Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Russian State Symphony Orchestra conducted by Valeri Polyansky.
I - Allegro con spirito: 0:00
II - Scherzo. Allegro vivace alla marcia - Allegro moderato - Tempo I - Allegro moderato - Allegro vivace (Tempo I): 11:20
III - Intermezzo. Andantino grazioso - Più vivo - Andantino - Andantino grazioso: 18:16
IV - Finale. Allegro con brio: 26:10
Taneyev's Symphony No.3 was composed in 1884, being premiered on February 7 of 1885, conducted by Taneyev himself. The work is dedicated to Anton Arensky, fellow composer and colleague at the Moscow Conservatory. The work was neither performed again nor published during Taneyev's lifetime, not even entering the composer's catalogue. It wasn't heard again until 1916 (the same year of the composer's death) and the score wasn't published until 1947, by then 31 years after the composer's death.
The symphony became a centre of a private controversy between Taneyev and Tchaikovsky, the latter who had been the former's composition teacher, both soon becoming close friends. Taneyev had previously criticized Tchaikovsky's fourth symphony for the injection of what he saw as "ballet music". Tchaikovsky in turn criticized the new symphony in a letter, stating the following: "not conceived for orchestra, but is only an arrangement for orchestra of music which has popped into your head abstractly, so to speak". Both composers, who approached the genre of the symphony through very different perspectives, were sceptical about each other as symphonists.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with a dramatic and agitated main theme in D minor, soon rising in a climax. A transition leads us into the broad and lyrical second theme in F major, presented by horns and cellos with brief modulations to A minor and C major. The ensuing development is heavily contrapuntal in nature, transforming the material as the music moves to B-flat minor, G minor, E minor, C-sharp minor and A minor. A gradual crescendo leads us into a passionate and imposing climax, which then leads to the recapitulation of the themes, this time the music harmonically struggling between D major and minor, an anticipation of the finale. The dramatic coda reasserts D minor as the key with a shortened version of the main theme.
The second movement is a scherzo in expanded ternary form (A-B-A-B-A). It opens with a rhythmic and march-like main theme in G minor, presented by woodwinds with strong accents and syncopated rhythms. Quick modulations move to B-flat major, D minor and E-flat major. The trio section offers a widely lyrical second theme in G major, presented by strings and then taken by woodwinds. The scherzo then returns and gradually becomes more intense in dynamics and contrapuntal in texture. The trio section is briefly recapitulated, before an animated coda ends the movement in a decided G minor.
The third movement is structured in ternary form. It begins with a graceful and melodic main theme in G major, fully presented by oboe after an introduction shared between woods and strings. The material unfolds contrapuntally in a voluptuous and expressive manner. The central section starts with sudden trumpet calls, before a rhythmic variation of the theme appears in the key of E minor, then modulating to B minor and D major. The music reaches a passionate central climax, after which a gentle transition leads to the recapitulation of the main material in G major. A delicate coda ends the andantino.
The fourth movement is written in sonata form. It opens with a vigorous and animated main theme in D major, with hints of a future struggle between D minor and major. The second theme in F major is sinuous and melodic in nature, introduced by woodwind dialogues before modulating to A major and D major. The ensuing development is heavily contrapuntal as well, moving to the keys of B minor, E minor, C major, A minor and F-sharp minor. A climax is reached with the recapitulation of the main themes in the key of D major. Then a substantial contrapuntal struggle between D major and minor begins in a near continuous crescendo, based on fragments of the main theme. D major then finally triumphs in a powerful and victorious climax that draws the symphony to a close.
Picture: "Landscape with a Rainbow" (1881) by Russian painter Alexei Savrasov.
Musical analysis mostly written by myself. Sources: tinyurl.com/2885zu59, tinyurl.com/22maywtj and tinyurl.com/22cza2rc
To check the score: tinyurl.com/27o4osgc
Russian State Symphony Orchestra conducted by Valeri Polyansky.
