Analyzing Tchaikovsky’s Pathetique - Sonata Forms and Embodiment in the First Movement

[@mysticmouse7261]

The music of despair in the midst of passion not to mention love

[@LenTetta-Composer]

First of all, let me just say I absolutely love this channel! Far and away the best classical analysis on the platform, bar none. I actually read your paper that this video is based on recently (not knowing it was by the same person whose videos I’ve been watching!), and while I definitely agree with the overall conclusions, I am a little perplexed by your classification of this movement as a type 2 sonata. I understand why you hear it this way, to an extent - the development and recap don’t have a clear boundary between them where a new rotation clearly begins - but I just can’t imagine a universe in which Tchaikovsky wouldn’t have thought of the big B minor statement of the P theme at measure 245 as the moment of recapitulation. The music that follows is basically a faster, louder version of the entire P/TR zone from the exposition, up until the big gut-wrenching climax led by the trombones. But Len, I hear you scream as you rip the hair from your scalp - it’s only in B minor for a scant few measures before modulating back to F# minor! There isn’t the faintest impression of a cadence! Well, I think I may be able to account for that, too. I kind of view this entire symphony as being about formal telescoping and entangling - oftentimes, sections serve multiple formal functions and seem to get confused as to what purpose they’re “supposed” to serve. Putting it another way - the tragic outcome of the whole symphony seems, to me, entirely the result of the E minor slow introduction. There are a couple things “wrong” with it - it’s off tonic, and it presents what will become the P material more or less intact. (These are things Mahler loves to do too, by the way!) I think this creates the sense that the slow intro has “jumped the gun,” staking its claim on the P material and sounding it in the “wrong” key, and this creates the first formal confusion - is this really a slow introduction, or the first part of P? Then, when the proper Allegro P section begins, it is similarly confused - it isn’t sure if it’s supposed to be acting as a P zone or a TR zone. The boundary between P and TR in this movement is extremely blurry - it seems at first to be a classic “dissolving consequent” TR, but rather than reaching a MC and leading into S, it instead sounds a very forceful P theme at its climax beginning at m. 67. Was this really just a long P zone the entire time? Was the entire thing TR, and the slow E minor was actually P? They’re both, and they’re neither, and because of this confusion, we fail to reach a medial cesura and a proper cadence to set up the D major S, and instead the second theme begin on its back foot, so to speak (the strange rhythmic construction of all of this music, with its obscured downbeats, heightens this impression). The ramifications of this structural confusion will cause all of the symphony’s tragic outcomes. 
But what does all of that have to do with the F# minor stuff at the end of the development? Well, it’s a transmutation of the problematic slow intro/P zones. The slow intro and exposition were telescoped, and in the process of that, they moved up a fifth from E minor to B minor. Now, the retransition/dominant preparation and the P section of the recap are similarly telescoped, and they also move up a fifth, from B minor to F# minor. The implications of this are twofold - firstly, the recap fails to secure the tonic. But also, the giant half cadence at the end of the horrifying trombone climax over the F# pedal is structurally double-dipping just like all the earlier stuff was - is this the medial cesura halfway through the recap, or the dominant preparation at the end of the development (or, if you prefer, the dominant prep to secure tonal closure at the end of the second rotation of the type 2)? Again, it’s simultaneously both and neither, and the stage is set for total sonata failure. I think this telescoped, folded-in-on-itself form can be seen throughout the movement: - Intro also can be viewed as P - P can also be viewed as TR - S is telescoped into C - Development is telescoped into the recap - the final S has many coda-like qualities and is kind of telescoped into the coda, although the final funeral music afterwards does feel like a separate, proper coda With all of this structural obfuscation, how could an essential cadence be remotely possible? It wouldn’t even know where to make its move. The ramifications of this are, I think, even felt in the finale, with the very long E pedal before the final MC before the recap of the second theme having a similar effect as the telescoped developmental dominant prep/recap MC of the first movement, and its being an E also seems to connect it to the problematic E minor intro that started this whole mess. But this comment is long enough!

