Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky)

Last updated

The Symphony No. 2 in C minor, Op. 17 by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was composed in 1872. One of Tchaikovsky's joyful compositions, it was successful right from its premiere and also won the favor of the group of nationalistic Russian composers known as "The Five", led by Mily Balakirev. Because Tchaikovsky used three Ukrainian folk songs to great effect in this symphony, it was nicknamed the "Little Russian" (Russian : Малороссийская, Malorossiyskaya) by Nikolay Kashkin, a friend of the composer as well as a well-known musical critic in Moscow. [1] Ukraine was at that time frequently called "Little Russia". According to historian Harlow Robinson, "Kashkin suggested the moniker in his 1896 book Memories of Tchaikovsky." [2]

Contents

Despite its initial success, Tchaikovsky was not satisfied with the symphony. He revised the work extensively in 1879–80, substantially rewriting the opening movement and shortening the finale. [3] This revision is the version of the symphony usually performed today, although there have also been supporters of the original version. Among those advocates was the composer's friend and former student, Sergei Taneyev, who was himself a noted composer and pedagogue. [3]

Form

  1. Andante sostenuto—Allegro vivo (C minor).
    A solo horn playing a Ukrainian variant of "Down by Mother Volga" sets the atmosphere for this movement. Tchaikovsky reintroduces this song in the development section, and the horn sings it once more at the movement's conclusion.
    Orchesterwerke Romantik Themen.pdf
    The rather vigorous second subject utilises a melody which would also be used subsequently by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov in his Russian Easter Festival Overture . The end of the exposition, in the relative E-flat major, leads straight into the development, in which material from both themes is heard. A long pedal note leads back to the second subject. Tchaikovsky does not repeat the first subject theme in its entirety in this section, as is conventional, but instead uses it solely for the coda.
    Orchesterwerke Romantik Themen.pdf
  2. Andantino marziale, quasi moderato (E♭ major).
    This movement was originally a bridal march Tchaikovsky wrote for his unpublished opera Undine . He quotes the folk song "Spin, O My Spinner" in the central section.
    Orchesterwerke Romantik Themen.pdf
  3. Scherzo. Allegro molto vivace (C minor).
    Fleet and scampering, this movement does not quote an actual folk song but sounds folk song-like in its overall character. It takes the form of a da capo scherzo and trio with a coda.
    Orchesterwerke Romantik Themen.pdf
  4. Finale. Moderato assai—Allegro vivo (C major).
    After a brief but expansive fanfare, Tchaikovsky quotes the folk song "The Crane", subjecting it to an increasingly intricate and colorful variations for orchestra. A more lyrical theme in A♭ major from the strings provides contrast. During the development both first and second themes are used. After the recapitulation, the symphony finishes with a colorful and lively coda.
    Orchesterwerke Romantik Themen.pdf
    Orchesterwerke Romantik Themen.pdf

Instrumentation

The symphony is scored for piccolo, two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, four horns, two trumpets, three trombones, tuba, timpani, cymbals, bass drum, tamtam (last movement only), and strings.

Overview

Tchaikovsky may not be a nationalist composer in the manner of the Russian composers known as "The Five" or "The Mighty Handful", but he retained a love for Russian folk song and Orthodox chant his entire life. His liturgical music includes a setting of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and an All-Night Vigil which draw upon traditional chant. His affinity for folk song led him in 1868–69 to publish Fifty Russian Folksongs arranged for piano duet. All but one he transcribed himself came from the collections of Villebois and Balakirev. [4]

Composition

Tchaikovsky wrote much of the Little Russian Symphony during his summer holiday at Kamianka (Kamenka) in Ukraine with his sister Aleksandra's family, the Davydovs. The Davydov estate had become the composer's favorite refuge. [5] Alexandra had, in fact, encouraged the composer to make Kamenka his second home. His affection for the estate bore fruit in his using local songs in the symphony he was writing. [6] He even once wrote, in jest, that true credit for the Little Russian's finale should have gone "to the real composer of the said work—Peter Gerasimovich." Gerasimovich, the elderly butler in the Davydov household, sang the folk-song "The Crane" to Tchaikovsky while the composer was working on the symphony. [7]

