Beethoven at the piano: the extra notes of tradition and why you shouldn't play them

To me, Celibidache's interventions seem OT; the performance interpretation has nothing to do with the observations on critical editions and autographs.

They certainly have something OT [off-topic] about it, but it still stems from the main topic. I would say we can still stay here. In any case, he is making a very random argument. I would like to see some examples. The whole thing started from my observation that there are some objective things and others subjective, even though I am always convinced that the performer should strictly adhere to the composer's indications (and I repeat, it's not about schooling, it's about trying to satisfy the conditions imposed by the composer; if everyone played their own way, as they feel it, then we shouldn't be surprised by that Ninth Symphony at a turtle's pace where we all had something to say). So, in support of my thesis, I brought up the example of the vibrato pedal in Op. 110 and the argument I made is unequivocal since ALL pianists, Pollini, Brendel, Arrau, etc., vibrate the pedal; those few who do not vibrate it do not reach the fortissimo indicated by Beethoven but rather a "quasi forte"... Besides, if you don't want to make that melodic line understandable, you either keep the volume low from the start or you vibrate the pedal later. For what reason do they vibrate the pedal? There is no other explanation than the one related to clarity. If you hold the pedal, nothing can be understood because there isn't enough time for the sound to decay naturally.

Now I don't have time to go into detail, but I promise myself to return to the subject more forcefully as soon as I have some time available.

I only want to make one remark, as a point for reflection. Precisely because Beethoven thought of piano sonatas as if they were for an orchestral ensemble, one should remember that strings, as well as winds, have envelopes that can be "controlled" by the musician. Holding the same note, I can decide to start forte and descend to piano as quickly as I want. On the piano, if you play a series of chords held with the pedal that end with a fortissimo, in a single measure there is no way to make the sound descend back down to pianissimo except by vibrating the pedal.

I challenge you to play that cell while always keeping the pedal pressed and vibrating it. You will realize for yourself that in the first case you will only feel great confusion and that it can only be done in the second manner.

'Random' is a frequent term among those attending their first philosophy lesson...

Anyway, what I wanted to say hasn't been grasped yet... obviously it comes across as obscure.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't hide it (we are still in a democracy, right?), interpretation is like dramatic art: it's not for everyone.

A high school teacher can recite a passage from Macbeth, know its intimate structure, but this does not make her an actress.

The crucial error is thinking that everything is contained within the score, down to the smallest details.

And it is from this assumption that the 'Cobras' of the situation emerge, not from interpretive freedom.

Musicality and interpretive sensitivity are a GIFT that transcends and is independent of study and technique.

In fact, I consider myself a man of science, not a philosopher, and thank goodness!! If these are the topics at hand, professor... I think that to be able to say that others are in their first lesson of anything, one would need a minimum level of credibility. I present myself with my first and last name, I've published a few things, I've put some videos online, I've performed some concerts... I'm not saying I have credibility, but at least I put my face on it. You, who throw jabs from behind a screen, who are you? What have you done? Why should what you say be more credible than what others say? At the moment, we are arguing with a ghost.
If someone writes 10 messages and in a forum of academics doesn't even get one like, I, as a man of science, would start asking myself questions. Evidently, the philosopher instead believes he is a head above the others and that what he says is law and everyone else is a fool. Besides, if you want to be right, I think we all agree on giving it to you by following the proverb... Ahahah

And don't be afraid that those who read will form their own opinion of you, of me, and of others.

Anyway, just to end on a high note, after which I will stop writing because this matter is truly bordering on the ridiculous... I attach this lovely image... Maybe I am a fool, but according to your logic, Casella must have been more of a fool than me... Bye, beautiful...

Read at the note ( b )

A man of science would never have formulated the above thought.

Oh, give me a break, you ridiculous person!

A person capable of denying the evidence can only be ridiculous.

But, excuse me... are you giving me numbers?

You exploded into a sea of justifications and "I am this and you are not a..." that are entirely unmotivated.

I didn't want to talk about it (we would be entering right into a doctoral subject in communication sciences, provided we don't enter into your hated philosophy...), but, sincerely, you can put on all the face you want, but it is Martha Argerich or Claudio Abbado that I find for sale on the shelf when I go to the bookstore...

Anyway, I do not understand the reason for all this taking it out on someone who had only, indeed, done a bit of healthy "philosophy."

There would be quite a need for it today, do you know, engineer?

Regarding myself, I have no need to compensate for my real life with the web.

I am already happy as I am, believe me. Very much so.

A warm greeting.

