# Tchaikovsky: Symphonies 1-3 vs 4-6 (myths, facts, opinions, analysis)



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

In another thread a view was expressed that Tchaikovsky´s symphonies 4-6 are masterpieces whereas symphonies 1-3 are not. The masterpiece status of 4-6 was referred to as "generally agreed".

On the other hand there were also opinions that the symphonies 1-3 are as good as 4-6. Some have even rated 1-3 above 4-6.

It would be interesting to discuss at least some of the following aspects:


1. Do the symphonies 4-6 have a "generally agreed" masterpiece status over the symphonies 1-3?

2. If the answer to point 1 is yes, how and where is the status formed and established? How is a masterpiece status kept alive in the community´s or an individual´s mind?

3. What musical and analytical (and objective) arguments could be made:
3a. To question the division into 2 groups in the first place?
3b. On behalf of symphonies 1-3 over 4-6?
3c. On behalf of symphonies 4-6 over 1-3?

The points above are there only to help starting the discussion, not to control the answers or the discussion! Please feel totally free to contribute in any way you like!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

For a long time I listened to only symphonies 4-6 because I had great Karajan/DG recordings of each. At the time I was also striving to find the best of everything and neglecting "the lesser curiosities". Symphonies 4-6 sure got more mentions in the music literature with their fate motives etc. which naturally resulted in me thinking "I need to check this" and at the same time passing by the music that did not get as much mentions.

After those days I have heard also symphonies 1 and 2 in great concerts, and now I also have recordings of each symphony. Whenever I listen to any Tchaikovsky symphony, even Manfred, I enjoy what I hear.

To be honest, at this point, so far I have nothing more on behalf of 4-6 other than them being more established in the community through great recordings by great conductors and orchestras and mentions in the literature. The symphonies 4 and 5 also benefit from being considered a trilogy with the greatest of the greatest, the 6th. A lot of the Pathétique techniques can be seen in the 5th and 4th also. 

Yes, it can also be seen that Tchaikovsky´s style matured over the years -- but I find it a misconception that the mature late style of a composer would always be so much better than the path walked before it. Mozart, Mendelssohn and Schubert did not even have the time to evolve a "mature style of the late period".

(Nobody composes something like The Pathétique without walking a long way.)


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think the de facto status difference is without any doubt and unlike in other cases (e.g. Bruckner and Mahler where until a few decades ago the reception/popularity was also dominated by a few select symphonies but not any more) this seems still quite stable. Of course there are also people who think that none except maybe the 6th are masterpieces and 4 and 5 merely more effective potboilers than the early ones.
as for 2) Such things are self-perpetuating to a certain extent but they also must have causes. 1-3 are not juvenilia like Mozart 1-30 or so. Since the age of recordings they are reasonably well known if not as hugely popular as 4-6, so any "neglect" is relative. One should also keep in mind that any of 4-6 have claims for the top 10 most popular symphonies of all times and they were even more popular before the rise of Bruckner and Mahler in the 1970s. About half of Beethoven's symphonies (1,2,4,8) are probably less popular than PIT's last 3.
I think it's easy to see why 4-6 are so popular. They are melodic, dramatic, colorful, even have some kind of tragic story or "fate program". 
The 1st creates a nice mood but is a bit unfocussed and too long, the 2nd is very melodic but so lightweight it seems more like a serenade/suite than a symphony, so it is hardly surprising that it cannot compete with the "fate" narratives of the last 3. The 3rd is the odd one, a strange mix between Schumann and ballet. I don't know if all these reasons are enough to justify the relative neglect, but they are plausible explanations.
If anything, it seems more surprising that Manfred might be even more neglected than 1-3.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think the de facto status difference is without any doubt and unlike in other cases (e.g. Bruckner and Mahler where until a few decades ago the reception/popularity was also dominated by a few select symphonies but not any more) this seems still quite stable. Of course there are also people who think that none except maybe the 6th are masterpieces and 4 and 5 merely more effective potboilers than the early ones.
> as for 2) Such things are self-perpetuating to a certain extent but they also must have causes. 1-3 are not juvenilia like Mozart 1-30 or so. Since the age of recordings they are reasonably well known if not as hugely popular as 4-6, so any "neglect" is relative. One should also keep in mind that any of 4-6 have claims for the top 10 most popular symphonies of all times and they were even more popular before the rise of Bruckner and Mahler in the 1970s. About half of Beethoven's symphonies (1,2,4,8) are probably less popular than PIT's last 3.
> I think it's easy to see why 4-6 are so popular. They are melodic, dramatic, colorful, even have some kind of tragic story or "fate program".
> The 1st creates a nice mood but is a bit unfocussed and too long, the 2nd is very melodic but so lightweight it seems more like a serenade/suite than a symphony, so it is hardly surprising that it cannot compete with the "fate" narratives of the last 3. The 3rd is the odd one, a strange mix between Schumann and ballet. I don't know if all these reasons are enough to justify the relative neglect, but they are plausible explanations.
> If anything, it seems more surprising that Manfred might be even more neglected than 1-3.


