Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/Archive 1

Comments
I came into this page wanting to learn about Tchaikovsky and all I could read about how gay he was. I couldn't care less. Can someone rewrite this to make sense about how he was as a composer?

SUGGESTION: WIKIPEDIA SHOULD REFER COMMON MISSPELLINGS (IN SEARCH ENGINE) TO ARTICLE.

Just a thought: instead of saying the importance of Tchaikovsky's homosexuality cannot be "underestimated," shouldn't the correct phrasing be "cannot be OVERestimated" in order to make a lick of sense?

''ok, so how should we spell Tchaikovsky's name? I've seen a lot of different versions here. What is considered 'correct' transliteration? If/when we reach consensus, the content should be moved to a page with the agreed and the other pages redirect to it.'' I beilive that you should spell how you think it should be spelled!!! Independence!

What is said below is mostly correct and it depends on what country you are in. The New York Times during Tschaikovsky's visit to New York and Carnegie Hall spelt it as it is in Russian as Chaikovsky (the transliteration here of the "y' is the problem because Russian has two "i" one which is hard and the other which is soft. We have photographs and other autographs in which Tschaikovsky in his own attempts of transliteratins signs Tschaikovsky (German) and Tschaikovsky most elsewhere in Europe. Perhaps the most distressful spelling and pronunication is the one that puts a cow into T.'s name. This may originate from the Polish version. By the way: Tschaikovsky did not have a daughter---he had one son who died in infancy. ludwig van beethoven

Pyotor would be the Russian
 * I don't want to get involved in the mire that is a transliteration discussion, but I should think that "Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky" is the most usual spelling of his name at this time in the West. Maybe (maybe) the article should be moved, but I ain't doing it. --Camembert


 * My opinion. This is a general problem with the similar Russian names and surnames (for example Chebyshev, Joffe, Fock (or Fok) and such). I know that many times even Russians can't agree what is correct latin transliteration. They can use several different names even in their passports and it is just fine at customs. Another problem is that Russian write western names in their own "strange" transliteration and not in the original (so Newton would be somehow Nyutn). Therefore I use (until I am stopped to do this by the other wikipedians) in English Wikipedia original Russian names, so I would also include in this particular article his Russian original name as &#1055;&#1100;&#1086;&#1090;&#1088; &#1048;&#1083;&#1080;&#1095; &#1063;&#1072;&#1081;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080; (This probably won't be shown correctly all over - fixed later on). And also for instance we westeners usually use only one (or first) name (e.g. John F. Kennedy). Russians, as I know, they call themselves not by surnames but with their name and their otchestvo (father's name - second name). Regarding Pyotr I do believe this is the right and the only way to traslate to latin Russian personal names. It is true that Peter is English name - but we can't translate "the meaning". It is okay untill we have a list of all posibilities and I am shure it would be very long. For instance how would be Tchaikovsky's daugter called in English then: Natasha Pyotrnovna Tchaikovsky or Natasha Peternovna Tchaikovsky? Best regard. -- XJamRastafire 09:22 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)


 * Yes, "Peternova" does look vaguely ridiculous. My feeling was that "Peter Ilyich" would be best because it is the most common spelling in English speaking countries (I admit I have no evidence to back this up, but I suspect it is true - a quick Google search appears to back this up). But on reflection, I think it's probably best to consult a number of large English language music dictionaries (such as Grove) and see how they tackle the problem - I suspect that they will have used the same spelling we have here at present ("Pyotr Ilyich"). In any event, it isn't a particularly pressing problem so long as one central article is maintained with redirects dealing with any stray links. I think placing the cyrillic on the page is a good idea, but I can't see it, and I think somebody who can should do it. Thanks --Camembert


 * It would be Natalia Petrovna Tchaikovskaya, because:
 * Natasha is a diminutive of Natalia, and diminutives are not used with patronymics.
 * Pyotr is changed to Petrovna (his son, say Ivan, would be Ivan Petrovich T.)
 * the surname is feminised with the -ovskaya ending. JackofOz 04:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad that someone slightly agree with my 'NPOV'. And as I know for instance Donald Ervin Knuth has on the net such long list about the Russian names of which he would like to get through, probably once and for all. That is why this is not just my kind of fashion as someones here think. And BTW I adore Tchaikovsky's music even if some rumours are there out he was somehow gay and with strange sexual orientation. Music, I guess does not know any boundaries. Thank you, too. -- XJamRastafire 18:44 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)


 * Cuz it's just so bizarre for gay men to be in the music and ballet business. montr&eacute;alais


 * Jeronimo moved this page to Pyotr Tchaikovsky, which I think is wrong, so I've moved it back - however his name gets spelled, it is very rare indeed for people to refer to him as "Peter Tchaikovsky"; is it either "Peter Ilitch Tchaikovsky" or simply "Tchaikovsky" (Google confirms that ommitting the middle name is relatively uncommon). --Camembert


 * I think we have to translate the name because a non-Russian speaker won't understand what the name means, but a Russian speaker does. Peter Seagullson is the ONLY correct title for this page. And sarcasm wins EVERY Internet argument. -Iopq 00:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've almost always seen his name spelled "Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky." I've seen one exception, in which a text spelled his last name "Tchaikowsky" (not with the extra 's' as in the article). I don't really care if the article goes under "Pyotr" or whatever seems to be the consensus as to the proper spelling, but rather than reference several strange transliterations afterward we probably should just mention the common spelling (e.g. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky [russian spelling and birth/death dates here], also spelled Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky,...) or something along those lines. Jeremiah 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if we are going to keep his name as he was born (i.e. not Peter) then the correct transliteration wold be Py(i)oter Ilyi(t)ch Tchaikovski. If I had to say what the page would be named, I would put it at Pyoter Ilyich Tchaikovski (regardless that Pyoter does look rediculous when spelled out (at least to myself))


 * With respect, that seems to be a make-it-up-as-you-go-along type of transliteration, based on your concept of how his name sounds. Pyotr is the standard transliteration of the Russian original. JackofOz 04:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian Alphabet
The Cyrillic letters show accents over the 'myagkii znak' in Ilyich, and over the -k- in Tchaikovsky. These are wrong. You can't accent consonants in Russian. They belong over the second -i- in Ilyich and the -o- in Tchaikovsky. JackofOz 05:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Problem with French Transliteration
I have seen in a few music history texts where they say that the "Tch" in Tchaikovsky is a French transliteration and that it should be spelled instead "Chaikovsky".


 * Normally this would be the case (the name begins with the Cyrillic letter Ч/che, usually transliterated in English as "ch") but Tchaikovsky is the established English version, probably by way of French as you note, so we're more or less stuck with it. No harm in it, though; it doesn't actually make the name appear to be pronounced other than as it is.


 * (though none of this answers why the "literal" English transliteration given in the article is so bizarre: Pëtr Il'ič Čajkovskij? Was this copied over an interwiki link?) &mdash;Zero Gravitas 22:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Pëtr Il'ič Čajkovskij" is a literal (letter by letter) transliteration of the Russian Cyrillic, based largely on spelling in Slavic languages that use the Latin alphabet (especially with the comparison of Serbian and Croatian alphabets). Mademoiselle Fifi 23:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the "ë" to "jo". If it's meant to be an indication of how the Russian is pronounced, "ë" is very misleading.  It looks like a German letter and many people would try to say "Pertr" or something like that.


 * The name section needs some work. There are various ways of spelling each of his 3 names, and they have been mixed and matched with gay abandon throughout the literature.  Just giving two or three of the possible combinations suggests these are the only ones there are.  But giving all of them would be a very long and absurd list.  I'd prefer to show (a) the Russian spelling, (b) a useful transliteration, and (c) some of the common variant spellings for Pyotr, for Ilyich, and for Tchaikovsky, but without nominating any particular combination of these elements.  JackofOz 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you've changed it back, Mllefifi. I question the value of the distinction you've made about 4 phonemes vs. 5.  That is fine for a linguist, but it has little or no value for an ordinary reader.  "ë" means one and only one thing to a person who knows no Russian, namely the German letter e with an umlaut.  It does not in any way represent the actual sound of the Russian letter "ë". JackofOz 23:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would read "ë" as meaning this "e" should be pronounced as an "e", as in the French name Citroën. But your point stands.--Rfsmit 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Try telling that to any Russian guy with the name Семён ;) --Russavia 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to add a different perspective: the actual name is Greek, "πέτρα", which in English means "rock". But we don't go around translating Tchaikovsky's name as "Rocky" :) Nonetheless " &#1055;&#1100;&#1086;&#1090;&#1088;" is the Russian equivalent of the Greek "πέτρα", so surely by analogy, it makes most sense to "translate" the name using the English form of the Greek "πέτρα", namely "Peter"...?--feline1 10:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is one compelling reason why the French transliteration might be featured a bit more prominently in Wikipedia: the Library of Congress cataloging system! If you want to find scores of Tchaikovsky's symphonies and operas, you go to M1000C and M1500C, not T. LoC has chosen to use "Chaikovskii" as their standard spelling. I would guess (and this IS only a guess) this is because a lot of his music, like Rimsky-Korsakov's, was first published in the West by French publishing houses rather than German ones, and it was these French editions that were entered in the LoC catalog.TaigaBridge 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For that matter, I think it would be useful, at the top of the article, to identify Chaikovskii as French and Tschaikowski/schi as German - so that people can see how the different English spellings originate from translating the name twice instead of once. TaigaBridge 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

