Tchaikovsky

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I have finished my latest "Symphony Cycle Survey". You're here, so you know it's Tchaikovsky.


A Survey of Tchaikovsky Symphony Cycles

Without first looking, how many complete (1-6) sets do you think exist?

I'm always surprised how much work these end up being. And then it's still not complete or 100% accurate. Any discovered flaws would therefore be appreciated if brought to my attention! Thanks ever so much.

[Florestan]

I have finished my latest "Symphony Cycle Survey". You're here, so you know it's Tchaikovsky.


A Survey of Tchaikovsky Symphony Cycles

Without first looking, how many complete (1-6) sets do you think exist?

I have 15. My wild guess is around 30. Now let's see if I was right.

EDIT: Nope, off by some 20 recordings. 

[Maestro267]

Manfred is a symphony too so it should be included in the complete set.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Manfred is a symphony too so it should be included in the complete set.

There is that - and then there is the reality of it not having been considered part of the canon for decades. It's like suggesting that a Mahler Symphony Cycle without Das Lied von der Erde is incomplete. Technically correct - yet pointless, don't you think?

[DavidW]

Manfred is a symphony too so it should be included in the complete set.

I also consider the set incomplete if it doesn't have it.  I was surprised when I read over Jens survey to see that DH and I are on the same page about Jurowski, which is my favorite modern set.

Hmm... perhaps I should listen to his Manfred today...

[relm1]

There is that - and then there is the reality of it not having been considered part of the canon for decades. It's like suggesting that a Mahler Symphony Cycle without Das Lied von der Erde is incomplete. Technically correct - yet pointless, don't you think?

...Or Kullervo Symphony not being in a Sibelius cycle. 

[Maestro267]

Yes, they should all be included in their respective symphony cycles. Our forefathers were wrong to not consider them as part of the canon. We are now in a more enlightened age, thus we are right to consider them canon.

[Jo498]

You want to force musicians to play some music?
And there isn't even technical correctness about it. "Numbered symphonies" is as reasonable a set as "numbered, unnumbered, fragments and tone poems"

[Florestan]

You want to force musicians to play some music?
And there isn't even technical correctness about it. "Numbered symphonies" is as reasonable a set as "numbered, unnumbered, fragments and tone poems"

I think you are on to something here. Had Tchaikovsky wanted to count it as a "regular" symphony he'd have numbered it as his Fifth. Instead he chose to label it "Symphony in Four Scenes" and assigned no number to it. I think it can be safely inferred that he regarded it more as an extended tone poem than as a symphony.

It's the same with Berlioz. Can we say that the Symphonie fantastique is really a symphony in the "regular" sense of the word?

[Scion7]

It remains to discuss both the longest and the greatest of Tchaikovsky's symphonic poems. In October 1882 Balakirev—again Balakirev! - had written to Tchaikovsky: 'Forgive me for having left your last letter so long unanswered. I wanted to answer you at length and in perfect peace and quiet. I first offered the subject I hinted to you about to Berlioz, who declined it on account of age and ill-health.' (That was in September 1868, no less than fourteen years earlier, when Berlioz was sixty-five and Balakirev thirty-two.)^ 'Your Francesca gave me the idea that you could work out this subject brilliandy, provided you too\ great pains^ subjected your work to stringent self-criticism, let your imagination fully ripen, and didn't hurry to finish anything. This magnificent subject is no use to me, as it doesn't harmonise with my intimate moods; but it fits you like a glove. It is Byron's Manfred ' Following which the worthy Balakirev instruments Tchaikovsky that the work must have an idee fixe (a la Symphonie fantastique) that occurs in all the movements, and proceeds to give in great detail the programme, movement by movement, even providing the key scheme. ' Isn't it a splendid programme? I'm sure that if you exert yourself this will be your chef d'aeuvre' In 1884 he returned to the charge, sending Tchaikovsky a copy of the programme originally proposed to Berlioz, with a fresh key-scheme suggested in the margin. (He had not ventured to dictate the choice of keys to Berlioz!) It is interesting to observe how Tchaikovsky's own key-cycle when he actually composed Manfred in 1885 was modified from the suggested ones ...