[@sonatahewrote]

Listen I just want you to know I’m very excited about your comment I’m just not in a location where I can give it the attention it needs, so please standby! I will reply with details

[@LenTetta-Composer]

@@sonatahewroteVery excited to hear your thoughts!!

[@sonatahewrote]

Ok I’m ready to dig into this! I had to dig through my score a bit (and I’m not complaining! haha) So first, I know this is kind of a cop out, but in a way, I don’t entirely disagree with most of what you’re saying. I am going to do a point/counterpoint and try to be brief. We’ll see how it goes. some of this will just be a defense of where I draw the boundaries. So first, the slow introduction(?). You say it begins in e minor. I can definitely see that, I mean it obviously starts on an e minor chord so you got me there. But IS it in e minor? MY perception is that it’s not, and I have 2 practical and 1 narrative reason(s) for that. First, P0 modules by their very nature are often not anchored in a key, so it flirting with e minor is not really that surprising (there’s also no cadence in e so…) Second, I will say there is a part of me that has always viewed this intro as rising out of the fifth symphony. It actually makes me think of the opening section of the second movement of Tchaik 5, which is not in e minor, but does sort of morph out of a (closely related) minor key and into the major, b minor to d major. the second practical reason is that there just really is no cadence point in e minor, even a half cadence, so at best we are flirting with the subdominant here. Now as to what I view as the primary theme and the P-TR merge. It’s interesting you bring up a dissolving restatement, I still have a post-it from my advising prof in my score that says "Is this actually a dissolving restatement?” And I do think there’s an argument that it is one, with the restatement beginning at pickup to m. 31. I label this as a P TR merge because of what I see as the phrase structure of the P theme. I think bars 19-27 are meant to be a period, HC in the middle and there should be an authentic cadence at the end but instead the music is diverted (merged) into transition. And I feel that in measure 31, yes the initial motive is in the original key, but it begins to sequence immediately. This point (and the previous about the intro as well) is really up for debate, this is how I hear it, I don’t feel so certain that I think your view can be said to be wrong. Now the reason I go through this exhaustively is because, as you yourself mentioned there is a lot going “wrong” here. In your comment you write (in reference to the potential P in TR clothing) “but rather than reaching a MC and leading into S, it instead sounds a very forceful P theme at its climax beginning at m. 67” I would say I disagree with your conclusion that the TR is P (other than that it is certainly P-based) and I feel that it does reach a medial caesura in bar 88. If you recall, I mention that an incomplete authentic cadence fails at the rhetorical goal of an EEC/ESC but succeeds at the tonal goal. Well my perception is that this medial caesura is doing the opposite. Rhetorically it is a medial caesura, but tonally nothing has been achieved. we can really only say that it has modulated to d Major in hindsight. Now onto the main bullet point of your comment. Is this a type II? A type III? (a secret third option?) Well even by mentioning that I’m giving the game away, and it actually all wraps back around to your point that there are so many things going wrong. I would say the point you mentioned (m. 245) is the sort of final death throes of a failed to launch recap. My perception is that bar 214 on is a failed attempt at a retransition and dominant lock, and that the motivic material (i.e. the P theme) from bar 229 onward is a failed attempt to create a recapitulation. Ironically my argument that it is not in b minor, is sort of the same argument you use, this music is re entering an area centered around B, it’s simply failing to actually articulate the key! When the absolutely devastating dominant lock DOES come, the time for a potential P recapitulation has passed and, as you write yourself “- [the] Development is telescoped into the recap” What is a type II sonata but one in which the development has been slotted into the recap? But as I said, in my heart I kind of view it as an accidental type II, the music is trying, and in my opinion failing, to be a type III. in a sense? It’s both! But it also is like the EEC/ESC in this movement. I think the expressive power lies in the fact that it is either just BARELY failing, or just BARELY succeeding Now as to how this is felt in the finale, I have to leave that for now as you may know more about it than me, it was sort of cut-for-time from my diss. In order to include the first movements of 4 and 5 So I only have a cursory knowledge of the entire sonata cycle. Is any of this convincing to you? Let me know. I can’t tell you how pleased I am when I discover someone has read my paper and I’m always happy to hash out this form. By the way I’m thrilled to hear you mention Mahler, I often feel there’s some dialogue between Mahler’s form and Tchaikovsky’s and I hardly ever meet anyone else who has had that thought as well.