————————

Just noticing, the audio file doesn't work, or if it does, his name is pronounced "chaik" (like "psyche", just with a "ch")
 * No, that's not right. Many people assume it rhymes with "psych", but it's more like "chah ik", without any break between the 2 parts.  JackofOz 04:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tschaikovsky vs. Tchaikovsky
"How should the name of the composer of the music for “Serenade” be spelled? Most Westerners now spell it Tchaikovsky, but City Ballet took up, during Balanchine’s lifetime, the spelling Tschaikovsky. Why? Because that’s how the composer spelled it when he was in New York in 1891. (My thanks to the reader who sent me a copy of his Carnegie Hall autograph from the Pierpont Morgan Library.)"


 * NY Times article by Alastair Macaulay, June 1, 2007


 * — Robert Greer (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutcracker
Also, let it be known that Tchaikovsky did not write a ballet called The Nutcracker Suite. He wrote a ballet called The Nutcracker and then extracted some pieces from it to make the concert work The Nutcracker Suite (ie a suite of peices taken from the ballet The Nutcracker). A lot of people get confused about this, so I'm clarifying it before anybody changes it back again. --Camembert


 * While we're at it, he didn't write a Symphony No. 6 in B minor called the "pathetic symphony" either. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Music, "patetichesky" in Russian means "passionate".Ortolan88


 * I disagree. I heard that he intended Pathetique to mean "pathos", not "passionate". Chyko


 * Pathos means emotional, as in passionate. -Iopq 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as long as we don't think of it as "pathetic." Actually, it is quite good.  His "pahtetic" work would be the the 1812 Overture.  --VonWoland 06:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "quite good"?? - that must be the greatest understatement of all time (lol). Anyway, the 6th symphony is always known by its French subtitle "Pathétique", and is never translated into English.  We might debate its English meaning here for mental exercise with little children, but it will never end up in the article. JackofOz 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * About the "Suite"-thing. I've republished a transcription of the "Suite" for piano by Tchaikovsky himself and the title is "Suite tirée de la partition du ballet 'Casse-Noisette' de P. Tschaïkowsky". The publisher is German, so I guess it must have been the original French title. The link at Wiki's to the free download of the score was removed, though. You'll have to take my word for it. Rowy 09:57, 18 September 2006 (GMT+01:00)

Suicide
Is it really "generaly accepted that his death was by suicide"? Dutch Wikipedia for instance says the exact opposite: death due to cholera with rumours that this was intentional poisoning.


 * This has been the cause of a great deal of debate, and to date there is no definitive answer. One theory is that a secret court sentenced him to suicide or face being exposed as a homosexual, for his sexual involvement with the son of a member of the aristocracy.  Another is it was suicide for other reasons.  Another is that it was plain foolhardiness in drinking unboiled water during a cholera epidemic, to prove he was not susceptible to it.  We may never know. JackofOz 05:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Robert Greenburg (source cited in article), there is no longer a question of what happened. His lecture refers to evidence released by the Russian government. <>< tbc 05:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Poznansky tells a very different story. --Hugh7 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Didn't Poznansky write twelve years ago? Haiduc 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I put it down as most historians believing he did not commit suicide. Poznansky's book was publised in 1996, but it seems to me we need something more than a lecture to cite if we are going to claim as fact the Czarist government did it. Gene Ward Smith 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Works for me. <>< tbc 07:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about an attempted suicide by wading into the Moscow River because of depression over his marriage to Antonina Miliukova? I definitely remember reading this in a book once (I don't remember the exact source, unfortunately) and the article about Tchaikovsky's death also mentions this event, although I can't tell if it's referenced without having read Holden. Does anyone want to check this out? If it's true, I think it's definitely something that needs to be added to this article; if not, it needs to be removed from the article about his death.--149.130.232.39 (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The best argument for suicide is to put a program under the Pathetique itself. The following  seems self-evident to me.  First movement:  Pyotr is hauled into a magistrate's private chambers.  His "crime" is read to him, he senses what is coming, he objects, there is a heated argument, when finally the magistrate cuts off debate & gives sentence.  I can point to the exact note in the score.  The music thunders its rage & frustration.


 * Second movement: Woe is me, I am defeated, you will miss me so much when I am gone, alas what shall I do, what will become of me, etc., etc.


 * Third movement. An idea comes.  It is brilliant.  It is electric, it is magnetic.  I will kill myself.  Death will bring me happiness.  Death is the solution.  I am so happy!!!  Please note:  Tchaikovsky is not Shostakovich, who, late in life wrote a string quartet consisting entirely of dirges.  In writing a march, Tchaikovsky is telling us something.  Composers of his stature do not waste a single note.  Note the music consistently surges upwards, a sign of hope amidst the gloom.  Up until the very end of the movement, when what starts as a simple repeat turns into cliff-hanging, nail biting "am I sure I really, really want to do this?"  Three simple notes, repeated over & over as the bass gets progressively deeper & scarier.  Until finally by an act of sheer will he pulls himself out of it and forces himself back to his original exuberance.  Immediately we hear long, long notes in the horns.  Which to me is looking down the barrel of a gun, loooong and smooooooth and shiny.  Whereupon the music launches into the greatest frenzy of all, but now, note carefully, the accompaniment is all running powerfully downwards.  This is the end.  It is final.  A lot of conductors know what this music means, as they divide neatly into two camps.  The first camp is scared to death of the music and deliberately underplay it, changing the dynamic markings, sometimes altering the tempo - both of which are clearly marked in the score.  The second camp (Ricardo Muti comes to mind) knows what the music is expressing and go for it.  When played as marked, the result is the creepiest passage in all music.


 * The fourth movement: Tchaikovsky is dead, don't you miss him, why didn't you pay more attention when he was alive, etc., etc. He finishes the score, he conducts the premiere, but unlike the Pytor  in the music, the real Pytor opted for other means.  I once heard, I do not know where, that Tchaikovsky never drank water, preferring alcohol of some sort.  If he was observed drinking water, at a time when water was known to be unsafe, he was making his intentions as clear as he could.


 * So far as the Pathetique & homosexuality, the real argument is the piano concerto. Why was it condemned?  Because to play it you would have to put your fingers where That Man had put his.  And that made pianists feel unclean.   Dave of Maryland (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Piano
This may not be necessary, but just to clarify: an anon editor keeps changing the age at which he began studying piano from five to six. This is incorrect. He began lessons in 1845, at the age of five, and even more amazing, he wrote a song to his mother (according to a letter from his father) in September 1844, at the age of FOUR. The anon editor's last change did verify that the intent was vandalism all along. Antandrus 17:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biography
Some links in the section might better be removed - see Make only links relevant to the context? Schissel : bowl listen 21:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Greenberg
I made some edits based on Robert Greenberg's "Great Masters: Tchaikovsky -- His Life and Music." Those edits were removed without comment. I haven't tracked down who did it yet (comments would make that easier), but I am curious to know why my edits were blown away. Is Greenberg an unreliable source? <>< tbc 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It evidently was here . (Tempted to leave a rant here about people who make big changes and mark them as a "minor edit.")  I remember your addition; I edited it myself to give both sides of the story, and indicate the source (Orlova) as well as that it is controversial, with a lot of musicologists vigorously opposing it (the writeup in the recent New Grove is pretty good).  Go ahead and put back the details if you want.  IMO Greenberg is a good and reliable source; I've gone to numerous lectures of his in SF in the last few years; though he tends to emphasize one side of contentious issues he's very thorough in his research.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

why isnt there a robert greenberg bioin wikipedia?


 * Because no one has written one yet. I could but it might include original research, so I probably won't ... Antandrus  (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

His favourite painting
Please see a question I've posted at Reference desk/Humanities regarding the identity of the author of Tchaikovsky's favourite painting Melancholy. Please reply only there, not here. JackofOz 03:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Family connection with Rimsky-Korsakov
Mllefifi removed the following, on the basis that Rimsky was married only once, and not to a Davidova:
 * He had some interesting family connections to Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. Rimsky married in turn two of Tchaikovsky's nieces, the sisters Vera and Natalia Davydova. Tchaikovsky's brother Nikolai adopted his great-nephew Georges-Léon Blumenfeld, who was also Rimsky-Korsakov's nephew by marriage (his mother was Vera's and Natalia's sister Tatyana).

