“…You see, my dear friend, I am made up of contradictions, and I have reached a very mature age without resting upon anything positive, without having calmed my restless spirit either by religion or philosophy. Undoubtedly I should have gone mad but for music. Music is indeed the most beautiful of all Heaven's gifts to humanity wandering in the darkness. Alone it calms, enlightens, and stills our souls. It is not the straw to which the drowning man clings; but a true friend, refuge, and comforter, for whose sake life is worth living”
― Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
I can hardly believe we are at #47 on our list, with only three more entries to go in our top 50 classical recordings of all-time. Yet here we are, and I am forever grateful for those of you that have chosen to take this journey with me. I am quite sure my personal preferences and biases are present in what I have written, so I thank you for putting up with the imperfection inherent in any “greatest” list anyone tries to create, including this one.
Recording #47 on the list has been greatly lauded since it was released over 60 years ago. The album is made up of stereo recordings of Tchaikovsky’s 4th, 5th, and 6th symphonies made by Russian conductor Yevgeny Mravinsky and the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra, recorded by Deutsche Grammophon in 1960 in London and Vienna. The word “legendary” is not too great a description for this collection of Tchaikovsky’s final three numbered symphonies, and no music lover’s collection should be without these recordings.
The Composer
Previously on this list we included a great recording of Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto, and in that entry you will find more information about the composer. Here is the link to that post:
Symphony no. 4 in F Minor, Op. 36
Harlow Robinson of Northeastern University says of Tchaikovsky’s Symphony no. 4:
“…the Symphony no. 4 was a breakthrough work, a bounding creative leap beyond his first three symphonies. In scale, control of form, intensity, and ambition it towers above any symphonies previously produced by Russian composers…here, in one of the masterpieces of late Romanticism, Tchaikovsky combines his strong sense of the theatrical (already demonstrated in Romeo and Juliet, Francesca da Rimini, and Swan Lake) with a heightened mastery of orchestration and thematic development.
The year of the composition of the Fourth Symphony - 1877 - has been called the most fateful year in the composer’s eventful and emotionally volatile life. It was in 1877 that he made the rash and ultimately tragic decision to marry Antonina Ivanovna Milyukova, a woman he barely knew. He did so (on July 18) in a panic-stricken attempt to conceal - or even overcome - his homosexual inclinations.
Not surprisingly, given Tchaikovsky’s lack of sexual interest in women and the unbalanced personality of Milyukova, the marriage ended in disaster. It lasted a mere two months, at the end of which Tchaikovsky attempted suicide by walking into the frigid Moscow River in the hopes of contracting pneumonia…he escaped to St. Petersburg and then to Europe. It was there, far from the problems that awaited him in Russia, that he completed the Fourth Symphony…”
There was another woman in Tchaikovsky’s life at the time, a wealthy widow who had become so enraptured with his music that she began to support him financially. Her name was Nadezhda von Meck, and although she and Tchaikovsky maintained a remarkable relationship through letters, they never met in person at von Meck’s insistence. During this difficult time, she supported the composer not only financially but also emotionally. In return, Tchaikovsky dedicated his Fourth Symphony to von Meck, writing “To my best friend.” Moreover, he wrote to her a detailed description of the entire “program” for the symphony, explaining to her the meaning of each movement.
What was this “program”? Tchaikovsky says to von Meck that the fanfare heard in the opening, which returns a few more times, is “the kernel, the quintessence, the chief thought of the whole symphony” that stands for “fate”. This represents "the fatal power which prevents one from attaining the goal of happiness ... There is nothing to be done but to submit to it and lament in vain". Tchaikovsky goes on to say the program of the symphony is roughly that "all life is an unbroken alternation of hard reality with swiftly passing dreams and visions of happiness ...". He continued: "No haven exists ... Drift upon that sea until it engulfs and submerges you in its depths". Later Tchaikovsky would write to his friend Sergei Taneyev that the program was wrapped up in the subject of fate, in a similar way to the opening of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. The opening fanfare is very much in a similar vein to Beethoven, and the theme of fate would eventually form the foundation for all of the last three numbered Tchaikovsky symphonies.
