Pyotr Chaikovsky is often referred to as Russia’s first professional

composer. (For an example, see Taruskin’s Defining Russia Musically, p.

xiii). In a critical assessment of this notion, and using comparisons with

his ‘nationalist’ peers, explain what, if any, advantages were gained by

Chaikovsky in being awarded the title 'svobodniy khudozhnik'.

Gaining the title 'svobodniy khudozhnik' was of immense importance to Pyotr

Chaikovsky‘s life. To have unrestricted time and money to dedicate to his art

allowed him to explore ways to express himself musically and share this with the

world. Chaikovsky was infinitely advantaged by gaining this title, as it not only

led him to international prominence, but gave Russian music a new respected

voice worldwide. Chaikovsky was also the first native-born, full time composer to

achieve both an international reputation as well as fame within Russia without

being born into nobility, or being a virtuosic performer1.

Music throughout Russia’s history had existed mainly in the forms of folk songs

and church music, such as Byzantine chant. In the year that Chaikovsky

commenced study at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, 1862, folk songs, though

thriving in Russian villages, were seen as crude and barbaric by people living in

the cities2. Under Peter the Great, the Russian cities of St. Petersburg and

Moscowwere westernised. Music was generously patronised, but only if it was

European, especially Italian. In an interesting double standard, holding a career

in music as a Russian was not seen as acceptable, and lawfully it didn’t exist.

Whilst Chaikovsky was at the Conservatory, the tsar began to grant artists the

title of 'svobodniy khudozhnik', or free artist, though in most early cases the

composer usually had to write in the musical style of the Italian or French to be

1
Richard Taruskin, ‘Tourist Nationalism’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy
(Accessed13/06/08), www.grovemusic.com
2
Lawrence and Elisabeth Hanson, Tchaikovsky (Red Lion Square, Great Britain: Cox &
Wyman Ltd, 1965), 53.
granted a hearing3. It is interesting to notice the nationalism which Russian

music inherited, most likely in response to the extreme European influence on

Russian musical life at the time. Sabaneev, an historian, argues that Russia

imposed upon itself ethnographic nationalism as an invariable requirement and

condition in their music4. In contrast, German or English music was never

expected to be completely German or English, which allowed for more freedom

of expression, and less stereotyping. It was in this nationalistic era that

Chaikovsky entered the Russian music scene, and became one of the most

important figures within it.

On a superficial level the advantages that Chaikovsky gained with the title of

'svobodniy khudozhnik' are clear. No longer did he need to work as a government

clerk5, but could survive as a composer through the patronage from wealthy

supporters, with the most important and influencial benefactress being

Nadezhda von Meck6. Chaikovsky was able to use his funds not only for the costs

of living, but to continue his education, to travel and to promote, perform and

publish his works. Chaikovsky’s reason for pursuing a career as a fulltime

composer is this:

“I have come to the conclusion that sooner or later I shall give up my present
occupation for music. Do not imagine I dream of being a great artist...I only
feel that I must do work for which I have a vocation. Whether I become a
celebrated composer or merely a struggling music teacher – it’s all the same.
In either event my conscience will be clear, and I shall no longer have the
right to grumble at my lot.”7

To begin the comparison of the ‘free artist’ Chaikovsky with his ‘nationalist’

peers, we can see the obvious difference in that they had to hold other jobs. For

3
Hanson, 54
4
Leonid Sabaneev, Tchaikovsky, The Musical Times Vol. 70, No. 1031 (Jan. 1, 1929), 20
5
Hanson, 48
6
Olga Bennigsen, More Tchaikovsky-Von Meck Correspondence, The Musical Quarterly,
Vol. 24, No. 2 (Apr. 1938), 129
7
Wilson Strutte, Tchaikovsky, (London, England: Omnibus Press, 1979), 13
example, all members of ‘The Mighty Five’ had other careers separate to their

involvement in music. Rimsky-Korsakov was a naval cadet, Borodin a chemist,

Mussorgsky a member of the Imperial Guard, Balakirev a mathematician and

railway clerk and Cui an engineer of military fortifications. These composers have

not risen to the same incredible fame as that of Chaikovsky for numerous

reasons.

