# Favorite Tchaikovsky Piece?



## 4/4player

Hey Everybody! 

Im mainly a Tchaikovsky-fan, so I was wondering...What is your favorite Tchaikovsky piece of all time? You could just state a general piece..or we could get into details with subdivisions(piano works,chamber,orchestral, etc.) . I look forward to your responses! 

4/4playerB)


----------



## Saturnus

Symphony no. 1 'Winter daydreams', certainly not his best work, but still my favorite.


----------



## Hexameron

*Symphony No. 6 'Pathetique'* (Romantically-charged raw anger and despair. I could do without the third movement, though... a quasi-march doesn't do honor as a prelude to the breathtaking Finale)


----------



## Topaz

*Serenade for Strings in C, Op. 48*

The version I have is Richard Hickox, City of London Sinfonia. It was composed in 1880 when Tchaikovsky was 40, and was one of Tchaikovsky's favourite pieces written as a tribute to Mozart. It summarises Tchaikovsky down to a "t", containing high quality melody, pathos, beautiful orchestration. The opening melody (in the "andante") is truly gorgeous, and the shimmering cellos about half through, together with the way they are all brought together at the end, is perfection; the second movement "waltz" is one of the nicest in the repertoire; another beautiful melody appears in the third movement "elegie" with a skillfully crafted interplay of violins and cello and double basses, slowly dying away like watching the sun setting; the "finale" with a dream-like beginning, flowering into a more dynamic middle section, and rounding off with the same melody as that in the opening movement.

Topaz


----------



## 4/4player

Thank you Saturnus,Hexameron, and Topaz for your responses!=)

Hexameron,
I haven't listen to his S 6 "Pathetique" yet(Shame on me!)....though I have to make sure I buy a CD of that piece when I go last-minute Christmas shopping today! You have any recomendations for decent recordings for an affordable price? 
Thanks!
4/4player


----------



## riverbank

the main part of the S6 I like is the third movement .. oh well. 

I like his piano con no 1 but prefer his ballet music .. the Waltz of the Flowers from Nutcracker Suite is probably my favourite.


----------



## Guest

Try his St Qt #1 D Op 11. In particular the second movement, Andante cantabile, sublime


----------



## Hexameron

I agree, Andante... the String Quartet No. 1 is excellent and quite neglected.


----------



## Topaz

*My favourite works:* In rough order, best first, are:


Serenade in C for Strings, Op. 48
Symphony No 6, Op. 74
Swan Lake, Op. 20 (Waltz, Act 1)
Sleeping Beauty, Op. 66 (Adagio Pas d'action)
Nutcracker, Op. 71 (Dance of the Flowers)
Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture
Violin Concerto, Op. 35
Piano Trio in A Min, Op. 50
String Quartet No 3 in E Flat Min, Op. 30
Piano Concerto in B Flat Min, Op. 23
Marche Slave, Op. 31
Variations on a Rococo Theme, Op 33 
Capriccio Italien, Op. 45
1812 Overture, Op. 49
Francesca da Rimini, Op. 32

Topaz


----------



## BassFromOboe

The Tchaikovsky piece I keep going back to is the Symphony No5, but I do not really know why. Apparently it was not one that Tchaikovsky rated very highly himself, although it was an immediate hit with the public.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

I will flip around Topaz's top 2 and list my 3 favourites as:

1. Symphony no. 6
2. Serenade for strings
3. Violin concerto

*About the 3rd mvmt of the 6th Symphony*
Purely as music, it is drivel. It is also creates concert disasters when played for "amateur" audiences, as there is almost always clapping at the end of it. But when one understands its programmatic significance, then one begins to appreciate its incredible genius.

In the first movement, Tchaikovsky exposes his soul, the soul of the artist. Much darkness and turmoil but also a great depth of feeling, humanity and beauty.

In the second movment, we find that artist in society. The well-to-do in Russia mixed and mingled at military balls. Tchaikovsky, being a little light on his toes, never felt quite at home amongst high society, but tried to fit in nonetheless and danced waltzes with the daughters of officers and noblemen... _Hence the *"crooked"* waltz in 5/4 time_.

And then the 3rd movement. You must understand, Tchaikovsky never came to terms with his homosexuality, he despised it and referred to it as a disease. He wanted to be rid of it, _he *above all else* wanted to fit in_. The 3rd movement is Tchaikovsky _imagining_ himself fitting in with society, being able to loose himself in cheerful abandon, cast his problems aside and be truly happy...

... and if the audience would be so kind as not to applaud at the end of the 3rd movement ...

... the opening bars of the 4th mvmt should be performed _attaca_, immediately following the closing "victorious" chords of the 3rd mvmt.

This then signifies the dreadful coming-down-after-the-high, the hitting of rock-bottom. Tchaikovsky sees that in his momentary vision of joyful abandonment, he has lost sight of truth, lost sight of himself. The rediscovery of that truth can only mean one thing: Death.

--- --- ---

As a footnote: I have only performed this piece once, in the Municipal Hall in Prague 3 years ago with the Moravian Philharmonic Olomouc (www.mfo.cz) The concert was tremendous... but the rehearsal process was brutal. The piece is so incredibly depressing for everybody, and difficult at that. We lived with it for 3 days plus the performance day, and where all ready to jump off of a bridge by the end of it. But the incredible sense of (surprisingly) *joy* and relief that came with the final applause was one that I will never forget. I don't plan to do the piece again anytime soon, but when I do I will definately speak to the audience from the podium and explain to them what the seemingly happy 3rd mvmt really means... Hopefully then, no one will clap.


----------



## hlolli

Symphony 5 and 6, Hamlet and Romeo-Julet overtures. Of course you can always smile when the nutcracker popes up. Then Capricco Italien and Swan Lake are pices thad is must litsen. I know the ice skaters have got bored of the Swan Lake.


----------



## Lisztfreak

It's not been long since I discovered Tchaikovsky, so I haven't heard much of him. But I must say his Symphonies nos.4 & 6 and the Piano Concerto are really beautiful.


----------



## Guest

One I listened to last night, was the Manfred Symphony, Oslo P.O. Mariss Jansons, it is a very dramatic piece, with some beautiful melodies.
This was recorded in 1988, but was given a rosette award by Penguin Guide
Does this rate highly with any of you ??


----------



## Topaz

I'm not that keen on Manfred Symphony. It seems rather lack-lustre to me. Unlike many of Tchaikovsky's works, which I generally like, this piece is rather lacking in good melody. Not sure why. I must admit I haven't tried very hard. I wasn't very keen on a first listen. It improved on a second and third, but I haven't bothered with it much beyond that. Maybe I'll give it another go.


----------



## IAmKing

I've only heard his 6th Symphony, the 1812 Overture, and Swan Lake. The 1812 wins my vote. Probably because I've performed it.


----------



## oisfetz

To me:
6th-symph - Manfred - Suites 2th and 3th - Piano trio - violin concerto- string sextet.


----------



## Guest

Topaz, I respect your view on this piece, but IMHO it has some fine melodies, personal taste again eh, 
I think programmatic Symphonies are never as nice as the sonata form Symphonies, [personal preference again?] I have great trouble with Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique I very rarely get much more than half way into the first mov, my friends think I am nuts lol.


----------



## oisfetz

Andante said:


> Topaz, I respect your view on this piece, but IMHO it has some fine melodies, personal taste again eh,
> I think programmatic Symphonies are never as nice as the sonata form Symphonies, [personal preference again?] I have great trouble with Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique I very rarely get much more than half way into the first mov, my friends think I am nuts lol.


I'm with you,my friend. Can't stand Berlioz, nor the Symphonie, nor any other of his works.
They made my hysterical. But I certainly admire Liszt's piano transcriptions. Fantastic!!


----------



## Hexameron

oisfetz, I would think Liszt's piano transcriptions would actually improve your reception of Berlioz. Liszt also transcribed the Les Francs-Juges and King Lear overture and the March des pelerins from the Harold en Italie to solo piano. I find the quality of music here astounding. I like them better than the Symphonie Fantastique. Liszt also transcribed the Harold en Italie to piano and viola duo and I think Liszt's touch enhances this composition.


----------



## oisfetz

Agree. Have Harold and it's a fantastic symphonic poem for solo piano with viola obligata. Very few recordings. Liszt's transcriptions are almost harder that his own works. The gretaest transcriptor for piano in the history of music.


----------



## Topaz

Manfred Symphony is probably the least popular of all Tchaikovsky's symphonies. It does not appear on any top buys, or best symphonies lists, that I know of. Leonard Bernstein said it was "trash", even though I am not sure I would go that far. The end of the first movement is very nice, but I don't think the rest of it is up to much. It's just a noise, and a long winded one at that. I could not recall any melodies at all, which is surprising given that some people have described Tchaikovsky's large-scale orchestral works as comprising a few nice melodies with nothing much in between.

On the other hand, Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique is one the best symphonies ever written, certainly in the top 20. I often play the Berlioz work and find it very enjoyable. While some here may not like this work, it's a fact that on the on ArkivMusik database it comes out with a much higher listing than Manfred. On the DDD website, it's ranked at no 11 overall, whereas Manfred isn't mentioned in the top 100. Indeed, here in the recent "top 10 symphony" poll, Symphonie Fantastique came very much higher in the ratings (no 4), compared with Manfred Symphony which was hardly mentioned.



Topaz


----------



## oisfetz

To me, Tchaikovsky's Manfred is the greatest symphonic poem ever written, by him or by
any other. And with is 6th.sym.,his best works of that kind.
But no need to argue; you keep your Berlioz,I'll keep my Tchaikovsky.and both will by happy..


----------



## Hexameron

oisfetz said:


> you keep your Berlioz,I'll keep my Tchaikovsky.and both will by happy..


I'll be the happiest because I'm keeping both


----------



## Guest

Unfortunately I have 3 Sym Fantastical, you can have them for $2.50 each + handling, I do agree that Listz piano transcriptions makes Berlioz much more enjoyable.


----------



## Guest

*Topaz*, re your above post #22, this is just a thought that I have had for a while regarding lists and polls etc. 
How a piece of music rates in a poll or [even sales to a point] does not automatically mean it is a better piece than one that rates lower.
Eg, What is Haydn's best P Sonata? The question itself is so ambiguous, there are no set parameters. So how is a decision made?
If we ask which is the best Symphony X or Y we are in the same situation, it may help if you ask "why is it the best sym ?" We may then get results that say. Sym X had less repeats, or/and was technically more demanding of the Musicians, or/and was constructed Programmatically with subtle phrasing of the idée fixe. etc
Sym Y had the best melodies.
Sym Y tops the poll, this means Y was the most popular Sym but, not necessarily the better sym.
I hope I have explained myself clearly, it is a comment and not a criticism.


----------



## Topaz

*Andante:* How would you determine the ranking of the best symphonies then? Can you tell me what the criteria are, and the results?


----------



## Guest

*Topaz*

*Quote*, How would you determine the ranking of the best symphonies then?

Reply, The one with the most votes cast according to the parameters set by the poll setter.

*Quote*, Can you tell me what the criteria are,
Reply, The criteria will be what ever the poll setter wishes to take the vote on

* Quote*, and the results?
Reply, I am not sure what you mean, it would depend on the questions and answers in the poll


----------



## Topaz

*Andante:* your point seems to be that the most *popular* works are not necessarily the *best*. You say that "best" depends on what criteria the poll setter wishes to include. If you were the poll setter what criteria would you include?

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

If what we are trying to arrive at here is some sort of objective proof of something, whether it's popularity of a work or some intrinsic merit of a work, we will never get there, no matter what criteria we lay down.

Criteria and art, especially performance art, is shady ground.

Take figure skating. Recently, there is a new scoring system which strives to be more objective than the old 5.8 5.9 5.9 etc. The scoring is broken down into grading each technical element that the skater attempts, with a maximum possible score for each attempted element. There is also a scoring area reserved for the old "artistic impression". _(It's called something else now, but I can't remember what)_ The process itself and the result of the process _seem_ to be more objective than the old one.

But it isn't that simple. The point is that the _design of the system itself_ is entirely subjective. Someone arbitrarily decided how the different criteria would work together to produce the scoring system. Those decisions - the weighting of elements vs. impression, the relative value of the elements, etc. - are entirely subjective. And in the end, no matter how scientific this scoring system may seem, it is still based on subjective opinions of a panel of judges. So the 3 skaters that win Gold-Silver-Bronze are not the objective winners, they are the subjective favourites.

Back to music. No matter how scientific we get in setting criteria for a poll and analyzing the results, we will always begin and end with a subjective popularity poll and nothing else...

*And that's OK.*

Because for me, that's what music is about.









_*Kiira Korpi*, my favourite figure skater and a staunch admirerer of Sibelius_


----------



## Topaz

*Kurkikohtaus*: As you may have gathered from my very short questions posed above, I was not going to make any conclusions until I had drawn out more information.

What I anticipated coming next was the suggestion that the quality of a musical work would be measured by its compliance with a set of attributes: A1, A2, A3…etc. Somehow, these would be combined together, and an overall set of ranks derived. However, the problems are in deciding: (i) what comprises the set of attributes, (ii) how to measure them (iii) how to combine them to produce an overall result. There's no guarantee, for example, the right criteria and weights would be selected.

All that can be done sensibly is to ask a simple question "what is your favourite music", and aim to set up a measurement system that faithfully capture views of the majority without significant bias. I'm not saying this task is easy. It's not just based on what gets played on radio stations but involves wider aspects of "popularity" like concerts, CD/record sales, record stocks etc. Nor am I saying that snapshots in time are reliable, but instead needs to be assessed over a sensible time interval to make sure the results are robust.

Topaz


----------



## Guest

*Topaz *I have not set any criteria, I am mearly suggesting that this is some thing that we could look at
Saying that A is your *favourite* Piano Sonata is ok but to say A is the *best *Son and then not explain why is pointless, I am suggesting that we could try to put a bit of objectivity into something that is really subjective, as Kurkikohtaus says it may well be impossible but IMHO it would put a bit of meaning into what at the moment are statements made too easily.

let us say we wish to compare The 1st mov of Beethoven's 3rd sym with the 1st mov of his 8th sym to determine which is best [by a vote] . The composers in our midst will have their own set of guide lines which influence the way they see the work as will the conductors, musicians of all the different instruments pro and amateur, listeners, critics, etc
Some criteria could be: Structure, Orchestration, Balance, Expressiveness, development, Technical demands made of musicians, Vitality and rhythm.
And of course overall sound and effect that it has. 
There may be others that I have missed or those that I have mentioned may not work out, some way of putting all this into a simple tick box may not be possible, so some other way would need to be found, if when a person voted a comment relevant to their speciality was included it would be so interesting. I am of the opinion that we could all learn so much from seeing works through other peoples eyes, sorry ears.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Andante said:


> let us say we wish to compare The 1st mov of Beethoven's 3rd sym with the 1st mov of his 8th sym to determine which is best [by a vote] ... Some criteria could be: Structure, Orchestration, Balance, Expressiveness, development, Technical demands made of musicians, Vitality and rhythm.


*Andante*, I know you are using this only as an example, so I don't want to harp on this specific comparison too much, but maybe the issues that arise through it will serve to symbolize the general problem with an attempt at such comparisons.