The stunning, even alarming, opening fanfare is rather famous and reappears again in the final movement. Tchaikovsky had decided, rather ingeniously, that repetition carried more power than further thematic development. The first movement is carried along on a gentle, bucolic melody until about the 7’30” mark when the strings crescendo into a tremendous climax on the trumpets, sounding triumphant but then leading into loud, thumping, repeating whacks which even more strongly emphasizes the fate theme. It is almost as though someone is pounding their head against a wall in frustration. For me personally this is one of the most profound moments in Tchaikovsky’s music, it impacts me in a visceral and primitive way. The rest of the movement returns to the more sweet, bucolic melody, only to later recapitulate the tremendous brass theme which leads into a more foreboding coda and finish.
The shorter second movement (Andantino in modo di canzone) is described by the composer: “This is the melancholy feeling which comes in the evening when, weary from your labor, you are sitting alone, you take a book–but it falls from your hand. There comes a whole host of memories. You both regret the past, yet do not wish to begin your life again. Life has wearied you…it’s sad and somehow sweet to immerse yourself in the past.”
The scherzo third movement (Pizzicato ostinato) offers a break from the intensity of the other movements, and is a delicate and delightful morsel with the strings playing pizzicato and including a middle section featuring brass and winds.
The final movement (Allegro con fuoco) is fiery and vigorous. Tchaikovsky modifies a Russian folk song called In the Field Stood a Birch Tree as one of the themes, but truly whips it into a frenzy. It is punctuated by very loud cymbal crashes and some astonishingly fast string and brass sections. Although the original “fate” theme from the opening returns, it is only for a short time, as the jovial mood of the finale breaks through again and leads into a fast, exciting, and triumphant conclusion.
Despite Tchaikovsky’s own bleak program descriptions, and the relatively poor reception the symphony received at its premiere, it has gone on to become one of the staples of the symphonic repertoire throughout the world and it established Tchaikovsky as a master of the symphonic form.
Symphony no. 5 in E minor, Op. 64
Tchaikovsky completed work on his Symphony no. 5 in 1888, and conducted the premiere himself in St. Petersburg on November 26, 1888.
Almost from the outset, the Fifth had mixed reviews. Even Tchaikovsky himself did not feel confident about it, writing “I am dreadfully anxious to prove not only to others, but also to myself, that I am not yet played out as a composer…the beginning was difficult; now, however, inspiration seems to have come” but later said “I have become convinced that this symphony is unsuccessful. There is something repulsive about it, a certain excess of gaudiness and insincerity, artificiality. And the public instinctively recognizes this. It was very clear to me that the ovations I received were directed at my previous work, but the symphony itself was incapable of attracting them or at least pleasing them.” Nevertheless, later he would change his mind on it, writing “The Fifth Symphony was magnificently played (Hamburg, 1889), and I like it far better now, after having held a bad opinion of it for some time.”
Although Tchaikovsky did not lay out a program for the Fifth as detailed as he had for the Fourth, he did leave a notebook page outlining the first movement:
“Introduction. Complete resignation before Fate, or, which is the same, before the inscrutable predestination of Providence. Allegro. (1) Murmurs of doubt, complaints, reproaches against XXX. (2) Shall I throw myself in the embraces of faith??? A wonderful program, if only it can be carried out.”
Scholars believe XXX is not referring to a person, but rather that which he refers to in his diary as X or Z or THAT – probably his homosexuality, which caused him deep distress and continually terrified him that it may potentially cause a scandal. But to attempt to interpret the music through this outline or any other verbal description is ultimately not useful, and even Tchaikovsky discouraged it.
The first extended commentary on the Fifth was written by music reviewer and critic William Foster Apthorp in 1892 for the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s premiere of the work conducted by the great Arthur Nikisch. Apthorp wrote:
“Tchaikovsky is one of the leading composers, some think the leading composer, of the present Russian school. He is fond of emphasizing the peculiar character of Russian melody in his works, plans his compositions on a large scale, and delights in strong effects. He has been criticized for the occasional excessive harshness of his harmony, for now and then descending to the trivial and tawdry in his ornamental figuration, and also for a tendency to develop comparatively insignificant material to inordinate length. But in spite of the prevailing wild savagery of his music, its originality and the genuineness of its fire and sentiment are not to be denied.”
