Tchaikowsky's last symphony

[EdgeleyRob]

Alexander Ivashkin, in his monograph on Schnittke, talks of several Schnittke and other Russian works (in particular symphonies) that are 'dying' - works that eschew a triumphant, upbeat or resolutory finale, in favour of an extended postlude or epilogue, sometimes of disproportionate length to the rest of the work. Such works would include Schnittke's 3rd Symphony and 2nd Cello Concerto, and also (as ahinton has mentioned upthread) Shostakovich's 4th. Ivashkin identifies Tchaikovsky's 6th as the pioneer example of this concept of the symphony that is dying.

Quite coincidentally to this thread, I have been listening rather a lot recently to Tchaik 6 in the live recording in the Yuri Temirkanov Brilliant Classics set. A very powerful reading indeed.

Mieczyslaw Weinberg was the master of the non triumphant,upbeat or resolutory ending to a Russian Symphony IMO.

5,6 (the one that apparently DSCH wished he had written)8,10,18

[Tapiola]

Mieczyslaw Weinberg was the master of the non triumphant,upbeat or resolutory ending to a Russian Symphony IMO.

5,6 (the one that apparently DSCH wished he had written)8,10,18

Thanks for this Rob - you've put me in mind of investigating...

I would add to the list DSCH 14 and 15.

[Tapiola]

And indeed I was sad to see that Alexander Ivashkin himself died not too long ago. A fine cellist. Sorry - Off Topic!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ivashkin

Indeed, Dave. A sad loss. I've quite a few recordings of his DSCH and Schnittke. Great cellist and deep thinker.

[Lat-Literal]

Wot about "7"?

[Barbirollians]

I think that the most satisfying Pathetique I own is the live recording Mackerras made near the end of his life on Signum Classics.

[AjAjAjH]

Is 6 (iii) really a triumphal March as Hornspieler suggests?

I have never regarded it as such. It is a superb movement but it is swagger and bluster which eventually leads to the final movement which shows that swagger and bluster don't work. I once saw a performance which made this point by the conductor (I forget who) linking the two movements without a break.

[Hornspieler]

Wot about "7"?

I don't feel that Manfred is Symphony Nº 7 and here is why:

A Symphonic Cycle is like an autobiography in music of a composer's output and achievements. The sequence illustrates not only when these works were published, but also indicate the growing maturity of the writer's output.

As a few examples: Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Schubert, Dvorak.

But Manfred, although written in symphonic form is different.

It is like a retrospective - harking back to what was the composer's ambition, his successes his disappointments, and the final result.

Call it Tchaikowsky's equivalent to Richard Strauss' Ein Heldenleben (an artists life)

Opening movement: This is me! I am an artist who will achieve everything I seek for in life."

Second movement: "How's this for a lively scherzo? It needs a good orchestra to play this!"

Third movement: "Sometimes I wonder why I'm doing this. I'm not sure where to look for inspiration."

Finale: "That's it then. All has been achieved, but - hang on a minute - why that organ music reminding me of the ending of my last symphony (Nº 6) after the triumphant ending of the third movement?

Off post?

Well not really. "Manfred" is an appropriate name for this work. It may be in symphonic form, but Byron was no fool.

Anyway, if you can't stop yourself from going wildly off-post, it's up to you, but I started this thread for a serious reason and not just to provide a vehicle for scorn and insult.

Hornspieler

[Hornspieler]

Alison asked:

Is 6 (iii) really a triumphal March as Hornspieler suggests?

to which AjAjAj replied

I have never regarded it as such. It is a superb movement but it is swagger and bluster which eventually leads to the final movement which shows that swagger and bluster don't work.

Exactly. And that is one of the reasons why I started this thread.

HS

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The Manfred, isn't the seventh - it's the fifth; the Pathetique (Number 6) is the seventh; and "Number 7" is the eighth. Goethe was no fool (apart from his rejection of Newton's discoveries about colour perception) but he didn't write Manfred; Byron did.

[Bryn]

The Manfred, isn't the seventh - it's the fifth; the Pathetique (Number 6) is the seventh; and "Number 7" is the eighth. Goethe was no fool (apart from his rejection of Newton's discoveries about colour perception) but he didn't write Manfred; Byron did.

Hand on. Number 7 was started, and abandoned, between the official 5th and the Pathetique.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Hand on. Number 7 was started, and abandoned, between the official 5th and the Pathetique.

Ooops! So number 7 is actually the seventh?!

That's confusing. Still, it does mean that people who like their B minor Symphonies to be "number 8" will be happy.

[Beef Oven!]

Ooops! So number 7 is actually the seventh?!

That's confusing. Still, it does mean that people who like their B minor Symphonies to be "number 8" will be happy.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I have never regarded it as such. It is a superb movement but it is swagger and bluster which eventually leads to the final movement which shows that swagger and bluster don't work.

- but not all "swagger and bluster": the Movement begins as a sort-of homage to Mendelssohn - glittering gossamer (and truly superb orchestration) light and carefree. Children playing at soldiers - the process of brutalization which occurs in the last third of the Movement, when the grown-up children are faced with the real thing is truly appalling; and then the "lament of the mothers". Nothing else by Tchaikovsky matches this drama, mainly (I like to think) because it is objective - it seems devoid of the self-dramatization that mars my enjoyment of so much of his other work. I think that, in addition to the originality of the "dying" Finale, Shostakovich was also impressed by the "brutalization" of the "innocent" material - it is a technique he was to use to devastating effect in his own work.

Of course, Tchaikovsky may have had no such ideas in his head at all, and it is my own "back-projecting" of (for example) procedures found in Shostakovich's Fifth rather than "influence". But it makes for a truly powerful experience.

I once saw a performance which made this point by the conductor (I forget who) linking the two movements without a break.

Many do this - it stops the applause after the Third Movement if nothing else!

[EdgeleyRob]

Thanks for this Rob - you've put me in mind of investigating...

I would add to the list DSCH 14 and 15.

Interesting you mention DSCH 15,the closing A Major bars of Weinberg 6 seem to point the way forward to the end of the 15th.

There are many more similarities to be found when comparing the two composer's output,and not always MW being influenced by DSCH,it works both ways.
Sorry seem to be heading way off topic

[cloughie]

The Manfred, isn't the seventh - it's the fifth; the Pathetique (Number 6) is the seventh; and "Number 7" is the eighth. Goethe was no fool (apart from his rejection of Newton's discoveries about colour perception) but he didn't write Manfred; Byron did.

Always liked Manfred whether the Tchaikovsky symphony, the Schumann overture or Mann!