Tchaikowsky's last symphony

[Richard Barrett]

I would add to the list DSCH 14 and 15.

I was going to say that very thing. Although their closing gestures are very different of course.

[Richard Barrett]

For me the Pathetique will always lead me on to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. As a schoolboy I heard so many pre-echoes (no, not the recording artefact phenomenon) of the the latter in the former. It was only a year of so later that I learned of Stravinsky's avowed love of Tchaikovsky's music. I wonder if others here hear a similar association between the two works.

I've just listened to the 6th and I'm afraid I don't really see where you're coming from here except - maybe - the beginning of the third movement. I also have to say that for me the last movement is rather simplistic in expression, and more like seeing someone else have an emotion than like being drawn to feel one's own, being shown what something is like rather than experiencing it. As for the rest of the symphonies I can't shake off a feeling I often have in Tchaikovsky of a form that consists of "big tunes" separated by "other stuff". But all that of course is a subjective and individual reaction.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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

- for a moment there, I was trying to remember Thomas Mann's novel "Manfred", before the penny dropped!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I also have to say that for me the last movement is rather simplistic in expression, and more like seeing someone else have an emotion than like being drawn to feel one's own, being shown what something is like rather than experiencing it.

Ah, that's interesting - as I mentioned in #73, the Finale of the Pathetique is the one of all Tchaikovsky's expressions of grief that seems most "objective" to me, and all the more effective and affecting for it: mainly because of the context established by the Third Movement, but also because of that "simplicity" which you hear as "simplistic". The performers help - I prefer the dry-eyed ones (Mravinsky, Szell, Karajan and Leinsdorf, for example) to the "emoters".

I think you've described Tchaikovsky's problems with form in his other symphonies exactly as I respond to them too, though.

[Richard Barrett]

expressions of grief

Well this is just it: the fact that it can be described in that way is what I find simplistic. I don't like to make too many comparisons between so obviously different pieces of music, but I think of the closing minutes of Mahler 9, or VW 6, or Shostakovich 4 or 15, or for that matter Henze's 2nd piano concerto (which is more symphonic than most of his symphonies!), none of which would be describable in such unequivocal terms.

[aeolium]

Well this is just it: the fact that it can be described in that way is what I find simplistic. I don't like to make too many comparisons between so obviously different pieces of music, but I think of the closing minutes of Mahler 9, or VW 6, or Shostakovich 4 or 15, or for that matter Henze's 2nd piano concerto (which is more symphonic than most of his symphonies!), none of which would be describable in such unequivocal terms.

Firstly, Richard, very best wishes to you, your wife and newborn child!

I think this symphony is a terrific work, the most concentrated, intense and dramatic that Tchaikovsky wrote (closely followed by the Piano Trio). It's wonderfully orchestrated, full of colour and variety. I think simplicity is a better description for the finale, and the morendo ending in the minor takes the work full circle from its sepulchral opening - in Tovey's eloquent description "the music of the whole symphony dies away in the darkness with which it began." I don't think it makes sense to compare works pejoratively with those written in wholly different musical milieus: Tchaikovsky's work was one of high Romanticism and at least one of Romanticism's idioms is that of expressive simplicity, right through the C19. If you condemn the end of the 6th symphony for being expressively simplistic, then you could say the same of many other Romantic works, from Schubert songs through Berlioz, Schumann, Grieg, Dvorak (and even going back to Beethoven's An die ferne Geliebte). And as far as the ending of the Tchaikovsky 6th is concerned, whatever the comparative merits of other later symphonic works with quiet endings in the minor that die away, it was Tchaikovsky who thought of it first - it is (AFAIK) unprecedented in symphonic literature.

I think this work really needs recordings with modern (or at least very good) sound quality to bring out every instrumental detail and so regrettably I put aside the classic recordings by pre-war Furtwängler and post-war Fricsay. And I agree with fhg that it needs performances that do not overstate, do not pull about tempi or exaggerate dynamics so no Bernstein for me. There are many good recordings - and many can be heard on the Naxos Music Library that Edgeley Rob and teamsaint have pointed us to - but I especially like Mackerras, Ashkenazy and Pletnev, all well-recorded and with fine orchestras.