In writing the 1st mvmts of these 2 symphonies, Beethoven had very different intentions. In the 3rd, he wanted to create something of monumental length, content and weight that would redefine the boundaries of not just the symphony, but perhaps of music as a whole. In the 1st mvmt of the 8th, he turns inwards and examines the juxtaposition of 2 seemingly disparate elements, ostinato and counterpoint, with goals of brevity and precision.

Therefore in my opinion, the issue begins and remains at a level of personal preference. The potential inclusion of some of the objective crieteria you list above carries with it a _subjective and arbitrary value statement_ about the absolute and relative importance of said criteria. To say that the 1st mvmt of the 3rd has a more complex and yet unified thematic development process than the 1st mvmt of the 8th is a good argument which can be supported by a certain degree of "proof", but the problem is one step back, the value that the reviewer assigns thematic development in the first place. Who says thematic development is important? Furthermore, who says thematic development is more important than the technical demands of the piece but less important than overall expression? And so on and so on with the rest of the criteria.

To say "I like the 1st mvmt of the 3rd more than the first mvmt of the 8th because..." is perfectly fine and completely sufficient. To say the same sentance with the word "better" is taking us down a road that I fear will never be resolved.


----------



## Topaz

*Andante:* Why should we list various attributes of a piece of music, and try to score each attribute, when the market has done job for us in forming an overall assessment of the work in terms of its popularity? If it's any good it will be popular. If it isn't popular it won't be any good, except to a minority of customers. Why make things any more difficult by examining an arbitrary set of characteristics and weighting systems, and involving an arbitrary set of voters?

There's no point asking what's best in classical music by approaching Bach fans, the Wagner Society, the Mozarteum, Beethoven or Schubert fans, 14/15 year olds, piano teachers, Frank Zappa zealots, or any other self-selecting groups that come on Forums like this one. All you will get is potentially misleading, biased or uninformed opinion. Trust the market instead. See my previous post about the caveats required here to get reliable results.

Topaz


----------



## oisfetz

Topaz: I totally disagree. I've dozens of works by composers almost forgotten by the "market", which I consider worthdly: Magnard,Lazzari, Taktakishvili,Eduard Franck,Hubay,
Ropartz,Moszkowsky,Paderewsky,Miaskovsky,Gliere,Hurum,Sergey and Alexander Taneyev,
Achron,Alkan,Volkmann,Wolf Ferrari,etc.etc. And I've dozens of works of very well known
composers that also have been forgoten by the "market", in particular chamber instrumental
pieces of Dvorak,Wolf,Bruch,Lalo,Bazzini,even Paganini. I don't trust and will never trust in
the "market".


----------



## Topaz

Oisfetz: Thank you for clarifying that you will never trust markets (by which I meant majority opinion). They can throw up inconvenient results at times, especially for someone with minority interests.


----------



## Guest

*Topaz*, The Market forgot J S Bach, so obviously the market is right?
My Country was a testing ground for the 'Market' the result, a lot of rich people got a whole lot wealthier, Our infrastructure was sold very cheaply to large corporates and will take a long time to recover, the market only serves itself. But back to music.

My suggestion was simply a suggestion that I think would add more weight to claims that A is the best, or in the top 10 list. I am sure it would be educational to all, but hard to implement. 
I do not know if you are a musician but do you not agree that a musician will see a piece music differently than a none musician, ?.


----------



## Hexameron

oisfetz said:


> I don't trust and will never trust in the "market".


I just don't _understand_ the "market." Does the majority really want umpteen thousand versions of Beethoven's 5th and Chopin's etudes?

I get an H&B direct catalog every month which lists the new releases from many CD labels. With the exception of Naxos and Hyperion, everyone is pumping out a new Aida, a new Mahler symphony, and another Mozart requiem just about every month. Don't people get sick of hearing the same repertoire all the time?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Hexameron said:


> Does the majority really want umpteen thousand versions of Beethoven's 5th and Chopin's etudes?


It is perhaps hard to believe, but yes they do. No orchestra in the world puts out a recording, which is expensive to make, just for posterity's sake. They release them either as part of a project for which they are being paid directly, or commercially where they know they will make a profit.


----------



## oisfetz

Well, as I've said I care a d... thing for the "market", and I'll continue to looking for
unknown or little know composers,works or players I like. 
The major part of the people who listen to classical music is of low level and rather
ignorant. They want to listen for the 100th time a work they know that take the challenge
to find a new one. The "market" is form by them. But we,here,are not low nor ignorants,and
we have our own market.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

oisfetz said:


> The major part of the people who listen to classical music is of low level and rather ignorant ... But we,here, are not low nor ignorants, and we have our own market.


This is easily the *STUPIDEST* thing I have ever heard on this or any music forum.

You sir, are the ignorant one, or at the very least the very type of snob who turns many people away from classical music in the first place.


----------



## Topaz

Anyone who has trouble understanding the concept or importance of "markets" might try looking around their everyday lives to see how important they are in determining the vast range of goods and services on offer, and the prices charged, from toothpaste to washing up liquid to gasoline to what is showing at the movies, etc. These offerings and prices do not happen by chance, except in banana republics and Stalinist regimes. They are determined by the interplay of impersonal market forces, involving suppliers and countless thousands or millions of customers. 

Indeed, many customers of these products/services may be “low” or “ignorant” in terms of their knowledge of the technical composition of these products, as suggested in the post immediately above, but why discount their views? If I go into a record shop and cannot find some obscure work, I do not go up the manger and tell him his customers are “low and ignorant” for demanding other types of material. I just have to search around a bit harder, or make a special request for it. However, I have to accept it is not considered to be a “great” work in the eyes of the general classical music buying public.

As I thought I had clearly explained, I use the term “market” as a shorthand expression for popularity based on the preferences of all. I do not pretend it is easy to measure this, and I am not suggesting it should be based on any one statistic like CD sales, or CD stocks, concert or radio performances, or at a single point in time. To discount markets (read: overall popularity) is sheer arrogance. It is saying that the views of the majority are wrong and that only you know what is best. People are obviously entitled to their own view on what is best but in a democratic system, they have to accept that the majority may not agree. 

I have seen people get into really awful muddles about ranking the quality of music. They set themselves spuriously accurate definitions of what constitutes the “best” music, but then the participants merely squabble endlessly about their own favourite pieces and composers. They squabble, that is, until an adjudicator cuts through the whole lot of waffle and imposes his own personal opinion! The whole thing often descends into a complete farce. Andante might like to reflect on this paragraph, in particular.

My main points are that:

(i) Working out what is the "best" classical music is very difficult, and there is no perfect measure, but popularity based on a wide range of measures, worked out over a reasonable period of time, is probably as good as can be obtained.

(ii) I am deeply cynical about the concept of “under-rated” anything, whether it is composers, brands of toothpaste, best movies, or brands of ketchup. In the context of “forgotten composers”, I fully accept it is possible there could be the odd slip-up now and then, and some genuine “old” talent may be discovered, but the notion that the present set of favourites based on popular opinion is bound to be wrong, and that there is an alternative set based on connoisseurs’ preferences of music, is nonsense. The latter group wouldn't agree anyway, so that shoots that argument in flames too.

(iii) Most of these so-called "forgotten composers" are forgotten because they just do not cut it. There are others who tower are above them. Moreover, often the musicians who choose to specialise in the works of forgotten composers are themselves not generally in the first ranks of musical talent, despite what their supporters may say. These musicians often find "forgotten composers" merely to find themselves a market (any market!). 



Topaz


----------



## oisfetz

Thank you for your kind remark. Yes, I'm a snob, and I don't care at all of the average
classical listener. I even have a FM program in Buenos Aires called "rarezas" (rarities),for
other snobs like me, with my own material. I got 119 sundays until yesterday, and I think
I've presented several hundred works or versions in first radio auditions in the country. Long live the unknown,the forgotten and the rare!.


----------



## Hexameron

Topaz, I agree with everything you said except this:



Topaz said:


> (iii) Most of these so-called "forgotten composers" are forgotten because they just do not cut it. There are others who tower are above them. Moreover, often the musicians who choose to specialise in the works of forgotten composers are themselves not generally in the first ranks of musical talent, despite what their supporters may say. These musicians often find "forgotten composers" merely to find themselves a market (any market!).


For the most part, you're right. "Forgotten composers" just couldn't shine next to the giants of their time. With Mozart and Beethoven, who would bother with Hummel? With Chopin and Liszt, who cares about Alkan? Certain exceptions must be made for these fellows, though. Their music was not disseminated very well and they rarely promoted themselves. So the public for the most part never had a chance to hear their music, a tradition that would stay until the advent of LPs.

The specialization in these rarities doesn't mean the musician is incapable of playing the standard repertoire as good as Richter or Argerich. Strictly speaking on pianists, Marc-Andre Hamelin, probably one of the most technically perfect piano virtuoso we have today, records the demanding works from Busoni, Alkan, Godowsky, Sorabji, and many other neglected composers. And yet he also records a fine Schumann Fantasy, Carnaval and Fantasiestucke, a spectacular Brahms PC 2, all three piano quartets, and even some Mozart piano concerti. Stephen Hough, Piers Lane, and Michael Ponti are more examples. They record both rarities and the common fare. Keep in mind that these pianists are also touring and performing their own concerts which will usually always include the popular works from Chopin and Schumann. I have no doubts that these pianists could manage just as well as Pollini and Gilels with the typical repertoire of Rachmaninov, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt.

Their focus in the obscure composers doesn't reflect a weaker talent and it's a pity if people think that.


----------



## oisfetz

Not need to go to unknown or forgotten composers. There are hundreds of works of famous
and very well known composers that are unknown for the 90% of the usual classical listeners:
From Liszt, nearly 85/90% of his piano works are unknown and never played live.
How many know Brahm's piano quartets?
About Bruch, all his chamber and symphonics, and his violin works except frist concerto and Scotissh are virtually unknown.
Who knows Lalo's violin concerto,his ballet Namouna or his chamber pieces?
Mendelssohn viola sonata, how many times did you hear it on radio or live?. And his cello and violin sonatas,or his string quintets? 
Examples are dozens. And all that is NOT FOR SNOBS ONLY


----------



## Topaz

What I said was (emphasis added):

_Moreover, *often* the musicians who choose to *specialise* in the works of forgotten composers are themselves not *generally* in the *first ranks *of musical talent, despite what their supporters *may* say. These musicians* often *find "forgotten composers" merely to find themselves a market (any market!). _​
I think it will be seen that I qualified my remarks, and I clearly wasn't laying down any cast-iron laws. I was not saying they are no good. In any event, the counter-argument is not valid because the particular pianists referred do not *specialise* in forgotten composers. They include some of the "forgotten" composers as part of a wider repertoire which includes the more well-known composers as well. Indeed, this point was admitted. This doesn't constitute "specialise" in my book. "Specialise" means "_devote oneself to a particular branch of a profession or discipline."_ [Pocket Oxford Dictionary] I certainly meant "devote". In fact, I wrote it most carefully, as I usually do with most of the posts I place on this Forum.

The other argument is that well-known composers produced works that are largely forgotten these days, with the implication that this further demonstrates that the public must be ignorant about classical music. On the contrary, this only shows that for most people the point of *satiety * has been reached before getting down as far as these works. To them, a lot of this material starts to get bland and boring after a while, and they can't take any more. It doesn't mean these people are ignorant. They are simply not as keen as some enthusiasts, who may want to examine every nook and cranny.

Topaz


----------



## oisfetz

Sure, the general public is very clever and expert. For example,they know so much of the
chamber music of Mendelssohn,that they are tired and bored of it, and justly reject to hear any other work from him, even unknown,because all should be the same boring crap.
Fine reasoning Implies that any unknown or not popular and in the "market" piece of any
famous composer is irrelevant,reiterative and worthless, and the general public,in his 
infitite wisdom, know that.


----------



## Topaz

*Oisfetz:* I have to agree with you on your recommendations concerning various 19th C chamber works such as Brahms piano quartets. Our tastes seem very close in this area. I think there are at least one or two others here who agree with such choices. I have the Rubinstein/Guarneri set, Ops 25, 26, 60 and am playing them through now as I type this. What more could anyone want? Really excellent pieces. They put to shame vasts amount of other material, especially from later composers. They are beautifully crafted, and have an elegance and charm that others struggle to match.

I hope you understand that, if I could, I would waive a wand and divert the attention of other classical fans away from other areas towards these great masters. But no such wand exists, and public opinion is what it is. I agree with you that public opinion may not be very sophisticated. However, I have given up trying to persuade people to become more interested in classical music, or trying to divert the attention of classical fans away from music I consider inferior. I used to try but I find it's a waste of time. It just leads to squabbles.

Your radio station sounds very interesting. If you played 19th C chamber music all day, I'd be tuned in and a strong supporter if I lived in Buenos Aires. Which 19th C composers would you say are the most popular among your audience, and do you have any idea of the age profile?

Topaz


----------



## linz

Polls are surely more then trifling 'popularity': If we can assume the composers that are most played are simply more 'popular' and nothing more, then I would agree with you; but I'm afraid that isn't the case.


----------



## oisfetz

*Topaz: My program goes sundays 7.30 to 9.00 pm GMT only. Usualy I pass 3 works;
first for a unknown or forgotten composer, like Arkady Fillipenko, Desire Paque, Heinrich
Kaminsky,Hermann Scherchen, Lyapunov, Eduard Franck.. Second, an unknown or forgoten piece by soma famous, like Saint-Saéns SQ and piano trios, Dvorak quartets or quintets,
Tchaikovsky Great piano sonata op.37, Godowsky Pasacaglia, Albeniz unknown works...
Third, a famous piece but on rare historical versions,like Brahm's piano quartets by Rubinstein with Pro-Arte, and Serkin with Busch SQ.,Shosta.first v.c.live by Oistrakh-Mitropoulos,etc. People like second and third part. First, often left them disconcerted. After all, are first radio ever!. How many had heard Hermann Scherchen SQ op.1???*


----------



## Topaz

*Oisfetz*: When you say that the audience is "disconcerted" by music of unknown or forgotten composers, do you mean they don't like the music, or don't like the fact that this music is forgotten? What type of music is played during the rest of the week?

*Linz:* Sorry but I am not clear I understand the point you are making.


----------



## linz

All I'm am trying to say Topaz, is that I believe their is more to human generalities artistically speaking. If I was to say Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are more popular and that is all their is to it. I would first be drawn to the question of exactly why that was. Are their things within their music which deserve greater attention. The fact remains that it is quite a simplistic phenomena to merely say 'popular' without trying to discern as to why that is so. After all, though our logic and rationalist differ from person to person as freedom allows; I, unlike some 'existentialist', believe there is a common thread that attracts us to the ultimate concept of 'artistic genius': Whether people are to rapped up in their own opinions to realize this, only serves to lessen their effectiveness toward others.


----------



## oisfetz

Topaz said:


> *Oisfetz*: When you say that the audience is "disconcerted" by music of unknown or forgotten composers, do you mean they don't like the music, or don't like the fact that this music is forgotten? What type of music is played during the rest of the week?
> 
> *Linz:* Sorry but I am not clear I understand the point you are making.


