. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’

[BBMmk2]

Well, I'm quite happy with the recordings I have, so, that's saved money :)

[ardcarp]

Is there any way of observing the violinists' fingerings in the various You Tube clips to determine whether they're playing Tchaikovsky's actual scoring? Here for example is HvK himself in one such clip ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtLq8wj0p80

Quite hard to be sure, but the second time the theme appears (after the camera pans to the flutes) look at the younger violinist between the two with glasses. He appears not to be playing 'adjacent' notes.

PS Never realised how much HvK looked like Lenny.

[Bryn]

The most convincing explanation known to me is that this is 'eye music': the first and second violin lines repeatedly cross, symbolising the cross to which the composer imagined himself to be nailed on account of his passion for his nephew 'Bob' Davidoff, to whom the symphony is dedicated. It certainly isn't a hocket, which derives from the French word for hiccup. I don't believe it was intended to be audible.

I agree that hocketting does not fit the bill here. Just so those not familiar with the musical device, here it is laid bare:

[seabright]

Well, I'm quite happy with the recordings I have, so, that's saved money :)

The chosen HvK sounded very impressive but like you I think I have quite enough Pathetiques to be going on with: Toscanini, Stokowski, Munch, Reiner, Mravinsky, Ormandy, Paita, Boult, Coates and doubtless one or two others I've missed! However, I do have HvK in Tchaikovsky's first three symphonies, works he'd never previously conducted prior to the recording sessions, and they're all splendid, so I'm glad to have those,

[visualnickmos]

I'm the forum swot and the 2nds are playing the harmony line.

That's what we pay you for......

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That's what we pay you for......

I've just had my pay quadrupled.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I agree that hocketting does not fit the bill here. Just so those not familiar with the musical device, here it is laid bare:

A lovely postmodern take on the technique, but I was referring to its original Mediaeval usage (such as these examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4qPmusfsM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dq7cYOIoH8 )

... where a single melodic line is shared between two or more voices/instruments - the first "voice" sings the first note, then the second "voice" sings the second note, then the third note goes back to the first voice (or to a third voice if there is one). Change "voice" for "Violins" and you have a description of what Tchaikovsky does at the opening of the Finale of the Patehetique. In mediaeval Music, the voices often (not always) rest when the notes they don't sing are being sung by the others - sometimes they alternate melody note with "harmony" note. In what way does this "certainly not" (as rauschy puts it) "fit the bill" as an "earlier type of the technique" (as I described it) in the Tchaikovsky?

[Bryn]

A lovely postmodern take on the technique, but I was referring to its original Mediaeval usage (such as these examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4qPmusfsM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dq7cYOIoH8 )

... where a single melodic line is shared between two or more voices/instruments - the first "voice" sings the first note, then the second "voice" sings the second note, then the third note goes back to the first voice (or to a third voice if there is one). Change "voice" for "Violins" and you have a description of what Tchaikovsky does at the opening of the Finale of the Patehetique. In mediaeval Music, the voices often (not always) rest when the notes they don't sing are being sung by the others - sometimes they alternate melody note with "harmony" note. In what way does this "certainly not" (as rauschy puts it) "fit the bill" as an "earlier type of the technique" (as I described it) in the Tchaikovsky?

I did wonder where the quoted "definitely" came from. Neither rauchwerk, to whom I was responding, nor I used the word. I see you have now edited your message to replace it with rauchwerk's "certainly not". The message I was responding to referred to the origins of the term. I hear no "hiccup" in the section at issue.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The message I was responding to referred to the origins of the term. I hear no "hiccup" in the section at issue.

- nor do I (and, like you - as I said earlier - I've never heard any performance or recording where the different part writing at the beginning of the Movement and at the "recap" is clearly - or even vaguely - audible).

But as a description of the technique of Hocketing (rather than the resulting sound) it matches what Tchaikovsky writes, no?


(The editing was because I don't know how to search earlier posts - those on a different page - whilst writing; other than opening two tabs - as quick to type what I "remember" and then edit as quickly as possible if need-be, as here. (Hell - I'd even forgotten that I'd written "earlier" rather than "older"!)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Yes - this is how I've heard other Russians pronounce it, too (Shostakovich, for example). I won't be altering my own lifelong "Tcheye", though; save in a suitably postmodern ironic context.

Well you do have Wikipedia to support your unHIPP pronunciation.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky - ˈpjɔːtər iːˈljiːtʃ tʃaɪˈkɒfski

[mathias broucek]

Mravinsky's account could be worth following up

Get the reissue which comes with a stunning Francesca!

[Nick Armstrong]

If they did in play betting this [Mravinsky] would be the one IMO.

Good job you didn't put the house on it, Rob!

I have the Karajan versions (all of 'em) but not the ERATO Mravinsky that she chose above the DG recording - I shall hunt that one out.

I only have the DG Mravinsky (since I lent the Pletnev to someone years ago and whoever it was had it away on a permanent basis... not that I mind much)...

... and found this BAL a revelation as far as HvK is concerned. All praise for him on the dedicated Karajan thread completely vindicated by the two searing versions played by the reviewer - the 1939 one sounded terrific (especially compared with the RKO Pictures film score approach of contemporaries )... the winning 1971 version quite astonishing. I've never heard HvK in this repertoire... As regulars will know I have a fairly advanced case of high Tchaikovsky intolerance - only certain pieces in a handful of performances do it for me (Mravinsky in the symphonies and... that's it, hitherto) - but I need to hear the Karajan again. And the live Mravinsky.

I wasn't at all disappointed with this BAL - not least as the reviewer echoed my own sense that if Tchaikovsky symphonies aren't played with metaphorical 'white knuckles' on the part of all concerned, I'd rather hear something else!

[Flosshilde]

but I need to hear the Karajan again.

When did they stop playing the winning recording on Essential Classics? I've checked the Monday programme details & there's no mention of it.

[Richard Tarleton]

Floss they shifted it from Ess. Classics to the re-vamped Sunday morning programme, just a few weeks ago - i.e. we had it this morning.

[Nick Armstrong]

When did they stop playing the winning recording on Essential Classics? I've checked the Monday programme details & there's no mention of it.

It went to James Jolly's Sunday morning programme some time back (mean, some weeks... when the Sunday schedule got a bit of a revamp - ff knows the details)