
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No 3 / Pletnev, Russian NO
Subjected to the scrutiny of others, not all of Pletnevâs releases in this new cycle have received unstinting praise. Colleague Boyd Pomeroy wondered if the conductorâs Fourth wasnât too refined in a Karajanesque manner, while Peter J. Rabinowitz generally approved of Pletnevâs Fifth but noted some balance problems and a trace of the old Soviet vibrato. And even yours truly, after waxing ecstatic over Pletnevâs âPathĂ©tique,â was not entirely convinced by the conductorâs follow-up âWinter Daydreamsâ (No. 1) in 35:6.
With this No. 3, we have the final curtain call for Pletnevâs PentaTone cycle and, as cycles go, Iâd have to give this one an overall outstanding rating. Personally, I canât get too excited about Tchaikovskyâs Third Symphony. As I said in my review of Pletnevâs Second, between the Second and Third, itâs a tossup as to which is the weakest of Tchaikovskyâs six numbered symphonies. The Third Symphony was composed in fairly short order between June and August 1875, and thereâs little evidence that Tchaikovsky fretted over it or kept tweaking it as he did with his First Symphony. For the neurotic and generally insecure composer, it seems that he was satisfied with the completed score and called it done. His only complaint was that the first performance could have gone better had there been more rehearsals. The work is unique among Tchaikovskyâs symphonies in that itâs the only one in five movements, and, unless one counts the composerâs abandoned Seventh Symphony in E?-Major, itâs the only one among the standard six thatâs in a major key. It seems Iâm not alone in my opinion of the work. Critical commentary has been mixed at best. Musicologist David Brown rated the Third, âthe most inconsistent and least satisfactory of the symphonies and badly flawedâ ( Tchaikovsky: The Crisis Years, 1874â1878 , and Tchaikovsky: The Final Years, 1855â1893 ). And to that I would add the least consequential.
If the score is one you find appealing, I can think of no better proponent of it than Pletnev. As with all previous releases in this cycle, Pletnev has the Russian National Orchestra playing in top form, and he finds many felicities in the piece, like the coquettish wind asides in the Alla tedesca movement that delight the ear and give Tchaikovskyâs note-spinning a serenade-like gracefulness.
The Coronation March that fills out the discâor, to give its full title, Festival Coronation March âis one of those potboiler pieces composers are often called upon to provide for political events or ceremonies of state. In this case, the ceremony was the coronation of Tsar Alexander III in 1883. Tchaikovsky received the commission to write the piece from Moscowâs mayorâit was more of an order than it was an offerâwhile he was in Paris working on his opera Mazeppa , and he was royally roiled, writing to Nadezhda von Meck, âMy plans have been upset by two unexpected and very burdensome tasks foisted upon me. The city of Moscow has commissioned from me a ceremonial march to be played at the festivities which are to be organized for the Sovereign at the Sokolânikii. Hardly had I managed to reconcile myself to the thought that I must tear myself away from the opera for the march, when suddenly I received a letter from the festival committee about a cantata. Both works, especially the cantata, have to be ready very soon, a prospect which fills me with dread.â If heâd put as much time and effort into working on the assignments as he did kvetching to von Meck about them, he might have produced something more worthy of his reputation. Still, in the end, Tchaikovsky seems to have thought highly enough of his march to make a piano transcription of it. Shades of the 1812 Overture come to mind, but without the cannon, carillon, or La Marseillaise , and all condensed down to less than seven minutes. Itâs not very good, but at least itâs loud.
FANFARE: Jerry Dubins
Subjected to the scrutiny of others, not all of Pletnevâs releases in this new cycle have received unstinting praise. Colleague Boyd Pomeroy wondered if the conductorâs Fourth wasnât too refined in a Karajanesque manner, while Peter J. Rabinowitz generally approved of Pletnevâs Fifth but noted some balance problems and a trace of the old Soviet vibrato. And even yours truly, after waxing ecstatic over Pletnevâs âPathĂ©tique,â was not entirely convinced by the conductorâs follow-up âWinter Daydreamsâ (No. 1) in 35:6.
With this No. 3, we have the final curtain call for Pletnevâs PentaTone cycle and, as cycles go, Iâd have to give this one an overall outstanding rating. Personally, I canât get too excited about Tchaikovskyâs Third Symphony. As I said in my review of Pletnevâs Second, between the Second and Third, itâs a tossup as to which is the weakest of Tchaikovskyâs six numbered symphonies. The Third Symphony was composed in fairly short order between June and August 1875, and thereâs little evidence that Tchaikovsky fretted over it or kept tweaking it as he did with his First Symphony. For the neurotic and generally insecure composer, it seems that he was satisfied with the completed score and called it done. His only complaint was that the first performance could have gone better had there been more rehearsals. The work is unique among Tchaikovskyâs symphonies in that itâs the only one in five movements, and, unless one counts the composerâs abandoned Seventh Symphony in E?-Major, itâs the only one among the standard six thatâs in a major key. It seems Iâm not alone in my opinion of the work. Critical commentary has been mixed at best. Musicologist David Brown rated the Third, âthe most inconsistent and least satisfactory of the symphonies and badly flawedâ ( Tchaikovsky: The Crisis Years, 1874â1878 , and Tchaikovsky: The Final Years, 1855â1893 ). And to that I would add the least consequential.
