Ungarische Zigeunerweisen - History

History

The history of the work is clouded with uncertainties. What is known is that Tchaikovsky, while staying with Menter in Austria (from 22 September 1892 to 2 October 1892 ) at Menter's request prepared a score for piano and orchestra from material which she provided. The score was signed by Tchaikovsky on 2 October 1892 at Menter's castle Itter Castle. Tchaikovsky conducted Menter in the premiere of the work in Odessa on 4 February 1893 . However the publication of that score was not seen through the press by Tchaikovsky (who died ten months later), and the published score and parts require a good deal of common-sense correction.

What Tchaikovsky worked from has not been preserved, but it seems to have been some kind of short score. The uncertainty is whether Sophie Menter composed the work, or whether Liszt did, or whether Menter took something to Liszt which he then got into shape for her (in the period of exactly two days in which he is known to have worked at Menter's castle in 1885). August Göllerich mentions the work in his diary and suggests that Liszt would have had trouble completing it (failing eyesight and poor health being likely primary reasons; not wishing to write a virtuoso piece in a style which he had long abandoned no doubt being another). Liszt's letter to Menter dated 3 August 1885 tells her that the "Sophie Menter Concerto" is begun and that he would complete it at Schloss Itter. At this remove it cannot be established whether the work (referred to as a Concerto in the Hungarian Style) is the present piece, but it seems very likely.

Read more about this topic:  Ungarische Zigeunerweisen

Famous quotes containing the word history:

    “All history is a record of the power of minorities, and of minorities of one.”
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “Look through the whole history of countries professing the Romish religion, and you will uniformly find the leaven of this besetting and accursed principle of action—that the end will sanction any means.”
    —Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834)

    “To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
    —J.L. (John Langshaw)