[Hornspieler]

Firstly, Richard, very best wishes to you, your wife and newborn child!

I think this symphony is a terrific work, the most concentrated, intense and dramatic that Tchaikovsky wrote (closely followed by the Piano Trio). It's wonderfully orchestrated, full of colour and variety. I think simplicity is a better description for the finale, and the morendo ending in the minor takes the work full circle from its sepulchral opening - in Tovey's eloquent description "the music of the whole symphony dies away in the darkness with which it began." I don't think it makes sense to compare works pejoratively with those written in wholly different musical milieus: Tchaikovsky's work was one of high Romanticism and at least one of Romanticism's idioms is that of expressive simplicity, right through the C19. If you condemn the end of the 6th symphony for being expressively simplistic, then you could say the same of many other Romantic works, from Schubert songs through Berlioz, Schumann, Grieg, Dvorak (and even going back to Beethoven's An die ferne Geliebte). And as far as the ending of the Tchaikovsky 6th is concerned, whatever the comparative merits of other later symphonic works with quiet endings in the minor that die away, it was Tchaikovsky who thought of it first - it is (AFAIK) unprecedented in symphonic literature.

I think this work really needs recordings with modern (or at least very good) sound quality to bring out every instrumental detail and so regrettably I put aside the classic recordings by pre-war Furtwängler and post-war Fricsay. And I agree with fhg that it needs performances that do not overstate, do not pull about tempi or exaggerate dynamics so no Bernstein for me. There are many good recordings - and many can be heard on the Naxos Music Library that Edgeley Rob and teamsaint have pointed us to - but I especially like Mackerras, Ashkenazy and Pletnev, all well-recorded and with fine orchestras.

Thank goodness that at last, somebody has posted a sensible reply to my opening post, which I may remind you all was concerning Tchaikowsky's Pathetique Symphony and it's effect on, (or reaction to) people who hear it performed. (especially for the first time)

Nothing to do with Shostakovitch's 14th and 15th symphonies or any other subject.

I think this is an appropriate place to terminate this thread.

[vinteuil]

I think this is an appropriate place to terminate this thread.

... and you have some authority to prevent other contributors expressing their views?






.

[Hornspieler]

... and you have some authority to prevent other contributors expressing their views?

No, it's merely a suggestion, but I shall not contribute anything further, so please go ahead.

Starting another thread rather than continuing with this one, makes sense to me.

How about "The early operas of Harry Birtwistle"?
or "John Cage released from custody"?

But I'm only the OP.






.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think it makes sense to compare works pejoratively with those written in wholly different musical milieus: Tchaikovsky's work was one of high Romanticism and at least one of Romanticism's idioms is that of expressive simplicity, right through the C19. If you condemn the end of the 6th symphony for being expressively simplistic, then you could say the same of many other Romantic works, from Schubert songs through Berlioz, Schumann, Grieg, Dvorak (and even going back to Beethoven's An die ferne Geliebte).

Thanks for your kind words, aeolium!

I realise that my description itself is rather simplistic - I'm looking for a way to express my intuitive lack of sympathy for the music rather than setting up some criterion of expressive complexity which it's then deemed to fall short of. This lack of sympathy extends to Tchaikovsky's music in general, with only a few exceptions - I think it's more deeply connected to the other issue I brought up in relation to this symphony, the perception of its structure (and thus its expressive identity) as consisting of set-piece moments with heavily-signposted emotional content, separated by "other stuff", and, by implication, of the last movement as consisting entirely of a single set piece of this kind. I realise also of course that ending a symphony like this was a bold and original idea and I'd want to give Tchaikovsky all credit for opening up this strand in symphonic thinking, but then... it does strike me a bit like something that started life as a "normal" symphony but then at some point, maybe even "at the last minute", the composer decided to reverse the order of the last two movements. (I've done this kind of thing myself! - such far-reaching moments of epiphany are very precious.)

