2004/2007 Interview with composer Paolo Castaldi

danielescarpetti wrote:

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

As for how Mozart is venerated today, however, I have many perplexities and reservations; that is the point.

. . . clearer than this . . .

And to think that I have always considered Mozart a burp of Beethoven. Certainly perfect and elegant, but always a burp.

Frank wrote:

Anyway, perfection is one of the virtues of art, which is why Mozart has achieved it in full measure.

I was thinking about this statement of yours and, suddenly, a writing by Massimo Mila flashed into my mind, which can be found in the book dedicated to Beethoven's Ninth.

We are now on the penultimate page, they are summing everything up, and the famous musicologist wrote: «(...) It can be conceded that other Beethoven Symphonies are more “perfect,” in the most precise sense of the word: better finished. (...) And yet, perhaps precisely because of these imperfections, the Ninth seems closer to modern man and to the crisis conditions that trouble him. What do we do today with the plastic perfection that Canova put into his marbles? What does it tell us?(...)»

From my point of view, I do not find it impertinent at all to replace the "plastic perfection that Canova put into his marbles" with "the perfection (...) which Mozart has achieved in full measure."

Surely, I find this perfection – all perfections, to tell the truth – cloying; it bores me, tires me and, above all, once again, I find it useless.

Today, Mozart rightly has his place in the Olympus of musical art, and this certainly should not be debated. That being said and established, I find that his music, in effect – excluding a part of his theater – has very little to say to us people of today.

Beethoven's music has significantly more to say, precisely in its dirtiness and coarseness.

When Paolo Castaldi states that Beethoven's music is not dirty but "Beethovenian," he is stating a sacred truth. We are well aware that Beethoven's teachers: from Haydn to Albrechtsberger to Salieri, were very critical of this Beethovenian characteristic which was always present from the dawn of his composition and never faded. But it is quite evident that there was an absolute will on the part of the composer to move and work in that manner, disregarding teachings and rules.

But if Beethoven's music had that overwhelming force to change the entire course of music history and to reach us untouched, it is due also and above all precisely to this.

I would also like to correct a statement made regarding my remarks in the previous post about Mozart and political weight because it is quite ungenerous: in effect, Mozart was not at all far from the political history of his time, and therefore I made a mistake in writing.

The fact remains that, at least certainly for me, most of his music fits into that late Galant climate of lightness and simplification and, therefore, even if perfect, remains of a supreme boredom.

Regarding the rest of Castaldi's remarks, I find myself substantially in agreement with some things, less so with others, and on others, I do not know how to delve into the merits.

I find that he certainly has every reason in the world when he recalls and criticizes the snobbery of the Avant-Garde and speaks of the great variety and validity of voices that existed in the twentieth century. His reminder of the importance of Edgard Varèse also gives me immense pleasure.

danielescarpetti wrote:

That being said and established, I find that his music, in fact—aside from a part of his theater—has very little to say to us people of today.

Perhaps the fact that "his music has very little to say to us people of today" explains why it is so difficult to listen to Mozart's music played in an adequate manner. An elderly Maestro had listened to some young musicians playing Beethoven and Schumann: not bad. Then they had to play Mozart (it was a competition). When they finished, not very happy with the result, he confided in me: "It is with Mozart that the flaws come out!".

As for the fact that Mozart did not influence the history of music... well... apart from obviously the theater, for which he represents a reference for everyone (one should reread Richard Strauss), there is also chamber music: for example for Brahms... or even for Schönberg. In *Style and Idea*, Schönberg declares that his models are four: Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, and Mozart (from Mozart he learns asymmetry). And as far as our contemporaries are concerned, see the reflections and studies that Sciarrino has dedicated to him.

«Comunque la perfezione è una delle virtù dell'arte, per cui Mozart ci è arrivato a pieno titolo» [Frank]

"È con Mozart che vengono fuori le magagne!" [anziano Maestro di ResScharlach]

Beh... è abbastanza ovvio che per uno che vuole la forchetta sul tavolo perfettamente allineata al coltello... non sarà mai parallela abbastanza

The perspective on Mozart's role today is interesting, and it concludes with this statement reported by RedScharlach

RedScharlach wrote:

Perhaps the fact that "his music has very little to say to us people today" explains why it is so difficult to listen to Mozart's music played adequately. An elderly Maestro had listened to some young musicians playing Beethoven and Schumann: not bad. Then they had to play Mozart (it was a competition). When they finished, not very happy with the result, he confided in me: "It is with Mozart that the flaws come out!".

I have always wondered, even to the point of resignation, why with Mozart, no matter what you do, you fail. In effect, one never encounters technical problems, but rather aesthetic-interpretative choices. Given that when you play a piece by any composer, there is always the leading expert on hand who would perform it differently (which we have to deal with, that's the world), it seems to me that RedScharlach's intervention precisely hits the nail on the head regarding WAM. But do you think the solution lies "only" in philology?

Brief scattered considerations:

1) after having sung the Requiem and being an unbounded admirer of Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro, I can say that I do not share the "contemptuous" judgment of Mozart.