Later in his Boston Evening Transcript review Apthorp was more direct:
“…In the Finale we have all the untamed fury of the Cossack, whetting itself for deeds of atrocity, against all the sterility of the Russian steppes. The furious peroration sounds like nothing so much as a horde of demons struggling in a torrent of brandy, the music growing drunker and drunker. Pandemonium, delirium tremens, raving, and above all, noise worse confounded!”
If I am being honest, in my personal opinion the Fifth is the least convincing of Tchaikovsky’s last three numbered symphonies overall, although it has moments of greatness, and some of his best melodies. In my view, it is inferior to the Fourth and the Sixth, and yet represents an important continuation of Tchaikovsky’s development as a composer, of his individual style, and of the “fate” theme that so dominated his life and work. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the Fifth but some of the composer’s own doubts ring true. The finale in particular is bombastic, has an air of insincerity about it, and to me somehow seems out of place with the rest of the symphony. It is impressive in its own right, but it almost feels like Tchaikovsky is trying too hard. When Johannes Brahms heard a rehearsal of the Fifth in Hamburg in 1890, he praised the symphony but found the Finale banal. Nevertheless, as a sort of psychological profile of the composer, the Fifth succeeds very well.
As we read, Tchaikovsky outlined the opening movement. He also wrote of the second movement (Andante cantabile, con alcuna licenza): “Consolation – a beam of light” and underneath it the answer: “No, no hope!”
The second movement, in my view, is the heart of the Fifth symphony, and among the greatest things Tchaikovsky ever composed. It is the best movement in the symphony, full of pathos, rays of hope, heartbreak, and ultimately a return to hopelessness in the face of fate. I love this movement, it is quintessential Tchaikovsky, and it raises the entire symphony to a higher level.
The third movement is a delightful Valse (Waltz), which comes as a relief after the very intense second movement.
The Finale (Andante maestoso - Allegro vivace) was described by David Tovey “If the composer’s aim was to reproduce the nightmare of running faster and faster without moving from the spot, then one can say he has succeeded.” The second section marked allegro vivace works itself into quite a frenzy complete with brass climax and a marching coda that ends with quite a lot of pomp. With this triumphant close, Tchaikovsky may have intended to say there is hope after all, even in the midst of cruel fate.
Symphony no. 6 in B minor, op. 74, “Pathetique”
Tchaikovsky’s final symphony is Symphony no. 6, nicknamed the “Pathetique”. The French word “pathetique” does not translate directly to the English word “pathetic” as it is used today, but rather “emotionally moving, notably by demonstration or evocation of suffering.” That is indeed an apt description for Tchaikovsky’s Sixth.
Tchaikovsky completed his Sixth in August 1893, and he himself would conduct the first performance of the symphony in St. Petersburg on October 28, 1893. He would be dead nine days later. The second performance of this most tragic of symphonies was given only twenty days later in the same location as part of a concert given as a memorial to the composer.
Despite the fact that Tchaikovsky’s international reputation had grown tremendously outside Russia in his later years, he was still left in a deepening depression and in despair because he was rarely recognized by his own countrymen as a great composer. Furthermore, Tchaikovsky’s patroness Nadezhda von Meck had inexplicably cut off her correspondence with him in 1890, a terrible blow that the composer never fully recovered from those last few years of his life. Finally, Tchaikovsky still harbored the fear that his homosexuality would somehow come to public light, which could lead to humiliating consequences since it was regarded as a crime and could lead to the loss of his civil rights.
As a composer, Tchaikovsky also had concerns that his creative juices had run dry and that he had written himself out. A recent trip to see his old governess put him in a nostalgic, but pleasant mood. The retrospective along with Tchaikovsky’s fundamentally pessimistic outlook on life somehow inspired him to get to work on what would eventually become, in his own opinion, his greatest masterpiece. In the winter of that year he wrote to a nephew that he was in a positive state of mind and was hard at work on a new symphony with a program – “but a program that will be a riddle for everyone. Let them try and solve it.” He left a few hints: “The program of this symphony is completely saturated with myself and quite often during my journey I cried profusely.” On March 24th of 1893 he completed the sketch of the second movement and noted with satisfaction, “O Lord, I thank Thee! Today, March 24th, completed preliminary sketch well!!!”