I obtained that information from John Warrack's book "Tchaikovsky" (Hamish Hamilton, London, 1973; ISBN 024102403). However, on closer inspection, I discover that although the text has many references to R-K, it says nothing about him being related by marriage to Tchikovsky. The info is contained in the Davidov family tree shown inside the back cover. It seems that Vera and Natalia Davidov did both marry a Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, but not the Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. The composer R-K did indeed marry only once, to a woman named Purgold. I must take Mr Warrack to task for allowing this false impression to be so easily gained by not disambiguating the Rimskie-Korsakovy. Ah well, there goes another bit of "history". Thanks. JackofOz 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Broken links
Is there a reason for there being links to files which don't exist in this article? I've removed the link to a file which was intentionally deleted, but there doesn't seen to be any reason for having the other ones here. Unless anyone objects, I'll come back and delete the other broken links later. Caillan 03:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been nearly 24 hours now. They've been removed. Caillan 01:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian vs. Ukrainian
What is the evidence that he was "strictly speaking Ukraininan"? I've only ever heard of him being Russian. He did not to my knowledge speak the Ukrainian language nor identify in any way with the Ukrainian people or their culture or history. JackofOz 07:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Try looking at the wikipedia list of 'Ukrainian composers' sometime. P.


 * Thanks for the smart reply, Pfistermeister, but it seems you're not as smart as you like to make out. That entry of itself proves nothing.  It seems he was erroneously added to the list of Ukrainian Composers by anonymous editor 72.144.92.64 on 30 October, without an edit summary.  I wasn't aware of the edit, till now, thanks to you.  I'm removing him from the list and removing references to his Ukrainian-ness from the article.  If somebody can produce documentary evidence to prove otherwise, we can revisit it then.  Editors (whether anonymous or identified) who don't provide edit summaries cause more trouble than they're worth.  JackofOz 11:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Antidote, you'll notice I reverted your edit. Firstly, Ukraine was simply a part of Russia in T's day, not a separate nation as it is now. So even if he had strong Ukrainian links (which I hotly dispute), he would still have been considered Russian. But I've never read anything to suggest that T had any knowledge of the Ukrainian language, culture or people. Some of his forbears may have come from that part of Russia - although his father certainly didn't and his mother was of French extraction - but he was born in Russia, as a Russian, speaking Russian, identifying as Russian in all respects. That makes him Russian and nothing but Russian, in my book. It may be OK to state that he had some Ukrainian ancestors, and French (d'Assier), but to assert that he was, even in part, a Ukrainian composer is just wrong. I'll stand corrected if you can produce some documentary evidence for your claim. JackofOz


 * Hi Jack. His father was a Ukrainian mining engineer which I can show you here . Note that there are other sources, I just chose the one I could find the fastest. Also it says here that Tchaikovsky had Ukrainian heritage. His mother was of French origin but only partly.  Indeed, Russia was part of Ukraine but since Ukrainians are considered a separate nationality here (though there might be little difference in language and culture) it's probably appropriate to add the fact that he was Ukrainian too. Also, since we're in the debate of who's who in nationality terms. I'd like for you to take a look at the Nicholas Copernicus article, and like to hear your view on the nationality debate that is going on there. Also, I need help populating List of Ukrainians, so if you can help, please join me. Thanks.  Antidote


 * Nothing I've read suggests his father was Ukrainian in the sense of identifying as a member of that community and speaking that language and honouring that culture and heritage. His ancestors may have come from that part of the country, but he himself was thoroughly Russianised.  But whatever genealogical heritage he had through his father is irrelevant to Tchaikovsky's nationality.  He was Russian through and through in all the ways that matter. His mother was half-French, so does that make Tchaikovsky a French composer, or even a partly French composer?  No.  Was Tchaikovsky's half-sister Zinaida a German just because her mother was of German origin?  No.  Is George W Bush an English politician just because some of his ancestors came from there?  Of course not.  Pyotr Tchaikovsky did not speak Ukrainian (which is not a dialect of Russian but a separate and distinct language, albeit related to Russian), and at no time ever identified himself publicly or privately as Ukrainian.  Just because some Ukrainian websites now claim Tchaikovsky as their own does not make him their own.  There are 23,000 Google hits for "Tchaikovsky Ukrainian composer", as compared with 307,000 for "Tchaikovsky Russian composer".  See also  which supports my stance that "no one would argue seriously argue that Tchaikovsky is a Ukrainian composer".  I'd be happy to say that Tchaikovsky was a Russian composer with mixed Russian, Ukrainian and French ancestry, but I would not accept that he was "a Russian-Ukrainian" composer.  JackofOz 09:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with just a mention that Tchaikovsky was ethnically Ukrainian, culturally Russian, and an enthusiast (as well as ancestrally) of the French. It doesn't have to be in the header either. But I don't see why we should take him off List of Ukrainians. Antidote 22:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you leave him there, you have to also put him on the same list for French people. He was no more Ukrainian than he was French, namely, not at all.  His blood lines do not translate to his nationality.  Aaron Copland or George Gershwin were not Russian composers just because they had Russian ancestors.  JackofOz 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion has taken on a quite bizarre quality. Can someone kindly tell us whether or not the composer of the 'Little Russian' symphony was actually born in 'Little Russia' - that is, in the Ukraine? Thanks. MD


 * Tchaikovsky was born in Russia. Votkinsk, north-eastern Russia; in the Urals.  His father was an inspector in a mine there, and right now we're not sure whether or not the father was originally from the Ukraine.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Russia is a nation-state; the Urals are a geographical feature, and the Ukraine, in Tch's time, was a region. So I'll ask again: can someone kindly tell us whether or not the composer of the 'Little Russian' symphony was actually born in the Ukraine? Thanks. MD


 * No. Votkinsk is in north-eastern Russia.  It's on the railroad line NE of Kazan and at least 1600 km from the Ukraine.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. We're getting somewhere. Now, if Tch had been born in the Ukraine region, then there'd be a sense in which he was irreducibly 'Ukrainian', whatever his 'ethnicity', and however 'Russian' his legal status and cultural affiliations were. But since he was born *nowhere near* that region, then we can forget all this twaddle about what language he spoke; what his cultural commitments were; how 'Russianised' he was; or where his parents came from: in the world of sane people without irrational axes to grind, Tchaikovsky *simply wasn't Ukrainian*. Hope that helps. MD