One of Tchaikovsky's favorite anecdotes resulted from his nearly losing the sketches for the Little Russian on the way back to Moscow. To persuade a recalcitrant postmaster to hitch the horses to the coach in which he and his brother Modest had been travelling, Tchaikovsky presented himself as "Prince Volkonsky, gentleman of the Emperor's bedchamber." When they reached their evening stop, he noticed his luggage missing—including his work on the symphony. Fearing the postmaster had opened the luggage and learned his identity, he sent someone to fetch it. The intermediary returned empty-handed. The postmaster would only release the luggage to the prince himself. [8] Steeling himself, Tchaikovsky returned. His luggage had not been opened, much to his relief. He made small talk for some time with the postmaster and eventually asked the postmaster's name. "Tchaikovsky", the postmaster replied. Stunned, the composer thought this was perhaps a sharp-witted revenge. Eventually he learned "Tchaikovsky" was really the postmaster's name. After learning this fact, he delighted in recounting the story. [8]

Influence of Kamarinskaya

Tchaikovsky had used folk songs in his early days in Saint Petersburg and in his student overture The Storm. Now he wanted to use folk songs as valid symphonic material. [4] Tchaikovsky's greatest debt in this regard was to Glinka's Kamarinskaya. He believed fervently that in Kamarinskaya lay the core of the entire school of Russian symphonic music, "just as the whole oak is in the acorn", as he wrote in his diary in 1888. [9]

Glinka's Kamarinskaya helped Tchaikovsky in writing the Little Russian. Glinka 1856.jpg
Glinka's Kamarinskaya helped Tchaikovsky in writing the Little Russian.

Kamarinskaya is based on two melodies. The first is a bridal song, "Izza gor" (From beyond the mountains). The second, the title song of the piece, is a naigrish, an instrumental dance to an ostinato melody repeated for as long as the dancers can keep up with it. Glinka uses the principle from folk song of allowing the musical structure to unfold around a thematic constant—or actually two constants, since he uses two folk songs. [10] He varies the background material surrounding these songs more than the songs themselves—orchestral color (timbre), harmonization, counterpoint. This way, Glinka preserves the original character of the dance, complementing it with creative variations in the orchestral treatment. [11]

Ideally, the themes in a Western piece interact, contrast and change. This activity fuels the composition's growth as an organic creation. Tension continues building as this thematic dialogue becomes increasingly complex. This dialogue or interchange eventually propels the piece to a climactic point of resolution. Kamarinskaya does not follow this pattern. Nor can it. The ostinato melody of the second song will not allow any motivic development without distorting the character of the piece. [11] The music repeats itself constantly, albeit with changing backgrounds. Because of this lack of thematic growth, the music remains static, not moving forward. Nor was this a unique problem with Kamarinskaya. Russian music, especially Russian folk music, stubbornly refused to follow the Western principles Tchaikovsky had learned in St. Petersburg. [10] This may have been one reason his teacher Anton Rubinstein did not consider folk songs to be viable musical material for anything other than local color.

For Tchaikovsky, Kamarinskaya offered a viable example of the creative possibilities of folk songs in a symphonic structure, using a variety of harmonic and contrapuntal combinations. It also offered a blueprint on how such a structure could be made to work, barring the potential for inertia or over-repetition. Because of his compositional training, Tchaikovsky could build the finale of the Little Russian more solidly and over a greater time scale than either Glinka or Mussorgsky could have done. [12] Without Kamarinskaya, however, Tchaikovsky knew he did not have had a foundation upon which to build that finale. [13]

Initial success

Tchaikovsky played the finale at a gathering at Rimsky-Korsakov's house in Saint Petersburg on January 7, 1873. To his brother Modest, he wrote, "[T]he whole company almost tore me to pieces with rapture—and Madame Rimskaya-Korsakova begged me in tears to let her arrange it for piano duet". [14] Neither Balakirev nor Mussorgsky was present. [15] Borodin was there and may have approved of the work himself. [16] Also present was music critic Vladimir Stasov. Impressed by what he heard, Stasov asked Tchaikovsky what he would consider writing next. Stasov would soon influence the composer in writing the symphonic poem The Tempest and later, with Balakirev, the Manfred Symphony. [16]

