If I had Ciccolini in front of me, I would be tempted to tell him that he has understood nothing about Verdi and that if he only knows «Va' pensiero» and «Addio, del passato», that is his problem: let him continue playing his French music and leave certain considerations alone... But, since you have asked for clarification, I respond to you and out of respect for you, trying to explain why I consider Ciccolini's opinions not only banal, but dictated by a fundamental ignorance (regarding the subject in question, obviously) that does him no honor. I will proceed in order.
DanielePiano wrote:AC : ...And instead, do we want to talk about Verdi? Is there anyone who has the courage to say things as they are? About his melodic qualities, which emerge very rarely, about the string accompaniments that are truly banal? Let us not forget that Mr. Wagner is from the same period, and he wrote something quite different. These are things that must be said, whether people like it or not! <<Addio, del passato>> [sings from La Traviata] is truly very beautiful, but the tenor aria of the second movement is something unbearable, and so are others. Furthermore, Verdi wrote choruses very poorly: Va' pensiero is a banal form of unison, and it is time to tell him these things.
What a revelation! «Va' pensiero» is in unison! Thank goodness Ciccolini told us... are we joking? So, just to begin, it should be said that Verdi wrote that chorus to represent, behind the metaphor of the oppressed Jews, the Italian people; he wrote to be understood and remembered, and he achieved his goal (the day after the premiere, «Va' pensiero» was already being sung in the streets and on the walls they wrote Viva V.E.R.D.I., so...).
Secondly, Nabucco is one of the first operas Verdi wrote and certainly, compositionally speaking, it is not the best; but to talk about «Va' pensiero» and not mention the choruses of Macbeth, the choruses of Otello, the orchestral writing of Don Carlo and Simon Boccanegra, well, it is at least preposterous. Lastly, it must be absolutely said that Verdi is a man of the theater to his core and that his solutions, however crude they may be (and, certainly, if we are talking about the very first works, a certain crudeness exists, but Ciccolini didn't discover it), are designed to be on stage and, above all, to be seen and heard together with their musical and dramaturgical context! Listening to «Va' pensiero» alone makes no sense, just as listening to the «Esultate» from Otello makes no sense if one has not first listened to the storm scene with the tremendous chorus «Dio, fulgor della bufera!!!», just as it makes no sense at all to listen to «O mio rimorso, infamia...» from La Traviata (which I think Ciccolini is referring to) if one does not come from the scene in which Alfredo has become aware of the sacrifices made by Violetta to be with him... Besides, "in absolute terms," that aria (which is not an aria, anyway, but a cabaletta, just "so be it") not being a masterpiece is out of the question, but we are not talking about a lied that begins and ends and therefore exhausts its dramatic function in its execution: a cabaletta has indispensable dramaturgical reasons within the opera.
DanielePiano wrote:DC : Perhaps it was a deliberate choice, I think for a dramatic effect. AC : And I think not. And Rossini? In his music there is such confusion that when you listen to him at times you no longer know if it is The Barber of Seville or L'italiana in Algeri, always the same thing with the final crescendo. But enough! Beethoven hated him; it is said that one day he told him: "I recommend you write two or three more Barber of Sevilles..."
So the interlocutor even tried to make him understand, but he "thinks not," while it is exactly so. «Va' pensiero», at that moment, represents, also thanks to the effect of the unison, the gathering of the people. This, evidently, escapes Ciccolini, but it is his limitation. As for Rossini, one would have to say that the way Rossini and his contemporaries wrote operas was very particular and different from the idea of perennial artistic creation to which we have become accustomed. The main parts were naturally written ex novo, but when necessary, parts of other works were "recycled" (of which, since CDs and radio did not exist, it was difficult for the audience to remember with the precision to which we are used). The cliché of the crescendo, much to Ciccolini's chagrin, is a very successful theatrical device, of which I would not say that Rossini abused it. Rossini, like Verdi, was a genius. Repetitiveness can also be found in much of Mozart's music (take his symphonies, all of them, and tell me if you don't find "self-plagiarized" pages, but what does that have to do with it?). That Beethoven detested him is something Ciccolini deduces from a phrase that he interprets as he pleases (and which, moreover, "it is said that Beethoven said"). But I propose a different interpretation, as proof of the fact that, in music as in Italian, opening one's eyes and ears is always a thing"}
well made. Ciccolini interprets that "write two or three more 'Barbiere di Siviglia'" as an emphasis on the fact that all of Rossini's operas are the same. And what if instead he had wanted to say (assuming he did) "I recommend, write two or three more (masterpieces like the) Barbiere di Siviglia"? Interesting, isn't it? If someone had said to Puccini "I wish you write two or three more Bohèmes," no one would have thought of a phrase with a negative connotation...
DanielePiano wrote:DC: Why then did you record Péchés de Vieillesse? AC: Because they asked me to, it was a commission, that's all, a routine album. Rossini made several collections for piano that are not worth much, only one of these is a bit more fun. Emi wanted to try the same operation that succeeded with Satie. But Rossini didn't work because Satie has something that Rossini doesn't.
Of course, and Satie wrote neither Barbiere di Siviglia nor Guillaume Tell, if that's the point... Aside from everything, Péchés de vieillesse are extraordinary: if you don't know them, listen to some of them, they are truly delightful pieces. To conclude, it is absolutely not true that the musical talents of Verdi and Rossini were mediocre, but not because I say so: music history says so, which, parenthetically, attributes much more success to the two musicians in question than to many of those tackled for years with undoubted passion by Ciccolini who, they indeed, do not have the talents that are instead found in Verdi and Rossini.