What I mean is that they feel uncertain when the hear a work first time in their life, and 
sometimes they don't understand it. In particular when the piece is something
rather hard, like Tischenko's second v.c., a Ropartz cello sonata or the huge violin sonata
by Josef Wieniawsky. My program is the only one in the country that transmit complete
rare pieces. All the rest is standard classical repertory. And nobody ever pass chamber and
violin pieces on rare historical versions. Nobody.


----------



## Guest

*Topaz*, Re your post #42. I will reflect where and whenever I choose without an invitation or prompting from anyone even those that are obviously so very knowledgably.

I have been involved in the "Market" [manufacturing, promoting, servicing and even retailing] for 30 yrs+ so have no trouble understanding how it works.
I can see that my suggestion of adding objectivity when claiming "Best status" would raise difficulties and traps, so I will let the matter rest.
0000000000000000

Regarding new/forgotten or seldom performed works, well I enjoy listening to new works, most of the time it is hard work but the results can be wonderfully satisfying as well as downright terrible at times, I do find a lot depends on what mood you are in at the time, and I thank those that make these works available for us to hear, it must be soul destroying to you when reading some of the comments posted here,

Also I detect just a hint of ad hom creeping into some postings, I do hope that this will not become a common occurrence, it is so easy to be polite.

*Oisfetz*, Thank you for mentioning Brahms Piano Qt, I have this performed by 'Domus' what splendid rhythms, it also has a Piano Qt movement by Mahler, Not a well known work.


----------



## linz

I was replying to something written early in the discussion about popularity and polls being inaccurate. By the way, considering how much effort Tchaikovsky put into his 6th symphony, and how 'original' yet 'founded' the work is, it is probably my favorite work of him. Many other works though are more 'tuneful', as he was perhaps the greatest melodic composer.


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

oisfetz said:


> rather hard, like Tischenko's second v.c., a Ropartz cello sonata or the huge violin sonata
> by Josef Wieniawsky


You have to write it Wieniawski, Y is pronounced "uh" in polish. (I'm learning polish, just wanted to show my skills ).

the only Tchaikowsky pieces I often listen are Rococo Variations


----------



## oisfetz

OK, Josef Wieniawski. Professional pianist,nobody knows or remember him,except collectors
of rarities like me. Funny that Josef who was a pianist wrote a big violin sonata, and Henrik
a great violinist and violist,didn't. Surely Josef wrote the sonata for Henrik. But Henrik wasn´t
a pianist,didn't know the piano, and wisely didn't write nothing for it. Josef had some very
lyiric and romantic piano pieces, not easy to play.


----------



## Saturnus

Topaz said:


> Moreover, often the musicians who choose to specialise in the works of forgotten composers are themselves not generally in the first ranks of musical talent, despite what their supporters may say. These musicians often find "forgotten composers" merely to find themselves a market (any market!).


There are many examples of performers who excel both in forgotten and known masterpieces (once Bach's works were forgotten, but they were still masterpieces, so I think the concept "forgotten masterpiece" isn't complete nonsense), Stephen Hough, Musica Antiqua Köln and Heinz Holliger for an example. 
I think that performers who only view and perform known pieces will gain narrower perspective on music and music-history than the performers of forgotten music (I am talking only about professional musicians, meaning that the performers of forgotten music have also studied the masterpieces known as "standards" in music schools world-wide, i.e. the popular ones).

And on the original sub-topic (Manfred Symphony): I disagree about this symphony being "trash". There are many memorable themes, like the heavily tragic and dramatic theme early in the first movement. The dark tones that distinguish the sixth from the other five can be heard most clearly in this one. But the heavy, dark atmosphere of the piece prevents a great flow of beautiful melodies, what makes the other symphonies so great. I think the numbered symphonies outshine this one, but it is certainly not a trash!


----------



## Topaz

Re the above post, I have already answered this. See post 46. Stephen Hough and Heinz Holliger do not specialise in forgotten composers, so the observations are irrelevant. 

As for the comment about "trash", it was Bernstein's: one of the the USA's foremost conductors.

I can't go along with the notion that "once a masterpice always a masterpiece". Tastes and fashions change. Try telling the general public they should start buying von Weber works galore, merely because he was once very highly rated (back in the 19th C).

A masterpiece is not a masterpiece if nobody wants it any more. It is an ex-masterpiece or a de-ceased masterpiece. It's just like a movie star who's gone out of fashion. Or a defunct design of motor car, or whatever. Merely because they were once famous doesn't mean they necessarily have any value today.


----------



## oisfetz

IMO, Manfred is at the same level that his 6th.s. I don't care a d...thing if it isn't famous or 
if nobody listen to it anymore. I just love it.


----------



## Saturnus

@Topaz: How should we rank music? By the number of people who like it or by how much, how deep the "likance" of each person is? I think a masterpiece doesn't have to be known. You can hear a forgotten piece and name it a masterpiece stating that you think that if the piece would get some representation it could become famous. A masterpiece represents a certain style at its peak, a perfection, those who don't know what that style tries to accomplish, can't judge what perfection in that style is.


----------



## Topaz

I am a little tired of all this, especially with the badly drafted way arguments are put to me. Here's my final answer.

First some definitions of "masterpiece" from various library souces:

_
An extremely skilful piece of work, especially the greatest work of an artist or writer.

The most outstanding work of a creative artist or craftsman.

Something superlative of its kind.

A supreme intellectual or artistic achievement.
_How is such a masterpiece to be recognised? There are several main possibilities:


the originator himself can decide
an independent non-expert or panel of non-experts can decide
an indepedent expert or panel of experts can decide
the market as a whole can decide

NOW:

*1. *Is flawed because it may not be a true masteriece in the normal sense; it may be his best work but it could be worthless.

*2.* is flawed because non-experts may not recognise quality, or know how to value it.

*3.* is flawed because experts can only give an estimate of what a market would assess its value to be; they may be wrong or disagree among themselves on its merits.

*4.* is the best answer because only the relevant people are involved in assessing the value, and by their collective actions should arrive at the most appropriate value given all factors of relevance (quality, scarcity).​Finally, as I have stressed before this is elementary economics. I can't add any more, as there is clearly an understanding problem with some of you here.

Topaz


----------



## oisfetz

OK,Topaz. You stay with the market. Listen only those pieces that have been recorded dozens, or better hundreds of times, That means that the market had decided, and should
be masterpieces. And never ever listen to any work that doesen't had dozens or hundreds of recordings through the years. For example, there's as far as I know, only Heifetz's recording of Louis Greunberg v.c. So,it must be despicable crap,doesn't it?


----------



## Guest

The Market as you are discussing here has influences that are not even remotely concerned with promoting the best, and the number of sales that say a CD achieves are more related to promotion, than to the artistic merit of a particular piece of music or any thing else for that matter. However if over the past 100years a large majority of those buying, performing and creating music agree that a certain piece has proved to be more popular, then that is exactly what it is.


----------



## Topaz

Andante said:


> The Market as you are discussing here has influences that are not even remotely concerned with promoting the best, and the number of sales that say a CD achieves are more related to promotion, than to the artistic merit of a particular piece of music or any thing else for that matter. However if over the past 100years a large majority of those buying, performing and creating music agree that a certain piece has proved to be more popular, then that is exactly what it is.


I am not following you at all.

Could you possibly explain your point by saying how you would rate two pieces of music on your criteria. Perhaps you could illustrate it by first listing the various criteria you think are relevant, and secondly say how you would score each piece under each criteria. Take any two pieces you like which are at least fairly well known, but perhaps separated by popularity.

To make it more interesting it would be useful if you choose two pieces where you think the less popular one is far better. Let's see how far we can get with this approach. Thanks.


----------



## Hexameron

Topaz said:


> To make it more interesting it would be useful if you choose two pieces where you think the less popular one is far better. Let's see how far we can get with this approach. Thanks.


Excluding the criteria you wanted for ascertaining masterpieces, I'll make one example for you regarding popular vs better (don't take it too seriously; it's pretty obvious)

*J. Strauss - Blue Danube Waltz
Beethoven - Missa Solemnis*

I think it's safe to say (especially in Vienna) that Strauss' waltz is the most popular of the two above... The Missa Solemnis, though, is not popular by a long shot. Recordings are rare and I never see it performed. But the work itself is arguably Beethoven's greatest composition and is obvioulsy superior to the waltz.

But I confess: I'm just taking a mocking jab at this whole "popular" and "better" thing with my example above. I know it would be more difficult when we place two widely popular pieces together like Beethoven's 5th and 9th. Which is better? I could argue for both...


----------



## Hexameron

Oisfetz, you're naming composers that go beyond simple "neglect." Composers like Hubay and Saint-Saens' have VCs that I would consider "neglected." The many composers you've mentioned, though, in your various posts are just _too_ obscure. I'm not being negative here. Rather, I'm being practical that most classical music fans will simply never get to "Greunberg." And that may be a tragedy. Who knows, Greunberg may be a talented composer and no one will ever know because they aren't giving him a chance. Someone who loves Brahms and Tchaikovsky just may never get around to him; that's all. This same situation applies to many composers. Chopin and Liszt fans might not ever venture into Alkan. Mendelssohn and Schumann fans may never get around to Weber. Mozart and Beethoven fans will probably pass on experimenting with Hummel. And that's their loss. But that's the way it mostly works.

As Topaz said elsewhere, there is just too much classical music out there with many pieces that have been established over the years as "good" or "popular." One could content themselves with all of the recommendations from NPR's guide to building a classical music collection and never care to look for anything else. That doesn't mean NPR picked the best and the greatest music; they've actually ignored a lot of amazing recordings. But most classical music listeners are contented with these prominent and illustrious composers and their famous masterworks. What can possibly entice them to leave their comfortable sanctuary and explore the darker and unknown caverns of Moszkowski, Liapunov, Wolff, Scharwenka and Czerny?


----------



## oisfetz

I try to. As I've said,in my program I've presented several hundred of unknown and/or 
forgotten works, and historical versions almost nobody had ever listened. I hope I've 
turned somebody to unfamiliar music, and let they know unplayed works of very famous composers.How many know Chopin's piano trio or Rimsky-Korsakoff string sextet?.


----------



## Topaz

I think we have to keep a sense of proportion here. There is no point comparing Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis with Strauss’s Blue Danube Waltz, as if classical music is some kind of completely amorphous product. I have never suggested anything like that.

Of course, there are very distinct sub-markets in classical music. You cannot make a quality comparison of pieces drawn from completely separate genres. You can only take each distinct sub-market – defined as comprising works which a typical listener would regard as being reasonably close substitutes – and then make comparisons among the works within each genre. Otherwise it would be like comparing a piece of, say, Rap music with a piece of Irish folk music. People are obviously entitled to say they do not like a particular genre, whether it is opera or sacred music or whatever, and instead prefer something else like baroque or contemporary, but that is another matter. 

In my question at post 65 above, what I have in mind is taking two pieces from the same genre, one popular and another which is far less so, and asking someone to justify their preference of the less popular, not just by saying they like it better but by (i) itemising the various quality indicators they deem relevant, and then (ii) scoring each piece, on each criterion, according to their assessment of each work. This invitation was specifically made to anyone one who has clear views on such matters. I would like to repeat that invitation so that we examine the analysis in more detail, as possibly learn something valuable from the experience. I await with interest any relevant response.



Topaz


----------



## oisfetz

I'm not a musician and so can't made the comparative analysis you ask for, but I'll try
all the same: Borodin's second SQ is very popular (so much so that has been used for several stupid american songs). But IMHO the first one is better. No so marvellous melodies,
but much elaborated in harmony and development. But for avery hundred that know
the second, maybe 5 know the first.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The top 4 for me (in no particular order) are:

Serenade for Strings
Symphony no. 6
Piano Concerto no. 1
Violin Concerto


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...what I have in mind is taking two pieces from the same genre, one popular and another which is far less so, and asking someone to justify their preference of the less popular, not just by saying they like it better but by (i) itemising the various quality indicators they deem relevant, and then (ii) scoring each piece, on each criterion, according to their assessment of each work. This invitation was specifically made to anyone one who has clear views on such matters. I would like to repeat that invitation so that we examine the analysis in more detail, as possibly learn something valuable from the experience. I await with interest any relevant response.

Topaz... Interesting question. As a classical music lover, but certainly not an expert in music I could never think to offer such an analysis. Then again... while I might be able to do such in my own field of expertise (visual art) I'm uncertain that a logical justification of why I prefer this or that artist more than any other is any more valid than just a gut response. For example, I might take two artists who were near contemporaries: Vincent Van Gogh and Perre Bonnard. Van Gogh is unquestionably the most "famous"... and from my knowledge of the development of Western painting I must admit that he is also the more influential... more "important"... better(?) of the two. Of course Bonnard is no slouch; he has long been seen as something of "a painter's painter"... an artist who is far more respected among the rank of other painters than among the general public or even the critics. I could probably spell out a list of things that I love about Bonnard's paintings, but I don't believe that this would "justify" my preference to someone of a different mind any more than I might be able to "justify" why I prefer Richard Strauss, Puccini, Rachmaninov and Prokofiev to the far more innovative Stravinsky. If the question was why are certain works, even among the field of classical music (which is far from having the mass audience of popular music) more popular than should be their due... I might suggest that within my own field (again) I have always thought that the works which survive and thrive over time do so in response to the opinions of three groups: the "experts", the artists, and the public. For example, Schönberg, Stravinsky, Berg, James Joyce, Picasso, Motherwell, etc... are far more respected and lauded by the "experts" (critics, scholars, historians, collectors, etc...) and by other artists in their field than they will ever be by the general public... or by that portion of the public interested enough in classical music, painting, literature, etc... Conversely, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Orff's _Planets_, to some extent Dickens, certainly Dumas' _Three Musketeers _, Salvador Dali, and Andrew Wyeth owe far more to the art lovers... the public... than to the opinions of the critics and fellow artists. While the immediate, short-term tastes of the masses (Britney Spears, _American Idol, Survivor_, etc...) may leave something to be desired... considering Puccini, Rachmaninov, and even Andrew Wyeth I cannot help but think that sometimes the "experts" have it all wrong.


----------



## Topaz

I am trying to elicit a response to the following:


Suppose work A is far more popular than work B (same genre e.g. chamber music, or tone poem, or piano concerto). N.B. By popularity I mean this in a general conceptual sense relating to the current generation of music lovers (not this week or year, but over a reasonably longer period in order to get a fix on the underlying position).

Someone disagrees with this popularity rating and thinks B is a better work than A. They think that B can be shown to be better objectively, based on criteria X, Y, Z etc, specifying these criteria exactly and saying how important each one is relative to the others.

 A and B are then assessed in terms of X, Y, Z separately to show why it gives the result that B is better than A. This analysis has to be transparent, and that it gives a demonstrable result as stated.

My aim is to see investigate the notion that popularity alone is misconceived as a suitable basis for measuring greatness or best, and that a better way exists of ranking works based on wider or other criteria. I want to know what these other criteria are, and how the procedure works in practice relative to popularity alone.

Anyone prepared to offer any suggestions? Nil returns need not answer.

Topaz


----------



## Guest

Topaz Re your post #65
Qt Topaz
I am not following you at all. 
Topaz, I really do not understand why you say you cant follow my post, I thought it was simple and obvious. What are you having difficulty with?

Qt Topaz
Could you possibly explain your point by saying how you would rate two pieces of music on your criteria.
Now I am confused! I have not mentioned criteria?

