# Tchaikovsky Symphony 3



## clavichorder

This was my most overlooked Tchaikovsky symphony. I don't know how it's been historically, but you don't hear about it being programmed very often and there are not an abundance of classic recordings on the surface of youtube, that aren't just part of complete cycles. 

Any favorite recordings?

Well, maybe it's just given the intense inspiration of 1, the fiery depth of 4, the cohesive developmental arc of 5, the genius of 6, or even the catchy 2nd movement of 2. Well, the middle movements of #3 have really been getting stuck in my head lately, and there are three of them. 3 is not uninspired or thin, it is merely more mellow. 2 is actually a nice companion to it. 

I am enjoying becoming acquainted with it, the outer movements are excellent once you know them, but the melodic genius is definitely more concentrated in the inner 3. That doesn't give the impression of unevenness to me though, just a little melodic soul sandwich, with well made outer movements to frame it. The Manfred Symphony remains the sole Tchaikovsky symphony I have yet to love.


----------



## Triplets

I like all the Tchaikovsky Symphonies, but my favorite are 1, 4-6, and Manfred. Heard all of them in Concert this year. 2&3 have some beautiful music but somehow end up sounding somewhat trivial.


----------



## Ukko

Is it good? Yes, actually.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

I quite enjoy listening to all of Tchaikovsky's symphonies, and 1, 2, and 3 I find are quite charming. They don't carry a lot of that heavy emotional energy that starts weighing down 4, 5, and 6 - don't get me wrong, I love them as well, but the first three are lighter and freer. Happier, to some extent


----------



## clavichorder

I'm surprised at how mild and inactive this thread for Tchaikovsky 3 is... Nothing specific is being said about the work. It may not be as big or substantial, but it is neither trivial.


----------



## Becca

At least it is an improvement on the days when it was said of Tchaikovsky that he wrote 3 symphonies and perversely numbered them 4, 5 and 6.


----------



## Pugg

Ukko said:


> Is it good? Yes, actually.


Yes it is, sit back and enjoy it :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

Re "Polish", one of the reasons I chose Muti's earlier Tchaikovsky set. Played with great relish. :tiphat:










No. 3 (rec.1977), courtesy of YT:


----------



## Marsilius

Samuel Kristopher said:


> I quite enjoy listening to all of Tchaikovsky's symphonies, and 1, 2, and 3 I find are quite charming. They don't carry a lot of that heavy emotional energy that starts weighing down 4, 5, and 6...


I recall that when Karajan brought out his set of 1-6, reviewers were struck by the balletic, dance-like qualities that he brought to the first three.


----------



## realdealblues

I think Tchaikovsky's 1st symphony is often times my favorite of the lot. I enjoy them all though, including the "Polish".

As for Recordings my top two: Bernstein/New York Philharmonic and Muti/Philharmonia Orchestra both do it for me.


----------



## PlaySalieri

For me - his first 3 symphonies are to Tchaik's output what Beethoven's first 2 are to his - utterly mediocre. I think the same can be said of Dvorak's symphonies exc his last 3.

I can imagine if Brahms had composed symphonies of similar stature he would have wanted to have them burned - as it is he waited and so his first symphony and the three others are all great.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I have always had a soft spot for Tchaikovsky's Third Symphony. It is possibly the least often programmed of ALL his symphonies, which confounds me. It dates from the same time as _Swan Lake_ and it shares the lyricism and melodiousness of the ballet, if perhaps lacking a little in the 'drama' department (not something you can often say about Tchaikovsky!). Unlike some of Tchaikovsky's other works, the Third doesn't 'play itself' and needs a sympathetic conductor to bring out its best qualities. A conductor (whom I otherwise admire greatly) who misses the point entirely to my ears is Igor Markevitch, whose recording is plodding and turgid and reveals none of the dance-like qualities of the work.
My favourite recording is an old 1960s recording (which still sounds remarkably good) by Konstantin Ivanov and the USSR State Symphony Orchestra.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

clavichorder said:


> I'm surprised at how mild and inactive this thread for Tchaikovsky 3 is... Nothing specific is being said about the work. It may not be as big or substantial, but it is neither trivial.


