# Why is Tchaikovsky considered a 2nd rate composer?



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

First off I want to preface this post by saying I rarely listen to Tchaikovsky, if ever. My knowledge of him ends at the Pathètique Symphony, 1812, Marche Slave, Violin Concerto (whichever the popular one is) and the Nutcracker i.e none of his deep cuts. 

I see him referred to on the forum as a 2nd rate or flat out not very good composer who has a couple diamonds in the rough amongst a sea of forgettable mediocrity. Whats the rationale behind this opinion? Again, I dont listen to him and have no dog in this fight, but I am curious as to why a hkusehold name is referred to as such.


----------



## pianozach

I generally keep my iTunes on 'random mode', and Symphony No. 6 4th mvt came up yesterday. I started getting weepy, and I wasn't even listening that closely.

He's piled on by the Classical elitists because he's more of a tunesmith than a complexinarian. Go to a Tchaikovsky concert, and you'll come out humming the tunes.

He's like today's Andrew Lloyd Webber vs. a Sondheim.


----------



## arapinho1

Second rate ? Elitist idiots


----------



## Simplicissimus

_Die Voraussetzung stimmt nicht_. The premise is wrong.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Because people like his work too much and find it too "accessible."

See also: Mendelssohn, J. Strauss, Rossini, Verdi, Liszt, John Williams.... even on occasion Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## Winterreisender

Some people probably take the view that you have to be groundbreakingly revolutionary to be in the esteemed first tier. If that is the criteria, then maybe Tchaikovsky possibly doesn't make the cut.... but then again his influence on ballet was pretty substantial.

By all other measures, I think Tchaikovsky is certainly top tier. He has a list of beloved works as long as my arm (Symphonies 5 & 6, Piano Concerto #1, Violin Concerto, Eugene Ongein, the three ballets, Piano Trio, Serenade for Strings, Souvenirs from Florence, String Quartet #1, the Seasons, Romeo & Juliet, 1812...). Sure, the thing that makes these works so great is probably Tchaikovsky's gift for melody and also (where applicable) orchestration.


----------



## Fabulin

They prefer Brahms.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Simplicissimus said:


> _Die Voraussetzung stimmt nicht_. The premise is wrong.


haha, woher kannst du deutsch?


----------



## Ethereality

Fabulin said:


> They prefer Brahms.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

MatthewWeflen said:


> Because people like his work too much and find it too "accessible."
> 
> See also: Mendelssohn, J. Strauss, Rossini, Verdi, Liszt, John Williams.... even on occasion Beethoven and Mozart.


Ahh yes, of , if it's catchy or accessible of course it's inherently bad. How could anyone think otherwise? /s


----------



## Bulldog

The general consensus, including on TC, is that Tchaikovsky is a top tier composer. The OP author is paying way too much attention to the naysayers. Also, keep in mind that some TC members love to dump on the most revered composers - makes them feel special; I just feel they look like dopes. 

I feel a little awkward having said the above, because Tchaikovsky is not on my personal top-tier list. However, he's extremely popular with many "hit" works.


----------



## HenryPenfold

What a silly thread. 

Tchaikovsky is considered, on this forum and anywhere else, as one of the greatest composers ever.


----------



## Varick

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Ahh yes, of , if it's catchy or accessible of course it's inherently bad. How could anyone think otherwise? /s


I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you don't know anyone who looks at anything "mainstream" and makes up their mind that they can NOT like it before hearing or seeing it, then you don't know many people. I have met quite a few of those types. Of course there are those who don't care for certain popular things, and there are those who truly are enamored with the avant-garde. However, there are certainly those who find it unsophisticated to like anything too "mainstream."

V


----------



## Knorf

You'd have to ask someone who thought so.

Someone not me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I recall seeing him described as glorified pop music here before. That's some glorious pop music!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I blame Mahlerians.


:devil:


----------



## mbhaub

Because he wasn't German. I still recall vividly from my college days in a Music History course where the text, the venerable A History of Western Music gave only one short, dismissive paragraph to the Russian. Yes, his music has its faults - but name a composer who is perfect. There isn't one. He was a supreme melodist. His use of harmony is brilliant - no wonder his text is still useful. His orchestration is stunning, influential and highly effective. He struggled with large scale form, but still wrote three of the most popular and loved symphonies of all time. If someone ever asks who is the most popular composer of all: Tchaikovsky. Thanks to 1812, Nutcracker and some other items, his music is well-known even to people who don't normally listen to classical music. When you consider the weak training he got in Russia in his youth, it's inspiring to realize what greatness he achieved. There are snobs though who think he's a second rate note spinner of bombastic, vulgar music. There are some conductors like Boulez, who refuse to conduct any of his output. Pianists who ditch the first piano concerto as soon as they can. What's wrong with music that people enjoy, is written in a completely professional manner, it fun as heck to play? Nothing. Tchaikovsky was one of the greatest composers of all time and should rank alongside Bach, Beethoven, Brahms in anyone's eyes. If he had written nothing else save The Sleeping Beauty, he'd be immortal.


----------



## SearsPoncho

HenryPenfold said:


> What a silly thread.
> 
> Tchaikovsky is considered, on this forum and anywhere else, as one of the greatest composers ever.


What he said. .


----------



## Axter

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> haha, woher kannst du deutsch?


Recht hat er aber dennoch!


----------



## ORigel

Tchaikovsky was not good at form. But really, he was a first-rate composer. I think some composers were jealous of Tchaikovsky's ability to captivate the public with his beautiful melodies, while their works were much less popular. Also, some classical music lovers are snooty and disdain what the average "Classic FM" types like.

If you haven't listened to Tchaikovsky's other symphonies and ballets, you're missing out.

Disclosure: I rarely listen to Tchaikovsky nowadays, but he is essential for those new to classical.


----------



## Axter

If Tchaikovsky is second rated, then I seriously question my own taste for good music. Why do I like so many 2nd and 3rd rated composers? 
Personally Tchaikovsky is one of my top tier composers. His 4,5, 6 symphonies I hear very often and always a pleasure to my ears.
His piano concerto 1 is a masterpiece in my opinion. If you have a good orchestra, players, and conductor an evening with a Tchaikovsky concert can be a memorable experience.
Again tastes differ I guess.


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> First off I want to preface this post by saying I rarely listen to Tchaikovsky, if ever. My knowledge of him ends at the Pathètique Symphony, 1812, Marche Slave, Violin Concerto (whichever the popular one is) and the Nutcracker i.e none of his deep cuts.
> 
> I see him referred to on the forum as a 2nd rate or flat out not very good composer who has a couple diamonds in the rough amongst a sea of forgettable mediocrity. Whats the rationale behind this opinion? Again, I dont listen to him and have no dog in this fight, but I am curious as to why a hkusehold name is referred to as such.


Tchaikovsky is not a "second rate" composer. Whoever says that has little or no discernment. That said, I rarely listen to his music because it is not to my taste, except for his solo piano music, and the few chamber pieces. But he is among the greatest there is.


----------



## EdwardBast

ORigel said:


> *Tchaikovsky was not good at form.* But really, he was a first-rate composer. I think some composers were jealous of Tchaikovsky's ability to captivate the public with his beautiful melodies, while their works were much less popular. Also, some classical music lovers are snooty and disdain what the average "Classic FM" types like.
> 
> If you haven't listened to Tchaikovsky's other symphonies and ballets, you're missing out.
> 
> Disclosure: I rarely listen to Tchaikovsky nowadays, but he is essential for those new to classical.


What does this mean? Do you have examples from major works?


----------



## flamencosketches

Bulldog said:


> The general consensus, including on TC, is that Tchaikovsky is a top tier composer. The OP author is paying way too much attention to the naysayers. Also, keep in mind that some TC members love to dump on the most revered composers - makes them feel special; I just feel they look like dopes.
> 
> I feel a little awkward having said the above, because Tchaikovsky is not on my personal top-tier list. However, he's extremely popular with many "hit" works.


I can't help but to second every word of this post. Well said.


----------



## flamencosketches

SanAntone said:


> Tchaikovsky is not a "second rate" composer. Whoever says that has little or no discernment. That said, I rarely listen to his music because it is not to my taste, except for his solo piano music, and the few chamber pieces. But he is among the greatest there is.


Another post I could have written, word-for-word. This about summarizes Tchaikovsky for me.


----------



## Ethereality

All the Russians composers like Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev, are considered to lack skill in form on this forum compared to other non-Germans like Debussy, Sibelius and Chopin who excelled at it. Poor form doesn't seem to stop some composers at times, like Mahler, who to a lot of people easily makes up for it. I guess it merely depends on how interesting the music is.


----------



## vtpoet

An attempt at a genuine answer: In certain ways Tchaikovsky reminds me of Mendelssohn. They both seemed caught between two worlds, revering the music and composers of bygone eras while trying to assimilate that reverence with the stylistic demands of their own day and their own personalities. Tchaikovsky, like Mendelssohn, wrote music of surpassing beauty and genius, but they both also wrote music unequal (in quality or accomplishment) to their successes-(to a greater degree than Beethoven or Mozart in my opinion). As an example, I rarely hear anyone rhapsodise over Tchaikovsky's orchestral suites. His Mozarteana is enjoyable but that's about as far as it goes. Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn both seemed at their best when inspired to compose thematic music. It wasn't enough, it seems, to simply compose a symphony. They flourished when the music was _about_ something-programmatic in a sense. I personally think Tchaikovsky was a first rate composer who sometimes struggled to produce the works he expected of himself (and he as much as said so himself); but this is probably why some might call him a second rate composer. The quality of his compositions were uneven; but not because he was a mediocre composer.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Varick said:


> I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you don't know anyone who looks at anything "mainstream" and makes up their mind that they can NOT like it before hearing or seeing it, then you don't know many people. I have met quite a few of those types. Of course there are those who don't care for certain popular things, and there are those who truly are enamored with the avant-garde. However, there are certainly those who find it unsophisticated to like anything too "mainstream."
> 
> V


It was very sarcastic, hence the "/s" which is common internet/forum speak (though not everyone would be familiar).


----------



## Torkelburger

Ethereality said:


> All the Russians composers like Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev, are considered to lack skill in form on this forum compared to other non-Germans like Debussy, Sibelius and Chopin. Poor form doesn't seem to stop some composers however like Mahler, who to a lot of people, easily makes up for it.


I don't think those reputations are completely justified, however, as we are about to find out (if ORigel replies to EdwardBast). EdwardBast is extremely knowledgeable of Russian music (in addition to all music), especially the composers you named (and Rachmaninoff too) and knows how all of them are related (in great detail) as far as how which Tchaikovsky symphony influenced which Shostakovich symphony and in what ways, etc. (I believe he did some editing/proofreading of Tchaikovsky scores professionally, unless I'm mistaken).

Anyway, ORigel needs to think VERY carefully of his reply, if he/she replies, or they're gonna get spanked.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Ethereality said:


> All the Russians composers like Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev, are considered to lack skill in form on this forum compared to other non-Germans like Debussy, Sibelius and Chopin who excelled at it. Poor form doesn't seem to stop some composers at times, like Mahler, who to a lot of people easily makes up for it. I guess it merely depends on how interesting the music is.


Mussorgsky is another guy who gets crapped on (though to be fair his Russian peers also did that too like Tchaikovsky himself so its probably less of a russophobic bias)

Ive never seen Shostakovich or Prokofiev get attacked on here but im also relatively new here too


----------



## annaw

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Mussorgsky is another guy who gets crapped on (though to be fair his Russian peers also did that too like Tchaikovsky himself so its probably less of a russophobic bias)
> 
> *Ive never seen Shostakovich or Prokofiev get attacked on here but im also relatively new here too*


Neither have I...

I don't believe there's any russophobic bias, though. At least I haven't observed that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> All the Russians composers like Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev, are considered to lack skill in form on this forum compared to other non-Germans like Debussy, Sibelius and Chopin who excelled at it.


It seems to me, ( from what I've seen in various sites), many people who talk of the "bombast" of Tchaikovsky and Liszt with disdain, for some reason seem to appreciate Chopin so much. However, the coda of ballade no.1 (where Chopin goes "over the top" with scales, just like Tchaikovsky does in the 4th symphony finale), or the c minor nocturne or the octave ostinato of the heroic polonaise make me wonder if Chopin is any different.


----------



## flamencosketches

hammeredklavier said:


> It seems to me, ( from what I've seen in various sites), many people who talk of the "bombast" of Tchaikovsky and Liszt with disdain, for some reason seem to appreciate Chopin so much. However, the coda of ballade no.1 (where Chopin goes "over the top" with scales, just like Tchaikovsky does in the 4th symphony finale) or the octave ostinato of the heroic polonaise make me wonder if Chopin is any different.


Funny, I've noticed the opposite; it seems most Chopin fans also love Tchaikovsky and Liszt, and vice versa!


----------



## Heck148

I don't recall Tchaikovsky as being labelled "2nd rate" around here, but maybe I missed something...he's certainly a major composer, whose works are given plenty of exposure on orchestral and ballet programs...
For me, he's not at the very top, or the first rank below, but he's up there... we're still talking about great composers here!! PIT wrote some wonderful music, to be sure - I love the first 3 syms, 6 is good too, the PC and VC are really excellent....,these are great fun to play as well - R&J, Marche Slav - good stuff...
I think, tho, that Tchaikovsky was at his best with the dance genre....the whole flow, drama, excitement of the ballet were right up his alley....Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty all marvelous.....I still love the Nutcracker even tho I've played it over a hundred times...great music, great part....PIT at his best....I find it difficult/impossible to place it as 2nd rate....


----------



## ORigel

EdwardBast said:


> What does this mean? Do you have examples from major works?


His Pathetique symphony 1st movement. It seems stitched together. But only sticklers like Brahms would care.


----------



## Ethereality

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Ive never seen Shostakovich or Prokofiev get attacked on here but im also relatively new here too


The 'Russian composers' is what they're referred to.



hammeredklavier said:


> It seems to me, ( from what I've seen in various sites), many people who talk of the "bombast" of Tchaikovsky and Liszt with disdain, for some reason seem to appreciate Chopin so much. However, the coda of ballade no.1 (where Chopin goes "over the top" with scales, just like Tchaikovsky does in the 4th symphony finale), or the c minor nocturne or the octave ostinato of the heroic polonaise make me wonder if Chopin is any different.


I think there are other ways to look for good form in Chopin in the usage of horizontal counterpoint, how he sets up harmonic progression with motif, for example:



flamencosketches said:


> Funny, I've noticed the opposite; it seems most Chopin fans also love Tchaikovsky and Liszt, and vice versa!


Not necessarily except that they are popular for beginners. There are a lot of more core differences between the composers.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Ethereality said:


> I think there are other ways to look for good form in Chopin.


I agree. Technical perfection is hardly what I look for in music. While craftsmanship is an important component if that were the case and technical perfection was all I cared about I would have thrown a lot of artists out the windows ages ago


----------



## flamencosketches

Ethereality said:


> Not necessarily except that they are popular for beginners. There are a lot of more core differences between the composers.


Reread my post; I didn't say there were similarities between the composers, only that they share fanbases for a large part.


----------



## Heck148

Bulldog said:


> ....Also, keep in mind that some TC members love to dump on the most revered composers - makes them feel special; I just feel they look like dopes.
> I feel a little awkward having said the above, because Tchaikovsky is not on my personal top-tier list. However, he's extremely popular with many "hit" works.


