Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky)

One of Tchaikovsky's joyful compositions, it was successful right from its premiere and also won the favor of the group of nationalistic Russian composers known as "The Five", led by Mily Balakirev.

[3] The symphony is scored for piccolo, two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, four horns, two trumpets, three trombones, tuba, timpani, cymbals, bass drum, tamtam (last movement only), and strings.

His liturgical music includes a setting of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and an All-Night Vigil which draw upon traditional chant.

[4] Tchaikovsky wrote much of the Little Russian Symphony during his summer holiday at Kamianka (Kamenka) in Ukraine with his sister Aleksandra's family, the Davydovs.

Gerasimovich, the elderly butler in the Davydov household, sang the folk-song "The Crane" to Tchaikovsky while the composer was working on the symphony.

To persuade a recalcitrant postmaster to hitch the horses to the coach in which he and his brother Modest had been travelling, Tchaikovsky presented himself as "Prince Volkonsky, gentleman of the Emperor's bedchamber."

He believed fervently that in Kamarinskaya lay the core of the entire school of Russian symphonic music, "just as the whole oak is in the acorn", as he wrote in his diary in 1888.

For Tchaikovsky, Kamarinskaya offered a viable example of the creative possibilities of folk songs in a symphonic structure, using a variety of harmonic and contrapuntal combinations.

Because of his compositional training, Tchaikovsky could build the finale of the Little Russian more solidly and over a greater time scale than either Glinka or Mussorgsky could have done.

To his brother Modest, he wrote, "[T]he whole company almost tore me to pieces with rapture—and Madame Rimskaya-Korsakova begged me in tears to let her arrange it for piano duet".

Stasov wrote of the finale "in terms of color, facture and humor ... one of the most important creations of the entire Russian school.

[18]" Hermann Laroche, who had travelled from St. Petersburg especially for the concert, wrote in the Moscow Register on February 1, "Not in a long time have I come across a work with such a powerful thematic development of ideas and with contrasts that are so well motivated and artistically thought out.

Despite a negative review by César Cui, the audience in Saint Petersburg received the piece positively enough to guarantee it a second performance the following season.

In the same letter describing the 1873 premiere, Tchaikovsky wrote to Stasov, "To tell you the truth, I'm not completely satisfied with the first three movements, but 'The Crane' ['Zhuravel'] itself [the finale which employs this Russian folk tune] hasn't come out so badly.

Bessel released a piano duet arrangement (prepared by Tchaikovsky after Rimskaya-Korsakova had to withdraw due to illness) but was late to produce a full score.

[3] He felt strongly enough about the matter to write the composer's brother Modest, "It seems to me that in some future concert you ought to let people hear the real Second Symphony, in its original form ...

There is an undeniable heaviness in the original, but its imposing scale, and its richness of content and detail make it a far more impressive piece that ought to be restored to the place, which is still permanently usurped by its slighter and far less enterprising successor.

"[23] See Discussion section for a reference to the only recording of the original version of the work, made by Geoffrey Simon and the London Symphony Orchestra.

Tchaikovsky, with his Conservatory grounding, could sustain such development longer and more cohesively than his colleagues in the kuchka, but writing in this vein also had its pitfalls.

The melody tends, in fact, to become something near a set of variations on itself, to proceed by modulation rather than by development and contrast; and this clearly makes it recalcitrant to symphonic treatment.

However, in 1872, Tchaikovsky did not see this lack of structural advancement as a problem since in all his most important symphonic movements to date his practice had been to close the first subject exactly where it had begun.

Its weightiness contrasted well with the comparatively lightweight second movement and it balanced the finale well—a formal pattern the composer would repeat much later in the Pathétique.

From Romeo and Juliet he used the idea of integrating the introduction, based on another Ukrainian folk song, with the main body of the movement by using material from it in the allegro.

While the exposition of these themes was limited in expressiveness, it was also rich in inventive detail and skillfully composed—what Dr. David Brown called "as monolithic a slab of symphonic music as Tchaikovsky had yet composed.

"[25] The finale is both the high point of the symphony and its composer's clearest demonstration of writing in line with the tradition of Glinka as embraced by the Five.

He introduces the folk song "The Crane" in a grandiose introduction similar to how Mussorgsky would write "The Great Gate of Kiev" for Pictures at an Exhibition two years later (although many recordings seem to rush through this imposing section, making the contrast between this and its impish second statement somewhat less stark).

The music becomes both highly animated and mischievous in tone as Tchaikovsky allows "The Crane" to virtually monopolize the next two minutes, set against a succession of varying backdrops.

The development is an unorthodox combination of these two themes accompanied by a series of widely striding bass notes, like some giant walking through the music's narrative.

He became attracted to the qualities of lightness and grace he found in 18th century classical music, as shown in his Variations on a Rococo Theme.

After reappearing to complete the exposition, it had continued as a constant element of the entire development section before falling back to allow the first theme to reassume its role.