2004/2007 Interview with composer Paolo Castaldi

I think someone is going to jump out of their seat!

Bianca wrote:

it looks like someone is going to jump out of their chair!

Which interview are you referring to?

Frank wrote:

Which interview are you referring to?

well, even the first one (where he speaks about semantics) shouldn't be underestimated; besides, apart from Mozart (poor guy), even the avant-garde doesn't treat it very well

But what really intrigued me was what he says about students; it's not easy to tell someone: "this isn't for you"... it would be easier to suck their blood

I also quite agree on Mozart, or at least on part of the Mozartian production.. so many stimuli, to reflect upon for a long time.

"so many stimuli, worth reflecting on for a long time"

I agree with Zedef; in reality, I have been discussing these themes with other musicians for some time now and I reflect deeply on certain issues. But aside from reflecting, one must also observe.

I'll just throw this out there: who knows how many composition teachers are roaming around Milan? Out of a hundred, how many (honestly) do you know? And how many are known beyond the border? Just to link it to the "colleagues" discussion. Solbiati? Lorenzini? Shall we include Vacchi? Brusa? ...and others? Let us remember Ferrero, Manca, Garuti? And the others.

I think that even here someone will ask about these 7... but who are some of them?

Regarding dodecaphony, it is subtle but incisive. Fundamentally he is right, but it was a way, one of the ways he remembers, to explore other paths. It would have been difficult to do so without radical choices. But in the end, we have truly remarkable dodecaphonic works, so it was worth it.

Honestly, I didn't quite understand his point about Webern and post-Webernism, or rather, I understood where he was going, but I didn't understand how...

In his relationship with students, he defines himself as "dishonest" only because, rather than saying no, he refers them to others. The real question is, why don't the others say no or, in turn, refer them to even more people?

Thinking about students, for example, at the Paris Conservatory they are not interested in having "vacant" spots; they only take those they deem worthy (perhaps one might disagree with the selection parameters, but there is a selection). With us, the logic seems to be about invoicing, so rather than vacant spots, overcrowding is better.

The discussion of contemporary music in relation to "semantics," a term he uses improperly (I would speak of syntax), I don't think is so irrational, in the sense that many composer friends (whom he refers to as colleagues) do not notice performance errors even in their own pieces... let alone in those of others; in effect, he considers the score necessary (I would add that excellent skills are also needed). In this sense, he might even be right; besides referring to the score, in fact, in the end he also refers to Cage with full knowledge of the facts, so I don't think he is treating contemporary music poorly... rather, he describes (in his own way, certainly debatable, but there are the prerequisites to open a reflection) implications... recognizing that today everything is possible.

Regarding Mozart, Daniele will remember (we spoke about it in the past); even if "wrongly" in manner and terms, he might not have been far off.

That is why I was asking Bianca which of the various interviews she was referring to. It's not so obvious that someone would jump out of their seat, in what way... and for what purpose.

Frank wrote:

The discussion of the contemporary in relation to "semantics", a term used improperly (I would speak of syntax),

This is why I was asking Bianca which of the various interviews she was referring to. It is not so obvious that one jumps out of one's seat, in what way... and for what purpose.

not so improper, speaks of "risorto" [risen] and of "risotto" and says that "a language is a set of sounds ... that have their own semantic possibility of reference..."; this is not syntax

I heard Bianca, even the example Harp, Carp, Shoe, Scarf... among other things, in this last case she also has a typo regarding the letter to add to transform Scarpa into Sciarpa.

Given that music is not a semantic language, at most there are syntax errors. In fact, VI II V I is a syntax; it has no kind of meaning. Therefore, it can start wherever one wants, but in the end, as we were saying in another topic, there are chord progressions that cannot be restrained even within a syntax... let alone within a "meaning."

If you write "I played the shoe" in Italian, it COULD be a semantic error, as it is assumed an incongruity is created. Aside from the fact that, between us, in the context of new luthiery pieces, no one forbids me from mounting strings on shoes and playing the shoe, so there is no semantic error... if I play the progression VI III V I instead of VI II V I, what kind of error is generated? Assuming it is an error.

What did you get from her speech in reference to music...? You can glimpse something, but one has to use imagination and one's own [input/perspective].

Frank wrote:

Given that music is not a semantic language, at most there are syntax errors. In fact, VI II V I is a syntax; it has no kind of meaning. Therefore, it can start wherever it wants, but in the end, as we were saying in another topic, there are chord progressions that cannot be restrained even within a syntax... let alone within a "meaning".

Even Subject-Verb-Object is a syntax, but depending on how you use it, you communicate different meanings; even PA (Peano's axioms) are a syntax, but depending on how you interpret them, they have infinite meanings (natural numbers are the meaning usually intended to be interpreted). The fact that music is an asemantic language produces, in my opinion, a conceptual fallacy that has deep roots. How many music enthusiasts who claim its asemanticity would say that even the visual arts are called asemantic? The fact is that there is almost nothing in human expression that is non-semantic, and logic teaches this very well.