On the other hand, I'd have to say that the Romantic composers you mention, with the exception of Schubert and (sometimes) Berlioz, are others whose work I don't feel much connection with! The difference with Schubert and Tchaikovsky for me is the difference betwen having an experience and being told (however eloquently and passionately) about one. But clearly this is a matter of individual temperament.

Hornspieler, to imagine that discussing the impact of one piece of music should involve the restriction of no other piece being mentioned (except those you yourself deem to be appropriate) is just silly, as is deciding the thread is over at the point where someone has finally said something you agree with. Give it a rest!

[Bryn]

"John Cage released from custody"?

That was 12 years ago.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well this is just it: the fact that it can be described in that way is what I find simplistic. I don't like to make too many comparisons between so obviously different pieces of music, but I think of the closing minutes of Mahler 9, or VW 6, or Shostakovich 4 or 15, or for that matter Henze's 2nd piano concerto (which is more symphonic than most of his symphonies!), none of which would be describable in such unequivocal terms.

First of all, greetings to the Bartlettino, and many congratulations and very best wishes to you, his mother and his sibling(s)

I think the pieces you cite (or, at least the ones I know - I haven't heard the Henze) are better and more important pieces than the Pathétique (more interesting to me for their rhythmic, harmonic, melodic and structural invention). But I find that, on its own terms ("Simplistic"/"unambiguous" as these are in comparison), the Pathétique is a moving and successful piece - when I choose to listen to it, I don't find myself thinking "Ah! Didn't Mahler, RVW, Shostakovich and Haydn do it so much better." Instead, I just feel that this time, Tchaikovsky cracked it!

[Richard Barrett]

when I choose to listen to it, I don't find myself thinking "Ah! Didn't Mahler, RVW, Shostakovich and Haydn do it so much better." Instead, I just feel that this time, Tchaikovsky cracked it!

Indeed - as I said, that comes later, when trying to work out why it didn't have what one perceives to be the intended effect. This brings up what is perhaps a prejudice of mine about Romantic music in general, - I get the impression that often there's supposed to be a "right way" and a "wrong way" to assimilate and understand the music (for example slow music in a minor key pervaded by descending melodic structures), which is something I intuitively reject, in favour of music which doesn't seem to be telling you what to think. But I realise that now I'm out on thin ice again!

[aeolium]

This brings up what is perhaps a prejudice of mine about Romantic music in general, - I get the impression that often there's supposed to be a "right way" and a "wrong way" to assimilate and understand the music (for example slow music in a minor key pervaded by descending melodic structures), which is something I intuitively reject, in favour of music which doesn't seem to be telling you what to think. But I realise that now I'm out on thin ice again!

But surely there are examples of music by composers you do very much admire where - though they are using very different musical language and techniques - they are no less "telling you what to think", at least in one sense? What about the Bach Passions or cantatas, or Haydn's Seven Last Words From The Cross, or The Creation? Here we even have the words to minimise the ambiguity.

And I'm not sure that even with Romantic works like Tchaikovsky 6, it is always clear just what the composer was "telling us to think". Even on this thread we have had different interpretations of the character of particular movements. Apparently Tchaikovsky considered titling the symphony the "Programme" symphony, but what that programme consists of is anyone's guess.

[Hornspieler]

[QUOTE=aeolium;552221]But surely there are examples of music by composers you do very much admire where - though they are using very different musical language and techniques - they are no less "telling you what to think", at least in one sense? What about the Bach Passions or cantatas, or Haydn's Seven Last Words From The Cross, or The Creation? Here we even have the words to minimise the ambiguity.

And I'm not sure that even with Romantic works like Tchaikovsky 6, it is always clear just what the composer was "telling us to think". Even on this thread we have had different interpretations of the character of particular movements. Apparently Tchaikovsky considered titling the symphony the "Programme" symphony, but what that programme consists of is anyone's guess.[/QUOTE]

Which, I believe, gives a certain amount of credence to my speculative post #67 Q.V.