Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Tchaikovsky)

message: Actually, it now appears that Modest did not suggest the title of this symphony.
'How much do you want for this Pathetic symphony of yours?', wrote Tchaikovsky's publisher, Jurgensen, in August 1893.  Modest's account, having himself as the inspired subtitler just after the first performance (in October/November) is therefore unreliable, as is much else of what he has to say about his much more famous and talented brother.
The Russian word is sympatichetsky which is much closer in meaning to sympathetic or empathetic.  Jurgensen was asked to remove the title (Tchaikovsky's own as noted above) but failed to do so.  The account below is from Modest's own account and his biography is the ONLY source.  
It is tempting that Tchaikovsky knew of his imminent death while composing the symphony and, though this can't be proven, I for one uphold this view. Tchaikovsky even refused a request to write  Requiem in September 1893 because, he said, he had already just completed a work in a similar vein (ie referring to the Symphony).
:I have heard a different account, that Tchaikovsky liked the title:
::The morning after the first performance of the work from manuscript in what was then St. Petersburg, October 28 1893, Modeste Tchaikovsky found his brother at a tea-table with the music in his hand. The composer wanted to bestow some title more definite than "Symphony Number Six" before sending it to the publisher. What should it be? Should it be, for example, "ProgramSymphony"? But what did that signify if the symphony was given no program? Modeste suggested "Tragic," the other side of the word "Pathetic" came to him, and he returned. Tchaikovsky was delighted."Splendid Modi, bravo! 'Pathetic'"--"And he wrote in my presence," says Modeste,"the title that will always remain."... 24.54.208.177 23:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have insight as to which is the correct account? The details of Tchaikovsky's last days are probably rather murky. ChantillyToyota 01:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, this is just a gossips like a gay life of PITch. After the first performance of the Sixth Symphony composer, seeing his cousin Anna Merkling, agreed with her ​​suggestion that he described her life ---> "You guessed right. The first part - the childhood and vague desire for music. The second - a secular youth and light-heartedness life. The third - the life and struggle to achieve fame. Well, the last - is De profundis, that is - the prayer for the dead than it ends, but for me it is still far away, I feel myself so much energy, so much creative energy, and I know it will create many, many good and better than hitherto." 195.218.231.67 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of the title

message: In  from 2:30 to 2:45, it is suggested that Modest Tchaikovsky claimed (after Peter's death) that he had come up with the title and that Peter liked it.--Atavi 19:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More about Name

message: At the risk of gross insensitivity, let me ask: Do we really need the info from Karlinsky in the analysis of the first movement? It is completely unencyclopedic, at least to me. Jonyungk (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "the homosexual publication" I think your bias is showing. Publications do not have sexual attraction or acts. Christopher Street is a specialist publication. Karlinsky was not some wild fantasist but "a professor emeritus of Slavic languages and literature at UC Berkeley who wrote authoritative volumes on Gogol, Nabokov and Chekhov and was an expert on homosexuality in pre-Soviet culture," according to his obituary in the L A Times  As stated, the Karlinsky material is an oral tradition, which is all you can hope for in a subculture that was criminalised throughout most of the period concerning us. People can at least compare it with the music and see how it stacks up. A gay subtext would explain why Tchaikovsky was so emphatic that it existed - to the point of naming it "Programme Symphony" - and simultaneously so cagy about what it was. --Hugh7 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I have tracked down the Christopher Street article again; Karlinsky describes the person called Alex as "a friend of my youth" who "spent several months associating with Tchelitchew..." He adds that "those who want to know more about Alex may look up my memoir "In Search of Poplavsky: A Collage" in The Bitter Air of Exile: Russian Writers in the West 1922-1972 edited by me and Alfred Appel, Jr., University of California Press, 1977." He admits that "what I am about to offer is poorly remembered hearsay... But I do not maintain that what I say is true, only that it was told to me." (And nor do I.) He says "I remember the program of the first movement because I told it to someone every few years since I first heard it." He goes into much more detail about the programme in the Christopher Street article than anyone would expect in a " homosexual publication". For example: "But the 'search theme' does not give up and with the arrival of a prolonged pedal tone (the low F-sharp in the basses and timpani that lasts for 36 bars) it finds a safe haven. In the powerful new section that begins at the eleventh bar of this pedal, the two male lovers have found a safe environment...." I think my single sentence is worth keeping since it is fully accurate that there is such an oral tradition, and it may bring forth verification (or falsification) from a more reliable source.--Hugh7 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