Ultimately Chaikovsky gained lasting international success because he dedicated

himself to his art, without consuming himself in musical politics or aesthetics like

‘The Five’, but rather focusing on personal expression through his Russian, yet

also quite European musical style. Chaikovsky superseded ‘The Five’ by

appealing to a broader range of listeners. The other important difference is that

Chaikovsky was musically educated, at the Conservatory. Though ‘The Five’ were

educated, it was in their own way, and certainly in a very different way to

Chaikovsky. They were imaginative and innovative, but did not have the same

understanding of harmony and counterpoint as one would gain through studying

at the Conservatory. Some say that Chaikovsky is the perfect blend of genius,

conservatory educated and nationalist, and that without each of these factors his

music would not have been nearly as successful as it is.

Chaikovsky’s nationalism was extremely different to that of his ‘nationalist

peers’. It was part of his being, innate to him, and not something that needed to

be considered as a formal problem when writing music8. ‘The Five’, some

historians say, were outsiders contemplating folk music by incorporating it into

their works through simple quotation, or were simply “folk tune arrangers”9.

Though this sounds harsh, we can see here the huge difference to Chaikovsky, in

that he wrote his own melodies, yet through having such a Russian musical

8
Sabaneev, 21
9
Sabaneev, 21
 consciousness, they are equally as characteristic as any folk song10. This can be
Ex.
1

seen here in the 2nd movement of Chaikovsky’s 4th Symphony.

Shown above is how Chaikovsky’s nationalism has been completely absorbed

into his musical language as an amalgamation of all his learning and influences

throughout his life. This takes Chaikovsky’s nationalism in his musical language

to a level beyond that of ‘The Five’.

Another important factor is that Chaikovsky did not feel the need to be

innovative in his aesthetics, unlike ‘The Five’, who set out to continue the legacy

of Glinka in creating a distinct Russian sound. Often, ‘The Five’ assisted the

critics views of Russian music by composing pieces that sounded rather barbaric,

seen as a novelty to European listeners. This encouraged the view that Russian

music was ‘the other’, incomparable in quality to European music. This can be

seen in Mussorgsky’s ‘Night on Bare Mountain’.

Ex.
2

10
Sabaneev, 21
One can see here that Mussorgsky is very far from functional harmony, and is

simply representing the idea of a snow storm in whatever manner he chooses.

The most prominent intervals are the semitone and tritone, the orchestration is

very bare and raw, and musically the work is very dramatic. Another

characteristic of ‘The Five’s conformity to European beliefs was in their portrayal

and use of the ‘exotic’. This can be seen in works like ‘Polovtsian Dances’ by

Borodin, multiple Rimsky-Korsakov works such as ‘Scheherazade’ and the ‘Antar’

symphony, as well as in Balakirev’s popular ‘Islamey: an Oriental Fantasy’. Some

might argue that Chaikovsky used similar colouring and novel techniques in his

works at times too, but it served a deeper purpose than merely writing

something ‘oriental’. This can be seen in Francesca da Rimini, Chaikovsky’s

symphonic poem. It uses extreme writing, and colouring, to serve the purpose of

representing the emotions of Francesca in hell. This shows how Chaikovsky was

really an incomparable force of the time in comparison to his nationalist peers. It

is doubtful that he could have achieved such depths in his works without being

able to wholly dedicate himself as a ‘free artist’ to extending his compositions.

Chaikovsky’s music also shows Russian nationalism in another much deeper way.

Through expressing his innermost emotions, we see examples of the Russian

character flowing through the music as organic pessimism, exalting grief and

accepting sorrow11. As Sabaneev states “We see something much more

characteristic of Russian feeling...than in any formal outline of melodies

borrowed from the folk repertory for the benefit of the European.”12 This

expression, though it can be seen in most of Chaikovsky’s oeuvre, is especially

Ex.
3

clear in the following melody from ‘Romeo and Juliet’. [Ex. 3]

Originating in the cor anglais and viola, this voluptuous melody directly

represents love. Other intense Russian emotions are also represented in this non-

programmatic way, such as the coda of his 1st symphony, ending with the huge

accelerando. He wrote the work just after marrying a woman whom he did not

love, and was filled with depression. We can also hear his despair in the last

movement, the Adagio Lamentoso, of his last symphony, the symphony

‘Pathetique’. This contrasts to Mussorgsky’s ‘Boris Godunov’ opera, which deals

with similar Russian despair, only painted out in a much more programmatic way.

