•
Rating:
I continue to listen to the "minor" symphonies of the great Russian composer with his third effort, conceived simultaneously with the first of his great ballets: "Swan Lake" and a year after the first performance of the "Piano Concerto No.1" which, as many know, represents one of the pinnacles of musical Art of all time. It's 1875 and thus Tchaikovsky can be considered an established composer, not only on a national level but also in Europe; still dissatisfied with his work in the symphonic field, he decided to try his hand again at this genre, which is worth remembering was clearly dominated by the German musical sphere at the time, as much or perhaps even more than opera was by the Italian one.
The Russian composers, truthfully, with a large and formidable group had attempted to break the hegemony, but overall they had succeeded only in a few remarkable episodes primarily centered on domestic folk music. Even in this Tchaikovsky tries to push beyond with his determination to surpass the great Germans, something he did not succeed in doing even with this third installment of his commendable effort, the reason in my very humble opinion is because with the first two symphonies he remained too tied to the Russian symphonic tradition and was therefore certainly rewarded with public ovations, while in the third symphony he leans too heavily on German canons and ends up offering us nothing or almost nothing interesting or innovative. Certainly, it is not entirely negative, in fact, there are ideas 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 rightly decided to structure the symphony in 5 movements instead of the classic 4.
This "regression" into the German way of doing things, among other things, also cost him some of the 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 come to him as it did on the two previous occasions and even in St. Petersburg, the imperial seat and a decidedly more nationalistic stage witnessed some boos........In short, at the end of the day, the composer, compared to his intentions, had taken 2 steps forward with the Concerto and the "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 strings and winds that quietly describes the scene, which then opens a little confusedly into the Schumann-like Allegro with fine embellishments, however, such as to make one lose the musical thread of the movement 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 Beethovenian closure. It definitely gets better moving on to the short second movement which begins with a fine pizzicato surrounding the sweet theme described by the winds, which immediately develops into a dance, German just to stay "fashionable"! Certainly, Tchaikovsky himself understood, as did the critics, how this was the most successful 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 horn description that then gives way to the Andante Elegiaco, in the true sense of the term, essentially a "Scherzo" filled with orchestral stabs skillfully inserted by Tchaikovsky before resuming the unmistakable horn theme: in short, for this writer, the most successful part of the symphony along with the excellent introduction to the fourth movement, another "Scherzo" very lively and moved by brass intermezzos that recall the composer's best themes, the "dialogue between winds and strings continues in a harmonious manner with charming phrasings now of one, now of the other. In short, a truly exquisite and very 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 off great, authoritatively then drags on, it's really the case to write it, and ends, or rather it never really ends, so much so that it bores a little not only this writer but also Tchaikovsky's (somewhat) contemporary critics. My modest impression is that the author, in his desire to close "with a bang", definitely got carried away, thus ending up "spoiling" a bit the entire work which in addition to this also suffers a bit of discontinuity between the 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 even though, to the decimals, I must point out that there is yet a further small step forward, so much so that it can be rounded up excessively.
Loading comments slowly