[@LenTetta-Composer]

@@sonatahewrote That all absolutely makes sense! In the course of typing my original comment, I also sort of talked myself into seeing it the way you describe here, and I think you hit the nail on the head - it’s a type 2 that desperately wants to be a type 3, and makes a hell of an effort, but doesn’t manage it. Kind of a double sonata failure?? I do think I’d stick by the intro being in E minor - there’s a pretty clear half cadence in measure 5. But even if you don’t view it as truly being *in* E minor in a structural sense, you have to admit that it initially *seems* to be in E minor. And I think that’s generally how I’m starting to think about a lot of these formal confusions I initially proposed - it’s not like TR actually *is* P, or the slow intro actually *is* P - it’s more that Tchaikovsky very cleverly introduces seeds of doubt that create moments of confusion as to what section of the piece is happening. The perfect example is the P statement at m. 67 - after TR functioning more or less properly for a while, the brass blares out the P theme and shuts down the sequential motion. The rest of the orchestra tries to escape this and get back on the sequential track by trying the same music a minor third higher, and the brass shuts it down again, even more forcefully, as if to say "no, we're still dealing with P, dammit!" This sends the music careening into full-on crisis mode, and it ends up just apprehensively retracting rather then achieving a properly functioning cesura (I also really don’t hear m. 88 as a cesura, but I think that’s just my subjective hearing - your argument for it is certainly perfectly sound! Either way, the cesura doesn’t perform its tonal duty). Another example of this cultivation of doubt is the P material being first heard in the intro - in hindsight, hearing the true P, we can look back at the intro and think “wait, was that the P theme? What’s going on here?” The music being written off the beat, with beat 4 often sounding like beat 1 and stuff like that, exacerbates this disorienting impression, too (much like the finale of Mozart’s K. 516, which we know was one of Tchaikovsky’s favorite pieces!). I’d also, in hindsight, be a little hesitant to just say that TR is P-based and call it a day at that - I think it has a bit too much motivic independence. I hear it more as a motivically independent TR that P keeps butting into, with destructive/regressive results as described above. I think I’d describe the symphony overall as being about formal structures and conceits that are trying to be something they’re not. The first movement wants to be a type-3 sonata and fails, both as a type 3 and as a sonata in general. The second movement wants to be a dance movement, but it’s in 5/4 (and its middle section, which is a prolepsis of the finale tonally and motivically, is totally undermined by the persistent D pedal that thuds away in the timpani through the whole thing). The third movement can’t decide if it’s a scherzo or a finale. The finale just wants to be a slow movement, but the dramatic and structural weight of being placed as the final movement and the resultant pressure to resolve the issues of the whole symphony bearing down on it causes it to totally buckle and end in tragedy. Often, this whole idea manifests in an unhealthy obsession with subdominant key areas (which lines up well with H&D’s description of subdominant slow movements as being unreal or “if only” escapes from the reality of the minor mode outer movements - perhaps the subdominant stuff in this piece is a kind of toxic coping strategy that eventually causes collapse? Especially with the “fake finale” in G at the end of the third movement). The first movement’s P zone is confused and undermined by the E minor intro, the failed P recap is set in F# minor which recontextualizes B minor as a subdominant, the third movement is totally focused on G and E, which both have a subdominant relationship with B, and the finale’s final collapse comes after an extended passage over an E pedal (and there’s a brief, pathetic tonicization of G in the trombone chorale right before the desolate final section). Continuing the Mahler connection - this is also how Mahler 6 works! The first movement is a failed sonata whose failure is caused by its S refusing to leave subdominant key areas, but finds redemption in a tonic major coda. The finale, then, sets its S theme in the major subdominant (D major), which causes the undoing of the entire thing by ushering in the first hammer blow in D minor at the beginning of the development, and on and on it goes until its final tragic outcome (are you familiar with Seth Monahan’s writings on the Mahler 6th? I’m basically just paraphrasing it here lol). And speaking of Mahler, it makes me so happy to hear that you also see that connection!! People tend to dismiss the possibility of Mahler being influenced by Tchaikovsky due to his very public and vitriolic disparaging of Tchaik 6, but I reject this outright. Maybe he was insecure about how much he borrowed from it?? Even if he did really hate it, he conducted it so much…the influence must have just seeped in subconsciously. People have pointed out the formal similarity between Mahler 9 and Tchaik 6, but I see much more kinship between Tchaik 6 and Mahler 6, both in terms of their obvious rhetorical similarities and their under-the-hood tonal workings and outcomes. And - funny that you mention Tchaik 6 rising out of Tchaik 5 - that’s precisely how I see the relationship between Mahler 5 and 6. 5 ends up finding a D major conclusion after the A minor horrors of the second movement, but then 6 kicks in and continues exploring this D major/A minor duality in a way that totally negates the triumph of 5. I would be absolutely thrilled to discuss all of this stuff further in any format you like! I could easily talk about all of it for hours. Thanks so much for taking the time to respond so thoroughly, and I can’t wait to see the rest of the series!

