# Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 6



## ClassicalMusicLover1 (May 2, 2017)

A good friend asked me if I thought Tchaikovsky was overrated or underappreciated. A few years ago I probably would have said overrated; now I say both.

http://myfavoriteclassical.com/tchaikovsky-symphony-no-6/


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

How can he be both overrated and underappreciated? Do you mean that some of his works (such as the Nutcracker) are overplayed, while some of his other works (the chamber pieces, perhaps?) are somewhat neglected?


----------



## dillonp2020 (May 6, 2017)

Overplayed is a better use. The opening to Beethoven's 5th is used ad nauseam in commercials and other stupid things. But still the piece in its entirety is under appreciated by the general public. Granted, Tchaikovsky wasn't a prolific composer by Haydn or Bach standards, but could one person ever really appreciate all of his opuses?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Symphony #s 4 and 5 are certainly overplayed, over -performed....

Syms #1-3 deserve more concert exposure....very fine works...


----------



## MissKittysMom (Mar 2, 2017)

His chamber works are certainly underappreciated. The quartets are quite good; I like No. 3 particularly. The string sextet "Souvenir de Florence" is simply stunning.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

His Piano Trio arguably, just may be his finest composition.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Bettina said:


> How can he be both overrated and underappreciated? Do you mean that some of his works (such as the Nutcracker) are overplayed, while some of his other works (the chamber pieces, perhaps?) are somewhat neglected?





dillonp2020 said:


> Overplayed is a better use. The opening to Beethoven's 5th is used ad nauseam in commercials and other stupid things. But still the piece in its entirety is under appreciated by the general public. Granted, Tchaikovsky wasn't a prolific composer by Haydn or Bach standards, but could one person ever really appreciate all of his opuses?





Heck148 said:


> Symphony #s 4 and 5 are certainly overplayed, over -performed....
> 
> Syms #1-3 deserve more concert exposure....very fine works...


Perhaps some feel that his best known works aren't necessarily his best. With Tchaikovsky, I would say his ballets and overtures are his most famous works. Even non-classical lovers know at least parts of these. Next up would be his symphonies 4-6 given the general popularity of Romantic symphonies. While his VC and PC1 are well known here, they may not be known to even some casual classical fans who give less priority to concertos and more to symphonies.

Anyway, his ballets and overtures are so popular that they might not get the respect that they perhaps deserved due to people being fatigued with them or due to their association with _those kinds of casual classical fans_. His symphonies, while good, are probably not among his very finest works like the concertos. I suppose all of this gives Tchaikovsky a bit of an overrated and underappreciated feel.

I like Tchaikovsky's symphonies 3-6. They aren't my favorite works of all time, but they're good. I listen to them. I don't remember particularly caring for 1-2, but it's been such a long time since I've listened to them that maybe I ought to give them another chance. I don't even own 1-3 on CD. I don't particularly care for the Manfred Symphony either and I have listened to that one recently.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

ClassicalMusicLover1 said:


> A good friend asked me if I thought Tchaikovsky was overrated or underappreciated. A few years ago I probably would have said overrated; now I say both.
> 
> http://myfavoriteclassical.com/tchaikovsky-symphony-no-6/


Thanks for the link. I think Tchaikovsky's problem is, he is overexposed. For several years, I turned my nose up at his music just on principle. I've corrected that prejudice.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I never loved the 6th. The 4th is my favorite.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Tchaikovsky is one composer whose symphonies should be heard live by a top orchestra, rather than at home on CD, if possible.

Nothing like the March of the Sixth or the final movement of the Fourth in the concert hall with nothing held back.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Klassik said:


> With Tchaikovsky, I would say his ballets and overtures are his most famous works. Even non-classical lovers know at least parts of these.......
> Anyway, his ballets and overtures are so popular that they might not get the respect that they perhaps deserved.....


I think PIT's ballets are his best work - Tchaikovsky was really at home in the dance mode...Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty - wonderful stuff...



> I don't remember particularly caring for 1-2, but it's been such a long time since I've listened to them that maybe I ought to give them another chance.


definitely give them another listen - Syms 1-3 are most rewarding - very fine works - I much prefer them to #s 4 and 5...which, IMO, are very much over-rated, and over-played.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> Symphony #s 4 and 5 are certainly overplayed, over -performed....
> 
> Syms #1-3 deserve more concert exposure....very fine works...


To this I can only say "Heck!" Tchaikovsky's Syms 4 and 5 are among the giants of symphonic art music. They have few peers. Such works cannot be (by present day concert or radio-play programming) overplayed or over-performed. They remain worth hearing, again and again.

I have known these works for over a half century now, and they remain fresh to my ears, though I've heard each one a hundred times, at least. And of those listens, most have been of a single recording: the Mravinsky renditions.

I must agree that the three early symphonies deserve greater play. I recall my first hearing of each of these (many many years ago, by way of LP records); I was stunned by their power and beauty, and I have never outgrown the feelings. In fact, the First is a true favorite symphony of mine, and I listen to it several times a year, probably more than I do any of the other five; though I don't believe it is as great or important a work as are 4, 5, and 6. Of course, to my sensibilities, Symphony 6 remains in a class by itself. It is a giant among giants, and it's only rival is Beethoven's Fifth, on which I believe it to be modeled (with the exception of the final movement that turns away from Beethovenian victory and apotheosis toward Tchaikovskian angst and despair).

Of the Tchaikovsky symphonies I can admit to having heard the Third the fewest times of the great six. It remains the one I know least well, but that is not to say I do not like the piece. I just tend to like the other five more often in my listening routine.

