# Tchaikovsky - Symphony 2



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

First of all, I want to announce that it has just opened the Talkclassical best film score award - 1993, where you can vote your favourite film score for the year 1993.

That said, here below you find a recording (Berliner Philarmoniker) of the second symphony of the russian composer Tchaikovsky. How do you rate the piece?







Furthermore, I'll give you a bonus piece: the Serenade for Nikolay Rubinstein’s Nameday. Do you like it? It's a short orchestral piece that Tchaikovksy composed in the period of the second symphony.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

An absolutely superb composition and one my favorite works of his. Indeed on some days it is my favorite symphony by him. I do love all of his numbered symphonies and have as high a regard for his early symphonies Nos. 1-3 as I do for the later and better known Nos. 4-6. About the only symphonic work of his that has not entirely clicked for me is Manfred.

I am partial to the the 1960s recording by Abbado with the New Philharmonia, the entire cycle by Markevich with the LSO as well as the 1960s cycle with Maazel and the VPO. I am less familiar with Dorati's cycle with the LSO, but listened today to the 1st and 2nd symphonies in that cycle and they may join my list of favorite recordings but I need to relisten several times more. Karajan was also an excellent conductor of Tchaikovsky's symphonies. He recorded the second only once in the 1970s (together with 1 & 3) but recorded 4-6 multiple times.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's a "fun piece" in a sense but I hardly consider it a real symphony and don't much care for it. It is more like a light suite, mostly relying on colorful orchestration of folksy tunes. It's lighter than his string serenade and some of his orchestral suites (although the latter are often too long and a bit tedious, a fault this brief symphony avoids successfully).


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Agree 100% with the first para.of Haziz' post above. As far as recordings go, Svetlanov or Giulini for me.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> It's a "fun piece" in a sense but I hardly consider it a real symphony and don't much care for it. It is more like a light suite, mostly relying on colorful orchestration of folksy tunes. It's lighter than his string serenade and some of his orchestral suites (although the latter are often too long and a bit tedious, a fault this brief symphony avoids successfully).


What does "light" mean and why is "light" a defect?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

My second or third favorite Tchaikovsky symphony especially as done by


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

I easily own more performances of this than any other piece. Would have to count to know for sure.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> What does "light" mean and why is "light" a defect?


"lightweight", not weighty, maybe also "shallow", as I wrote more like suite than a symphony.
It's not necessarily a defect but in the (late) 19th century "symphony" carries some implications. They are not fulfilled by this piece and I find it overall quite shallow, e.g. the variations in the last movement being mostly in instrumentation, some annoying flashy effects with percussions throughout the piece, reliance on folksy slavic melodies. There's not really a dramatic arc etc. 
I find the string serenade a much better piece, this one is also "light" but almost transcends the serenade genre towards something more whereas the "2nd" is more like a little "little russian folk suite" posing as a symphony.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I do feel that the first 3 symphonies play somewhat lightweight to what was to come. Yet listening to the whole 6/7 one gets the impression that it's no better no worse then other compsers trying to find their feet in their symphonic scoring. Tchaikovsky's hit/miss ratio from good to great is better then most. Including Manfred.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Excellent, certainly an impressive achievement by a composer early in his career. Sparklings of Tchaikovsky's genius for use of melody, orchestral color and dynamics are already shown in this work in my opinion. Yet, it's my least enjoyed of his symphonies.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> "lightweight", not weighty, maybe also "shallow", as I wrote more like suite than a symphony.
> It's not necessarily a defect but in the (late) 19th century "symphony" carries some implications. They are not fulfilled by this piece and I find it overall quite shallow, e.g. the variations in the last movement being mostly in instrumentation, some annoying flashy effects with percussions throughout the piece, reliance on folksy slavic melodies. There's not really a dramatic arc etc.
> I find the string serenade a much better piece, this one is also "light" but almost transcends the serenade genre towards something more whereas the "2nd" is more like a little "little russian folk suite" posing as a symphony.


