Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 2 Program Notes
About This Concert:Our star principal cellist, Anthony Ross, steps into the Tchaikovsky Marathon spotlight to spin one gorgeous melody after another in the Rococo Variations, in between performances of two Tchaikovsky symphonies in one night. Minnesota Orchestra., conductor., celloTCHAIKOVSKYFun Facts:. The inspiration for Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. About This Concert:Our star principal cellist, Anthony Ross, steps into the Tchaikovsky Marathon spotlight to spin one gorgeous melody after another in the Rococo Variations, in between performances of two Tchaikovsky symphonies in one night. Minnesota Orchestra., conductor., celloTCHAIKOVSKYFun Facts:.
The inspiration for Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No.
. sostenuto— vivo.A solo horn playing a Ukrainian variant of 'Down by Mother Volga' sets the atmosphere for this movement. Tchaikovsky reintroduces this song in the, and the horn sings it once more at the movement's conclusion. The rather vigorous second subject utilises a melody which would also be used subsequently by in his. The end of the exposition, in the relative, leads straight into the development, in which material from both themes is heard. A long pedal note leads back to the second subject. Tchaikovsky does not repeat the first subject theme in its entirety in this section, as is conventional, but instead uses it solely for the coda.
marziale, quasi moderato.This movement was originally a bridal march Tchaikovsky wrote for his unpublished opera. He quotes the folk song 'Spin, O My Spinner' in the central section. Molto vivace.Fleet and scampering, this movement does not quote an actual folk song but sounds folk song-like in its overall character. It takes the form of a scherzo and trio with a coda. Finale. Moderato assai— vivo.After a brief but expansive fanfare, Tchaikovsky quotes the folk song 'The Crane', subjecting it to an increasingly intricate and colorful variations for orchestra. A more lyrical theme in from the strings provides contrast.
During the development both first and second themes are used. After the recapitulation, the symphony finishes with a colorful and lively coda.Instrumentation The symphony is scored for, two, two, two, two, four, two, three, (last movement only), and.Overview Tchaikovsky may not be a composer in the manner of the Russian composers known as ' or 'The Mighty Handful', but he retained a love for Russian folk song and his entire life.
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-8335643-1459605773-2416.jpeg.jpg "Tchaikovsky")
His liturgical music includes a setting of the and an which draw upon traditional chant. His affinity for folk song led him in 1868–69 to publish Fifty Russian Folksongs arranged for piano duet. All but one he transcribed himself came from the collections of Villebois. Composition Tchaikovsky wrote much of the Little Russian Symphony during his summer holiday at (Kamenka) in with his sister Aleksandra's family, the Davydovs. The Davydov estate had become the composer's favorite refuge.
Alexandra had, in fact, encouraged the composer to make Kamenka his second home. His affection for the estate bore fruit in his using local songs in the symphony he was writing. He even once wrote, in jest, that true credit for the Little Russian's finale should have gone 'to the real composer of the said work—Peter Gerasimovich.' Gerasimovich, the elderly butler in the Davydov household, sang the folk-song 'The Crane' to Tchaikovsky while the composer was working on the symphony.One of Tchaikovsky's favorite anecdotes resulted from his nearly losing the sketches for the Little Russian on the way back to Moscow. To persuade a recalcitrant postmaster to hitch the horses to the coach in which he and his brother Modest had been travelling, Tchaikovsky presented himself as 'Prince Volkonsky, gentleman of the Emperor's bedchamber.' When they reached their evening stop, he noticed his luggage missing—including his work on the symphony.
Fearing the postmaster had opened the luggage and learned his identity, he sent someone to fetch it. The intermediary returned empty-handed. The postmaster would only release the luggage to the prince himself.Steeling himself, Tchaikovsky returned. His luggage had not been opened, much to his relief.
He made small talk for some time with the postmaster and eventually asked the postmaster's name. 'Tchaikovsky', the postmaster replied. Stunned, the composer thought this was perhaps a sharp-witted revenge.
Eventually he learned 'Tchaikovsky' was really the postmaster's name. After learning this fact, he delighted in recounting the story. Influence of Kamarinskaya Tchaikovsky had used folk songs in his early days in Saint Petersburg and in his student overture The Storm. Now he wanted to use folk songs as valid symphonic material. Tchaikovsky's greatest debt in this regard was to 's Kamarinskaya. He believed fervently that in lay the core of the entire school of Russian symphonic music, 'just as the whole oak is in the acorn', as he wrote in his diary in 1888. Glinka's Kamarinskaya helped Tchaikovsky in writing the Little Russian.Kamarinskaya is based on two melodies.
Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 2 Program Notes Download
The first is a bridal song, 'Izza gor' (From beyond the mountains). The second, the title song of the piece, is a naigrish, an instrumental dance to an melody repeated for as long as the dancers can keep up with it. Glinka uses the principle from folk song of allowing the musical structure to unfold around a thematic constant—or actually two constants, since he uses two folk songs. He varies the background material surrounding these songs more than the songs themselves—,. This way, Glinka preserves the original character of the dance, complementing it with creative variations in the orchestral treatment.Ideally, the themes in a Western piece interact, contrast and change. This activity fuels the composition's growth as an organic creation. Tension continues building as this thematic dialogue becomes increasingly complex.
This dialogue or interchange eventually propels the piece to a climactic point of resolution. Kamarinskaya does not follow this pattern. The ostinato melody of the second song will not allow any development without distorting the character of the piece.
The music repeats itself constantly, albeit with changing backgrounds. Because of this lack of thematic growth, the music remains static, not moving forward. Nor was this a unique problem with Kamarinskaya. Russian music, especially Russian folk music, stubbornly refused to follow the Western principles Tchaikovsky had learned in St. This may have been one reason his teacher did not consider folk songs to be viable musical material for anything other than local color.For Tchaikovsky, Kamarinskaya offered a viable example of the creative possibilities of folk songs in a symphonic structure, using a variety of harmonic and contrapuntal combinations. It also offered a blueprint on how such a structure could be made to work, barring the potential for inertia or over-repetition. Because of his compositional training, Tchaikovsky could build the finale of the Little Russian more solidly and over a greater time scale than either Glinka or Mussorgsky could have done.
Without Kamarinskaya, however, Tchaikovsky knew he did not have had a foundation upon which to build that finale. Initial success Tchaikovsky played the finale at a gathering at 's house in on January 7, 1873. To his brother Modest, he wrote, 'The whole company almost tore me to pieces with rapture—and begged me in tears to let her arrange it for piano duet'. Neither Balakirev nor was present. Was there and may have approved of the work himself. Also present was music critic.
Impressed by what he heard, Stasov asked Tchaikovsky what he would consider writing next. Stasov would soon influence the composer in writing the symphonic poem and later, with Balakirev, the.The premiere of the complete symphony took place in under on February 7, 1873.
Tchaikovsky wrote Stasov the next day that it 'enjoyed a great success, so great that Rubinstein wants to perform it again. As by public demand. ' That publicly demanded performance, on April 9, was even more successful. A third Moscow performance, again by public demand, took place on May 27. Critical reaction was just as enthusiastic. Stasov wrote of the finale 'in terms of color, facture and humor. One of the most important creations of the entire Russian school.
' Hermann Laroche, who had travelled from St. Petersburg especially for the concert, wrote in the Moscow Register on February 1, 'Not in a long time have I come across a work with such a powerful thematic development of ideas and with contrasts that are so well motivated and artistically thought out.
'Meanwhile, conducted the St. Petersburg premiere on March 7. Despite a negative review by, the audience in Saint Petersburg received the piece positively enough to guarantee it a second performance the following season.Revision One person not happy with the Little Russian was its composer. In the same letter describing the 1873 premiere, Tchaikovsky wrote to Stasov, 'To tell you the truth, I'm not completely satisfied with the first three movements, but 'The Crane' 'Zhuravel' itself the finale which employs this Russian folk tune hasn't come out so badly.' Despite this, Tchaikovsky persuaded the publisher Bessel to publish the score. Bessel released a piano duet arrangement (prepared by Tchaikovsky after Rimskaya-Korsakova had to withdraw due to illness) but was late to produce a full score.In 1879, Tchaikovsky asked for the return of the manuscript score.
Upon its arrival, he started revising it. On January 2, 1880, he sent Bessel a progress report: '1. I have composed the first movement afresh, leaving only the introduction and coda in their previous form. I have rescored the second movement.
I've altered the third movement, shortening and rescoring it. I've shortened the finale and rescored it. ' He claimed he had completed this work in three days. By January 16, he wrote, 'This movement the first has come out compressed, short, and is not difficult. If the epithet 'impossible' applies to anything, it is this first movement in its original form.
How difficult, noisy, disjointed and muddle-headed this is!' The premiere of the revised version was played at Saint Petersburg on February 12, 1881, under the direction of Karl Zike.Versions. Holden, Anthony, Tchaikovsky: A Biography (New York: Random House, 1995), 87. ^ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 259-260. ^ Warrack, TS&C, 17. Poznansky, Alexander, Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man (New York, Schirmer Books, 1991), 155.
Warrack, John, Tchaikovsky (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), 69. Zhitomirsky, Daniel, ed.
Tchaikovsky Symphony No 5
Shostakovich, Dmitry, Russian Symphony: Thoughts About Tchaikovsky (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947), 94, footnote 4. ^ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 254. Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 265, 267. ^ Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Final Years, 423-424. ^ Maes, 28. Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Yaars, 269.
Tchaikovsky Symphony #6
Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 267. Brown, David, Tchaikovsky: The Early Years, 1840-1874 (New York, W.W.