It wasn’t all smooth sailing, as Tchaikovsy was delayed in working on the symphony further until summer. The ideas came to him more slowly, and he felt unsure of himself. And yet he noted, “It will be…no surprise if this symphony is abused and unappreciated – that has happened before. But I definitely find it my very best, and in particular the most sincere of all my compositions. I love it as I have never loved any of my musical children.”
Symphony no. 6 was to be the last work he would complete. The premiere was well received, though there was puzzlement at the somber and quiet ending, something that had rarely ever been attempted in a symphony. His contemporary Rimsky-Korsakov found Tchaikovsky at intermission and demanded to know if there was a program to the very expressive symphony. Tchaikovsky admitted that indeed there was, but he was not going to reveal it. However, among Tchaikovsky’s personal papers was found this note:
“The ultimate essence of the plan of the symphony is LIFE. First part – all impulsive passion, confidence, thirst for activity. Must be short. (Finale DEATH – result of collapse.) Second part love; third disappointments; fourth ends dying away (also short).”
Tchaikovsky died a mere nine days after the premiere, and there has been some controversy regarding how he died. There were no hints of ill health when he conducted the premiere. It is generally believed his death was the result of cholera from drinking a glass of unboiled water during an epidemic. But the way the symphony ended, and that he suffered a great deal of intestinal distress and pain, has led some scholars to speculate on whether Tchaikovsky may have poisoned himself due to his fear of being denounced to the Tsar as a homosexual by a duke with whose nephew he had struck up a friendship. Still other scholars discount this possibility, and say that the finish of the symphony was due to Tchaikovsky’s strong premonitions of impending death. Ultimately, we don’t really know how Tchaikovsky died, but his final statement in the form of the Sixth remains as powerful today as ever.
Steven Ledbetter, program annotator for the Boston Symphony Orchestra for many years, describes each movement:
I. The slow introduction begins in the “wrong” key but works its way around to B minor and the beginning of the Allegro non troppo. The introduction proves to foreshadow the main thematic material, which is a variant of the opening figure in the bassoon over the dark whispering of the double basses. The great climax to which this builds is a splendid preparation for one of Tchaikovsky’s greatest tunes, a falling and soaring melody that is worked to a rich climax and then dies away with a lingering afterthought in the clarinet. An unexpected orchestral crash begins the tense development section, which builds a wonderful sense of energy as the opening thematic material returns in a distant key and only gradually works around to the tonic. The romantic melody, now in the tonic key of B major, is especially passionate.
II. The second movement is quite simply a scherzo and Trio, but it has a couple of special wrinkles of its own. Tchaikovsky was one of the great composers of the orchestral waltz (think of the third movement of the Fifth symphony); here he chose to write a waltz that happens to be in 5/4 time! (typically waltzes are in ¾ time)...the odd rhythmic twist is more than compensated for by the extraordinary grace of the music.
III. The third movement is a brilliant march, beginning with rushing busy triplets that alternate with a crisp march melody that bursts out into a climactic full orchestral version, a momentary triumph.
IV. That triumph comes to a sudden end with the beginning of the final movement, which bears the unprecedented marking “Adagio lamentoso.” The first theme is divided between the two violin parts in such a way that neither the first nor second violin part alone makes sense, but when played together they result in a simple, expressive, descending melody. The second theme, a more flowing Andante, builds to a great orchestral climax exceeded only by the climax of the opening material that follows. This dies away and a single stroke of the tam-tam, followed by a soft and sustained dark passage for trombones and tuba, brings in the “dying fall” of the ending, the second theme descending into the lowest depths of cellos and basses.
While Tchaikovsky’s Sixth is certainly consistent with his pessimistic view of life, like all great art his music was also a way for him to try to rise above and transcend the vagaries of his life. Similarly for those of us that listen to it now, counter-intuitively we often find solace in the acknowledgement of the truth of the human condition and at the same time we can marvel at what the human mind, heart, and spirit can produce in the way of great art.
