Re: Tchaikovsky's 1812
Quote:
| Shouldn't they all sound about the same, not considering things like cannons? |
I'm assuming you're relatively new to classical music with this answer. On the face of it, I agree that classical music should be the same no matter who plays it, because you know the instruments needed, and the composer has set out the notes and how they should be played. So how can differences arise?
There are two key factors. First, the quality of the players in the orchestra. With relatively easy pieces, this is not such a big issue, but get to the harder pieces for orchestra and the difference really shows. A good case in point is Glinka's Ruslan and Ludmilla Overture. In the hands of an average orchestra this can sound good, but nothing more than a lightweight program filler. But in a great orchestra's hands, the piece is transformed into an exciting swaggering display of bravado (for anyone interested, there is a superb version by the Russian National Orchestra cond. Pletnev).
The second factor is the conductor - he (or she) is responsible not only for keeping time but for interpreting the music. Although the notes are there in the score, the exact tempo down to the beats per minute is rarely stated, so there is room for manouvre, and the relative balance of the different instruments in the orchestra can be manipulated. Plus, there's the issue of rubato (basically, minute slowing down and speeding up that makes the music seem organic rather than music box-like). Given these considerations, pieces can sound radically different. A case in point - Elgar's Enigma Variations (if you haven't heard this piece, then you must; it's full of good tunes). The most famous section is called the Nimrod variation, and chances are that you've heard it even if you don't recognise the name. It's slow, gradually builds to a crescendo, and is a real lump in the throat piece. Leonard Bernstein did an infamous version in which he took over double the normal time to play it and in the process either (a) discovered a whole new meaning in the music or (b) wrecked it, depending upon your viewpoint.
Returning to the 1812, conductors are often clearly embarrassed at having to play it. It's in many respects a hackneyed piece of music. Players often feel the same way. So in a recording studio, the atmosphere is all too often 'let's get this over with', and the music is trotted out half-heartedly. Once in a while, the conductor is prepared to look beyond the surface and treat the 1812 seriously, and you get that added passion that it needs, particularly in the final section, which is not just for the cannon, but has to have a certain swagger and elan for it to work. Typically, this section gets played too slowly so that all the cannon shots can be heard separately, but ideally, it should be played a bit faster than on some of the audiophile recordings. If you can track down the Previn version, you'll see what I mean. In comparison, a lot of other versions plod.
