and weve thought 1812 was written by Copland ...

Today on a front page of 'Boston Metro':

BOSTON. A local history buff is asking the Boston Pops not to play the 1812 Overture, saying it was written by Tchaikovsky to commemorate Russia's victory over Napoleon.

I assume they don't mean a music history buff.

This is the same city that imprisoned Stravinsky for playing his beautiful reharmonization of our National Anthem, BTW. I hope things have changed and this imbecile is put in his place.

Besides which, since when was the Russian victory over Napoleon considered a BAD thing? (From all but the French point of view, that is?) Whatever the historical perspective, most of Europe considered HIM the 'bad guy' at the time! Although our war of 1812 may have been an offshoot of the conflict in Europe (or it may not, depending upon which 'authority' you read), I don't recall reading anything that claimed the U.S. was aligned with Napoleon. (We had our own troubles, at the time.)

: point of view, that is?) Whatever the historical : perspective, most of Europe considered HIM the 'bad guy' at : the time! Although our war of 1812 may have been an : offshoot of the conflict in Europe (or it may not, depending : upon which 'authority' you read), I don't recall reading : anything that claimed the U.S. was aligned with Napoleon. : (We had our own troubles, at the time.)

Well, since *we* were fighting the British, and *Napoleon* was fighting the British, that kind of made us aligned by default, didn't it? Plus, if you think about it, Napoleon was at least in principle fighting for the Ideals of the French Revolution, while the Russians were fighting for a medieval autocratic political system.

That's a gross oversimplification. After almost two centuries, propaganda still works.

Hey, a political argument in r.m.c. that for once doesn't involve GWBush (yet)

:> for a medieval autocratic political system.

: That's a gross oversimplification. After almost two centuries, propaganda : still works.

I think that the only person you are arguing with is yourself. I would be the last one to deny that reducing the Napoleonic Era to one sentence could possibly be anything other than a gross oversimplification. Which doesn't make it any harder to understand why a piece of music celebrating the triumph of an oppressive autocrat should be considered appropriate for performance on U.S. Independence Day.

Don't forget that for all his faults Napoleon, unlike most dictators, had some respect for the rights of individuals. The Napoleonic code, written under his rule, is still the basic legal system in France.

W-e-l-l.... yes, if you put it that way, but do you REALLY think that's grounds for banning the work in Boston? (At THIS late date?)

Give them time, I'm sure someone will work it around to

Oh, that's easy! It's one of the things we are all accustomed to hearing outdoors accompanied by fireworks - a traditional part of Independence Day celebrations (and about the only way we get to see them, since 'safety' considerations have resulted in banning their sale to the general public, in most states). Of course there IS the Handel, but that doesn't project quite the same air of triumph! ('Wellington's Victory' might do, but that's celebrating a defeat of Napoleon, too - and furthermore, a BRITISH victory, even LESS appropriate to our celebration of a British defeat!)

If they hadn't decided, back in the thirties, to adopt 'Star Spangled Banner' as our national anthem (so any 'improvements' would be regarded as lese majeste [sp?]) they might have used that - all that business about 'the rockets' red glare', etc. But it would need some extensive 'doctoring' to come anywhere near the Tchaikowsky. Hmmmm.... I wonder how Copland's 'Fanfare for the Common Man' would work, with fireworks? Certainly no one could argue that HIS work is not American! (Although 'common man' might be objected to, in some circles.)

on 7/1/01 11:34 AM:

Is that the one where you're guilty until proven innocent? '