Chaikovsky had the necessary skills to take his works beyond the programmatic

because he was a professional composer, educated and with time available to

perfect exactly what he wanted to say.

11
Sabaneev, 22
12
Sabaneev, 22
Although ‘The Five’ and other composers classed as completely ‘Russian’ did

write very nationalistic works, many of them wrote some western-style works as

well. To look specifically at ‘The Five’, one could say that Mussorgsky was the

only one who stayed ‘truly Russian’ musically, but he died early and struggled

with alcoholism throughout his life, so it is hard to use him as a decisive figure.

Rimsky-Korsakov is a good example of someone associated as very nationalist

writing quite western music. Though one could certainly continue to argue that

writing symphonies is a very European tradition and question why ‘The Five’ still

continued to use this musical structure at all, one shouldn’t forget that Rimsky-

Korsakov also later studied and taught at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, with

his 3rd symphony showing the huge change in his writing. The difference between

the more ‘Russian’ sounding 2nd Symphony “Antar”, and the 3rd symphony, built

on complete counterpoint and polyphony is a clear example. The most striking

example though, must be Igor Stravinsky, one of the most famous Russian

composers of all time. He wrote neoclassical works, even serialist works, and is

still considered highly Russian. In fact, Stravinsky was a huge admirer of

Chaikovsky and his works. ‘The Fairy’s Kiss’ ballet was written by Stravinsky

based on themes and ideas from a piano piece by Chaikovsky. We see here that

both Chaikovsky and Stravinsky fashioned a more alternative nationalism in

comparison to the mainstream ‘nationalism’ of composers like ‘The Five’.

In Stravinsky’s case, it is very interesting to see his almost equal influence from

both Chaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov. Chaikovsky’s influence can be seen in

‘Pulcinella’ which is a neoclassical work, imitating works of the 15th century.

Stravinsky was clearly influenced by Chaikovsky’s ‘Rococo Variations’ and the

‘Mozartiana’ suite. The “unrussianness” of these works certainly cannot be said

to undermine the Russianness, or the compositional technique of their respective

composers. The influence of Stravinsky’s teacher, Rimsky-Korsakov, can be seen

clearly in the orchestration of ‘The Firebird’ as well as in ‘Fireworks’ and ‘Scherzo

Fantastique’. It is also interesting to note the later influence of Schoenberg on

Stravinsky’s music, as can be seen in works such as his orchestral variations and

‘Requiem Canticles’. If Stravinsky is considered Russian, then there is no doubt

that Chaikovsky, in a similar way of exploring styles, can be thought of as a

Russian nationalist. Here we see how Chaikovsky, hence Stravinsky too, were

advantaged by Chaikovsky being given the title of ‘free artist’.

Chaikovsky can also be compared to other nationalists throughout Europe, such

as Dvořák, and later, Bartók and Janáček. These composers, in similar technique

to Chaikovsky, merged their nationalism, their national folk music, into their own

musical language, elevated far from the level of basic quoting or manipulation.

The difference between these composers and composers like ‘The Five’ is

education. From this example we can see that it is mostly Conservatory

educated, or professional composers that have taken their musical nationalism to

another level, to complete assimilation, rather than just utilizing the juxtaposition

of various folk tunes.

Another important comparison is that of Mussorgsky’s ‘Boris Godunov’ and

Chaikovsky’s ‘Eugene Onegin’. ‘Boris Godunov’ can be seen as the defining work

of ‘The Five’ from that period. Both operas are emotionally realistic, and

represent Russian emotion very successfully. This comparison shows the

important difference between Chaikovsky and his peers, they were both equally

as nationalistic; they just approached it in different ways. The two scenes which

demonstrate this difference are Tatyana’s letter writing scene in ‘Eugene Onegin’

and the clock scene in ‘Boris Godunov’. Tatyana, a soprano voice, sings beautiful

Chaikovskian melodies in celebration of her newly found love. This scene is very

typically Russian, very realistic, suiting the plot. The clock scene at the end of Act

II of ‘Boris Godunov’ has Boris yelling in natural voice rhythms, in a completely

different way to anything in ‘Eugene Onegin’. Whilst different, it is still

completely Russian, and similarly to ‘Eugene Onegin’, it realistically represents

the scene, only this time the character is expressing a tortured psychology rather

than expressing blissful feelings of love. The difference of choice here is an

indication of the difference between the composers, and their respective circles.