I - Allegro con spirito: 0:00
II - Scherzo. Allegro vivace alla marcia - Allegro moderato - Tempo I - Allegro moderato - Allegro vivace (Tempo I): 11:20
III - Intermezzo. Andantino grazioso - Più vivo - Andantino - Andantino grazioso: 18:16
IV - Finale. Allegro con brio: 26:10
Taneyev's Symphony No.3 was composed in 1884, being premiered on February 7 of 1885, conducted by Taneyev himself. The work is dedicated to Anton Arensky, fellow composer and colleague at the Moscow Conservatory. The work was neither performed again nor published during Taneyev's lifetime, not even entering the composer's catalogue. It wasn't heard again until 1916 (the same year of the composer's death) and the score wasn't published until 1947, by then 31 years after the composer's death.
The symphony became a centre of a private controversy between Taneyev and Tchaikovsky, the latter who had been the former's composition teacher, both soon becoming close friends. Taneyev had previously criticized Tchaikovsky's fourth symphony for the injection of what he saw as "ballet music". Tchaikovsky in turn criticized the new symphony in a letter, stating the following: "not conceived for orchestra, but is only an arrangement for orchestra of music which has popped into your head abstractly, so to speak". Both composers, who approached the genre of the symphony through very different perspectives, were sceptical about each other as symphonists.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with a dramatic and agitated main theme in D minor, soon rising in a climax. A transition leads us into the broad and lyrical second theme in F major, presented by horns and cellos with brief modulations to A minor and C major. The ensuing development is heavily contrapuntal in nature, transforming the material as the music moves to B-flat minor, G minor, E minor, C-sharp minor and A minor. A gradual crescendo leads us into a passionate and imposing climax, which then leads to the recapitulation of the themes, this time the music harmonically struggling between D major and minor, an anticipation of the finale. The dramatic coda reasserts D minor as the key with a shortened version of the main theme.
The second movement is a scherzo in expanded ternary form (A-B-A-B-A). It opens with a rhythmic and march-like main theme in G minor, presented by woodwinds with strong accents and syncopated rhythms. Quick modulations move to B-flat major, D minor and E-flat major. The trio section offers a widely lyrical second theme in G major, presented by strings and then taken by woodwinds. The scherzo then returns and gradually becomes more intense in dynamics and contrapuntal in texture. The trio section is briefly recapitulated, before an animated coda ends the movement in a decided G minor.
The third movement is structured in ternary form. It begins with a graceful and melodic main theme in G major, fully presented by oboe after an introduction shared between woods and strings. The material unfolds contrapuntally in a voluptuous and expressive manner. The central section starts with sudden trumpet calls, before a rhythmic variation of the theme appears in the key of E minor, then modulating to B minor and D major. The music reaches a passionate central climax, after which a gentle transition leads to the recapitulation of the main material in G major. A delicate coda ends the andantino.
The fourth movement is written in sonata form. It opens with a vigorous and animated main theme in D major, with hints of a future struggle between D minor and major. The second theme in F major is sinuous and melodic in nature, introduced by woodwind dialogues before modulating to A major and D major. The ensuing development is heavily contrapuntal as well, moving to the keys of B minor, E minor, C major, A minor and F-sharp minor. A climax is reached with the recapitulation of the main themes in the key of D major. Then a substantial contrapuntal struggle between D major and minor begins in a near continuous crescendo, based on fragments of the main theme. D major then finally triumphs in a powerful and victorious climax that draws the symphony to a close.
Picture: "Landscape with a Rainbow" (1881) by Russian painter Alexei Savrasov.
Musical analysis mostly written by myself. Sources: tinyurl.com/2885zu59, tinyurl.com/22maywtj and tinyurl.com/22cza2rc
To check the score: tinyurl.com/27o4osgc



![Symphony No.1 in A-flat major - Edward Elgar
London Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Sir Georg Solti.
