I continue listening to the "lesser" symphonies of the great Russian composer with his third endeavor, conceived simultaneously with the first of his great ballets: "Swan Lake" and the year after the first performance of the "Piano Concerto No.1" which, as many know, represents one of the pinnacles of Music Art of all time. We are in 1875, and thus Tchaikovsky can be considered an established composer, not only nationally but also in Europe; still dissatisfied with his work in the symphonic field, he decides to tackle this genre again, which is worth recalling was predominantly the domain of the German musical sphere at the time, as much or perhaps more than opera was for the Italian one.

The Russian composers, in truth, with a large and formidable group, had tried to break the hegemony, but overall had succeeded only in some very notable episodes mainly centered around domestic folk music. Even in this, Tchaikovsky seeks to push further with his determination to surpass the great Germans, something he will not achieve even with this third installment of his commendable effort. The reason, in my most humble opinion, is because with the first two symphonies he remained too tied to Russian symphonic tradition and in this, he was certainly rewarded by public ovations, whereas in the third symphony he leans too much on German canons and ends up offering us almost nothing interesting or innovative. Certainly, it is not entirely negative; indeed, there are hints, especially in the third and perhaps even more in the fourth movement, of originality that I like much more than the other three; yes, because in this anxiety to vary the German canons, Peter wisely decides to structure the symphony in 5 movements instead of the classic 4.

This "fall back" into the German way of doing things, among other things, also costs him some domestic sympathy; in fact, at the first performance, again in Moscow in 1875 and again conducted by his friend Nicholas Rubinstein, the success did not favor him as on the previous two occasions and even in St. Petersburg, the imperial seat and decidedly more nationalist stage, there were even some boos... In short, at the end of the day, the composer, compared to his plans, had taken two steps forward with the Concerto and "Swan Lake" and one step back with the 3rd symphony.

Going into detail, the first movement is characterized by a strong contrast between the opening: a very interesting Funeral March with the right balance between string and wind instruments that quietly describe the scene which then opens somewhat confusingly towards the Allegro in the manner of Schumann with fine embellishments, still such as to make the musical thread of the movement lost without understanding where the author wants to go, who in the finale indeed returns to the theme of the march, now rather triumphant with a Beethoven-like closure. It goes much better moving to the short second movement that begins with a fine pizzicato accompaniment to the sweet theme described by the winds that almost immediately take on the development of a dance, German to remain "in fashion"! Certainly, Tchaikovsky himself understood, along with critics, that this was the best-executed part of the symphony, so much so that he reworked it to include it, about fifteen years later, in his mature work "Hamlet."

The opening of the third movement is very beautiful and Tchaikovsky-like, a little "pathetic" with that insistent description of the horn which then gives way to the Andante Elegiaco, in the true sense of the term, essentially a "Scherzo" filled with orchestral hits cleverly inserted by Tchaikovsky before resuming the unmistakable horn theme: in short, for the writer, the best-executed part of the symphony along with the excellent introduction of the fourth movement, another very lively and animated "Scherzo" with brass interludes recalling the best themes of the Russian composer; the "dialogue between wind and string instruments then continues harmonically with amusing phrases now from one, now from the other. In short, a really fine and enjoyable central part that unfortunately leaves space for the finale........

The fifth movement is an "Allegro con Fuoco" or, if you prefer, a "Polonaise" which, although starting with a bang, authoritatively, then drags on, it is precisely the case to write it, and ends or rather never ends, so much so that it bores a little not only the writer but also Tchaikovsky's (rather) contemporary critics. My humble impression is that the author, in his anxiety to end "magnificently," let himself be taken completely over, thus ending up "ruining" the entire work a little, which besides that also suffers a bit from discontinuity between parts.

I conclude by reiterating the source of my listening in the complete symphonic works of Maazel conducting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, which acoustically is truly remarkable, despite its longevity. The judgment does not differ much from the previous symphonies, although, to the decimals, I must point out that there is an additional small step forward, sufficient to round up.

Loading comments  slowly