I was pleased to see R3 mount a season of programmes devoted to the theme of Napoleon, and particularly around the year 1812 and the decisive battle of Borodino. So far it's been a mixed bag but there has been some interesting stuff, including the first of Donald Macleod's CotW on Napoleonic composers and the Sunday Feature on Tolstoy's depiction of Napoleon, and there is the rest of the CotW, a series of Essays, and another Sunday Feature this time giving Stendhal's perspective. I'm afraid I thought the Do3 a stinker but others may have found it worth hearing and it was not for lack of ambition.
I thought the Music Matters on Saturday rather curious as it seemed to claim that Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture was dishonest, although the evidence was a bit skimpy. He did use national anthems that were not around at the time of the 1812 battle but that does not seem dishonest to me - just a way of representing two opposing national armies in a way that would be readily understood by his listeners. Tchaikovsky was a composer not a historian and not obliged to present a historically accurate portrait of the battle, if this could be done in music (is there any example in classical music in which this has been attempted?) And having Orlando Figes as a historian arbitrating on questions of honesty and historical accuracy might be questionable to some.
The Sunday Feature was I thought the best programme in the series so far, considering Tolstoy's portrayal of Napoleon and the huge influence of War and Peace on his and later generations. I was interested to learn that Tolstoy had originally conceived of an epic work spanning Russian history up to the Crimean War. Next week there is a complementary programme giving the French perspective through the eyes of Stendhal.
I hope that this ambitious series can shed more light on how the era of Napoleon was perceived by his and later generations.
I thought the Music Matters on Saturday rather curious as it seemed to claim that Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture was dishonest, although the evidence was a bit skimpy. He did use national anthems that were not around at the time of the 1812 battle but that does not seem dishonest to me - just a way of representing two opposing national armies in a way that would be readily understood by his listeners. Tchaikovsky was a composer not a historian and not obliged to present a historically accurate portrait of the battle, if this could be done in music (is there any example in classical music in which this has been attempted?) And having Orlando Figes as a historian arbitrating on questions of honesty and historical accuracy might be questionable to some.
The Sunday Feature was I thought the best programme in the series so far, considering Tolstoy's portrayal of Napoleon and the huge influence of War and Peace on his and later generations. I was interested to learn that Tolstoy had originally conceived of an epic work spanning Russian history up to the Crimean War. Next week there is a complementary programme giving the French perspective through the eyes of Stendhal.
I hope that this ambitious series can shed more light on how the era of Napoleon was perceived by his and later generations.
. Can't attribute that blame to A. Burgess.
Comment