It's good to have some lighter and tuneful symphonies in the reportoire. Symphonies don't have to be serious and weighty, much less be bereft of folk tunes.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Kreisler jr said:


> "lightweight", not weighty, maybe also "shallow", as I wrote more like suite than a symphony.
> It's not necessarily a defect but in the (late) 19th century "symphony" carries some implications. They are not fulfilled by this piece and I find it overall quite shallow, e.g. the variations in the last movement being mostly in instrumentation, some annoying flashy effects with percussions throughout the piece, reliance on folksy slavic melodies. There's not really a dramatic arc etc.
> I find the string serenade a much better piece, this one is also "light" but almost transcends the serenade genre towards something more whereas the "2nd" is more like a little "little russian folk suite" posing as a symphony.


To understand the symphony you have to do some research into the roots of Russian Nationalism. That finale was Tchaikovsky's direct response to it. The nationalists wanted to get away from the German school of sonata-allegro form, what with development and all that "academic" stuff. It was Glinka, in his Kamarinskaya. who pointed the way: take a good theme (a real folk tune is great) and rather than subjecting it to symphonic development ala Beethoven, or theme and variations like many lesser composers churned out, let's vary it in harmony, changing the mode, and above all the orchestration. And that's what Tchaikovsky did, folk tune and all. The original version of the symphony (recording available) was more German than Balakirev liked, and Tchaikovsky rewrote it to please the Five. The first movement was the most "German" and had to go. There is no "dramatic arc" by intent. It is interesting that after this symphony, he did go back to the German model - it suited his own demeanor better; that symphonic development was important for good reason: it allowed a composer to create the drama. He even went and used German models of fugues in later works, but to Balakirev's dismay. 

Those percussion effects were something that really did set the Russian symphony apart from what was going on in Germany. Colorful orchestration, those "flashy effects" were a significant development. During that era there were many, many composers in Russia who did not follow the Nationalists: Serov and Rubinstein for example. Their music followed the German models and used very little percussion - no flashy effects at all. And their music is utterly forgotten. It was the Nationalists, the Mighty Five, whose music is played, recorded, loved all over - those flashy effects made all the difference. Not all the Five were so much into colorful orchestration: Cui didn't use it much. And of the Five he alone is mostly forgotten. The masters of color, Rimsky-Korsakov, Balakirev, Borodin, Mussorgsky opened up new sounds that the whole world eventually used.


----------



## Shoskofiev (5 mo ago)

I used to love this symphony when I got into classical music. Nowadays I don't consider it as good as in those times, mostly because of the 2nd movement, which I think it's rather tepid and with little inner contrast.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I love the piece , two favourites Muti , Dorati ,Igor Markevitch and Bernstein, In no particular order .


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> To understand the symphony you have to do some research into the roots of Russian Nationalism. That finale was Tchaikovsky's direct response to it. The nationalists wanted to get away from the German school of sonata-allegro form, what with development and all that "academic" stuff. It was Glinka, in his Kamarinskaya. who pointed the way: take a good theme (a real folk tune is great) and rather than subjecting it to symphonic development ala Beethoven, or theme and variations like many lesser composers churned out, let's vary it in harmony, changing the mode, and above all the orchestration. And that's what Tchaikovsky did, folk tune and all. The original version of the symphony (recording available) was more German than Balakirev liked, and Tchaikovsky rewrote it to please the Five. The first movement was the most "German" and had to go. There is no "dramatic arc" by intent. It is interesting that after this symphony, he did go back to the German model - it suited his own demeanor better; that symphonic development was important for good reason: it allowed a composer to create the drama. He even went and used German models of fugues in later works, but to Balakirev's dismay.
> 
> Those percussion effects were something that really did set the Russian symphony apart from what was going on in Germany. Colorful orchestration, those "flashy effects" were a significant development. During that era there were many, many composers in Russia who did not follow the Nationalists: Serov and Rubinstein for example. Their music followed the German models and used very little percussion - no flashy effects at all. And their music is utterly forgotten. It was the Nationalists, the Mighty Five, whose music is played, recorded, loved all over - those flashy effects made all the difference. Not all the Five were so much into colorful orchestration: Cui didn't use it much. And of the Five he alone is mostly forgotten. The masters of color, Rimsky-Korsakov, Balakirev, Borodin, Mussorgsky opened up new sounds that the whole world eventually used.


Wow great post! Really puts the Symphony in context


----------

