 |
|
 |
|
|
Notes on the restoration: This rare and unusual recording came to me via an open reel tape transfer, which I understand to be that of a long-forgotten 1970's LP issue. The sound was particularly murky and scratchy, and I was unsure what I might be able to do with it. I am pleased to report that my initial fears were unfounded, and beneath the murk lay a glorious recording, albeit in an exceptionally dry acoustic - something which the careful addition of a very small amount of carefully-calibrated mono digital reverberation has gone some way towards alleviating.
Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 2 in C minor notes from Wikipedia
The Symphony No. 2 in C minor, Op. 17, of Tchaikovsky, known as the Little Russian, was composed in 1872. One of Tchaikovsky's very joyous compositions, it was successful upon its premiere and won the favor of "The Five," led by Mili Balakirev. Nevertheless, Tchaikovsky revised this work heavily eight years later, almost totally rewriting the first movement and making many changes in the other three. Tchaikovsky used three Ukranian folk songs to great effect in this work. Because of this and his thoroughness in structuring the work in a manner that met with The Five's approval, it won the nickname of "Little Russian" from Nikolay Kashkin, a well-known Tchaikovsky musical critic of Moscow.[1] Tchaikovsky wrote the symphony between June and November 1872, much of it during his summer holiday visiting his sister, Aleksandra Davidova, at Kamianka in Ukraine. Hastening back to Moscow in August, he continued working furiously on the piece, even with teaching duties at the Moscow Conservatoire and extra duties as a music critic. Apologizing for not responding quickly to his brother Modest's posts, Tchaikovsky explained, "[The symphony] has so absorbed me that I'm not in a state to undertake anything else. This work of genius (as Kondratyev calls my symphony) is close to completion ... I think it's my best composition as regards perfection of form—a quality for which I have not been conspicuous." [2]. Two weeks later, Tchaikovsky rushed to finish the symphony, which he completed a week later. As for Tchaikovsky's use of folk songs as melodic material for the symphony, Tchaikovsky biographer John Warrack notes this is not at all surprising. Another biographer, Alexander Poznansky, writes that the Davydov estate was already the composer's favorite vacation refuge[3]. Warrack adds that "the warmth which Tchaikovsky felt for Kamenka and the second home which his sister had encouraged him to make there ... found expression in his use of local songs for the symphony." [4]. Tchaikovsky once wrote, in jest, that true credit for the success of the Little Russian's finale should have gone not to him but "to the real composer of the said work—Peter Gerasimovich." Gerasimovich, the elderly butler in the Davidov household, sang the folk-song "The Crane" to Tchaikovsky while the composer was working on the symphony[5]." One of Tchaikovsky's favorite anecdotes resulted from his nearly losing the sketches for the Little Russian. To persuade a recalcitrant postmaster to hitch the horses to the coach in which he and his brother Modest had been travelling, Tchaikovsky had presented himself as "Prince Volkonsky, gentleman of the Emperor's bedchamber." [6]. When he and Modest reached their destination for the evening, Tchaikovsky noticed that his luggage was missing—including his work on the symphony. Tchaikovsky feared the postmaster had opened the luggage and learned his identity. He sent an intermediary to fetch the luggage. The intermediary returned, saying the postmaster would not release the luggage of as eminent a personage as "Prince Volkonsky" except to the prince himself. Steeling himself, Tchaikovsky returned. His luggage had not been opened, much to his relief. After talking affably some time with the postmaster, the composer asked the postmaster his name. "Tchaikovsky," the postmaster replied. Tchaikovsky was stunned and thought perhaps this answer was a sharp-witted form of revenge on the postmaster's part. Eventually the composer found out "Tchaikovsky" was really the postmaster's name. After learning this fact, he delighted in recounting this story. PremiereTchaikovsky played the finale of the symphony at a January 7, 1873 gathering at fellow-composer Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's house in St. Petersburg. To Modest, he wrote, "[T]he whole company almost tore me to pieces with rapture—and Madame Rimskaya-Korsakova begged me in tears to let her arrange it for piano duet"[7].