If the score is one you find appealing, I can think of no better proponent of it than Pletnev. As with all previous releases in this cycle, Pletnev has the Russian National Orchestra playing in top form, and he finds many felicities in the piece, like the coquettish wind asides in the Alla tedesca movement that delight the ear and give Tchaikovskyâs note-spinning a serenade-like gracefulness.
The Coronation March that fills out the discâor, to give its full title, Festival Coronation March âis one of those potboiler pieces composers are often called upon to provide for political events or ceremonies of state. In this case, the ceremony was the coronation of Tsar Alexander III in 1883. Tchaikovsky received the commission to write the piece from Moscowâs mayorâit was more of an order than it was an offerâwhile he was in Paris working on his opera Mazeppa , and he was royally roiled, writing to Nadezhda von Meck, âMy plans have been upset by two unexpected and very burdensome tasks foisted upon me. The city of Moscow has commissioned from me a ceremonial march to be played at the festivities which are to be organized for the Sovereign at the Sokolânikii. Hardly had I managed to reconcile myself to the thought that I must tear myself away from the opera for the march, when suddenly I received a letter from the festival committee about a cantata. Both works, especially the cantata, have to be ready very soon, a prospect which fills me with dread.â If heâd put as much time and effort into working on the assignments as he did kvetching to von Meck about them, he might have produced something more worthy of his reputation. Still, in the end, Tchaikovsky seems to have thought highly enough of his march to make a piano transcription of it. Shades of the 1812 Overture come to mind, but without the cannon, carillon, or La Marseillaise , and all condensed down to less than seven minutes. Itâs not very good, but at least itâs loud.
FANFARE: Jerry Dubins
Original: $21.99
-65%$21.99
$7.70Description
Subjected to the scrutiny of others, not all of Pletnevâs releases in this new cycle have received unstinting praise. Colleague Boyd Pomeroy wondered if the conductorâs Fourth wasnât too refined in a Karajanesque manner, while Peter J. Rabinowitz generally approved of Pletnevâs Fifth but noted some balance problems and a trace of the old Soviet vibrato. And even yours truly, after waxing ecstatic over Pletnevâs âPathĂ©tique,â was not entirely convinced by the conductorâs follow-up âWinter Daydreamsâ (No. 1) in 35:6.
With this No. 3, we have the final curtain call for Pletnevâs PentaTone cycle and, as cycles go, Iâd have to give this one an overall outstanding rating. Personally, I canât get too excited about Tchaikovskyâs Third Symphony. As I said in my review of Pletnevâs Second, between the Second and Third, itâs a tossup as to which is the weakest of Tchaikovskyâs six numbered symphonies. The Third Symphony was composed in fairly short order between June and August 1875, and thereâs little evidence that Tchaikovsky fretted over it or kept tweaking it as he did with his First Symphony. For the neurotic and generally insecure composer, it seems that he was satisfied with the completed score and called it done. His only complaint was that the first performance could have gone better had there been more rehearsals. The work is unique among Tchaikovskyâs symphonies in that itâs the only one in five movements, and, unless one counts the composerâs abandoned Seventh Symphony in E?-Major, itâs the only one among the standard six thatâs in a major key. It seems Iâm not alone in my opinion of the work. Critical commentary has been mixed at best. Musicologist David Brown rated the Third, âthe most inconsistent and least satisfactory of the symphonies and badly flawedâ ( Tchaikovsky: The Crisis Years, 1874â1878 , and Tchaikovsky: The Final Years, 1855â1893 ). And to that I would add the least consequential.
If the score is one you find appealing, I can think of no better proponent of it than Pletnev. As with all previous releases in this cycle, Pletnev has the Russian National Orchestra playing in top form, and he finds many felicities in the piece, like the coquettish wind asides in the Alla tedesca movement that delight the ear and give Tchaikovskyâs note-spinning a serenade-like gracefulness.
The Coronation March that fills out the discâor, to give its full title, Festival Coronation March âis one of those potboiler pieces composers are often called upon to provide for political events or ceremonies of state. In this case, the ceremony was the coronation of Tsar Alexander III in 1883. Tchaikovsky received the commission to write the piece from Moscowâs mayorâit was more of an order than it was an offerâwhile he was in Paris working on his opera Mazeppa , and he was royally roiled, writing to Nadezhda von Meck, âMy plans have been upset by two unexpected and very burdensome tasks foisted upon me. The city of Moscow has commissioned from me a ceremonial march to be played at the festivities which are to be organized for the Sovereign at the Sokolânikii. Hardly had I managed to reconcile myself to the thought that I must tear myself away from the opera for the march, when suddenly I received a letter from the festival committee about a cantata. Both works, especially the cantata, have to be ready very soon, a prospect which fills me with dread.â If heâd put as much time and effort into working on the assignments as he did kvetching to von Meck about them, he might have produced something more worthy of his reputation. Still, in the end, Tchaikovsky seems to have thought highly enough of his march to make a piano transcription of it. Shades of the 1812 Overture come to mind, but without the cannon, carillon, or La Marseillaise , and all condensed down to less than seven minutes. Itâs not very good, but at least itâs loud.
FANFARE: Jerry Dubins























