Customer Reviews

"Tchaikovsky: Symphonies Nos. 4, 5 & 6 ""Pathétique"""

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Shaw once said loftily that Tchaikovsky has a thoroughly Byronic ability to be intensely tragic about nothing much. Without going quite so far, I'd certainly agree that a certain sepulchral tone and a propensity to whip up frantic emotion come to him easily. I don't think I ever heard the start of the 5th symphony expressed with quite such cavernous gloom as it is on this set nor the frenzy more frenzied, and that is exactly how I like it all done.

This set dates from 1960, the height of the cold war, and at that time Mravinsky had been very little heard in what we used to call `the west'. It was a period when western critics were inclined to favour a smoothed-over play-safe school of interpretation of the musical classics. This had something to be said for it as a reaction against the libertarian excesses of some previous schools, but it descended into a facile mediocrity based to all intents and purposes on checklists and box-ticking, reaching its nadir in the 70's and 80's when the main aesthetic preoccupation in many commentaries was the issue of how many repeats had been observed. Myself, I am thoroughly in favour of professionalism from professional musicians, but on the other hand I don't find checklists a very illuminating guide through the gardens of the muses. It also seemed to me that our ideas of how to play Tchaikovsky were probably too influenced by our ideas of the Viennese classics, and the advent of Mravinsky in London came none to soon.

It was enlightening to me to compare Mravinsky's account of the 4th symphony with a fine modern version from Abbado and the Vienna Philharmonic. On the checklist approach Abbado does very well indeed. I don't impugn the professionalism of the Leningrad orchestra in any way when I suggest that they are not quite the equal technically of the Vienna players, something I noticed particularly in the pizzicato effects in the third movement. However when it came to the question which interpretation had the greater individuality and sense for the composer's idiom, the answer was not long in coming. Put simply, Mravinsky's performance is an event, and Abbado's, by comparison, is not. This is not a matter of taking undue liberties with the tempo. The 4th symphony does not call for that, and Mravinsky deploys only a very normal ebb and flow. The tone-quality has more to do with it, and I find myself bewitched by the penetrating sound of the Leningrad woodwind and brass, but most of all it's a matter of the expression. A great interpretation of Tchaikovsky must put across a sense of neurosis without losing control. Quite apart from the tragedy, gloom and semi-hysteria there must be a tense and nervy feel to the gaiety, and the lyric sections should seem like balm on wounds, and these are the senses I get uniquely from Mravinsky.

When it comes to the 5th, the liner-note has some fairly superficial and noncommittal remarks about freedom of tempo and `authenticity'. The issue here seems to me to be that Tchaikovsky is trying to achieve something more distinct than before from the Viennese style. The tightly integrated structure of a first movement at which Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms were so adept was not his natural style, and he lacked their mastery in varying the lengths of musical phrases. His first movement is more a succession of short episodes, and without labouring the question of authenticity I'd say that the sense of the music demands a certain amount of flexilibity, although this composer does not micro-specify the details in the way Mahler does. As a comparison from a different standpoint I played my version from Celibadache. By contrast Mravinsky sounds the soul of `correctness', notably in the first movement where Celibadache starts the allegro at a funereal pace, getting much faster a little later. I don't recommend it as any model, but it has the feel of real Tchaikovsky to me, and I prefer it to any 10 spick-and-span western versions. So does Mravinsky, and I appreciate the comment in the liner that he shows some of the virtues of Toscanini and of Fuertwaengler combined.

With the 6th Tchaikovsky has finally got his formula right. Instead of a seamless Viennese first movement he writes great separate blocks of music, and Mravinsky plays the effect up with long pauses between them. In the finale he abandons `cyclic form', which doesn't amount to a form but is just a matter of bringing back themes from earlier movements in the finale. Brahms's 3rd shows how the thing can be done, but late romantic symphonists in general are not such musical aristocrats as Brahms. The device is something I learned to dread. Dvorak uses it, but not in his best works, it lets down even so great a composition as Franck's symphony, and in Tchaikovsky's 5th the matter is carried to such excess that it takes Mravinsky or Celibadache to make it tolerable to me. The 6th leaves all that behind, and I never heard a performance to equal this. I recall some comment many years ago to the effect that this 1960 stereo version is not the equal of his 1956 epoch-maker in mono, but I own both and I find little to choose.