The Recording
The legendary recordings of Tchaikovsky’s 4th, 5th, and 6th symphonies by Yevgeny Mravinsky and the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra were studio recordings made in stereo in 1960 by the Deutsche Grammophon label. It was during a tour of the Leningrad Philharmonic that DG struck upon the idea of recording them in London and capturing the orchestra and Mravinsky’s legendary way with Tchaikovsky in much better sound than could be achieved in the Soviet Union at the time. As it turned out, Symphony no. 4 was recorded in September 1960 in Wembley Town Hall, London, while Symphony no. 5 and Symphony no. 6 were recorded in November 1960 in the Musikverein in Vienna.
Yevgeny Mravinsky was perhaps the greatest conductor ever of Russian music, and in my view the greatest Tchaikovsky conductor on record. He had a natural understanding of what Tchaikovsky was trying to communicate with the terror and the despair, with the soaring and crashing melodies, with the bipolar changes in mood and tempo inherent in these symphonies. Mravinsky was not a conductor to follow the composer’s markings strictly, but rather he was driven by an intuitive interpretation of what Tchaikovsky was trying to say and then he amplified it. Tempos change as the music changes, and we are taken to the edge of frenzy and beyond, to the most delicate places of dreamlike emotion, and to the depths of darkness. This is Tchaikovsky that not only wears its heart on its sleeve, but wears it everywhere else too.
In Beethoven or Mozart, a lack of orchestral discipline and unity can ruin a performance. However, in Tchaikovsky some lack of beauty in the ensemble and the sound can actually enhance the listening experience, at least for me. What you hear in these recordings is the passion of live recordings, even though they were not made live. You will notice the strings and the brass have a sharper edge than other orchestras at that time, perhaps because the Soviet made instruments were not of the highest quality during communism. The trumpets at times have a buzzing, metallic, kazoo-like quality to them. It is the opposite of “smooth”. Nevermind. You will hear a tremulous quality to the woodwind playing, and in the brass, that almost sounds “wobbly”. Nevermind. This is characteristic of Russian orchestras at the time, and how they used to play. The playing feels like the entire orchestra proclaiming, “We know how to play Tchaikovsky better than any of you European and American orchestras. It is in our blood.” Indeed, these are exciting, seductive, and spectacular readings that, as a set, have never been surpassed.
Mravinsky’s control is relentless. There is a vitality here that borders on chaos, but in a good way. The burning intensity is palpable, and occasionally I find myself needing to step away from the fire. But these recordings are so special that I dare say Tchaikovsky himself has them on constant replay. The overall vision is captivating, and where Mravinsky succeeds supremely is in the acceleration and deceleration of the music at key moments. The finale of the 4th being played at breakneck speed is breathtaking, and easily the best on record. The presto in the middle of the 5th pushes ahead really fast and gets the pulse racing. Mravinsky’s sense of exactly when to push things and when to pull back is uncanny and builds the maximum excitement. I have never heard the final movement of the 6th played with more passion and heartbreak, or for that matter the second movement of the 5th. The control of the structure and dynamics in the first movements of all three symphonies is masterful. There are really too many moments to highlight, you just need to listen. There is nothing mundane or routine about these recordings, which is why I love them.
The recordings of the 4th and 6th symphonies here, in my opinion, are the best versions available on record. There are other recordings that do some things better, might have better sound, or have a few better moments. But in terms of the overall emotional impact, Mravinsky is at the top. The 5th is among the best too, but is somewhat outclassed by Valery Gergiev and the Vienna Philharmonic’s live recording (see below). In terms of sound, these are fairly representative recordings from 1960, but certainly not perfect and tend to show their age a bit. Other companies have issued remasterings of the original tapes, but after listening to those I find very little improvement on DG’s own remastering. However, if you are looking to purchase them rather than stream them, there may be a price difference with the recent remasterings.
I have talked to people that don’t care for Tchaikovsky’s music. Some don’t like the brashness, the overt emotionalism, the melodramatic moments, the sheer volume at times. I can see where they are coming from, and yet Tchaikovsky’s music pulls me in every time. I love his music for the same reason others don’t, it cuts to the bone and tells the truth. Is it self-indulgent? Yes. Is it melodramatic and hysterical? Yes. Is it bombastic? Yes. It is also amazing, inventive, melodic, moving, and rich. The Mravinsky recordings tap into all these elements better than any others.