I - Andante. Nobilmente e semplice - Allegro - Poco meno mosso - Poco più mosso - Tempo I - Poco animato - Grandioso (Tempo I) - Meno mosso - Poco più mosso - Tempo I - Poco meno mosso: 0:00
II - Allegro molto - (attacca): 17:48
III - Adagio - Molto espressivo e sostenuto: 24:55
IV - Lento - Allegro - Grandioso (poco largamente): 37:11
Elgars Symphony No.1 was composed between June 1907 and September 1908. It was premiered on December 3 of 1908, performed by the Hallé Orchestra conducted by Hans Richter. The work was very-well received and was performed more than a hundred times the first year, being considered by many as the first great English symphony. Elgar, who for ten years was unsure to write a symphony, was then considered as the most important composer of the period in England.
Elgar’s only public statement about the meaning of his symphony was that There is no program beyond a wide experience of human life with a great charity (love) and a massive hope in the future. He also told one friend that it was a reflex or picture or elucidation of his life and to another he confided I am really alone in this music. The symphony is ambitious in scale and scope, with a complexity that was quite new for Elgar at the time, despite the vast choral canvasses he had already achieved. Musically, the work’s style was influenced by Wagner, constructed on a web of interrelated themes and motives.
The first movement is structured in an expansive sonata form. It begins with a slow introduction, with a noble and solemn theme that is quietly introduced by violas and wood before taken by full orchestra. This theme will reappear through the whole work. The main allegro opens with a passionate and nervous main theme on strings and woods, passing to the horns. It is contrasted by a lyrical and tender second theme, constructed over three motives on multiple instruments. The main theme is brought back and is answered by a menacing brass motive. The calm reappearance of the noble opening theme leads us to the extensive development section, which veers between the intensely dramatic and the deeply lyrical, culminating in a central climax. The noble theme on cello and horn leads us to the recapitulation of the main themes. The main theme is repeated, answered again by the ominous brass motive. The opening theme reappears once more at the end of the movement, at first only played by the last desks of the string section amid fragmentary reminiscences of other themes. A slow coda ends with a quiet reminiscence of the fateful motif.
The second movement is a scherzo structured as a sonata-rondo. It opens with an agitated and rushed main theme on strings, which is the reversed version of the noble opening theme. It is followed by an imperious and sinister march as a second theme, reminiscent of Elgars own Pomp and Circumstance marches. The trio section features a lyrical theme of pastoral nature on the woodwinds. The scherzo is then continued, before the trio material reappears in form of a development, to which the scherzo material is soon added. The music gradually calms down, with hints of the noble theme, leading us directly into the adagio.
The third movement is very free in form. It begins with a deeply lyrical main theme on strings, derived from the main theme of the scherzo (which was the reversed version of the opening noble theme). It is unfolded in a contemplative manner, lacking any dramatic or yearning outburst. Several other ideas and motives are introduced, which impulse a flowing and seamless development. Violins introduce a second melodic theme, which hardly brings contrast but compliments the main one as it romantically unfolds and reaches an expressive climax. The main theme is recapitulated in the central part, followed by the series of motives. In the extensive coda, a new lyrical theme is introduced by strings, recalling the famous Nimrod variation from the Enigma Variations. It is actually, once again, a cunning reworking of the first movement’s opening theme. The movement ends with great serenity.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: Whitby - The Abbey of St Hilda (1913) by the English painter Albert Goodwin.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: https://tinyurl.com/28xoyhd9 and https://tinyurl.com/2cyrmmpr
To check the score: https://tinyurl.com/24qrarmk Symphony No.1 in A-flat major - Edward Elgar](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6zo_rUjAQhg/mqdefault.jpg)


![Symphony No.2 in D minor - Sergei Prokofiev
Scottish National Orchestra conducted by Neeme Järvi.