I haven't noticed that so much here, but I have experienced the opposite phenomenon - on a different music forum...one guy claimed that it was impossible to truly like atonal.music. nobody could possibly enjoy Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc - because there was no melody, no whistleable tunes, no traditional harmony....those that claimed to enjoy these composers were nothing but posturing phonies, intellectual snobs trying to impress others with their supposed musical expertise!! This jackass was serious!! I tried to explain the attraction, the beauty, the development, the flow, the whole entrancing possibilities of atonal.mudic, but he wasn't having it ..if there weren't singable melodies, pleasing tunes, it was junk, and anyone claiming to like such garbage was an obvious phony!! Lol!! It was pretty funny, in a rather pathetic way...


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Heck148 said:


> I haven't noticed that so much here, but I have experienced the opposite phenomenon - on a different music forum...one guy claimed that it was impossible to truly like atonal.music. nobody could possibly enjoy Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc - because there was no melody, no whistleable tunes, no traditional harmony....those that claimed to enjoy these composers were nothing but posturing phonies, intellectual snobs trying to impress others with their supposed musical expertise!! This jackass was serious!! I tried to explain the attraction, the beauty, the development, the flow, the whole entrancing possibilities of atonal.mudic, but he wasn't having it ..if there weren't singable melodies, pleasing tunes, it was junk, and anyone claiming to like such garbage was an obvious phony!! Lol!! It was pretty funny, in a rather pathetic way...


I've seen this opinion often too. "I dont like or understand X so people must clearly be pretending to like it". I've seen it range from atonal music to avant-garde music to hoppy beers.

A lot of tonal music isn't necessarily catchy or tuneful either (like Bax or Hindemith) and doesn't make it any less good.

The opinions about atonality aren't always derisive though. They often think it has a purely intellectual appeal and wasn't even meant to really be listened to in the first place, the equivalent of a mathematican solving a complex problem or something along those lines. Even people who went to school for music fall victim to this misconception. 
I know diddly squat about how the atonal composition works outside of tone rows and I love listening to it just for how it sounds alone


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> Funny, I've noticed the opposite; it seems most Chopin fans also love Tchaikovsky and Liszt, and vice versa!


HK probably had me in mind with that comment. The reason why I love Chopin and not so much Tchaikovsky is that the latter just seems too long-winded. He is clearly a top-rate composer, which is, of course, not at all contradictory to the fact that I do not care for him very much. The works of his that I enjoy most are the 6th symphony, the serenade for strings, and the 1st string quartet. I also quite like his orchestral suites, which don't seem to be talked about much.


----------



## Littlephrase

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I also quite like his orchestral suites, which don't seem to be talked about much.


The orchestral suites are strangely ignored in many conversations about Tchaikovsky's music. I rate them highly, especially the first.


----------



## starthrower

pianozach said:


> He's like today's Andrew Lloyd Webber vs. a Sondheim.


He's much better than that half baked Webber cheese.


----------



## Fabulin

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> A lot of tonal music isn't necessarily catchy or tuneful either (like Bax or Hindemith) and doesn't make it any less good.


I think the answer to your question about people considering Tchaikovsky 2nd rate partially lies in shrugging attitudes like this that some posters have towards his melodic genius.


----------



## Heck148

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I've seen this opinion often too. "I dont like or understand X so people must clearly be pretending to like it". I've seen it range from atonal music to avant-garde music to hoppy beers.
> 
> A lot of tonal music isn't necessarily catchy or tuneful either (like Bax or Hindemith) and doesn't make it any less good.
> 
> The opinions about atonality aren't always derisive though. They often think it has a purely intellectual appeal and wasn't even meant to really be listened to in the first place, the equivalent of a mathematican solving a complex problem or something along those lines. Even people who went to school for music fall victim to this misconception.
> I know diddly squat about how the atonal composition works outside of tone rows and I love listening to it just for how it sounds alone


Yup...I find much atonal, esp Schoenberg, Berg to be quite fascinating....it's a neat challenge for the ear, and mind, to follow the train of thought, the flow of the music....


----------



## MarkW

Personally, Tchaikovsky was a fine composer who did what he did really well, but hasn't worn well on me. When I was discovering pieces in my youth, I probably over played new works that delighted me -- 4th, 5th symphonies, first piano cto., violin cto., the ballets, Souvenir de Florence, Cappricio Italien, even that weird reconstructed 7th symphony. But I seldom put any of them on anymore due to overexposure/disinterest. The exception, oddly, is the Serenade for Strings, which to my mind is close to Tchaikovsky's most perfect work. Your results may vary.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

MarkW said:


> Personally, Tchaikovsky was a fine composer who did what he did really well, but hasn't worn well on me. When I was discovering pieces in my youth, I probably over played new works that delighted me -- 4th, 5th symphonies, first piano cto., violin cto., the ballets, Souvenir de Florence, Cappricio Italien, even that weird reconstructed 7th symphony. But I seldom put any of them on anymore due to overexposure/disinterest. The exception, oddly, is the Serenade for Strings, which to my mind is close to Tchaikovsky's most perfect work. Your results may vary.


A fan of neither Tchaik nor Mozart, I still can listen to their work with pleasure, but Tchaikovsky's _Serenade for Strings_ - more or less an homage to Mozart - fills me with inexhaustible delight and is among my Top Ten Classical works, where it has remained for close to thirty years while other favorites have come and gone...


----------



## Ethereality

Heck148 said:


> Yup...I find much atonal, esp Schoenberg, Berg to be quite fascinating....it's a neat challenge for the ear, and mind, to follow the train of thought, the flow of the music....


What's a good piece to listen to?


----------



## Torkelburger

ORigel said:


> His Pathetique symphony 1st movement. It seems stitched together. But only sticklers like Brahms would care.


Just one example? And what do you mean "stitched together"? There are vastly different tempi between the intro and first theme of the exposition, between the transition and second theme, the second theme elaboration (codetta) and the development section, and again when the second theme comes back in the recapitulation. But having the second theme in a much slower, musically expressive tempo is perfectly in line with Romantic sensibilities. The intro is completely necessary (and Beethovenian), requires a pause, and prepares us for what is to come, and shares some motivic material with the first theme. Do you feel the second theme is elaborated too much with too many sections? The little interlude he puts in the middle of the second theme is totally necessary as if he went straight to the 12/8 restatement it would sound redundant and anticlimactic. The transition to the second theme, while ending with a pause, is still smooth and inevitable. If I was going to call anything "stitched together" I would think of Schuberts Unfinished mvt 1 as it has no transition other than a complete measure of silence (but it's still a great piece). This is nothing like that.


----------



## Heck148

Ethereality said:


> What's a good piece to listen to?


5 Orchestra Pieces
Pelleas &Melisande (early. Tonal)
Verklarte Nacht (early)
Variations for Orch
Violin Cto
Chamber syms, 1 and 2


----------



## Highwayman

Not quite an answer to the OP but I`ve always considered Tchaikovsky and _Friends_ (TV show) quite similar. Of course depending on some accessible, catchy jokes or some beautiful actresses would not necessarily make a show second-rate but some audiences might find these qualities bland and watch _Seinfeld_ instead. Guess who might be _Seinfeld_ in this analogy.


----------



## Ethereality

Because he has too many different kinds of vowels in his name. Him and Szymanowski and Dohnányi.


----------



## KenOC

When I was quite young, a century or so back, I remember somebody criticizing Tchaikovsky for “wearing his heart on his sleeve.” I’m not sure the phrase is even intelligible today, or whether it would be considered a valid criticism. But certainly, he’s not shy in letting us know how he feels!


----------



## musichal

We are each our own arbiter of "good," whether the subject be music or other forms of art - and I, for one, am content with that. When we attempt to arbitrate for all, we tend to be perceived as pretentious. Much better, imo, is to simply express one's musical preferences as such - "I like/love it" or "not my cup of tea."  I feel no need to denigrate another's taste. I came to this after years of discussing music and home audio gear online, thus avoiding tempests in teapots.


----------



## tdc

It depends what one means by 'second rate'. Its probably not the right term to use. In my view he wasn't as brilliant as the trinity or as say Brahms or Debussy, or a number of other composers for that matter, however I still consider him a 'great' composer. Don't think he belongs in a top ten list though. Just my opinion.


----------



## david johnson

2nd rate? That opinion is more a reflection on it's proponent than on Tchaikovsky. The council of moronics often issues that type of statement for our amusement.


----------



## Ariasexta

I do not rank music, good music is all equal, bad music is also classless without the levels of which piece is being the worse. He is an arcadian minded composer, his music reminds of fields, wilderness, pedantic sentiments but never being sensationalism a bit. He fits my proper good composer category.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> HK probably had me in mind with that comment.


Sort of. But I'm also expecting consuono to come and make a comment.


----------



## Geoff48

To those who see music as an academic discipline Tchaikovsky must be an aberration. For a start he writes tunes, tunes which are hummable. Then he doesn’t always follow the rules. He wears his heart on his sleeve rather than always keeping an stiff upper lip. And he is popular with the man on the other Clapham omnibus rather than just the musical elitist.
Now he doesn’t always get things right. his first version of Romeo and Juliet was considerably improved after he took on board Balakerev’s criticism. But he comes across as human rather than godlike. And I enjoy listening to Brahms but I’d cheerfully give up any of his four symphonies to save Tchaikovsky’s last three.
A similar comment is sometimes also made about Mahler in comparison to Bruckner. Mahler is tuneful, Bruckner is not. Therefor Bruckner must be the greater. Yuch!


----------



## Fabulin

Geoff48 said:


> To those who see music as an academic discipline Tchaikovsky must be an aberration. For a start he writes tunes, tunes which are hummable. Then he doesn't always follow the rules. He wears his heart on his sleeve rather than always keeping an stiff upper lip. And he is popular with the man on the other Clapham omnibus rather than just the musical elitist.
> Now he doesn't always get things right. his first version of Romeo and Juliet was considerably improved after he took on board Balakerev's criticism. But he comes across as human rather than godlike. And I enjoy listening to Brahms but I'd cheerfully give up any of his four symphonies to save Tchaikovsky's last three.
> A similar comment is sometimes also made about Mahler in comparison to Bruckner. Mahler is tuneful, Bruckner is not. Therefor Bruckner must be the greater. Yuch!


I agree with you except for the final paragraph. 
I would say "Bruckner is tuneful; Mahler is not. Therefore Mahler must be greater" - Yuck! :tiphat:


----------



## Ethereality

This is just my opinion, but the good part of Tchaikovsky are the cerebral elements not the emotional ones. He tends to get overrated for his emotional/melodic side, as newcomers don't know any better (don't know all the later music that accomplished melody and orchestration much better people have been doing these elements better for years, in say film for instance. "Gorgeous and profound melodies and orchestration." The score Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco comes to mind as one of the very best. Tchaikovsky on the other hand is brilliant for his cerebral elements, rhythmic and contrapuntal inventions, easily a Top 30 composer who gets a bit overrated because people don't know a lot of significantly evolved emotional Classical, as it doesn't get recognized as intelligibly amongst analysts. Tchaikovsky's orchestrative and thematic side is just above average at best, but his mathematical side is what makes him a great composer. You can't be that emotional when judging Classical. Sometimes you have to listen to a film score or pop, that's a worthy purpose. I think the great emotional works should indeed be included amongst our forum favorites, only if they show a quality of perfectionism like the above mentioned score, which I's say is on par with some great cerebral music. So when I say Tchaikovsky is Top 30, I'm including his melodic and emotional talent (or rather, how it has held up in 2020.) A work like The Nutcracker is a staple of our society that has become a bit overrated and popular than needed, but it's still a great piece.


----------



## Fabulin

Praising Bruce Broughton over Tchaikovsky is something straight out of Borat. Sorry


----------



## Ethereality

Williams and Uematsu are better than Tchaikovsky imo. Gotta make room for them in my Top 30. 

Broughton on the other hand probably wrote the best work. There are composers like Holst, Mussorgsky, Shore, who wrote one hit wonders of sorts. This is Broughton. Tchaikovsky is better than all of these 4.


----------



## Geoff48

Fabulin said:


> I agree with you except for the final paragraph.
> I would say "Bruckner is tuneful; Mahler is not. Therefore Mahler must be greater" - Yuck! :tiphat:


Chacon a son gout


----------



## Ariasexta

William Broughton is not a bad composer for sure, I just tried 2 pieces by him on a video site. But that is the kind of music I would love to forget after watching the movie like most anime theme songs. Modern film scores are not far from the pop and rock theme songs for their limitless sentimentalism which aims to arise emotional resonance toward the movie plots. I have yet to hear anything to dilute the beauty of music worst than the movies.

Monteverdi tried to make music to sound the emotion of the text in the way his contemporaries called Practica Seconda, yet the result was that he discovered the new ways to expand the musical languages into the age of baroque. But people still adhered to the refined structures of the musical work in order tp serve the "affetti" which was by definition not the same with emotion. It is clear that controlled emotional response is vital in all the aspects of classical aesthetics. Therefore it is important to note that Monteverdi was trying to discover this "affetti" in the Seconda Practica movement to better express the text not the lawless emotional dilution of the musical refineness.

Tchaikovsky amazingly in his age of Romanticism, never tresspassed this well-defined world of affetti, using the best romantic idioms to express his russian heritage.

Lorenzo Giacomini (1552-1598) 


> Affections are not the same as emotions; however, they are a *spiritual *movement of the mind.


The movies have to elaborate all kinds of the gross emotional activities without restraints, relying on the sensationalist politics, it is why movies always dumb down the music. Music is meant to be free, true, but good movie score does not equal to good music, somewhere they just fail. Mr Broughtons music is very good as movie scores, his music does not sound sick like the others of the same kind, he has the taste for the best movie music, but even the best movie music will never become proper good music at all.

But simple theme songs can sound very good in a movie to elaborate the mood and the emotional contents. However, using a whole symphony to write structurally compex scores just sound weary and redundant ad nauseam. I can not tolerate the rich tonal texture of an orchestra to sound the trivial, melodramatic themes in all the contrasting voices, like a group of occasional people partying talking and drinking. I can not finish the video, I did get a bit uncomfortable after a few minute, still, better than the movie scores ever heard so far.

Even songs can sound good as the themes, I still forget 98% percent of the songs of animes and movies, do not know why yet, I need time to reflect. But game tracks are different, a lot of amazing items, try playstation-1 Valkyrie Profile OST, I never forget it.


----------



## Ariasexta

I am still reflecting why I like this set of game music so much, I am in love with it since 2000 when I first heard it. Simply beautiful and ethereal, though just simple melodies elaborated by electronic simulations, imagine playing them in an orchestra. You know it. Sorry might be a bit off topic, but in order to discuss the problem of the influence of modern entertainments on music, I thought it should be allowed a few post. 
View attachment 145410

This is a part of my lifetime music.


----------



## Ethereality

Ariasexta said:


> I am still reflecting why I like this set of game music so much, I am in love with it since 2000 when I first heard it. Simply beautiful and ethereal, though just simple melodies elaborated by electronic simulations, imagine playing them in an orchestra. You know it. Sorry might be a bit off topic, but in order to discuss the problem of the influence of modern entertainments on music, I thought it should be allowed a few post.
> View attachment 145410
> 
> This is a part of my lifetime music.


The atmospheres conveyed in game music are pretty powerful, if emotional/melodic is the route you're going for. I like the orchestral albums _Tour de Japon_ (minus mvt 1) and _Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinocec_, but the original synth albums for games are somehow much better. FFX is my very favorite. Which game OSTs/tracks do you like?

By the way, the Bruce Broughton work I was referring to was this score, some of the most emotionally astounding music ever. I'm not too familiar with _William_ Broughton, I'll have to take a brief look.


----------



## EdwardBast

Tchaikovsky was primarily a composer for the stage — opera and ballet. I think he wrote eleven operas(?) Somehow that rarely figures into peoples judgments. I think he was a first rate composer.


