Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony Question

[hornteacher]

Okay, obviously the first movement of the 6th symphony is about the struggle of life versus death (the two themes, life and death, battle for dominance throughout), and in the last movement, life falls and death wins.  What, however, is the message of the inner movements?  Movement two is a rondo waltz in 5/4 time while the third movement is an energetic scherzo/march.  Tchaikovsky has a message here, does anyone know what it might be?

[Lethevich]

The third movement seems to be ironic, or if taken literaly, setting someone up for a fall. But even with Tchaikovsky's heart on sleeve style it comes across as forced and bordering on maniacal, when makes the last movement more logical than if it was a standard "happy" scherzo. Not sure about the second movement, though.

[Brian]

The Fourth and Fifth Symphonies actually have (in the first three movements) a broadly - broadly similar plan: first-movement struggle, second-movement calm and respite, third movement exuberance. I believe Tchaikovsky's comments on the other two symphonies' inner movements involved things like:

[II] looking at the world around you, taking solace, light, a beam of hope ("a beacon of hope? - no, no, there is no hope" he wrote somewhere in the Fourth, but I forget where, when a pleasant moment was rudely interrupted)
[III] finding joy in people around you, flickering images, visions, or perhaps a dizzying dream

I know that the Sixth's structure shouldn't be compared with the other two at all, but there might be some insight to be gleaned from the comparison. I have always felt, personally, that the first movement of the Sixth is kind of like an overture for the final three. It sets up the titanic struggle between light/life and dark/death, and plays it out to the hilt; my personal interpretation of what follows is that the next two movements are different aspects of "life" - perhaps hope, comfort, sorrow (2nd mvt trio), and then joy, energy, triumph - to be immediately rebutted by the triumph of death and darkness. A bleak vision to which the quote from the Fourth applies - the beautifully lyrical climax of first movement's second subject, the gracefully dancing second movement- is there hope? May we hope? Dare we even become confident, joyful, revel in the glory of life? Alas: "no, no, there is no hope."

At least, that's my two cents.

[Ciel_Rouge]

I've been recently going through a phase of intense fascination with Tchaikovsky's music. I  wonder what could be the best choice for his 6th. To my mind it seems one of the pieces where the opening is crucial and can be played in a number of ways. I guess having a solo instrument is also a nice opportunity to consider the whole experience from the point of view of successful capture and space accoustics. Do you happen to have multiple recordings of Tchaik's 6th? Or maybe one very confident choice? I kindly await your thoughts on that.

[Holden]

I have a number of Pathetiques but only go back to a few.

Fricsay - either of his recordings are excellent; BPO or BRSO. In fact you should also get his recordings of the 4th and 5th as well.

If you want one in modern stereo sound then Pletnev and the RNSO is hard to beat.

[Cato]

Okay, obviously the first movement of the 6th symphony is about the struggle of life versus death (the two themes, life and death, battle for dominance throughout), and in the last movement, life falls and death wins.  What, however, is the message of the inner movements?  Movement two is a rondo waltz in 5/4 time while the third movement is an energetic scherzo/march.  Tchaikovsky has a message here, does anyone know what it might be?

One message is that since depression and despair occasionally dominate us, any melancholy attempts at optimism (2nd movement) or at a masking triumphalism (3rd movement) will not succeed.

Eduard Hanslick in his review of the work disliked the wild "Cossack" movement, and found it did not fit the work, believing it to be a statement of nationalism.  He also disliked the 5/4 meter of the second movement, calling it "disagreeable" and suggesting that it could be easily changed to something more reasonable.

Both comments support the view of the middle movements being "pathetic" attempts at chasing away the gloom of the first movement, and the doom of the final one.

[Thomas Crystalstick]

I'm going to second Fricsay's recordings in Tchaikovsky.  Powerful stuff.

[alkan]

I recently listened to Mravinsky's recording of the Pathethique, and I was really struck by the March.    It is absolutely electric and conveys a kind of desperate, frenetic madness.       For me, this is the key to this particular movement.     It is akin to a fever, or a plunge into frantic, almost uncontrolled activity so as to avoid the impending threat of oblivion.    It borders right on the edge of insanity ..... no triumph, no pomp ....  just a galloping delerium.     This may be particular to Mravinsky's recording, but it never fails to send a tingle down my spine every time I hear it.    And I think that the reason is the combination(and contrast) of hysteria and absolute musical control and discipline, which is emphasized by the rigid structure of a fast march (as opposed to a free scherzo).

