2004/2007 Interview with composer Paolo Castaldi

Sorry for my absence, but I was away. Interesting points of view. I take inspiration from this:

Bianca wrote:

there is almost nothing in human expression that is non-semantic, and logic teaches this very well.

Are we sure that music must necessarily be logical?

Ludovica wrote:

Are we sure that music must necessarily be logical?

Much music is logical

Diciamo che, thinking about teaching, it often happens that the composition teacher tries to convey a bit of logic to the learners, also because fantasy cannot be taught

Zazza wrote:

Much music is logic

Dlet's say that, thinking about teaching, it often happens that the composition teacher tries to convey a bit of logic to the learners, also because fantasy cannot be taught

in fact, there are courses and chairs of harmony.

But what about melody?

Come on, we aren't pessimists. Imagination must be stimulated regardless. And I would debunk the myth that everything is inspiration, which accounts for a small percentage of the total work—heaven forbid it weren't there... but if everything else is missing, good luck "exhaling".

LucaCavaliere wrote:

in fact, courses and chairs of harmony exist.

But what about melody?

Chairs of harmony are typically dedicated to the complementary nature of the subject; you have the opportunity to test yourself on melody in composition courses.

Frank wrote:

Come, we aren't pessimists. Imagination must be stimulated regardless. And I would debunk the myth a bit regarding the fact that everything is inspiration, which makes up a small percentage of the total work; heaven forbid it weren't there... but if everything else is missing, good luck "atoning."

Stimulating imagination isn't exactly teaching it, but I agree with the point, and a great deal of craft is needed to express oneself in composition.

@ Frank

No pessimism on my part.

And no "mythical" idea of composing: undervaluation of work compared to inspiration, etc... (we had already spoken about this).

mine was a question.

[ exhale (?) ]

Dear Luca, inspiration versus "expiration"

Some classic "jokes" (where one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, the line is always thin) "hide" a kernel of truth

Advice for conductors - When the contrapuntal texture of an orchestral passage becomes dense, don't worry too much: keep beating and look up towards the ceiling, you will make the bad impression of an "inspired" conductor instead of... "expired"!

Studying music is 5% inspiration and 95%... perspiration (another variant)

Of course: Studying music is 5% inspiration and 95% ... perspiration

5 / 95 ... like many other things in life, for that matter

Frank wrote:

Come on, we aren't pessimists. Imagination must be stimulated regardless. And I would debunk a bit of the myth linked to the fact that everything is inspiration,

Exactly, Messiaen drew inspiration from little birds, Xenakis from numbers... everyone seeks the stimuli they are most comfortable with

... but these are only starting points

Ludovica wrote:

Are we sure that music must necessarily be logical?

music is music, it isn't logic, but it has a logic

Bianca wrote:

Exactly, Messiaen drew inspiration from birds, Xenakis from numbers... everyone seeks the stimuli they are most comfortable with

... but these are only starting points

Since it seems there is Mozart "in the eye of the cyclone," in his time (just pour parler) in your opinion, or from whom was he interested, what did people draw inspiration from? What were the starting points?

Frank wrote:

Since it seems there is Mozart "in the eye of the cyclone," in his time (just to use the expression), in your opinion or from whom was one interested, what did one draw inspiration from? What were the starting points?

a part from the explanation from a historical-cultural context, which, like a black suit, is always elegant
and adapts well to everything, I would say that Mozart's works are, in my opinion, mostly "uninspired."

With which I do not mean that they are not masterpieces, but simply that they do not have an inspiring source

that is particularly compelling other than the commission from which they derived. Which also means that the 5/95 mentioned above

in Mozart becomes a 0/110 (with honors). His musical sense was undoubtedly adamant, such that he had precisely

no need even for an inspiration. Someone might even say that Mozart was inspired directly by music.

> Mozart was directly inspired by music

In reality, this should always be true and is hoped for everyone; another answer that frees us from the historical-cultural context can be: "by listening to a lot of good music". Sometimes, ONE good (analytical) listening does much more than MANY mental gymnastics (excuse the Dante-esque Gallicism).