Qt Topaz 
Perhaps you could illustrate it by first listing the various criteria you think are relevant, and secondly say how you would score each piece under each criteria. Take any two pieces you like which are at least fairly well known, but perhaps separated by popularity.
Hexamoran has provided one
Qt Topaz
To make it more interesting it would be useful if you choose two pieces where you think the less popular one is far better. Let's see how far we can get with this approach. Thank.
All of this has been discussed see my post # 54 and, I thought laid to rest, I see no point in repeating it,
If you consider my remarks concerning the "Market" are wrong, please explain why!


----------



## Hexameron

Andante said:


> Qt Topaz
> Perhaps you could illustrate it by first listing the various criteria you think are relevant, and secondly say how you would score each piece under each criteria. Take any two pieces you like which are at least fairly well known, but perhaps separated by popularity.
> Hexamoran has provided one


I wasn't being serious. Please don't take those two pieces I listed as a prime example of what Topaz was talking about. I merely wanted to mock the absurdity of the position that popular music has over superior music. There are many souls in Vienna who would burn the original manuscript of Beethoven's MS just to save that awful Blue Danube waltz.


----------



## Topaz

I am asked for a further explanation. I am asking for two things:(i) What criteria people are recommending should be used to form an objective evaluation of music if they don't like popularity. A specific list please, not reference to previous posts either by themselves or by other people. I would like to know the relative importance attached to each of your criteria and how each is to be measured objectively, please. For example, exactly what weight is given to "innovation" or "complexity", or whatever?

(ii) Can they illustrate the use of these criteria by way of a specific example which demonstrates clearly that an unpopular work should much more highly rated than it is; and do the same thing in reverse by identifying any piece they consider is over-rated by public opinion using these same criteria.​So far we have had one specific response which merely expresses a preference for a less popular work compared with a more popular one, but with no analysis or objective assessment. It is merely that person's personal preference, which brings us back to "popularity" but on a very small scale.

I hope what I am asking is now clear, as if it wasn't perfectly clear in the first place. Remember some of you people attacked my position. After I defended it, all I am asking you to do is explain your views. I know you can't do it, which explains all the clap-trap. But have another go and let's see what you can come up with next.


----------



## Guest

*Hexamoran*, I realise what you mean but you were spot on.

The "MARKET' by its very nature will promote that which will return a profit, otherwise it dies, simple as that.

A piece of music that outsells other music is a result of successful promotion
It may well be the most popular.

Pop Music consistently out sells Classical by about 9:1 is pop better than Classical?
The Bible is the worlds most sold book year after year. Does that make it the best?

The Ford Escort was the worlds most sold car for 7 or 8 yrs in a row, is it the best Car?

From memory and I may have got this wrong, Vivaldies 4 seasons was the most recorded and most sold piece of music on CD, is this the best piece of classical Music?

*Topaz*, What criteria did you apply to your comments in post 22 i.e.
On the other hand, Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique is one the best symphonies ever written, certainly in the top 20. I often play the Berlioz work and find it very enjoyable


----------



## Topaz

Andante

In answer to your question, I rate music by personal taste. I prefer Berlioz Symphony Fantastique to Manfred Symphony, and the former happens to be more popular than Manfred Symphony. My tastes are normally in line with the general view, or at least not that far out. I do not choose music solely in line with what's popular, but I usually find a positive correlation between what is popular (in a broad sense) and what I like.

Since you sneer at general popularity, and have made some snide remarks above about my preference, I was hoping that you might enlighten us on exactly how you go about rating music. I have made several requests but you appear reluctant to want to share this information.

However, once more: *can you please list your criteria?* It's a very simple question. I'm not asking for a long complex statement. A short list of meaningful criteria will do, making it as simple as you like.

Thanks.


----------



## Guest

*Topaz*, I also rate my music as you do, by personal choice as I would think all others do. However I do not claim that my choice is best of anything.
I am not sneering at popularity merely putting it in perspective, I certainly have not made any SNIDE remarks about your personal choices even if it appears that way to you. 
The point I was making seemed perfectly obvious to me. In that you cannot expect the "Market" to produce the best, the examples I gave illustrated this point.


----------



## Hexameron

Andante - It looks like my injection of an apples vs oranges case has polluted the rest of this argument. What Topaz is talking about, via popularity, is geared towards two similar pieces where one is more popular than the other, but the other happens to be better music. Topaz wants your criteria for asserting such superiority of the least popular piece.

Since my MS and Blue Danube example has blown things out of proportion, I'll give you 3 distinct examples where the first is more popular but the other is clearly superior (how it's superior is what I would need to specify)

*Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14 and No. 29

Handel's Water Music and the Concerti Grossi Op. 6

Liszt's Liebestraume No. 3 and Die Zelle in Nonnenwerth S534*


----------



## Guest

*Hexamora*n.
This was the point of my earlier suggestion i.e., to try and add objectivity to the rating by way of the works construction, in form, ingenuity of construction and expansion of themes, chords, technical demands of musicians etc etc, I had hoped that some of our composers would join in as they would have the necessary knowledge to explain to us how they see a work, and we could all learn something from it, I can play music but have never even tried to compose so I hoped to learn something, but the opinion of topaz seemed to be against this as it would raise more problems and arguments, so I agreed to let it rest as I could see his point.
The point regarding the Market came up because the assumption was that the choice could be left to "The Market" This I do not agree with hence my postings. I have not asserted the superiority of the "less popular pieces" but merely suggested that because a piece is the top seller does not automatically qualify it as the best. Re my examples from outside the wonderful world of music


----------



## Topaz

Hexameron’s examples are exactly what I had in mind. I guess he would be able to set out a number of criteria and would attach a score to each one, and would come up with the result that the less popular work is “better”. 
I am not asking him to do it but I am sure he could make a very good job of it. However, this illustrates my point perfectly: (i) would he select exactly the correct criteria for “greatness”?; (ii) would he give the “correct” scores to each criterion?; (iii) what are the "correct" weights to attach to each criterion in order to get an overall result? These are issues that I bet you would never get collective agreement upon, because of the highly personal nature of music. It's not some fairly homogenous product that is amenable to a simple technical appraisal by "experts". Others have views too, and they will differ widely.

We can be spared the headache by simply looking at the revealed preferences of all consumers, i.e. “popularity”. All the above factors have been taken into account using a set of market driven weights and preferences. The notion that somehow consumers can be lured into buying what they don’t want (on a long term basis) is completely wrong, and demonstrates a total ignorance of how competitive markets work. I have only laboured this point because a few here have sneered at the concept of popularity, and proposed some vague alternative which they have not been able to demonstrate when push came to shove, as I knew would be the case.

Of course, as I have stressed, no one has to sign up to a popularity list. Most people will disagree to some extent, but it can't be improved upon overall provided it is properly measured and is over a long enough time period. I stress the word "overall".


----------



## Guest

*Topaz Quote*
Hexameron's examples are exactly what I had in mind. I guess he would be able to set out a number of criteria and would attach a score to each one, and would come up with the result that the less popular work is "better". 
I am not asking him to do it but I am sure he could make a very good job of it. However, this illustrates my point perfectly: (i) would he select exactly the correct criteria for "greatness"?; (ii) would he give the "correct" scores to each criterion?; (iii) what are the "correct" weights to attach to each criterion in order to get an overall result? These are issues that I bet you would never get collective agreement upon, because of the highly personal nature of music. It's not some fairly homogenous product that is amenable to a simple technical appraisal by "experts". Others have views too, and they will differ widely.
*Reply*
I have given one set of criteria, it may be right or wrong but it was given.
Regarding the difficulties of applying these, I have agreed with you, and see no point in labouring the point?
However I do think it would be educational to a lot of us here to have these criteria explored and explained.

*Topaz Quote*
We can be spared the headache by simply looking at the revealed preferences of all consumers, i.e. "popularity". All the above factors have been taken into account using a set of market driven weights and preferences. The notion that somehow consumers can be lured into buying what they don't want (on a long term basis) is completely wrong, and demonstrates a total ignorance of how competitive markets work. I have only laboured this point because a few here have sneered at the concept of popularity, and proposed some vague alternative which they have not been able to demonstrate when push came to shove, as I knew would be the case.
*Reply*
If you think that the majority of music lovers would be capable of understanding the craft of composing, or any of the criteria that Hexamoran and others would come up with then in my opinion you are mistaken, the majority would judge on what sounds nice to them and their personal taste at the time. Your assumption that some here have a total ignorance of how the "Market" works and you do not is bordering on arrogance, I have not, and have not seen any sneering at the concept of popularity, I have only suggested that there is more to music than just sounding pleasant. And there is a difference between "most popular" and "best", how to arrive at this is the problem. 
If this is causing you concern then we can all agree to differ and let it abate or this will go on and on.


----------



## Guest

*Hexamoran* , in a final attempt to show why popularity does not automatically qualify a work as best, I will do as requested, I will add that I am not a pianist.

#14 Moonlight.
1st mov. A very simple and very effective motif, which is repetitive, these combinations make for easy listening

2nd mov. A short 6/8 rocking rhythm, again repetitive and effective making for easy listening.

3rd. Easy to follow motif, repetitive and so effective, leads onto a build up to an exciting finish.

#29 Hammerklavier 
1st mov. The theme moves in and out with only small variations

2nd. A more complicated development of a theme

3rd. Very pensive and deep with soothing chords, the phrasing seems to move over the bars and toys with the meter at times, brings in the 1st mov theme very brightly approaches the finish and then draws back it does this a few times before finishing.

4th. Starts with a very beautiful slow passage, some fast runs with rising chords and arpeggios, again this mov approaches and withdraws from the finish making the actual finish somewhat of a relief.

I find the final movement harder to follow than the others.

My conclusions rightly or wrongly:
Moonlight, Duration 17-18 min. Short, Very easy to listen to, does not require repeated hearing to enjoy
Hence its popularity

Hammerklavier, Duration 42 min Composed 16-17 yrs later so a more mature Beethoven, it is longer and a much more complicated work that does require repeated hearings to work out what is being done, so less popular but this does not make it an inferior work when compared to the Moonlight just harder to get acquainted with.
If I was only allowed one or the other as my entire music for a week end I would choose Hammer Klavier.
You may not agree with my musical comparisons of the two Sonatas but I think my conclusions are correct.


----------



## Topaz

*Andante*

I thought you wanted to drop this?

Your "analysis" comprises: Hammerklavier is:


Longer than Moonlight by 22-23 minutes.
More complicated than Moonlight and hence requires more hearings to work it out.
These features thus make Moonlight more popular. 
 If you were restricted to either piece for a week you would choose Hammerklavier.
 You imply that this choice of yours therefore makes Hammerklavier a "better" piece.
Is this it? I wonder what Hexameron thinks of this?

Your argument is mere personal opinion. I happen to prefer Moonlight, not because it's shorter or simpler. I think it's a nicer overall sonata as I like good melody, and it's better in that respect. Extra length and complexity don't necessarily make works any "better". Even if you prefer the challenge of something like Hammerklavier, the general public prefers something simpler with a better melody in this particular case. There are probably more people who like Moonlight than Hammerklavier and hence it's preferred. Most people only prefer works that they consider better, so on a vote basis Moonlight is considered better. Just follow the logic of the last two sentences and you may see what I am saying.


----------



## orquesta tipica

This may not be related to the current direction this conversation has turned, but to answer the original question,

I listened to the violin concerto again in the past week, which is the first piece of any classical work I ever learned to love, and I'm falling in love with it all over again like I'm on a second honeymoon. Years ago I listened to it so much that I thought I'd overplayed it in my mind, but now I find my early fascination with it was justified.

I would have said his 5th Symphony before, but now I change my vote.


----------



## Guest

*Topaz*, you can put whatever slants you like on my comments, but I have given some examples of why popular does not automatically equate to the best, but you choose to believe popular is best. 
Quite honestly on this particular topic I have gone past the point of expecting a reasonable discussion with you.


----------



## opus67

I need to post something on-topic. Sorry. 

My favourite Tchaikovsky piece, from what little I've heard, is his violin concerto, especially the first movement.


----------



## ChamberNut

My favorite Tchaikovsky work, currently, is the 'Capriccio Italien'.


----------



## mahlerfan

I must admit I have not heard all of Tchaikovsky's works, though I really do like the Pathetique.


----------



## Lisztfreak

mahlerfan said:


> I really do like the Pathetique.


Oh yes. Beautiful. And Nos. 4 and 5 are no less thrilling and romantic.

I also like his Violin Concerto very much.


----------



## Keemun

My favorite Tchaikovsky piece is the Violin Concerto.


----------



## ChamberNut

I would also say the Violin Concerto is my favorite Tchaikovsky work. I feel pretty safe in saying it's also Opus67's favorite Tchaikovsky work.  

Also really enjoy the Piano Concerto No. 1, the Capriccio Italien, The Nutcracker Suite, and don't want to forget the 1812 Overture.


----------



## opus67

ChamberNut said:


> I feel pretty safe in saying it's also Opus67's favorite Tchaikovsky work.


Yup, nothing much has changed in the past two months.


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

> Since my MS and Blue Danube example has blown things out of proportion, I'll give you 3 distinct examples where the first is more popular but the other is clearly superior (how it's superior is what I would need to specify)
> 
> Handel's Water Music and the Concerti Grossi Op. 6


Yes, please specify.

It's not because it's popular that Water music is not a huge masterpiece.
It's great melodically and perfectly crafted, like op.6

ranking and rating music is a very risky task. There are 1000s of masterpieces that are really great in different ways and you won't find any argument to rate one above the other.

You should start by defining what the source of hearing pleasure is


----------



## johnnyx

1812 Overture!!!


----------



## cato

Well, my favorite Tchaikovsky piece, is well.... not excatly a "piece." 

It is his opera, *Mazeppa*, performed by the *Kirov Opera and Orchestra*, with *Valery Gergiev *conducting.

Although I love just about anything by Tchaikovsky, I think this opera really stand above all his other works, including *Swan Lake*, which for me comes in a close second.


----------



## Manuel

The fourth symphony.

Second to nothing.

Ever.


----------



## Celloman

Symphony No. 6 is my favorite by far. It's so dark and brooding. Ahhh.
I can't stand the Nutcracker ballet, though. But neither could the composer, so I guess I'm ok.


----------



## Manuel

> I can't stand the Nutcracker ballet, though. But neither could the composer, so I guess I'm ok.


What a humble parallelization.


----------



## amirjsi

With Tchaikovsky I can't help but think of the Swan Lake Suite. It was my introduction and still holds the greatest sway on me. I would say it is my favourite, followed by the fourth symphony (particularly the second movement) and the great violin concerto.


----------



## Manuel

> and the great violin concerto.


Dare to mention any fav recording?


----------



## Giovannimusica

Tchaikovsky moves my blood  

Three of his works, in no particular order, that give me an eargasm everytime are:

Mazeppa 
Piano Concerto #2
Piano Trio in A-minor


Regards!

Giovanni


----------



## cato

Auhhhhh..... another *Mazeppa* lover! 

Great minds think alike! 

(I have noticed, that we share a lot of the same taste in music.)

But no Swan Lake?


----------



## Giovannimusica

Hi Cato,

Hey - what can I say - I guess really good music does find its way in to the circles of *genteel nobility*     

Well, Swan Lake is.......tedious and tendential <:-|

Sorry to all you who beg to differ.