The premiere of the complete symphony took place in Moscow under Nikolai Rubinstein on February 7, 1873. Tchaikovsky wrote Stasov the next day that it "enjoyed a great success, so great that Rubinstein wants to perform it again ... as by public demand. [17] " That publicly demanded performance, on April 9, was even more successful. A third Moscow performance, again by public demand, took place on May 27. Critical reaction was just as enthusiastic. Stasov wrote of the finale "in terms of color, facture and humor ... one of the most important creations of the entire Russian school. [18] " Hermann Laroche, who had travelled from St. Petersburg especially for the concert, wrote in the Moscow Register on February 1, "Not in a long time have I come across a work with such a powerful thematic development of ideas and with contrasts that are so well motivated and artistically thought out. [19] "

Meanwhile, Eduard Nápravník conducted the St. Petersburg premiere on March 7. Despite a negative review by César Cui, the audience in Saint Petersburg received the piece positively enough to guarantee it a second performance the following season.

Revision

One person not happy with the Little Russian was its composer. In the same letter describing the 1873 premiere, Tchaikovsky wrote to Stasov, "To tell you the truth, I'm not completely satisfied with the first three movements, but 'The Crane' ['Zhuravel'] itself [the finale which employs this Russian folk tune] hasn't come out so badly." [20] Despite this, Tchaikovsky persuaded the publisher Bessel to publish the score. Bessel released a piano duet arrangement (prepared by Tchaikovsky after Rimskaya-Korsakova had to withdraw due to illness) but was late to produce a full score.

In 1879, Tchaikovsky asked for the return of the manuscript score. Upon its arrival, he started revising it. On January 2, 1880, he sent Bessel a progress report: "1. I have composed the first movement afresh, leaving only the introduction and coda in their previous form. 2. I have rescored the second movement. 3. I've altered the third movement, shortening and rescoring it. 4. I've shortened the finale and rescored it. [17] " He claimed he had completed this work in three days. By January 16, he wrote Sergei Taneyev, "This movement [the first] has come out compressed, short, and is not difficult. If the epithet 'impossible' applies to anything, it is this first movement in its original form. My God! How difficult, noisy, disjointed and muddle-headed this is!" [3] The premiere of the revised version was played at Saint Petersburg on February 12, 1881, under the direction of Karl Zike.

Versions

Sergey Taneyev Taneev.jpg
Sergey Taneyev

The 1880 revised version is usually the one performed and recorded today, but its true effectiveness has been questioned. At only 35 minutes running time (somewhat shorter than many symphonies of the period), it is also approximately five minutes shorter than its predecessor. Tchaikovsky stood by his revisions, informing Eduard Nápravník that the 1880 version was the only one to be performed. Eight years after Tchaikovsky's death, Sergei Taneyev compared the two versions and favored the 1872 original. Nikolay Kashkin's opinion was the same.

Taneyev's opinion carried considerable weight. In the 19 years between the première of the original Little Russian and his appraisal of both versions, Taneyev had not only developed into an outstanding teacher of composition but also earned a reputation as one of the finest craftsmen among all Russian composers. [3] He felt strongly enough about the matter to write the composer's brother Modest, "It seems to me that in some future concert you ought to let people hear the real Second Symphony, in its original form ... When I see you I will play both versions and you will probably agree with me about the superiority of the first." [21]

More recently, Hans Keller has advocated at least the occasional performance of the 1872 version. [22] Dr. David Brown has added, "To be fair to the second version, it is certainly attractive, and structurally as clear as anything that Tchaikovsky could wish for. There is an undeniable heaviness in the original, but its imposing scale, and its richness of content and detail make it a far more impressive piece that ought to be restored to the place, which is still permanently usurped by its slighter and far less enterprising successor." [23]

See Discussion section for a reference to the only recording of the original version of the work, made by Geoffrey Simon and the London Symphony Orchestra.