----------



## Ariasexta

The VKP-1 sound track is the type of modern music I like the best, straightforward melodies elaborated by the forces of modern instrumentation, if by classical instruments, it can sound more mellow and harmoniously. I need straightforward melodies in modern music, yes, the affetti of modern powers, grandeur, crisis, not of modern bourgeoiserie and capitalist/communist individualistic inanities. Modern mythology, in a short word, what is modern mythology? Certainly people are blinded by the popular cultures: the continuation of our destiny from the antiquity, which is never truly changed. Only by this thread of reason, we can find true idealism as the continuation of classical heritages upon which we can creat truly great modern music.


----------



## Ariasexta

Ethereality said:


> I know, the emotions conveyed in game music are pretty powerful. My favorite orchestral albums are _Tour de Japon_ (minus mvt 1) and _Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinocec_. Which game OSTs/tracks do you like?
> 
> By the way, the Bruce Broughton work I was referring to was this. I'm not too familiar with _William_ Broughton, I'll have to take a brief look.







No title on the video, sorry, I do not know if you can access this link, I like the music in this video, actually can finish it happily. But the movie score from Silverado is not so OK, to be honest. I can not access to yt now, I am finding Tour de Japon and other titles you mentioned, will come back later.


----------



## Ariasexta

The FF series OST sound so so to me but not as bad as the movies. I just found out Olivers Birthday is a cartoon, thought it was a tribute to a particular celebrity called Oliver. Cartoon and anime symphonies are by far better than movies, the game music is the best. My favorite on VKP-1 ost is_ An Illusion of the brainstem_, the second last track of DISC1.


----------



## Ethereality

Ethereality said:


> I like the orchestral albums _Tour de Japon_ (minus mvt 1)...


This work is utterly amazing! <3 Grows on you like a weed. Thanks to both Hamaguchi and Uematsu.


----------



## RogerWaters

Ethereality said:


> This is just my opinion, but t*he good part of Tchaikovsky are the cerebral elements not the emotional ones*.... Tchaikovsky on the other hand is *brilliant for his cerebral elements, rhythmic and contrapuntal inventions*, easily a Top 30 composer who gets a bit overrated because people don't know a lot of significantly evolved emotional Classical, as it doesn't get recognized as intelligibly amongst analysts. Tchaikovsky's orchestrative and thematic side is just above average at best, but *his mathematical side is what makes him a great composer*. You can't be that emotional when judging Classical.


A very strange perspective, if I do say so. T strikes me as a fairly 'superficial' composter, in the sense that his attraction comes from outside not inside elements.


----------



## JAS

Many a ballet company survives chiefly on revenue from its annual Nutcracker presentations. Consequently, I consider Tchaikovsky to be the patron saint of ballet.


----------



## Ethereality

RogerWaters said:


> T strikes me as a fairly 'superficial' composter, in the sense that his attraction comes from outside not inside elements.


What is an inside element? Can you define it or show me an example. I'm just curious.


----------



## RogerWaters

Ethereality said:


> What is an inside element? Can you define it or show me an example. I'm just curious.


I guess the diference between a Dvorak and a Brahms. Nice tunes and orchestral effects vs intricate development and form.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think the writing for horns in this part is pretty skillful and sensible:

*[ 1:00 ]*


----------



## Fabulin

RogerWaters said:


> I guess the diference between a Dvorak and a Brahms. Nice tunes and orchestral effects vs intricate development and form.


melody is the ultimate form, though...


----------



## Botschaft

Fabulin said:


> melody is the ultimate form, though...


Form is the ultimate melody. :devil:


----------



## JAS

I suspect that Tchaikovsky makes it _look_ too easy (like a great actor who just seems such a natural for every part that his or her work is not evident). Tchaikovsky often makes such grand and moving statements from what seems like such simple material.


----------



## larold

_I see him referred to on the forum as a 2nd rate or flat out not very good composer who has a couple diamonds in the rough amongst a sea of forgettable mediocrity. Whats the rationale behind this opinion?_

The rationale is any person saying this doesn't like Tchaikovsky and mistakes their opinion for fact.

Tchaikovsky was No. 6 among all composers in the survey I took -- with the same score as Brahms and Haydn. Only the Big 3 scored higher.

He composed masterpieces in virtually all genre that are still regularly played and recorded today making him one of the most enduring composers in history. Just to cite one of his many traits that support this is his ability to create and string together memorable tunes. The ostinato theme of the violin concerto, the "fate" theme of the fourth symphony, the "Italian" theme of Souvenir de Florence and the martial theme of the 1812 Overture, one of the most popular pieces in all classical music known and loved by millions, are easily assimilated and remembered after only one hearing.

He was perhaps the greatest composer of traditional late romantic music -- music that stretched the boundaries of emotionalism yet stayed within the traditional framework of sonata form.

It should be remembered he only lived 43 years; had Beethoven died at his age he'd have had no Ninth Symphony, no Missa Solemnis, no late string quartets or piano sonatas. We can only wonder where Tchaikovsky may have gone musically had he lived to greater maturity.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Tchaikovsky is undoubtedly first-rate. His personal style is perhaps_ less_ suited to statements of the musically profound, compared to say- Bruckner or Beethoven, but this difference should not be construed as the difference between a top-tier and second-rate composer, and Tchaikovsky often reached profundity in his own way (Symphony 6, for example.)


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> melody is the ultimate form, though...


Only...it isn't, though.


larold said:


> It should be remembered he only lived 43 years; had Beethoven died at his age he'd have had no Ninth Symphony, no Missa Solemnis, no late string quartets or piano sonatas. We can only wonder where Tchaikovsky may have gone musically had he lived to greater maturity.


No, he lived 53 years.


----------



## Lisztian

larold said:


> _I see him referred to on the forum as a 2nd rate or flat out not very good composer who has a couple diamonds in the rough amongst a sea of forgettable mediocrity. Whats the rationale behind this opinion?_
> 
> The rationale is any person saying this doesn't like Tchaikovsky and mistakes their opinion for fact.
> 
> Tchaikovsky was No. 6 among all composers in the survey I took -- with the same score as Brahms and Haydn. Only the Big 3 scored higher.
> 
> He composed masterpieces in virtually all genre that are still regularly played and recorded today making him one of the most enduring composers in history. Just to cite one of his many traits that support this is his ability to create and string together memorable tunes. The ostinato theme of the violin concerto, the "fate" theme of the fourth symphony, the "Italian" theme of Souvenir de Florence and the martial theme of the 1812 Overture, one of the most popular pieces in all classical music known and loved by millions, are easily assimilated and remembered after only one hearing.
> 
> He was perhaps the greatest composer of traditional late romantic music -- music that stretched the boundaries of emotionalism yet stayed within the traditional framework of sonata form.
> 
> It should be remembered he only lived 43 years; had Beethoven died at his age he'd have had no Ninth Symphony, no Missa Solemnis, no late string quartets or piano sonatas. We can only wonder where Tchaikovsky may have gone musically had he lived to greater maturity.


What is this survey you keep mentioning? I remember you elaborating on it awhile ago but I can't remember the specifics.

Anyway, I think Tchaikovsky is great. Definitely first rate in the broad sense of things (although in another sense shouldn't only the 'big three' be first rate based on the general consensus? Not that I necessarily agree they are actually the 'best three' ) He lived to be 53, though, not 43.


----------



## mbhaub

JAS said:


> Tchaikovsky often makes such grand and moving statements from what seems like such simple material.


Who else could make something so grand, so emotional, so powerful from a simple descending scale?


----------



## consuono

mbhaub said:


> Who else could make something so grand, so emotional, so powerful from a simple descending scale?


Bach using a simple D minor triad?


----------



## Fabulin

consuono said:


> Bach using a simple D minor triad?


I am curious what piece do you have in mind.


----------



## Xisten267

According to this article, russian popular music would be repetitive and ecstatic, and this would create formal problems for Tchaikovsky, particularly in his sonata form movements. Transitions and development sections would be weak in russian classical music according to it. I disagree. I think that the repetition of thematic material in Tchaikovsky is compensated by the lack of repeats in his scores, I think that his music has a sense of organic and natural flow that are typical of a great composer, and I think that his development sections are very interesting and original, yet different from the german practice: the musical material in these sections tends to build tension instead of reaching climaxes. The wikipedia article I cited seems very retrograde and one-sided to me.


----------



## RogerWaters

post deleted.............


----------



## ManuelMozart95

Tchaikovsky is not considered a second rate composer by any serious musician or musicologist.
He's only considered as such by the elitists who still criticize him for not following the Vienna school.
Same people who also bash Puccini, Verdi and even Mozart ocasionally. Don't listen to them, they don't have any credibility.


----------



## Lisztian

ManuelMozart95 said:


> Tchaikovsky is not considered a second rate composer by any serious musician or musicologist.


This has not been my experience, unless your criteria for one being a serious musician or musicologist is 'considers Tchaikovsky a first rate composer.'


----------



## JAS

It may be that some consider Tchaikovsky a second rate composer, but it is hard to deny that he wrote some first rate compositions.


----------



## ManuelMozart95

We should define what second rate composer means. If anyone not being as great as Bach, Beethoven or Mozart is considered second rate then almost everyone is second rate.
To me any composer who could enter a list of top 25 composers of all time is first rate and Tchaikovsky is generally considered as part of that elite.
For me second rate would be someone like Rossini for example, very good composer but certainly lacking the depth and variety of the greatest composers.


----------



## larold

_What is this survey you keep mentioning? I remember you elaborating on it awhile ago but I can't remember the specifics._

See attachments. I don't have it digitally and made a few additions over time.


----------



## larold

_We should define what second rate composer means. If anyone not being as great as Bach, Beethoven or Mozart is considered second rate then almost everyone is second rate._

I think the phrase "second rate" is pejorative and loaded with opinion. I much prefer the term second rank -- as of the second rank -- rather like a sergeant to a corporal or a major to a captain. I think it would be much easier to classify composers in that regard without diminishing their accomplishments.

For example I think composers such as Rimsky-Korsakov, Berlioz and Mussorgsky -- all great composers -- probably would not be viewed as highly if you took away their greatest hit. Even counting it they don't have the accomplishments of composers of the first rank -- Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Mendelssohn, others -- who wrote masterpieces in almost all genre.

A third rank, then, might be still great composers without a defining piece of music. This might include the likes of Copland, Telemann and Henry Purcell -- all great composers that didn't write that one (or more) great hit(s) like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique and Rimsky's Scheherazade.

Then a fourth rank might be composers that don't have the body of work of people like those three -- multiple compositions in the standard repertory that have been played and recorded again and again over time.

Using the original post as the "General" category we could say:

General (first): Mozart, Beethoven, J.S. Bach

Colonel (second): Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel, Schubert, Schuman, Wagner, Verdi

Major (third): R. Strauss, Dvorak. Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn

Captain (fourth): Ravel, Britten, Chopin, Debussy, Liszt, Vivaldi, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninoff, Elgar, Mahler

Lieutenant (fifth): Puccini, Rossini, Saint Saens, Berlioz, Bartok, Walton, Strauss family, Mussorgsky, Monteverdi, Faure, Donizetti, Hindemith, Messiahn

Sergeant (sixth): Weber, Grieg, Copland, Telemann, Purchell, Poulenc, Bruckner, Sullivan, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schoenberg, Janacek, Franck and Martinu

This is everyone that scored 15 points of more in my survey. Thus it makes Dvorak a composer of the third rank.

See how silly that sounds? That is the difficulty in ranking greatness in any way.


----------



## ManuelMozart95

larold said:


> _We should define what second rate composer means. If anyone not being as great as Bach, Beethoven or Mozart is considered second rate then almost everyone is second rate._
> 
> I think the phrase "second rate" is pejorative and loaded with opinion. I much prefer the term second rank -- as of the second rank -- rather like a sergeant to a corporal or a major to a captain. I think it would be much easier to classify composers in that regard without diminishing their accomplishments.
> 
> For example I think composers such as Rimsky-Korsakov, Berlioz and Mussorgsky -- all great composers -- probably would not be viewed as highly if you took away their greatest hit. Even counting it they don't have the accomplishments of composers of the first rank -- Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Mendelssohn, others -- who wrote masterpieces in almost all genre.
> 
> A third rank, then, might be still great composers without a defining piece of music. This might include the likes of Copland, Telemann and Henry Purcell -- all great composers that didn't write that one (or more) great hit(s) like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique and Rimsky's Scheherazade.
> 
> Then a fourth rank might be composers that don't have the body of work of people like those three -- multiple compositions in the standard repertory that have been played and recorded again and again over time.
> 
> Using the original post as the "General" category we could say:
> 
> General (first): Mozart, Beethoven, J.S. Bach
> 
> Colonel (second): Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel, Schubert, Schuman, Wagner, Verdi
> 
> Major (third): R. Strauss, Dvorak. Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn
> 
> Captain (fourth): Ravel, Britten, Chopin, Debussy, Liszt, Vivaldi, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninoff, Elgar, Mahler
> 
> Lieutenant (fifth): Puccini, Rossini, Saint Saens, Berlioz, Bartok, Walton, Strauss family, Mussorgsky, Monteverdi, Faure, Donizetti, Hindemith, Messiahn
> 
> Sergeant (sixth): Weber, Grieg, Copland, Telemann, Purchell, Poulenc, Bruckner, Sullivan, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schoenberg, Janacek, Franck and Martinu
> 
> This is everyone that scored 15 points of more in my survey. Thus it makes Dvorak a composer of the third rank.
> 
> See how silly that sounds? That is the difficulty in ranking greatness in any way.


I mostly agree with your list although I think Puccini, Berlioz and Bartok should be one tier above and R Strauss should be in the second tier.

I agree Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are above everyone else, although I would say Beethoven didn't quite stand out in vocal music except for his Missa Solemnis which I think it's his best composition for voices.
Mozart and Bach were the two most complete composers ever probabaly, even if I slightly prefer Beethoven over Mozart when it comes to instrumental music.


----------



## Lisztian

larold said:


> _What is this survey you keep mentioning? I remember you elaborating on it awhile ago but I can't remember the specifics._
> 
> See attachments. I don't have it digitally and made a few additions over time.
> 
> View attachment 145713
> 
> 
> View attachment 145714


Thanks for that! I don't agree with it but still an interesting idea/attempt.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I don't agree with every single ranking on it but for my money it's a pretty good overall view.


----------



## Bella33

Because of such beautiful works like this


----------



## Agamenon

My experience is the same. 

Some friends, members of serious orchestras, consider Tchaikovsky a second rate composer, and, for example, they prefer and adore Mahler, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schönberg and Beethoven.

