Not like you didn't know already, but he was. This is "Danse Arabe", my not embedding youtube video, below.
Why do you consider him a genius? Taking a bit of a devil's advocate position, some of his music seems to me to be a bit overwrought. I' thinking of some of the ballets. On the other hand, I cannot find fault with his concertos for violin and piano. A musicologist probably would take issue with- perhaps even disdain- my sense that Tchaikovsky was "merely" a great romantic composer, a traditionalist, perhaps like Saint-Saens, who broke no new ground. Nonetheless, "genius", in my mind, to the extent it has any meaning, is reserved for those who create new forms, and do so with distinction. Names like Shotakovich and Prokofiev come to mind. And, of course, nothing I have said applies to WA Mozart!
While I would not disagree with you, why do you think so? Anything specific about his music? I would say that I don't think he explored new vistas in music. He, like Saint-Saens, was a musical traditionalist. While there is certainly nothing wrong with that, composes are, and should be in my opinion, given generous recognition for creating new modes of expression. I'd even say that about 12 tone row, for which I can't say I've ever developed a great appreciation.
I like Beethoven. I had a class in Music appreciation or something to that effect where the instructor shared something by Beethoven. I didn't really dig it honestly, but now that I'm older I can sort of see what was special about his music. I think to really appreciate someone's music you need to understand the rest of the music of their time. Beethoven wasn't only special because of his prodigy, nor because of his handicap, but because he probably did things other musicians did not do. That is the mark of mastery...
Tchaikovsky seems to be mainly remembered for some of his less adventurous works. His symphonic poem, often wrongly called a symphony is a good example. It is rarely performed, due to the need for a concert organ, That moment at 58:20 in this video has to be seen live to be fully appreciated and where better than the Albert Hall. Perhaps his most forgotten works are his 11 operas, many people do not even know that they exist. This is probably the one aria that people are familiar with, but few of them could name the composer.
Theres usually a lot of wankage that surrounds classical music though Still really just comes down to melodies. How many "hits" did he really have? Violin concerto is his finest work? Also the only one anyone remembers What exactly makes Tchaikovsky more of a genius than say guys like Muddy Waters or Chuck Schuldiner?
No, VG, I think the Nutcraker and Swan Lake are far more widely known than the violin concerto. But serious music does not come down to just the melodies. The development is crucially important in what is often referred to as "classical" music, as are the structure, the harmonic and rhythmic patterns employed. Others could explain it much better than I can, but Muddy Waters is simple by comparison, and does not come close the enormous intellectual challenge or emotional depth that Beethoven, Shostakovich, Bach, or Chopin do.
Fair enough. I do consider some of his music a bit overwrought, over sentimental, and just too "pretty". But I don't deny his appeal, which ranges from unsophisticated listeners (young children delight in the Nutcracker) to those who have dedicated their lives to the world's richest and most complex musical tradition.
I'm enchanted! You really think that? That's amazing! I think fondly of music myself. If you're a musician, you might enjoy a course in music technology. They teach about recording... lol. To no end. The entire concept of electronic music may be foreign to you, but rest assured it opens many many doors.
Yeah, yeah I've heard all the arguments before the. But in the end we are just talking about an art form of a medium that directly affects your mood, melodies are primarily what makes it stick, and ok we will add harmonics for the pleasure it gives your ear. Sometimes as the mood takes you, classical with a full orchestra is what does it, but you are still going to one of the 40 to 50 most popular in history....because of the melody. Sometimes as the mood takes you, a string quartet offers a clearer sound than anything else can offer Other times, as the mood takes you, there is nothing meatier than a guitar with a distortion pedal As far as classical goes, can't think of anything more impressive than a violinist nailing Zigeunerweisen because of the amount of down strokes you have to hit dead on And then here, a couple posts later you counter what you said with simple phrases like for kiddies, or too pretty, which is just basing it on how you feel. And you are right, no matter how complex Nutcracker is, just sounds like it's written for kids I'm not trying to be argumentative, just that I know, as I think we all do, any guy that talks about classical music that way, after coming home from a hard day at work and a tough commute is going to put on one of his 6 favourite pieces based on - dah da da da dun, day da da da dah dun
For one: he often composed for whole orchestras, not mainly one instrument like in Waters case a guitar (and a harmonica).