So what I interpret the video to mean (even if I do not fully agree) is that a certain type of music (or of authors) is incapable of expressing any emotional content which, as such, is meaning.

As for the rest of his discourse, I must say I liked the fact that he speaks plainly.

Frank wrote:

If you write "I played the shoe" in Italian, it COULD be a semantic error, as it is assumed an incongruity is created. Aside from the fact that, between us, in the context of new lutherie pieces, no one forbids me from mounting strings onto shoes and playing the shoe, so there is no semantic error.

Frank wrote:

...if I play the progression VI III V I instead of VI II V I, what kind of error is generated? Assuming it is an error.

Given a certain context, it is an error of musical grammar. In Italian, if you use object-verb-subject when you are an adult, you might fail even if they understand the meaning; in Sardinian, maybe it's fine. Every poetics (not just musical) has its own grammar and its own syntax with which to express meanings...

I would question what 'semantic' means. 'Rosa' is a set of phonemes, but what does that specific flower mean because there is a convention (and only in a certain part of the world; in fact, elsewhere 'rosa' can mean something else). In music, I don't think it is possible. What is the meaning (which must be unique and agreed upon) of BWV 1006?

Ettore wrote:

I would question what semantic means.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantica

Semantics is that part of linguistics that studies the meaning of words (lexical semantics), sets of individual letters (in ancient alphabets) and sentences (phrasal semantics) and texts.

Ettore wrote:

. What is the meaning (which must be unique and agreed upon) of BWV 1006?

that is exactly the point, it must not be unique! quite the opposite.

PA models (the models "are" the semantics of logic) are infinite. By convention, when you speak to a mathematician about PA, they mean the standard model, i.e., the meaning that corresponds to the natural numbers.

The same applies to music

Dante wrote:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantica

Semantics is that part of linguistics that studies the meaning of words (lexical semantics), sets of individual letters (in and of ancient alphabets) and sentences (phrasal semantics) and texts.

better here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

but it is always wiki stuff

Bianca wrote:

that is exactly the point, it doesn't have to be unique! on the contrary.

Then there is no meaning (hence semantics), at most there is sense... or rather, many senses

Ettore wrote:

So then there is no meaning (hence semantics), at most there is sense.. actually, many senses

i advise you never to say such a thing in a Logic or Mathematics exam

Bianca, you know I thought that in the interview (subject of the topic) they were talking about music? Obviously my approach to a semantic language would be different

Ettore wrote:

Bianca, you know I thought that in the interview (the subject of this topic) they were talking about music? Obviously my approach to a semantic language would be different

the fact is that we are discussing exactly this here. Your previous statement was of a general nature.

Anyway, I believe that everyone can and should have and hold their own opinion, but it is important to know how to question one's own convictions. From a certain point of view, it might also just be a matter of understanding the extensions of the concepts being used. Why use "semantics," regarding music, in the "linguistic" sense rather than in the "mathematical" sense? After all, how many musicians and theorists proclaim a greater affinity between music and mathematics rather than with verbal language? And why not then use "semantics," regarding music, in a "musical" sense? In fact, one could also use the term "sense" instead of "meaning," but what needs to be established then is the relative position of the two regarding what we are talking about.

Just to provide another point of view that might at least make it clear that this is not a purely sophistical issue:

http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/CNL/koelsch-needle.pdf

happy reading

I share almost everything said by Castaldi ... what I didn't like was the comment on Mozart, biased also by an obvious contradiction: he speaks of a splendid symphony based on the notes "pe-pe-pe po-po-po" and then defines Mozart's music as "useless" ... so is it splendid or is it useless? Bah ... speaking now about the uselessness of music written in the 1700s is misleading. He says that Mozart was like today's Pop music and that it can be listened to during lunch or during other leisure activities. Stretched a bit, it might hold some water, but one certainly cannot generalize ... I could agree if we were talking about the trios, some piano concertos, or some early symphonies ... one certainly cannot define masses, the late symphonies, mature concertos, operas, etc., in such a way ... therefore, good old Castaldi makes a very limited and condescending argument without going into the necessary details. The same thing happens when he speaks of Beethoven, saying that "he plays badly". Speaking like this in general without contextualizing (especially in relation to the historical period) and without making the necessary clarifications/distinctions makes us perceive him as approximate, as well as irritating due to the arrogance with which he speaks. Perhaps in the interview he didn't want to go into details or dwell too long ... in that case, he could have avoided the subject ... it is equivalent to throwing a stone and hiding the hand ...

Something came to mind regarding the psychological aspect: the confidence that (perhaps too much) shines through in his way of presenting himself and defining everything he tackles (with due interpretations, otherwise I would also risk it, as I am certainly much more ignorant not only compared to him, but to many other people), even if (and I think this when I am faced with "cases like this") due to nothing else than great passion, drive, and awareness, it does not make the technician a valid composer. What I mean is that being "supported" by great self-confidence is not directly proportional to the "presumed" value of what is composed. This is so I can also relate it to other contexts. Then, it is natural that I might also perceive great things from what he writes.