This set, for me, is what Tchaikovsky is all about. The orchestral discipline is total, the sound is thrilling (compare Mravinsky at the start of any of these symphonies with anyone you like), this that and the next detail is better than in any other version, but it's the overall sense of communication of the personality of Russia's greatest composer that grips me. The question that the liner poses in its last paragraph is a false antithesis. The 6th shows Tchaikovsky at the height of his powers and is also a suicide note. Blackmail can never have had so eloquent an outcome.

I have to admit to not being one of Tchaikovsky's greatest fans. It is one of those deadspots in one's love of music that I've no doubt is my loss. A master melodist, certainly. But I find him too repetitious; all that interminable sequencing seems more of a nervous habit than a genuine means of musical expression; and, yes, he does wear his highly Romantic heart on a sleeve that seems a little threadbare on real musical content for a symphonist. So a recording has to go some to capture my attention, never mind my affection.

These recordings certainly go some. And then some more. You'd be hard-pushed to find performances of anything that maintain such a white-hot level of intensity throughout three fairly long symphonies.

When Mravinsky brought the Leningrad Philharmonic to the West in 1956, both conductor and orchestra were a pretty unknown quantity. It was the height of the Cold War and, while a reputation preceded them, no-one was quite sure what to expect. Mravinsky and his assistant, Kurt Sanderling, shared the conducting of these last three Tchaikovsky symphonies and recorded them in mono then. Many people prefer those recordings to these stereo remakes of 4 years later. Personally, I prefer the later versions. It's good sound for its period, if slightly edgy in a way that suits the Leningrad sound well. It's in stereo. And you get Mravinsky in all three symphonies.

He is a master of this Russian repertoire - making it sound and feel very Russian indeed. He is certainly not afraid of bending and shaping things to his individual view of the works. There is usually a fairly heavy foot on the brake before lyrical second subjects. There is an impetuosity about faster movements that often requires modifications of tempo later. Rubato is frequent, often indulgent, but never wilful - it's always used to clarify texture, to give a melody its full weight or to emphasise structure (where there is structure rather than just a succession of events!). The brass fanfares of the very opening of the Fourth Symphony will have you on the edge of your seat and you will likely stay there for the rest of the 2-disc set. The pizzicato Scherzo has real style and panache. And the Finale sets off at an absolutely electrifying zip - a zip which it maintains right through to the end. And so it goes on through all these symphonies. The Pathetique in particular comes across as a real symphony rather than a wallow in Russian morbidity. There is huge power in the march. And the Finale plumbs true depths. Make no mistake: these are very special performances.

Mravinsky had the reputation of being a dictator in front of an orchestra. Certainly the sound that he produced from his Leningraders was very distinctive. Compared to the homogeneity of sound that we get from today's international, jet-setting orchestras where they all sound like clones of each other, it is sad to see the passing of these `national' schools of orchestral timbre. The Leningrad Philharmonic in those days boasted strong, virile yet warm string playing, an edgy tone to the woodwind that is excellent for penetrating dense orchestra textures (perhaps their instruments weren't top-notch and the lack of top-quality reeds in the Soviet Union may have had something to do with it, too), a certain stridency in the trumpet section and that totally unique Slav sound in the horns - lots of vibrato, slightly wobbly eve, but based, they said, on the human voice. They all play like demons for their long-term conductor. These are thrilling, moving, cogent, committed ensemble performances, all three. And, while I don't yet count myself a complete convert to the Tchaikovsky cause, I'm certainly ready to proselytise on behalf of such exceptional music-making.

I think this is the best and most exciting interpretation and performance of Tchaik 4 that I've ever heard (from the start of mvt 1 - to the crashing finale). This CD is worth it alone for the playing that Mravinsky and the Leningrad Phil do on Tchaik 4.

The other symphonies are quite good, but i feel there are better recordings out there (Gergiev Tchaik 6 is unbeatable).

What makes the 4th here so wonderful? Well, it's quite simply the ferver, commitment, and drive that these players muster up to push this wonderful symphony throughout.

It is extreme - the musicians are pushing themselves to the limits - which I feel is what Tchaikovsky is about. The playing on this disc is full of passion, which I would take over anything else in music. Passion.

A wonderful performance all around, you won't be dissapointed by symphonies 5 and 6 in the slightest, but I don't feel they are the best versions.

This CD is a MUST HAVE for all Tchaik fans.