1872 original

What endeared the Little Russian to The Five (or kuchka, as the group was also called) was not that Tchaikovsky used Ukrainian folk songs but, especially in the outer movements, how he allowed the unique characteristics of Russian folk song to dictate symphonic form. This was one of the goals toward which the kuchka strived. Tchaikovsky, with his Conservatory grounding, could sustain such development longer and more cohesively than his colleagues in the kuchka, but writing in this vein also had its pitfalls. Using similar intervals and phrases to the folk songs with repetitiveness typical of Russian folk music could easily create a static effect rather than one geared to movement and purpose. The melody tends, in fact, to become something near a set of variations on itself, to proceed by modulation rather than by development and contrast; and this clearly makes it recalcitrant to symphonic treatment. However, in 1872, Tchaikovsky did not see this lack of structural advancement as a problem since in all his most important symphonic movements to date his practice had been to close the first subject exactly where it had begun. [24]

Andante sostenuto—Allegro vivo

The 1872 version of the first movement is massive in scale, intricate in structure and complex texturally. Its weightiness contrasted well with the comparatively lightweight second movement and it balanced the finale well—a formal pattern the composer would repeat much later in the Pathétique. From Romeo and Juliet he used the idea of integrating the introduction, based on another Ukrainian folk song, with the main body of the movement by using material from it in the allegro. The first subject itself is both spacious and filled with a restless momentum resulting from constant tensions between melody and bass. These tensions are often highlighted by the accompanying figures, which are syncopated. The second subject, like the first, is tonally restless, often chromatic and containing an almost constant contrapuntal interplay. While the exposition of these themes was limited in expressiveness, it was also rich in inventive detail and skillfully composed—what Dr. David Brown called "as monolithic a slab of symphonic music as Tchaikovsky had yet composed." [25]

Finale. Moderato assai—Allegro vivo

The finale is both the high point of the symphony and its composer's clearest demonstration of writing in line with the tradition of Glinka as embraced by the Five. He introduces the folk song "The Crane" in a grandiose introduction similar to how Mussorgsky would write "The Great Gate of Kiev" for Pictures at an Exhibition two years later (although many recordings seem to rush through this imposing section, making the contrast between this and its impish second statement somewhat less stark). But the grandiosity is just a momentary mask. The mask drops with the first notes of the Allegro vivo. The music becomes both highly animated and mischievous in tone as Tchaikovsky allows "The Crane" to virtually monopolize the next two minutes, set against a succession of varying backdrops. Such a spacious development leaves almost no time for a transition to a calmer second theme; Tchaikovsky lets it arrive unannounced; the music just seems to stop with only a couple of brass notes to form the briefest of transitions. Even then, it is quickly replaced with more variations on "The Crane." The development is an unorthodox combination of these two themes accompanied by a series of widely striding bass notes, like some giant walking through the music's narrative. The second subject sometimes twists in mid-statement and even takes on the boisterous personality of "The Crane", building to a huge climax. In the 1872 version, the climax led to "The Crane" being recapitulated with an even more dizzying set of changing backgrounds, even going through remote key areas before returning to tonic for the second subject group. It is worth hearing the original version of this – the way he played it at the home of Rimsky-Korsakov – which caused a sensation.

1880 revision

In the years following the Little Russian, Tchaikovsky's musical ideals changed considerably. He became attracted to the qualities of lightness and grace he found in 18th century classical music, as shown in his Variations on a Rococo Theme . He became increasingly attracted to French music. This attraction was strengthened by his exposure to Léo Delibes' Sylvia and Georges Bizet's Carmen . Against the musical values he heard in this music, the massive scale, intricate structure, and textural complexity of the Little Russian's first movement became distasteful. [26]

Andante sostenuto—Allegro vivo

Tchaikovsky focused the majority of his revision on the first movement. The result was a completely new composition. [27] The only parts he did not change were the introduction, coda and 28 bars of the development section. His objective was to clarify structure and texture. He compressed the material, excising more than 100 bars of music in the process. He introduced more abrupt contrasts in the material, which heightened the musical drama, allowed him to more sharply define structural divisions within the movement, and allowed the movement to follow a more orthodox sonata form. [28]