Regards!

Giovanni


----------



## Eric

Romance in F op. 51
Winter Dreams
but my favorite piece is Act I of Swan Lake. absolute brilliance


----------



## Manuel

> but my favorite *piece *is Act I of Swan Lake


That sounds more like a compound choice of pieces to me...


----------



## tutto

mah,čajkovski moves in 4th,1st m.. 
damm,gays are good...


----------



## Manuel

> mah,čajkovski moves in 4th,1st m..
> damm,gays are good...


Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Morigan

Since I'm a violinist and if I really have to choose my single favourite piece, I'll go with the Violon Concerto. It's even harder since Tchaikovsky is my favourite composer.


----------



## Manuel

> Since I'm a violinist and if I really have to choose my single favourite piece, I'll go with the *Violon *Concerto


C'est une bon élection, mon copain.


----------



## Morigan

Lol! Sorry I typo'ed.

It happens all the time since I'm indeed a francophone.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Relieved that we've returned to our regularly scheduled program I look at it this way... which work is more highly considered, amongst its representative genre:
1812 Overture- amongst overtures?
Symphony #x (I'd choose number 5)- amongst symphonies?
Violin Concerto or Piano Concerto #1- amongst concerti?, or
Swan Lake- amongst ballet music?
Tchaikovsky wrote a lot of great material, but I don't think he ever exceeded the achievement of *Swan Lake.* 
By the way, Señor M, if Mrs. Philly were here to vote, she would agree with you on Symphony #4. Furthermore, you could make an excellent case that she's more "music-knowledgeable" than I, as she is my touchtone of first resource on music theory (example: "honey, I know there's something different in this passage, but I can't put my finger on it." Mrs. Philly, between sips of coffee and in mid-newspaper-page turn replies lazily: Oh, _that?_ That's a German 6th."


----------



## Edward Elgar

In my opinion, the theme from swan lake is the best melody Tchakovsky ever wrote, but as far as an extended work goes I'm going to have to say the 6th symphony.


----------



## Manuel

Morigan said:


> It happens all the time since I'm indeed a francophone.


But I'm not... So you can tell me if what I wrote makes any sense....


----------



## oisfetz

I just love his second and third suites for orch. Why it very seldom put any of them
or radio nor live, is a mistery for me. IMO they are 2 of the best orchestral music that
Master did.


----------



## Manuel

oisfetz said:


> I just love his second and third suites for orch. Why it very seldom put any of them
> or radio nor live, is a mistery for me. IMO they are 2 of the best orchestral music that
> Master did.


I like the third very much. But sometimes feel like the finale should have included a more complete writting on the lower registers. Like if there was no support on the bass for the high strings.


----------



## Luximus

What about his fourth symphony? I absolutely ADORE the second movement...it is one of the few pieces of music that has actually grasped my heart and made it quiver with emotion. I absolutely love the fourth and first movement also. The third movement is enjoyable, too, a whole movement of pizzacato, invented by the great composer himself.


----------



## Manuel

Luximus said:


> What about his fourth symphony?


I have the impression we have already listed it. 



Manuel said:


> The fourth symphony.
> 
> Second to nothing.
> 
> Ever.





Chi_town/Philly said:


> By the way, Senor M, if Mrs. Philly were here to vote, she would agree with you on Symphony #4.


Yes. I am sure we did.


----------



## Luximus

okay, okay, maybe you guys did mention it. but only three times compared to the 10+ times pathetique, violin concerto and swan lake was voted xP


----------



## Handel

Who is like me? Those Tchaikovsky's chamber works are great .

Serenade for Strings in C major, op. 48.
String sextet, Souvenir de Florence, op. 70.


----------



## opus67

Handel said:


> Who is like me? Those Tchaikovsky's chamber works are great .
> 
> Serenade for Strings in C major, op. 48.
> String sextet, Souvenir de Florence, op. 70.


As strange as it may sound, I've not heard much of Tchaikovsky's chamber works, even though he happens to be one of my favourite composers. I think I can go so far as to say that I haven't heard anything beyond the Serenade for Strings. But the second movement of that particular work, the waltz, is most beautiful.

Edit: I actually heard the last few minutes of the sextet (on his birthday) which I thought was pretty good.


----------



## Manuel

Handel said:


> Who is like me? Those Tchaikovsky's chamber works are great .
> 
> Serenade for Strings in C major, op. 48.
> String sextet, Souvenir de Florence, op. 70.


gimme five !


----------



## Morigan

I love the serenade and the sextet a lot! His first string quartet (I think he wrote like 2) is really good too. They say that Tolstoy was attending the premiere of the work and that he cried during the second movement. Needless to say, Tchaikovsky felt extremely honoured since Tolstoy was among his personal heroes.


----------



## Manuel

Morigan said:


> I love the serenade and the sextet a lot! His first string quartet (I think he wrote like 2) is really good too. They say that Tolstoy was attending the premiere of the work and that he cried during the second movement. Needless to say, Tchaikovsky felt extremely honoured since Tolstoy was among his personal heroes.


He wrote three quartets. And there's a string quartet movement too. The reference recording for the whole thing is, IMO, the Boroding Quartet's one.


----------



## Kesiak

HI. I love Tchaikovsky. It is so with Tchaikovsky's music - if you love it, you will be loving almost everything by him.
Surely, the last 3 symphonies are among the best compositions ever written for me, because of its incredible emotional power and honesty. The ballets are uplifting, dramatic... yet beautiful in its wonderful melodies. The 2 famous operas: Eugen Onegin and Queen of Spades are the same dramatic and pointing to Tchaikovsky from another angle. Yes.. the chamber music is masterful - I like the 1st and 2nd String Quartet, The Souvenir de Florence and Piano Trio. And there are.. those popular pieces as Piano concerto no.1 and Violin concerto. But for Tchaikovsky fans there is much more to discover - Concert Fantasia for piano or Piano Concerto No. 3 wit its interesting history. The Serenade for String Orchestra is something really rare in Tchaikovsky output - one of those compositions with really happy mood overall. If you are familiar with the basic (most famous) compositions try the suites for orchestra - often neglected works, but really interesting with some suprising melodies.. and you will maybe find yourself with some kind of spiritual connection with Tchaikovsky music, as me... amazing.


----------



## Manuel

Kesiak said:


> HI. I love Tchaikovsky. It is so with Tchaikovsky's music - if you love it, you will be loving almost everything by him.
> Surely, the last 3 symphonies are among the best compositions ever written for me, because of its incredible emotional power and honesty. The ballets are uplifting, dramatic... yet beautiful in its wonderful melodies. The 2 famous operas: Eugen Onegin and Queen of Spades are the same dramatic and pointing to Tchaikovsky from another angle. Yes.. the chamber music is masterful - I like the 1st and 2nd String Quartet, The Souvenir de Florence and Piano Trio. And there are.. those popular pieces as Piano concerto no.1 and Violin concerto. But for Tchaikovsky fans there is much more to discover - Concert Fantasia for piano or Piano Concerto No. 3 wit its interesting history. The Serenade for String Orchestra is something really rare in Tchaikovsky output - one of those compositions with really happy mood overall. If you are familiar with the basic (most famous) compositions try the suites for orchestra - often neglected works, but really interesting with some suprising melodies.. and you will maybe find yourself with some kind of spiritual connection with Tchaikovsky music, as me... amazing.


You forgot to mention his solo piano works. It's hard to believe the myth he wasn't an accomplished pianists after revising what he wrote for the instrument:
Grand Sonata Op37
Sonata Op.80
Piano pieces Op.40
Morceaux Op. 72
The Seasons
And the rest of the (mostly unknown) short piano works (Like the Nocturne Op.10, the Russian duets, et al.)


----------



## Amade Van Haydn

Hi!

My answer is neither surprising nor creative: My favourite Tchaikovsky works are:

*Piano concerto No.1 b flat minor
String Sextet d minor
Symphony No.5 e minor
Symphony No.6 b minor*

_My_ opinion is: The other piano concertos are rightly short of the first one. 
The string quartets are quite harmless works, but the sextet is a real enrichment of this genre.  
The two last symphonies are much better than No.4 in f minor, but the third one in D major should be more noticed.
And I should notice his solo piano works. I know almost nothing about it.  
"1812" is an embarrassing work. 

Regards,
AVH.


----------



## Luximus

Amade Van Haydn said:


> Hi!
> 
> My answer is neither surprising nor creative: My favourite Tchaikovsky works are:
> 
> *Piano concerto No.1 b flat minor
> String Sextet d minor
> Symphony No.5 e minor
> Symphony No.6 b minor*
> 
> _My_ opinion is: The other piano concertos are rightly short of the first one.
> The string quartets are quite harmless works, but the sextet is a real enrichment of this genre.
> The two last symphonies are much better than No.4 in f minor, but the third one in D major should be more noticed.
> And I should notice his solo piano works. I know almost nothing about it.
> "1812" is an embarrassing work.
> 
> Regards,
> AVH.


Okay, Tchaikovsky hardly took 1812 seriously. he said so himself that the piece is not like him at all xD and I agree. It's not nearly as good as his symphonies.


----------



## Kesiak

> The two last symphonies are much better than No.4 in f minor, but the third one in D major should be more noticed.
> And I should notice his solo piano works. I know almost nothing about it.
> "1812" is an embarrassing work.


Well, I think symphony no. 4 is on the same level than no. 5 or 6. Of course, they are all different in its own way. Also it is an issue of performance.
"1812" - yes it is "little bit" extro-extrovert work, noisy as you can imagine, but still I can listen to it with pleasure.


----------



## Morigan

I love all of Tchaikovsky's symphonies, each one in a different way. 

About the 1812 Overture I remember my reaction when I first read that Tchaikovsky didn't like the piece and didn't take it seriously. I was like: ".... But... I still love it ! ".

I agree that the nature of the piece is against the emotional quality of Tchaikovsky's music, but then again the finales of his symphonies, the marche slave and many other works have the same quality. I think it was also a good expression of the composer's nationalist devotion and pride.

And I have to admit that I thrill everytime I hear the incredibly powerful ending.


----------



## opus67

I like the 1812...It was one of my favourites, initially, but now it's more like a "fun piece". It was one of the first pieces that I familiarised myself with, not just of PIT's, but all of classical music. It introduced me to programme music, and I really like the way Tchaikovsky has told the story of the war with music. I prefer the version with choir than the original version.

This should probably be in the "Today I discovered..." thread, but anyway...I discovered that the children's folk song that you hear in the 1812 also appears in a Rimsky-Korsakov piece called _Overture on Three Russian Themes_.


----------



## Albert Maksimov

For me Symphony no. 6


----------



## Guest

This is THE composer who really got me into orchestral work. I am absolutely in love with anything that came out of this brain. Maybe not so much the Nutcracker. But back to the point is i have been listening to his 4th, 5th, and 6th a lot lately and Serenade for Strings in C, and some of his solo piano works here and there, and his piano concerto no.1 and 2. But i would have to say my favorite by no shadow of a doubt would be Symphony No. 5!!! One of the few symphonies that i LOVE every movement. I really love 6 and the incredible emotion and relentless despair but i don't LOVE the third movement and never have. 

So it is,
1. 5th Symphony (i can’t be still for the life of me in the 1st movement and the 2nd movement is so beautiful.)
2. 6th Symphony (1st and 4th movements are breathtaking)
3. 1812 Overture (very close to being 2nd but not quite)
4. Serenade for Strings in Cm
5. Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (i love church choral music)


----------



## Guest

i change my number 5 to Nocturne Op. 19, No. 4


----------



## Andrew

Handel said:


> Who is like me? Those Tchaikovsky's chamber works are great .
> 
> Serenade for Strings in C major, op. 48.
> String sextet, Souvenir de Florence, op. 70.


I like them both, too. I also like his Suite for orchestra Op. 61 ("Mozartiana") and his 3rd Symphony.

Andrew


----------



## Rondo

_Romeo and Juliet,_, Fantasy Overture would have to be mine. Sym Nos. 5 and 6 are good too!


----------



## Rachmaninov

My favourite Tchai. pieces:
Every Mravinsky conducts Leningrad Symphony Orchestra- Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5
Arturo Toscanini conducts NBC Symphony Orchestra, Heifetz- Tchaikovsky violin concerto in D major.


----------



## tahnak

*Tchaikovsky*

This thread is about Tchaikovsky's favourite piece and not for athesis on 'quality' and 'masterpieces'.

Mine is PATHETIQUE SYMPHONY


----------



## Aramis

Violin concerto, Piano concerto, Eugene Onegin.


----------



## tahnak

Pathetique Symphony


----------



## Conor71

Piano Concerto No. 1


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Well... I love the _Piano Concerto no. 1_ and the _Violin Concerto_ and the 5th and 6th symphonies... but recently I've been exploring Russian operas and I think at the moment I'd go with _Eugene Onegin_.


----------



## Donboy

Please try:-
_The Tempest _(not 'The Storm')
_The Andante & Finale _reconstructed to complete his 3rd piano concerto


----------



## Ravellian

Pathetique Symphony. 
What are you favorite versions? I have a Berlin Philharmonic recording, but I seem to recall another version I liked better..


----------



## JAKE WYB

MANFRED SYMPHONY - particularly the first two movement - I think the most dramatic and arousing music thakovsky wrote and the second the greatest orchestration and brilliant colurs he wrote more than ,make up for the weaknessses of the latter two


----------



## Yoshi

It's so hard to choose... but the first one that came to my mind was the piano concerto nº1


----------



## tahnak

Ravellian said:


> Pathetique Symphony.
> What are you favorite versions? I have a Berlin Philharmonic recording, but I seem to recall another version I liked better..


It is perhaps the Leningrad Philharmonic under Yevgeny Mravinsky on Deutsche Grammophon label. This is the best Pathetique recording that I have come across yet.


----------



## Taneyev

"June" One of the most beautiful melodies I ever heard.


----------



## Kesiak

tahnak said:


> It is perhaps the Leningrad Philharmonic under Yevgeny Mravinsky on Deutsche Grammophon label. This is the best Pathetique recording that I have come across yet.


Me too.


----------



## Cortision

Serenade for Strings, Swan lake, Splendid Stuff.


----------



## nuimos

Hi.
... been popular - Troika (November) was a favorite encore of Sergei Rachmaninoff, ... Bernard suggested a subtitle for each month's piece. Tchaikovsky accepted the ... A number of musicians have orchestrated Tchaikovsky's pieces. ...
I am very happy to see this forum 
Keep posting t o us daily .

Thank you .

nuimos.

[Link Removed]


----------



## confuoco

*Piano trio* in A minor, by far


----------



## MattTheTubaGuy

All of Tchaikovsky's music is great.
The Nutcracker is fantastic,
I have played symphonies 5 and 6, and I am going to play the 2nd this year.
I have also played Capriccio Italien and Marche Slave, and the Nutcracker and Sleeping beauty suites.

The second Symphony is good, but I am not sure what my favourite Tchaikovsky piece is because it is all so good!


----------



## Danny

No real suprises from me. The fourth and fifth probably started my love of classical music. The sixth I came to love (though I do tend to find the march misplaced). Serenade for Strings would give me a nice top 4


----------



## Guest

6th Symphony definitely.

After that, I really enjoy the Piano Concerto No. 1.