2) in the same way, I do not share many things about the discourse on music and language (i.e., music and tongue). Especially the examples, which focus on the famous "double articulation" that language does not share with music. The discourse on syntax, meaning, and sense in music is much more complicated than that, alas, especially if approached from a historical perspective, as Castaldi does (who uses it as a crowbar to be able to say "I am better than the others").

3) I don't like the attitude; he certainly has nothing good to say about everyone...

4) he says some interesting things about the post-Cage era. I think it is partially true that many today "pretend" in the music they compose, creating fantasy models and conforming to them. But it doesn't apply to everyone. As usual, Castaldi also fails to take non-classical music into consideration.

5) Nono doesn't please me either...

6) discussions about the past, present, and future in musical listening are a "hot" topic. Many would deny it, some would agree. I would reformulate it: there is not just one way to perceive the passage of time during musical listening.

RedScharlach wrote:

Perhaps the fact that "his music has very little to say to us people today" explains why it is so difficult to listen to Mozart's music played adequately. An elderly Maestro had listened to some young musicians playing Beethoven and Schumann: not bad. Then they had to play Mozart (it was a competition). When they finished, not very happy with the result, he confided in me: "It is with Mozart that the flaws come out!".

As for the fact that Mozart did not influence the history of music... well... apart from obviously theater, for which he represents a reference for everyone (one should reread Richard Strauss), there is also chamber music: for example for Brahms... or even for Schönberg. In *Style and Idea*, Schönberg declares that his models are four: Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, and Mozart (from Mozart he learns asymmetry). And as far as our contemporaries are concerned, look at the reflections and studies that Sciarrino has dedicated to him.

I admit that you are right and that I exaggerated and even said nonsense.

The Castaldi interview certainly confirmed one thing for me – which, for that matter, I have already sensed abundantly – that it is very difficult, if not downright impossible, to speak about these topics – but perhaps about all topics – in an objective manner, especially when one is overwhelmed – as is certainly the case with me – by passions.

I mean: someone like Castaldi, who has the possibility to dissect music also – and especially from a technical rather than just historical point of view – makes assertions that are absolutely against the current compared to almost all classical music listeners and scholars. He does so, however, starting from real concepts and not just personal sensations. But it is quite evident that in his reasoning, everything is tainted by his personal tastes.

If it is so for someone like Castaldi, imagine for someone like me, who relies on their point of view solely on personal listening and historical data, how everything can be strongly tainted by passion and personal taste.

The fact remains that I find Castaldi's words go in much the right direction, and not because I want to diminish Mozart's figure. No, quite the contrary! But because I think that regarding this composer, there has been a decisive exaggeration in recent years.

Who knows? Perhaps also because the possibility was glimpsed to create a myth around him that aims at "consumption" in a logic governed only by such laws: Vienna is full of every good thing with the image of Mozart or Princess Sissi and, even this says a lot about the matter.

Everything has been said about him, including that listening to his music – only his? - makes you more intelligent, to such an extent that we might well see it in a pharmacy.

Everyone, very conventionally, points to Mozart as the quintessential child prodigy of music, but this, in reality, is only partially true. While it is true that he was already playing at four and his compositions and public performances date back to age five, it is also true that Mendelssohn's childhood and adolescent path is more substantial, albeit more ignored.

Mozart had behind him a father like Leopold who, although not an eminent composer, was nonetheless a good "craftsman" of composition, and this meant that he knew how to intuitively grasp the qualities that the child possessed innately and knew how to exploit him well, turning him into a sort of "sideshow phenomenon," forcing him to renounce what is – or should be – a normal and healthy childhood, forcing him to perform before princely and clerical courts from his earliest age.

Mendelssohn, unlike Mozart, had no musical ancestors and, therefore, was not aided in this. The first compositions of young Felix date back to 1820/24, so we are talking about an age between 11 and 15, and it concerns a Trio, three Quartets, 11 string symphonies, various religious songs, 3 comic operas, a Violin Concerto, and a Concerto for 2 pianos; and unlike the music of young Mozart, it is music of a certain value.

And it is here, in my opinion, that the largest crack opens regarding what is asserted about Mozart and his overall work. How many times have I heard or read that all of Mozart's music is not trivial? How many times have I heard any piece of Mozart presented, but always with truly misleading and excessive emphasis? And, above all, how many times have I heard excessive importance given to musical genres in which the Salzburg star composed nothing noteworthy at all? Innumerable. Yet, I think it is not so!

Mozart is absolutely great in his theatrical masterpieces, in his sacred music masterpieces, in his greatest piano and orchestra concertos, in his music for wind instruments,

in certain of his Quartets and in other chamber music. But one cannot say just as much – as many do – that he was so, at least at an equal level, for other genres, including Symphonies and even Piano Sonatas alone, of which, from my point of view naturally, its function is emphasized far too excessively.

