Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Tchaikovsky)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Symphony No. 6 (Tchaikovsky) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
	This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

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[1]:

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)

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)

How much of the rest of this can be sourced? This article seems filled to the brim with clear POV and could use much wikification as well. ("but realised that would encourage curiosity about the programme, which he did not want to reveal." - conjecture. "often interpreted to represent death." - by among others?- - etc.) Schissel-nonLop! 07:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Tchaikovsky liked the title because he himself thought of it. The point I was making is that Modest, an unsuccessful playwright, wanted to secure his place in history as the author of the title. There are so many errors and inconsitencies in Modest's account of the composer's life, especially at the end. The truth might become known if the museum at Klin ever opens its doors to biographers.

As a fan of this symphony, particularly the final movement, I found the description of the finale "then meanders off into a quiet ending" very disappointing: what about the emotion, the exhaustion, the desolate stroke of the tam-tam, the dying heartbeat, full of sadness? I don't want to edit the article myself, however, because I bet there's a Wiki standard for symphonic description. Perhaps someone else could make the description less "a boring end" and more "a finale of outstanding genius"! Peter Harriman 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More about Name

In [2] 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)

I am also a fan of the 6th Symphony and in particular the Finale which is unquestionably a stroke of genius. The point is, I believe, that the end of this magnificent and seminal piece is a sign of its creator's complete exhaustion. Not musically, but emotionally. each movement ends with a descending scale (think about it) and the descent here is, put simply, into oblivion. It is truly one of the greatest masterpieces of the nineteenth century. Michael Paul Smith