These are the most famous recordings of Tchaikovsky's last 3 symphonies, and that is its own recommendation. Another reviewer did a good job of explaining the historical/political significance of these recordings, and like other classic recordings (such as Dvorák: Cello Concerto; Tchaikovsky / Karajan, Rostropovich, or Dvorák: Symphonies 8 & 9 / Kubelik, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra) that plays an important part in recommending these recordings to listeners. As a person too young to have experienced the height of the Cold War, it is an educational experience to imagine hearing such recordings on vinyl back in the '60s.

But if the music, the performance, the recording, and the subsequent engineering weren't all top-notch, these recordings (like the others I parenthetically cited) would have faded into history. Instead they remain, because everything comes together very well. Of course there is a little fuzz (really, only a tiny bit - most listeners won't notice unless they look for it) that you can hear at the quieter moments of the music, and the individual lines of the music aren't picked up as well as might happen in a more recent recording - but you will have to listen very, very carefully to notice that kind of thing. (s many people will attest, when the engineers try to remove all the noise, they cannot help diminishing the quality of the sound as well. So live with a little noise and enjoy the richness of the music!

And if you listen that carefully, you'll find yourself very, very much enjoying this music.

I've listened to these recordings many times now, and several times recently. Each time I listen, I appreciate the symphonies more. A promise: these recordings will do that for anyone but the most seasoned listener of Tchaikovsky - who would have certainly heard these recordings many times. (I confess it took a few hearings for me to come around to approving of the main theme of the first movement of the fifth - I know one is not supposed to admit this kind of thing, but there it is!)

If you're only going to have one recording of these symphonies, this should be the one. But if you're interested in comparing (with classical music, I find that can sometimes be a very illuminating activity, if unfortunately costly), the main other recordings to consider are:

Tchaikovsky: Symphonies no 4, 5, & 6 / Karajan, Berlin PO

Tchaikovsky: Symphonies Nos. 4, 5 & 6; 1812 Overture; Romeo & Juliet; Francesca da Rimini

Tchaikovsky: Symphonies 4, 5 & 6

Tchaikovsky: Symphonies 4,5 & 6

The latter two in particular are recommended by people I trust. (I am not ready to draw my own conclusion yet.)

These performances are justly famous for the fervor of the playing and conducting. They are riveting on a certain level. They are considered to be examples of an authentically Russian style of Tchaikovsky interpretation. But what I hear is the aural equivalent of 1960's Soviet militarism. True, a nearly hysterical dynamism can be considered an element of Tchaikovsky's music. But he was also criticized by Russian critics for being too "European" and effete. The lyrical and dance-oriented elements of these symphonies are totally neglected in these performances. The beautiful melodies and waltzes go for nothing here. An agressive and propulsive approach dominates. Yet these performances are landmarks in the stylistic history of Tchaikovsky performance and should be heard.

But for more musically sophisticated and yet dramatic performances of these symphonies, I recommend Monteux, Haitink, Rostropovich and strangely enough, Klemperer.

My favorite Tchaikovsky symphony cycle was done by Karajan and the BPO in the mid to late 70s. I have symphonies 1 to 3 on vinyl LPs and the last 3 on CD. Karajan also did the last three on video in the 1980s with the Vienna Philharmonic and they give his BPO cycle a real good run for the money. I go for long walks almost daily and have had the Karajan Tchaikovsky symphonies in my MP3 player for several months. I am glad I have symphony 5 on CD for if it were vinyl I would have worn the grooves out by now.

Karajan's take on Tchaikovsky, as with much of his music, is very controlled, refined, silky smooth, and beautiful. The BPO and the Vienna Phil are great instruments allowing him to get the sound he wants. Karajan sometimes has been criticized for this elegance in sound. This is really unfair. The elegance is only part of the story. For example, if you listen to the early 60s Beethoven 5th or the 4th movement of Tchaikovsky's 5th you will find the playing to be very vigorous and exciting. On the one hand the playing is elegant; on the other the playing will rock the house. Tchaikovsky's symphony 5, 4th movement is one of the great hoots I have ever heard and will re cue it 2 or 3 times when I am walking.

At the other end of the spectrum is Mravinsky and his renditions of Tchaikovsky's last 3 numbered symphonies. The sound is raw, not refined. If the playing is elegant, this was not by design. The orchestral sound often is much smaller with the feel of a chamber ensemble. Once you hear these renditions, and then Karajan's, you will know why the elegance criticism has been lodged against Karajan.