There is also the obvious musical and emotional technique of setting up an extreme contrast and resulting shock-wave between the last two movements.   

I see the second movement more as pure nostalgia .... a memory of past happy and more carefree times.     A faded photograph .....

As you can imagine, I strongly recommend Maravinky's legendary recordings of 4,5 and 6.    They are quite an experience ....

[DarkAngel]

One message is that since depression and despair occasionally dominate us, any melancholy attempts at optimism (2nd movement) or at a masking triumphalism (3rd movement) will not succeed.

The 2nd movement is obviously a waltz, yet there are undercurrents of sadness and melancholy. Picture yourself dancing with your lover yet knowing that tomorrow they are leaving and will never return......you are happy for the moment but you know saddness is just around the corner, a brilliant emotional tug of war.

The 3rd movement is the desperate emotional final stand, a full assault to prevent impending doom. There are times when peace/happiness seems with in reach and you desperately fight to attain it, perhaps all will be resolved in your favor after all.........

The crushing 4th movement is recognition that you have  emotionally lost and there is no hope to attain happiness in this life, there is no more fight to be fought, nothing can be changed only surrender to the sad darkness and emotional despair.....

[Herman]

You are all so emotional?.

Obviously the third mvt is a joke to trick the audience into a 'Great! Now let's get our coats!' applause.

[Marc]

I prefer the work without programme.

So, about the third movement: dunno what Tchaikovsky meant, but I do know I always lose a lot of errr .... sweat.
In other words: it helps me to stay fit.

[some guy]

I'm with Marc on this one. As I was reading through the posts, one question begged to be asked, "This IS music we're talking about here, isn't it?"

That is, Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony is a piece of music, not a philosophical tract, not a diary, not a drama starring life (played by the lively Denzel Washington) and death (starring the deadly Jack Nicholson). The way to get whatever there is of "message" in the symphony is to play the dam' thing. What does it mean? E, F#, G, F#; F#, G, A, G; G, A, B, A#,* B, and so forth.

Sure, we can attach all sorts of extramusical meanings to it, but are any of them the meaning? No. The meaning is the notes themselves and their various combinations and permutations in various dynamics with various instruments. If you want meaning in the sense that language can give you, then read a book!

*A# instead of A. Surely that's one way music "means." And the whole pattern, raised a step with each repetition. That's a musical meaning.

[greg]

If the music is supposed to mean something, shouldn't we be asking Tchaikovsky himself about that?

[DarkAngel]

That is, Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony is a piece of music, not a philosophical tract, not a diary, not a drama starring life (played by the lively Denzel Washington) and death (starring the deadly Jack Nicholson). The way to get whatever there is of "message" in the symphony is to play the dam' thing. What does it mean? E, F#, G, F#; F#, G, A, G; G, A, B, A#,* B, and so forth.

Sure, we can attach all sorts of extramusical meanings to it, but are any of them the meaning? No. The meaning is the notes themselves and their various combinations and permutations in various dynamics with various instruments. If you want meaning in the sense that language can give you, then read a book!

If the music is supposed to mean something, shouldn't we be asking Tchaikovsky himself about that?

There is a specific program Tchaikovsky had in mind when composing 6th, and he famously said when asked about it "let them guess" so he never intended to reveal the subject matter to public........but in retrospect knowing his deep emotional turmoil and the fact he died very shortly after completing the work you can make some guesses, makes sense to me.......why shouldn't music reflect ones current emotional state and view on life, it is not a mechanical science devoid of emotion

So knowing the context under which the 6th was composed adds great insight and value to the listeners experience

[some guy]

Composers often have all sorts of things in mind when they write things, but in the end only the music matters, which is what I would derive from the Tchaikovsky anecdote. People often ask composers what their music means, too, which probably gets just a trifle irritating. I can guess, too, and I would guess that Tchaikovsky was probably just fed up being asked that question. Listen to the music, it's all there!

