There is fertile ground for comparisons among the philosophical attitudes of Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Mahler, related to their music. You could delve into that. Or maybe there's a Cliffnotes?

 

I'm a fan so you won't get much from me, I'm afraid. If I have to think of a more negative aspect that might interest you it's probably his comparatively fallow creative period between c. 1880 and 1888 when he seemed derailed by professional and personal problems stemming from the late 1870s (which you can easily find out about online unless you know about them already). From those years only the Piano Trio (dedicated to the recently-deceased Nikolai Rubinstein) contained the emotional gravitas of the best of his previous output, although he did also produce the robust 'Manfred' Symphony, the sparkling Serenade for Strings, the now-ubiquitous '1812' and the fairly lightweight but very successful 3rd Orchestral Suite. 1888 saw the appearance of the 5th symphony, which seemed to find him back on track and, for a while at least, a happier, stabler person.

 

Thanks, I'm a fan too, but not a particularly well informed fan. This is for work, so I appreciate you help.

Thanks!

Charlie

 

If you're using Beethoven as a standard of comparison, don't be surprised if every other composer who ever lived comes up somewhat short. Of course, that would limit the number of truly great composers in history to exactly one, which is a reductio ad absurdum of using Beethoven as your standard-bearer.

In favour of Tchaikovsky, can you name any other composer who has contributed so much in so many different areas?

Tchaikovsky is, in many people's opinion, the greatest composer of ballet. Stravinsky is his only serious rival, in my opinion. On the other hand, Tchaikovsky also contributed superb examples of the following genres:

Operas - certainly Eugene Onegin and The Queen of Spades, but Mazeppa and the opera about the Czarina's slippers (the title escapes me) are all wonderful.
Symphonies - certainly the last three, but all of them except #2 are very good pieces.
Concertos - the First Piano Concerto and the Violin Concerto are war-horses in the best sense of the term.
Other orchestral music - Romeo and Juliet, Francesca da Rimini, Hamlet, Capriccio Italien, the Orchestral Suites...
Chamber Music - the first string quartet, the aforementioned Piano Trio, the Souvenir de Florence...

I'm omitting his solo piano music and his songs, mostly because I haven't heard a quarter of them, and though worthwhile, he was no Chopin or Schubert.

 

First time I hear of somebody who need arguments "against" a composer. Well, you can always accuse him of Russian, gay and neurotical with tendences to depression and suicide ideas.

 

Tchaikovsky's compositional "problem" if you want to call it that, was that he did not compose development sections well (a fact he admitted to and hated about himself). However, Tchaikovsky's melodies were for the most part fully realized in their original form and therefore didn't really need to be spliced and transformed in the way German composers would. Rather the themes wanted to be restated and embellished with variation and changes in orchestration. This was more typical of Russian music of the time anyway, but as a result, Tchaikovsky was often slammed by the German school composers for his apparent lack of compositional technique.

 

Am I the only one who likes his Symphony #2 the most, but after # 4?

Good ballets (no I don't watch ballets!)
And few good marches and overtures ... more than that he's not that great or special.

 

I, too, have grown very fond of his Symphony No.2 {"Little Russian"}.

 

Perhaps a weakness of Tchaikovsky is the lack of counterpoint in his works. He wrote many wonderful themes and melodies. But his compositions are less dense, less polyphonic than those of Brahms or Strauss for example. By choice, I'm sure. Also, his harmonic style does not seem particularly innovative. Compared to Wagner or Debussy, it sounds rather straight-forward.

So maybe one could say that while he invented memorable melodies, he was not an innovator in terms of style or form. And that his works don't showcase a particularly high degree of contrapuntal craftmanship.

 

There are long passages of sort of "busyness" in the works where the musicains work a lot and the orchestra is at full volume. Maybe it is his period, but I don't care for the gas pedal to the floor parts, especially if there is no melody that grabs me.

I like a lot of his string work as there is less of the above.

 

I like quite a lot of Tchaikovsky's stuff, but he's not a favorite, and for the very thing you state above.