I love the Nutcracker, but specifically I love the Pas de Deux/Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy.

Other than that, from time to time I enjoy the 1812 Overture, as well as the Romeo and Juliet Overture.


----------



## TWhite

Of all of the symphonies, I get the most pleasure out of his Symphony #2, subtitled "Little Russian". It's breezy and often witty, with a really spectacular finale--how he gets so much mileage out of a little four-bar theme still rather astonishes me. 

Other than that, I'd choose his G-Major Piano Concerto or Capriccio Italien. I suppose I like Tchiakovsky the best when he's in a good mood, LOL! 

Tom


----------



## Lukecash12

That would have to be _June_, his Barcarolle from _The Seasons_.


----------



## CostaSimpson

Tchaikovsky's 6th is magnificent. It reminds me of winter in places, summer in others. Truly beautiful. I also highly rate his Variations on a Rococo Theme, and The Nutcracker Suite. for its pure musical imagery. He is a terribly interesting composer.


----------



## graaf

Piano Concerto - I'm way too nostalgic towards it to say anything else.


----------



## Ivan_cro

Definitely Piano concerto in Bb minor 
Then Swan Lake and Nutcracker


----------



## Huge

6th Symphony.


----------



## Lukecash12

All of his ballets are excellent, and worth a listen. We may as well get away from the Nutcracker, yet be as close as possible whilst doing so


----------



## starry

So much good music in the ballets I think it has to be one of them.


----------



## PharmD10

The 5th symphony will probably always be my favorite, though Tchaikovsky has created so many incredible melodies its hard to dislike something. Other favorites include Romeo and Juliet Fantasy, Symphonies 1,4 and 6, the ballets obviously, violin concerto. Lately I've been listening to his 3rd Orchestral suite a lot, very under appreciated in my opinion.


----------



## gurthbruins

Serenade in C for Strings, Op. 48 
Nutcracker Suite
Violin Concerto, Op. 35
Swan Lake, Op. 20 (Waltz, Act 1) 
Symphony No 1, maybe also No 3.
Sleeping Beauty, Op. 66 (Adagio Pas d’action)
Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture
Piano Trio in A Min, Op. 50 
String Quartet No 3 in E Flat Min, Op. 30
Variations on a Rococo Theme, Op 33 
Capriccio Italien, Op. 45 
1812 Overture, Op. 49 

I've just rearranged a previous list a little.
His last 3 symphonies are too heavy and depressing for me.
I am no longer interested in unpleasant feelings - I have got beyond them.

Mozart for me - nothing depressing, which to me equates with boring.
The divine K622 is not at all depressing, though it treats of death.


----------



## starry

gurthbruins said:


> Mozart for me - nothing depressing


That is questionable.


----------



## thatperson

The tempest
Francesca da rimini
Rococo variations 
1812 overture
Manfred symphony
Symphony 4
Symphony 5
Symphony 6
piano concerto 1
capriccio italien
piano trio


----------



## gurthbruins

starry said:


> That is questionable.


Starry, since you put Mozart number one on your list in Ranking the Greats, I cannot quarrel with anything you say. For me you then belong to the ultimate elite. Then I must conclude logically that you find some of Mozart depressing.

I can accept that without question, it is really dependent on the nature of the subject who is getting depressed I suppose..


----------



## starry

gurthbruins said:


> Starry, since you put Mozart number one on your list in Ranking the Greats, I cannot quarrel with anything you say. For me you then belong to the ultimate elite. Then I must conclude logically that you find some of Mozart depressing.
> 
> I can accept that without question, it is really dependent on the nature of the subject who is getting depressed I suppose..


I suppose it depends how you define depressing and really, as you say, exactly what the listener's mood is can effect the kind of reception the music might get. He did do some sad music sometimes though, even agitated sometimes. The image that some have of an always happy care-free Mozart isn't perhaps realistic, so that's why I'm cautious about saying he can never be 'depressing'.


----------



## JAKE WYB

*Manfred* - first two movements make up for shapelessness of whole work - even though it is a bit forced in the end, it still contains tchaikovsky at his most dramatic and interesting

*Francesca de Rimini *- I think it is his greatest shorter orchestral work - even more than R+J which sounds cobbled together especially the laboured ending- but Francesca needs a fiery performance or it falls flat on its face - but when it works its the most thrilling thing imaginable


----------



## gurthbruins

starry said:


> I suppose it depends how you define depressing and really, as you say, exactly what the listener's mood is can effect the kind of reception the music might get. He did do some sad music sometimes though, even agitated sometimes. The image that some have of an always happy care-free Mozart isn't perhaps realistic, so that's why I'm cautious about saying he can never be 'depressing'.


I agree with every word, and I understand exactly what you are getting at. 
What I said was perhaps not too carefully or exactly expressed. The word depressing is too vague.

My central fact is that Mozart never affects me in the way that Tchaikovsky's last 3 symphonies do, and that that is a way I do not care for. Certain kinds of sadness and tragedy can indeed be precious, if expressed in a certain way. Such as the way that Mozart uses. As in his requiem K622.

My apologies for going so far off-topic, but this is a matter worth discussing, imo.

I love much of Tchaikovsky's music, and think that he is truly one of the greats, having a share in the "divine spark" mentioned by Beethoven.


----------



## starry

Well perhaps some of the romantics are just more effusive than those from an earlier era, because of that they can sometimes sound over the top. Tchaikovsky can have restraint at times, maybe the fourth symphony has the least among his last 3 symphonies. The fifth does end triumphantly, the 6th doesn't. 

The end of the 6th is quite intense and unrelenting, the second theme particulary sad. I think the unproven story that Tchaikovsky committed suicide also adds something to it for some people. Tchaikovsky did do some quite happy music as well and maybe people want to read too much of his life into the music, or what they see as the sadness of his life anyway. And many seem to see his 6th symphony as his defining piece, but should it be? What about his ballets for instance.

Tchaikovsky is one of the greats in the pure melody of his creativity. (And I agree that his 3rd symphony is good, I've always quite liked it).


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

*Souvenir d'un Cher Op. 42* (really Tchaikovsky's violin sonata)

*Piano Trio Op. 50*


----------



## Il Seraglio

Sadly I'm a very casual Tchaikovsky listener, but always have time for his Serenade in C for Strings, his 4th symphony and the Tsarina's Slippers.


----------



## Vaneyes

Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture


----------



## drth15

*Tchaikovsky*

His ballet scores are his greatest music for me, even above the Pathetique, which is his 'best' work. He is completely at ease w ballet form, free to create surcharged beauty & emotion.


----------



## Sebastian

For me the absolute no.1 is the Manfred Symphony. In my iTunes I've given all four movements 5 stars each, which I've only done once before (for a Glazunov symphony). The Manfred Symphony is immensely beautiful, and the organ part at the very end of the finale is incredibly touching. I can't believe Tchaikovsky didn't actually like this masterpiece of his!!


----------



## Kopachris

Symphonies 4 and 5. Symphony 4 is what got me into classical music, because of the usage of Mvt. 2 on an episode of _Star Trek: Voyager_. Mvt. 1 starts out with a nice exposition, playing through the instruments. Mvt. 2 is slower, quieter, and definitely reminiscent of a Russian winter. Mvt's. 3 and 4 triumphantly recapitulate Mvt. 1.

As for Symphony 5, I can't give much in the way of specifics because I usually read a book while listening to symphonies.  I do love the transition from Mvt. 3 to 4, though. Mvt. 3 ties up very nicely with a climactic ending. Mvt. 4 then opens up in a somewhat ironic fashion, as if it were a coda to Mvt. 3, but then goes on to recapitulate everything and give a great sense of resolution.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Russians own everyone.


----------



## anshuman

The one work by Tchaikovsky whose melody is blindingly beautiful is the Serenade Melancolique. I am talking about the the opening theme on the violin. Gil shaham is my favourite for the work.


----------



## Art Rock

Violin concerto.


----------



## mamascarlatti

*Eugene Onegin*

*Pique Dame*

As there are a couple of *Mazeppa *enthusiasts I'm going to make an effort to track it down. My only encounter with this opera was a disastrous production at ENO in the 80s when the booing started at the end of the first act.


----------



## tchaikovskyfan

While I find most of Tchaikovsky's music wonderful, beautiful, even haunting for some pieces, the one that would top my favorite list would have to be the "Grand Adagio" from the Nutcracker. I wonder sometimes what the heck was going through his mind as he was writing it out. You have all that mostly upbeat music for the majority of the second act (arabian is upbeat but at a slower tempo) and then he hits you in the heart, soul and gut with this. I read that he may have written this masterpiece after his sister, Aleksandra Davydova, died. I listened to it again, and I can hear him pouring out his broken heart, his soul, onto the pages in the music. And, yes, I really am this deep when I analyze his music. I look at the causes for the emotions, the feelings, because while the music may be for a ballet, I don't think it pure coincidence that instead of a pas like in Sleeping Beauty, we get this very emotional, very heartbreaking melody. It makes me cry every time.


----------



## Charon

After reading the posts in this thread, I feel like I've been neglecting many of Tchaikovsky's works! Of those that I've heard well enough, I'd say these are my favourites:

Symphony No.6 
None but the lonely heart
Piano Trio in A minor
Violin Concerto


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Exploring Tchaiky's String Quartets:
http://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-String-Quartets-Pyotr-Ilyich/dp/B00004TF2T/ref=cm_cr-mr-title


----------



## Nix

This threads been up for while, might as well share mine, even though he's not my favorite composer. 

Serenade for Strings, Rococo Variations and Symphony No. 1 are my favorite pieces. Symphony #6 I think is his most well crafted piece, and my favorite individual movement is the slow movement from his 4th Symphony. 

Have yet to listen to the violin concerto, his chamber works or his operas... but this is just what I like so far.


----------



## Olias

For me the Violin Concerto is Tchaikovsky's most perfect work.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Mine*

Violin concert
Evgeñi Onieguin (opera)
Cherevichki (opera)
Francesca di Rimini
Opritchnik (opera)
Voyevoda (opera)
Orleans' Maiden (opera)

Piano concerto no. 5 (LOL)

Martin


----------



## Nix

Let it be known that since I last posted in November I have now listened to his violin concerto. It's quite good, though far from my favorite in the genre.


----------



## Lipatti

Eugene Onegin, his last symphony, and the Grand sonata are my favorites, but I really need to listen to more Tchaikovsky in the time to come. The Queen of Spades, Francesca di Rimini and his complete symphonies are on my next to-buy list.


----------



## arturs86

Art Rock said:


> Violin concerto.


Yep! 

That's a shame that he has no viola concertos.


----------



## Tschaikowsky

This is virtually impossible for me to narrow down to one or two, I love all of Tschaikowsky's music . Here would be my tops, narrowing out the rest of his music.

Piano Concerto No 1
Symphony No 6
Swan Lake 
Sleeping Beauty 
Nutcracker 
Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture 
Violin Concerto 
Marche Slave 
Capriccio Italien 
1812 Overture


----------



## Jacob Singer

Piano Trio
Symphony 6
Violin Concerto
String Quartet 1
Piano Concerto 1
Nutcracker
Swan Lake
Moscow Cantatas
Marche Slave
1812 Overture
Serenade Melancolique


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*This song!*






I have many many versions of this song, this one is not that good. Lemeshev, Kozlovsky are great! (and better)...and Sobinov ( a bit dusty but Wow!)






Mikhail


----------



## tdc

At this time Id have to say the Fantasy overture:Romeo and Juliet. Id go so far as to say the theme from the first couple of minutes or so of that piece is one of the awesomest sounding things Ive come across in any piece of music at this time.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*"A song for BOB"*

It is my favorite.

http://rictornorton.co.uk/tchaikov.htm

LOL

Martin


----------



## Barking Spiderz

too much to choose from as I'm a big Tchaik but I'll go for the 1812 as it was the first CM record I ever got and the only one I had for a long time


----------



## mmsbls

1. Violin Concerto (I rank this with Brahms as the best violin concertos)
2. Piano Concerto 1
3. Sym 5
4. Serenade for Strings
5. Quartet 1


----------



## pjang23

Has to be the piano trio for me.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

no! I love mainly his operas:

Eugene Oneguin, Opritchnik, Yolanta, The maid of Orleans, Voyevoda...a bit less: Pikovaia dama, Mazeppa...he composed 10 operas. Awesome music. His ballets, not for me.

Martin


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I know this makes me sound like a complete amateur but my favorite Tchaikovsky piece is the 1812 overature. Although there are many Tchaikovsky piano music recordings that I would rather listen on an everyday basis, the 1812 overature is one of the few Tchaikovsky pieces I've listened to live. Its awe inspiring to listen to that piece with real cannons, therefore its my favorite.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

cato said:


> Auhhhhh..... another *Mazeppa* lover!
> 
> Great minds think alike!
> 
> (I have noticed, that we share a lot of the same taste in music.)
> 
> But no Swan Lake?


I like Mazeppa (Pushkin)...in the same style, I prefer Opritchnik

I don't consider 1812 as very representative. Tchaikovsky knew this would be a great commercial success...Money was welcome in every century.

I know three Tchaikovskies:

- the cash machine: 1812, all ballets, Capriccio Italiano (a bit better), the elementary Slavic March
- the symphonist (deep and sincere) and his chamber music
- the opera guy (deep, Russian in many (Mazeppa, Opritchnik, The voyevoda, Oneguin, sometimes French (Orlean's maiden, queen of spades)

The three Tchaikovskies are quite different, I don't like very much the first.

Martin


----------



## jdavid

Opera - Eugene Onegin
Symphony No. 6 in b minor, op. 74


----------



## Guest

Favourite Tchaikowsky? That's easy: The Nutcracker - IMO his greatest masterpiece, particularly the "Arabian Dance" played in the chalameau (spelling) register of the clarinet., with a string ostinato beating in the bass. Haunting, poetic, mysterious, heartbreakingly beautiful melody, stunningly original. The way the oboe comes in after the strings in the last section and leads to the final statement of the theme - so moving...


----------



## Polednice

_Manfred_ Symphony ftw!!!

Although, as a vampire pig, it's no surprise that I adore the infernal final movement.


----------



## Guest

"Manfred" is indeed an excellent work - especially that highly sexually-charged ending to the first movement.


----------



## mtmailey

Topaz said:


> *My favourite works:* In rough order, best first, are:
> 
> 
> Serenade in C for Strings, Op. 48
> Symphony No 6, Op. 74
> Swan Lake, Op. 20 (Waltz, Act 1)
> Sleeping Beauty, Op. 66 (Adagio Pas d'action)
> Nutcracker, Op. 71 (Dance of the Flowers)
> Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture
> Violin Concerto, Op. 35
> Piano Trio in A Min, Op. 50
> String Quartet No 3 in E Flat Min, Op. 30
> Piano Concerto in B Flat Min, Op. 23
> Marche Slave, Op. 31
> Variations on a Rococo Theme, Op 33
> Capriccio Italien, Op. 45
> 1812 Overture, Op. 49
> Francesca da Rimini, Op. 32
> 
> Topaz


this is a great list


----------



## mtmailey

i like his symphonies 1,2,3,4,5,6 -overtures 1812 & the fantasy overture


----------



## Klavierspieler

Swan Lake Suite


----------



## Lisztian

A toss up between the fourth symphony and first piano concerto.