Mussorgsky chose to portray a scene from Russian history, whilst Chaikovsky

chose to portray a famous Russian story. These composers therefore cannot be

judged as less or more Russian, more simply, they are expressing their

nationalism in a different way.

To conclude, Chaikovsky gaining the title 'svobodniy khudozhnik' gave him

continued advantages over his ‘nationalist peers’. The argument over levels of

‘nationalism’ decreases in importance as time goes on, and it can be seen that

Chaikovsky’s popularity is enduring time increasingly more than his peers. The

reason does not lie solely in his nationalism, but in his education and high quality

of music, complemented by his extreme lyrical skill, Russian nature and

dedication to his art. He was able to reach such international success because

his music appealed deeply to both the Russians and the Europeans, in different

ways. But most importantly, it was because his music was universal. In the

words of Sabaneev, “It is the human grief revealed by the magic of a musical

genius, and not the power of the spirit resisting the magic of the world and fate.”

It was Chaikovsky’s sheer emotion that appealed, and continues to appeal to

listeners worldwide that is perhaps the most showing of how much of an

advantage being a ‘free artist’ gave him. He was now allowed the time and

resources to extend his abilities as far as possible to express his emotions and

share this through his music.

Bibliography
Bennigsen, Olga. More Tchaikovsky – Von Meck Correspondence, The Musical
Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Apr. 1938)

Hanson, Lawrence and Elisabeth. Tchaikovsky. Red Lion Square, Great Britain.:
Cox & Wyman Ltd, 1965.

Kraus, Joseph C. Tonal Plan and Narrative Plot in Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5
in E Minor, Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 13, No. 1, Spring 1991.
Poznansky, Alexander. Tchaikovsky: The Man behind the Myth. The Musical
Times, Vol. 136, No. 1826, April 1995.
Sabaneev, Leonid. Tchaikovsky. The Musical Times Vol. 70, No. 1031 , Jan. 1,
1929.

Strutte, Wilson. Tchaikovsky. London, England.: Omnibus Press, 1979.

Taruskin, Richard. ‘Tourist Nationalism’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy

(Accessed 04/06/08), http://www.grovemusic.com
SCORES
Borodin, Second Symphony, ed. W. Bessel & Cie (Boosey & Hawkes Ltd: London)

Borodin, String Quartet, (Ernst Eulenburg Ltd: London)

Mussorgsky, Night on the Bare Mountain, ed. W. Bessel & Cie (Boosey & Hawkes
Ltd: London)

Rimsky-Korsakov, Capriccio Espagnol and other Concert Favorites, (Dover

Publications: Ontario, 1998)

Rimsky-Korsakov, Sinfonie C-dur, ed. M.P Belaieff (M.P Belaieff: Frankfurt, 1984)

Tchaikovsky, Hamlet, ed. M.P Belaieff (M.P Belaieff: Frankfurt, 1986)

Tchaikovsky, Piano Trio in A Minor, (Dover Publications: Ontario, 2002)

Tchaikovsky, Serenade in C and Suite No. 4 ‘Mozartiana’, (Dover Publications:

Ontario, 1998)

Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 1, (Ernst Eulenburg Ltd: London)

Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 2 “Little Russian”, ed. G. Abraham (Ernst Eulenburg

Ltd: London)

Tchaikovsky, Variations on a Rococo Theme, (Dover Publications, Ontario, 2000)

Tchaikowsky, Romeo and Juliet Overture-Fantasy, (Boosey & Hawkes Ltd: London)
Tschaikowsky, Souvenir de Florence, (Simrock: Berlin, 2002)

Tchaikowsky, Symphonies Nos 4, 5, 6, (Boosey & Hawkes Ltd: London)

Tschaikowsky, Capriccio Italien, ed. F. Reinisch, (Breitkopt & Hartel: Wiesbaden)

Tschaikowsky, Francesca da Rimini, (Ernst Eulenburg Ltd: London)

Tschaikowsky, Quartett D-dur, (Ernst Eulenburg Ltd: Leipzig)

Tschaikowsky, Symphony No. 3, G. Abraham (Ernst Eulenburg Ltd: London)