"Too sugar", "Too mannered", "bubble gum melodies", etc are some of the disgusting point of views that they repeat day after day against this composer.

this beloved composer deserves another level of appreciation. He was a sensitive man, a great orchestrator and a solid lyricist.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

larold said:


> _We should define what second rate composer means. If anyone not being as great as Bach, Beethoven or Mozart is considered second rate then almost everyone is second rate._
> 
> I think the phrase "second rate" is pejorative and loaded with opinion. I much prefer the term second rank -- as of the second rank -- rather like a sergeant to a corporal or a major to a captain. I think it would be much easier to classify composers in that regard without diminishing their accomplishments.
> 
> For example I think composers such as Rimsky-Korsakov, Berlioz and Mussorgsky -- all great composers -- probably would not be viewed as highly if you took away their greatest hit. Even counting it they don't have the accomplishments of composers of the first rank -- Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Mendelssohn, others -- who wrote masterpieces in almost all genre.
> 
> A third rank, then, might be still great composers without a defining piece of music. This might include the likes of Copland, Telemann and Henry Purcell -- all great composers that didn't write that one (or more) great hit(s) like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique and Rimsky's Scheherazade.
> 
> Then a fourth rank might be composers that don't have the body of work of people like those three -- multiple compositions in the standard repertory that have been played and recorded again and again over time.
> 
> Using the original post as the "General" category we could say:
> 
> General (first): Mozart, Beethoven, J.S. Bach
> 
> Colonel (second): Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel, Schubert, Schuman, Wagner, Verdi
> 
> Major (third): R. Strauss, Dvorak. Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn
> 
> Captain (fourth): Ravel, Britten, Chopin, Debussy, Liszt, Vivaldi, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninoff, Elgar, Mahler
> 
> Lieutenant (fifth): Puccini, Rossini, Saint Saens, Berlioz, Bartok, Walton, Strauss family, Mussorgsky, Monteverdi, Faure, Donizetti, Hindemith, Messiahn
> 
> Sergeant (sixth): Weber, Grieg, Copland, Telemann, Purchell, Poulenc, Bruckner, Sullivan, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schoenberg, Janacek, Franck and Martinu
> 
> This is everyone that scored 15 points of more in my survey. Thus it makes Dvorak a composer of the third rank.
> 
> See how silly that sounds? That is the difficulty in ranking greatness in any way.


Well done for avoiding
Private: Part


----------



## Pat Fairlea

OK, seriously. I don't necessarily wildly appreciate everything that Tchaikovsky wrote, any more than I would with any other composer. But there's a good deal of quality in his output, a number of very fine works that stand up with anything else produced in the later 19th century, and an accessibility and charm about some of his 'smaller' works. Maybe I'm getting hooked on piano miniatures, but I keep coming back to The Seasons for simple listening pleasure. 
Also, he was influential on his own and the next generation of Russian composers. And he was wonderfully rude about Brahms. In all, I cannot deny him first-class status, whatever that means.


----------



## Terrapin

"Why is Tchaikovsky considered a 2nd rate composer?"

This is like asking "How long have you been beating your wife?"

The premise is wrong.


----------



## haziz

One of my two absolute favorite composers, the other being Beethoven! They both sit at the pinnacle. I respect Mozart and Bach, they were certainly natural musical geniuses, but I do not hold the same affection for them. I don't even listen to opera, so that aspect of Tchaikovsky is closed to me. I tend to also focus on orchestral music with occasional forays into chamber music. All his symphonies, including 1-3, all his concerti (yes even including Piano concerti 2 and 3), ballets, overtures etc, provide great enjoyment. So, at least in my book, he is one of the all time greats.


----------



## SanAntone

larold said:


> _What is this survey you keep mentioning? I remember you elaborating on it awhile ago but I can't remember the specifics._
> 
> See attachments. I don't have it digitally and made a few additions over time.
> 
> View attachment 145713
> 
> 
> View attachment 145714


What was the methodology for creating this listing?


----------



## Heck148

Terrapin said:


> "Why is Tchaikovsky considered a 2nd rate composer?"
> 
> This is like asking "How long have you been beating your wife?"
> The premise is wrong.


it certainly is a leading question...


----------



## Ethereality

I think people get tired of Tchaikovsky's rhythms. Sometimes they're grating after a while, pronouncing on the downbeat then sort of fading out in impact, like dut dut di did dit dit, da da da da, dah dah, dah dah. Who wants to listen to dut dut di did dit dit, da da dada, dah dah, dah dah? Dare I ask.

I really like this though. It's definitely Big 3 status.
*27:20*






Reminds me of Beethoven's rhythmic creativity, how dynamics are rhythms:
*0:13*


----------



## brocklupton48

haziz said:


> One of my two absolute favorite composers, the other being Beethoven! They both sit at the pinnacle. I respect Mozart and Bach, they were certainly natural musical geniuses, but I do not hold the same affection for them. I don't even listen to opera, so that aspect of Tchaikovsky is closed to me. I tend to also focus on orchestral music with occasional forays into chamber music. All his symphonies, including 1-3, all his concerti (yes even including Piano concerti 2 and 3), ballets, overtures etc, provide great enjoyment. So, at least in my book, he is one of the all time greats.


Tchaikovsky did create lovely melodies - agreed. The issue for me becomes what he does with these. His composition technique has been described as linking these tunes by using "meaningless padding in a desperate attempt to keep things moving". I have 40 years' experience as a music teacher and amateur French horn player. I've played all or part of symphonies 4, 5, and 6. Despite, eg., the gorgeous horn solo in movement 2 of Symphony 5, I can vouch for the "padding". The final movement of the 4th Symphony consists almost entirely of scales. If that's your pleasure, Carl Czerny or Stephen Heller (who?) did this better. Tchaikovsky's attitude to instrumentalists doesn't help. In The Nutcracker he deliberately wrote French horn parts which are simply too high. Players since then have dutifully struggled to play these. In the Sixth Symphony there is a very low bassoon solo directed to be played pppp. ("PP" means "as soft as possible": what "pppp" asks for just doesn't exist.) The bassoon is the worst possible choice: its low tones are the loudest on the instrument. At least one recorded professional performance simply gives the solo to the bass clarinet.


----------



## ORigel

brocklupton48 said:


> Tchaikovsky did create lovely melodies - agreed. The issue for me becomes what he does with these. His composition technique has been described as linking these tunes by using "meaningless padding in a desperate attempt to keep things moving". I have 40 years' experience as a music teacher and amateur French horn player. I've played all or part of symphonies 4, 5, and 6. Despite, eg., the gorgeous horn solo in movement 2 of Symphony 5, I can vouch for the "padding". The final movement of the 4th Symphony consists almost entirely of scales. If that's your pleasure, Carl Czerny or Stephen Heller (who?) did this better. Tchaikovsky's attitude to instrumentalists doesn't help. In The Nutcracker he deliberately wrote French horn parts which are simply too high. Players since then have dutifully struggled to play these. In the Sixth Symphony there is a very low bassoon solo directed to be played pppp. ("PP" means "as soft as possible": what "pppp" asks for just doesn't exist.) The bassoon is the worst possible choice: its low tones are the loudest on the instrument. At least one recorded professional performance simply gives the solo to the bass clarinet.


For his melody, harmony, and sometimes orchestration, Tchaikovsky is one of the most important composers. He's just...not quite as high up as the general public rates him. When it comes to top-tier melodists, I prefer Dvorak.


----------



## Merl

Lots of interesting comments here. A couple of romantic-era haters, over on one of the old Google groups, used used to call him "Crapkovsky" (hilarious!) and commonly berated his music as "overtly romantic trash" or "schmaltzy garbage". Incidentally, I prefer his chamber music to his symphonic music (and I've just finished blogging all his string quartets).


----------



## Waehnen

If Tchaikovsky is not a first rate composer then who is?


----------



## mbhaub

brocklupton48 said:


> Tchaikovsky did create lovely melodies - agreed. The issue for me becomes what he does with these. His composition technique has been described as linking these tunes by using "meaningless padding in a desperate attempt to keep things moving". I have 40 years' experience as a music teacher and amateur French horn player. I've played all or part of symphonies 4, 5, and 6. Despite, eg., the gorgeous horn solo in movement 2 of Symphony 5, I can vouch for the "padding". The final movement of the 4th Symphony consists almost entirely of scales. If that's your pleasure, Carl Czerny or Stephen Heller (who?) did this better. Tchaikovsky's attitude to instrumentalists doesn't help. In The Nutcracker he deliberately wrote French horn parts which are simply too high. Players since then have dutifully struggled to play these. In the Sixth Symphony there is a very low bassoon solo directed to be played pppp. ("PP" means "as soft as possible": what "pppp" asks for just doesn't exist.) The bassoon is the worst possible choice: its low tones are the loudest on the instrument. At least one recorded professional performance simply gives the solo to the bass clarinet.


I have to address some points you make. Yes, the finale of the 4th is largely based on scales. Tchaikovsky used scales a lot like the Pas de Deux from Nutcracker. So what? Scales are useful in music - why do you think instrumentalists spend so much time practicing them? Nutcracker horn parts too high? Not in my experience; I've conducted the entire ballet several times and no one ever had problems.

Tchaikovksy's pppp and even lower. What he wanted was more gradation in the range, so think of it like this: ppppp in his system is equivalent to ppp for others. Similarly, ffffff is the same as fff. What that does is gives more steps in the dynamic range. The bassoon is not the worst possible choice, either. First, Tchaikovsky's orchestra would have been using the French basson with its thinner, quieter tone. Second, even with the louder German bassoon a good player usually makes a reed just for that opening passage; a reed that speaks cleanly, easily, quietly and in tune. You only play on the tip of the reed. It's not easy, but hardly impossible. And given the difficulty of sound projection with the bassoon not a problem.

Now that bass clarinet. Are you saying there's a recording with the opening solo given to bass clarinet? I'd like to hear that. Much more common is the substitution right before the development section. As the clarinet descends into the depths many conductors have opted to have the bass clarinet take over rather than bassoon. Mostly for tone color consistency. It's clearly incorrect and should never be done. Tchaikovsky was a great orchestrator and knew exactly what he was doing. I've played the 1st bassoon part several times, we didn't use a bass clarinet, and there was never a problem, except for once when the 1st clarinet played her part so danged quietly that I couldn't possibly match that volume! I begged her to play louder. She did.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> If Tchaikovsky is not a first rate composer then who is?


Interesting question...is it a pyramid, with only one composer at the top? Or a table with, say, 5 in each row?


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> First off I want to preface this post by saying I rarely listen to Tchaikovsky, if ever. My knowledge of him ends at the Pathètique Symphony, 1812, Marche Slave, Violin Concerto (whichever the popular one is) and the Nutcracker i.e none of his deep cuts.
> 
> I see him referred to on the forum as a 2nd rate or flat out not very good composer who has a couple diamonds in the rough amongst a sea of forgettable mediocrity. Whats the rationale behind this opinion? Again, I dont listen to him and have no dog in this fight, but I am curious as to why a hkusehold name is referred to as such.


If you look at the list provided by *larold *Tchaikovsky is sixth on the list of 100 composers - ranked according to the cumulative scores from three different sources. That is hardly "second-rate".

The negative opinions expressed on TC regarding Tchaikovsky can be dismissed as the expression of personal taste. I am unsure why this is not clear to you ...


----------



## pianozach

Heck148 said:


> I haven't noticed that so much here, but I have experienced the opposite phenomenon - on a different music forum...*one guy claimed that it was impossible to truly like atonal.music. nobody could possibly enjoy Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc - because there was no melody, no whistleable tunes, no traditional harmony.*...those that claimed to enjoy these composers were nothing but posturing phonies, intellectual snobs trying to impress others with their supposed musical expertise!! This jackass was serious!! I tried to explain the attraction, the beauty, the development, the flow, the whole entrancing possibilities of atonal.mudic, but he wasn't having it ..if there weren't singable melodies, pleasing tunes, it was junk, and anyone claiming to like such garbage was an obvious phony!! Lol!! It was pretty funny, in a rather pathetic way...


I know this comment is pretty old now, but . . . 

While "One Guy" _*is*_ being a grandpa (_"THAT's not REAL music!", "Things I don't like are JUNK!"_), there IS a point: Music that has melody, tunes, traditional harmony, and traditional organization is generally more well-liked than music that is atonal. _Most_ folks' brains find tonality more pleasing.

Atonal music exists, and continues to exist because there are people who ENJOY music that is more challenging, or simply isn't as simple as some tonal music.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> Atonal music exists, and continues to exist because there are people who ENJOY music that is more challenging, or simply isn't as simple as some tonal music.


Also, composers consider it the style that captures their imagination as well as fulfilling their aesthetic vision.


----------



## Coach G

Tchaikovsky is NOT 2nd rate. Tchaikovsky has been at the heart of the repertoire for over 100 years. Futwangler, Toscanini, Monteux, Munch, Mitropoulos, Bernstein, Karajan, Ormandy, Szell, Reiner, Stokowski, Mravinsky, Ozawa, Heifetz, Stern, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Mstislav Rostropovich, and Yo-Yo Ma, all recorded Tchaikovsky many times over and now the likes of Gustavo "The Dude" Dudamel, Lang Lang, and Yuja Wang, are still revisiting Tchaikovsky. I'm not going to argue against all that.


----------



## Couchie

Tchaikovsky is only considered second-rate by third-rate listeners.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I wasn't aware he was. Perhaps Tchaikovsky receives more negative criticism compared to some of the other "first rate" composers, but he still tends to rank extremely high (top 10-20) in the few polls I've seen ranking the greatest composers, so apparently he's attracted enough positive criticism as well. We could investigate the possible reasons behind why Tchaikovsky receives more negative criticism--many posters here have offered such reasons--but whether this criticism is robust enough to consign Tchaikovsky to "second rate" status would be hugely debatable.

I'm not the biggest Tchaikovsky fan for many of the reasons that have been listed: I often dislike his use of form and I frequently feel his emotional content as more bombastic and schmaltzy rather than epic and profound, but these are largely personal impressions. Tchaikovsky still has many works I love (1st Piano Concerto, Serenade for Strings, Eugene Onegin, etc.) where his melodies and lyricism overwhelms my criticisms, and I would still rank him in my own ~top 30, so probably not what I'd call second rate. Maybe a tad overrated in my estimation compared with those who put him top 10, but that's about it.


----------



## AaronSF

So much of musical preference is personal, so take what I'm about to say as only my personal taste. That said, I do not like Tchaikovsky at all. I recoil from most of his melodies, which so many admittedly enjoy; to me they are sentimental, cloying, saccharine, mawkish, and bathetic. They are like fingernails on a blackboard for me. I find his emotionalism excessive in the extreme, very theatrical, superficial, and manipulative. He seems to be trying way too hard to get me to feel the depths of _his feeling_, except there is no depth. It's all soap opera to me and it's exhausting. And then there is his difficulty with development in sonata form. He seems so often to be wandering aimlessly, appearing quite often to be lost in his wandering like he's in a hedge maze, then suddenly finding the exit and landing with glee on a recapitulation that comes out of nowhere.

I can give him kudos for the Nutcracker which, thanks to its being an episodic ballet in form, allows Tchaikovsky to charm us in miniature. At this he is admittedly very good. 

I don't have these same aversions with most other composer (except Verdi, unsurprisingly), so I freely admit I just don't get it. I'm missing the Tchaikovsky gene, I guess. 

And no, I don't think he's "second rate" -- just not to my liking. So many rate him highly, so there is obviously something going that eludes me.

Not surprisingly, Brahms is my guy.


----------



## Couchie

AaronSF said:


> Not surprisingly, Brahms is my guy.


Kindly put this kind of information at the beginning of your posts so I can know to stop reading.


----------



## marlow

Funny but I’ve never considered Tchaikovsky a second-rate composer. I suppose for some people writing music which is both popular and listenable-to makes him second rate. They might esteem him more highly if he wrote unpleasant music which resembled the sounds of a buzzsaw while they lay on their bed of nails.


----------



## haziz

Forster said:


> Interesting question...is it a pyramid, with only one composer at the top? Or a table with, say, 5 in each row?




It is a pyramid, with Tchaikovsky (and Beethoven) at the peak.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't think Tchaikovsky is regarded as a second rate composer. However, there might be some discrepancy between his extraordinary popularity (at least for some of his works) and appreciation more based on "nuts-and-bolts" technical aspects of music or historical influence. Tchaikovsky is the most famous composer of ballets (only Stravinsky could come close and he is not as popular), his b flat minor piano concerto might be the most famous classical concerto of all, certainly one of the 3-5 most popular, and his violin concerto is probably also in the top 5 of popular violin concerti. There is more competition among symphonies but again his 4-6 are very popular and the same holds for some orchestral pieces.
Eugen Onegin is not as popular as some Italian Opera but still a candidate for the most popular slavic/Russian opera. Compare this with most other 19th century composers and few will have such popularity in so many different genres. Most had a narrower focus (e.g. no operas by Brahms, Liszt, Grieg, Chopin..., very little purely instrumental music by Verdi or Wagner and so on), only Dvorak comes close of contemporaries and he has only one or two superhits.