----------



## Itullian

His greatest work is The Nutcracker, as oft played as it is. The melodic invention is supernatural.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Havent heard a lot of Tchaikovsky, but teh Natha Waltz (Op51#4) on piano is fantastic!


----------



## DavidMahler

5 Violin Concerto
4 Piano Concerto 2
3 Sleeping Beauty
2 Symphony 4
1 Symphony 6

Pathetique is my favorite


----------



## clavichorder

I really enjoy his 1st symphony. It is perhaps an odd choice, but there is something intensely magical about the piece, especially the slow movement and many moments in the finale. Highly charged, its musical plasma.


----------



## mtmailey

yes i agree i like the canon in the last movement


----------



## MattTheTubaGuy

Has this been mentioned yet?
-Festival overture on the Danish National Anthem
Fantastic overture!

also, I love The Nutcracker, and not just the suite, the whole ballet.

I am playing Symphony #5 again next year, which I can NOT wait for! Probably my favourite symphony, and I get to play it for a second time!


----------



## MattTheTubaGuy

Has this been mentioned yet?
-Festival overture on the Danish National Anthem
Fantastic overture!

also, I love The Nutcracker, and not just the suite, the whole ballet.

I am playing Symphony #5 again next year, which I can NOT wait for! Probably my favourite symphony, and I get to play it for a second time!


----------



## Tapkaara

The 5th Symphony. Easily.


----------



## Taneyev

Manfred, the 6th. and 2d.and 3th suites.


----------



## TheComposer

6th anytime... so emotionally charged, but there are so many other works that are so underrated and neglected, like the Tempest overture and the Manfred even The Storm... what a shame


----------



## samurai

His *Symphony No.2 {"Little Russian"} and Symphony No.3 {"Polish"} *have become my "go to" symphonies lately.


----------



## gurthbruins

samurai said:


> His *Symphony No.2 {"Little Russian"} and Symphony No.3 {"Polish"} *have become my "go to" symphonies lately.


Yes, I love Tchaikovsky but I don't like the last three symphonies.


----------



## mleghorn

I love Tchaikovsky. I'm sure there's a lot of great music by him that I haven't heard, but my favorites are, in order, starting from best:

The four orchestral suites -- it's a crime that these aren't more well known
Nutcracker
Symphonies 4, 5, 6
1st Piano Concerto


----------



## TheBamf

Violin Concerto in D major op. 35
The Nutcracker
and Symphony no.6

I am undecided on which one is the best..


----------



## peeyaj

*1812 Overture.*. the greatest orchestral piece over!!!!!!!!!

/s


----------



## Badinerie

Marche Slave....love it to smithereens!


----------



## Taneyev

Manfred. Greatest symphonic poem ever.


----------



## LordBlackudder




----------



## Vaneyes

Thank you, RNO/Pletnev, and the YT uploader.


----------



## PetrB

This is genuine: I'm rather surprised Tchaikovsky is 'still around' - as is this thread still active. Care for him less than a little is putting it tactfully - but, my 'true pick' in the area of Tchaikovsky is.

Stravinsky ~ Le baiser de la fée. [Any true Tchaikovsky fan should own a copy of this music, the full-length ballet.]


----------



## Cnote11

A great piece indeed, PetrB.


----------



## kimreg

My favourite piece is certainly the Symphonie Pathetique. Understanding that this is Tchaikovsky's farewell statement as a guilt-ridden homosexual does help to interpret the music correctly, I think. Is it correct to say that he was persuaded to take poison to avoid the scandal of his having fallen in love with a young cadet from the nobility? I think it is in the first movement where the music almost comes to a standstill in a moment of utter despair, and then suddenly you are knocked for six by the harshness of the staccato rhythms in the subsequent crescendo. I wonder whether there is a clue as to the identity to Tshaikovsky's lover in the four note theme. Or just his yearning love. 
My interpretation of the middle two movements would go something like this. Both the waltz and the march seem set on an unstoppable course, and it is not a comfortable ride for the one is suffering. On the surface everything appears in order but underneath the surface there is turmoil disturbing the tempo, which is not the normal one for either the waltz or the march. Was this deliberate on the composer's part? 
Yes, the symphony is full of the deepest despair expressed with harsh clarity by a man who has to hide a forbidden love within the society which has provided him with his livelihood.


----------



## moody

kimreg said:


> My favourite piece is certainly the Symphonie Pathetique. Understanding that this is Tchaikovsky's farewell statement as a guilt-ridden homosexual does help to interpret the music correctly, I think. Is it correct to say that he was persuaded to take poison to avoid the scandal of his having fallen in love with a young cadet from the nobility? I think it is in the first movement where the music almost comes to a standstill in a moment of utter despair, and then suddenly you are knocked for six by the harshness of the staccato rhythms in the subsequent crescendo. I wonder whether there is a clue as to the identity to Tshaikovsky's lover in the four note theme. Or just his yearning love.
> My interpretation of the middle two movements would go something like this. Both the waltz and the march seem set on an unstoppable course, and it is not a comfortable ride for the one is suffering. On the surface everything appears in order but underneath the surface there is turmoil disturbing the tempo, which is not the normal one for either the waltz or the march. Was this deliberate on the composer's part?
> Yes, the symphony is full of the deepest despair expressed with harsh clarity by a man who has to hide a forbidden love within the society which has provided him with his livelihood.


I think your very fanciful story is not correct to say at all.


----------



## moody

I think his Mozartinia is a terrific piece of music, don't understand why it's not heard more.


----------



## Turangalîla

I _adore_ his Romeo and Juliet Overture, mainly because I love Shakespeare so much.


----------



## moody

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I _adore_ his Romeo and Juliet Overture, mainly because I love Shakespeare so much.


I adore it because it's very loud and over the top.


----------



## Orange Soda King

Lol, NONE OF IT!!!!

Haha, just kidding (sort of).

6th symphony is really good.


----------



## Clementine

Where to start? I think Tchaikovsky was at his best in slow movements, perhaps because it's more difficult to be bombastic, but also because he tends to use more counterpoint, instead of simple chordal accompaniment. The slow movements of _Serenade for Strings_ and _Symphony #4_ are especially breathtaking. He also had a real gift for melody and orchestration, and was just a composer who knew what he was doing, even if he was a bit heart-on-sleeve. I get the sense that he wrote very intuitively and self indulgently. The result is a very raw, sometimes overbearing music, but also music that really embodies someone giving in to their emotions. I don't think there has ever been a composer who was so _un-_self conscious. My favorite works by him are _Serenade for Strings_, _Piano Concerto #1_, _Symphony #6_, and his _String Quartet #2_. I still have to get around to listening to his _Piano Trio_ and _Eugene Onegin_.


----------



## gurthbruins

Talking of slow movements, that in his violin concerto is one of my favourites.


----------



## Moira

I love most of Tchaikovsky's work, but curiously the one piece of his that I love above all others is his "Variations of Rococo Theme” for cello. He was playing at being Mozart, apparently.


----------



## cwarchc

I'm listenning to this being played by Isserlis and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe at the moment
One of my, current, favourites


----------



## gr8gunz

Best Tchaikovsky
Piano Concerto 1.


----------



## Taneyev

Moira said:


> I love most of Tchaikovsky's work, but curiously the one piece of his that I love above all others is his "Variations of Rococo Theme" for cello. He was playing at being Mozart, apparently.


My favorite recording of this is Daniil Shafran with Kondrashin and Moscow P.O.


----------



## Nadia

My favorite Tchaikovsky piece is...probably Marche Slave.


----------



## jani

Romeo&Julia


----------



## Kopachris

The fourth symphony has been a part of my life since I first listened to it way back in middle school. It's the piece that really got me into classical music, and it's still my favorite.


----------



## Ravndal

Symphony 6 got me in to classical music, and symphony 5 got me even more interested.

Now my favourite is the Romeo & Juliet overture. I listen to it every night before sleep, and i just get it. It moves me on so many levels.


----------



## Taneyev

Moira said:


> I love most of Tchaikovsky's work, but curiously the one piece of his that I love above all others is his "Variations of Rococo Theme" for cello. He was playing at being Mozart, apparently.


Yes, but the version almost everybody plays is slightly abridged. Raphael Wallfisch with Geoffrey Simon and English Chamber Orchestra recorded the original complete work as written.


----------



## Arsakes

I like *Marche Slave* for a long time (around 10 years).

But I like his *Serenade op.48* more than his other work, These pieces are emotionally perfect.


----------



## mleghorn

The Nutcracker, first Piano Concerto, and his four orchestral suites.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Kopachris said:


> The fourth symphony has been a part of my life since I first listened to it way back in middle school. It's the piece that really got me into classical music, and it's still my favorite.


The fourth is my best piece too - I think the first movement is quite remarkable - and if anything the 5th and 6th sy just don't live up to it.


----------



## drpraetorus

I agree with most that has been written as far as the favorite works. I must say that I find the 1st piano concerto over done and not worth the popularity it has achieved. The 6th symphony is interesting in that it seems that Tchaikovsky is reaching beyond himself. It is almost not a tchaikovsky symphony and yet is at the same time. 

I must confess though, If I need something to break my funk I go to March Slav. I do not know why but that piece can break my depression in ways that other "better" works cannot. Go figure.


----------



## RonP

For me, it's a toss-up between his Fifth Symphony and the Serenade for Strings, Op. 48.


----------



## Taneyev

Piano trio.


----------



## brianwalker

Romeo and Juliet Overture


----------



## appoggiatura

Not in a particular order:
- 6th symphony
- 4th symphony, 4th mvt
- Panorama, from Sleeping Beauty
- Romeo & Juliet


----------



## clavichorder

6th symphony
4th symphony(whole thing)
1st symphony
Nutcracker Suite
Swan Lake-particularly the Czardas

I hope to some day know more about his chamber music.


----------



## PhileasFogg

I would just have to say Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. I know all of the nutcracker pieces are overplayed but I love them so, they're my favorite music of the Christmas season in particular


----------



## DrKilroy

Who cares about "overplayed" thing? I love Nutcracker too!

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Novelette

It's a cruel question, actually. How to choose a favorite piece by Tchaikovsky?

Unordered:

- Violin Concerto in D, Op. 35
- Symphony #4 in F Minor, Op. 36
- String Sextet in D, Op. 70, "Souvenir De Florence"
- The Nutcracker


----------



## TheVioletKing

Favorites are:

- The Nutcracker (A bit overrated, but still a great piece)
- Swan Lake
- Romeo and Juliet
- Marche Slave (My favorite march in the entire orchestra repetoire)
- 1812 (same as the Nutcracker)
- The Queen of Spades Overture (I have yet to listen/see the entire work, but one day I will)

Unpopular Opinion: I wasn't really moved by the ending of his 6th Symphony, it was nice but nothing to bring me to tears, IMHO.


----------



## Picea

While I love almost everything Tchaikovsky wrote, my favorite remains Symphony #5. I grew up listening mostly to pop and rock, but my mother was a very good pianist and played for church, and she also practiced at home playing various shorter pieces by Chopin, Schubert, Grieg etc. She also had a few classical 'pops' records which I didn't pay a lot of attention to, but some appreciation of classical music must have soaked in. In 1991 I bought my first CD player, and at the same time, I bought three CDs. As I was very bored of the pop music of that era, I decided to buy one classical CD to try and expand my musical horizons. I had no idea what to buy, but I remembered the name of Tchaikovsky, so at random I bought a CD of the 5th Symphony by Andre Previn. I was completely blown away, and have been a classical music fan ever since. I have often felt that that choice was in a way Providential. Had I picked something that didn't move me in the way that the 5th did, I may have missed out on one of the great pleasures of life... the appreciation of great music.


----------



## Marilyn

Piano Trio in A minor op. 50


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Ever since I saw the Lugosi Dracula, Swan Lake has stuck with me and was my introduction to Tchaikovsky and Ballet.

I love Symphony 4, especially performed by the London Philharmonic under Jurowski. However, I find all of the Symphonies are thoroughly enjoyable. Pity only 4-6 get frequently overlooked. 

Overplayed maybe, but the 1812 Overture is excellent - though I first heard it as a drum solo by the late Cozy Powell (as part of Rainbow's greatest era - fronted by the late Ronnie James Dio R.i.P)

The Violin Concerto is very enjoyable too.

I cannot comment beyond the common elements of The Nutcracker (read: frequently played by sources such as Classic Fm) but what I have heard has been enjoyable. It surprised me what I had heard without realising I had done so.


----------



## Novelette

1. Violin Concerto in D, Op. 35

2. Symphony #4 in F Minor, Op. 36

3. String Sextet in D, Op. 70, "Souvenir de Florence"

4. Serenade for Strings in C, Op. 48

Edit: It wasn't easy choosing an order. Still, Nutcracker was replaced by the Serenade for Strings.


----------



## Tristan

Tchaikovsky is my favorite composer, so this is a little difficult, but I think I have it:

1. Swan Lake, Op. 20
2. The Nutcracker, Op. 71
3. The Sleeping Beauty, Op. 66
4. Symphony No. 4 in F minor, Op. 36
5. Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture


----------



## starthrower

Symphonies 4 & 5
Marche Slav


----------



## tensas

1. Marche slave
2. Piano Concerto No.1 in B flat
3. Nussknacker Suite (Except of the flower walz, i cant hear it anymore


----------



## Bone

Symphony #4.


----------



## OboeKnight

Oh wow....so many exquisite works. I'm not sure. Currently Im obsessed with his Rome and Juliet Overture and Pathetique. However, I'm not sure if I have a favorite. Nocturne in C Sharp Minor is so beautiful, and let's not forget the incredible Nutcracker Suite!


----------



## julianoq

It is very hard for me to choose between symphonies 4,5 and 6, I am obsessed with them equally. But if I have to choose one, it goes for the #4. It is perfect.


----------



## GSchiappe

I was pretty much initiated in classical by Tchaikovsky. When I was little, my father used to play an LP of Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony, which had a picture of the famous St. Basil's Cathedral of the Red Square as cover. I asked for him to play it a lot, too, calling it the "castle music".

So:
1: 4th Symphony
2: 6th Symphony
3: 1st Piano Concerto
4: String Sextet "Souvenir de Florence"
5: Francesca da Rimini


----------



## ptr

I much prefer Boris 6 string Quartets!

/ptr


----------



## elgar's ghost

I never really had a favourite work by Tchaikovsky as I am fond of so many, but the 4th Symphony and the Piano Trio would probably be the ones I'd choose if pushed. Each time I listen to the 4th Symphony I'm always reminded of the time I first heard a snippet of it when Pink Floyd used it during the 'radio dial twiddling' intro to their track 'Wish You Were Here', which just happens to be one of my favourites of theirs. I didn't know who the classical bit was by as I wasn't a fan then but I never forgot it so when I first heard the 4th symphony many years later and that bit came in I knew that it was music I was meant to enjoy! And as for the sombre Piano Trio - it emphasises how personal torment can be the trigger for creating a work of beauty.


----------



## Novelette

I know this is unusual, but I've enjoyed Tchaikovsky's Concert Fantasy for Piano and Orchestra, Op. 56, especially the first movement. The middle cadenza--or whatever on earth we could even call it!--is quite grand, especially when Pletnev is playing it.