When we consolidate knowledge to just a few enthusiasts without spreading knowledge let alone _love _to others, that's what happens. 

What I like about it is it's less in-your-face than some of his other Symphonies. Most _unpretentious?_ You know what I mean (I avoid that term with Tchaikovsky usually).  My favorite movement might be the Scherzo, a supremely icy movement with a _malevolent _trombone solo refrain.

Check this out.


----------



## Vasks

It's my least favorite of the six. There's a fugal section in it that not only sounds out of place, but forced as well. Thank God he abandoned doing any more of them in the later symphonies.


----------



## EdwardBast

The Third Symphony was the last Tchaikovsky composed before his "aesthetic awaking," if that's what you want to call it. After that work he seems to have come under the influence of Beethoven via the writing of A. B. Marx. So in discussing the Fourth Symphony with von Meck and Taneyev he uses the term Idee in Marx's sense, that is, as developed in Marx's _Beethoven Leben und Schaffen_, a controlling poetic conception underlying the structure and content of an entire composition. ("In my naieveté I imagined the Idee of this Symphony to be quite clear; that in general outline its meaning was accessible without a programme. . . . At bottom my symphony is an imitation of Beethoven's Fifth") In all of the symphonies after the Third he was concerned with cyclic structure and with trying to make the finale a grand resolution of the whole work.


----------



## clavichorder

EdwardBast said:


> The Third Symphony was the last Tchaikovsky composed before his "aesthetic awaking," if that's what you want to call it. After that work he seems to have come under the influence of Beethoven via the writing of A. B. Marx. So in discussing the Fourth Symphony with von Meck and Taneyev he uses the term Idee in Marx's sense, that is, as developed in Marx's _Beethoven Leben und Schaffen_, a controlling poetic conception underlying the structure and content of an entire composition. ("In my naieveté I imagined the Idee of this Symphony to be quite clear; that in general outline its meaning was accessible without a programme. . . . At bottom my symphony is an imitation of Beethoven's Fifth") In all of the symphonies after the Third he was concerned with cyclic structure and with trying to make the finale a grand resolution of the whole work.


Maybe, but this does kind of throw the 1st under the bus, which in some ways is his most 'raw' symphony, arguably more so than the 4th or 6th even.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Vasks said:


> It's my least favorite of the six. There's a fugal section in it that not only sounds out of place, but forced as well. Thank God he abandoned doing any more of them in the later symphonies.


I agree that fugues were not Tchaikovsky's strong point. The original version of 'Romeo and Juliet' also had a rather forced fugato passage that he had the sense to excise when he revised it.


----------



## EdwardBast

clavichorder said:


> Maybe, but this does kind of throw the 1st under the bus, which in some ways is his most 'raw' symphony, arguably more so than the 4th or 6th even.


I don't want to throw any of them under the bus! I like them all, including the Third, and of the early ones, the First especially. That's why I put "aesthetic awakening" in scare quotes and additionally qualified it. I do admire the late symphonies more than the early ones, but prefer to look at the early ones as embodying a different and valid sensibility rather than just as immature or inferior products.


----------



## Mahlerian

Delicious Manager said:


> I agree that fugues were not Tchaikovsky's strong point. The original version of 'Romeo and Juliet' also had a rather forced fugato passage that he had the sense to excise when he revised it.


The finale of Manfred is its worst movement in part because of the extremely stiff fugato he stuck in (that and the very poor ending).


----------



## clavichorder

Mahlerian said:


> The finale of Manfred is its worst movement in part because of the extremely stiff fugato he stuck in (that and the very poor ending).


That's the thing. I don't think the Manfred is a bad work, but I even prefer the underdog symphony number 3 to it by a margin.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

clavichorder said:


> That's the thing. I don't think the Manfred is a bad work, but I even prefer the underdog symphony number 3 to it by a margin.


Even the genius who could seemingly "churn out" fantastic melodies sometimes missed.