I - Allegro ben articolato - Poco meno mosso - Meno mosso - Tempo primo - Poco meno mosso - Poco più mosso. Tempestoso - Poco meno mosso: 0:00
II - Theme and variations: Tema. Andante (11:47) - Variation I. Listesso tempo (13:24) - Variation II. Allegro non troppo (15:21) - Variation III. Allegro (17:59) - Variation IV. Larghetto (20:00) - Variation V. Allegro con brio (23:52) - Variation VI. Allegro moderato (26:32) - Più mosso - Più mosso. Con precipitazione - Assai meno mosso - Tema. Andante molto, doppio movimento (31:05)
Prokofievs Symphony No.2 was composed between 1924-5, written as a response to the prevailing modernist musical trends in Paris; style mécanique, unbridled dissonance and extreme complexity. The composer was no longer considered the daring avant-garde as in pre-war Europe, so he feared his music was becoming old-fashioned, but the symphony failed to achieve its purpose. It was premiered in Paris on June 6 of 1925, conducted by Serge Koussevitzky (to whom the score is dedicated) as part of his Paris series of concerts. The piece had an ambivalent reception, failing to gain the success the composer expected.
The symphony went on to be performed in the Soviet Union on June 6 of 1928 in Leningrad, and on 30 November 30 of 1934 in Moscow, conducted on both occasions by Alexander Gauk. In a letter to his friend Myaskovsky, Prokofiev admitted to not fully understanding the work himself, as well as having doubts about his ability as a composer for the first time in his life. The work, unlike the popular classical symphony, never secured a comfortable foothold in the orchestral repertoire, being only sporadically performed and recorded. In 1953, Prokofiev projected a substantial revision of the work, planning to transform the piece into a three-movement symphony. Unfortunately this came to nothing with his death on March 5 of that year.
Technology and machines, the idols of the new age, pressurized into music. Thus, the symphony is a typical child of its time: as far as content is concerned closely linked to the prevalent uncritical faith in machinery, radical progressive thinking, and almost naive enthusiasm for technology. Prokofiev may have been inspired or influenced by Honeggers Pacific 231, the orchestral work about the locomotive whose premiere Prokofiev attended on May 8 of 1924. Prokofiev characterized this symphony as a work of iron and steel, formally modelled after Beethovens Piano Sonata No.32. Much later on, contemporary composer Christopher Rouse called it the best of all of them, and wrote his own Symphony No. 3 (2011) in homage to the piece.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with fierce trumpet fanfares, which leads to a forceful and violent first theme on full orchestra, constructed over several repeating rhythmic motives (ostinati). The music is characterized by the abundance not only of ostinati, but also textural thickness, polytonal dissonance and near-constant forward momentum. The music reaches a brief but intense climax, followed by a syncopated transition dominated by strings, piano and woods. Then a harsh and menacing second theme is introduced in form of a dissonant polytonal chorale, introduced by brass over wood ostinati figures, leading to an agitated and nightmarish second climax.
This musical onslaught to the ears is briefly stopped at the beginning of the development, with double basses and low brass with martial ostinati that are the root of the material. These are contrapuntally developed as more instruments are added, up to seven different voices as we reach a riotous and acid climax. The material is then vigorously recapitulated, growing into another nightmarish climax with the second theme. Both then are put in counterpoint in the opening of the frantic and dissonant coda, before ending with a sequence of baleful D minor brass chords, with no real sense of triumph or victory.
The second movement is written as a theme and variations. It opens with undulating strings, over which a melancholic and lyrical main theme is presented by the oboe. The first variation is in the same tempo and continues this subdued mood, with the outlines of the theme often obscured by the addition of ostinato figures on woodwind and strings. The second variation is more rhythmic and animated, with ricocheting gestures on woodwind and strings. The music build to a grotesque and dissonant climax, before returning to the previous section. The third variation is a scherzo whose aggressive exchanges between the sections of the orchestra frequently conceal the themes steady unfolding in the depths.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: Two Heads (1925) by the Russian artist Pavel Filonov.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: https://tinyurl.com/24edo8pb
To check the score: https://tinyurl.com/2xvky22b Symphony No.2 in D minor - Sergei Prokofiev](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8MaC62Lc71s/mqdefault.jpg)