----------



## Feathers

Novelette said:


> I know this is unusual, but I've enjoyed Tchaikovsky's Concert Fantasy for Piano and Orchestra, Op. 56, especially the first movement. The middle cadenza--or whatever on earth we could even call it!--is quite grand, especially when Pletnev is playing it.


Maybe it is a little unusual like you said, but I also really enjoy the Concert Fantasy. I didn't really like Tchaikovsky's "other piano concertos", so I'm glad I found this great piece for piano and orchestra.

Another favorite of mine (and many other people) would be the 6th symphony. It's one of the pieces I listen to very regularly.

My liking for his violin concerto changes dramatically back and forth over time from extreme love to groaning annoyance. It's one of the very few pieces of music I feel this way about, and I'm still trying to figure out why.


----------



## KenOC

March Slav (mostly because the radio is playing it right now)


----------



## Aries

It is easy: Ouvertüre 1812


----------



## OboeKnight

Currently really in to the Violin Concerto. Not my favorite piece, but the one I'm obsessed with now


----------



## techniquest

Over the long term, the ones that remain favourites are 'Romeo & Juliet Overture'; 'Manfred' Symphony; 'March Slav' and the 1st Piano Concerto. I like the 4th and 6th symphonies, but I don't like the last movement of 4th and the 3rd movement of 6th.


----------



## OboeKnight

techniquest said:


> Over the long term, the ones that remain favourites are 'Romeo & Juliet Overture'; 'Manfred' Symphony; 'March Slav' and the 1st Piano Concerto. I like the 4th and 6th symphonies, but I don't like the last movement of 4th and the 3rd movement of 6th.


I have trouble getting into the third movement of 6 as well...it also doesn't ,make me like it any better when half the audience always applauds after the third movement when its performed live -.-


----------



## Novelette

Feathers said:


> My liking for his violin concerto changes dramatically back and forth over time from extreme love to groaning annoyance. It's one of the very few pieces of music I feel this way about, and I'm still trying to figure out why.


I've enjoyed it occasionally but it's not a piece that I've been too impressed with, likewise with the B Flat Minor Concerto. They are both filled with impressive flourishes and pleasing melodies, but they have never been favorites of mine.


----------



## Avey

OboeKnight said:


> Currently really in to the Violin Concerto. Not my favorite piece, but the one I'm obsessed with now


Highly underrated work of his, and I would impress that the *Piano Concerto in Bb Minor*, while more highly-regarded, is slightly underrated as well, at least in the sense that it doesn't get performed as often, or mentioned in passing like his orchestral works.


----------



## Avey

Novelette said:


> I've enjoyed it occasionally but it's not a piece that I've been too impressed with, likewise with the B Flat Minor Concerto. They are both filled with impressive flourishes and pleasing melodies, but they have never been favorites of mine.


Continuing on that....I would agree that both works are _explosive_ in melodies, but not consistent and smooth in their distribution -- does that make any sense?


----------



## Feathers

Avey said:


> Continuing on that....I would agree that both works are _explosive_ in melodies, but not consistent and smooth in their distribution -- does that make any sense?


Yes, it does.  However, I think this inconsistent distribution isn't overdone to the point of incoherence, and it contributes to the contrast between themes.


----------



## unpocoscherzando

My favourite Tchaikovsky work is the Symphony No. 6.


----------



## pelt

Close between his 4th and 5th symphonies for me.


----------



## Celloissimo

Symphony 6. I remember when I was a kid I listened to the 1812 overture constantly: I found it to be the most brilliant, moving piece of music on the planet. Now that my tastes and knowledge of music has evolved since then, now I kind of view 1812 as a piece of crap with a catchy melody at the end. Perhaps I've just simply been corrupted by growing older?


----------



## Avey

Celloissimo said:


> Symphony 6. I remember when I was a kid I listened to the 1812 overture constantly: I found it to be the most brilliant, moving piece of music on the planet. Now that my tastes and knowledge of music has evolved since then, now I kind of view 1812 as a piece of crap with a catchy melody at the end. Perhaps I've just simply been corrupted by growing older?


I've heard this sentiment quite a bit regarding the 1812 Overture: _"It's overrated." "It was a pure money grab." "Cannon fire isn't loud enough to mask the banality of the work."_

I'm not necessarily saying all who don't like the 1812 Overture are wrong, but I'm curious as to why so many -- at least members here -- dislike the work. Is there any background some could share -- historical or personal reasons?

I still find the piece riveting, but I don't have decades of listening under my belt, so I may still be that _un-evolved_ lifeform.


----------



## Celloissimo

Avey said:


> I've heard this sentiment quite a bit regarding the 1812 Overture: _"It's overrated." "It was a pure money grab." "Cannon fire isn't loud enough to mask the banality of the work."_
> 
> I'm not necessarily saying all who don't like the 1812 Overture are wrong, but I'm curious as to why so many -- at least members here -- dislike the work. Is there any background some could share -- historical or personal reasons?
> 
> I still find the piece riveting, but I don't have decades of listening under my belt, so I may still be that _un-evolved_ lifeform.


I used to love it when I was in middle and high school. But some reason I feel like I've 'outgrown' it if that makes any sense. If you love it , then continue to listen to it! I personally feel dissapointed I've lost the same powerful emotional response I used to get when I heard the end of the finale. I just feel so detached from it now. I think you're quite far from un-evolved, my friend, if you can still come to appreciate the emotional power in the work that I just don't quite feel anymore.


----------



## moody

Avey said:


> I've heard this sentiment quite a bit regarding the 1812 Overture: _"It's overrated." "It was a pure money grab." "Cannon fire isn't loud enough to mask the banality of the work."_
> 
> I'm not necessarily saying all who don't like the 1812 Overture are wrong, but I'm curious as to why so many -- at least members here -- dislike the work. Is there any background some could share -- historical or personal reasons?
> 
> I still find the piece riveting, but I don't have decades of listening under my belt, so I may still be that _un-evolved_ lifeform.


The reason is simple,it is dreadfully boring until the bit at the end which is great stuff.but until that point it is all just marking time.
As far as I can see its chief use is as a demonstration piece but once again only the finale.
It's really not worth getting perturbed about
I certainly don't dislike it--it is what it is and that's an end to it at least for me.


----------



## Avey

I can't say this is my favorite PT work, but I just heard the _Manfred_ Symphony for the first time on radio the other day.

What?! How have I passed on that!

Anyone have opinions on the piece? On first listen, felt a _tad_ long-winded, but classic PT melodies and emotions.


----------



## Tristan

Avey said:


> I can't say this is my favorite PT work, but I just heard the _Manfred_ Symphony for the first time on radio the other day.
> 
> What?! How have I passed on that!
> 
> Anyone have opinions on the piece? On first listen, felt a _tad_ long-winded, but classic PT melodies and emotions.


The first movement is perfection in my mind.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Romeo and Juliet, Violin Concerto, Francesca da Rimini

In that order.


----------



## Nevohteeb

The first time, I heard this work, was August 14, 1983. It was at the Marlboro Music Festival, n Vermont. Salvatore Accardo, an Italian violinist, with Pieta, came to Marlboro, and played with other musicians, the string sextet, Souvenir of Florence. In the last movement, the floorboards of the concert hall, resonated with the strings. It was an exhilarating work. Also, I love his piano trio in A-, and his piano concerto #2. Also, his ballets, Sleeping Beauty, and Swan Lake.


----------



## MagneticGhost

The three I return to most are..


Liturgy of St John Chrysostum
Eugene Onegin
Manfred Symphony


----------



## Avey

Souvenir de Florence, Op 70 - terrific piece, high underrated.


----------



## Nevohteeb

I agree. It is not played "live" often enough. Coming up on May 20th, the Emerson String Quartet is releasing a cd, called, "Journey". It contains, Tchaikovsky's Sextet, Souvenir, and Schoenberg's Verklarte Night. I am looking forward to this recording.


----------



## lostid

His violin concerto and piano trio are my favorites.


----------



## Celesta

Tchaikovsky is my favorite composer so this list will be long:

1) Pas de Deux from The Nutcracker 
2) Souvenir di Florence
3) Symphonies 3, 4 & 6
4) Acts II & IV of Swan Lake
5) Rococo Variations 
6) Francesca da Rimini
7) The Sleeping Beauty
8) Piano Trio
9) Meditation
10) Capriccio Italien
11) Marche Slave
12) Serenade for Strings
13) 3rd Piano Concerto


----------



## ATLCodaMan

5 Overall, but love the finale and story behind 4.


----------



## Zingo

My choices would be Souvenir de Florence, the Serenade for strings and Romeo and Juliet.


----------



## DaveS

Manfred Symphony, then the 5th


----------



## chrisco97

At the moment, I would say my favourite is the *Russian Dance from the Nutcracker Suite*.


----------



## Skilmarilion

So many to choose from. I'll try to keep it to 10 ...

Symphonies 4, 6
Violin Concerto
Piano Concertos 1-2
Variations on a Rococo Theme
Nutcracker Suite
Act II, Swan Lake 
Piano Trio
Les Saisons


----------



## LouisMasterMusic

Symphony No.5 - great tunes in every movement, making it unusual for a symphony.


----------



## spradlig

Piano Concerto #2. His symphonic suites are underplayed and at least some of them are great. One of them uses two accordions! I am not familiar enough with his symphonic suites to be more specific.

Also, the "Souvenir de Florence". I don't know who arranged it for string orchestra, but I prefer the original version for string sextet.


----------



## spradlig

@LouisMasterMusic : I think most people would agree that most or all of Tchaikovsky's symphonies, not just the 5th, have great tunes in every movement. There may be a few exceptions, such as the last movement of the 3d.


----------



## LouisMasterMusic

We all are entitled to an opinion, even if we may not necessarily join with the majority.


----------



## spradlig

@Lisztfreak : you rather to "the" Piano Concerto. He wrote 3. The second, in G major, is excellent. I don't care for the third. The third is also extremely short and one might be able to argue that it lacks the length and substance to be a "real" piano concerto.

Although the 2d is underplayed, the 3d seems to be performed even less often, and from what I have heard, there is critical consensus that the 3d is not that good.


----------



## spradlig

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion and the question is partly a matter of taste or opinion.


----------



## spradlig

I love Tchaikovsky. I have only heard the _Manfred_ symphony a few times, and I just didn't "get" it. I only got hooked on 1 or 2 of the melodies.


----------



## Beethoven10

As a string player, the Serenade, Symphonies 4-6, and Souvenir de Florence are amongst the most fun pieces I've played. Much of it is difficult but rewarding, sits nicely in the hand, etc. Have played the Serenade in pretty much every string ensemble I've been in, but I'll never get tired of the finale


----------



## mstar

OH, for those of you who know me from TC, you know that I've just GOT to comment on this thread....  
Okay, I'm going backwards from ten. No, twenty! Yeesssss......

20. Nocturne in D Minor for Piano (Interesting on cello, as well!) 
19. Serenade for Strings 
18. Swan Lake Waltz 
17. Piano Concerto No. 1 
16. April from The Seasons 
15. December from The Seasons 
14. Violin Concerto in D Major 
13. Piano Trio No. 1 
12. Fantasie-Ouverture Romeo and Juliet 
11. Piano Concerto No. 2 
10. June from The Seasons 
9. Tied for August and October from The Seasons 
8. Symphony No. 4 in F Minor - First, Third, and Fourth Movements 
7. Symphony No. 2 in C Minor - Especially the First and Second Movements 
6. Symphony No. 1 in G Minor - Especially the First and Second Movements 
5. String Quartet No. 1 
4. Piano Concerto No. 3 
3. String Sextet Souvenir de Florence 
2. Symphony No. 5 in E Minor 
1. Symphony No. 6 in B Minor

Oh, Tchaikovsky.... Now I want to listen to _ALL_ of them.... :lol:


----------



## Guest

Symphony No. 5
Symphony No. 6
Romeo and Juliet
Swan Lake
Piano Concerto No. 1
Violin Concerto
Suite No. 4 "Mozartiana"
Nutcracker
Sleeping Beauty
1812 Overture

in that order... ok maybe not exactly that order...


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

His Serenade For Strings. Still my most enjoyable version is Ormandy's with the Philadelphia Orchestra....Other particular faves: Symphony #6 with Mravinsky/Leningrad; Piano Concerto #1, performed by Cliburn/Kondrashin, Argerich/Dutoit and Istomin/Ormandy and the Violin Concerto played by Oistrakh/Ormandy, Stern/Ormandy and Grumiaux/Haitink.


----------



## Pugg

Jerome said:


> Symphony No. 5
> Symphony No. 6
> Romeo and Juliet
> Swan Lake
> Piano Concerto No. 1
> Violin Concerto
> Suite No. 4 "Mozartiana"
> Nutcracker
> Sleeping Beauty
> 1812 Overture
> 
> in that order... ok maybe not exactly that order...


Sits me fine also


----------



## Merl

Symphonies 2 & 5, Souvenir and Serenade.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Favourite Tchaikovsky? I would go for The Seasons, for the same reasons that I love Greig's Lyric Pieces or Chopin's Nocturnes.


----------



## helenora

Pat Fairlea said:


> Favourite Tchaikovsky? I would go for The Seasons, for the same reasons that I love Greig's Lyric Pieces or Chopin's Nocturnes.


yes, and "Rococo variations" for me too, altogether with ballets , symphony 6, violin concerto ,¨"Romeo and Juliet" and "Dumka" are among favorites


----------



## Ethereality

My favorite Tchaikovsky piece has always been movement 2 of his 5th.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

No change---still the Serenade For Strings.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Ethereality said:


> My favorite Tchaikovsky piece has always been movement 2 of his 5th.


The horn melody is unforgettable.


----------



## Rogerx

Tchaikovsky: Fantasy-Overture 'Romeo and Juliet' (Proms 2013)

Canadian Yannick Nézet-Séguin, conducting.

Stunning piece.


----------



## Merl

Currently the 4th symphony. Markevitch.


----------



## Ras

A tie between the 4th symphony and the 1st piano concerto.


----------



## Blancrocher

Probably Romeo and Juliet


----------



## Enthusiast

The last two symphonies. But there is quite a lot of Tchaikovsky I like a lot. And quite a lot that I am not that in love with.


----------



## mbhaub

The Sleeping Beauty. Tchaikovsky at his absolute best.


----------



## Sloe

The sixth symphony.


----------



## Heck148

Nutcracker....Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty are right up there, too....Sym #3....


----------



## MusicSybarite

Swan Lake, Piano Trio, 5th Symphony, Souvenir de Florence, Francesca da Rimini, 2nd String Quartet, The Voyevode, 3rd Orchestral Suite. Pick any of them. I've have yet to hear the operas, though.


----------



## gellio

*Little Russian* - it was the first piece of music I truly fell in love with.


----------



## mbhaub

gellio said:


> *Little Russian* - it was the first piece of music I truly fell in love with.


And an underappreciated, underplayed symphony it is, too! One of the most fun pieces to play. You must here Solti do it!


----------



## Heck148

gellio said:


> *Little Russian* - it was the first piece of music I truly fell in love with.


really excellent symphony!! great fun to play, and to hear...#3 is really excellent, too.


----------



## Strange Magic

A four-way tie among the violin concerto, the first piano concerto, the 4th symphony, and the _Nutcracker_ suite.


----------

