Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

I'd say Tchaikovsky is Russia's Mozart. Both composers were fluent in a wide variety of genres and possessed immense melodic gifts. Like Handel (and Mozart, too), Tchaikovsky was cosmopolitan in his outlook, had an affinity for writing operas, and all three had strong melodic gifts. So I see where you're coming from with Handel, although Tchaikovsky himself idolized Mozart and called him a "Musical Christ". I'd say Tchaikovsky's tendency to lightness and grace (when he wasn't being bombastic) tips him closer to Mozart than Handel. Another thing Mozart and Tchaikovsky have in common is the odd and sudden (and some say controversial) manner of their deaths, with conspiracy theories persisting for centuries. The Bach/Rimsky-Korsakov thing you'll have to explain to me. Scriabin is maybe Russia's Chopin (with a little Debussy thrown in) and Stravinsky is perhaps Russia's Schoenberg. Given Stravinsky's publicly stated antipathy for Beethoven, I fear Igor would shamble up from his grave and kill me if I called him Russia's Beethoven. Russia's Berlioz might be closer to the mark, or at least it would keep Zombie Igor off of me. I'm thinking of Stravinsky's pre-Neo Classical period, of course. After his wild man days in the 19-teens Igor seemed to be striving to be Russia's Bach much more so than Rimsky-Korsakov, who I think was more aping German/Austrian Classicism in general rather than any one composer in particular.

Who were Germany/Austria's Mussorgskys and Glinkas, I wonder?

I'd say Tchaikovsky is Russia's Mozart. Both composers were fluent in a wide variety of genres and possessed immense melodic gifts. Like Handel (and Mozart, too), Tchaikovsky was cosmopolitan in his outlook, had an affinity for writing operas, and all three had strong melodic gifts. So I see where you're coming from with Handel, although Tchaikovsky himself idolized Mozart and called him a "Musical Christ". I'd say Tchaikovsky's tendency to lightness and grace (when he wasn't being bombastic) tips him closer to Mozart than Handel.
These are all excellent points - though Handel can be very light and graceful, e.g. Acis and Galataea, but yes, it's not his default mode as it is Tchaikovsky's,

I think the Mozart comparison hits a snag, though, in that Mozart's music is extremely efficient, while Tchaikovsky's is more loosely organized. (We could maybe put it another way: Mozart is an expert seducer, like - well, you know - while Tchaikovsky is a charming gentleman who steals people's hearts without even deliberately trying.) I hit on the Handel comparison because I was looking for another composer who was like Tchaikovsky in that he (1) is a natural melodist and (2) has a perfectly solid technique, but doesn't seem to be very interested in technique for its own sake.

The Bach/Rimsky-Korsakov thing you'll have to explain to me. Scriabin is maybe Russia's Chopin (with a little Debussy thrown in) and Stravinsky is perhaps Russia's Schoenberg. Given Stravinsky's publicly stated antipathy for Beethoven, I fear Igor would shamble up from his grave and kill me if I called him Russia's Beethoven. Russia's Berlioz might be closer to the mark, or at least it would keep Zombie Igor off of me. I'm thinking of Stravinsky's pre-Neo Classical period, of course. After his wild man days in the 19-teens Igor seemed to be striving to be Russia's Bach much more so than Rimsky-Korsakov, who I think was more aping German/Austrian Classicism in general rather than any one composer in particular.
Rimsky-Korsakov is the Bach to Tchaikovsky's Handel because he was the more learned technician (by Tchaikovsky's own cheerful admission), and because the subsequent explosion of important Russian composers seems to me to owe more to his influence than to anybody else's (just as the explosion of major German composers in the late 18th century and subsequently seems to owe the most to Bach's influence, initially as transmitted by his sons CPE and JC to Haydn and Mozart respectively). Incidentally, I think the most influential western composer for Rimsky was always Liszt.

I'll mark myself for death by zombie Stravinsky and say that he IS Russia's Beethoven - great with motifs; good with melodies but they don't come naturally to him; a natural at sturm-und-drang stuff like The Rite of Spring, but really wanted to write sweetness-and-light classical music (like Beethoven in, for example, his 8th symphony).

Who were Germany/Austria's Mussorgskys and Glinkas, I wonder?
Gluck and Schütz respectively, maybe?


-----

With all due respect, to compare Tchaikovsky's mood swings and loose structures to Handel's power or to Mozart's extremely cleverly knit forms, and to reduce him (and Mozart) to 'lightness', or to compare Rimski-Korsakov's ease with orchestration to Bach's hyper-intelligence in counterpoint and supreme lyricism is... how should I put it?

Is this bothering you?

Got to say I rather agree with this. I think these comparisons are more troubling than enlightening.

warriorspirit: if the penis is used as a pencil holder we'll incur a cost.

I think these comparisons are more troubling than enlightening.
That sounds interesting. Troubling how?



-----

I wouldn't take this thread too seriously. It kind of reminds me of the Rock-n-Roll/Classical Composer Comparison thread we had a few years back. It's all in good fun and is mainly designed to point out a few points of similarity between composers/genres while at the same time illustrating the major differences.

I'm sure even Tchaikovsky never thought he was comparable to Mozart, though he clearly idolized him and did try to sound like him at times. There must have been something in Mozart that Tchaikovsky identified with in himself. On the other hand, I don't think it ever even occurred to Tchaikovsky that he was in any way comparable to Handel or Bach. In terms of orchestration, Rimsky-Korsakov is more analogous with Berlioz than anybody else. Since Rimsky was Stravinsky's teacher, that's why I suggested early Stravinsky was a "Russia Berlioz", though perhaps that comparison was more suitable for the teacher than the pupil. Again, this glosses over the huge differences between Rimsky-Korsakov and Berlioz.

With all due respect, to compare Tchaikovsky's mood swings and loose structures to Handel's power or to Mozart's extremely cleverly knit forms, and to reduce him (and Mozart) to 'lightness'
I don't think it necessarily reduces Tchaikovsky or Mozart to call them 'light' - not in the sense of insubstantiality, obviously, but in the sense of fleetness.

or to compare Rimski-Korsakov's ease with orchestration to Bach's hyper-intelligence in counterpoint and supreme lyricism is... how should I put it?
Well there's a lot more to Rimsky than orchestration. Sure, he's not as great as Bach, but then, Russian music isn't as great as German music.


-----

On the other hand, I don't think it ever even occurred to Tchaikovsky that he was in any way comparable to Handel or Bach.
Well he said Bach was ooooookay, but not a great genius, and Handel was worthless.


-----