Other recommended recordings of Symphony no. 4
One might guess that George Szell was not a natural Tchaikovsky conductor, with his focus on precision and discipline rather than pathos. However, his recording of Symphony no. 4 with the London Symphony Orchestra recorded for Decca in 1962 in the warm acoustic of Walthamstow Assembly Hall in London turns that assumption on its head. A white-hot blazing performance from first to last, capturing Szell in one of his rare recordings outside of Cleveland, this recording is essential for fans of this symphony. If Szell misses a bit of the depth in the music, he can be forgiven for producing such a treasurable recording.
Italian conductor Riccardo Muti has recorded the 4th twice, the earlier one preferable with the Philharmonia Orchestra captured by EMI in warm analog sound at Abbey Road Studios in 1979. The sound is spacious and atmospheric, and Muti seems to have a natural affinity with Tchaikovsky. Muti pushes the final movement in a similar way to Mravinsky, it is exhilarating. Percussion and brass are captured very well, and the Philharmonia has always had tremendous string sound. Muti can sometimes be unjustly overlooked as a conductor, but this is one of his best efforts.
From perhaps an unexpected source, the Ossetian conductor Tugan Sokhiev leads a terrific performance of the 4th with the Orchestre National du Capitole de Toulouse on the Naive label, released in 2006. The 28-year old conductor brings a youthful vitality to the reading, and some really interesting touches. The brass are thrilling in the climax of the main motif in the first movement, the scherzo is delightful and clever, while the finale is utterly convincing showing the virtuosity of this relatively regional French orchestra. The sound is full and warm. Recommended.
Others worth hearing include Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic (on DG, 1977), Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic (Sony, 1958), Mariss Jansons and the Oslo Philharmonic (Chandos, 1985), Gennady Rozhdestvensky and the London Symphony Orchestra (MCA, year unknown?), and Vladimir Jurowski with the London Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO, 2011).
Other recommended recordings of Symphony no. 5
THE finest recording available of Tchaikovsky’s Symphony no. 5, bar none, is a live recording by the Vienna Philharmonic with Russian conductor Valery Gergiev, originally on the Philips label (now Decca), recorded live at the Salzburg Festival in July 1998. The electricity of this recording is unmatched, and it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. While I am no fan of Gergiev’s politics (he was recently fired from several posts for refusing to denounce Putin’s war in Ukraine), when he was younger he made several outstanding recordings, this one prime among them. The VPO are incredible here, and Gergiev brings every ounce of feeling out of them. The opening Andante - Allegro con anima is grave and portentious, the second movement Andante cantabile is stunning, the Valse is a welcome reprieve, and on this occasion the exciting but flawed Finale is something to stand up and cheer. I love this recording. Gergiev’s later recordings of the 4th and 6th with the same orchestra were disappointing by comparison.
There was a time when the great Japanese conductor Seiji Ozawa was not as boring as he would eventually become in the later years of his Boston Symphony Orchestra tenure, and proof of that is in this 1969 recording of Tchaikovsky’s 5th with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra for RCA. The first movement keeps moving, and is quite exciting, the second builds tension and drama very effectively, and the finale showcases the playing of the peerless Chicago brass. The recorded sound is good. Ozawa’s DG recording much later with the Berlin Philharmonic (now difficult to find on streaming services) is even better with richer sound and a fabulous orchestra. In fact, the Berlin recording is one of the very best 5ths on record and should absolutely be more available.
Eccentric British conductor Leopold Stokowski recorded a wonderful 5th with the New Philharmonia Orchestra for Decca Phase 4, released in 1967. There are some oddities, like the glacial pace of the first movement in several spots. But then Stokowski abruptly goes faster at other points, a la Mravinsky. There is some amazing transparency as well, and I guarantee you will hear instruments and notes here that are obscured in other recordings, especially on woodwinds and strings. You truly feel as though you are in the middle of the orchestra, though you may need to keep your finger on the volume control. There is some beautiful lyricism too. The finale is a rollicking good time, despite Stokowski making a few cuts.
