Tchaikovsky

[madaboutmahler]

One must also not forget the 2nd and 3rd piano concertos, which get little attention, but are very beautiful works.

+1

I remember a broadcast on televison in which Hough was performing the 3rd, and I was very impressed. It's a great work!

[Josquin des Prez]

I've always thought that Brahms was more about creating this certain type of heavy atmosphere that is uniquely his own. This is probably why some people might find him boring- or, in the case of Tchaikovsky, (so I heard) being annoyed that he isn't more directly melodic.

Tchaikovsky should have studied Brahms closer, since its obvious that some of the things Brahms excelled at over anything else (form, development, counterpoint etc.) was precisely where Tchaikovsky was at his most incompetent. Tchaikosvky seemed to believe music could be all inspiration, and that actually studying form and technique was a waste of time, or worse yet, an hindrance. Apparently he used Schubert as a model, forgetting perhaps that Schubert himself was very unhappy about the poverty of some aspects of his craft and tried his best to improve on his shortcomings during his later years, even going as far as taking counterpoint lessons during the time he was composing his masses. I guess Tchaikosvky never got the memo.

In fact, i think it was Brahms himself who said that inspiration without craft was like a leaf shaken by the wind. A perfect description of Tchaikosvky.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Tchaikovsky should have studied Brahms closer, since its obvious that some of the things Brahms excelled at over anything else (form, development, counterpoint etc.) was precisely where Tchaikovsky was at his most incompetent. Tchaikosvky seemed to believe music could be all inspiration, and that actually studying form and technique was a waste of time, or worse yet, an hindrance. Apparently he used Schubert as a model, forgetting perhaps that Schubert himself was very unhappy about the poverty of some aspects of his craft and tried his best to improve on his shortcomings during his later years, even going as far as taking counterpoint lessons during the time he was composing his masses. I guess Tchaikosvky never got the memo.

In fact, i think it was Brahms himself who said that inspiration without craft was like a leaf shaken by the wind. A perfect description of Tchaikosvky.

You can sound as snooty and smug as you like, but the fact is (not for the first time) you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Tchaikovsky in fact had the best musical education of any of his Russian contemporaries, and while he lacked the emotional depth and harmonic originality of Mussorgsky, his work was typically well crafted and expertly orchestrated. Any comparison of his ballet scores with those of composers for the dance like Adam and Drigo will show the far greater inventiveness and polish of Tchaikovsky's work, and if you want proof that he could compose in a disciplined classic idiom, you have only to look for the exquisitely crafted Overture Miniature from The Nutcracker, or on a larger scale the Romeo and Juliet Overture.

As for Tchaikovsky's major symphonic works, no less than Sir Donald Tovey, as rigorous a musical analyst as ever was, maintained of the Pathétique Symphony that "Nowhere else has he concentrated so great a variety of music within so effective a scheme; and the slow finale . . . . is a stroke of genius which solves all the artistic problems that have proved most baffling to symphonic writers since Beethoven. . . . Its most celebrated features are thrown into their right relief by developments far more powerful, terse, and highly organized than Tchaikovsky has achieved in any other work." I point out only one of these developments from the first movement, the lengthy passage on an F# pedal that leads to the restatement of the second subject, where Tchaikovsky achieves an extraordinarily powerful climax using descending scale figures (one of the primary motifs of the symphony). Even Mahler, despite his pejorative comments on this symphony, used it as the formal model for his own Ninth.

I suggest that your comments on Tchaikovsky have as much merit as the asinine remarks one other poster here made claiming Chopin wrote nothing other than pretty salon music. His comments were inaccurate, and so are yours.

[Josquin des Prez]

You can sound as snooty and smug as you like, but the fact is (not for the first time) you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Tchaikovsky in fact had the best musical education of any of his Russian contemporaries, and while he lacked the emotional depth and harmonic originality of Mussorgsky, his work was typically well crafted and expertly orchestrated. Any comparison of his ballet scores with those of composers for the dance like Adam and Drigo will show the far greater inventiveness and polish of Tchaikovsky's work, and if you want proof that he could compose in a disciplined classic idiom, you have only to look for the exquisitely crafted Overture Miniature from The Nutcracker, or on a larger scale the Romeo and Juliet Overture.

As for Tchaikovsky's major symphonic works, no less than Sir Donald Tovey, as rigorous a musical analyst as ever was, maintained of the Pathétique Symphony that "Nowhere else has he concentrated so great a variety of music within so effective a scheme; and the slow finale . . . . is a stroke of genius which solves all the artistic problems that have proved most baffling to symphonic writers since Beethoven. . . . Its most celebrated features are thrown into their right relief by developments far more powerful, terse, and highly organized than Tchaikovsky has achieved in any other work." I point out only one of these developments from the first movement, the lengthy passage on an F# pedal that leads to the restatement of the second subject, where Tchaikovsky achieves an extraordinarily powerful climax using descending scale figures (one of the primary motifs of the symphony). Even Mahler, despite his pejorative comments on this symphony, used it as the formal model for his own Ninth.

I suggest that your comments on Tchaikovsky have as much merit as the asinine remarks one other poster here made claiming Chopin wrote nothing other than pretty salon music. His comments were inaccurate, and so are yours.

I think its pretty significant that you chose the Pathetique symphony for your rebuttal, which is actually an acquittal on your part, since it was the only symphony where Tchaikovsky himself felt he had gotten the form and development right, after thirty years of trying, no less (and let's not forget he still had trouble with form a mere few years before he wrote the Pathetique. Consider the Souvenir de Florence Sextet).

You'll also find no argument from me regarding his mastery of orchestral miniatures, which does not in any way rebuke my claim and in fact substantiates it.

The rest of your post is a mixture of petty appeals to authority that prove nothing in themselves, a few unsubstantiated claims (whatever musical education Tchaikovsky may or may not have received has no relation whatsoever to what he actually learned), and a couple of big assumptions (that his admittedly great skill in orchestration was the result of rigorous study, rather then mere musical instinct. Wagner too was able to orchestrate music to a high degree of sophistication, and i'm not sure i recall any particular indication to rigorous musical study when i read his biography, at any point in his career).

I'm also not exactly sure why you felt the need to mention Mussorgsky, whom i feel ranks far below Tchaikovsky in terms of genius.

Finally, you also conveniently ignored the one piece of damning evidence, the fact Tchaikovsky couldn't really understand Brahms and didn't like his music.

[Josquin des Prez]

Even Mahler, despite his pejorative comments on this symphony, used it as the formal model for his own Ninth.

Maybe he meant to show Tchaikovsky how to do it right. Do you have a direct quotation on what he actually said about the symphony? I always find it interesting when a composer takes the time to speak about the music of another, for good or for hill.

[(poco) Sforzando]

"You'll also find no argument from me regarding his mastery of orchestral miniatures, which does not in any way rebuke my claim and in fact substantiates it. "

Oh, bullshit. You said Tchaikovsky was incompetent. There was not one iota of an implication in your post abpve that Tchaikovsky possessed mastery or genius of any sort, quite the contrary. Now you're backsliding.

You in fact accused Tchaikovsky of possessing "inspiration but not craft." There is craft required to produce masterful miniatures, and not all composers are equally successful in both short and long forms.

"The rest of your post is a mixture of petty appeals to authority that prove nothing in themselves, a few unsubstantiated claims (whatever musical education Tchaikovsky may or may not have received has no relation whatsoever to what he actually learned), and a couple of big assumptions (that his admittedly great skill in orchestration was the result of rigorous study, rather then mere musical instinct."

Nothing petty in the slightest. I quoted a respected musical analyst, who made a statement you have not been able to refute. As for assumptions, your original statement contains such vague and unsupported assumptions as "Tchaikosvky seemed to believe music could be all inspiration, and that actually studying form and technique was a waste of time, or worse yet, an hindrance. Apparently he used Schubert as a model." Etc. In fact Tchaikovsky's greatest musical god was Mozart.

Orchestration is one of the primary requirements of a composer's craft, and it is not a matter of mere instinct. Ever. Stop calling the kettle black. Every single claim of yours is unsubstantiated. I don't have the time or patience to write a 100-page monograph detailing each of my points.

"I'm also not exactly sure why you felt the need to mention Mussorgsky, whom i feel ranks far below Tchaikovsky in terms of genius."

The personal pronoun in the English language is always capitalized. No exceptions. Ever. Show some respect for your adopted language.

"Finally, you also conveniently ignored the one piece of damning evidence, the fact Tchaikovsky couldn't really understand Brahms and didn't like his music."

The issue you raised was Tchaikovsky's incompetence. One composer's dislike for another has nothing to do with the case.
[/quote]

[(poco) Sforzando]

Maybe he meant to show Tchaikovsky how to do it right. Do you have a direct quotation on what he actually said about the symphony? I always find it interesting when a composer takes the time to speak about the music of another, for good or for hill.

Ever heard of Google?

[Josquin des Prez]

Oh, bullshit. You said Tchaikovsky was incompetent.

Yes, in terms of form, development and complexity, which was the context we were discussing. I'm not sure the Nut Cracker miniatures are ever going to be held in high esteem for their use of complex forms or tortuous development schemes of the kind that actually seemed to confuse Tchaikovsky, but they are quite nice for what they are, perhaps even great. They surely played on one of Tchaikovsky's greatest gifts, his ability to write memorable melodies.