For some listeners (myself included) a few pieces by Tchaikovsky were a gateway into classical music but later have lost (some or most of) their appeal, thus the idea he is a "superficially emotional" composer. 
It's hard to deny that a lot of his music is highly emotional or immediately appealing through melodies and orchestral color but there's nothing wrong with that. For me, this works best in ballett and "lighter works" (I have only superficial knowledge of the two famous operas and none of the others) and does wear off with repeated listening to some extent. He is not a great favorite of mine but I regard him as a very good composers with an extraordinary range (for some reason in the last decades "niche composers" like Bruckner and Mahler who excelled mostly in one or at best two genres seem to have eclipsed Tchaikovsky and others) and some highly attractive works.


----------



## OCEANE

The title of this thread puzzles me.
'To me', Tchaikovsky is definitely a great composer, a first class one if need to rate. His works of ballet suites, symphonies and concertos impress me as much as like other great composers'. I would not compare him with my other favourite composers and I would never look for the music in Mahler or Bruckner in Tchaikovsky's, vice versa.


----------



## ORigel

marlow said:


> Funny but I’ve never considered Tchaikovsky a second-rate composer. I suppose for some people writing music which is both popular and listenable-to makes him second rate. They might esteem him more highly if he wrote unpleasant music which resembled the sounds of a buzzsaw while they lay on their bed of nails.


I've read that Sibelius was also critically-panned for writing popular and accessible music.


----------



## Waehnen

ORigel said:


> I've read that Sibelius was also critically-panned for writing popular and accessible music.


I´ve read that Brahms made a good living by having composed the Hungarian Dances which were very popular. Nobody blames Brahms for this.


----------



## ORigel

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't think Tchaikovsky is regarded as a second rate composer. However, there might be some discrepancy between his extraordinary popularity (at least for some of his works) and appreciation more based on "nuts-and-bolts" technical aspects of music or historical influence. Tchaikovsky is the most famous composer of ballets (only Stravinsky could come close and he is not as popular), his b flat minor piano concerto might be the most famous classical concerto of all, certainly one of the 3-5 most popular, and his violin concerto is probably also in the top 5 of popular violin concerti. There is more competition among symphonies but again his 4-6 are very popular and the same holds for some orchestral pieces.
> Eugen Onegin is not as popular as some Italian Opera but still a candidate for the most popular slavic/Russian opera. Compare this with most other 19th century composers and few will have such popularity in so many different genres. Most had a narrower focus (e.g. no operas by Brahms, Liszt, Grieg, Chopin..., very little purely instrumental music by Verdi or Wagner and so on), only Dvorak comes close of contemporaries and he has only one or two superhits.
> 
> For some listeners (myself included) a few pieces by Tchaikovsky were a gateway into classical music but later have lost (some or most of) their appeal, thus the idea he is a "superficially emotional" composer.
> It's hard to deny that a lot of his music is highly emotional or immediately appealing through melodies and orchestral color but there's nothing wrong with that. For me, this works best in ballett and "lighter works" (I have only superficial knowledge of the two famous operas and none of the others) and does wear off with repeated listening to some extent. He is not a great favorite of mine but I regard him as a very good composers with an extraordinary range (for some reason in the last decades "niche composers" like Bruckner and Mahler who excelled mostly in one or at best two genres seem to have eclipsed Tchaikovsky and others) and some highly attractive works.


Dvorak is criminally underrated. Listen to his Stabat Mater, St. Ludmilla, String Quartet no. 13, Hussite Overture, String Quintet no. 3, Piano Trio no. 3, Symphony no. 5, etc., and you'd find lots of masterpieces beyond the few "superhits." He's definitely on the same level as Tchaikovsky. Perhaps he even approaches Brahms.






The variety, orchestration, and huge scale of Mahler's symphonies make your assessment of him as a "niche composer" ungenerous. He composed in the most popular CM genre of all, the appeal of his music doesn't wear thin with repeated listens, and he was innovative. Mahler might be on the same tier as Tchaikovsky.

Bruckner is way less popular than Tchaikovsky among most listeners, but among some enthusiasts (like me), and conductors, he is popular for his spiritual-sounding symphonies. I, personally, prefer Bruckner to Tchaikovsky, but I know Tchaikovsky was a greater, less-limited genius.


----------



## ORigel

Waehnen said:


> I´ve read that Brahms made a good living by having composed the Hungarian Dances which were very popular. Nobody blames Brahms for this.


1) Brahms wrote lots of serious, less-immediately accessible music. Indeed, he was regarded as a difficult composer at first. Eduard Hanslick, Jan Swafford reveals, didn't actually like Brahms' music and champoined Brahms because he hated the New German School so much. (For example, Swafford quotes Hanslick complaining about Brahms running out of ideas to a friend after he heard the String Quintet no. 2 and then writing a glowing review of it in the press later.
2) Brahms was German, and CM might have had a Germanic bias for a while
3) Sibelius composed most of his music after Brahms' retirement, when Modernism was in full swing. (This isn't an issue for Tchaikovsky though.)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Couchie said:


> Kindly put this kind of information at the beginning of your posts so I can know to stop reading.


Even if people write unfair things about Wagner (like how MR did in the past, for instance), as long as they write "Not surprisingly, Brahms is my guy." in the beginning, you won't bother to read? Ok..


----------



## Kreisler jr

ORigel said:


> Dvorak is criminally underrated. Listen to his Stabat Mater, St. Ludmilla, String Quartet no. 13, Hussite Overture, String Quintet no. 3, Piano Trio no. 3, Symphony no. 5, etc., and you'd find lots of masterpieces beyond the few "superhits." He's definitely on the same level as Tchaikovsky. Perhaps he even approaches Brahms.


I had probably heard many of the pieces you name before you were born and personally prefer Dvorak's music (although he is also rather uneven). But this doesn't change the fact that Dvorak has nothing like the dominance in a genre like PIT has in Ballet and I doubt that "Rusalka" approaches the popularity of "Onegin". Dvorak clearly "wins" in chamber music but this is a rather niche genre not helping enough with overall popularity and while his 9th symphony and cello concerto come close, they cannot really challenge the overwhelming popularity of Tchaikovsky's 1st piano, violin concerto. The New world symphony is about even with PIT 4-6 but the other Dvorak symphonies, even 6-8 are not that well known.

In any case, Dvorak for some reason seems either too likeable or not as overwhelmingly popular to provoke the derogatory comments that were heaped on Tchaikovsky in some quarters. Unlike R.Strauss, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky Dvorak doesn't seem a composer a certain type of modernist commentators (like Adorno and Leibowitz) loved to hate (but maybe I just don't know, I hardly recall having seen any polemics vs. Dvorak).


----------



## marlow

Of course Tchaikovsky has the labour under the handicap of having written the most popular piano concerto ever. When you listen to it you realise it is an absolute masterpiece. However many times I hear it I never tire of it. But that is enough to raise a sneer in certain circles where listening to music is supposed to be an exercise in self-flagellation


----------



## dko22

EdwardBast said:


> What does this mean? Do you have examples from major works?


I’ll chip in with my understanding here. He used to be regarded as weak in sonata form in the sense of not systematically developing his material and there is some merit in that if you expect him to write like Beethoven. But of course this is irrelevant in some of his most famous works like ballet and opera


----------



## pianozach

Kreisler jr said:


> I had probably heard many of the pieces you name before you were born and personally prefer Dvorak's music (although he is also rather uneven). But this doesn't change the fact that Dvorak has nothing like the dominance in a genre like PIT has in Ballet and I doubt that "Rusalka" approaches the popularity of "Onegin". *Dvorak clearly "wins" in chamber music but this is a rather niche genre *not helping enough with overall popularity and while his 9th symphony and cello concerto come close, they cannot really challenge the overwhelming popularity of Tchaikovsky's 1st piano, violin concerto. The New world symphony is about even with PIT 4-6 but the other Dvorak symphonies, even 6-8 are not that well known.
> 
> In any case, Dvorak for some reason seems either too likeable or not as overwhelmingly popular to provoke the derogatory comments that were heaped on Tchaikovsky in some quarters. Unlike R.Strauss, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky Dvorak doesn't seem a composer a certain type of modernist commentators (like Adorno and Leibowitz) loved to hate (but maybe I just don't know, I hardly recall having seen any polemics vs. Dvorak).


Wait. What?

Chamber Music _"*is a rather niche genre*"_?

Why are you trying to make my head explode?


----------



## ORigel

pianozach said:


> Wait. What?
> 
> Chamber Music _"*is a rather niche genre*"_?
> 
> Why are you trying to make my head explode?


It's not a niche genre, but it's undeniable that piano and orchestral music are way more popular.


----------



## Bulldog

The notion that Tchaikovsky is a 2nd rate composer is ridiculous. However, I rarely listen to his music - way too much syrup.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> Wait. What?
> 
> Chamber Music _"*is a rather niche genre*"_?
> 
> Why are you trying to make my head explode?


Chamber music makes up the overwhelming majority of my Classical music listening. Far more time spent than with orchestral music. So, definitely not a niche genre at my house.


----------



## hammeredklavier

pianozach said:


> Chamber Music _"*is a rather niche genre*"_?


Maybe classical music itself is _niche. _



Kreisler jr said:


> But this doesn't change the fact that Dvorak has nothing like *the dominance* in a genre like PIT has in Ballet and I doubt that "Rusalka" approaches *the popularity* of "Onegin".
> they cannot really challenge *the overwhelming popularity* of Tchaikovsky's 1st piano, violin concerto. The New world symphony is about even with PIT 4-6 but the other Dvorak symphonies, even 6-8 are *not that well known.*


How is this (list of things by Dvorak that are not popular) a counterargument against "Dvorak is criminally underrated"? Of course there are things that never match Pachelbel's canon in "popularity".


----------



## ORigel

Kreisler jr said:


> I had probably heard many of the pieces you name before you were born and personally prefer Dvorak's music (although he is also rather uneven). But this doesn't change the fact that Dvorak has nothing like the dominance in a genre like PIT has in Ballet and I doubt that "Rusalka" approaches the popularity of "Onegin". Dvorak clearly "wins" in chamber music but this is a rather niche genre not helping enough with overall popularity and while his 9th symphony and cello concerto come close, they cannot really challenge the overwhelming popularity of Tchaikovsky's 1st piano, violin concerto. The New world symphony is about even with PIT 4-6 but the other Dvorak symphonies, even 6-8 are not that well known.
> 
> In any case, Dvorak for some reason seems either too likeable or not as overwhelmingly popular to provoke the derogatory comments that were heaped on Tchaikovsky in some quarters. Unlike R.Strauss, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky Dvorak doesn't seem a composer a certain type of modernist commentators (like Adorno and Leibowitz) loved to hate (but maybe I just don't know, I hardly recall having seen any polemics vs. Dvorak).


Franck's Symphony in D Minor used to be popular. It no longer is. Mendelssohn's music zigzagged in popularity over the decades.

So why can't more Dvorak pieces become popular? In 40 years, Dvorak might equal or even exceed Tchaikovsky in popularity among concert-goers. (Of course, Tchaikovsky will always be popular.)


----------



## pianozach

Kreisler jr said:


> I had probably heard many of the pieces you name before you were born and personally prefer Dvorak's music (although he is also rather uneven). But this doesn't change the fact that Dvorak has nothing like the dominance in a genre like PIT has in Ballet and I doubt that "Rusalka" approaches the popularity of "Onegin". Dvorak clearly "wins" in chamber music but this is a rather niche genre not helping enough with overall popularity and while his 9th symphony and cello concerto come close, they cannot really challenge the overwhelming popularity of Tchaikovsky's 1st piano, violin concerto. *The New world symphony is about even with PIT 4-6 but the other Dvorak symphonies, even 6-8 are not that well known.*
> 
> In any case, Dvorak for some reason seems either too likeable or not as overwhelmingly popular to provoke the derogatory comments that were heaped on Tchaikovsky in some quarters. Unlike R.Strauss, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky Dvorak doesn't seem a composer a certain type of modernist commentators (like Adorno and Leibowitz) loved to hate (but maybe I just don't know, I hardly recall having seen any polemics vs. Dvorak).


How "well known" a piece of music is may reflect how good it is, but, then again, there is no direct relationship. There are probably many not-so-well-known works that are extraordinary, just as there some "junk" works that are extraordinarily well known.

But, yes, if you are talking about "influence", it's quite likely that PIT has had more of that. But in a head-to-head between PIT #4 and Dvorak #6? I dunno, it seems that Dvorak's symphony has more breadth, more sass, more grit, even more passion. Even more complexity.

Here's the first movements of both.


----------



## agoukass

For me, Tchaikovsky is not on the same plane as Richard Strauss, Beethoven, or Mozart, but I do think that he is very high up there. I wouldn’t call him a second rate composer. Second rate composers would be the ones whose works you hear semi-regularly on programs or who do not have voices that are as distinctive as those of some composers whom we think of as great (think of Balakirev and Cesar Cui in the Mighty Handful or the other four members of Les Six).

Having said this, I think that many people don’t like Tchaikovsky’s music simply because they might find that it has nothing to say. If you listen to Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, or any other composer who has a lot of deep ideas and thoughts, Tchaikovsky might fall a little flat. Sure, it’s beautiful and emotional music and it hits all of the necessary sweet spots, but it’s not the kind of music that makes you think or puts you in a place of sheer awe and wonder.

And that is fine. Not every composer wrote music that was supposed to touch us on some deep human level. Some of them just wrote beautiful music so that we could enjoy it and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As far as Tchaikovsky’s own music goes, I would say that his last three symphonies are probably the works that I listen to the most because they are the ones that have the most to say and, again, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Coach G

agoukass said:


> For me, Tchaikovsky is not on the same plane as Richard Strauss, Beethoven, or Mozart, but I do think that he is very high up there. I wouldn’t call him a second rate composer...Having said this, I think that many people don’t like Tchaikovsky’s music simply because they might find that it has nothing to say. If you listen to Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, or any other composer who has a lot of deep ideas and thoughts, Tchaikovsky might fall a little flat...


I have a different view. I'm fine with placing Beethoven and Mozart at the top of the hierarchy, but to say that Tchaikovsky "falls a little flat" compared to the "deep ideas and thoughts" of Richard Strauss, Wagner, Bruckner, and Mahler, is not the way i see it.

Richard Strauss of all composers was first and foremost in it for the money. That doesn't mean that Strauss didn't have imagination or skill. Strauss' tone poems have a lot of color and vivid imagery. _Also Sprach Zarathustra_ is a loud, rambling, fun-spectacular, _Ein Heldenlieben_, _Alpine Symphony_, _Till Eulenspiegel_, _Death and Transfiguration_, and _Don Quixote_ the same; but I don't hear anything really heart-felt and sincere in Strauss until we get to the very end when in an age of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Boulez; Strauss goes back to the spirit of Schubert and Schumann with the lovely _Four Last Songs_.

