2004/2007 Interview with composer Paolo Castaldi

rstrauss wrote:

Same thing as when he talks about Beethoven saying that he "plays badly".

In my opinion, it didn't have a negative connotation; on the contrary, he defines that way as the Beethovenian "sound". In short, his beauty. It was probably a veiled reference to refinement, which is obviously intrinsic to Mozart's writing. Beethoven is anything but refined.

In this regard, referring to your comment on Mozart, you start from the assumption that something splendid is also useful. The transition is not so obvious; however, I share your observation regarding the part related to WAM

I know little of Beethoven's work, but I don't perceive it as so "rude" as is often written; on the contrary, I find that Mozart (it's an impression) also "held back."

But does Castaldi consider his own music sensible? I imagine so (because why would he write something nonsensical?) ... However, I wonder for what reason Castaldi's music would be sensible, and Donatoni's not.

mmhm Red, the concept of "sense" and not meaning returns.

It seems to me, albeit in an approximate way, that he does provide some motivations (obviously, his own). He brings up Donatoni in a very precise context, or am I wrong?

Frankly no, it doesn't seem very precise to me ... in fact, it seems rather generic to me.

Anyway, I have only listened to a couple of things by Castaldi, certainly too little to form an opinion, but I must say that it is not clear to me why his music makes sense (or is endowed with meaning? who knows?) and that of the other composers cited by him does not. Or rather, I understand where he is going with Stockhausen. But with Donatoni? Where is it that Donatoni's music abandons itself to graphism for its own sake? ... Mah!

I completely agree that music works in a "very strange" way: when it speaks of the "thin blade of the present," which is what we can "touch," and the memory of the past that helps us reconstruct the whole.

I will add (stating the obvious) the "memory of the future": the fact that regarding a work we have already heard other times, we have the memory of "where it is going"; even if we don't know "how it will go" and with what "face" (and this is the beauty of interpretation).

I completely disagree with the statement that music is made of sheets of paper, since those are the only tangible things the composer has delivered to us.

Fine: "the notes are the interpretation of the music" (I mean this as: the notes are the interpretation of a sound idea).

But the (written) notes are not the music. Come on!

And then, that one needs a score in hand to escape this "curse"... Curse!?!...

But it is the beauty of an art that unfolds in the dimension of time. Far from being a curse!

For those who listen, you need ears, a head and... desire. Not a score in hand.

Sometimes I wish I didn't know how to read the staff, to have a more "sonorous" relationship with what I hear, without a part of me going off to distract itself (uselessly, in my opinion) by imagining the trace on paper of what I am listening to. (I'm exaggerating, but only to give you an idea)

Gerardo wrote:

In this regard, referring to your comment on Mozart, you start from the assumption that something splendid is also useful. This transition is not so obvious

it won't be an obvious transition, but to me it seems like a good assumption

RedScharlach wrote:

Frankly no, it doesn't seem very precise to me ... in fact, it seems rather generic.

Anyway, I have only listened to a couple of things by Castaldi, certainly too little to form an opinion, but I must say that it is not clear to me why his music makes sense (or is endowed with meaning? who knows?) and that of the other composers cited by him does not. Or rather, I understand where he is going with Stockhausen. But with Donatoni? Where does Donatoni's music abandon itself to graphism for its own sake? ... Mah!

I also think it is too vague; certainly, the Donatoni who writes pieces on fragments of newspapers scattered here and there on the floor... is one thing, other pieces are another. So, as RStrauss noted, too vague in everything. And as others have also said, sometimes you understand where he wants to go, but his path is not very clear... that is, if he even follows a path.

rstrauss wrote:

I share almost everything said by Castaldi... what I didn't like was the comment on Mozart, marred 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 truth, 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.