I believe he was far too tender, rather than losing his mind! In any case, a couple of years ago he released a CD that I purchased and which I liked very much, so one cannot say that he wasn't on the shelves; certainly, he won't have sold as much as Abbado or Argerich. Rather, dear Celibidache, your message seems to me to be that of someone who has thrown the stone and is now hiding their hand.

I too, as it seems to me from reading others, did not find myself agreeing with his reasoning, but I am a self-taught musician, so surely my word carries little weight.

However, I would say that Casella's point is clear: what does he want to continue defending?

Would he like to imply that he knows more even than Casella?

P.s.

Denying the evidence? Which one?

Read carefully before speaking.

Mammamia... let's just leave it!

(Anyway, there were those who appreciated my interventions... but just saying, by the way)

Greetings and sons!

Can't we start a petition to ban him?

I sincerely believe that such a self-absorbed person is not good publicity for the forum.

P.s.

For the sole purpose of preventing any external reader, perhaps a young one, from being induced to follow malevolent paths,

i wish to specify that ALL my interventions were taken from the positions of Andras Schiff, Grigory Sokolov and Sergiu Celibidache.

If you have something to say about what I have expressed, please refer to them.

Stefanus wrote:

Can't we start a petition to ban him?

I sincerely believe that such a self-absorbed person is not good publicity for the forum.

Here goes the usual mechanism of projection...

But who said anything... if you give clear symptoms that you are all ready for years of hard psychotherapy, it's not my fault.

Bye!

P.s.

Be careful, because with the web one loses the sense of reality, which is an essential pillar for the stability of one's own personality.

I received quite a few "likes" (to my great surprise) in relation to my "posts" (Even you, Simon, appreciated one...)

But I ask to be excused... If we are among academics and "likes" are the seal of intellectual authority, look, that's not for me.

Regards.

Just one last thing.

I was raised by a person who was among the founding fathers of this nation.

I was taught to walk with my back straight and to say what I think with respect and sincerity.

My interventions had the sole purpose of giving my best (or my best) regarding the subject at hand.

There was nothing else.

If we are still at the point where whoever says something with conviction ends up on a cross, well, then we are truly men of science.

Would I be a psychopath because, based on how he carries himself, I think it would be better to distance myself from him? I must say that I like him even if for me he isn't [supposed to be]?

Stefanus wrote:

Would I be a psychopath because, based on how he carries himself, I believe it would be better to distance myself from him? Must I say that I like him even if for me he is not [likable]?

The problem is what you saw in my way of posing things.

It doesn't seem to me that I said anything that wasn't part of the normal dialectic that occurs when we deal with these topics.

If one is then unacquainted with these things, it's another matter and perhaps I was wrong.

However, I want to emphasize that what I said was not my own invention...

I only re-proposed the theses of the most important interpreters of our time.

I thought it might be pleasing... that's all. Truly.

I apologize. It won't happen again.

I am not against ALL the things you have written, and I give a Like if I share something...

I am against THIS thing you have written because it cannot be stated in an absolute sense as you have done... And I am absolutely certain that Celibidache never wrote anything of this kind intended with the meaning you wanted to give it.

If I may say what I think, I believe that in art there is no "objectivity" just as there is no "technique" or any other intellectual superstructure that, unfortunately, books and teachers do nothing but continually and systematically propose.

If you tell me that objectivity does not exist, it means that only subjectivity exists, and if only subjectivity exists, it means that every interpretation is correct because it is right according to the subject. But if every interpretation were correct, then this one would be too... And it seems to me that many outrageous things have been said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CXEHj5r9vA

By necessity, there must be a threshold of objectivity, a regulation, a track within which to move; then, within this track, there are infinite possibilities, but an objective upper and lower limit must exist, and that is the one imposed by the author in their indications.

Open content (youtube)

Simone, you're taking it out on me without realizing that someone like that guy should be put in a mental asylum...

The problem, in my view, is the superficial and somewhat crude (if I may) meaning we give to the terms "objective" and "subjective," as if the former were a guarantee of correctness and the latter a guarantee of rubbish. That's what I meant.

Science is teaching us that nothing objective exists in human action... everything is permeated by one's own personal subjective "coloring."

For me, therefore, it is not the need for an "objectivity" in art that is the problem, but that there be subjectivities suitable to art.

I don't know what is so heretical about it... Celibidache went even further. You would have burned him at the stake.

But what other meaning can you give to the word objective? By encyclopedic definition: "impartial".

Now returning to the video from before of the ninth... I think we all agree to say that a ninth like that is money down the drain? Or not?
I believe that anyone who says that a ninth like that "is right" either understands nothing or needs to be institutionalized.

Any combination of temporal flexions among the infinite available is perfectly fine, but can we agree on the fact that that timing is wrong?

If we agree on this, we cannot say that an objective threshold does not exist in art.