Tchaikovsky also changed the thematic material, eliminating the second subject and replacing it with the original first subject after rewriting it completely, since there was little contrast between these two themes. [3] The other thematic change was the role of the introduction's folk song in the main body of the movement. In 1872 it had operated freely within the main movement, sometimes operating on equal terms with the other themes and at others even assuming a brief structural role in a manner both bold and unprecedented. After reappearing to complete the exposition, it had continued as a constant element of the entire development section before falling back to allow the first theme to reassume its role. Also, while Tchaikovsky had not written a transition written into the exposition, he had provided one in the recapitulation by restarting the folk song in combination with part of the first subject. [29]

In his revision, Tchaikovsky confines the introduction's folk tune to the first part of the development and the coda. The new second half of the development focused on the new first subject. The recapitulation was orthodox, the last three bars tonally modified for the second subject to be restated in the tonic. [30]

Finale. Moderato assai—Allegro vivo

While Tchaikovsky left the inner movements alone, structurally speaking, he cut 150 bars out of the finale. Instead of the climax leading to further development of "The Crane", it is now followed by a quieter interlude led by the movement's second subject.

Notable recordings

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mily Balakirev</span> Russian composer and pianist (1837–1910)

Mily Alexeyevich Balakirev was a Russian composer, pianist, and conductor known today primarily for his work promoting musical nationalism and his encouragement of more famous Russian composers, notably Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. He began his career as a pivotal figure, extending the fusion of traditional folk music and experimental classical music practices begun by composer Mikhail Glinka. In the process, Balakirev developed musical patterns that could express overt nationalistic feeling. After a nervous breakdown and consequent sabbatical, he returned to classical music but did not wield the same level of influence as before.

<i>Kamarinskaya</i> Russian folk dance

Kamarinskaya is a traditional Russian folk dance, which is mostly known today as the Russian composer Mikhail Glinka's composition of the same name. Glinka's Kamarinskaya, written in 1848, was the first orchestral work based entirely on Russian folk song and to use the compositional principles of that genre to dictate the form of the music. It premiered on 15 March 1850. It became a touchstone for the following generation of Russian composers ranging from the Western-oriented Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky to the group of nationalists known collectively as The Five and was also lauded abroad, most notably by French composer Hector Berlioz.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sergei Taneyev</span> Russian composer and pianist (1856–1915)

Sergey Ivanovich Taneyev was a Russian composer, pianist, teacher of composition, music theorist and author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piano Concerto No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)</span> Composition by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

The Piano Concerto No. 1 in B♭ minor, Op. 23, was composed by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky between November 1874 and February 1875. It was revised in 1879 and in 1888. It was first performed on October 25, 1875, in Boston by Hans von Bülow after Tchaikovsky's desired pianist, Nikolai Rubinstein, criticised the piece. Rubinstein later withdrew his criticism and became a fervent champion of the work. It is one of the most popular of Tchaikovsky's compositions and among the best known of all piano concerti.

<i>Manfred</i> Symphony Symphony by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Manfred is a "Symphony in Four Scenes" in B minor by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, his Opus 58, but unnumbered. It was written between May and September 1885 to a program based upon the 1817 poem of the same name by Byron, coming after the composer's Fourth Symphony and before his Fifth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Symphony No. 4 (Tchaikovsky)</span> Symphony by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 4 in F minor, Op. 36, was written between 1877 and 1878. Its first performance was at a Russian Musical Society concert in Moscow on February 22, 1878, with Nikolai Rubinstein as conductor. In Central Europe it sometimes receives the nickname "Fatum", or "Fate".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Symphony No. 3 (Tchaikovsky)</span> Symphony by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 3 in D major, Op. 29, was written in 1875. He began it at Vladimir Shilovsky's estate at Ussovo on 5 June and finished on 1 August at Verbovka. Dedicated to Shilovsky, the work is unique in Tchaikovsky's symphonic output in two ways: it is the only one of his seven symphonies in a major key ; and it is the only one to contain five movements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Symphony No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)</span>

