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

Celibidache wrote:

But I completely agree... (even on the fact that Cobra is... hilarious....)

What I do not agree with (and not just me... the entire academic world) is this tendency to turn music into a "science".

Besides being subtly offensive, it is extremely dangerous.

Frankly, I don't know what could be so offensive and dangerous about considering music a "science"

I would like to remind you that in the Middle Ages it was included in the Quadrivium.

Its relationship with mathematics and science was later reaffirmed - among many others - by Jean-Philippe Rameau and Pierre Boulez. And so I wonder which academic world you are referring to?

Could it not perhaps be said more justly that music, due to its intrinsic and extrinsic substance, is the perfect bridge linking scientific subjects to those of a humanistic nature?

danielescarpetti wrote:

Frankly, I do not know what could be so offensive and dangerous about considering music a "science"

I would like to remind you that in the Middle Ages it was included in the Quadrivium.

Its relationship with mathematics and science was later reaffirmed - among many others - by Jean-Philippe Rameau and Pierre Boulez. And so I wonder, which academic world are you referring to?

Could it not perhaps be said more justly that music, due to its intrinsic and extrinsic substance, is the perfect bridge linking scientific subjects to those of the humanities?

Very well done, Daniele.

Unfortunately, the idea of "Science" that had been brought into question at that moment did not allow for this argument to be undertaken.

Furthermore, one was launching into a crusade against philosophy, as if the "humanities" were arbitrary.

That being said, "philosophy of science" is certainly not a matter of the humanities...

Unfortunately in Italy we have messed around a bit too much with serious things...

P.s.

That being said, it is my opinion that Art, at its peak, transcends mere categories such as "scientific" and "humanistic."

Celibidache wrote:

While it remains my opinion that Art at its peak transcends mere categories such as "scientific" and "humanistic."

«O thou who honor'st every science and art,

These who are they who have so much honor

That from the manner of others they are set apart?» . . . [as usual we are getting carried away, oh well]

Well.. Daniele,

as to what might be offensive and dangerous in considering music a science, I would say there is nothing "offensive" about it. What is dangerous, however, is the fact that in this way it is viewed through an optical lens for which such an action corresponds—scientifically and certainly!—to a sure and determined reaction.

Banale compositional example:

Action > use of a descending chromatic figuration.

Reaction > painful feeling.

Banale performance example:

Action > absolute respect for the original metronome.

But, I tell you, this danger in seeing music, both at a compositional and interpretive level, as a "science," I feel it when the terms "science" and "scientific" are intended at the level of common language (from which expressions like "this is scientifically proven..." and similar arise).

Certainly not in considering the scientific aspects of music (see the links you proposed) and in considering the term "science" in its noblest sense, that is, the pursuit of Truth without the presumption of already having THE truth in one's pocket.

sorry. I would like to correct (and integrate omissions) in my post above

A banal compositional example:

Action > use of a descending chromatic figure.

Consequence > painful feeling in the listener.

A banal performance example:

Action > absolute respect for the original metronome markings.

Consequence > certainty of having produced, even just by doing so, a good interpretation

LucaCavaliere wrote:

A banal performance example:

Action > absolute respect for the original metronomes.

Consequence > certainty of having produced, even just by doing so, a good interpretation

Even with Dante, the levels were extremely high, but here one would deserve applause...

I also share Celibidache's thought on how one can still indulge in wasting time on topics that are sterile in themselves but useful for broadening the discussion. An OT [Off-Topic] discussion? Then it becomes purely statistical. Who won the E flat or the B flat. I think it matters little. The concept of musical philology has evolved over time from mere notation to interpretation and to understanding the sound document. Now, starting from the fact that we have considerable amounts of sound material from 20th-century composers, it is equally incontestable that works are rarely performed as recorded by the composer, and I think—though I am not certain—that the same composers may have recorded their own composition differently from their own notation. Regarding the fact that art deviates from philological thought, we have countless artists who have left us truly genius, bold interpretations. And therefore, that E flat or that pedal does not matter, but an execution that strikes us in the depths of our soul floods us with immense gratification. Perhaps this is what the author would have wanted. One for all: Glenn Gould's fantasy in D major by Mozart.