In his obituary of Tchaikovsky Nikolay Kashkin wrote in similar terms of his late friend's attitude to Liszt: "Pyotr Ilyich could not stand bombast in music, and that is why he did not rate Liszt particularly highly" [3].
Nikolay Kashkin在柴可夫斯基的讣告中也相似地写到了他的对李斯特态度:“柴可夫斯基不能忍受音乐中的狂轰滥炸,这就是他不给予李斯特高度评价的原因”。
Nevertheless, when Tchaikovsky was just starting out as a composer, it was very difficult not to fall under the sway of the new ideas proclaimed by Liszt and his followers — namely, that programme music, with its greater freedom of expression, was the way forward. Thus, in some of his earliest orchestral works Tchaikovsky paid tribute to this craze for music which illustrated a specific subject. This was the case with the symphonic fantasia Fatum (1868), which Laroche sharply criticized in a review for its proximity to the Lisztian model of symphonic poems, with their "sombre and tragic" subjects, as well as their "jarring dissonances and bizarre orchestral effects", that, according to Laroche, were not at all congenial to the nature of Tchaikovsky's talent as it had expressed itself in his First Symphony (1866) [4].
尽管如此,当柴可夫斯基刚作为一名作曲家出道时,想不落入李斯特和其追随者的影响范围是及其困难的——也就是标题音乐,以及其带来的更大自由。因此,在他的最早期交响作品中柴可夫斯基也陷入这种用音乐描绘具体事物的狂热中。在交响幻想曲《命运》中就是如此,这首曲目也被Laroche在评论中严厉批评,出于其与李斯特交响曲的相近,比如“阴沉而悲惨”的主题,以及“刺耳的不和谐音与奇怪的交响效果”。而这些,在Laroche看来与柴可夫斯基在《第一交响曲》中表现的音乐天才不相符合。
Despite this criticism (which eventually prompted the composer to destroy the score of Fatum), Tchaikovsky never dissociated himself entirely from the programme music championed by Liszt and Berlioz. Indeed, just a year later, when he was still under the influence of Mily Balakirev (who, like the rest of the "Mighty Handful", admired Liszt for his boldness and also for his early support of Russian music in the 1840s), Tchaikovsky would write yet another piece of programme music: Romeo and Juliet (1869). Although this overture-fantasia would eventually become one of Tchaikovsky's most beloved works, both in Russia and abroad, it is interesting that the fiercely conservative Austrian critic Eduard Hanslick attacked the overture after a performance in 1876, calling its author "a disciple of Liszt" and ridiculing the "melodramatic noise and smoke effects" of this "tone-painting", whose subject Tchaikovsky, in Hanslick's view, had borrowed from Shakespeare following Liszt's example [5].
尽管受到这篇批评的打击(这最后促使作曲家毁坏了《命运》的乐谱),柴可夫斯基从来没有让他自己完全脱离李斯特与柏辽兹推崇的标题音乐。确实,仅在一年之后,当他仍在巴拉基列夫(就像其他强力集团成员一样,巴拉基列夫敬仰李斯特的大胆与他在40年代对俄国音乐的支持)的影响下时,柴可夫斯基写下另一首标题音乐:《罗密欧与朱丽叶》。尽管这首序曲幻想曲最终成为柴可夫斯基在俄国与全世界最受欢迎的作品之一,很有趣的一点是当时极端保守的奥地利批评家汉斯立克在1876年的一场演出后攻击了这首曲目,称它的作曲家是“李斯特的门徒”,嘲笑这出“音调绘画”中“戏剧夸张的噪音与烟幕效果”。在汉斯立克的观点中,柴可夫斯基跟随李斯特的例子从莎士比亚中借取了音乐主题。