Tchaikovsky's violin concerto
Of course no one takes seriously Hanslick's (in)famous remark on Tchaikovsky's violin concerto after the Vienna debut anymore. But I need your help to try to see (and hear) for myself what Tchaikovsky himself has actually written. As Auer put it in his autobiography, the Tchaikovsky violin concerto "has been played in that form (ie his revision) by all my older pupils on both sides of the Atlantic. I often played it in Europe, as I had revised it, and thus - after a sufficiently protracted delay, for which I trust Tchaikovsky's manes will forgive me - I have kept the word I gave the great Russian composer long years ago." The three printed versions of the score I have consulted fits the Heifetz recording, so I presume that they are all the Auer edition. As a side note, Auer's revision was published quite a while after Tchaikovsky had been buried. So it is almost impossible that the composer could have approved it, as suggested by some in previous threads.
I know this question has been raised similarly twice before in the forum (links at the end), but any help on my two unanswered questions would be most appreciated:
* any good analysis - or edition of the (full) score - that highlights the mark-ups / deletions from Auer vs. the urtext
* any good commercial (preferably one that we can still buy) recording of the "urtext" version of the concerto (not just different versions from Auer)
Yes I can go get the urtext do the comparison, but being a lazybone I am appealing for help, since I suspect someone must have done this work before. I am just curious to see whether Auer's revision has indeed improved the urtext, which is, "in spite of its great intrinsic value... in various portions it was quite unviolinistic and not all written in the idiom of the strings." (Auer's own words)
Great many thanks!
PS the two previous threads:
http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=14435&show=all
http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=16415
Replies (10)
Tom: that was what I thought as well, before I learned that Tchaikovsky originally would like to dedicate to the concerto to Josef Kotek, but then "in order to avoid gossip of various kinds" "I shall probably decide to dedicate it to Auer."
Both Kotek and Emile Sauret abandoned plans to play the concerto, after Auer's "postponing" of his debut - Tchaikovsky believed that the two abandoned his concerto owing to pressure from Auer.
THAT's the reason why I became suspicious and want to see the difference for myself...
Ashley - your point is interesting, but perhaps I did not make mine clearly enough because it is somewhat different. Tchaik was not, as far as I know, a violinist of any competence. In that sense, he was like Brahms. Therefore, it is quite possible that in some respects his original manuscript of the concerto did not "work" for violinists, because he did not really know how to write for them. He was not aware of the limitations of violinists as well as what they were actually able to do. It was for that reason that I suggested Auer's changes might have improved the piece. He may have made it more "playable" in some sense or more attuned to the violinist's abilities and needs. Just a guess of course, but one based on what Joachim did for the Brahms concerto (although one violinist suggested that Joachim "sucked the life out of it").;
Oistrakh's edition does just what you ask.
I 2nd the oistakh edition for your purposes.
tom, i understand your approach, but the auer edition does not make any violinistic improvements to the piece. he simply adds tasteless virtuoso passages and cuts out very important musical material from the 3rd movement. he distorts tchaikovsky's views with his changes, and nothing good comes of it. it was played and recorded by many people because that was the popular thing to do, because auer and his pupils were a driving force of russian/soviet violin world. everyone did it as a kid, and many people continued to do it as an adult.
I have to slightly disagree with you my friend D Kurganov :)
Firstly, I do not think Auer made the piece easier in any way. Actually some of the passages he added to the piece make it more difficult. The last movement (to me) without the Auer cuts sounds repetitive and I believe the cuts really do improve the last movement's flow. I can see your point about the first movement Auer revisions, but he really didn't change that many things in the first movement aside from the chromatic tenth passages and a few other things.
Also one thing to mention is that certain violinists like Milstein, Rabin, Fodor, and Friedman recorded the Tchaikovsky 1st movement in its original form but used the Auer cuts in the last movement. So you can also use a combination of both versions. I guess it is all a matter of opinion and taste. I do think it is good thing when learning this piece to learn both versions of the piece, and after that, decide which version suits you better. I have performed the whole concerto both in its original form and with the Auer revisions.
Maybe a violinist someday could record both versions like Kavakos did with the Sibelius on one disk? That might be quite interesting. I don't think that has been done yet with the Tchaikovsky.
i never said he makes it easier. he makes it "harder" with the added virtuoso passages, transpositions in the 2nd movement, etc. the third movement is very peasant and folk like in style. this is why tchaikovsky puts in the repetitions, and it just feels incomplete without it. i agree with you though, its a matter of taste as with anything else. i have some revisions ive been meaning to make myself :)
Many thanks! I got 95% of the answer I need - will stick the Oistrakh and Milstein CDs tomorrow in the machine and listen carefully. Guess it is kind of a consesus that the Auer markups actually made the concerto more unplayable...
http://www.theglassbeadgame.net/TchaikVlnCto.html
Last question though - any recommendation as to a printed score for comparison (anything intelligent other than a comparison with the urtext would be most welcomed...)
As to the "endless repetition" to reinforce folksy themes: guess this is a case of "love me, love my dog" with Tchaikovsky. With the violin concerto we are already spared the case of his 2nd symphony (Little Russian) - in the last movement the theme material was repeated 18 times before Tchaikovsky started introducing any variation...
You should try and get a copy of the Shott edition. Its edited by Rostal. He includes the original and the "improvements" Auer made. The staff splits in two when a change comes along. The top is the original and bottom being the Auer version.
I've decided in learning it had I am going to do everything that Tchaikovsky wrote, as did Hilary Hahn on her latest CD. I don't really care for the "improvements" Auer made. However, I am a bit confused. A friend had told me that Auer did not premier the concerto beause he said it was unplayable. When you look at some of the edits he made, and then go back to what he said about it being unplayable, it doesn't make sense. Specifically mm. 123 - 126. What he wote was IMHO a great deal harder than the original.
Another spot I don't agree with is mm. 111 - 116. The original is not hard when you figure it out. Block your hand and know how to do spiccato. Taking out the chords seems to take something away from that section. I've tried it both ways.
Idk, maybe I'm just picky.
"Specifically mm. 123-126. What he [Auer] wrote was IMHO a great deal harder than the original.
"Another spot I don't agree with is mm. 111-116. The original is not hard when you figure it out."
Agreed. I personally have never liked the Auer version as player or listener -- never considered it an "improvement."
The point about the repetitions in the finale contributing to the peasant-like, folk-like style of the movement is interesting. I've said it before: To me, there's no substitute for finding out, to the best of my ability, what the composer himself actually left to us.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Regarding the Brahms VC, also mentioned in this thread: From what I've read -- sorry; can't pin down the source material at the moment -- Brahms actually rejected most of Joachim's suggested edits and generally had his own way.
I have a vintage Simrock printing of the score -- part of a stack of sheet music, including the Tchaikovsky score, that I inherited as a student from the estate of a professional violinist. There are a few footnotes in it, showing measures written a bit differently from those in the main body of the page. As I recall, these footnotes show what Brahms actually wanted.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Elmar Oliveira International Violin Competition
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
January 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM ·
I am not familiar with the issue you raise, but, since I do not think Tchaik was a violinist, I suspect that Auer's changes probably did improve the urtext. Just a hunch, but there is a reason that Brahms let Joachim suggest revisions to his concerto.