Wagner, Bruckner, and Mahler, all dealt with life and art in very bloated and overblown terms. Wagner's passion, Bruckner's religious fanaticism, and Mahler's neurosis and existential angst, come out in the music but it's also very redundant and sometimes it gets tiresome. At least Tchaikovsky tried to be a good craftsman and his favorite composer was Mozart who Tchaikovsky called a "Musical Christ". Tchaikovsky's ideal was to do like Mozart did and weave his beautiful melodies into a seamless whole, and I think he did that as much or even more than Strauss, Wagner, Bruckner, or Mahler. And Tchaikovsky's emotional element is as sincere. Yes it can be sentimental and syrupy, but I think it is also sincere. It's clear that Tchaikovsky was anxious, depressed, phobic, sensitive, as well as an alcoholic. He was gay in a time when such matters weren't discussed, understood, or accepted. His music also has a feeling that I find to be very "Russian", and filled with a peculiar kind of sadness and soulfulness. I find this same feeling in Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich, as a feeling that speaks for the long-time suffering of the Russian people.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Coach G said:


> Richard Strauss of all composers was first and foremost in it for the money. That doesn't mean that Strauss didn't have imagination or skill. Strauss' tone poems have a lot of color and vivid imagery. _Also Sprach Zarathustra_ is a loud, rambling, fun-spectacular, _Ein Heldenlieben_, _Alpine Symphony_, _Till Eulenspiegel_, _Death and Transfiguration_, and _Don Quixote_ the same; but I don't hear anything really heart-felt and sincere in Strauss


Strauss was a fin de siècle Nietzschean in several ways. He had ubermensch-like musical capabilities and used them ruthlessly (ruthlessness being another ubermensch-quality) which included making lots of fame and money with his music. I don't know if he personally also had the Nietzschean scorn for the traditional notion of "depth" although the stark emotions of Salome and Elektra show that it was not all only colorful rambling fun-spectacular surface.



> [Tchaikovsky's] music also has a feeling that I find to be very "Russian", and filled with a peculiar kind of sadness and soulfulness.


Interestingly, some of his contemporary Russian critics found his music too westernized (which again hurt him deeply, I think).


----------



## EdwardBast

Kreisler jr said:


> Interestingly, some of his contemporary Russian critics found his music too westernized (which again hurt him deeply, I think).


Which is odd because he uses at least as much Russian folk music in his work as any of the nationalists.


----------



## mbhaub

Tchaikovsky's music is westernized not because of his eschewing folk tunes, but because he realized that the German symphonic model gave him a framework to compose in. The sonata-allegro design of the Leipzig composers was an anathema to the Nationalists. He also stuck with what was essentially a Brahmsian orchestra rather than rely on on the special effects, at least in his symphonic music. He also embraced the German school's chamber music models: quartets, trios, sonatas that the Nationalists avoided. Some of the Nationalists eventually figured out that they were headed into a musical cul-de-sac and adopted his point of view. Some ways back here someone was complaining that the finale of his Second Symphony was bombastic, repetitive, and not very good: but he was doing exactly was Balakirev wanted, inherited from Glinka's Kamarinskaya: to heck with German development - use changing color and repetition to make the music and that's what happened. For better or worse. Near the end of his life Rimsky-Korsakov said that looking back over the last 30 years, since the Mighty Five started, that is was all in vain. There were no followers and their school of composition was at a dead end. Tchaikovsky had the right idea all along.


----------



## EdwardBast

mbhaub said:


> Tchaikovsky's music is westernized not because of his eschewing folk tunes, but because he realized that the German symphonic model gave him a framework to compose in. The sonata-allegro design of the Leipzig composers was an anathema to the Nationalists. He also stuck with what was essentially a Brahmsian orchestra rather than rely on on the special effects, at least in his symphonic music. He also embraced the German school's chamber music models: quartets, trios, sonatas that the Nationalists avoided. Some of the Nationalists eventually figured out that they were headed into a musical cul-de-sac and adopted his point of view. Some ways back here someone was complaining that the finale of his Second Symphony was bombastic, repetitive, and not very good: but he was doing exactly was Balakirev wanted, inherited from Glinka's Kamarinskaya: to heck with German development - use changing color and repetition to make the music and that's what happened. For better or worse. Near the end of his life Rimsky-Korsakov said that looking back over the last 30 years, since the Mighty Five started, that is was all in vain. There were no followers and their school of composition was at a dead end. Tchaikovsky had the right idea all along.


Good post. I'd just add that there were other tensions under the surface of the Nationalist-cosmopolitan dispute: Petersburg vs. Moscow (where Tchaikovsky ended up) and amateur vs. conservatory trained (where R-K ended up)


----------



## Coach G

mbhaub said:


> Near the end of his life Rimsky-Korsakov said that looking back over the last 30 years, since the Mighty Five started, that is was all in vain. There were no followers and their school of composition was at a dead end. Tchaikovsky had the right idea all along.


Athoughtful post, but I think that Mussorgsky was on something. Of all "The Five" he was most original and urgent. If anyone could have created a Russian school completely different from the German models it was Mussorgsky, almost analogous to Ives in the USA. Too bad that Mussorgsky's alcoholism and lack the discipline made it so that he could not follow through. The "Rimskyfication" of _Boris Godunov_ and _Bald Mountain _make the music sound more rich and lyrical which is fine, but Mussorgsky's original and unedited versions reveal a unique musical vision in full form.


----------



## haziz

He isn't.


----------



## Forster

haziz said:


> He isn't.


He isn't a 2nd rate composer? Or he isn't _considered_ a 2nd rate composer?


----------



## Markbridge

I'm sorry, but I think consider Tchaikovsky "second rate" by any means. He was a wonderful tunesmith and orchestrator. Sadly, Tchaikovsky, and at times Sibelius, have been denied they rightful status over the years. But, that's all right, I know what I like and, quite frankly, that's all that matters to me.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> He isn't...a 2nd rate composer, or he isn't _considered_ a 2nd rate composer?


Though not to the extent of someone like Liszt, I've definitely heard some gentle ridicule of his romantic tendencies over the years and his orchestral works seem to have been eclipsed in prestige as the big Non-Beethoven/Mozart/Brahms symphony guy by first Mahler, then Bruckner. 

Not by me though!


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think that the universality of Tchaikovsky hides that he was at heart a "theatrical composer", A lot of his best instrumental music seems also informed by the dramatic or flamboyant gestures (say the openings of the 4th symphony or bflat minor concerto), great melodies and general graceful elegance of ballet. Balanchine even used the 3rd symphony as ballet music and I could imagine the string serenade, souvenir de florence and at least some movements of other symphonies, string quartets or the violin concerto in a similar way. Sure, the 6th symphony might also be in some way a model for Mahler (who reputedly appreciated Tchaikovsky more than was common in late 19th century Vienna) but the 2nd movement or the sentimental second subject of the first movement although sound almost like taken from ballet.
Not sure about Mahler but Bruckner, Brahms, also Schumann and Sibelius (although these two wrote theatre music) seem to be rather "anti-theatrical" in their better works.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I think that the universality of Tchaikovsky hides that he was at heart a "theatrical composer", A lot of his best instrumental music seems also informed by the dramatic or flamboyant gestures (say the openings of the 4th symphony or bflat minor concerto), great melodies and general graceful elegance of ballet. Balanchine even used the 3rd symphony as ballet music and I could imagine the string serenade, souvenir de florence and at least some movements of other symphonies, string quartets or the violin concerto in a similar way. Sure, the 6th symphony might also be in some way a model for Mahler (who reputedly appreciated Tchaikovsky more than was common in late 19th century Vienna) but the 2nd movement or the sentimental second subject of the first movement although sound almost like taken from ballet.
> Not sure about Mahler but Bruckner, Brahms, also Schumann and Sibelius (although these two wrote theatre music) seem to be rather "anti-theatrical" in their better works.


In Mahler´s music I have heard a strong influence of Wagner, Tchaikovsky and Bruckner. I just started to read a Mahler biography and it will be interesting to find out whether these feelings of mine hold any truth.


----------



## fbjim

Oh Schumann, now that's someone who might have fallen much further than Tchaikovsky. I hardly ever see any Schumann programmed and everyone just seems to love talking about how awful an orchestrator he was.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> Though not to the extent of someone like Liszt, I've definitely heard some gentle ridicule of his romantic tendencies over the years and his orchestral works seem to have been eclipsed in prestige as the big Non-Beethoven/Mozart/Brahms symphony guy by first Mahler, then Bruckner.
> 
> Not by me though!


Sorry, I realise the post of mine you responded to was poorly constructed. Please see revised version.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Schumann's symphonies have probably never been as popular as Tchaikovsky's 4-6 but a lot of his piano music and piano concerto were and are core repertoire. In the last 25 years even Schumann's violin concerto (about the only piece where I find the cliché of the waning abilities of the physically and mentally ill composer understandable) seems to have gained some popularity with violinists.


----------



## science

Where Tchaikovsky is "second rate," there must only be about six "first rate" composers in the entire history of western music. 

That is the kind of standard by which Dickens is a second-rate novelist and Cézanne is a second-rate painter. Second-rate isn't too bad.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> Where Tchaikovsky is "second rate," there must only be about six "first rate" composers in the entire history of western music.
> 
> That is the kind of standard by which Dickens is a second-rate novelist and Cézanne is a second-rate painter. Second-rate isn't too bad.


The point is well taken but I'm not sure I could name 6 "first rate" novelists I'd rank above Dickens. Hell, Tolstoy may be the only one I'd definitively put ahead of Dickens.


----------



## science

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The point is well taken but I'm not sure I could name 6 "first rate" novelists I'd rank above Dickens. Hell, Tolstoy may be the only one I'd definitively put ahead of Dickens.


Dickens might actually be a good comparison because the literary analysis kind of people don't care for him as much. More beloved than admired.


----------



## golfer72

Tchaikovsky Piano Cto 1 was the work that got me hooked on Classical music some 35 years ago. Still love it to this day. The 2nd Concerto is also enjoyable as are all the Symphonies. My favorite genre though is solo piano so Tchaikovsky doesnt get played much by me any more.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> Dickens might actually be a good comparison because the literary analysis kind of people don't care for him as much. More beloved than admired.


I think that depends on the literary analysts in question. Dickens' technical talent has rarely been disputed, but some have always been skeptical of his value given that those talents were in service of narratives that were immediately accessible and enjoyable, and in which the social themes seemed rather superficial and in conflict with his penchant for caricatures. The devaluation of Dickens largely came with the wide acceptance of realism as the literary genre of "good taste," and, in combination with more modern techniques, allowed authors like Joyce, Faulkner, Woolf, James, etc. to flourish in popularity among critics. 

Dickens may rate as second-rate given the ideals that rate these authors so high, but I have my doubts that such things will be permanent. I'd still say Dickens is the most human of all these authors (many of which I love too) and, excepting Joyce perhaps, lags behind none of them in technique. His ability to cross the "critical-popular audience" divide alone would tempt me to put him ahead of someone like Joyce and, at the end of the day, I doubt many look forward to sitting down with Joyce the way they can with Dickens and that should count for something.


----------



## Coach G

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The point is well taken but I'm not sure I could name 6 "first rate" novelists I'd rank above Dickens. Hell, Tolstoy may be the only one I'd definitively put ahead of Dickens.


If we're going to bring Tolstoy into the conversation than I should probably mention that I once read in the liner notes of an old LP I once had of Tchaikovsky and Verdi _String Quartets_ (Guarneri) that when Tolstoy was present at a recital of the Tchaikovsky Quartet that there were tears steaming down his face during the beautiful "Antante Cantabile"

Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy:


----------



## pianozach

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The point is well taken but I'm not sure I could name 6 "first rate" novelists I'd rank above Dickens. Hell, Tolstoy may be the only one I'd definitively put ahead of Dickens.


Well, you probably COULD, but practically every published list of the world's greatest novelists, like Top Ten novelists, WILL have Dickens on it, if it's from an English-speaking country at least.


----------



## Coach G

science said:


> Dickens might actually be a good comparison because the literary analysis kind of people don't care for him as much. More beloved than admired.


It's really difficult to find a parallel analogy in literature, cinema, or art, that compares to Tchaikovsky. In poetry you might have someone like Edgar Guest who was very popular at one time, and mostly with casual and unsophisticated readers of poetry, but was never considered by literary critics to be on the high station as the likes of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Tennyson, Frost, Ginsburg, etc. In art you might have an artist such as Thomas Kinkade whose paintings adorn every waiting room across America and are sincerely admired in many homes as well, is almost always considered to be garbage by art critics.

Though Tchaikovsky is loved by little children who dance to the _Nutcracker_, and by many casual listeners who have just a few classical recordings in their music collection; I sense a great deal more integrity in Tchaikovsky's music than I detect in Guest's or Kinkade's artistic output. And that's not a slam against Guest or Kinkade; just that Tchaikovsky is a very special or even a unique kind of artist that at once manages to be both "high brow" and "low brow"; "Populist" but still "Sophisticated"; thoroughly Russian but also universal in appeal. Any snob worth his or her metal would scorn the programming of a "Star Wars Suite" or "Victory at Sea Suite" by a major orchestra, but even among honest-to-goodness snobs, Tchaikovsky remains a matter of dispute.


----------



## Forster

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The point is well taken but I'm not sure I could name 6 "first rate" novelists I'd rank above Dickens. Hell, Tolstoy may be the only one I'd definitively put ahead of Dickens.


As with ranking composers, there is a tendency to default to those with long-established reputations, and to ignore more recent writers who've not yet "stood the test of time" (ugh!) The literary canon tends also to graciously include the odd Irish, Russian and French novelist, but it's those who write in English that dominate. At least, that's what we Anglocentrics think. 






The Greatest Books of All Time, as Voted by 125 Famous Authors


Tolstoy holds an 11-point lead over Shakespeare in these literary opinion polls.




www.theatlantic.com





I wonder if an academic in a South American university might have a quite different list.


----------



## science

The holy pantheon of novelists is not as well-settled as that of composers because music is more accessible across language divides, less expensive, and because more people (wrongly, IMO) trust themselves to evaluate a novel than trust themselves to evaluate music. This leads to people in different languages reading and advocating different authors, but listening to and advocating the same composers. 

I'd specified novelists because literary figures is far too broad, but even in the narrower field Luo Guanzhong, Murasaki Shikibu, Charlotte Bronte, Austen, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Woolf, Garcia Marquez, Hemingway, and Dostoyevsky all have pretty good arguments for being ranked above Dickens.


----------



## EdwardBast

science said:


> The holy pantheon of novelists is not as well-settled as that of composers because music is more accessible across language divides, less expensive, and because more people (wrongly, IMO) trust themselves to evaluate a novel than trust themselves to evaluate music. This leads to people in different languages reading and advocating different authors, but listening to and advocating the same composers.
> 
> I'd specified novelists because literary figures is far too broad, but even in the narrower field Luo Guanzhong, Murasaki Shikibu, Charlotte Bronte, Austen, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Woolf, Garcia Marquez, Hemingway, and Dostoyevsky all have pretty good arguments for being ranked above Dickens.


You forgot Victor Hugo, who had five excellent novels. I would also add Falukner, William Gaddis, Kazuo Ishiguro, and Cormac McCarthy.


----------



## arpeggio

This is becoming a novel discussion 😉


----------



## arpeggio

If one does a survey of the various threads, one will find that no matter how great a composer is there will be those who think he is overrated. 
Very rarely do these threads have any informative posts


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> If one does a survey of the various threads, one will that no matter how great a composer is there will be those who think he is overrated.
> Very rarely do these threads have any informative posts


Yes, there is a reasonable spread in opinions on how "great" composers are or where they should be rated. I've always wondered exactly what is meant by a 2nd rate composer. Is that someone who is below the top 10 composers? Below the top 20? Top 50? I personally view at least 50 and likely many more as 1st rate composers. Thinking of all the composers who have written classical music, there are a large number who would seem to stand out. Of course, there are a much smaller number who get most of the attention on TC.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> The holy pantheon of novelists is not as well-settled as that of composers because music is more accessible across language divides, less expensive, and because more people (wrongly, IMO) trust themselves to evaluate a novel than trust themselves to evaluate music. This leads to people in different languages reading and advocating different authors, but listening to and advocating the same composers.
> 
> I'd specified novelists because literary figures is far too broad, but even in the narrower field Luo Guanzhong, Murasaki Shikibu, Charlotte Bronte, Austen, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Woolf, Garcia Marquez, Hemingway, and Dostoyevsky all have pretty good arguments for being ranked above Dickens.