Practically speaking, Strauss, if we wanted to find a "common" criterion, we could say that the most contrapuntal works are "saved" from Castaldi's discourse, which by definition are also the most "learned" ones (especially if the counterpoint flows into the fugue).

zazza, yes ... if one wants to summarize ... but summarizing here doesn't work; on the contrary, you fall into the same error as Castaldi. What he ignores or wants to ignore is that Mozart wrote almost everything for entertainment ... music intended to be performed at "accademie" during which part of the audience listened and others did something else entirely ... the music is always the same, what is different is the audience.

rstrauss wrote:

You fall into the same error as Castaldi. What he ignores or wants to ignore is that Mozart wrote almost everything for entertainment ...

No, sorry. But what does Castaldi say? Exactly this

yes ... but then he specifies "useless" ... ruining what was said before.

rstrauss wrote:

yes ... but then he specifies "useless" ... ruining what was said before.

Rather than ruining it, he is specifying that for him entertainment music is useless. We take note of that.

I would like to understand what he writes his music for? ... to satisfy the appetite ... or perhaps sleep? ... music is entertainment!

rstrauss wrote:

... music is entertainment!

A part of music, yes, not all of it

Let's say it, anyone could write music to show off, to flaunt all their knowledge, to prove who knows what; this applies to anyone, always and provided that this latter 'anyone' clarifies their intent.

Yesterday I was watching an intervention by Carmelo Bene from a few years ago (a friend recommended it to me while we were talking about Leopardi); I didn't know and don't know Bene, I don't know what he has done, but from that little I was able to see, the impression I got was one of great arrogance, masked at times by a seriousness that would need to be analyzed to see if it was genuine or contrived.

Then, not having (myself) knowledge regarding specific subjects, I wouldn't know how to respond or draw conclusions, or opinions in any case; however, the attitude is what strikes first, and if a person, even with great culture, is so arrogant, I prefer someone a little bit more ignorant, but with whom one can talk, without taking anything away from their merit.

rstrauss wrote:

I would like to understand what he writes his music for? ... to whet the appetite ... or perhaps for sleep? ... music is entertainment!

Writing music to help one fall asleep already seems like a noble thing to me... But in any case: I don't believe useless music exists.

There exists music composed for entertainment, for dancing, for creating the right atmosphere for sex, for praying, for working, for relaxing, for proclaiming noble ideals, for lunching, for running, for falling asleep, for staying awake, for exhorting to struggle, for practicing composition, or simply because... it is pleasant (to others), or perhaps it is pleasant even just to the author (I wouldn't rule that out),

Music always has a function in its origin.

A function that, depending on personal ideas, we can approve, disapprove of, or look upon with suspicion.

Then it happens that, during consumption, things can get mixed up; and a piece composed with one function can be used for purposes sometimes very far from the original one.

And even in this case... sometimes there are interesting "contaminations," sometimes one witnesses great messes (but even in this, judgment is subjective )

P.S. Personally, I have nothing against any of those purposes that came to mind and that I listed (who knows how many I have forgotten).

I feel annoyed only by the idea of music where marketability and commercial return are not just the final consequence (which is sacrosanct), but... the initial "inspiring" idea."},

Regarding the last observation, we have fleets of DJs using other people's tracks, most of the time ruining everything (as usual), and even being successful. There is no way out of it.

rstrauss wrote:

... music is entertainment!

mmhmm, sacred music immediately came to mind for me. I doubt that a Lutheran chorale serves to entertain; it is an integral part of Protestantism. Like this example, there are many others—do we want to talk about hymns? What are they supposed to entertain?

I am asking just to understand if I missed something

Annuccia wrote:

mmhmm, sacred music immediately came to mind for me. I doubt that a Lutheran chorale serves to entertain; it is an integral part of Protestantism. Like this example, there are many others—do we want to talk about hymns? What are they supposed to entertain?

I am asking just to understand if I missed something

You are right; in fact, I did not want to overstep, but rather stay within the scope of what Castaldi said. I agree that sacred music has nothing to do with entertainment—in fact, we define it as sacred!

LucaCavaliere

I would have an example regarding your P.S., and that is music created solely for commercial purposes: G. Allevi. The ultimate expression of musical marketing for the benefit of a character invented by a staff of highly professional people whom I respect (only them).