# Thoughts on Tchaikovsky's First Three Symphonies?



## RonP (Aug 31, 2012)

I've heard Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies frequently through my life, but very rarely do i hear the first three. I'm particularly interested in the 2nd and 3rd and understand that the 3rd is his only one composed in a major key. However, they don't seem to be that popular. Can anyone explain?

I'm particularly interested in the Third since I'm of Polish heritage and so I would expect to hear some Polish influence in it.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I think 4-6 are considered more "Mature", but I myself enjoy 1-3, especially #1. Symphony #1 is on most days my favorite Tchaikovsky Symphony. I hear so many wonderful things in that work. Everyone else seems to miss them or just take it for granted.

As far as The Polish, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

"Western critics and audiences began calling this symphony the Polish after Sir August Manns led the first British performance in 1889, with the finale seen as an expression by the Polish people for their liberation from Russian domination and the reinstatement of their independence.[SUP][/SUP] Since this was the way Chopin had treated the dance in his works and people had heard them in that light for at least a generation, their interpretation of the finale of the Third Symphony in a similar manner was completely understandable. Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong.
[SUP][/SUP]

In Tsarist Russia, the polonaise was considered musical code for the Romanov dynasty and a symbol of Russian imperialism. In other words, Tchaikovsky's use of the polonaise was the diametric opposite to Chopin's.[SUP][/SUP] This context for the dance began with Osip Kozlovsky (1757-1831), a Pole who served in the Russian army and whose greatest successes as a composer were with his polonaises. To commemorate Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire in the Ukraine, Kozlovsky wrote a polonaise entitled "Thunder of Victory, Resound!" This set the standard for the polonaise as the preeminent genre for Russian ceremony.

One thing to keep in mind is that Tchaikovsky lived and worked in what was probably the last 18th-century feudal nation. This made his creative situation more akin to Mendelssohn or Mozart than to many of his European contemporaries.[SUP][/SUP] Because of this cultural mindset, Tchaikovsky saw no conflict in making his music accessible or palatable to his listeners, many of whom were among the Russian aristocracy and would eventually include Tsar Alexander III.[SUP][/SUP] He remained highly sensitive to their concerns and expectations and searched constantly for new ways to meet them. Part of meeting his listeners' expectations was using the polonaise, which he did in several of his works, including the Third Symphony. Using it in the finale of a work could assure its success with Russian listeners."

So if you're interested in a "Polish" feeling you might try Chopin instead.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I always was trying to defend 3rd, I think it's excellent. I might even like it better than the more loved 4th. Tchaikovsky goes really classical in the first movement, which I like, then the final movement is fine, noble polonaise. By all means, successful symphony. My first recording was Haitink, then I liked Karajan and Wit (on Naxos) isn't bad either, actually his final movement is less superficial than Karajan's and he brings out more of it. 

Anyways, have a listen without prejudictions.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I love the first three symphonies by Tchaikovsky as well. No. 1 ("Winter Dreams") was the work by Tchaikovsky that first enthralled me and really, that first introduced me to the music of Romanticism.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

realdealblues said:


> I think 4-6 are considered more "Mature", but I myself enjoy 1-3, especially #1. Symphony #1 is on most days my favorite Tchaikovsky Symphony. I hear so many wonderful things in that work. Everyone else seems to miss them or just take it for granted.


I think many of us agree that #1 deserves a lot more attention that what it gets.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

All of those three are thoroughly excellent. Moreover, they don't seem to demand a certain state of mind from the listener; I usually only listen to #4 when I'm feeling wild, #5 when I'm feeling triumphant and #6 when I'm feeling, well, pathetique, you know.

I usually start to imagine a sleigh ride going on when I hear the #1. But when I heard Karajan's #1 I almost started laughing because I immediately imagined _Nazis_ on a sleigh ride when I heard the music! (It's a great version, though, just a bit more controlled and solemn than some other interpretations... emphasis on _well mannered_ frivolity!)


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I'm pleased to see responses championing the three early Tchaikowsky symphonies, especially promotions of Number One. I remain a fan of the three works and play them often, more often, I admit, than I do the later three which are undoubtably staggering masterpieces of the genre. The profundity of the late symphonies can be overwhelming, but the early three symphonies inspire only joy. But joy is a wondrous thing, perhaps even more of a value than the profounder emotions triggered by Symphonies 4, 5, and 6.

To put it another way ... Symphonies 4, 5, and 6 inform me of the depths of the human experience. Symphonies 1, 2, and 3 remind me that it's great to be alive.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Of the first three, #2 is probably the most popular. Its final movement illustrates the adage that "Tchaikovsky could swear a theme through a stone wall."


----------



## Dan Hornby (Jun 2, 2014)

Perfect thread to post this in (I already put it in the listening thread), as I assume there will be some Tchaikovskians in here!

At the very beginning of Christopher Nupen's documentary "Fate" there is an ending to a piece which I just don't recognise. The extract starts off with a brass solo using the ascending C major triad followed by a sudden full orchestral chord (i think it's B major with a sharpened fifth, but might have some other notes in there) and culminates in a descending chromatic scale in the string section with E minor chords to end.