[@sonatahewrote]

@@LenTetta-Composer For me and my ear, the 7th in the 5th bar is more indicative of a failed cadence than a true half cadence. But that's really just more of what we already agree about, mainly that the symphony is about things going wrong! I certainly agree that it initially seems to be in e minor , that's indisputable I think. It sounds like we agree on the large scale picture of this symphony (and other Tchaikovsky symphonies) My general description of many of the movements is that they are tragically incapable of being in their desired form. I think I'll be coming back to this comment for reference quite a bit!

[@lucaspedraza6161]

at 35:00 when the secondary theme comes again, its very weird and uncomfortable, with that up scales almost chromatic, it makes me feel like something is wrong, i mean.. its the same lovely theme we just heard before.. but it doesnt feel right, its like that lovely theme is now corrupt and it cant be the same way it was. Is this a bad interpretetion? Am I the only one who think that way? And then, when the clarinet plays it one more time (almost alone and very shy), its like a tiny fragment form the original theme remains, a little light in the darkness.

[@sonatahewrote]

totally agree! that's Tchaik inserting some ambiguity into the work, definitely

[@tj-co9go]

Interesting. Now, this is not to criticize your approach. I do like that people are into musical theory, but I have never really liked these types of musical analyses, even when studying music myself. Despite the analysis, I feel Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony lies beyond the theories of harmony and melody and music, and as something more divine, emotional, direct than that. It didn't quite catch still why I love the symphony so much. It is the most romantic symphony ever composed, that I think, the ultimate embodiment of that artistic movement, the most extreme stuff you will ever hear. Well, Mahler's symphonies and Rachmaninoff's 2nd are close second. And why not Beethoven's 5th and some others of his too. But nothing somehow every comes close to Tchaikovsky's 6th. I have listened to this symphony for well 10 years and it never stops surprising and amazing me. It is not like Tchaikovsky composed it. It just existed and he discovered it. Sometimes by dissecting something you destroy it. You take a living creature apart and examine its organs. But in the process the animal dies and you will never understand how the animal acts and feels and thinks just by looking at the individual parts. If you get what I mean.

[@sonatahewrote]

I definitely respect your opinion, and you can of course continue to feel that way (not that you need my permission 😅) But I do disagree. Tchaikovsky’s music (imo) is not divine, it’s the result of his own skill as an expert craftsmen who is not only tuned into his own time and culture. But the musical developments of the centuries that preceded him. Having said that, it definitely is powerfully moving and seems superhuman! It sounds like we appreciate music in a different way, but feel its emotional power in essentially the same way

[@tj-co9go]

@@sonatahewrote I am pianist of over 15 years and a composer myself. It is not lightly that I say this opinion. Perhaps it is more of a sentimental feeling than something I hold seriously. Sometimes I get these great moments of inspiration, even if I know it is motivated by theory, it comes from somewhere I am not sure where from

[@Craftythrifter]

I think any person’s craft/art comes from a combination of training, knowledge, experience, emotions and personality. No doubt could add a lot of other adjectives in there as well. It’s good to think about this sometimes but it’s also beneficial to just let it happen and not scrutinize it too closely.