 * Antandrus, you say "right now we're not sure whether or not the father was originally from the Ukraine". I'd prefer to say that we're quite sure he wasn't from the Ukraine.  My reference ("Tchaikovsky", John Warrack) says: "The first historical Tchaikovsky of whom we hear is Fyodor Afanasyevich, a Cossack officer who left .. a widow and 2 children.  One of these, Pyotr Fyodorovich, became a civil servant and rose to be Chief of Police successively in 2 towns in the Vyatka Province, some 600 miles east of Moscow.  His wife Anastasia Stepanova [sic; should be Stepanovna] Posokhova, had been orphaned in the Pugachev rebellion.  She bore her husband no fewer than 20 children before his death in 1818.  The youngest, Ilya Petrovich, born in 1795, chose a career in the Department of Mines."  Then there is mention of Ilya's first wife being of German origin, and his second wife (the composer's mother) being of French origin, but no mention of Ilya himself being of Ukrainian origin.  Maybe Pyotr's great-grandfather Fyodor Afanasyevich, being a Cossak officer, was Ukrainian.  And maybe his grandmother Anastasia had some Ukrainian connections if she had been orphaned in the Pugachev rebellion.  But this is all supposition.  In any event, Pyotr's father and grandfather were both Russian.  This whole Ukrainian thing is a complete red herring, and we really have to get over it.  Life is too short.  Those Ukrainian websites that have claimed Tchaikovsky as "a Ukrainian composer" have done us all a great disservice.  It is just not true.  JackofOz 03:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. I looked through all my sources (Grove, Slonimsky, Oxford, etc) and I can't find anything about his father being Ukrainian either.  I remember reading it somewhere, but it may have been in this Wikipedia article.  Funny how that goes.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Antidote, I really hope we're not going to have this tiresome debate all over again. If you or anybody wants to assert any connection with Ukrainian heritage, ancestry, descent or background for Tchaikovsky, please provide credible documentary evidence for it. JackofOz 08:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain i showed a source that stated that Tchaikovsky had Ukrainian heritage (the #3 above somewhere) - however, his ancestors COULD have been of Russian ancestry from Ukraine. To be honest, I don't know for sure and you rightfully changed it to "Russian mother". Antidote 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I re-checked those sources before I posted the above. [2] refers to "Tchaikovsky's Ukrainian heritage" but gives no other information.  I discount it as an unsubstantiated claim that has no foundation.  [3] says his mother was half French, but the word "Ukrainian" does not appear there at all.  I strongly suspect this whole urban myth arose because he wrote the "Little Russian" symphony, Little Russia being another name for Ukraine.  The Ukrainians have taken him to their hearts - and fair enough - but they've gone too far in claiming him as "a Ukrainian composer".  Mendelssohn wrote a Scottish and an Italian symphony, but that didn't make him either Scottish or Italian.  I remain convinced Tchaikovsky had no significant connection with Ukraine, but am open to persuasion if evidence can be produced.  JackofOz 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's grandfather was from Ukraine. To be exact, his last name was Thaika and he was from Nikolaevka village near Poltava city. Tchaikovsky's music deeply demonstrates his great interest to the Ukrainian culture: last movement of his piano concerto is fully based on Ukrainian folk tune. His opera "Mazepa" is about the Ukrainian national hero who was murdered by Peter the Great. Thaikovsky himself stayed for awhile in Ukraine (near Kiev) and also appeared there (at the Kiev Opera house) as a conductor. My suggestion to all participans of the discussion - to study Russion sources (in Russian). Western publication contain too many errors, as well as misleading and faulty information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.202.160 (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just seen this, and I challenge its veracity. His father was Ilya Petrovich Tchaikovsky; his paternal grandfather was Pyotr Fyodorovich Tchaikovsky (not Thaika), who became chief of police in two towns in the Vyatka Province, some 600 miles east of Moscow - rather unlikely for a Ukrainian.  Even if his grandfather happened to have been born in Ukraine, that doesn't make the composer Tchaikovsky a Ukrainian.  If you're perchance referring to his maternal grandfather, he was a Russian with a French noble title, the Marquis André d'Assier.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dostoevsky the russian writer, along his paternal line was disputably said to have originated from an area in Belarous near Pinsk where many russian and belorousian families had settled and at the time--16th century--had lived under the Dutchy of Poland-Lithuania, furthermore the town or settlement of supposed origin was 'Dostoevo' and therefore his last name was changed from Rdishev to what in english would be 'Dostoevskian' belonging to Dostoevo or in russian 'Достоевский'. It is very obvious that culturally parched post-soviet states (who lost their affiliations with russia) Ukrainians will try very hard to lay claim to a most russian of all russians whether ethnically or not, who in his music is the very apex of what it is to be russian and left an immortal effigy of composition which created a paradigm of distinctly russian music with the folk traditions of Великоруссия or "the Greater Russia" as it was called, with an exception to the Little russia symphony which was inspired by his vacation in Ukraine where many dignitaries had their retreats and his sisters family had an estate. It was nicknamed as Малороссийская.


 * As for the very audacious and vain attempt to attribute racial biases by obviously very astute and ardent nationalists of former-soviet republics as exemplified by the likes of the above Tufkaa, I can only say that yours or anybody else's attempts to conduct gross unqualified revisionism in the footsteps of many of the anti-russian states these days who are systematically vilifying russian culture will only serve your ego's and will not enrich the cultural heritage of your own nations. I'd like to also add that if we scrupulously dwell into the genetics of european intellectuals and dignitaries, on whom we have very little survivable evidence we would soon arrive at results that are as multinational as the european continent itself. Some examples being Kant and Beethoven who, while contentiously, are believed to have lineage in Hungary(former) and Flanders(latter) are nevertheless as inseparable from German culture as any racial nuances could ever be.: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahelphand (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of information about his love life
This is an aspect of Tchaikovsky's life that is of paramount significance in his music and his personal life, and that has been systematically suppressed during his life and since his death, thus your contention of irrelevance is simply incorrect. What I find troubling is that this is the second time this user has deleted information about an artist's homosexual love life from an article. Norman Douglas was the other, and in his case too his homosexuality was a major force in his life (it got him exiled) and his work. Any reason not to revert? Haiduc 12:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it. To omit his homosexuality is to utterly misunderstand Tchaikovsky.  JackofOz 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Before you 'go for it', please look at my correspondence with Haiduc on this and Norman Douglas, just so you can weigh up the arguments. I emphatically did not 'omit (Tchaikovsky's) homosexuality'. The reversion merits a serious discusssion, not just a knee-jerk reaction based on Haiduc's completely unjustified implied attack on my motivations --Smerus 14:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS but I agree with JackofOz that there are no Ukrainian connections--Smerus 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Y'know what? After reading about Tchaikovsky on this website I've decided that the guy was a complete jerk. Thanks to y'all and everyone at Wikipedia; I would not have known what absolute butt-wipes he AND his brother "Modest" were but for this exhaustive website on the dude. Thanksh again folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.149.66 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's great to know you've "decided" this thorny question, which has been troubling scholars for years. Now we can all breathe a sigh of relief and get on with the rest of our lives.  Thanks ever so much.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An attack no, but an accusation yes. My response is at Haiduc 14:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Exchange Haiduc/Smerus (posted at Haiduc's request, see below)
I could not help but notice that you have discarded the information of Tchaikovsky's lovers. Quite apart from the discussion of whether or not they belong there is the ingenious rationale you present for deleting such information from any article in the encyclopaedia where you might come across it, "These names irrelevant in WP unless signficant in their own right or had a particular impact on the subject's career: and distort balance of article."

In the present case we're dealing with an aspect of Tchaikovsky's life that is of paramount significance in his music and his personal life, and that has been systematically suppressed during his life and since his death, thus your contention of irrelevance is simply incorrect.

What I find troubling is that this is the second time you have deleted information about an artist's homosexual love life from an article. Norman Douglas was the other, and in his case too his homosexuality was a major force in his life (it got him exiled) and his work. So while the deletion of irrelevant information is certainly a worthy goal, your consistent application of your novel doctrine to purge critical information about artists' homosexuality from their articles is not. Haiduc 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Haiduc,


 * I am sorry that you find this troubling. I did not delete, or dispute, references to Tchaikovsky's love life, only to the list of lovers. These are irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article on Tchaikovsky. The names of these lovers, to be absolutely specific, have absolutely no "paramount significance in his music", although of course his sexaulity as a whole does have some such significance. Indeed the article as a whole at present has precious little on what makes Tchaikovsky an encyclopaedic subject, viz, his music and his own musical development, which I hope to remedy in due course. That of course is not your fault.


 * I appreciate and in fact share your concern that subjects' sexuality should not be suppressed, especially where their sexuality and its consequences are a major feature of their biography. But that is not an excuse for overstating the case. Norman Douglas's long exile was his personal choice - although, indeed, for the offence for which he might have been prosecuted, a brief spell abroad was a typical action to undertake, he had no problems when he came back to London where he lived from 1944-1950. (Dates appproximate, I am in plaster and can't get to my reference books to look them up). Similarly it is just not the case that Tchaikovsky's homosexuality has been 'systematically suppressed' - it has certainly been common knowledge since I began as a teenager taking an interest in musical history 40 years ago.


 * I can assure you that I do not only pick on homosexuals for my deletions on grounds of irrelevance, and it just happens to be a complete (but delightful, given that these two are generally unappreciated or underrated) coincidence that Tchaikovsky and Douglas are interests shared by you and me. I am not seeking to cross your path or attack your interests, only to place those whom I value in a full and balanced context that will enlighten other readers. I do hope that this may serve to set your mind at rest.