Other recordings of the 5th you may want to hear include the Philharmonia Orchestra with Riccardo Muti (EMI, 1979), the London Symphony Orchestra with Antal Dorati (Mercury, 1962), Mikhail Pletnev leading the Russian National Orchestra (Pentatone, 2011), Vasily Petrenko with the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra (Onyx, 2016), Pierre Monteux with the Boston Symphony Orchestra (RCA, 1958), and Igor Markevitch conducting the London Symphony Orchestra (Philips, 1966).
Other recommended recordings of Symphony no. 6 “Pathetique”
A recent recording that is a serious contender is that from Russian conductor Teodor Currentzis and his dynamic Music Aeterna orchestra, released in 2017 on the Sony label. While the sound engineering is problematic and rather disappointing at some levels, Currentzis clearly loves this music and there is a lot of passion here. The speeds are generally traditional, but Currentzis’ use of dynamic variation is eye-opening and exciting. Consistent with Music Aeterna’s period instrument origins, there is very little use of rubato. This prevents the reading from being too melodramatic, but there is plenty of drama.
While in general I have been underwhelmed by the other early recordings from the Berlin Philharmonic and their young director Kirill Petrenko, this first effort from 2017 on the BPO’s own label is a triumph. It is taken from a live recording, but you would hardly know it. The sound is clean, warm and realistic, although the brass are not ideally balanced in my opinion. The performance as a whole is somewhat faster than many others, but I find the interpretation very satisfying. The orchestral ensemble and phrasing are nearly perfect, and they truly sound like the greatest orchestra in the world. The first and last movements are particularly effective. While this is a more straightforward, precision-type approach than Mravinsky, it is certainly focused and thrilling in its own way.
The great Italian conductor Carlo Maria Giulini had his best years with the Philharmonia Orchestra in London in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and his recording for EMI from 1959, recorded in Kingsway Hall in London, remains one of the finest versions. Even with some background hiss, the sound is still very good. Giulini would record the 6th again later with the Los Angeles Philharmonic for DG, but it is this earlier recording that is by far the most engaging. From first to last, Giulini keeps up the concentration. Woodwinds and brass are particularly wonderful, and the strings have a fantastic sound. The terror and heartbreak are there in spades. This is the great Giulini before he slowed everything down to a crawl in his later years. Outstanding.
Leonard Bernstein’s first commercial recording of the 6th with the New York Philharmonic was made in 1964 for CBS/Columbia (now Sony), and it is far preferable to Bernstein’s recording with the NYPO for DG in 1987. The later version is self-indulgent to a ridiculous degree, very very slow, and ultimately not recommendable. However, the earlier recording is excellent. Speeds are just right, the recorded sound is forward, focused and spotlit in a good way, every section is heard well. Tchaikovsky’s musical temperament was a good match for Bernstein, the emotional nature of this symphony appeals directly to the over-the-top approach, which Bernstein was rather fond of throughout his career.
Other recordings you may want to hear include Mikhail Pletnev’s first recording with the Russian National Orchestra (Virgin, 1991), Ferenc Fricsay with the Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra (DG, 1960), Herbert von Karajan with the Berlin Philharmonic (EMI, 1971), Charles Munch and the Boston Symphony Orchestra (RCA, 1963), and a young Semyon Bychkov’s earlier recording with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam (Decca, 1987).
Whew! If you made it this far, you must like Tchaikovsky as much as I do. I appreciate your patience, as this was a far longer post than originally planned. But you can hardly review Mravinsky’s Tchaikovsky without covering all three symphonies.
Happy listening!
________________________________
Notes:
Barnett,Rob.http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/feb14/Tchaikovsky_sys456_PASC396.htm
Ledbetter, Steven. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Symphony no. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, “Pathetique”. Boston Symphony Orchestra program notes. 2007-2008 season. Pp. 61-69.
Robinson, Harlow. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky: Symphony no. 4 in F minor, Op. 36. Boston Symphony Orchestra program notes. 2006-2007 season. Pp. 35-39.
Steinberg, Michael. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky: Symphony no. 5 in E minor, Op. 64. Boston Symphony Orchestra program notes. 2012-2013 season. Pp. 37-45.
Steinberg, Michael, The Symphony (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). ISBN 0-19-506177-2.
Tchaikovsky, M., Letters, vol.1.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1672211.Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky