Ronnie wrote:

I have been enjoying the "Euroclassic Notturno" (BBC?) program on swedish radio tonight.  As a happy rookie in the world of classical music, I seek advice on Tchaikovsky based on what I just heard; His Symphony No. 5. I thought: "Horrible waltz mixed with nice but superfluous 'soundeffects'. Got much better towards the end, sounded more inspired and unconventional. Perhaps a bit 'effect seeking'?" Do you think there are any Tchaikovsky works for me, given that impression? I really want to avoid that horrible waltzing, but it sounded as if he -could- have made some really interesting music. I've been listening super-nearfield, using a very FR-flawed but loaded mono setup, with a very Macondo-like upper bass channel. Many thanks to Romy and JLH for inspiration and building instructions! ...Then came a "Sonata in F minor" by Eckhard. Jesus Christ, that was superb! I'll try not to stray any further from the topic.

I would strongly encourage you, if you have interest in Tchaikovsky, to families yourself what he was going through in 1888 in his live, and perhaps to see if any other compositions from that period would be interesting to you.

If you look forward to dive deeper into this work then I would suggest a “mix” of two performances.

The first movement would be believe you or not but by Georgiev with Vienna Philharmonic. I have no idea what happen then but the orchestra did something absolutely phenomenal. It was the best play that I heard ever from Vienna Philharmonic and they did it with…. I am sorry …with the Georgiev! It kind of slower then might be but it is superbly balanced and with the “semantics” and assents that it overwhelmingly powerful.

The second movement incontestably owned by Mravinsky with Leningrad Philharmonic (the stereo version of 1961). Practically no one plays this movement properly from my perspective, as no one reached a culmination in the end of the movement with such recklessness and vigor as the Mravinsky’s orchestra. The second movement of the Tchaikovsky’s Fifth is fantastically melodic and superbly fluent but it has a catch: to me this movement is the most remarkable depicting of a female orgasm then I ever come across in music. So, the play should be with… that one… you know what….

The Third movement is a glyceriny abracadabra, very nice, with no “load” and it is a good relaxation before the last movement comes.

The last movement, and you would need go back to the Mravinsky and Leningrad Philharmonic 1961. There are “better” performances of it, more “musical” and more orthodox, but no one after or before Mravinsky had balls the size of Montana and no one squeezed out of orchestra so much testerone and Mravinsky did. The introduction of the main thyme in there, after a couple minutes of “preface” is phenomenal, and even the typically-crappy sounding Russian instruments have in the hands Mravinsky their own justifiable super-purpose in their crappynes. And, off course, when after another 2 minutes the Leningrad’s full orchestra will bloom with it’s full strength you buck up and hold your upper bass horn because it will fly.  The muscularity and at the same time orchestral X-ray like articulation of this last movement is out body experience and Mravinsky will hold it to the final note of the pieces.

 BTW, the Tchaikovsky’s Fifth by Mravinsky, last movement is for a very long time is my standard test for capacity of an upper bass in a playback installation. A properly implements upper bass channel should load a listening room with a certain amount of pressure. This pressure should have a VERY certain amount of drama and certain amount of fear, no more and no less. If the drama or if the fear were not there than it was not an upper bass horn but some kind of Wilson Audio loudspeaker.  If the drama and the fear were in incorrect proportions then the driver of the upper bass horn was not properly damped.