# Tchaikovsky - Op. 43 - Orchestral Suite No. 1



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

How do you rate this suite?

Radio-sinfonieorchester Stuttgart conducted by Sir Neville Marriner.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Somewhere between good and very good; I voted good [very good]. While I probably qualify as the local TC Tchaikovsky nut, the orchestral suites have never totally clicked for me. Fine, pleasant music, but ultimately not particularly memorable.

P.S. On further thought, I changed my vote to good.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

On the plus side, there's no histrionic utterances in the work. Negatively, there are also no wonderful melodies, and I generally consider the composer a prime-time melody maker along the lines of Puccini and Mozart. So it's not so good, not so bad.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think these suites are underrated but for good reasons. They contain some nice picturesque pieces that would reach at least "very good" but they are uneven and mostly lack an overall "arch" or coherence. 

I would have picked the middle option out of five, but out of six I go with slightly above middle, i.e. "good". 
(I once read that one should not give 5 options in polls because too many people will vote for the middle/neutral option, so 6 options forces to pick slightly better or slightly worse than neutral...)


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Bulldog said:


> On the plus side, there's no histrionic utterances in the work. Negatively, there are also no wonderful melodies, and I generally consider the composer a prime-time melody maker along the lines of Puccini and Mozart. So it's not so good, not so bad.


Do you think that Tchaikovsky is as good as Mozart as a melody maker? I admit that he composed some memorable melodies, but I don't see him as a proliphic composer like Mozart.
If Mozart walked on the piano like a cat, a good melody came out.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, Tchaikovsky evidently beat Stravinsky by a few decades to the idea of using solo bassoon in a higher register to open a work, so on that strength alone I am rating it very good.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> Do you think that Tchaikovsky is as good as Mozart as a melody maker?


I'd put them on an equal footing.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Very good, but far from being one of my favorite pieces by the composer. A 7.5/10 in terms of how much I like it.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Bulldog said:


> On the plus side, there's no histrionic utterances in the work. Negatively, there are also no wonderful melodies, and I generally consider the composer a prime-time melody maker along the lines of Puccini and Mozart. So it's not so good, not so bad.


I think that the third movement has a good melody.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Very good, I prefer the Neeme Järvi, Detroit Symphony Orchestra recording.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I think Tchaikovsky's Orchestral Suite No. 1 (1879) is an excellent work. Tchaikovsky took the recently-established (1861) 19th-century orchestral suite genre to new heights, having been influenced by Massenet's suites. The whole point of the orchestral suite was to be an alternative to the increasingly deep and complex late romantic symphony.

The opening movement is a jet-fueled fugue, of all things. The third movement ends exquisitely. His orchestration, balancing wind choir and string section, is a model of clarity. It's a joy to watch the score while listening to this composition. At times this suite reminds me of Tchaikovsky's ballet style. It is also one of Tchaikovsky's works moving in the direction of neo-classicism, along with the Serenade, the Variations on a Rococo Theme, the later orchestral suites, and the ballets _Sleeping Beauty_ and _Nutcracker _(unlike the romantic _Swan Lake)_.


----------