In concert I've heard the last three symphonies, at least once each. I do not recall having heard the early three at all in a symphony hall. But that may be my fault for seeking out concerts that are programming other works than those. Still, Symphonies 1, 2, 3 deserve more concert exposure. Agreed.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Ever since I started listening to classical music, this has been one of my favorite symphonies! I enjoy every minute of it, and it is up there as one of my favorite works of all time!


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Ever since I started listening to classical music, this has been one of my favorite symphonies! I enjoy every minute of it, and it is up there as one of my favorite works of all time!


I'm assuming that it's the source of your user name...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

The question alone makes me like :scold:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique" is an extraordinarily original work. It makes me think of Chopin's second piano sonata, or even the late quartets of Beethoven, in its daring juxtaposition of movements of radically different character which somehow work together as an entity. There is an emphasis on the interval of a perfect fourth - an unsensuous, emotionally "cold" interval - which, combined with dark sonorities, muted strings, and quasi-liturgical or hymn-like themes, gives the whole work a peculiarly austere, "wintry" feeling that absolves its passionate surgings of any suspicion of glibness or histrionics. I consider the work one of the peaks of the symphonic literature.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bettina said:


> I'm assuming that it's the source of your user name...


Well, it's more representing of Tchaikovsky's 6 symphonies as a whole rather than just Tchaikovsky and his sixth symphony. I love all of them, although the sixth maybe a bit more than the others.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Well, it's more representing of Tchaikovsky's 6 symphonies as a whole rather than just Tchaikovsky and his sixth symphony. I love all of them, although the sixth maybe a bit more than the others.


No love for the Manfred? Well, I wouldn't blame you if you put that one to the side.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Klassik said:


> No love for the Manfred? Well, I wouldn't blame you if you put that one to the side.


I don't care for Manfred. IMO, it's not Tchaikovsky at his best....as he was when writing the Fourth Symphony, the Piano Trio and the Ballets.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Klassik said:


> No love for the Manfred? Well, I wouldn't blame you if you put that one to the side.


Manfred I've never really gotten into, but I meant the six numbered symphonies.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Klassik said:


> No love for the Manfred? Well, I wouldn't blame you if you put that one to the side.


Imagine a kid these days named Manfred or Boris. What are the odds that he would never live to see fourth grade?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

I've always been fond of the Manfred symphony. While I agree it's not on the same level as his 4th, 5th, or 6th symphonies, it's full of beautiful melodies, brilliant orchestration, raging emotional extremes. However it does strike me as maybe a little overlong, is does tend to wear out its welcome a little more than my favorite Tchaikovsky works.


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

I don't understand why most people doesn't like the Manfred. It's a great work, to my taste.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Tastes differ and I'm glad you enjoy it. It contains some impressive moments and I wouldn't go as far as to say I don't like it, but I'm afraid too many sections of the piece come across to me as mundane, technically polished but short of real inspiration.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> Tchaikovsky's Syms 4 and 5 are among the giants of symphonic art music. They have few peers. Such works cannot be (by present day concert or radio-play programming) overplayed or over-performed.


I have to disagree - #s 4 and 5 are not even the best of Tchaikovsky's symphonies. they are over-programmed, overplayed....as a long-time professional orchestra musician, I've played these each so many times, that it would be fine if I never played them again...enough's enough...there are so many other fine symphonies that deserve the program time, instead of yet another pedestrian run-thru of these over-exposed warhorses. I much prefer the first 3 symphonies of PIT, and I'm glad you do find them enjoyable.
I've played all of the Tchaikovsky symphonies - 4, 5, 6 many, many times, #s 1 and 2 several, and #3 only once...fine work, definitely deserves more exposure.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Agree about nos.1 and 2. However, the "Polish" tends to lose my attention and, while I can understand your weariness at having to slog through 4, 5 and 6 too many times, I don't really see how that has a bearing on whether they're the best of the symphonies or not.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique" is an extraordinarily original work.......which, combined with dark sonorities, muted strings, and quasi-liturgical or hymn-like themes, gives the whole work a peculiarly austere, "wintry" feeling that absolves its passionate surgings of any suspicion of glibness or histrionics.


Yes, #6 is much freer of the hysteria, melodrama, histrionics which plague #s 4 and 5. the orchestration is quite effective, also, as you observe....prominent parts for bassoons, viola, low brass - provide a dark hue to the sound. quite original in this regard...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Agree about nos.1 and 2. However, the "Polish" tends to lose my attention and, while I can understand your weariness at having to slog through 4, 5 and 6 too many times, I don't really see how that has a bearing on whether they're the best of the symphonies or not.


#6 is a fine work, it is probably his best symphony...my issue with 4, 5 is the over-exposure on concert programs....there are so many other works that deserve even 20, 25% of the exposure these works receive. If those works received the exposure, they too would become concert staples.


----------



## MissKittysMom (Mar 2, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Yes, #6 is much freer of the hysteria, melodrama, histrionics which plague #s 4 and 5. the orchestration is quite effective, also, as you observe....prominent parts for bassoons, viola, low brass - provide a dark hue to the sound. quite original in this regard...


Shostakovich took inspiration from the 6th, also, for its pioneering use of a morendo ending.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

MissKittysMom said:


> Shostakovich took inspiration from the 6th, also, for its pioneering use of a morendo ending.


Mahler - #9, also...in fact the movement scheme is remarkably similar between Mahler 9 and Tchaik #6


----------