 * with best regards, and thanks for your comments, --Smerus 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. There is so much sabotage of this information in the Wikipedia that I have probably become hypersensitized to these things and over-react. That being said, assuming that our readers will want to have their reading dis-encumbered of information about the love lives of the personages featured here, specifically that they will not give a damn who T's lovers were and only come here to find out about his music, is a far leap into thin air. I think the discussion here reduces to your sense of propriety vs. mine, and absent some absolute arbiter I think that we should opt in favor of greater inclusivity. If what you seek is really to "place those whom I value in a full and balanced context that will enlighten other readers" then how do you arrive at "full" by deleting?! If you think it is not "balanced" then please by all means balance, but not by a process of procrustean editing, please. Haiduc 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, I am not going to make a big thing of this. As I suggest, the article needs to be extended to say more about Tchaikovsky's musical development, and within this improved article I expect the sort of comments about which we are debating will fall into a more appropriate context. There is a real issue however in naming Tch's lovers. Many people in WP had lovers of either or both sexes - discussing the subjects' sexuality may be (but not always!) relevant to their careers, achievements and problems - listing the names of their lovers is not relevant in the same way unless they had a particular impact in the story. Oscar Wilde/ Alfred Douglas? Of course! Wilde/others? Yes that they existed, but mention by name is usually likely to be superfluous. Similarly in Tchaikovsky's story, there is nothing to my knowledge that indicates his passions for any of his male lovers by name can be identified in any particular pieces of his music, or any aspects of his musical development. His breakdown over his marriage seems to me however to be clearly relevant to his music, especially his last pieces. Keep thinking. --Smerus 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither do I wish to belabor this. I think we are close to going in circles here. Wilde had Ross. Tchaikovsky is of interest to history for more than his music, and he is of interest to different people for different reasons. At least we know now what the essence of our divergence is. Would you be so kind as to post this exchange atthe Tchaikovsky discussion page so that others may contribute? Haiduc 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's death
I have tidied this up to cut reptetitions and make it more to the point. This has involved chopping the details (only) of the legend about his blackmail as there is no documentary evidence for them. --Smerus 11:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly reads well, but the formulation will leave readers with a false impression of the alleged blackmail episode. It is significant that several reputable individuals with plausible access to such nowledge contributed to the theory, and important to mention the "honor court" aspect. Haiduc 11:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Article
The article focuses too much of Tchaikovsky's homosexuality and says very little about his musical career. There should be more detail on his compositions and the context of them.

Rintrah 06:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I summed the information on his homosexuality and found that there was no more than a paragraph or two. Considering that it had some bearing on his life and music, I don't believe that it's too much to include in his biography.
 * If you would like to add to the music section, go ahead. I know that I lack the musical education to properly discuss his works, and I suspect that some other people do as well.  If you would like information on individual works, you may note that most have their own pages. Ladlergo 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And did Russia's most famous opera composer write any operas? You'd never think so from this dreadful piece of bigotry. Homosexuality, Ukrainian... wake up, dreamers, he composed MUSIC.217.10.38.39 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish?
Thank you for citing the claim that Tchaikovsky believed he was Polish. I will look the book up to verify. I'm also working on getting my hands on genealogical lineage made by his family.--tufkaa 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the name Tchaikovsky originally comes from the Polish language, but to say that he was therefore Polish is to say that George Bush is English because he has an English surname, or that Pierre Trudeau was French because he had a French name. In any case, the name Tchaikovsky had become thoroughly incorporated into Russian, and by the time the composer was born, it would have been regarded as a normal Russian surname.  JackofOz 03:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I remember my graduate courses in Russian well enough, the ending -ский (-skij) in Russian surnames was a borrowing from Polish -- to distinguish members of Russian nobility, assuming I'm not mistaken. Native Russian surnames typically end in "-in" (e.g., Borodin, from "boroda" = "beard") or "-ev/-ov" (e.g., Korsakov, Prokof'ev, etc.  Russification of other cultures often involved application of these endings to the "foreign" names.  "Tchaikovsky" thus is made of "чаек/чайка" (="seagull"), plus the native Russian surname ending "-ov", plus the Polish ending "-skij").  Of course, some Russian surnames lack these typical endings, as with Glinka's name; other Russian surnames end like patronymics (-evich, -ovich). Mademoiselle Fifi 17:24, 3 February 2007

(UTC)
 * Actually, Mademoiselle Fifi, the "ski" ending in russian namely ский, is not a borrowing from the Polish at all, because if one is acquainted with the grammar of the russian language and the linguistics of the slavonic languages on the whole, we can adduce to the fact that ski in russian is an attributive suffixation which suggests a belonging to a certain place of origin or thing, as a toponym or sometimes an eponym would suggest. As an example Dostoevsky the russian writer, along his paternal line was disputably said to have originated from an area in Belarous near Pinsk where many russian and belorousian families had settled and at the time--16th century--had lived under the Dutchy of Poland-Lithuania, furthermore the town or settlement of supposed origin was 'Dostoevo' and therefore his last name was changed from Rdishev to what in english would be 'Dostoevskian' belonging to Dostoevo or in russian 'Достоевский'. There are many more grammatical examples of course. Hope this helps.


 * As for the very audacious and vain attempt to attribute racial biases by obviously very astute and ardent nationalists of former-soviet republics as exemplified by the likes of the above Tufkaa, I can only say that yours or anybody else's attempts to conduct gross unqualified revisionism in the footsteps of many of the anti-russian states these days who are systematically vilifying russian culture will only serve your ego's and will not enrich the cultural heritage of your own nations. I'd like to also add that if we scrupulously dwell into the genetics of european intellectuals and dignitaries, on whom we have very little survivable evidence we would soon arrive at results that are as multinational as the european continent itself. Some examples being Kant and Beethoven who, while contentiously, are believed to have lineage in Hungary(former) and Flanders(latter) are nevertheless as inseparable from German culture as any racial nuances could ever be.:(UTC)

Brother was Modest, not Modeste
His given name was Модест = (in English transliteration) Modest. It sometimes appears as Modeste, presumably via French transliteration. I believe this is inappropriate in an English-language context, as it looks like it's pronounced as a 3-syllable word, when it's merely 2 syllables. We don't say "Modeste Mussorgsky", so why "Modeste Tchaikovsky"? JackofOz 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag
Can someone explain why we really need this tag? It seems to me that it's present merely to appease people who are denial about Tchaikovsky's homosexuality. If it's actually disputed by musical historians, I'd like to see some references. Ladlergo 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As a musicologist specialising in Russian opera, I can assure you that it is not--at least, I have never heard anyone in my field seriously contest this. There are things that need cleaning up in this article (the first paragraph, for example, will set any post-Taruskinian musicologist's teeth on edge), but the controversy over this particular issue is plainly absurd. --Clareite 09:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Seconded!!--X4n6 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed tag and expanded discussion of his homosexuality. Haiduc 10:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tchaikovsky was quite the handsome Cossack. a good picture of him in the article. --70.59.155.91 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
It seems to me that the images of him (Image:Der junge Tschaikowski.jpg and Image:Tchaikovsky.jpg) are in reverse order that they should be…isn't the photographs of him in older age more associated with him than the drawing with black hair at age 34? &mdash; $PЯING  ε  rαgђ  20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken Russell's film
I have added some balance to the comments on this. Perhaps we could be informed in what respect Russell's film is poorly researched. It seems to me fair and emotionally truthful - even quite resrained about T's homosexuality. Also for the musically literate it is notable for its famous coup de theatre in the first reel, showing the actor's hands playing the first concerto's keyboard correctly and having no cut where we would expect the usual one to the actor's body (I believe the Richard Chamberlain trained as a concert pianist). Straw Cat 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Was he really homosexual?
I heard recently some people saying that Tchaikovsky was not really homosexual, and that it was created by his enemies to ruin his reputation. Is there debate about him being homosexual, or we are 100% sure? A J Damen 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Our article, under "Personal life" encapsulates the gist of this issue. My understanding is that the vast, vast majority of informed students of Tchaikovsky believe he was homosexual.  Some disagree, as is their right.  It's possible that the majority have got it wrong, although this is highly improbable, in my view.  Will we ever be 100% certain he was homosexual?  Probably not.  The subject was taboo in Russia, and illegal, so he left no letters that I'm aware of that attest to this aspect of his life.  But it's possible to read between the lines, not only in his letters, but in the male company he kept and the deeply affectionate manner in which he referred to his special favourites.  JackofOz 12:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You should read the preface of the biography of Tchaikovsky by Nina Berverova. She is the first author to reveal that he was gay. In the 1930's, she asked people who knew the composer : Glazounov, Rachmaninov and, very important, his sister-in-law Praskovia Vladimirovna Tchaikovsky. I am french and that is difficult for me to write in english. I'll try to translate the discussion between Praskovia and Berberova : Praskovia : "Je lui (Tchaikovsky) ai chippé un amant. A Tiflis" "I pinched him à lover. In Tiflis" Berberova : "C'était Verinovski." "It was Verinovski." Praskovia : "Il ne m'a jamais pardonnée." "He never forgave me." Glazunov said that Tchaikovsky was homosexual too. Praskovia Vladimirovna, Glazunov and Berberova were not "enemies" of Tchaïkovski : that's the contrary (actually, who were the "ennemies" of Tchaïkovski ?). They just told the truth and they knew what they were saying. People who said that he "was not very homosexual" are dishonest, that's all. They just don't want Tchaikovsky to be a homosexual and try to hid the reality, but in the case of Tchaïkovsky, it's very difficult to them. And that's not all : Berberova speaks a lot about homosexuality in Russia. She write that Mussorgky, Balakirev and Scriabin had a "complex sexuality" too and that a lot of members of the imperial family were homosexual : several grand-dukes : "Serguei Alexandrovitch, uncle of the czar. Nicolas Mikhaïlovitch, cousin of Alexander III. Constantin, grandson of Nicolas the First. Oleg, son of Constantin and two other sons of Constantin. Dimitri, brother of Constantin. Dimitri Pavlovitch, cousin of Nicolas the Second. and the Prince Yousoupov." Actually, Tchaïkovsky was not the only homosexual of the "Fin de siècle" Russia. What do you think of it ?