Everything you say in your first paragraph is very true.

As for your second, of those I'm familiar with I think I could make a case for Dickens over most of them.

Tolstoy I do agree with. I think he wrote two towering literary masterpieces that stand alongside the best of Shakespeare, Goethe, Dante, Homer, Virgil, and _insert whatever pillars of literature here._ War & Peace especially feels like it contains the whole universe in its pages. It's one novel I almost regretted finishing because I didn't want to leave its world and characters. 

Bronte, Austen, Woolf, and Marquez all wrote masterpieces, but relatively few of them compared to Dickens. Of those I'm particularly fond of Austen and I think that given her limited sphere of subject matter she perfected her unique style of subtle irony, characterization, perspective, and social commentary. However, her novels do lack the breadth of Dickens and I don't find they have more depth. Perhaps more nuance, more detail in their small moments, but that's it. The one thing I will say about Austen is that I don't know of another author who is appreciated for such completely different reasons by casual readers (whoread her irony as straight romanticism) and critics. To this list I would've added George Elliot, whom I actually think is their equal if not superior.

Hemingway I've never been super impressed with. I get why his style was so unique and influential and while I don't think his stories were bad or poorly written they haven't moved me much. I probably would've replaced him with Melville or Faulkner.

Dostoyevsky I'm ambivalent about. At times he seems more a failed, shallow philosopher than a novelist, and even when he is focusing on narrative and characters I often can't shake the feeling his characters and events are mere mouthpieces for whatever themes he wants to talk about. Tolstoy shares some of Dosto's overt philosophizing, but Tolstoy has sense enough to keep it completely separate from the novel itself and not let it overtly infect his narrative (it's always in the background, but it's much more subtle). Dosto could write superbly when he wanted to as with much of The Brothers Karamazov, but I generally find him overrated, particularly by youngsters who are ready for literature with an overt philosophical edge.

To me, the argument for Dickens over all (or most) of these authors is the depth of his oeuvre. Many of these authors wrote maybe a handful of top-tier works. Dickens did that too: Bleak House, Great Expectations, David Copperfield, Our Mutual Friend... but then Dickens also wrote many more excellent novels beside that: Oliver Twist, The Pickwick Papers, A Tale of Two Cities, Hard Times, A Christmas Carroll... and even his lesser works tend to be (at least) very enjoyable.


----------



## Forster

Dickens* wrote stories about small boys facing adversity with a pungent wit so laced with irony as to be almost unreadable.

But that's just my opinion.


[*Previously autocorrected to 'Ducking' ]


----------



## science

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Everything you say in your first paragraph is very true.
> 
> As for your second, of those I'm familiar with I think I could make a case for Dickens over most of them.
> 
> Tolstoy I do agree with. I think he wrote two towering literary masterpieces that stand alongside the best of Shakespeare, Goethe, Dante, Homer, Virgil, and _insert whatever pillars of literature here._ War & Peace especially feels like it contains the whole universe in its pages. It's one novel I almost regretted finishing because I didn't want to leave its world and characters.
> 
> Bronte, Austen, Woolf, and Marquez all wrote masterpieces, but relatively few of them compared to Dickens. Of those I'm particularly fond of Austen and I think that given her limited sphere of subject matter she perfected her unique style of subtle irony, characterization, perspective, and social commentary. However, her novels do lack the breadth of Dickens and I don't find they have more depth. Perhaps more nuance, more detail in their small moments, but that's it. The one thing I will say about Austen is that I don't know of another author who is appreciated for such completely different reasons by casual readers (whoread her irony as straight romanticism) and critics. To this list I would've added George Elliot, whom I actually think is their equal if not superior.
> 
> Hemingway I've never been super impressed with. I get why his style was so unique and influential and while I don't think his stories were bad or poorly written they haven't moved me much. I probably would've replaced him with Melville or Faulkner.
> 
> Dostoyevsky I'm ambivalent about. At times he seems more a failed, shallow philosopher than a novelist, and even when he is focusing on narrative and characters I often can't shake the feeling his characters and events are mere mouthpieces for whatever themes he wants to talk about. Tolstoy shares some of Dosto's overt philosophizing, but Tolstoy has sense enough to keep it completely separate from the novel itself and not let it overtly infect his narrative (it's always in the background, but it's much more subtle). Dosto could write superbly when he wanted to as with much of The Brothers Karamazov, but I generally find him overrated, particularly by youngsters who are ready for literature with an overt philosophical edge.
> 
> To me, the argument for Dickens over all (or most) of these authors is the depth of his oeuvre. Many of these authors wrote maybe a handful of top-tier works. Dickens did that too: Bleak House, Great Expectations, David Copperfield, Our Mutual Friend... but then Dickens also wrote many more excellent novels beside that: Oliver Twist, The Pickwick Papers, A Tale of Two Cities, Hard Times, A Christmas Carroll... and even his lesser works tend to be (at least) very enjoyable.


I don't know that any Dickens novels are "top-tier" works. They're entertaining, sometimes provocative, sometimes thoughtful, and the diction is delightful (rarely very meaningful) but there is no passage in any of them (as far as I'm aware) that could equal, for example, Jane Eyre in the attic, looking out across the fields, longing to have "more intercourse" with her kind, listening to "Grace Poole's" thrilling laughter. Or the military police executing the officers at the Tagliamento. Or Alyosha kissing Ivan. 

Austen, maybe I included too hastily, but where in Dickens is there anything as harrowing and yet as realistic as Elizabeth realizing she's misjudged Darcy? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. And although Austen has some fun now and then, does she ever descend into the kind of sentimentality that Dickens consistently wallows in? 

In the end, Dickens is something like a "top-tier" prose cartoonist, lacking serious intellectual depth but eminently enjoyable, destined always to be popular, but then that is exactly the kind of faint praise with which people damn Tchaikovsky. I mean, he composed the greatest ballets ever (including his first piano concerto).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> I don't know that any Dickens novels are "top-tier" works. They're entertaining, sometimes provocative, sometimes thoughtful, and the diction is delightful (rarely very meaningful) but there is no passage in any of them (as far as I'm aware) that could equal, for example, Jane Eyre in the attic, looking out across the fields, longing to have "more intercourse" with her kind, listening to "Grace Poole's" thrilling laughter. Or the military police executing the officers at the Tagliamento. Or Alyosha kissing Ivan.
> 
> Austen, maybe I included too hastily, but where in Dickens is there anything as harrowing and yet as realistic as Elizabeth realizing she's misjudged Darcy? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. And although Austen has some fun now and then, does she ever descend into the kind of sentimentality that Dickens consistently wallows in?
> 
> In the end, Dickens is something like a "top-tier" prose cartoonist, lacking serious intellectual depth but eminently enjoyable, destined always to be popular, but then that is exactly the kind of faint praise with which people damn Tchaikovsky. I mean, he composed the greatest ballets ever (including his first piano concerto).


I want to preface this by noting that it has been (regretfully, for the purpose of discussions like this) well over a decade since I read most of these works, so my memory of specific passages are almost non-existent, though I remember glimpses and moments of scenes that I would be loath to try to find or recall in much detail. One I very much remember is the tempest in David Copperfield. This apparently (after a Google check) was entire chapter in the book, but it contains perhaps the most vivid description of a storm ever. More important, however, than the vividness of its depiction is its significance within the novel, as being a reminder of powers that are beyond the control of humans who have been so obsessed with controlling the minutiae and details of their life that they can control. 

It reminds me of Tolstoy's own thesis in War & Peace of how humans delude themselves into thinking they have more control over their lives and outcomes than they do. Tolstoy was quick to point to this higher power as God, and while there is some religion in Dickens I appreciate how, at least in Copperfield, how the tempest sequence speaks for itself without any direct mentions of what that higher power might be, and its apocalyptic connotations is a stark contrast to the everyday rigors that its characters face elsewhere. Here's one passage from the chapter:


> The tremendous sea itself, when I could find sufficient pause to look at it, in the agitation of the blinding wind, the flying stones and sand, and the awful noise, confounded me. As the high watery walls came rolling in, and, at their highest, tumbled into surf, they looked as if the least would engulf the town. As the receding wave swept back with a hoarse roar, it seemed to scoop out deep caves in the beach, as if its purpose were to undermine the earth. When some white-headed billows thundered on, and dashed themselves to pieces before they reached the land, every fragment of the late whole seemed possessed by the full might of its wrath, rushing to be gathered to the composition of another monster. Undulating hills were changed to valleys, undulating valleys (with a solitary storm-bird sometimes skimming through them) were lifted up to hills; masses of water shivered and shook the beach with a booming sound; every shape tumultuously rolled on, as soon as made, to change its shape and place, and beat another shape and place away; the ideal shore on the horizon, with its towers and buildings, rose and fell; the clouds fell fast and thick; I seemed to see a rending and upheaving of all nature.


Also, on the page I found this at it also mentions a particularly interesting thought by Tolstoy on it: “If you sift the world’s prose literature, Dickens will remain; sift Dickens, _David Copperfield_ will remain; sift _David Copperfield_, the description of the storm at sea will remain.”

I do not, based on what I can recall, deny the excellence the passage you cite in Jane Eyre, or P&P: these are works I love as well (though for Austen I might be inclined to mention Emma's eventual realization of her selfishness, and the numerous passages before then that hint at her subtle, well-meaning narcissism, ahead of that more famous example from P&P); but I very much think Dickens has moments that stand alongside them; but they also have other qualities besides, like the labyrinthine complexity of Bleak House and its noir-ish like tone that it so masterfully, sets, sustains, and navigates. Bleak House especially struck me as a novel one could read a dozen times and emerge with a slightly different perspective each time. 

Dickens was sentimental, yes; I tend to think that sentimentality is less a crime when there is substance and technique supporting it, and I think Dickens had both in spades. I do not deny he was also something of a talented cartoonist/caricature artist, but I simply reject the notion that such stylization is mutually exclusive with substance. There's a lot of social critique and observation in Dickens, and a lot of humanistic insight. Some of it may be a bit ham-fisted compared to the naturalistic subtlety of Austen, Elliot, or the modernists; but that doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Dostoyevsky I'm ambivalent about. At times he seems more a failed, shallow philosopher than a novelist, and even when he is focusing on narrative and characters I often can't shake the feeling his characters and events are mere mouthpieces for whatever themes he wants to talk about. Tolstoy shares some of Dosto's overt philosophizing, but Tolstoy has sense enough to keep it completely separate from the novel itself and not let it overtly infect his narrative (it's always in the background, but it's much more subtle). Dosto could write superbly when he wanted to as with much of The Brothers Karamazov, but I generally find him overrated, particularly by youngsters who are ready for literature with an overt philosophical edge.


You got that exactly backwards. Tolstoy pushes his private philosophy all the time in a tiresome way. He was the failed philosopher. If one has read Dostoyevsky's five major novels it's clear that the thoughts and words of the characters usually have nothing to do with the author's beliefs. Do you think he really thought murdering rich people was justifiable? (Crime and Punishment) Or that he was a destructive nihilist? (Demons) The indeterminacy of characterization is what D is famous for.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> You got that exactly backwards. Tolstoy pushes his private philosophy all the time in a tiresome way. He was the failed philosopher. If one has read Dostoyevsky's five major novels it's clear that the thoughts and words of the characters usually have nothing to do with the author's beliefs. Do you think he really thought murdering rich people was justifiable? (Crime and Punishment) Or that he was a destructive nihilist? (Demons) The indeterminacy of characterization is what D is famous for.


Yeah, Nietzsche apparently thought pretty highly of Dostoyevsky.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> You got that exactly backwards. Tolstoy pushes his private philosophy all the time in a tiresome way. He was the failed philosopher. If one has read Dostoyevsky's five major novels it's clear that the thoughts and words of the characters usually have nothing to do with the author's beliefs. Do you think he really thought murdering rich people was justifiable? (Crime and Punishment) Or that he was a destructive nihilist? (Demons) The indeterminacy of characterization is what D is famous for.


Tolstoy pushes his philosophy in sections that are completely separate from the novel itself. Those themes are in the background of the novels events, but within the novel itself I never get the sense that characters and their thoughts/feelings are just musing on things relevant to that philosophy. When I talk about characters being mouthpieces for Dosto I do not mean it in the sense that they're expressing exactly what he feels/thinks, what I mean is that Dosto has some themes and characters are just ciphers for exploring those themes. In C&P he's Dosto is obviously very concerned about the notion that any individual can essentially declare themselves a God and above social notions of morality, so he crafts a character that attempts to rationally justify a murder. Obviously Raskolnikov isn't espousing Dosto's own philosophy, but rather he's espousing the themes that Dosto is concerned about. Now, Dosto doesn't always do this--I already mentioned there's less of that in The Brothers Karamazov. By comparison though, there aren't any characters in W&P directly expressing any theme related to Tolstoy's themes of history largely being shaped by God and the foolishness of men to think they are in control of things... rather characters tend to speak and act with no awareness of this theme.


----------



## Gallus

EdwardBast said:


> You got that exactly backwards. Tolstoy pushes his private philosophy all the time in a tiresome way. He was the failed philosopher. If one has read Dostoyevsky's five major novels it's clear that the thoughts and words of the characters usually have nothing to do with the author's beliefs. Do you think he really thought murdering rich people was justifiable? (Crime and Punishment) Or that he was a destructive nihilist? (Demons) The indeterminacy of characterization is what D is famous for.


I don't agree with this. Dostoevsky's characters are philosophical archetypes, vehicles to express particular views or psychological states he wanted to explore. Tolstoy's characters are not such representations of ideas, but _actual rounded human beings._

If you come away from reading The Idiot thinking "wow, what a tiresome, failed philosopher", with all of its multi-page mouthpiece rants from characters about how the Roman Catholic Church is evil or whatever, I can understand that. If you think the same after reading Anna Karenina, I don't really know what to say.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Gallus said:


> I don't really agree with this. Dostoevsky's characters are philosophical archetypes, vehicles to express particular views or psychological states he wanted to explore. Tolstoy's characters are not such representations of ideas, but _actual rounded human beings._


Exactly. Though it may be sacrilegious to say I actually prefer Crime and Punishment the way Robert Bresson rendered it in Pickpocket, who is the very model of "show, don't tell" storytelling.


----------



## Scherzi Cat

Tchaikovsky is one of my top five favorite composers. The 5th and 6th symphonies, the violin concerto, first piano concerto, 1812, Romeo and Juliet, Capriccio Italien, Slavonic March, Nutcracker, Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty, are all highly memorable and often quoted works that are recognized by the general public. That kind of popularity would not come to a “second rate” composer.


----------



## 59540

Gallus said:


> I don't agree with this. Dostoevsky's characters are philosophical archetypes, vehicles to express particular views or psychological states he wanted to explore. Tolstoy's characters are not such representations of ideas, but _actual rounded human beings._
> 
> If you come away from reading The Idiot thinking "wow, what a tiresome, failed philosopher", with all of its multi-page mouthpiece rants from characters about how the Roman Catholic Church is evil or whatever, I can understand that. If you think the same after reading Anna Karenina, I don't really know what to say.


What exactly is a "failed philosopher" anyway? I could apply that label to any writer whose philosophical "baggage" I don't find very congenial. Camus, for example.