There was not one iota of an implication in your post abpve that Tchaikovsky possessed mastery or genius of any sort, quite the contrary. Now you're backsliding.

I'm not backsliding, you just failed to understand my argument. Which is quite amusing considering you are the one accusing me of not knowing what i'm actually talking about. Tchaikovsky was obviously a quite profound artist despite his various shortcomings. We are not exactly talking about Strauss Jr. here, to mention another composer with great melodic gifts. 

Orchestration is one of the primary requirements of a composer's craft, and it is not a matter of mere instinct. Ever.

You think instinct doesn't play a part here? This is music we are talking about, remember? Tchaikovsky's orchestration is most definitely of an instinctive type. Its not particularly complex nor does it serves any formal or developmental requirement, like it does with Mahler. Its just very, very nice.

The issue you raised was Tchaikovsky's incompetence. One composer's dislike for another has nothing to do with the case.

To the contrary, the dislike Tchaikovsky felt for Brahms denotes an inability to understand the most cerebral aspects of the latter's music, a fact which is further demonstrated by the lack of said cerebral elements in Tchaikovky's own music. This is, once again, the root of this entire argument.

Now if we want to talk about another Russian composer who was sort of an antithesis to Tchaikovsky, it would have to be Taneyev. Notice though that i wouldn't exactly consider the latter superior to the first, since Taneyev was, from his part, completely lacking in the things that made Tchaikovsky great.
Brahms however had no such shortcoming, which is why i would rank him above either Russian composers.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm not backsliding, you just failed to understand my argument. Which is quite amusing considering you are the one accusing me of not knowing what i'm actually talking about. Tchaikovsky was obviously a quite profound artist despite his various shortcomings.

None of this was either implied or stated in your original post.

[Josquin des Prez]

Neither was it implied or stated that Tchaikovsky was a lousy all around composer. I mean you'd have to be tone deaf not to be at least impressed by the ease in which he was able to churn out melodies and tunes, however saccharine they may sometimes have been. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Neither was it implied or stated that Tchaikovsky was a lousy all around composer. I mean you'd have to be tone deaf not to be at least impressed by the ease in which he was able to churn out melodies and tunes, however saccharine they may sometimes have been.

Nonsense. Every single word of your original comment was derogatory. Read yourself again:

Tchaikovsky should have studied Brahms closer, since its obvious that some of the things Brahms excelled at over anything else (form, development, counterpoint etc.) was precisely where Tchaikovsky was at his most incompetent. Tchaikosvky seemed to believe music could be all inspiration, and that actually studying form and technique was a waste of time, or worse yet, an hindrance. Apparently he used Schubert as a model, forgetting perhaps that Schubert himself was very unhappy about the poverty of some aspects of his craft and tried his best to improve on his shortcomings during his later years, even going as far as taking counterpoint lessons during the time he was composing his masses. I guess Tchaikosvky never got the memo.

In fact, i think it was Brahms himself who said that inspiration without craft was like a leaf shaken by the wind. A perfect description of Tchaikosvky.

Every qualification you issued later on was in response to my having challenged these facile ex cathedra pronouncements. You make an entirely artificial distinction between inspiration and craft, and fail to acknowledge any of Tchaikovsky's successes in crafting even the smaller structures you later (i.e., in subsequent posts) concede. That's what's known as backsliding. And then you pretend the problem was my having not understood your argument.

I don't know why I even bother with you.

[Karl Henning]

Nor do I suppose that many a Brahms tune is particularly less "saccharine."

[(poco) Sforzando]

Nor do I suppose that many a Brahms tune is particularly less "saccharine."

Nothing saccharine about those Liebeslieder Waltzes.

[Josquin des Prez]

Nor do I suppose that many a Brahms tune is particularly less "saccharine."

Brahms is the very antithetis of even the most relative definition of "saccharine".

[Karl Henning]

Brahms is the very antithetis of even the most relative definition of "saccharine".

You can aid intelligent discussion of the matter by telling us three or so specific melodies of Tchaikovsky's which are "saccharine."

We can then determine whether this is some trait which inheres to the notes, or if it be a matter of intemperate interpretation.

Meanwhile, Sfz's point stands.  When you type stuff like precisely where Tchaikovsky was at his most incompetent, and then seek to pretend that Neither was it implied or stated that Tchaikovsky was a lousy all around composer, well, a good chuckle on a Wednesday morning is always welcome.

[Josquin des Prez]

Meanwhile, Sfz's point stands.  When you type stuff like precisely where Tchaikovsky was at his most incompetent, and then seek to pretend that Neither was it implied or stated that Tchaikovsky was a lousy all around composer, well, a good chuckle on a Wednesday morning is always welcome.[/font]

For somebody who prides himself in his mastery of the English language, i find it amusing that you would find the meaning of that phrase confusing. The fact form or development is where he was at his most incompetent does not imply he was equally incompetent in other things. It takes a rather steep leap of logic to make that assumption.

