During the Baroque period, Johann Sebastian Bach often transcribed his compositions to suit different instruments. In more modern times, composers such as Robert Schumann, Antonín Dvorák, and Gustav Mahler have rewritten or substantially altered their works after hearing first performances in the concert hall.
Tchaikovsky’s Revisions
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893), whose concert music, operas, and ballets have stood at the forefront of Russian musical life, is another composer who decided upon revisions after his music premiered. His famous Piano Concerto No. 1, for instance, was revised at least twice after its first concert in 1875. The Romeo and Juliet Fantasy Overture, first performed in 1870, was also changed no less than twice during Tchaikovsky’s lifetime.
‘Little Russian’
Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 2 in C minor, opus 17, is another significant work that did not escape the composer’s perfectionism. First written in mid-to-late 1872, Tchaikovsky later disapproved of the symphony and set about its revision. It was, in fact, a decision that many around him found regrettable.
Symphony No. 2, popularly known as the ‘Little Russian,’ was influenced by Russian nationalist composers of the day, particularly Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and other members of The Mighty Handful. Tchaikovsky did not actually name the symphony ‘Little Russian;’ the title was suggested by critic Nikolai Kashkin because of the Ukrainian folk songs used as melodic material. ‘Little Russia’ was an imperialistic name given to the Ukraine during Tsarist times, much to the Ukrainians’ displeasure.
Tchaikovsky jogged through the symphony, first setting to work while on vacation at the Ukrainian city of Kamyanka in June 1872. By late November, he was orchestrating the work and soon afterward played his keyboard version at a gathering in Rimsky-Korsakov’s St. Petersburg apartment. The score drew immediate appeal and was performed at a Moscow concert of the Russian Imperial Music Society under conductor Nicholas Rubinstein on February 7, 1873.
The Public Approves, Tchaikovsky Does Not
Audiences and critics liked the symphony without hesitation, but Tchaikovsky had misgivings. In a letter to Vladimir Stasov, a major critic in 19th-century Russia, Tchaikovsky said he was unhappy with the first three movements. Six years would pass before he reclaimed the unpublished full score (eventually destroying it) and began revamping the music.
Tchaikovsky rewrote the symphony while vacationing in Rome. Over a three-week stretch of December and January 1879-80, he made revisions and cuts across all four movements. Tchaikovsky, in fact, claimed to have rewritten ‘almost half the first movement’ before lunchtime on December 30th, working in a form that often requires years of persistence.
The Little Russian’s Second Life
The revised version of Symphony No. 2 premiered in St. Petersburg on February 12, 1881, under conductor Karl Zike. While some critics did not seem to notice the symphony’s revisions, Tchaikovsky’s close acquaintances did and were not enthused. Years removed from the original work’s debut, Tchaikovsky had taken his composition style in a different direction, including the emulation of 18th century composers and the music of France. The revised work seemed at points divorced from its original spirit.
Sergei Taneyev, a composer whose students would later include Rachmaninoff and Scriabin, noted in a letter written after Tchaikovsky’s death that the ‘real’ Symphony No. 2 (i.e., in its original form) should be reintroduced to the public. Nikolai Kashkin, an advocate of Tchaikovsky’s music, also thought poorly of the rewritten material. The prevailing view was that Tchaikovsky robbed the work of its intricacies and color.
Status of the Original Version
Though Tchaikovsky destroyed the full score of his original version, its orchestral parts survived at the Moscow Conservatory and were used for a reconstruction. The original score has been published and is included with some revised scores as annotations, but Tchaikovsky’s later version holds sway in the concert hall. Tchaikovsky stayed committed to the 1880 version and orchestras have usually respected this decision.
Views by such figures as Taneyev, at least in regard to the 1880 version, are correct in that the symphony feels workmanlike and, at times, flat. Though written with competence, it does not take on the scale of his other symphonies (including No. 2’s original) and its heel-stomping finale can feel like empty bombast. Perhaps some comparative history is in order with performances of the original, which may be far more in keeping with Tchaikovsky’s symphonic gifts.
Sources
‘Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky).’ Wikipedia article, 2009 [via Internet].
Tschaikovsky, Peter Iljitsch. Symphony No. 2 in C minor, Op. 17 (“Little Russian”). With foreword by Gerald Abraham.
Warrack, John. Tchaikovsky. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973.
Wiley, Roland John. Tchaikovsky. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Paul-John Ramos - Paul-John is a freelance writer based in Yonkers, New York. His past articles have appeared at Classical Net and his poetry in Steam ...