I just listened to the 3rd Symphony while having a Spaziergang at the riverbank (or rather ein Bach). There was nothing to complain about in the 3rd and I enjoyed it -- but admittedly the material did not seem to be of as high a profile as the material in the symphonies 4-6. The melodies, harmonies, gestures, textures and the drama are not of the same expressive level and intensity, it would seem. The lower level of overall intensity sure can lead to a lesser status of a work in the reception and establishment. The elements resulting in a lower or a higher level of intensity could be categorized and analyzed and put into words if needed, don´t you think?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I love Beethoven's first two symphonies and believe them to be among the greatest ever. But they are not as stupendously great as the remaining seven. So it is with Tchaikovsky - his last two symphonies are surely among his very greatest works but I am less certain about the 4th - with his first three symphonies being wonderful and delightful works but not really as toweringly great as 5 and 6. That's how I hear them, anyway.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

I definitely think 4-6 are better. 1-3 are pretty good though and I do prefer to Manfred which i never really connected with


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

My favorite Tchaikovsky symphony is #1...
But then again, my opinion probably doesn't count since I don't care much for Tschaikovsky in general.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

1. Do the symphonies 4-6 have a "generally agreed" masterpiece status over the symphonies 1-3? 

Yes, without any question. The first two are clearly the work of a young, inexperienced composer working under the influence of Russian Nationalism. It wasn't until no. 3 came around that the composer began to break free and move toward the German school. He hit full stride with no. 4. From then on his symphonies had that sense of gravitas and symphonic development that was the equal of anything being written in the German speaking countries and that meant a lot. The gate keepers of what is "great" and what was not was largely the work of conductors. The first three symphonies despite their qualities, and they are many, just weren't serious enough or strong enough. They were more of the Russian Folk Song Symphony school. And that's why the first three were rarely heard or recorded for a long, long time. I have so many sets of Tchaikovsky Symphonies 4, 5, 6 from conductors who just didn't bother with 1, 2, 3. Even Ormandy, a long time Tchaikovsky specialist didn't do the early ones until late in his career when RCA wanted him to record everything. Then, for the first time, he opened scores to 1, 2, 3 and Manfred. 

2. If the answer to point 1 is yes, how and where is the status formed and established? How is a masterpiece status kept alive in the community´s or an individual´s mind?

It's the conductors, the orchestras, the critics...Not everything that is a masterpiece to one generation keeps that status. Audiences always enjoy 4, 5, and 6 - they're surefire hits. But in recent years the Tchaikovsky symphonies seem to be on the skids. They're still being played, but not nearly as much as they were a generation ago. The problem is that as a conductor you have to really be able to let go and play the music for all it's worth, and too many younger conductors don't have what it takes. They almost seemed embarrassed by Tchaikovsky's "wearing his heart on his sleeve".

3. What musical and analytical (and objective) arguments could be made:
3a. To question the division into 2 groups in the first place?
3b. On behalf of symphonies 1-3 over 4-6?
3c. On behalf of symphonies 4-6 over 1-3?

This could be a whole book. Having just played the 2nd in a concert and having played 4, 5, 6 more times than I can remember, I do get why at least the 2nd isn't considered as great as the last three: despite many excellent passages and great tunes, as a whole it just doesn't seem as unified or satisfying as the others. The composer's lack of experience is evident, too, in the part writing.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> 1-3 are not juvenilia like Mozart 1-30 or so.


