# Tchaikovsky: 1812 & 5th Symphony Finale



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

These two pieces of music are often called 'vulgar'. Why?

I haven't come across a reasoned appraisal before, but I get the impression that it's for similar reasons as outlined on my Poor Melody thread - _i.e._, they're a bit simple and populist perhaps.

So essentially, they're too fun to be good. But surely they ought to be considered good because they're fun?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

My teacher is always calling things like 1812 overture, Rhapsody in Blue, Ode to Joy Chorus, and Fanfare for the Common Man cheap(Fanfare for the common cold as he calls it, of which I have one right now...). But he seems to like the finale to Tchaikovsky's 5th and really digs Rachmaninoff's concertos and symphonies, though he seems to have an aversion to the famous G minor prelude and C Sharp minor prelude. 

I like all these, and I really like the Beatles.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I think 1812 Overture can be fun. The 5th symphony is just bad.

I'll start with 1812. This piece gets a bad rep because it lacks in emotional content, it's just one feel good cheap idea to the next, ending with the most cliche way to get an audience's attention- the entire orchestra, chorus, and cannons playing a screaming melody at full volume. However, the piece achieves what I feel a lot of American music does (Adagio for Strings, Copland)- it has significance beyond what the composer intended. Here in the States 1812 Overture is often heard during the 4th of July, it was used in the movie V for Vendetta, and is heard all over the media. It doesn't need an emotional backstory from Tchaikovsky, because history has given it a life of it's own. I like it not necessarily for it's musical content but for the memories it brings.

As for the 5th Symphony. First lets get one thing straight: the melody found in all the movements _is_ a poor melody. I mean it's a three note theme, that's ok when heard once, but it's repeated over and over with little variation. It's an annoying persistent little thing, and attempting to turn an annoying persistent little thing into some sort of hero (which it try's to do at the end) just isn't wise. I don't mind the last movement for its bombast, in fact it's decent stuff until there's that moment when you think it's going to end, and then it turns out there's another two minutes of milking that obnoxious theme for more then its worth, and then it's clear that this is just a cheap effect in an attempt to get audiences riled.

Tchaikovsky hated both pieces as well... I know it's suspicious to try and analyze emotional content, but I think it's easy to hear there isn't much going on in these works. If Tchaikovsky had really cared for the material, he would have developed it in a way that wasn't cliche and overdone, but in a more personal manner- like the Serenade for Strings, which has wonderful moments of bombast, but also wonderful restraint, and lets the listener breath and reflect. In the other two, there isn't much to reflect upon.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I do have to admit though, I've never been warm to the 5th symphony. Its my least favorite Tchaikovsky symphony in fact, I prefer the Polish frankly.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> These two pieces of music are often called 'vulgar'. Why?


Because they're popular, at least that's the case with 1812 overture.

I had doubts about finale of 5th too but proper recording helps you to understand that it's as great as the rest of symphony. If you haven't heard Gergiev with Vienna Philharmonics you didn't hear this work at all. Played from this recording it can take your breath away. I find the second theme with woodwinds (repeated by violins just after) to be one of Tchaikovsky's greatest moments.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2011)

I don't think they're _called_ vulgar because they're popular. (Though they might be popular because they _are_ vulgar.)

I think they're called vulgar because they're simplistic (not simple--simplistic). That is, there's no subtlety, no complexity, no asymmetrical little quirks that guarantee that listening to it over and over again will be rewarding. Just up down up down foursquare obvious bum bum bum.

Having said that, I hasten to add that up down up down foursquare obvious bum bum bum has its own delights. And no one who likes that kind of stuff should try to second guess their enjoyment. If you enjoy it, it's enjoyable.

And that means I also think that calling things vulgar is not terribly useful or enlightening. If Copland's _Fanfare for the Common Man_ pulls at your heart and makes you feel happy and content, then you're obviously much better off than say I am, who cannot tolerate it for even a second. And my disdain should be, I think, so invisible as to never interfere with your happiness.