If I analyze his voluminous catalog of over 600 works, beyond the usual astonishment I may feel in taking note of his ease of composition – but even on this there would still be something to discuss – I immediately realize perfectly well that up to K 270, there is nothing particularly relevant. There is also much pleasant music – if it is pleasing, naturally – to the ear of the listener, but nothing particularly important. His first truly such work is the Jeunehomme-Konzert K. 271 of 1777, which already gives a good glimpse of what could be – and was – Mozart's innovative drive within the context of the piano concerto and orchestra, compared to the stylistic elements in vogue at the time and, how this subsequently reverberates in his successor Beethoven.

But if we then remain within the scope of the solo concerto, I cannot say the same for those with violin solo. Yet, great violinists to extol their qualities certainly do not lack, but the reality is that even with the two best – K 218 and K 219 – we are still fully in the galant style, and even this says it all.

The Symphonies truly worthy of the title "masterpiece" are the last three – out of over 50, I would say that's not bad – and Haydn, on this front, certainly did a bit better.

But even more inexplicable to me is the extolling of his Piano Sonatas.

Glenn Gould even went so far as to say that Mozart's only merit was that he died young. Obviously, it is known! Glenn Gould was a very particular temperament and surely his judgments on the Salzburgian were too tainted by his personal taste but, even here, it is true that from Mozartian exegetes, one often finds oneself facing truly surprising exaggerations. From my point of view, apart from the exception of K.310, the quality is not all that excellent, including K 331, with the famous Turkish March. In reality, I think, that Mozart's true piano masterpiece is the Fantasia K 475 and I go no further.

In any case, the great public success that fills the "Mozart Festival" in Turin on these evenings – we are talking about 15,000/20,000 people every night – makes me well understand how wrong the statement I made is regarding what his music still has to say to us contemporaries. I will therefore limit myself to stating that, certainly, for the undersigned, not all, but a large part of his music – and I also include works considered masterpieces – tells me absolutely nothing and that, at most, I would recommend it to those who want to begin with classical music.

danielescarpetti wrote:

@Thallo, regarding Mozart. Why the Jupiter?

Symphony (intended as an orchestration technique) remains one of the greatest of his era.

For the opera: solo and uncontested, and he was even the first to write an opera in a language other than Italian

the first to write an'opera in a language other than Italian no :-) unless you mean something specific that I haven't grasped.

Anyway, my opinion on Mozart is that the devil is in the details. I have never considered myself a true fan of Mozart, and I too have often had the impression that behind some things one could hear the noise of cutlery. But with opera it is not like that, and from opera I have "induced" the general consideration that Mozart's depth lies in the details and the ironies. Irony is a very difficult thing to communicate, especially in music. In musical theater it is more successful, obviously. And the example is soon made: the little duet from Don Giovanni in which Don Giovanni sings at Donna Elvira's window. Donna Elvira is melancholy and thinks that the singing is directed at her; in reality, Don Giovanni kills two birds with one stone, because he is singing to make the maid look out and to make Donna Elvira come out, who will then be taken for a walk by Leporello in disguise. Lies this profound are rare in music... and Da Ponte expresses it all well by saying "ah, protect my credulity". I think that composers and conductors, often very strong personalities, are less inclined to grasp this type of depth and call it table music.

ttw wrote:

But do you think the solution lies "only" in philology?

I would be tempted to say... Yes: for Mozart, philology is more than enough.

Instead, no. His music is living music, and therefore philology alone is not enough.

Perhaps in our era, Mozart will have nothing to communicate.

To me, his masterpieces, which Daniele has briefly listed, say (give, communicate...) a lot.

thallo wrote:

the first to write an
'opera in a language other than Italian no :-) unless you mean something particular that I haven't grasped.

Anyway, my opinion on Mozart is that the devil is in the details. I have never considered myself a true fan of Mozart, and I too have often had the impression that behind some things one could hear the noise of cutlery. But with opera it is not like that, and from opera I have "induced" the general consideration that Mozart's depth lies in the details and in ironies. Irony is a very difficult thing to communicate, especially in music. In musical theater one succeeds more, obviously. And the example is easily made: the little duet from Don Giovanni in which Don Giovanni sings at Donna Elvira's window. Donna Elvira is melancholy and thinks that song is directed at her; in reality, Don Giovanni kills two birds with one stone, because he is singing to make the maid look out and to make Donna Elvira come out, who will then be taken for a walk by Leporello in disguise. Lies this profound are rare in music... and Da Ponte expresses it all well by saying "ah, protect my credulity". I think that composers and conductors, often very strong personalities, are less inclined to grasp this type of depth and call it table music.

On the value of Mozart's theatricality there is no doubt, and likewise on his irony, but we must not forget that a large part of the latter is to be attributed to Da Ponte or even better to the winning Mozart-Da Ponte pairing; in other words, Mozart without Da Ponte would not have been the same. I absolutely agree then with your preference for Don Giovanni and Le nozze di Figaro, while I continue to dislike Così fan tutte, which remains outside my understanding, referring to the text in particular.

I also love Die Zauberflöte very much, but I cannot stand Die Entführung aus dem Serail; I like Idomeneo re di Creta sufficiently and I continue to think that La clemenza di Tito is a missed masterpiece.