So many "starting points"!.... long live the arrival points!

I share the skepticism towards the assumption of external, tangible, tellable, indicatable, describable sources of inspiration....

but music, in the end, is an art that (95%) is a 'craft'.

And - precisely from this perspective - to say that a musician (any) is directly inspired by music, to me is like saying that a poet is inspired by poetry or a painter by painting or a playwright by theater . . .

Frank wrote:

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

I am sorry, but I have only just listened to the interview and read what you wrote regarding this matter, and this is because Luca pointed it out to me.

I remember everything very well and you will remember what I think of Mozart. The terms and the manner used by Castaldi are wrong, but I substantially agree with him. In fact, I am pleased to note that this counter-trend of mine finds agreement among professionals, because it means it is not so far-fetched or absurd.

Speaking of Mozart in these terms causes bewilderment, obviously: we are talking about a "sacred monster." Much of his music is undoubtedly very beautiful and, defining it "useless" is wrong, if only for the ears that become accustomed to it. But, setting aside the theatrical Mozart and the Mozart of the major piano concertos, regarding everything else, music history could have quite easily done without him for its evolution. For Beethoven, Haydn was sufficient, to put it clearly. It would have been sufficient for the Symphonies, Quartets, and Sonatas.

Not all, but much of Mozart's music is music for kids, for classical music neophytes looking for highly ear-friendly music; of this, I am firmly convinced.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Much of his music is undoubtedly very beautiful and, to call it "useless" is wrong, if only for the ears that become accustomed to it. But, setting aside the theatrical Mozart and the Mozart of the great piano concertos, of everything else, the history of music could have quite easily done without him for its evolution. For Beethoven, Haydn was sufficient, to put it clearly.

...look, I don't understand how Shostakovich would differ from Mozart. Mahler had enough with Brahms (just as Brahms had enough with Beethoven)

@Daniele, Kappa wrote it... eh

danielescarpetti wrote:

Not all, but much of Mozart's music is music for kids, for classical music neophytes looking for highly ear-friendly music; of this I am firmly convinced.

You see, this is the case where one of the 4 points of view (of the listener) can influence performers and, since musicology did not exist in Mozart's time, Mozart had 2 out of 3 points of view. This is not a small thing, and it has allowed him to reach the present day. In any case, perfection is one of the virtues of art, which is why Mozart achieved it in full measure

Frank wrote:

> Mozart was directly inspired by music

In reality, this should always be true and hopefully for everyone; another answer that frees us from the historical-cultural context could be: "by listening to a lot of good music". Sometimes, GOOD (analytical) listening does much more than MANY mental gymnastics (excuse the Dante-esque Gallicism).

much OT (and that is why I hesitated for two days) but... I care about it.

Perhaps you meant 'Dante-esque neologism'.

The Comedy is full of Gallicisms (off the top of my head, I only recall the fiera «a la gaetta pelle» and «ei non stette la con essi guari», but neither of them is exclusive to Dante (Dante-esque, precisely).

Do Dante-esque Gallicisms exist? Did I miss something? :-)

Yes, Mozart has arrived at us in full title and also with full merit, and that is perfectly fine with me.

On how Mozart is venerated today, however, I have many perplexities and reservations; this is the point.

To Kappa I say this: there are composers in music history - even very great ones or, precisely because they were very great - about whom one can say that if they had not existed, not much would have changed from an evolutionary standpoint of the subject matter.

Castaldi says that Mozart was a useless composer and, in large part - though not 100% - I think he is right for the reasons I have already stated.

The uselessness of an artist, however, is not necessarily given only by an evolutionary argument: the function performed by Shostakovich's music within the Soviet historical-political context is very important and, for me, this is very essential.

In a certain sense, something of Mozart's was also so, in a completely different historical context, but this is linked exclusively - or predominantly - to his theater. In short, very little.

Then, as always, our personal tastes certainly come into play and, Mozart is certainly not among my preferences, as has already been clearly understood.