Tchaikovsky's programme, prefaced to the movements in the score, runs as follows:
(I) Manfred wanders in the Alps. Weary of the fatal questions of existence, tormented by hopeless longings and the memory of past crimes, he suffers cruel spiritual pangs. He has plunged into the occult sciences and commands the mighty powers of darkness, but neither they nor anything in this world can give him the forgetfulness to which alone he vainly aspires. The memory of the lost Astarte, once passionately loved by him, gnaws his heart and there is neither limit nor end to Manfred's despair.
(II) The Alpine fairy appears before Manfred in the rainbow from the spray of a waterfall.
(III) A picture of the bare, simple, free life of the mountain folk.
(IV) The subterranean palace of Arimanes. Infernal orgy. Appearance of Manfred in the middle of the bacchanal. Evocat'on and appearance of the shade of Astarte. He is pardoned. Manfred's death.

-Gerald Abraham, The Music of Tchaikovsky 1946/1974

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Infernal orgy, ey?

Not every recording makes it sound like that. :-)

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I have finished my latest "Symphony Cycle Survey". You're here, so you know it's Tchaikovsky.


A Survey of Tchaikovsky Symphony Cycles

Without first looking, how many complete (1-6) sets do you think exist?

I'm always surprised how much work these end up being. And then it's still not complete or 100% accurate. Any discovered flaws would therefore be appreciated if brought to my attention! Thanks ever so much.

I already had to update the cycle: I had missed Zdeněk Mácal's cycle on EXTON with the
@CzechPhil and the vanity-project cycle Alexander Sladkovsky's 2019 cycle w/the Tartastan NSO on "Sony" (for about a second) and Melodiya (digital).

[Florestan]

It remains to discuss both the longest and the greatest of Tchaikovsky's symphonic poems. In October 1882 Balakirev—again Balakirev! - had written to Tchaikovsky: 'Forgive me for having left your last letter so long unanswered. I wanted to answer you at length and in perfect peace and quiet. I first offered the subject I hinted to you about to Berlioz, who declined it on account of age and ill-health.' (That was in September 1868, no less than fourteen years earlier, when Berlioz was sixty-five and Balakirev thirty-two.)^ 'Your Francesca gave me the idea that you could work out this subject brilliandy, provided you too\ great pains^ subjected your work to stringent self-criticism, let your imagination fully ripen, and didn't hurry to finish anything. This magnificent subject is no use to me, as it doesn't harmonise with my intimate moods; but it fits you like a glove. It is Byron's Manfred ' Following which the worthy Balakirev instruments Tchaikovsky that the work must have an idee fixe (a la Symphonie fantastique) that occurs in all the movements, and proceeds to give in great detail the programme, movement by movement, even providing the key scheme. ' Isn't it a splendid programme? I'm sure that if you exert yourself this will be your chef d'aeuvre' In 1884 he returned to the charge, sending Tchaikovsky a copy of the programme originally proposed to Berlioz, with a fresh key-scheme suggested in the margin. (He had not ventured to dictate the choice of keys to Berlioz!) It is interesting to observe how Tchaikovsky's own key-cycle when he actually composed Manfred in 1885 was modified from the suggested ones ...

Tchaikovsky's programme, prefaced to the movements in the score, runs as follows:
(I) Manfred wanders in the Alps. Weary of the fatal questions of existence, tormented by hopeless longings and the memory of past crimes, he suffers cruel spiritual pangs. He has plunged into the occult sciences and commands the mighty powers of darkness, but neither they nor anything in this world can give him the forgetfulness to which alone he vainly aspires. The memory of the lost Astarte, once passionately loved by him, gnaws his heart and there is neither limit nor end to Manfred's despair.
(II) The Alpine fairy appears before Manfred in the rainbow from the spray of a waterfall.
(III) A picture of the bare, simple, free life of the mountain folk.
(IV) The subterranean palace of Arimanes. Infernal orgy. Appearance of Manfred in the middle of the bacchanal. Evocat'on and appearance of the shade of Astarte. He is pardoned. Manfred's death.

-Gerald Abraham, The Music of Tchaikovsky 1946/1974

Gerald Abraham was the editor of that book; the article on Tchaikovsky's symphonic poems, whence the above is excerpted, was actually written by Ralph W. Wood. 

[Roasted Swan]

I already had to update the cycle: I had missed Zdeněk Mácal's cycle on EXTON with the
@CzechPhil and the vanity-project cycle Alexander Sladkovsky's 2019 cycle w/the Tartastan NSO on "Sony" (for about a second) and Melodiya (digital).

Why do you consider the Sladkovsky a vanity project?  Have you heard it?  I know Sladkovsky's Shostakovich symphonies and concerti and they are very fine indeed.  I've read good reviews about his Rachmaninov too.

