Tchaikovsky

[Mirror Image]

Thanks John - I went through my Jurowski box a few days ago - great (could have done w/o the applause but not on all discs, and 'live is live' -  ) - the first Philips twofer of Markevitch (Nos. 1-3) arrived a few days ago and listened yesterday - excellent and as a 'used' set was in great condition - hope the second one is similar.  Dave

[Roasted Swan]

My love of Tchaikovsky's music really doesn't diminish I've found.  There might well be times when I go for long stretches without listening to much of it but whenever I return its like meeting up with an old and familiar friend all over again.  Just recently I've listened to these three discs/sets;



In the past I've been a bit indifferent to Noseda - his Shostakovich/Rachmaninov sort of ticks boxes of competence without lighting any fires.  This "Little Russian" (can we still say that...?) blazes - a genuinely thrilling performance which I picked up for 99p in a charity shop.  Previn's set of the 3 ballets is justly famous - I'm not sure its ever been out of the catalogue since its release in the 1970's.  I couldn't afford any of those original releases so get all 3 in remastered sound for £9.00ish is crazy.  They are still right up there as wholly convincing and engaging and in classic EMI/analogue/Parker&Bishop/Kingsway Hall sound.  The reason I bought this iteration was the remastering and the fact that this version of Sleeping Beauty is the first CD release of the complete recording Previn made.  Lastly Previn again with a very decent - again fantastic old-school analogue - performance.  Hurwitz recently absolutely went both-barrels-awful on this version.  Well, that's just wrong - and based on the fact that he wanted to hit his tam-tam in the review.  I'm not saying its the best ever but its still very good.  Great music ALL!

[LKB]

Hurwitz regained a small amount of credibility with me this week by choosing Haitink with the RCO for his " best Tchaikovsky cycle ", but he's still the second- biggest classical twit out there imho.

[Jo498]

Hurwitz regained a small amount of credibility with me this week by choosing Haitink with the RCO for his " best Tchaikovsky cycle ", but he's still the second- biggest classical twit out there imho.

So who is the biggest one? Tomasini?

[LKB]

So who is the biggest one? Tomasini?

Again imho, the title-holder remains Lebrecht.

[Florestan]

Again imho, the title-holder remains Lebrecht.

Agreed. His bashing of Mozart is a classic of stupidity and/or ill will.

[Karl Henning]

Hurwitz regained a small amount of credibility with me this week by choosing Haitink with the RCO for his " best Tchaikovsky cycle ", but he's still the second- biggest classical twit out there imho.

Not in your opinion alone!

[LKB]

Not in your opinion alone!

Great minds think alike, Karl... and so do ours. 

[Karl Henning]

Great minds think alike, Karl... and so do ours. 

(* chortle *)

[San Antone]

So who is the biggest one? Tomasini?

I don't think of Anthony Tommasini as a "twit" (although I don't keep up with his regular reviewing).  I did recently read his book The Indispensable Composers: A Personal Guide and thought it was a worthwhile read.  I had no idea he had had a career as a concert pianist.

[Jo498]

I might even have confused Tommasini with Lebrecht; I had just tried to think of one of the more provocative critics. I never read any of them with any regularity.

[LKB]

I might even have confused Tommasini with Lebrecht; I had just tried to think of one of the more provocative critics. I never read any of them with any regularity.

I actually think Hurwitz may have hearing trouble, which could account for at least some of his preferences.

Lebrecht, on the other hand, is an arrogant meddler. His writing has all the polish of a gossip columnist, but without the subtlety.

[Brian]

I do not think I would have been able to place Tchaikovsky's various orchestral works in the correct chronology without cheating. His development is in some ways surprising - as is the neglect of some very mature works by the composer at his best. I wonder if he was considered in his day to be uneven or erratic, with critics perceiving his career as a series of ups and downs rather than a steady progression.

Here is a partial chronology, in order of composition (stolen from Wikipedia. You can see how the acknowledged masterpieces are mixed in with music that's almost totally forgotten:

Piano Concerto No. 1
Symphony No. 3
Swan Lake
Eugene Onegin
Symphony No. 4
Violin Concerto
Orchestral Suite No. 1
Piano Concerto No. 2
Romeo and Juliet (revised version)
Serenade for Strings
1812 Overture
Orchestral Suite No. 2
Orchestral Suite No. 3
Concert Fantasia
Manfred Symphony
Orchestral Suite No. 4
Symphony No. 5
Hamlet
Sleeping Beauty

[Jo498]

The only major instrumental work I'd consider neglected it the 2nd piano concerto. And maybe Hamlet and another tone poem (but I don't really know them). The orchestral suites might also count here but I think they are plausibly less famous than the symphonies.
I read Klaus Mann's novel years ago and maybe also a real biography but I don't remember that much. He was highly selfcritical and also often mentally troubled/depressed. But this apparently did not lead to him composing less, he was very productive, just not too happy with some works. It's surprising how comparably "early" the first 3 symphonies (or all string quartets) are. I think an early piece like the 1st string quartet shows his technical facility but apparently he struggled all of his life to find the balance between such "classicist" pieces and freer forms, always in danger to become formulaic or incoherent. He also wrote a lot of "light" works, also in his later periods (such as Marche slave etc.).

I don't think that mixed reception was chronological, it was more depending on particular pieces and on the fact that Tchaikovsky occupied an uneasy middle ground between the Russian (musical) nationalism and the French (ballett) and German (symphony). So often his music was not "sufficiently Russian" for the first group but too coarse for a conservative central European like Hanslick.