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky wrote his Symphony No. 1 in G minor, Winter Daydreams , Op. 13, in 1866, just after he accepted a professorship at the Moscow Conservatory: it is the composer's earliest notable work. The composer's brother Modest claimed this work cost Tchaikovsky more labor and suffering than any of his other works. Even so, he remained fond of it, writing to his patroness Nadezhda von Meck in 1883 that "although it is in many ways very immature, yet fundamentally it has more substance and is better than any of my other more mature works." He dedicated the symphony to Nikolai Rubinstein.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cello Concerto (Tchaikovsky/Leonovich)</span>

The Cello Concerto of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky is a conjectural work based in part on a 60-bar fragment found on the back of the rough draft for the last movement of the composer's Sixth Symphony, the Pathétique. In 2006, Ukrainian composer and cellist Yuriy Leonovich completed the work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piano Concerto No. 3 (Tchaikovsky)</span>

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 3 in E-flat major was at first conceived by him as a symphony in the same key. But he abandoned that idea, jetisoned all but the planned first movement, and reworked this in 1893 as a one-movement Allegro brillante for piano and orchestra. His last completed work, it was duly published as Opus 75 the next year, after he died, but given by publisher Jurgenson the title "Concerto No. 3 pour Piano avec accompagnement d'Orchestre".

<i>Andante and Finale</i>

The Andante and Finale is a composition for piano and orchestra that was reworked by Sergei Taneyev from sketches by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky for the abandoned latter movements of his single-movement Piano Concerto No. 3 in E-flat, Op. 75.

The Concert Fantasia in G, Op. 56, for piano and orchestra, was written by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky between June and October 1884. It was premiered in Moscow on 6 March [O.S. 22 February] 1885, with Sergei Taneyev as soloist and Max Erdmannsdörfer conducting. The Concert Fantasia received many performances in the first 20 years of its existence. It then disappeared from the repertoire and lay virtually unperformed for many years, but underwent a revival in the latter part of the 20th century.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Symphony in E-flat was commenced after Symphony No. 5, and was intended initially to be the composer's next symphony. Tchaikovsky abandoned this work in 1892, only to reuse the first movement in the single-movement Third Piano Concerto, Op. 75, first performed and published after his death in 1895. Two other movements were reworked for piano and orchestra by Sergei Taneyev as the Andante and Finale, which was published as Tchaikovsky's Op. posth. 79 in 1897.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five</span> Ideological dispute among Russian composers

In mid- to late-19th-century Russia, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and a group of composers known as The Five had differing opinions as to whether Russian classical music should be composed following Western or native practices. Tchaikovsky wanted to write professional compositions of such quality that they would stand up to Western scrutiny and thus transcend national barriers, yet remain distinctively Russian in melody, rhythm and other compositional characteristics. The Five, made up of composers Mily Balakirev, Alexander Borodin, César Cui, Modest Mussorgsky, and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, sought to produce a specifically Russian kind of art music, rather than one that imitated older European music or relied on European-style conservatory training. While Tchaikovsky himself used folk songs in some of his works, for the most part he tried to follow Western practices of composition, especially in terms of tonality and tonal progression. Also, unlike Tchaikovsky, none of The Five were academically trained in composition; in fact, their leader, Balakirev, considered academicism a threat to musical imagination. Along with critic Vladimir Stasov, who supported The Five, Balakirev attacked relentlessly both the Saint Petersburg Conservatory, from which Tchaikovsky had graduated, and its founder Anton Rubinstein, orally and in print.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky composed his Orchestral Suite No. 3 in G, Op. 55 in 1884, writing it concurrently with his Concert Fantasia in G, Op. 56, for piano and orchestra. The originally intended opening movement of the suite, Contrastes, instead became the closing movement of the fantasia. Both works were also intended initially as more mainstream compositions than they became; the fantasia was intended as a piano concerto, while the suite was conceived as a symphony.