Tchaikovsky biographer David Brown presumes that neither Balakirev nor fellow Five member Modest Mussorgsky was present at this gathering[8]. However, along with the Rimsky-Korsakovs, another member of The Five, Alexander Borodin, attended; Brown suggests he might have approved of Tchaikovsky's work[9]. Another person present, who would soon become influential in the composer's life, was music critic Vladimir Stasov. 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 The Tempest and later, with Balakirev, the Manfred Symphony[10]. The premiere of the complete symphony in its original 1872 version took place in Moscow on February 7, 1873, under the direction of Nikolai Rubinstein. The following day, Tchaikovsky wrote to Stasov, "[It] enjoyed a great success, so great that Rubinstein wants to perform it again ... as by public demand[11]." A second 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 enthuastic. Stasov wrote of the finale "in terms of color, facture and humor ... one of the most important creations of the entire Russian school[12]." Hermann Laroche, who had travelled from St. Petersburg to hear 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[13]." Meanwhile, conductor Eduard Nápravník made the St. Petersburg premiere on March 7. Despite a negative review by composer and critic Cesar Cui, the audience in Saint Petersburg received the piece positively enough to guarantee it a second performance the following season. RevisionIn 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[14]." 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). Bessel was late to produce a full score. Also, Tchaikovsky's musical ideals changed during the 1870s. He became attracted to the qualities of lightness and grace he found in 18th century classical music, ex. Variations on a Rococo Theme. Tchaikovsky's attraction to French music was strengthened by his exposure to Leo Delibes' Sylvia and Georges Bizet's Carmen. Against these values, the massive scale, intricate structure, and textural complexity of the Little Russian's first movement may have become distasteful[15]. In 1879, Tchaikovsky asked for the return of the manuscript score. Once it had arrived, he set about revising the piece. On January 2, 1880, he wrote to Bessel that "1. I have composed the first movement afresh, leaving only the introduction and coda in their previous form. 2. I have rescored the second movement. 3. I've altered the third movement, shortening and rescoring it. 4. I've shortened the finale and rescored it[16]." Supposedly, he completed his work in a staggering three days. Tchaikovsky's revision, especially in recomposing the opening movement, was to clarify structure and texture[17]. By January 16, Tchaikovsky summed up his labors and wrote to his friend and former student Sergey Taneyev, "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. My God! How difficult, noisy, disjointed and muddle-headed this is[18]!" The premiere of the revised version was played at St. Petersberg on February 12, 1881, under the direction of Karl Zike. Influence of Glinka and The FiveWhat endeared the Little Russian to The Five (or kuchka, as the group was also called) was not that Tchaikovsky used Russian folk songs but, especially in the outer movements, how he allowed the unique characteristics of Russian folk song to dictate symphonic form. This was one of the goals toward which the kucha strived. Tchaikovsky, with his Conservatory grounding, could sustain such development longer and more cohesively, but writing in this vein also had its pitfalls. Tchaikovsky biographer John Warrack writes, "The extra problem [folk song] brings into his style lies with the inclination of folk song itself, using similar intervals and phrases with an almost ritual insistence, creating a static effect rather than one geared to movement and purpose. The melody tends, in fact, to become something near a set of variations on itself, to proceed by modulation rather than by development and contrast; and this clearly makes it recalcitrant to symphonic development.
In 1872, Tchaikovsky did not see this as a problem since, as Brown points out, "the inescapable lack of structural advancement within multiple repetitions presented no real problem to him, since in all his most important symphonic movements to date his practice had been to close the first subject exactly where it had begun[19]." Compared to the 1879 rewrite, the 1872 version of the first movement is monolithic—massive in scale, intricate in structure and complex texturally. The weightiness of the 1872 opening movement contrasted well with the compartively lightweight second movement and it balanced the finale well. The symphony's most arresting movement is the scherzo. The source for that movement's special character mmay lie in Tchaikovsky's closer association with The Five. In 1869 Borodin's First Symphony received its permiere. Tchaikovsky's new acquaintance with the group, and their enthusiasm for his famtasy-overture Romeo and Juliet would probably in turn have drawn his attention to their works. In 1872 the relationship seemed to be thriving, so the question becomes whether the Little Russian's scherzo would have turned out the same had Borodin's First Symphony not existed. Especially striking in both scherzos is a harmonic boldness and a quietly elemental rhythmic pulse. Both contain the energy that which the scherzo of Tchaikovsky's First Sympnony sorely lacked. However, the finale is the true tour de force of this work. Here is where Tchaikovsky shows his allegiance to the Glinka tradition, embraced by the Five, is most complete. Tchaikovsky introcuces the folk song "The Crane" in a grandiose introdiction similr to how Mussorgsky woiuld write "The Great Gate of Kiev" for Pictures at an Exhibition two years later. Then, in launching the Allegro vivo, he declares his true and michevious intent. He allows "The Crane" to virtually monopolize the next two minutes, set against a succession of varying backdrops. Such a spacious development leaves no time for a transition to a calmer second theme; Tchaikovsky lets it arrive unannounced. While the movement so far has been dazzling, what follows makes it pale in brilliance. Tchaikivsky introduces the development by a series of widely striding notes, like some giant walking through. Against these striding notes, the two themes re-enter and go on a strange journey, the second subject sometimes twisted in mid-statement and even made to take on the biosterous personality of "The Crane," building to a huge climax. In the 1872 version, the climax led to "The Crane" with an even more dizzying set of changing backgrounds. Tchaikovsky cut out this part, some 150 bars, in his 1879 revision, so the climax would lead to a quieter interlude led by the second subject. For more information please see Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky: Russian versus Western and The Five: Musical language. InstrumentationThe symphony is scored for piccolo, two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, four horns, two trumpets, three trombones, tuba, timpani, cymbals, bass drum, tam-tam (last movement only), and strings. Form
The 1880 revised version is usually the one performed and recorded today, but its true effectiveness has been questioned. At only 35 minutes running time (somewhat shorter than many symphonies of the period), it is also approximately five minutes shorter than its predecessor. Tchaikovsky stood by his revisions, informing conductor Eduard Nápravník the 1880 version of the symphony was the only one to be performed. Nevertheless, eight years after Tchaikovsky's death, compared the versions. He declared the 1872 original the finer of the two. Kashkin's opinion was the same. Taneyev's opinion especially could carry considerable weight professionally. As Brown notes, in the 19 years between the première of the original Little Russian and his appraisal of both versions, Taneyev "had developed into one of the finest craftsmen among all Russian composers, as well as one of the best teachers of composition that Russia has ever known[20]." More recently, Brown discusses both versions in detail, advocating the 1872 original[21]. Brown writes, "To be fair to the second version, it is certainly attractive, and structurally as clear as anything that Tchaikovsky could wish for. There is an undeniable heaviness in the original, but its imposing scale, and its richness of content and detail make it a far more impressive piece that ought to be restored to the place, which is still permanently usurped by its slighter and far less enterprising successor[22]. Taneyev felt strongly enough about the matter that he wrote to the composer's brother Modest, "It seems to me that in some future concert you ought to let people hear the real Second Symphony, in its original form ... When I see you I will play both versions and you will probably agree with me about the superiority of the first[23]." Bibliography
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
