John Glover writes:

>Must confess that I didn't like/understand Tchaikovsky either for many
>years.  Seemed a purely subjective composer - sort of self-indulgent
>internal psychodrama, which is not my taste.  Was proved quite wrong, and
>got a different understanding, by three interlinked points: (i) hearing
>Mravinsky's recordings; (ii) understanding that Tchaikovsky's musical idol
>was not a romantic composer but Mozart; (iii) the social implications of
>the fact Tchaikovsky was homosexual - i.e.  not the psychological fact that
>his attraction was to men and not women but the constant fear of discovery
>and persecution for his sexuality.

I don't really want to stir up waters, and if I'm incorrect, someone
will surely say so.  However, there were some extremely aristocratic
homosexual circles in St.  Petersburg during Tchaikovsky's time - one of
them involving Grand Dukes of the Imperial family.  In Tchaikovsky's social
milieu, a rather cosmopolitan attitude toward homosexuality among straights
prevailed.  In fact, during the Wilde trial and its aftermath, the attitude
of most Russians of a certain class and education was to regard the British
as boobs and boors.  These are actually the things against the story of
how Tchaikovsky supposedly committed suicide in dictates to a supposed
"tribunal" that found him guilty of fooling around with Imperial nephews.
I have no doubts that Tchaikovsky felt tons of guilt about his
homosexuality - at least one of his letters says so - but once his father
died, he didn't fear discovery, except that he was also rather reserved in
his public life.  It's not like our current culture, where revealing what
happens in your bed makes you an instant "star" (on Springer, at least).
Some people used to believe that their sex life was their own business.

Steve Schwartz