 

I wouldn't like to argue against Tchaikovsky's greatness. Especially as I admire a lot of his music.
I think the issue that you are trying to confront is his apparent lack of expertise in handling large scale symphonic form when compared to the Germanic tradition of Haydn-Mozartt-Beethoven-Brahms.
If you look at the first movements of his symphonies ,for example, you will find that they are a bit more sectional than those of his German symphonic peers. He himself was aware of this and said that in his sonata form movements one can "see the seams".

Actually while checking the sources for that quote I came across this critique which really says it all very clearly.
http://www.russellsteinberg.com/lectures/ubl_tchaikovsky_symphony_no_1/

He may not have been the 'greatest' symphonist from a formal point of view but I have always ranked him with the very best as an orchestrator, melodist and musical dramatist. His music has a unique and immediately recognisable character and had a wide influence.

 

Why is it that threads about Tchaikovsky (and especially about the symphonies) seem to ignore the existence of the magnificent Manfred Symphony, one of his best pieces?

 

Pithy:

I sort of like Tchaik
and I don't have to slink about it.
His music is fun
'Cause you don't have to think about it.

 

This thread reminds me of something I read in Clive James' book Cultural Amnesia. According to James, Tchaikovsky's music was thought of as middle-brow "light music" for decades, and then Stravinsky persuaded people to take it more seriously.

Does anyone know what this is talking about? When, where and what did Stravinsky say?

 

^ A lot of Tchaikovsky's music is at the lighter end of the classical spectrum, even for his own times, which is probably why he is popular among many noobs. I can't think of a better composer to use for the purpose of introducing young children to classical music. Some people, as they increase their listening experience, tend to discard Tchaikovsky in favour of other composers who offer a more complex sound, whilst others, like me, continue to have quite a high regard for him. It's fair to say, however, that I don't listen to his music as enthusiastically and as often as I once did. As for criticism of his music from a more technical viewpoint, I've seen it stated that sometimes he didn't do very well in connecting up different themes in some symphonic works, involving rather mushy and ill-thought out meandering middle sections in between themes. On the hand, Schubert was far more adept at finding very clever ways of linking themes and melodies far more imperceptibly.

 

^ A lot of Tchaikovsky's music is at the lighter end of the classical spectrum, even for his own times, which is probably why he is popular among many noobs. I can't think of a better composer to use for the purpose of introducing young children to classical music. Some people, as they increase their listening experience, tend to discard Tchaikovsky in favour of other composers who offer a more complex sound, whilst others, like me, continue to have quite a high regard for him. It's fair to say, however, that I don't listen to his music as enthusiastically and as often as I once did. As for criticism of his music from a more technical viewpoint, I've seen it stated that sometimes he didn't do very well in connecting up different themes in some symphonic works, involving rather mushy and ill-thought out meandering middle sections in between themes. On the hand, Schubert was far more adept at finding very clever ways of linking themes and melodies far more imperceptibly.

Anybody who discards Tchaikovsky like that are just trying to be unique or anti-establishment. Tchaikovsky's music is quite complex, but maybe not in a way they want to admit because they liked it early on. The more I learn about music, the more I love Tchaikovsky. So take that people who hate Tchaikovsky! I call you on your bluff...it's not as bad as admitting you like Britney Spears

As for arguments against Tchaikovsky, I'm surprised to not see probably the biggest reason he had his detractors. Quite simply, the music he was writing wasn't particularly innovative in harmony or melody at the time. Mussorgsky composed Pictures of an Exhibition in 1874. Tchaikovsky wrote the rather tame (in comparison) Symphony No. 5 in 1888. He wrote more in a West-European style than his other Russian counterparts. He did it very well. But maybe like 20 years too late. This is probably the reason Tchaikovsky is completely absent in the anthologies for the widest used music history book in colleges.

 

I'm wondering, though - did Stravinsky's influence happen before, say, Mravinsky's tours?

 

I cannot help but wonder what line of work includes a project devoted to diminishing Tchaikovsky's reputation.

 

When you watch a movie and it sucks you in and carries you through to the end, you might be tempted to think that's easy. But the truth is, managing all of the elements like acting, cutting, pacing, dialogue, etc... And making them all work together to make up one unified whole, is a lot more complex than it seems on the surface.

Classical music snobs might look at Tchaikovsky the way Monty Python described him, but his ability to juggle a million elements, both big and small, and form them into one totally clear and focused unity is nothing to laugh at.