What makes the early Mozart symphonies particularly "juvenilia" compared to other "short" symphonies of the period though?
The sophisticatication of harmony in k.184/ii?
On the other hand, we have stuff like Mendelssohn Op.20 held up as a masterpiece, and people actually believing Mendelssohn did not revise it after age 16. watch?v=_ZK07qhaup0&t=32m35s


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Not "particularly" (that's just your paranoia, why don't you just start a few threads about Salzburg Mozart instead of highjacking threads with totally different topics?), Simply that Mozart was very young, i.e. 18 or younger, unlike Tchaikovsky who was 26 at his first and 35 at the 3rd. The latter was written at about the time of Swan Lake and the b flat minor concerto, it cannot be considered an "early" work and neither can the 2nd, I think.
There is also the difference between only 3+3 pieces on a similar scale in the 2nd half of the 19th century and ca. 30 often small scale (not mainly or merely playing time) pieces at a time when the symphony was not a major genre vs. ca. 5 more weighty late pieces that led to a perfectly understandable preference for late Mozart symphonies and negligence of most of the early symphonies. But as several postings have made clear the preference for 4-6 vs. 1-3 is also perfectly understandable in the case of Tchaikovsky.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

If you want terrible inexperienced (but still distinctive) Tchaikovsky, hear his 1868 symphonic poem Fatum. The man destroyed it, but scavengers reconstructed it from the surviving scores for the instruments.






Tchaikovsky's earlier symphonies deserve fame even if they're not at the level of 4-6.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, Fatum is pretty thin, vulgar and trashy music. And yet, I'd kill to be able to write like that! And it's better - by a wide margin - than most of the stuff composers in the last 70 years have churned out.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I much prefer Tchaikovsky Syms 1-3 over 4-6....6 is good, it's ok, (mvts I & III are very good) but 4 and 5 are way over-rated....way too much repetitive chest-pounding, hair-tearing histrionics....endless repetition of themes (5), overblown length of little or no melodic content (4/IV)....Syms 1-3 are rich in melodic content, well-orchestrated....they deserve much more attention and favor. For me Tchaikovsky is at his best in the ballet scores, but the concerti, the Syms 1-3 are very fine and enjoyable to play, and to hear....


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^ I agree, and I'd go further and say that I'd rather listen to the Suites for Orchestra than symphonies 4-6


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

4, 5, 6 not getting too much love. But they should: in a great performance they can pack an emotional wallop that 1, 2, or 3 simply cannot, despite their many wonderful moments. I heard a live 4th with the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by Eschenbach that was hair-raising and lifted you right out of your seat. It was 40 years ago or so and I still recall it vividly. Then there was a 5th with Rostropovich and the National Symphony that was riveting in its passion, beauty and excitement. Above all was that 6th in Los Angeles with Carlo Maria Giulini - unforgettable. Great music can elevate you in ways lesser works simply cannot. Are 4, 5, 6 overplayed? No doubt. But when they are played like those three concerts who cares?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> 4, 5, 6 not getting too much love. But they should: in a great performance they can pack an emotional wallop that 1, 2, or 3 simply cannot, despite their many wonderful moments.


I hear what you're saying, but I don't really agree...I just hear #s 4, 5 and 6/IV as excessively histrionic, repetitious and over the top emotionally...For me, they simply don't have much emotional wallop....a lot of clanging and banging, hair-tearing, chest-thumping....PIT just gets carried away...but that's just my viewpoint....I know these symphonies 4-6 are very popular with audiences and conductors...and I freely admit that my own over-exposure as an orchestra performer colors my viewpoint...for me they aren't very exciting...
1-3 are quite delightful - I enjoy listening to them, and performing them...#3 esp deserves much more program exposure.


