As previously stated, Tchaikovsky came before Marxist-Leninist Communism rose to power in what became the Soviet Union, and as such was a piece of Russia’s bourgeois (and by extension Imperial) past, but this is very telling in and of itself. The popularity of Tchaikovsky long after his death (he died in 1893 in Saint Petersburg, the then-capital city of Tsarist Russia) in the form of such performances as his Concerto in D Major in 1968 tells us that the Soviet people were not wanting to completely forget their cultural history and start completely anew with Communism as Stalin had tried so hard to implement. This was seen earlier with the unpopularity of anti-religious policies by the early Soviet governments and this appears to be an extension of that, albeit slightly less contentious because it is seemingly one-step removed from the direct beliefs of Marx and Lenin.
However, this leads to a few questions. Tchaikovsky was an incredibly unique and influential composer, with his use of crescendos, staccato notes, and rapidly varying dynamic levels (all of which are very noticeable in the third movement) being almost unreplicable. In other words, when one hears a Tchaikovsky piece, they KNOW it is a Tchaikovsky piece based on the trademark qualities he left throughout the music. This can only be said of the big classical composers like Beethoven, Rossini, Mozart, and Grieg to name a few. Did this quality give Tchaikovsky’s music a sort of exception? Certainly his music was more widely known in the West than those of other Russian composers. One need only look at the popularity of Swan Lake and Nutcracker ballet performances to see that connection. Was this a factor in his enduring fame? To remind Westerners of the great talent that Russia has gifted the world over the years? Sure, this somewhat strays from the direct political attachment of communism to the musical composer himself, but it nonetheless was a way to score points on the international stage far as the East-West culture war was concerned. And thinking about it from the Soviet perspective, who can blame them? They are amazing musical pieces that would otherwise be going to waste. Even if the composer himself would disagree with the purposes it was being used for, it wasn’t like the man was going to rise from the dead to make an objection. They had a great weapon at their disposal in the form of his pieces and they used them as they saw fit.