> If you think the same after reading Anna Karenina, I don't really know what to say.


The problem with Anna Karenina is that it's dated. There are Annas and Vronskys everywhere you look now. And anyway Tolstoy isn't above creating characters that essentially mouth his own views. I think among writers Shakespeare is the only "chameleon" I've come across. You can't pin down what he really might have believed.


----------



## 59540

....sorry, quoted instead of edited...again...


----------



## EdwardBast

Gallus said:


> I don't agree with this. Dostoevsky's characters are philosophical archetypes, vehicles to express particular views or psychological states he wanted to explore. Tolstoy's characters are not such representations of ideas, but _actual rounded human beings._
> 
> If you come away from reading The Idiot thinking "wow, what a tiresome, failed philosopher", with all of its multi-page mouthpiece rants from characters about how the Roman Catholic Church is evil or whatever, I can understand that. *If you think the same after reading Anna Karenina, I don't really know what to say.*


You too have it backwards. That's exactly what I come away with from _Anna Karenina_, and also what his acolytes came away with. Constantine Levin is a tiresome cardboard cutout for Tolstoy's ideal agrarian aristocrat. Have you not heard of the Tolstoyan movement? Dostoyevsky doesn't have a comparable movement because, unlike Tolstoy, he wasn't an ideologue. And since you've brought up _AK_ and _The Idiot_, compare Kitty Shcherbatsky with Natasha Filipovna and tell me which is a lifelike portrait. Do the same for Rogozhin and Vronsky. Who is more vivid? Dostoyevsky created characters obsessed with ideas but usually not his own ideas. Dostoyevsky's novels are renowned for the independence of his characters' voices and the indeterminacy of their motivations from an authorial perspective. I refer you to critics Philip Rhav, Leonid Grossman, and especially Mikhail Bakhtin on these points.

As for religious rants: You are aware that anti-papist, anti-RCC sentiments were widely held in Russia when Dostoyevsky was writing and it makes perfect sense that some of his characters took up these ideas, right? Ivan Karamazov's brilliant poetic essay, "The Grand Inquisitor," is a prime example. Even in that case it's not certain how invested Ivan really is in these ideas, let alone Dostoyevsky. The ideas are just aspects of characterization, not ideas the author is pushing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> What exactly is a "failed philosopher" anyway? I could apply that label to any writer whose philosophical "baggage" I don't find very congenial. Camus, for example.


Not speaking for Gallus but when I used the term I simply meant it in regards to a novelist that seems more (or at least equally) interested in philosophical ideas rather than characters and narrative. I wasn't using it as a negative judgment on a novelist whose philosophy I disagree with. 



dissident said:


> The problem with Anna Karenina is that it's dated. There are Annas and Vronskys everywhere you look now. And anyway Tolstoy isn't above creating characters that essentially mouth his own views. I think among writers Shakespeare is the only "chameleon" I've come across. You can't pin down what he really might have believed.


If there are Annas and Vronskys "everywhere you look" that would seem to make it less dated than more. Either way, I'm not particularly concerned about novels dating: that's inevitable given that societies/cultures and the novels written in and about them inevitably change. 

I wouldn't say Tolstoy is "above" this, but he rarely indulges in it. The multitude of characters in W&P mouth all kinds of views, some of them mouth no views at all, and none of them explicitly mouth any of the views Tolstoy discusses in his essays spread around the novel. Tolstoy might not be a chameleon to the extent Shakespeare is--if only because Tolstoy did write explicitly about his views both within and outside the novels--but nobody is. I'd still say Tolstoy is more so than most.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> Dostoyevsky created characters obsessed with ideas but usually not his own ideas.


Yes, that's the point, and he's as likely to spend as much time on the ideas as anything else. It's tiring, and frequently reads more like philosophy than fiction. There's more to character (not to mention narrative) than what ideas they're obsessed with.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, that's the point, and he's as likely to spend as much time on the ideas as anything else. It's tiring, and frequently reads more like philosophy than fiction. There's more to character (not to mention narrative) than what ideas they're obsessed with.


He doesn't spend time on the ideas, the characters do. There's a difference. Some people don't like characters obsessed with ideas. Yes, they can be annoying and dangerous, like Stavrogin and Verkhovensky in Devils. But all of them have much more to their character than the ideas they espouse or struggle with.

About _War and Peace_ — I agree it isn't ideologically overbearing in the way I claim AK to be (unless one takes Tolstoy's historiography re Borodino, Kutuzov, and Napoleon too seriously). Perhaps historical novels are less prone to that?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> He doesn't spend time on the ideas, the characters do. There's a difference. Some people don't like characters obsessed with ideas. Yes, they can be annoying and dangerous, like Stavrogin and Verkhovensky in Devils. But all of them have much more to their character than the ideas they espouse or struggle with.
> 
> About _War and Peace_ — I agree it isn't ideologically overbearing in the way I claim AK to be (unless one takes Tolstoy's historiography re Borodino, Kutuzov, and Napoleon too seriously). Perhaps historical novels are less prone to that?


There's a difference, sure, but not for the purpose of my criticism. Dosto writes characters obsessed with ideas because he's obsessed with ideas. I don't mind characters obsessed with ideas, but an author doesn't need to spend a philosophy book's worth of pages discussing them. A character who only ever has ideas on their mind is a shallow character indeed, and take that from someone who frequently reads philosophy and thinks about ideas! 

Funnily enough I would think more would think W&P more ideologically overbearing than AK if only because W&P does have those infrequent essays that Tolstoy decided to insert. I remember reading that he didn't even want to call W&P a novel because of their inclusion.


----------



## Gallus

dissident said:


> What exactly is a "failed philosopher" anyway?


I don't know. It wasn't my phrase.



EdwardBast said:


> Do the same for Rogozhin and Vronsky. Who is more vivid?


Err, Vronsky obviously? Rogozhin is a crazed murderer who I will grant is compelling in what he represents as an antithesis to Myshkin's saintly renunciation of passion, but not really a three dimensional character like Vronsky is from the very opening pages.


----------



## Dimboukas

Because of homophobia and Wagnerian/Adornian idiocies about good music.


----------



## larold

To suggest Tchaikovsky was second rate is absurd. That means every other writer of classical ballet music is third rate -- since his are the best. That means every classical romantic violin concerto, of which his is among the best, is third rate. That means most romantic symphonies comparable to Tchaikovsky 4-6 are third rate. It means every other romantic piano concerto, aside from his Concerto No. 1, is third rate. He also wrote operas that are in the standard repertory. If Tchaikovsky is second rate it leaves only 3-4 composers in history who were first rate.


----------



## Kreisler jr

larold said:


> To suggest Tchaikovsky was second rate is absurd. That means every other writer of classical ballet music is third rate -- since his are the best. That means every classical romantic violin concerto, of which his is among the best, is third rate. [...] It means every other romantic piano concerto, aside from his Concerto No. 1, is third rate.


I don't think Tchaikovsky was second rate but I don't think it is inconsistent to think so. 
Lots of ballet music beyond Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Prokofiev is third rate. And so are many of the romantic concertos unearthed by hyperion or other labels.


----------



## Bunky

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> First off I want to preface this post by saying I rarely listen to Tchaikovsky, if ever. My knowledge of him ends at the Pathètique Symphony, 1812, Marche Slave, Violin Concerto (whichever the popular one is) and the Nutcracker i.e none of his deep cuts.
> 
> I wonder who does all this rating that I'm always hearing about.
> Pete wrote a few pretty tunes but I don't think he was in the same class as the other Russkis, e.g., Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninoff, et al.
> I'm the world's greatest expert on my personal opinion, aren't we all?


----------



## ORigel

larold said:


> To suggest Tchaikovsky was second rate is absurd. That means every other writer of classical ballet music is third rate -- since his are the best. That means every classical romantic violin concerto, of which his is among the best, is third rate. That means most romantic symphonies comparable to Tchaikovsky 4-6 are third rate. It means every other romantic piano concerto, aside from his Concerto No. 1, is third rate. He also wrote operas that are in the standard repertory. If Tchaikovsky is second rate it leaves only 3-4 composers in history who were first rate.


He was the greatest ballet composer, of course, and composed one of the handful of great 19th century violin concertos.

However, I think there are some symphonists (Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, perhaps Brahms and Dvorak) that were even better than Tchaikovsky. And I prefer a number of other piano concertos to his (however, I haven't listened to his other two piano concertos).

I cannot comment on his operas, since I don't listen to/watch operas.

*I am not arguing that Tchaikovsky is third-rate *_(though Fatum certainly is!)_


----------



## hammeredklavier

What's all this discussion of "Nth rate" about? Popularity? Greatness? Is it objective?


hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe because X is superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc? But the dedicated fans who would defend X against all criticisms at all costs will always say otherwise.


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> What's all this discussion of "Nth rate" about? Popularity? Greatness? Is it objective?


It's a highly subjective phrase. When you call a composer, or work, *"First Rate"*, it means you think everyone thinks it's great, even 'major'. 

When you use *2nd rate* to describe a composer, or work (or a film, or an actor), then you're simply saying it's not 'great' nor 'major'. It may certainly still be 'good', just not as 'good' as a *1st rate* composer.

For instance, in comparing works of *Beethoven* with each other, one might say that his *9th, 5th*, and *3rd Symphonies* are *First Rate*, while his *2nd Symphony* is *2nd rate* in comparison. 

One could take it further, by claiming that his *Wellington's Victory* is *3rd Rate*.

This 'rating system" is comparable to the rating system for film actors, in which an "A-List" actor like Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, and Tom Hanks make millions of dollars per film, while B-List actors like Amber Heard or John C. Reilly only make tens of thousands of dollars per film.


----------



## hammeredklavier

pianozach said:


> One could take it further, by claiming that his *Wellington's Victory* is *3rd Rate*.


As "incidental music depicting a battle", I don't see how it doesn't achieve its purpose, objectively.




Yes, Beethoven himself considered it a "potboiler", but that's probably more because composers starting with Beethoven around his time started to have the notion that a true artist shouldn't strive for mass popularity.



pianozach said:


> For instance, in comparing works of *Beethoven* with each other, one might say that his *9th, 5th*, and *3rd Symphonies* are *First Rate*, while his *2nd Symphony* is *2nd rate* in comparison.


they were all written to achieve different artistic goals, it's still subjective.








What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority. "Stravinsky was never moved by the choral finale to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which he...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## pianozach

pianozach said:


> I generally keep my iTunes on 'random mode', and Symphony No. 6 4th mvt came up yesterday. I started getting weepy, and I wasn't even listening that closely.
> 
> He's piled on by the Classical elitists because he's more of a tunesmith than a complexinarian. Go to a Tchaikovsky concert, and you'll come out humming the tunes.
> 
> He's like today's Andrew Lloyd Webber vs. a Sondheim.


I went to pull up the *4th mvt. of Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony* on Youtube, and was struck by the wide breadth of *lengths*.

Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic (1987) - 17:18
Herbert von Karajan/Berliner Philharmoniker (1977) - 9:53

Both are on the Deutsche Grammophon label. 

I understand that interpretations will give different lengths, but Bernstein's version insanely longer.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> As "incidental music depicting a battle", I don't see how it doesn't achieve its purpose, objectively.
> [...]
> Yes, Beethoven himself considered it a "potboiler", but that's probably more because composers starting with Beethoven around his time started to have the notion that a true artist shouldn't strive for mass popularity.
> 
> 
> they were all written to achieve different artistic goals, it's still subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!
> 
> 
> But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority. "Stravinsky was never moved by the choral finale to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkclassical.com


Cutting the movie to fit the music? Not quite right, IMO, for either. Not to mention that it's the wrong battle.


----------



## rjsaettone

ORigel said:


> Tchaikovsky was not good at form. But really, he was a first-rate composer. I think some composers were jealous of Tchaikovsky's ability to captivate the public with his beautiful melodies, while their works were much less popular. Also, some classical music lovers are snooty and disdain what the average "Classic FM" types like.
> 
> If you haven't listened to Tchaikovsky's other symphonies and ballets, you're missing out.
> 
> Disclosure: I rarely listen to Tchaikovsky nowadays, but he is essential for those new to classical.


It's not that Tchaikovsky wasn't good at form. He understood it just fine. He simply recognized that forms as they existed didn't really suit his expressive needs. Besides, if you want an example of altered classical form done right, look at the first movement of Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony. That's one of those works that's expansive, but cohesive.


----------



## Woodduck

Let there be no confusion about this. If Bach is first-rate, then Tchaikovsky is second-rate, unless Beethoven is second-rate, in which case Tchaikovsky is third-rate, unless Brahms is third-rate, in which case Tchaikovsky is fourth-rate. Once we understand this we can permit ourselves to enjoy Tchaikovsky while retaining our self-esteem.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> Let there be no confusion about this. If Bach is first-rate, then Tchaikovsky is second-rate, unless Beethoven is second-rate, in which case Tchaikovsky is third-rate, unless Brahms is third-rate, in which case Tchaikovsky is fourth-rate. Once we understand this we can permit ourselves to enjoy Tchaikovsky while retaining our self-esteem.


But what if Bach isn't first-rate? (etc) 😁


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> But what if Bach isn't first-rate? (etc) 😁


I see that you understand perfectly.


----------



## Otis B. Driftwood

Tchaikovsky might be the most well-known composer to the general public, if you consider the enduring popularity of his ballet suites, orchestral pieces, etc.


----------



## Woodduck

Otis B. Driftwood said:


> Tchaikovsky might be the most well-known composer to the general public, if you consider the enduring popularity of his ballet suites, orchestral pieces, etc.


A least at Christmas. Some people might be shocked to realize that the sugar plum fairy is an example of the dreaded _Classical Music_.


----------



## Art Rock

Otis B. Driftwood said:


> Tchaikovsky might be the most well-known composer to the general public, if you consider the enduring popularity of his ballet suites, orchestral pieces, etc.


They would recognize some tunes, but whether they know it is by Tchaikovsky is another matter. I remember a British quiz, in which they showed a short clip of a football player getting hit by a ball in the, umm, nether regions, accompanied by classical music. The quiz question was: who composed this? The contestants all said "Mozart". It was of course from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker.


----------



## Kreisler jr

This example shows that "Mozart" is almost used generically for classical music (like "Kleenex" even for tissues from another brand). I don't think it reduces the popularity of these Tchaikovsky pieces because it's rather typical for really popular stuff that many have forgotten who wrote it. 
(Most people think "La paloma" is a traditional folksong, but it does have a composer (Yradier) and a first publication, although it could be based on a folk tune/dance.)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> If Bach is first-rate, then Tchaikovsky is second-rate, unless Beethoven is second-rate, in which case Tchaikovsky is third-rate, unless Brahms is third-rate, in which case Tchaikovsky is fourth-rate.


----------



## larold

In my survey of composers Tchaikovsky was in the top 6 all time. Mozart, Beethoven and Bach were Nos. 1-3 then came Brahms, Haydn and Tchaikovsky. If you think someone of that status is second rate then I wonder where you rank Mahler, Richard Strauss, Sibelius or anyone else.

I think the reason some people downgrade Tchaikovsky is because his romanticism is too over the top for them, they prefer greater counterpoint, or a reason like that. Tchaikovsky is an evergreen composer whose great works never go out of style or become unpopular. There will never be a time when his music isn't recorded or played in concert.


----------



## starthrower

All these prestigious rankings but when the public is given a clue about a sports injury to the manly parts they guess Mozart, lol!


----------



## Gold Member

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My Top 10 is:

Beethoven
Mozart
Bach
Brahms
Schubert 
Tchaikovsky 
Mahler
Verdi
Wagner 
Debussy


----------