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

1-3 and 4-6 are equal great symphonies for me. in fact, i enjoy listening to the earlier works more than the later, "generally agreed" works.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

For me it seems like Tchaikovsky said something more meaningful with every new symphony. The tunes were always good. Maybe its more a steady increase instead of two groups. My favourite is the 5th tough, maybe it not quite as meaningful as the 6th but I feel more passion for it.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

A few points:

1.The first has always been my favourite and indeed an important breakthough work in getting me to listen more seriously to classical music in general. 2 and 3 are enjoyable but more lightweight
2. Of nos. 4-6, I've always regarded the Pathetique as the greatest with a more focussed construction and more intense emotional level. Manfred has also always seemed to me to be a more varied and inventive work than 4 or 5
3. Don't forget the 7th (as in the Bogatyrev reconstruction). The finale is crass and it perhaps (not so surpoisingly) doesn't work as a whole but the melodic invention is on a high level
4. In general I can only really listen to Tchaikovsky symphonies in Soviet era recordings. They need to be raw, unhinged and have bite. Most western efforts are simply too smooth and "civilised". I'm not only talking about Karajan here.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

All the Tchaikovsky symphonies are great including the non-canonical _"Manfred"_. _Symphony #4_ and _#6_ are especially profound and make it so that the others sound "second tier" for no other reason that Tchaikovsky composed them. If anyone else such as Borodin, Mussorgsky, Rimsky, Rubinstein, Glazounov, or Liadov had composed any of Tchaikovsky's symphonies 1-3, they'd be hailed as masterpieces and would still be at the heart of the standard repertoire. I always thought of the _Symphony #5_ as a bit loud, rambling, and overblown; even if the slow movement is exquisite. But even if 5 doesn't measure up to 4 or 6, it's still has a place as one of our most important and beloved warhorse symphonies. From what can be assumed based on Tchaikovsky's letters to his patron, Nadezhda von Meck, Tchaikovsky was very concerned with form, and he was very critical of his own symphonies. While Tchaikovsky could probably invent a beautiful melody in his sleep he had trouble weaving the music into something cogent, at least to his own satisfaction. While Tchiakovsky is the very essence of sad, Russian, soulfulness, and Romantic pathos; and Mozart is the Classical ideal of balance, beauty and joy; Tchaikovsky identified Mozart as his favorite composer. Tchaikovsky called Mozart a "Musical Christ" and he wanted his own music to have a seamless type of craftsmanship as Mozart had where every note seems to flow naturally and falls right into place almost as if the music is composing itself. It was an unattainable objective that seemed to frustrate Tchaikovsky and make him go hard on his own compositions. Of course, if you're going to make Mozart your benchmark, what else should you expect to happen?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

6/IV is gorgeous, a true masterpiece. Very poignant, not histrionic. 

Not every symphony needs to end with a crash-boom-bah ending.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

There is a definite stylistic demarcation between the first three symphonies and the last three linked to a change in Tchaikovsky's thinking about symphonic music and its potential as a conveyor of content and extramusical meaning. In responding to critical comments on the Fourth by Sergei Taneyev, who suspected it of being programmatic ("[various features] make me think that a program is being treated here.") To this Tchaikovsky responded that he doesn’t see why “this should be a mistake. I’m far more afraid of the contrary. I don’t want 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.” He then says he cribbed its program from Beethoven’s Fifth, whose sense is “so clear that there can’t be the slightest difference of opinion about what it means.”

The last three symphonies are Tchaikovsky’s attempt to come to terms with Beethoven, to write cyclically unified symphonies embodying a coherent narrative (one he notes is not really expressible in words). Technically speaking, each of the first movements has three themes, the first a motto associated (explicitly in 4 and 5) with Fate, the second two embodying an extreme expressive and modal contrast. (There are opther parallels in the opening movement that I won't go into.) The influences that led him to this use of a Fate program, apart from the one he claims, Beethoven’s Fifth, are A.B. Marx’s Beethoven criticism which he apes in his statements about Beethoven, and Bizet’s _Carmen_, which also has a recurring Fate motive and which he heard and was wildly enthusiastic about shortly before composing the Fourth. The _Carmen_ libretto got its narrative idea from Victor Hugo, two of whose plays contain a recurring musical idea that returns in the last act to turn the plot in a tragic direction. It's also possible Tchaikovsky was directly influenced by the Hugo plays, with which he was likely familiar, at least in operatic form (Verdi's _Rigoletto_ and _Ernani_ are settings of Hugo's _La Roi s'amuse_, and _Hernani_, the two plays whose finales have fateful recurring musical cues.)

The first three symphonies were composed before Tchaikovsky’s exposure to Marx and _Carmen_ and before his new appreciation and desire to more closely emulate Beethoven. Are they masterpieces and better than the early ones? Maybe. They are certainly more ambitious in certain ways. Guess it depends on how well you think they succeed in their ambitions.


----------