 * Tx a lot. Wow... i did not know that there were many gays in Russia by that time. Are there any other famous artists who were also homosexual at that time? Actually, I always perceived Tchaikovsky as a very sensitive person. It is very obvious because of the stage-fear he used to have and when he tried to suicide after the unsuccessful sole marriage. I thought that may be people misunderstood his sensitiveness and failure with women and interpret his actions in the wrong way. But, it seems according to what you told me that he is probably homosexual. But, would not it be strange that he said he wished to be between the arms of a woman in one of his letters to his nephew? Maybe the issue of homosexuality was a conflict inside him too. Anyhow, Thanks again. A J Damen 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Our List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people should give you a few names. JackofOz 09:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there's no reason to believe there was a greater or lesser proportion of homosexual people in Russia at that time, as compared with any other place, at that or any other time. What masks the reality is that there are no statistics that can demonstrate this, as the social and cultural taboos about declaring one's homosexuality prior to the 1970s (or later in some places) precluded any such studies - after all, homosexual acts were offences punishable by death in some places.   Homosexuals have always been around, but more often than not married with kids (except for the "confirmed bachelors" and many maiden aunts).  What's different these days is the emergence of the gay culture, and being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean you're gay.  Tchaikovsky certainly wasn't gay, but he was certainly homosexual.   JackofOz 09:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

-What a shameful thing this title is. Have someone ever seen any title saying "is he/she really heterosexual" about a person known as heterosexual. I cannot even laugh at that. Absolute homophobia walks into the talk about Tchaikovsky...Yes, a shameful title.--Nightspirit 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

-Hey, it's an interesting part of his life. It's not the most important part, agreed, but it forms a part of who he was as a person. Like it or not, heterosexuality is still culturally considered the 'default' sexual orienation, so asking if someone 'was really heterosexual' seems silly because it's normally accepted as if that were so, unless found to be otherwise - by hence asking the question!! 137.219.49.170 01:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

- What annoys me about this article is that it states that Tchaik was in the usage above "homosexual" as an established fact whereas the link to Tchaikovsky's Personal Life details that no one really knows for sure. Regardless, if this is such an unimportant facet of his life, how come it gets elevated to "1.3 Homosexuality, marriage and Dostoyevsky"? I sense the work of gay studies types trying to recruit a dead man to their ranks and hope that a wiki editor will adjust the emphasis given to this section.

(By the way, "Homosexuality, marriage and Dostoyevsky" is an indie film just dying to be written!)

IvyGold 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence is that Tchaikovsky was homosexual, not merely rumored. If any article needs editing it's Tchaikovsky's Personal Life, which has become a collection of weasel words.THD3 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Views on other composers
I've heard that Tchaikovsky tended to be overly critical of other composers - for instance, he was supposed to have considered Handel to be a "fourth-rate" composer. Is there any truth to any of this? Jc166117 07:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know it's true, but it would need a cite. There are one or more juicy quotes in Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective:  one I can recall regards Brahms:  "One again I played through the music of that scoundrel Brahms.  What a talentless bastard!  Why, next to him, Raff is a genius!"  More or less.  I think it's from Tchaikovsky's diary; there are probably others.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He hated first Richard Strauss' music.


 * Yes, indeed. Tchaikovsky wrote of Strauss - "Such an astounding lack of talent was never before united to such pretentiousness" (from an 1888 letter).

Despite what his letters say: Brahms and Tschaikovsky were good friends and liked each other personally but hated each other's music. That was not the case with Debussy who T. not only disliked but hated his music also. He did not like Wagner particularly after Wagner snubbed him.lvb
 * The full Brahms quote is "I have played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius.  Why, in comparison wwith him, Raff is a giant, not to speak of Rubinstein, who is after all a live and important human being, while Brahms is chaotic and absolutely empty dried-up stuff" (diary, 9 October 1886). Tchaikovsky elsewhere described Brahms' music as "dark, cold, pretentious, obscure, shallow".  He attended the first performance of Brahms’ Double Concerto, which the composer conducted, but it made no impact on him.  For his part, Brahms did not dislike Tchaikovsky’s music in general, but was not reticent in saying when this was not the case.  Brahms and Tchaikovsky met up in Hamburg in 1889, and Brahms delayed his departure specifically to hear Tchaikovsky’s new 5th symphony for the first time.  He told Tchaikovsky the next day he liked it except for the last movement, and Tchaikovsky finally admitted to Brahms he had never liked any of his music at all.  But he was upset when he could not persuade Brahms to come to Russia to conduct concerts. Although their artistic antipathy meant they could never become close friends, they nevertheless had considerable warmth towards each other.  Although not liking Brahms' music, Tchaikovsky had great respect for Brahms' art, and even considered him a ‘hero’ for declining to write operas, almost alone of the major contemporary composers (even though Tchaikovsky was unable to resist what he himself called the ‘vulgarity and tawdriness’ of the stage).


 * Brahms and Tchaikovsky had a couple of curious date-related connections:
 * They shared the same birth date of 7 May (Tchaikovsky in NS), seven years apart.
 * The Belgian soprano Désirée Artôt made a tour of Russia in September 1868 and she met Tchaikovsky after a performance at the Bolshoi. They formed a friendship which over the next few months blossomed, in Tchaikovsky’s mind at least, into love.  Marriage was discussed both between themselves and in Tchaikovsky’s letters to his family, and he received the blessing of his father to marry her.  However, the opera company departed and the marriage came to nothing.  In September 1869, without informing Tchaikovsky, Artôt married a Spanish baritone.  Tchaikovsky was upset when heard this news, but seemed to recover quickly enough.  He attended further performances of Artôt's in Russia the next year, and on his European trip in December 1887 he chanced upon her again and they resumed their friendship.  Meeting her again in Berlin in 1889, he spent a part of every one of his five days there with her.  Artôt happened to die on 3 April 1907, which was 10 years to the day after the death of Brahms.  JackofOz 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Would a section on Tchaikovsky's views on other composers be appropriate in the article? It might at least be interesting. Your thoughts? Jonyungk 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually I think it's a great idea! Go for it!  And thanks Jack for digging that up and writing about it; I for one find this kind of thing (composers writing about each other) extremely interesting.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So do I. From time to time I've toyed with the idea of writing a book about what composers thought about each other personally, and about their works.  Maybe we should have a separate WP article on this subject.  JackofOz 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with Composers on Music - Eight Centuries of Writings - A New and Expanded Revision of Morgenstern's Classic Anthology, edited by Josiah Fisk and Jeff Nichols (consulting editor), (ISBN 1-55553-279-9)? My 1997 edition has writings from Hildegard von Bingen to Oliver Knussen. Many of the writings are on other composers and their works. I just happened on this discussion now and belatedly. Tchaikovsky's comments here on Berlioz are half-admiring, half disgusted, he finds Wagner boring and without operatic talent, more harsh comments on Brahms and nothing but praise for Bizet's Carmen. As it happens I've been wondering how this "as seen by others" type of information could be worked into articles. I'd welcome suggestions. And Jack you have to order this book if you don't know it! ---Sluzzelin  talk  07:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds fascinating, Sluzzelin. I will definitely check it out.  Thanks.  --  JackofOz 08:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * More often than not, Tchaikovsky also acknowledges the talents of his objects of criticism, though his wording sometimes makes it sound like a backhand compliment. Some examples:
 * An excerpt on the The Mighty Handful (which he called a "sad phenomenon"), from a letter to Nadezhda von Meck, starts out with : "The young Petersburg composers are very gifted, but they are all impregnated with the most horrible presumptuousness and a purely amateur conviction of their superiority to all other musicians in the universe."
 * He then goes on analyzing Rimsky-Korsakov, the only "one exception" who had discovered "that the doctrines preached by this circle had no sound basis, that their mockery of the schools and the classical masters, their denial of authority and of the masterpieces, was nothing but ignorance."
 * His words on the other four are less positive, but usually include acknowledgement of talent as well: "Cui is a gifted amateur. His music is not original, but graceful and elegant; it is too coquettish, made up - so to speak. At first it pleases, but soon satiates us."
 * On Borodin, Tchaikovsky starts out with "also possesses talent, a very great talent, which however has come to nothing" and moves on to "He has less taste than Cui, and his technique is so poor that he cannot write a bar without assistance."
 * Tchaikovsky describes Mussorgsky as "used up" and liking "what is coarse, unpolished, and ugly", though "his gifts are perhaps the most remarkable of all".
 * And he berates Balakirev for having done "great harm" inspite of "his great gifts" in that "it was he who ruined Korsakov's early career by assuring him he had no need to study."
 * In a letter to his brother Anatoli, he calls Berlioz's The Damnation of Faust "one of the miracles of art. Several times I had to suppress my sobs", but in the same paragraph states: "On the whole his musical nature does not attract me, and I cannot agree with the ugliness of some of his harmonies and modulations, but sometimes he reaches extraordinary heights."
 * In another letter too Nadezhda, he acknowledges Wagner's "extraordinary gifts", but sees him as a "symphonist" lost on the opera stage where "the music loses all power of expression" And further, in a letter to his brother Modest: "Maybe the Ring is a great composition, but I have never heard anything so boring and so drawn out as this."
 * Tchaikovsky's writings on Brahms aren't entirely without acknowledgement either: "He is certainly a great musician, even a master, but his mastery overwhelms his inspiration." (subsequent passages are quite harsh indeed). And he liked Brahms as a person: "He is very sympathetic and I like his honesty and open-mindedness." (from a letter to his brother Modest) ---Sluzzelin talk  21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pathétique as Tchaikovsky's requiem?
As far as I know, this view of the Pathétique Symphony has been refuted by modern scholarship, especially by David Brown and John Warrack. I'd like to remove mention of it from the article but wanted to discuss it first to make sure (1) that it truly is irrelevant to you also and (2) to have some consensus as to whether it should go, in case I am off-the-beam on this point.