Orchestral Suite No. 1 in D minor is an orchestral suite, Op. 43, written by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky in 1878 and 1879. It was premiered on December 20, 1879 at a Russian Musical Society concert in Moscow, conducted by Nikolai Rubinstein. The piece is dedicated to Tchaikovsky's patroness, Nadezhda von Meck.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Symphonies by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky</span>

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky struggled with sonata form, the primary Western principle for building large-scale musical structures since the middle of the 18th century. Traditional Russian treatment of melody, harmony and structure actually worked against sonata form's modus operandi of movement, growth and development. Russian music—the Russian creative mentality as a whole, in fact—functioned on the principle of stasis. Russian novels, plays and operas were written as collections of self-contained tableaux, with the plots proceeding from one set-piece to the next. Russian folk music operated along the same lines, with songs comprised as a series of self-contained melodic units repeated continually. Compared to this mindset, the precepts of sonata form probably seemed as alien as if they had arrived from the moon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky</span>

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was a Russian composer especially known for three very popular ballets: Swan Lake, The Sleeping Beauty and The Nutcracker. He also composed operas, symphonies, choral works, concertos, and various other classical works. His work became dominant in 19th century Russia, and he became known both in and outside Russia as its greatest musical talent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle</span> Tchaikovskys relations with a group of composers

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's relations with the group of composers known as the Belyayev circle, which lasted from 1887 until Tchaikovsky's death in 1893, influenced all of their music and briefly helped shape the next generation of Russian composers. This group was named after timber merchant Mitrofan Belyayev, an amateur musician who became an influential music patron and publisher after he had taken an interest in Alexander Glazunov's work. By 1887, Tchaikovsky was firmly established as one of the leading composers in Russia. A favorite of Tsar Alexander III, he was widely regarded as a national treasure. He was in demand as a guest conductor in Russia and Western Europe, and in 1890 visited the United States in the same capacity. By contrast, the fortunes of the nationalistic group of composers known as The Five, which preceded the Belyayev circle, had waned, and the group had long since dispersed; of its members, only Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov remained fully active as a composer. Now a professor of musical composition and orchestration at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory, Rimsky-Korsakov had become a firm believer in the Western-based compositional training that had been once frowned upon by the group.

References

  1. ↑ Holden, Anthony, Tchaikovsky: A Biography (New York: Random House, 1995), 87.
  2. ↑ Robinson, Harlow. "Symphony No. 2, Little Russian". www.bso.org. Retrieved June 14, 2024.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 259-260
  4. 1 2 Warrack, TS&C, 17.
  5. ↑ Poznansky, Alexander, Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man (New York, Schirmer Books, 1991), 155
  6. ↑ Warrack, John, Tchaikovsky (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), 69
  7. ↑ Zhitomirsky, Daniel, ed. Shostakovich, Dmitry, Russian Symphony: Thoughts About Tchaikovsky (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947), 94, footnote 4
  8. 1 2 Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 254.
  9. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 265, 267.
  10. 1 2 Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Final Years, 423-424.
  11. 1 2 Maes, 28.
  12. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Yaars, 269.
  13. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 267.
  14. ↑ Brown, David, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 1840-1874 (New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1978), 255
  15. ↑ Brown, 281-282
  16. 1 2 Brown, 283
  17. 1 2 Brown, 256
  18. ↑ Warrack, Tchaikovsky, 71
  19. ↑ Moskovskie vedomosti, February 1, 1873, as quoted in Poznansky, 156
  20. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 256
  21. ↑ Letter from Taneyev to Modest Tchaikovsky, December 27, 1898
  22. ↑ Keller, 343-344.
  23. ↑ Brown, 264.
  24. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 265.
  25. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 260-261.
  26. ↑ Brown, 261-262
  27. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 259.
  28. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 262.
  29. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 263-264.
  30. ↑ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 264.
  31. 1 2 Sony Classics CD
  32. 1 2 Warner Classics CD
  33. ↑ Virgin Classics CD
  34. ↑ Capriccio CD
  35. 1 2 RCA CD
  36. ↑ Chandos CD
  37. 1 2 Onyx CD
  38. ↑ Telarc CD
  39. ↑ BIS CD
  40. ↑ EMI CD

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.