Obviously, there's nothing confusing about what i said. The problem is that my stubborn refusal to submit to this braindead relativism that pervades modern thinking has a tendency to push buttons around here. A logical and objective discussion about the merits or demerits of a composer is completely impossible and wholly besides the point among a crowd of people who thinks every impression is a subjective impression and that all truth is thus relative and transitory.

[Karl Henning]

For somebody who prides himself in his mastery of the English language, i find it amusing that you would find the meaning of that phrase confusing. The fact form or development is where he was at his most incompetent does not imply he was equally incompetent in other things.

I contest the charge of incompetence, entirely.  Incompetence is something we see in (for instance) your use of the English language, but never (in the music I know) in the compositions of Tchaikovsky.

Perhaps, when you are compiling your list of saccharine melodies, you can do us the favor of indicating some signal incompetencies in the music of Tchaikovsky? There's a good fellow.

[Josquin des Prez]

I contest the charge of incompetence, entirely.

Hardly the point here. The issue is that you are contesting my very ability to make such an evaluation and my right to voice it. Hence my charge of relativism. Its not the nature of my evaluation that bothers you, but the very fact i'm claiming such an evaluation is at all possible to make. This is where all the feigned indignation, thinly veiled sarcasm and emotionally charged ad hominem comes from. You have never bothered to argue against my claim logically, and never intended to, so your contestation here is entirely dishonest.

Perhaps, when you are compiling your list of saccharine melodies

You can't go more then a few minutes in a given composition by Tchaikovsky without encountering something overly pretty or saccharine. So your challenge is pretty pointless. What i would find interesting would be to see you attempt to demonstrate how the melodies of Brahms are just as saccharine as those of Tchaikovsky, but i already know the root of your argument would be to claim that the definition of what is and what is not saccharine in music is purely subjective, so we wouldn't exactly be getting anywhere.

you can do us the favor of indicating some signal incompetencies in the music of Tchaikovsky?

I already did. In fact, it is pretty much the premise of this entire argument. Tchaikovsky was at his most incompetent when it came to form and development. Most of his large scale pieces almost sound childish in this respect. Considering how often he has been subject to this type of criticism, i think its safe to say it is not me who is displaying ignorance, but it is you who is refusing to acknowledge the obvious, since acknowledging the obvious would be an admission there are in fact objective standards by which it is possible to evaluate art, or anything for that matter.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Hardly the point here. The issue is that you are contesting my very ability to make such an evaluation and my right to voice it. Hence my charge of relativism. Its not the nature of my evaluation that bothers you, but the very fact I'm claiming such an evaluation is at all possible to make. This is where all the feigned indignation, thinly veiled sarcasm and emotionally charged ad hominem comes from. You have never bothered to argue against my claim logically, and never intended to, so your contestation here is entirely dishonest.

No one was contesting your right to do anything, or even your ability. What was being contested was the broad brush you applied to a composer whom many of us believe deserves better. And for the record, I (not i) most certainly agree that a number of T's large works have structural issues - Francesca da Rimini, the 4th symphony, the violin concerto among them. But the fact that you originally omitted mention of a genuine success like the 6th Symphony makes your sweeping generalization suspect, and there's nothing formally incompetent about the early Romeo and Juliet Overture. Granted, the 6th may well be the most unequivocally successful among T's larger absolute works. But it was also the work of a composer who died shortly thereafter at a relatively young age (53), who was still growing musically, and who may have achieved far greater successes had he survived. I will also point to an opera as powerful as Pique-Dame, which has nothing in the least saccharine about it.

If Tchaikovsky was not interested in Brahms, it may well be because he was striving for an entirely different use of the musical language.

[Lethevich]

Finally, you also conveniently ignored the one piece of damning evidence, the fact Tchaikovsky couldn't really understand Brahms and didn't like his music.

Wasn't the reverse also true? Brahms also criticised Rubinstein for a lack of "care" taken over his music, and yet still admired the music as far as I can tell. The fact that he preferred Rubinstein to Tchaikovsky does not speak perfectly to his judgement.

A while back I heard a recital of a Tchaikovsky quartet performed after ones by Haydn and Schubert. It was startling how different the work sounded to what came before - clumsy in comparison. But the closer I concentrated, I found myself unable to work out exactly why I felt this on a technical level. I could not discern any flaws in how the music unfolded, it just seemed to be operating with different goals in mind. Tchaikovsky's criticised "transition problems" in this case were contrary to my expectations, but not neccessarily any worse in the end.