Now, if I could only convince "Sid James" that that's how I really feel!!:lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that it's fashionable, for more advanced classical listeners, to poo-poo things that are popular & label them as "vulgar" or "lowbrow" or "fit only for the unwashed masses" or whatever.

Nix's post brought up the fact that Tchaikovsky was critical of these works himself - but he was also critical of a number of his other works, inc. the _Nutcracker_, I think he said it was the worst of his ballets, & yet it remains the most popular (again that correspondence between bad music=popular music).

I think Aramais hit the nail on the head the most in saying that it's how these things are played that can make a good deal of difference. & I'd add the context in which we hear them - I heard the 1812 earlier this year here in symphony in the park, and it was very spectacular, with the big crescendo played by full symphony orchestra, fireworks, bells, cannons. Music on steroids for sure, & I don't often want that, but in that context would something smaller scale, or more intimate & lyrical do the "job" at hand?

I actually admire how/what Tchaikovsky does with that theme in his 5th symphony. I esp. like the slow movement which is very poignant. I disagree with some guy in that there's "no" subtlety or complexity. There may well be less than in some other things, but hang on there, this isn't suave and sophisticated French music or more cerebral like the Germans, this is Russian! I wouldn't be surprised if some guy thinks Rimsky-Korsakov's _Scheherazade_ also lacks the things he was saying.

In any case, it's irrelevant to me, sometimes I like complexity, sometimes I don't, sometimes I'm in between. I recently broke down my ideological barriers with popular things that I'd poo-pooed previously as well, eg. Rodrigo's _Aranjuez_. No other more poignant and apt expression of emotion re the goings on in the Spanish Civil War have probably been penned as in the slow movement of that, imo.

The other forum I was on - I know I say this everyday, but it was like another planet :lol: - they had a tendency to listen to very heavy and leaden stuff, eg. the master of depression, Allan Pettersson & others I forget. The focus there was on serious, profound, long(-winded?) music, preferably "atonal." Me listening to operetta or (God forgive) Andre Rieu was a cardinal sin there. So basically I think these people don't want any joy, any pure and simple (yes!) joy and melody, in their lives, they just want angst, doom and gloom, depression, disaster, agony, etc. etc. So of course they'll call some of my favourite pieces "rubbish" and disapprove of me for listening to them...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Question for Sid James or Some Guy, not to be off topic, but what is this other forum? Is it GMG?


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2011)

Andre, how could anyone's "forbidding" you to listen to anything have any effect on you at all? Except to cause you to laugh. I mean, be fair, none of these forbidders are holding a gun to your head, are they?

I don't feel "at home" in any online forum, not even ihatemusic.com, which is the most positive forum I know of.

And I don't see GMG (it is GMG, right?) as being particularly obsessed with atonality or darkness or anything else. It seems to have as many Luddites and as few modernists as any other forum.

I enjoy TC because of the mix here, and because a lot of people here really like to talk about music. Even HC likes to talk about music, if you catch him in the right mood!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I went too far there in my earlier post targeting you. I've cut it from that post. My apologies for that as well as on the "judgement" thread (to a degree). I was projecting what went down at the other forum against you. My memory of it probably only highlights the bad things about that forum. There were good members and good things there as well. But what I remember is being challenged on a daily basis for simply having an informed opinion that was not simply cookie cutter or carbon copy of the majority there. This kind of thing tends not to happen here, or at least it's not so polarised or ideological. Anyway, I will try not to mention that forum, it's a waste of time, it's hot air, it's irrelevant. It's just that that "place" was so far off the mark as far as comparing to real life music lovers & musicians, etc. that I know, as well as here on TC, the vibe is much more down to earth. I don't have to listen to a dozen recordings of Tchaikovsky's 5th to have an opinion on it, I think that's logical (but not the logic of the other forum).

[& I should have said disapprove of not forbid me to hear certain types of music, I edited my post to that affect]...


----------

