•
Rating:
Many are familiar with the great ballets, the Overture 1812, Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony, all compositions widely disseminated and programmed in concert halls and opera houses, but significantly less known are the four symphonies that precede the "Pathétique" and the 5th, and this, I tell you sincerely, is an undeserved shame! Certainly, the use and overuse of the most famous pieces make them more suitable for reception by the "great" public, which I write in quotes as I am not talking about the delirious masses at pop or rock music concerts, but of those who appreciate Classical music, who still represent a minority elite of music lovers, and this clearly works to the disadvantage of works considered lesser or of secondary importance, like this first symphony of our Russian hero.
Yet, at its first complete performance (previously only a couple of movements had been performed) on November 15, 1868, by the great conductor Nicholas Rubinstein, the composer's close friend, at the Russian Musical Society, a decidedly demanding symposium; it achieved a success described at the time as "tremendous," in fact, the audience applauded for about ten minutes, loudly demanding the appearance of the composer who finally, and with considerable embarrassment, presented himself to the public, nervously handling the hat he had in his hand. The most curious thing was that the version performed was the first conceived by the author's genius, who cut the additions and substitutions "advised" in the meantime by Anton Rubinstein and Nikolai Zaremba, both teachers of the young Peter and certainly references for the Russian musical aristocracy, so practically it was all his own creation, purified of embellishments added to please the potential audience.
Nevertheless, the first symphony did not enjoy great popularity even in Tchaikovsky's time and was only repeated 16 years after the "premiere".......To try to understand or better to interpret the reason, it is best to delve into the details of the symphonic work, classically composed of 4 movements: the first (Allegro Tranquillo) named "Daydreams on a Wintry Road" is supported by a decidedly catchy and insistent motif that could very well recall a Russian folk tune and the early compositions of Borodin, although in glimpses one can already appreciate the touch of the more mature Tchaikovsky. The second movement (Adagio cantabile, ma non tanto) fairly reflects the composer’s intention to describe: "A dark land immersed in mist," a circumstance emphasized by the frequent heavy passages of the strings, although here and there folk echoes still resurface, the quite calm and serene finale gives way to the Scherzo, decidedly more lively and enlivened by the continuous repetition of the same melodic figure, which may seem almost "amateurish," but which on the contrary has a commendable sound effect and is followed, closing the third movement, by the first of a series of waltzes, which later made the maestro famous already in the second half of the nineteenth century.
The finale is opened by an "Andante Lugubre," in the true sense of the word, but which, however, quickly gives way to a somewhat repetitive and decidedly "booming" coda, especially in the finale, thus proving to be, in my very humble opinion, the least successful part of the work; unlike the first which, conversely, captivated me from the first or second listening. But we return to the crucial question: why did the 1st symphony please so much at the debut, while shortly after and to this day, almost no one has cared about it anymore? My thesis is that upon first listen, it’s "not bad at all," especially the first two movements, so full of themes certainly dear to the cultured Russian audience of the time, then upon re-listening, the "limitations" of the symphony become apparent, I would never dare to write flaws, namely an excessive repetitiveness and pomposity of the winds, furthermore and being able to choose clearly if one absolutely has to put on the record or represent a Tchaikovsky symphony, one ends up opting for the 5th or the 6th, certainly more mature and evolved.
As for the interpretation, I relied on one considered a reference both as execution, but especially as timbre and superb sound quality, even considering the year of production (1969), that of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Lorin Maazel, recently deceased, which is part of the complete symphonic works of the Russian composer edited by Decca in 5 vinyls that have the only unavoidable flaw of breaking the listening.
My judgment is certainly strict, but unfortunately, having to round off a 3.5, I chose to round down, leaving the highest score to the masterpieces, not few, of the Russian musician and the one just below to the numerous qualitatively better works than this, which however I suggest not to underestimate and overlook, especially to those who want to have a more complete idea of Tchaikovsky and which certainly will not disappoint them at all, indeed at the first impact it will represent a "pleasant surprise."
Loading comments slowly