There are quite a few composers who didn't show a lot of development after reaching artistic maturity/peak (which would be ca. 1876-78 with Swan Lake, 4th symphony,  violin concerto, Onegin). The continuous development of someone like Beethoven might not be the rule. The "stagnation" or even decline of e.g. Mendelssohn or Schumann (who died younger than PIT) might be a cliché but it's not completely implausible.

[Brian]

The only major instrumental work I'd consider neglected it the 2nd piano concerto. And maybe Hamlet and another tone poem (but I don't really know them). The orchestral suites might also count here but I think they are plausibly less famous than the symphonies.

Appreciated and enjoyed all of your post - and agree that Tchaikovsky seems to have reached his peak around the time of Swan Lake and more or less stayed at that level of craft the rest of the way, with occasional peaks or dips. I remember reading somewhere that the Serenade particularly was a piece he wrote as an antidote to feel better after writing something he considered to be awful.

I do just want to point out the neglect of the orchestral suites - the complete recordings of all four are as follows: Dorati, Marriner, Jarvi, S. Sanderling, and that is it. Michael Tilson Thomas apparently only did three of four and other great conductors (such as Boult) have done individual recordings. By contrast Presto appears to have 14 recordings of the Concert Fantasy, and 13 of them are in complete concerto cycles (the exception is Eldar Nebolsin).

[Roasted Swan]

Appreciated and enjoyed all of your post - and agree that Tchaikovsky seems to have reached his peak around the time of Swan Lake and more or less stayed at that level of craft the rest of the way, with occasional peaks or dips. I remember reading somewhere that the Serenade particularly was a piece he wrote as an antidote to feel better after writing something he considered to be awful.

I do just want to point out the neglect of the orchestral suites - the complete recordings of all four are as follows: Dorati, Marriner, Jarvi, S. Sanderling, and that is it. Michael Tilson Thomas apparently only did three of four and other great conductors (such as Boult) have done individual recordings. By contrast Presto appears to have 14 recordings of the Concert Fantasy, and 13 of them are in complete concerto cycles (the exception is Eldar Nebolsin).

There is a Svetlanov cycle that was on Olympia/Melodiya/RCA twofer etc



Its predictably good.....

[Jo498]

I remember that I was happy to get the Dorati twofer of the orchestral suites (I think I bought them at Tower records, San Francisco in fall 2004, the last time I was in the US, but I am not exactly sure) because this music was so hard to find. And I also recall that I quite liked them, at a time when I was sick and tired of his more famous works.
But in fact I haven't listened to the suites in ages. And in the case of Mozartiana I oscillate between appreciating the Mozart appreciation and finding this the worst piece of kitsch ever, like a cheesy repro of an 18th century Dresden china figurine...

For me, Tchaikovsky wrote quite a bit of competently constructed but strangely uninvolving music, and I'd  file the orchestral suites there but also the 3rd symphony, the 2nd piano concerto, probably the 2nd string quartet and the grand piano sonata (although it's been ages I listened to that one).

[Brian]

There is a Svetlanov cycle that was on Olympia/Melodiya/RCA twofer etc

Its predictably good.....

Oooh! Thank you. I will try to find this. Looks like it is streaming on Qobuz with different covers:

For me, Tchaikovsky wrote quite a bit of competently constructed but strangely uninvolving music, and I'd  file the orchestral suites there but also the 3rd symphony, the 2nd piano concerto, probably the 2nd string quartet and the grand piano sonata (although it's been ages I listened to that one).

Actually I do not disagree with this - the Third Symphony and Grand Sonata being my least favorites of his major works, but also, many of these pieces, even ones that I really like such as the second concerto and second suite, are missing the emotional center that now makes Tchaikovsky so beloved by general audiences. They are light and cheery works in full-scale structures rather than miniature or balletic ones.

I guess it is sort of a chicken-or-the-egg question whether audiences react to the more dramatic Tchaikovsky more because of his reputation as a troubled genius, or whether the more emotional/dark Tchaikovsky is more resonant because it was in some way more "true" or "authentic" for him to compose.

[Roasted Swan]

One important genre nearly omited in that list is opera which was clearly very important to Tchaikovsky for both professional (ie exposure and income) and personal (themes close to his heart) reason.

The Maid of Orleans
Mazeppa
The Queen of Spades

and several others all come from his composing maturity and are fine works........

[Jo498]

I listened to the suites 1+2 yesterday (the Dorati/New Philharmonia is the only recording I have) and in a way they are better and worse than I remembered. Better insofar as some of the movements are quite brilliant and both suites are entertaining enough. Worse insofar that they seem even more inhomogeneous and less "closed". The booklet refers to some letters/comments of the composer who apparently enjoyed being free from the "burden" of writing a serious symphony. Nevertheless he did write a fairly weighty "prelude & fugue" as first movement of the first suite and suites 1-3 are long enough (and of course demand a full orchestra) to have symphonic dimensions. So they are again in between being symphonic and not. That's why I guess they are rarely programmed as it will be as much (or more because less familiar) work as one of his symphonies to prepare and perform the suites.

I am on record for the slightly provocative claim that PIT was at his best in "lighter" (and theatralic, i.e. ballett and opera) music and that I tend to find some of the most ambitious, i.e. the last 3 symphonies with their "fate" connotations inconsistent or even pretentious. The quality of the suites again shows how good he was in colorful shortish pieces but for me they also tend to be a bit uninvolving. I think the best "lighter" works and they are actually so good that they transcend their lighter genres, are the String serenade and Souvenir de Florence. And, although I personally can take the piece only once in a while, the best fusion of "Western" and "Russian" as well as of virtuoso brilliance and symphonic weight, seems to me the violin concerto.