I see some of these similarities, but I think one might have to perform a bit of historical revisionism to see “repelling foreign invaders” as a common link. Sure, the French invading Mother Russia counts, but I’m not sure who the “foreign invaders” would be in the American War of Independence…
Finally, a thread I can weigh in on after my long hiatus! I sat in with my old orchestra when I went home for the weekend, and of course, a “reduced” version of 1812 was on the program.
The conductor prefaced the performance (augmented by howitzers supplied by the local National Guard) by mentioning that some people question why we play such a piece for an American holiday. His response is that he considers music to be international and without borders. My response to my stand partner was, “in other words, I have no idea, but people like it and expect it.” Although, if memory serves, the premier of 1812 was held in New York, but I may be thinking of something else.
Next up on the list of patriotic annoyances: Why people feel compelled to stand while singing “God Bless America”. :rolleyes:
That one makes sense, since Easter is all about the resurrection of… The Messiah. You know, Hallelujah, and all that rot.
Umm… nicer?
Because they feel it should have been our national anthem instead of that one with the unsingable British tune.
The show in Austin was great. Like many of the others, they played 1812. The conductor did comment on why a piece written by a Russian composer in the 1890s (?) to commemorate a Russian-French War in 1812 is a traditional piece to play to celebrate American Independence in 1776. He said the idea that it represented another underdog trying to maintain victory and keep their independence was only part of it. The main thing is that not too many concerts are played outdoors anymore, which is really the place to be playing a piece that has cannons for an instrument, hence they play it on the 4th - because they can!
(Apologies if I’ve paraphrased incorrectly from memory what the man said.)
You’ve got the story right. The Russian was named Tchaikovsky and he was commissioned to write the music for the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Napoleon and for the consecration of a church that was built to give thanks for the victory.
It was first used for 4th of July by the Boston Pops in 1929. The plan was to attract more people to the waterfront concert with a promise of cannons and it worked.
Now I have the end of it stuck in my head and since Tchaikovsky was the master at dragging out the ending of a work it goes on and on.
(sigh)
BTW, here’s what Pete thought about his piece.
“The overture will be very loud and noisy, but I wrote it without any warm feelings of love and so it will probably be of no artistic worth.”
Sorry, wasn’t clear in my post. I know perfectly well Tchaikovsky wrote it, and what for. What I was worried about getting wrong was the sense of what the conductor said the reason for playing it was (not a straight quote, since I was doing it from memory).
I don’t know about artillery, but Spike Jones used a blank pistol in lots of his songs!
And Pete called Opus 49 in E Flat Major.
I see the concert hall now. He’s played everything but this. He and the orcestre leave and the crowd in on their feet. Standing in their chairs holding lit candles aloft and screaming.
49 DUDE! FORTHY NIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNE!
This the orchestra comes back and the tired composer suddenly throws his cape off and just the podium with renewed vigor and begins.
At least they’re not playing a song about how the British burned the White House. It would be even more ironic to be playing that in Washingtion DC then.