Thanks,

Jonyungk 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the fact that there has been discussion about this subject for over a century deserves some mention, with various points of view being represented, in accordance with NPOV. JackofOz 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe so. But would you place that information in the article on the Pathétique, or keep it in the general biography of the composer?  To me the former more than the latter, but if you think in the latter or even in both places, I can respect that.


 * What about a separate sub-section in the discussion on Tchaikovsky's death? I've wanted to mention the memorial concert with Nápravník conducting the second performance of the Pathétique.  Seems like the "Pathétique as requiem" info would work well there since the concert may have enforced that view.  Your thoughts?  Jonyungk 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Works Catalog
Since most works in the catalog have their own page, why is there unnecessary commentary next to the works: i.e. 1st Piano Concerto and Romeo and Juliet? Maestroukr 11:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My guess is that whoever put that information there did so to give some idea of those pieces to readers without the time or patience to read a separate article.


 * I agree with you one one very good question. How much information is really needed?


 * My suggestion would be enough information to act as a very brief summary that could also "hook" readers into reading the linked articles. Some of what is in the main article now about these pieces could or should be moved to the linked articles without any problem.  Then again, this is all just my opinion.


 * Jonyungk 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is extraordinarily long
It's wonderful, don't get me wrong. And I very much appreciate especially Jonyungk who made it for the most part what it is now. But it's just too long. Should we incorporate some of the paragrahs dealing with other people into those articles and summarise what's left? Someone else may have a better idea of what to do than I. &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  02:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the compliment. Glad you appreciate the work I've put into this.


 * I agree that the article is long—longer than I ever intended, believe me—but it's at least paced well and the new section on "Tchaikovsky and the Five" balances out all the personal information on the composer. I believe it should stay because it is extremely relevant to Tchaikovsky's development as a composer, but then again I wrote the thing, so I'm biased.


 * The personal stuff could be condensed, if need be, or much of it moved as you suggest. I'm open to options, suggestions, ideas.


 * Jonyungk 02:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see length as a bad thing, necessarily. It's not as if we have to ensure the lengths of our biographical articles are proportional to the relative importance of the subjects (as if that can ever be measured). Tchaikovsky has been the subject of a huge amount of research over the years, and the story is far from being told yet.  One could write a book on just the material the Soviet censors removed from his letters, let alone what they allowed.  There's a lot to know about him, so there's a lot to tell about him.  And that's just raw facts, let alone any interpretation of the motivations behind his actions, or his secret life, about which he wrote a great deal but all in coded language.  I've just finished reading Poznansky's "Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man", by far the best and most detailed work I've ever read on him.  There's a lot of further factual material I could add from that book, and fully intend to do so bit by bit.  Some of this information is at odds with the information already in the article (eg. the circumstances of Nadezhda von Meck's break with Tchaikovsky; the ongoing contact Antonina Milyukova had with him after their separation; the amazing amount of European travel he did, and the reasons; the writing of the Pathetique), so that will need to be handled.  This will only make the article longer, not shorter.  --  JackofOz 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I performed a variation of $PЯING  rαgђ 's suggestion, splitting Tchaikovsky and the Five, Tchaikovsky's personal life and Tchaikovsky's death into separate but linked articles; 'Tchaikovsky and Taneyev" I folded into the main Sergei Taneyev article.  That gets the main article down to 46-48 K bytes and gives much more room to expand the new articles.


 * I've done as much as I can on Tchaikovsky and the Five and, at this point, it feels pretty complete. Tchaikovsky's personal life and Tchaikovsky's death I'm leaving for you, Jack, since it sounded like you really wanted to work on these with the Poznansky material.  The only work I've done is added some of what happened immediately after Tchaikovsky's death from both Brown and Poznansky, then moved "The Funeral" to follow, then "Theories."  But do whatever you want with the article; at this point, it's prettty much your baby.


 * I'm looking forward to reading what you'll eventually add. Jonyungk 04:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can't guarantee I'll be able to do much work on it for some time.  I'm fairly busy with other matters, and I'm taking a wiki-break for about 4 weeks from 20 July to do some overseas travel. --  JackofOz 07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Piano Concerto - Premiere performance
I’m encountering disagreement among references about the date and place of the premiere performance of this concerto.

Both our article and John Warrack’s book agree it took place in Moscow; Sergey Taneyev was the soloist; and Anton Rubinstein conducted. But they differ on the date. The article says 22 May 1882, Warrack says 30 May 1882 - an 8-day difference that can’t be accounted for by the then 12-day gap between the Julian/Gregorian calendars.

However, a page I photocopied from New Grove some years ago says it happened in New York on 12 November 1881, a whole 6 months earlier than either of the above two dates. I believe this can be safely discarded as a misprint, as I’ve never heard of any of his works being premiered in the USA except for the First Piano Concerto (in Boston).

That still leaves the discrepancy between 22 and 30 May 1882. Can anyone shed light on this? -- JackofOz 05:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The New Grove is not a misprint. Michael Steinberg writes in his book The Concerto, "Like the Piano Concerto No. 1, it [the Piano Concerto No. 2] had its first performance in America: the soloist was Madeline Schiller, the conductor Theodore Thomas, the orchestra the New York Philharmonic, and the date 12 November 1881."  (Info for the quote: Steinberg, Michael, The Concerto (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 480.)  I believe either Brown or Holden, maybe both, also mention this, but I have neither on hand with me at the moment.


 * BTW, there is a quote in the Theodore Thomas article that I think you'll love—though I suspect you may already know it. Jonyungk 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks indeed for that. There’s quite a bit of confirmation on the web that this is correct, and the Taneyev performance was merely the Russian premiere, not the world premiere - although I still want to somehow resolve the date issue in May 1882.  This Madeleine Schiller, of whom I’d never heard previously, seems to have been quite famous and respected in her day, however most websites focus on her being the soloist in the Tchaikovsky 2nd's premiere and don't say much more, if anything, about her. This tells us she was born in London in 1845, and died July 3, 1911, in New York City, and that she was a girl-friend of Arthur Sullivan while they were students at Leipzig.  I think we need an article on her.  This is a little synchronistic since both Sullivan and Tchaikovsky wrote Iolanthe operas - G&S's “Iolanthe” (1882), and Tchaikovsky's "Iolanta" (1892) - although, apart from the similarity of the names, the operas are entirely unrelated. Further, both the composers of these operas were homosexual (in Sullivan's case long believed but not confirmed).  Oh, thanks for the Thomas quote - it was new to me. --  JackofOz 05:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mas[e]zewski
The article mentions "a pole named Masezewski".

A few problems with it:


 * 1) The spelling of his last name is inconsistent. Is it Masezewski or Maszewski?
 * 2) Does he have a first name?
 * 3) He does not seems to be mentioned in the Polish version of the article, which is a bit weird.
 * 4) Are there any more sources about him except the mentioned books? I can find Brown's book in the library some day, but an online source will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
Respond at Peer review/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/archive1.