If Sladkovsky managed to get funding and licencing from a label that does not make it a vanity project - by that measure most of Gergiev's recordings are vanity projects funded by the Russian State.  Pick just about any American recording and see numerous "thanks" to benefactors for supporting this or that recording.  I have wanted to hear his Tchaikovsky but have been put off by the fact that it does not seem to exist except in digital format.  I see that you do not actually make any comments in your survey about this cycle which makes me think you have not heard it.  I see MusicWeb gave it "recommended" status

EDIT:  you can watch Sladkovsky and his Tatarstan SO in concert with various works inc. Tchaik/Shost/ etc - guess what - they are very good;

[Scion7]

Gerald Abraham was the editor of that book; the article ... was actually written by Ralph W. Wood. 

Thanks for the correction.  I shall remember it when the vote comes on the bill for the Patriot Battery to be sent to Bucharest. 

Regards,
Senator Scion. 

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Why do you consider the Sladkovsky a vanity project? ...
 I see MusicWeb gave it "recommended" status

I have not heard it. But of course a vanity project (for whatever that tag is worth anything, in a world where, in a way, almost every recording could be thus labeled (as you rightly point out) need not be bad at all. A vanity recording (in every bloody sense of the way) is among my favorite recordings of the Bach Suites.

I do in this case, because it's more than just getting funding for the recording. It's because of the art of buying yourself a print-run which the labels in question (first Melodiya, now Sony) have no intention to keep in print. It was very evidently placed with Sony to get the benefit of the cachet of the label, without any investment (in more than the most narrow sense) on the part of the label involved. Had they done the same thing on Avie, I might well possibly have not made it a point.

I have reached out to a few people who have heard it, and they all say that what they heard is, at a minimum, good. Some say very good. That specific MWeb review, after a little sounding-out, appears to be a total shill review, however, and therefore does not sway me. If anything, I find it off-putting.

[Roasted Swan]

I have not heard it. But of course a vanity project (for whatever that tag is worth anything, in a world where, in a way, almost every recording could be thus labeled (as you rightly point out) need not be bad at all. A vanity recording (in every bloody sense of the way) is among my favorite recordings of the Bach Suites.

I do in this case, because it's more than just getting funding for the recording. It's because of the art of buying yourself a print-run which the labels in question (first Melodiya, now Sony) have no intention to keep in print. It was very evidently placed with Sony to get the benefit of the cachet of the label, without any investment (in more than the most narrow sense) on the part of the label involved. Had they done the same thing on Avie, I might well possibly have not made it a point.

I have reached out to a few people who have heard it, and they all say that what they heard is, at a minimum, good. Some say very good. That specific MWeb review, after a little sounding-out, appears to be a total shill review, however, and therefore does not sway me. If anything, I find it off-putting.

I had to look up the definition of "shill" - so I assume you mean that you consider the MWI review written to order in return for a fee.  To be clear - reviewers on MWI receive no fee ever for any review.  They receive copies of the disc/download in question "free" and can keep them after the review should they so wish but there is no other incentive at all.  Neither are they ever told what to write.  Of course that may well rule out this review for you on the basis that the reviewer is an 'amateur' but what they are certainly not is a walking advert for this set.  I can only think that you find the reviewer's enthusiasm suspicious!

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I can only think that you find the reviewer's enthusiasm suspicious!

You are correct in your latter assumption. Especially if you look at the unidirectional focus of said "reviewer".

And, as you might know, I am painfully aware of the lack of (direct) pay for MWI reviews. :-)

[Roasted Swan]

You are correct in your latter assumption. Especially if you look at the unidirectional focus of said "reviewer".

And, as you might know, I am painfully aware of the lack of (direct) pay for MWI reviews. :-)

I've now listened to several of this Sladkovsky cycle and I enjoyed them a lot.  One of the things I like is that there are elements of "old school" Soviet playing and interpretation in these performances that I find lacking is say recent "Russian National Orchestra" performances which are high on technical execution but oddly laking personality.

I also looked up some other of Gregor Tassie reviews and in fact he conducted quite an extensive interview with Sladkovsky as well as reviewing his Rach cycle as well.  So my strong feeling is by all means question his objectivity but he is writing from the standpoint of simple (gushing?) enthusiasm not personal economic gain!  I'm not going to criticise someone for being a fan.....

[Brian]

I actually reviewed a Sladkovsky album for MusicWeb back in 2016 and enjoyed it enough to be curious about his subsequent album releases. Don't know who Gregor Tassie is at all, but that's kind of Jens' point - with MW, you really need to keep track of the writers and their expertise (or lack). Heck, why should anyone in 2016 have trusted me?