Glazunov asked Tchaikovsky once how he came up with these "fantastic" ideas. Tchaikovsky told him a week or 2 in the countryside, and perhaps something would arise. Maybe Tchaikovsky happened not to be in the countryside when he wrote Manfred. :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Even the genius who could seemingly "churn out" fantastic melodies sometimes missed.
> 
> Glazunov asked Tchaikovsky once how he came up with these "fantastic" ideas. Tchaikovsky told him a week or 2 in the countryside, and perhaps something would arise. Maybe Tchaikovsky happened not to be in the countryside when he wrote Manfred. :lol:


Alas, he wrote it in the bucolic isolation of the countryside, at Maidanova, a village on the river Sestra 55 miles NW of Moscow. The problem might have been the turkey of a program he took with him. Balakirev had been urging him to read Byron and write a symphony on Manfred for three years, even making specific suggestions for the program and the overall design. Perhaps Tchaikovsky shouldn't have listened so closely. 

I like the first movement a lot, and it is great to hear what Tchaikvosky does with a larger orchestra. I never warmed to the rest of it though.


----------



## maestro267

The Third is my favourite of Tchaikovsky's first three symphonies. Just absolutely brimming with positive, life-affirming energy. Proof that not everything needs to be a giant struggle through the darkness. (Although, tbh, that's probably the reason for its unjust neglect. The same can probably be said for the 1st and 2nd Symphonies too.)


----------



## clavichorder

^I agree with what about number 3, except that the 1st is much wilder and more passionate than 2 or 3. It's far from a tame symphony.


----------



## Antiquarian

It's been awhile since I've listened to the 3rd. My choice is Neeme Järvi with the Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra. (BIS SACD -1468). I've rather neglected this set, and should listen to it again. I've never really thought there was much of a transition between the third and the fourth, so I will play them in tandem, and hear for myself.


----------



## PeterF

I quite enjoy my SACD version by Pletnev and the Russian National Orchestra.

Some seem to have the view that only the very few "Great" symphonies by a composer should be heard. So the early symphonies of Beethoven, Dvorak, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, etc. should ignored or worse.

That is not a view I find acceptable. Many pieces of music that are not "Great" can be enjoyed, and can significantly help in undersatnding the evolution of the composers development.


----------



## clavichorder

Not only that, there are stunning moments in the interior movements of the Symphony 3 in question. 

I'm thinking about making a thread for Dvorak Symphony 5, which I tend to consider a better symphony than Tchaikovsky 3. Dvorak 6 too.


----------



## Joachim Raff

Love the "Polish" symphony, very underrated and as good as the others in my opinion. 
Of course a lot depends on the recording and my favourites are as follows:

1st Choice:








2nd Choice:







Label:
Мелодия ‎- ASD2499


----------



## Heck148

I really enjoy Tchaikovsky 3...great to perform, excellent listening...every movement is good...I esp love the 2nd theme in the finale.


----------



## mbhaub

Heck148 said:


> I really enjoy Tchaikovsky 3...great to perform, excellent listening...every movement is good...I esp love the 2nd theme in the finale.


Harder than heck, too! The one time I've played it I just remember the principal flute, oboe and clarinets complaining about how tricky it is. A couple of bassoon licks that weren't easy, either. It's too bad the work has such a poor reputation, because it is full of beautiful and exciting moments. The closing pages of the finale are among the most explosively exciting thing ever written. Svetlanov on the above Melodiya did it magnificently. But that cramped Soviet sound recording!!!!!


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> Harder than heck, too! The one time I've played it I just remember the principal flute, oboe and clarinets complaining about how tricky it is. A couple of bassoon licks that weren't easy, either. It's too bad the work has such a poor reputation, because it is full of beautiful and exciting moments. The closing pages of the finale are among the most explosively exciting thing ever written. Svetlanov on the above Melodiya did it magnificently. But that cramped Soviet sound recording!!!!!


Yes, neat part...I love the 2nd mvt (a la Tedesco ?? don't have score with me) where the bassoon has that lovely counter melody with the flutes...the slow mvt III is neat too...the "Russian Orthodox church chant" tune in bassoon and horn...is this the same tune Shostakovich used in his Sym #11??...
Finale is magnificent, that big hymn tune just explodes with grandeur...fun piece to play...


----------