Respond at Peer review/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/archive1.

Indigenous tradition of Russian music
Glinka. Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elucidate this post? --  JackofOz 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Biographer Anthony Holden maintains that there was no indigenous tradition of Russian music prior to Tchaikovsky. (Tchaikovsky thought well enough of Glinka, of course, to perform the opening bars of the Ruslan i Lyudmila overture on the piano of a conservatory as it was inaugurated; also Alexander Alyabyev (Siberian), Dmytro Bortniansky (Ukrainian), Alexander Dargomyzhsky (Russian) and others, fairly well-known outside of connoisseur circles at the time I believe... - so what does Holden mean by suggesting that all that preceded Tchaikovsky in the Russian musical "air" was folk music? I gather I misunderstand him quite entirely. Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Holden means there was no tradition of indigenous Russian classical music on a professional basis. Do you really want me to go back to the Russian Orthodox bans on secular music, then the tradition started by Peter the Great of importring foreign classical music and musicians, basically ignoring Russians?  Glinka and Dargomyzhsky were considered dillitantes, not professionals; so, at least at the outset, were The Five.  Tchaikovsky was the first legitimate ;professional Russian composer; Anton Rubinstein was far better known as a pianist than as a composer.  Jonyungk 05:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sept 3 edits and the sudden change
This is the diff of the 90000 bytes + version. Currently as of early Sept 4, the version stands as this.

Everyone should not blame Jonyungk for doing so. The blame goes to me. I recently posted a message on his talk page when he asked for a review of the article. I gave him a diff on a version of the article in January 2007, an article "perhaps closer to Wikipedia standards" in tone and style. I had no idea that he would revert and edit from there. Please pardon his behavior recently; do not blame him.

I bring this up just to let people be aware of the sudden change and perhaps compare and contrast the two versions, and bring out the best in both. Also be aware that the larger version may contain links to specific articles for Tchaikovsky; those articles may be orphaned now. Please check. (possible example: Tchaikovsky's death, or List of compositions by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky) (For example, there is a list of compositions near the end of the article in the second diff (similar to a Jan 2007 diff). This might be covered by a recently created article that shows his list of compositions. Such details should be updated.)

Again, if anyone thinks I misled him in anyway, which I am starting to feel now, I am truly sorry.

Thank you. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I would like to know if any of the edits (eg redirects) I had contributed in the meantime I should not redo "over" the revert, are-and-were considered too much. Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if this question is to me. For the "what links here" redirects, they are fine. Maybe, edits made on top of text by Jonyungk may not be valid anymore. Other text surely should be readded to the article. Text that is independent from this discussion, from other users, or from Jonyungk's edits should be readded. I still think some text collected and written by Jonyungk deserves to be readded, but not to a large extent. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in
I recently got a book (ISBN: 978-1-933648-30-9 from my university library. I will read both the article and parts of the book and will make edits if I can. I will try to intoduce ideas through the talk page whenever possible, but in case if you feel this book is not authorative, is biased, or somehow not noteworthy, please let me know on my user page, talk page, or my email address. Thank you. Regards, Kushal --Click me! write to me 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the title and who is the author? Jonyungk 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Tchaikovsky's solution."
David Brown, in Tchaikovsky, the Man and His Music," writes, and having followed his analyses with recordings I agree, that in most of Tchaikovsky's sonata-form movements, including the symphonies, he actually presents three themes, not the two on which this article bases its discussion.

Further, the description of Tchakovsky's "solution" says, "After a second long transition, both melodies are recapitulated and the movement ends with a coda." It seems to me the "long transition" is in fact Tchaikovsky's version of the traditional development section, some cases of which, as in the Fifth symphony, are clearly recognizable as such. The fact that his development is different from or freer than the "Western" tradition doesn't mean there isn't any.

I think someone needs to rewrite this section who isn't so dogmatic concerning the application of "Western" musical form as this section currently reads.--mujerado 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Records
There is one big problem here.Both records of the Chaikovski violin concerto are THE SAME!!!!Please: can anybody to repare this situation.I don't have any records of those performers. Thank you. 200.0.24.67 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion of Tchaikovsky's personal life
I strongly feel the persons "personal life" belongs to this very article. That is the very point of bio articles. His actual achievements can be further discussed on sub articles. -- Cat chi? 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll play devils advocate to advance the discussion. The main article should really discuss the reasons why a person is notable and important.  Personal life would be secondary to achievements in that case. --Sketchee (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this discussion about? Hyacinth (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In his unpublished autobiography, Modest Tchaïkovsky clearly stated that his brother Piotr and himself were homosexuals. The biographer of the composer, André Lischké red that autobiography and wrote that most of the papers dealing with homosexuality were censured in the official publications.

So, people stating that he was not homosexual, like Beckmann are non only wrong but dishonest and liers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.127.172 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Homosexuality"
I don't believe that it is standard practice to label sections of autobiographical articles regarding straight people "Heterosexaulity". See the link to WikiProject LGBT studies at the top of this talk page for guidelines. Hyacinth (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it has been standard practice to actually suggest workable alternatives instead of simply pissing and moaning about a problem. How about someone PLEASE break precedent and suggest an ANSWER to this question. BTW, some constructive commentary on what is actuall in this section would have been welcome—more than whining about one word that could simply be replaced with another word or a phrase. Jonyungk (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And now, the morning after: Hyacinth may atttempt to be well-intentioned. But, to place my commments here and above in context, let me say I've placed a tremendous amount of work not only on this article, but also on Antonina Miliukova and Nadezhda von Meck, that I hoped would have been considered positive for WikiProject LGBT studies. This makes the paucity of comment and absence of suggestions or advice for ameliorating this situation especially galling. I had asked Hyacinth for commmentary on ths article over a month ago. Hyacinth made a couple of cosmetic changed in layout but said nothing. Yes, I read several of the top sections in  WikiProject LGBT studies, just as Hyacinth suggested. No alrternatives to the heading currently in qustion.  Some idea that homosexuality should not even be mentioned, since heterosexuality is not similarly mentioned in other articles. In a biography where the subject's sexual prefernces had such major import on his life and music? This is nonsensical. Add to this a similar comment some months ago that "Personal Life," which has been used as a heading in other music biographies on WP (see, for instance, Amy Winehouse, is not to be used, either. Am I to beliieve that, as a heterosexual, I am considered too uniltelligent or clueless to be given any feedback, or even (gasp!) any positive feedback?  Jonyungk (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask for feedback if you don't want it but don't use anachronistic terminology. That is your responsibility. See Manual of Style or be bold and do some research as to what is considered appropriate within the field of study in this century. Hyacinth (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the articles linked above. Some thoughts (and maybe clarifications):
 * be bold states to keep in mind that we are to collaborate. Please :check this term in your disctionary. Last I checked, collaborating meant working together, offering solutions as well as pointing out problems. This did not happen.
 * Manual of Style does not suggest an answer for the problem you pointed out. Perhaps I am overthinking the issue by keepinbg in mind the subject of this article in a 19th-century composer.
 * I did ask for feedback. My main point of frustration was that I received none on content within the arricle. You'had mentioned concerns about said content in the peer review on this article. Therefore, I had asked for your input on the amended content.
 * I'll yield some points on the "taking things personally" deparetment. My understanding of working together, however, is not pointing out a problem, demanding a fix, th4en walking away. Especially since I and peoplw with whom I have worked have not worked this way in the 14 years I spent in professional publishing, I hope you can understand what I would consider a lack of collaboration.
 * Please also keep in mind my impression of receiving no such collaboration or even comment on content. That, for me, is the larger issue here. After the connundrum of the peer review and tremendous effort afterwards, the lack of collaboration or even comment could be interpreted not only as a lack of interest toward the material but also one of disrespect toward the one who put in the effort. Jonyungk (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any other tasks you feel I am required to accomplish? Hyacinth (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Unsourced Statements"
This article includes a vast number of unsourced statements, among other flaws. In my opinion, various statements of a biographical (and potentially unflattering) about the subject matter should be properly sourced (for example, the claim that Tchaikovsky clung to his mother's skirt). I do not contest the accuracy of these statements, but IMO, the article would be much more encyclopaedic if they were properly sourced and cited. -wgw2024, February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I would question why not only the article on the whole but particularly the section on Tchaikovsky's sexual preferences should be singled out, I can appreciate your point about citations and will supply what I can on the material I have contributed. I would, however, like to know more about what you consider "flaws" in the interest of potentially improving the article. Jonyungk (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
I found this website while surfing on the web. I thought it might be useful, if you guys don't already have such info. http://www.tchaikovsky-research.org/en/chronology.html72.78.20.31 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)