text: The article seems to carry a the same bias that is present in the Koch-Schwann liner notes for the Hoteev set, which even makes a great effort to showcase "the women of Tchaikovsky". I really have no idea whether he was gay or not but it's clear enough that some have an axe to grind in terms of making sure everyone doesn't think so. "Homosexual publication" is what's known as ad hominem. It's also well-known that referring to gay folk as homosexuals is an expression of heterosexist bias, which is unfortunate since the terminology itself is neutral (far better than the intrinsically heterosexist gay/straight dichotomy). The point of all this is... can someone please improve the section so that it doesn't reek of some sort of de-gayifying agenda? What two people think about a subject is nice enough but history is better-served up when one hears from more viewpoints. There is a lot of selective factuality in historical presentations. For example, the daughter of an APA psychologist produced a 25 minute or so propaganda piece for NPR that twisted the narrative to try to suggest that gay people are actually all nuts (and were so extremely tough that they managed to bully the poor dear APA members into doing their agenda, instead of demanding that they stop ignoring Hooker's findings — published decades prior because of their heterosexism). Why would NPR do such a thing? Well, it was during the George W. Bush administration. Also, if you want a taste in terms of the accuracy of the history presented in that Koch-Schwann set's liner notes, consider the accuracies involved in the performances, as detailed here: http://www.mvdaily.com/articles/1999/03/pptchaik.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.192.194 (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Karlinsky

message: In contrast to many other classical music works in Wikipedia, like Holst's The Planets, or the Mendelssohn violin concerto, the core subject (to me) of "Structure" is not well developed.  
In the first movement, there appears to be an error which might be a matter of judgment:  it says the recapitulation begins on m. 269, whereas I think it begins at the upbeat to m. 249 (same key, exact repetition of the exposition's opening except in the violins).
The second movement is mis-described as a "lively dance," and there is no mention of its A-B-A structure.  The writeup seems to be a bit superficial.
The third movement appears to me to have a complicated structure that should be analyzed; I'm not sure, but it might be an exposition-recapitulation without a development.  The text says there is a short development, but doesn't say where it is and I sure can't tell if there is one.
The fourth movement deserves more sophisticated analysis and description.  A description of the two climaxes would be interesting.  I find it hard to follow the Wiki narrative.  It says the second theme "reemergers and then meanders off into a quiet ending."  That description doesn't seem to be connected to the real depth of the ending.
This is a very great but very sophisticated symphony IMO, and it should have an especially good writeup.
Thanks -- Larry 
Klipschfan (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure section needs more sophisticated analysis 

message: This section mentions four horns and two trumpets. However, Claudio Abbado doubles that in his DVD recording of this symphony with the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela, employing eight horns and four trumpets. I wonder if that was a mere capricious choice by the great Italian maestro, or whether there is some ground for his augmented orchestration. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While this just for personal experience on my part, I believe that it is very unusual to add extra forces to this symphony. Having seen the Simon Bolivar Orchestra on Tv more than once, I have noticed that the orchestra is very large (notice the large amount of brass in their famous BBC Proms appearance on Youtube.) It is my theory then that Abbado was just following the local practice of the of Bolivar orchestra for that particular performance--Bsnjon (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instrumentation 

message: It was mentioned on a BBC TV documentary about Gustav Holst that a movement in the Pathetique is in 5/4 time, like the 'Mars' section of Holst's 'Planets'.  I had never noticed this (about the Pathetique) before, but on checking it the 2nd movement does appear to be in 5/4.  As this was highly unusual (and maybe the first major composition to be written in 5/4?) doesn't it deserve a mention in this article?  I'm not a music expert, so I can't do it myself.86.174.113.146 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Signature 

message: Hi,  I'd like to bring 2 diffs to attention:
*Special:Diff/419914486 by  (long inactive)
*Special:Diff/674024979 by  (active)
One occurred about 5 years ago, blanking large parts of movement structure (albeit uncited prose and not conforming to NPOV), although arguably helps comprehension and points out interesting details about the symphony. The other blanking was a reversion of self-made commentary, also without an edit summary. I think it would be wise to comb through these deleted lines for meaningful content.
One thing that jumped out to me was the lack of mention of how the "limping" waltz is 5/4, or that Tchaikovsky wrote a 'pppppp dynamic in the score. This stuff may be been deleted as trivia, but I think gives the reader a bit of context into the symphony.
Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 02:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually went ahead and made some revisions. Here is a diff. I took what I think I could from the deleted passages. If there are any objections, let me know. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions of movement descriptions and structure 

message: "Although not called for in the score, a bass clarinet is commonly employed to replace the solo bassoon for the four notes immediately preceding the Allegro vivo section of the first movement,[12][13][14] which originates from Austrian conductor Hans Richter.[13][14] This substitution is because it is nearly impossible in practice for a bassoonist to execute the passage at the indicated dynamic of pppppp.[12][13]" 
Could we have a fragment of sound to illustrate this? Not knowing much about music I don't know where to look for it, and "allegro vivo" isn't mentioned in the following description of the movements. Kind thanks to anyone who can help Nankai (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegro vivo section begins on page 35 of the score shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VswsTffasc&t=626 A true pppppp would in fact be too soft to hear in a concert hall: the human ear can only distinguish a difference of 3dB, and six degrees or 18dB below a normal volume would be inaudible. -- Hugh7 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something about a clarinet