As for music being a mechanical science devoid of emotion without guesses about the composer's emotional state when he or she was writing a piece, whew! What a strange way to think about music, eh? And what a severely limiting way to consider the relationship between composer and composition.

What about pieces where we can guess* nothing about the composer's emotional state, which must surely be the majority of pieces we listen to? What then? Are those pieces somehow less musical, less engaging, less interesting? Guessing the context under which the 6th was written* distracts us from actually engaging with the music itself would be my guess!!

*It can only be a guess. It's not knowledge.

[Brahmsian]

Composers often have all sorts of things in mind when they write things, but in the end only the music matters

I agree with this (YAY! I agree with 'some guy'on something) 

What IS fascinating is how 'we' (I mean us collectively) seem to be more drawn to music that has a 'program', per se or moniker attached to 'X' sonata or symphony.

An good example is Bruckner's 4th symphony.  Not his best symphony, by any stretch of the imagination.  Yet, it is highly popular and one of the most recorded, and most programmed in concert venues.  It's also the only one of his symphonies with an attached moniker, 'Romantic'.

[alkan]

I think that restricting yourself to the purely musical aspect of Romantic music (and other eras too) will result in missing a lot.     This sort of music generally has a high level of emotional content too.

I agree that there is no absolute right and wrong when discussing and comparing your own emotional reaction, but it's fun and sometimes very illuminating.    Sometimes the composer will also shed some light .... for example Sibelius' journal is quite fascinating for the insights into the 5th symphony,  Neilsen's account of the origin of the 2nd symphony ..... etc.

[Herman]

knowing his deep emotional turmoil and the fact he died very shortly after completing the work you can make some guesses, makes sense to me.......why shouldn't music reflect ones current emotional state and view on life, it is not a mechanical science devoid of emotion

There are a lot of myths about Tchaikovsky's 'emotional turmoil'. Few people on the other hand emphasize he was one of the ultimate professional composers, hugely productive and a complete master of the forms he preferred to employ. Sure, the 6th symphony, is intended to have a very dark impact on the listener, but that doesn't necessarily mean Tchaikovsky wanted to say "I feel gloomy."

[some guy]

Brahmsian and I agreeing? Cool!!

...restricting yourself...

That is exactly what it is not.

I have not so far said anything about emotions one way or another. We are humans. We have emotions.

What I have been saying is that there's a lot in the music that we'll miss if we're constantly haring off after non-musical things. Or if we're constantly substituting non-musical content for musical content.

I think that this may be the thing, or one of the things, behind the unwillingness or inability of many listeners to come to grips with even music of a hundred years ago. I went to a concert recently that included Schoenberg's 3rd string quartet. After it was played, I overheard someone saying that Schoenberg's music is really only good for being studied, not for being listened to. Wow! What could that person have possibly heard that evening? I heard a very charming and delightful work, with very easy-to-hear motifs and developments. Very pleasant experience overall. How could that person have heard something so radically different had he not swallowed whole the idea (external to the actual music) that Schoenberg is difficult, intellectual, abstract, mathematical, or some such thing?

Remember (if you're old enough, or if you read) when Shostakovich's music was the expression of Soviet ideology? And then, when that idea lost favor, when Shostakovich's music was an ironic commentary on Soviet ideology? Hmmm. But the notes are the same. What are the notes like? What is it like to listen to Shostakovich's music itself, without all the "ideas"? (Is it even possible?)

Sure, composers have said a lot of things about their pieces (to address one of Greg's points), but that's just because if you're going to talk (converse) about anything, you have to use words. A lot of composers have also said, over and over again, "listen to the music."

[Marc]

So knowing the context under which the 6th was composed adds great insight and value to the listeners experience

But he was also in a very depressing mental state when he composed The Nutcracker. And also ....

Let's be fair. The man was a hypochondriac. It sometimes seems that not feeling unhappy made him even more unhappy.

Reading biographical stories about Tchaikovsky nearly always make me feel sorry for him. But he's composed some lovely and intense music, no doubt. To me, his Sixth is still The Symphony. But, whilst listening, I must admit I never think of the composer or his death shortly after. I bury myself in the music and after the Finale I need a drink to arise again. 0:)