Does anyone have a clue what this might come from?


----------



## Dan Hornby (Jun 2, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Of the first three, #2 is probably the most popular. Its final movement illustrates the adage that "Tchaikovsky could swear a theme through a stone wall."


It has a fantastic finale (then again Piotr knew how to finish a piece!) and had the pleasure of hearing it on Radio 3 on a long journey home from seeing relatives. I was quite ashamed that having had access to the piece for years via the symphonies box set by Andrew Litton, I didn't put it on previously.

However having heard the 4th and 6th in that particular set I wasn't impressed and so it just goes to show that a good recording often helps.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I like the first three symphonies too, but there is an enormous difference in sensibility between the later ones and the first three. I think what happened is that Tchaikovsky, under the influence of A. B. Marx's _Beethoven: Leben und Schaffen_, underwent an aesthetic realignment. (The book was in Russian translation as early as 1860 and would surely have been in the libraries of the big Russian conservatories.) Marx proposed that there was a poetic idea, or _Idee_, underlying the most influential and revolutionary works of Beethoven (for example, "struggle to victory" was supposedly the underlying Idee behind the Fifth Symphony - Yes, it was Marx who invented that chestnut!), and in Tchaikovsky's letters around the time of the Fourth Symphony he actually uses the term. In a letter to Sergei Taneyev (8 April 1878), Tchaikovsky writes that he derived the "central Idee," of his Fourth Symphony from Beethoven's Fifth, and that "in [his] naiveté [he] imagined the idea of this Symphony to be quite clear; that in general outline its meaning [is] accessible without a program." This Beethoven/Marx influence is even more obvious in his letter to Nadejda von Meck (17 February 1878) about the Fourth Symphony, the one that is always quoted in program notes. It is no coincidence that, in this letter, he describes his opening theme as a representation of Fate, which is exactly what Marx said about the opening of Beethoven's Fifth! Here is a quote from it about the first movement.

"So all life is a continual alternation between grim truth [Fate theme and principal theme] and fleeting dreams of happiness [second theme group]. There is no haven. The waves drive us hither and thither, until the sea engulfs us. This is, approximately, the program of the first movement."

Marx got the Fate idea from Anton Schindler, who quoted Beethoven as saying "Thus Fate raps on the door" in describing the opening of the Fifth.

So what happened was that from the Fourth Symphony on, Tchaikovsky was intent on writing symphonies with meaning, symphonies that were rooted in an overall dramatic/poetic conception. From the letter to Taneyev:

"I do not wish any symphonic work to emanate from me which has nothing to express, and consists merely of harmonies and a purposeless design of rhythms and modulations. Of course, my symphony is program music, but it would be impossible to give the program in words."

It is this new conception of the purpose and potential of instrumental music, adopted just before he composed the Fourth, that probably accounts for the obvious difference one hears in the later symphonies.

The first three symphonies do not have the same sense of overall drive and drama as the later ones, and this might be among the reasons they are less popular.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

The 1-3 symphonies are great to hear often there is plenty of life in the works.The symphony 2 is pretty good.SYMPHONY 1 is good i like the last movement though.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

I personally think they're at least as good as the last 3. All of them are full of life and energy, with not as much of the pathos and weight of the last 3. Which means they can be enjoyed as pure expressions of joy.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

I always find the original version of Tchaikovsky's Second Symphony "The Little Russian" superior to his revised edition (much more coherent, and the ideas fresher and more striking). I feel Taneyev's pain when the composer decided to revise the work. The Third Symphony is to me a leap forward to his later masterworks, like his Fourth Symphony, but not excluding the Second Piano Concerto and Eugene Onegin. It has the fingerprints of a maturing composer, and it's very rewarding because of those attributes. I agree with realdealblues that the First Symphony has many wonderful moments, especially in the slow movement.

While there are not as many performances and recordings of the first three symphonies (plus the still _underrated_ "Manfred") as compared to the last three, there are still a good number of very fine recordings to choose from (Svetlanov's, Fedoseyev's, Ivanov's, Muti's, Rozhdestvensky's, are gold standards as far as I'm concerned-well, minus Fedoseyev's liberty with the coda) and there are fine performances available via Youtube.


----------



## RonP (Aug 31, 2012)

Thanks for all the input. I'm going to investigate the earlier symphonies a bit more, especially the Third since the Baltimore Symphony has it on its 2014 schedule.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

Tchaik always held a special affection for the 1st symphony. 
The second is actually quite popular - you could argue _most _symphonies fail in the popularity contest when set aside nos 4-6 so maybe that's part of the reason. 
The third is a strange one; I think it lacks what most people consider characteristic Tchaik - the big, memorable tunes and the pathos.

Manfred on the other hand needs to be played more! You could reason that it's difficult but I find that a thin excuse. It's a mystery to me why it's not as popular as the others.


----------

