BeeThOven Festival

Dear Thallo,

you are not accusatory [except that even when you are, you know how to be with relevance] and besides your desire not to trivialize, I also appreciate your desire to find "that limit."

I agree: the example you give (Gigi D'Alessio) is apt.

as "that limit," I propose the passage of time: decades have passed since Beethoven's Fifth, and just as many decades will pass from Gigi D'Alessio...

I realize that my proposal is worth nothing. But at the moment, nothing else comes to mind.

The fact remains that I agree that Beethoven's success is not solely emotional.

Forgive me, but I cannot understand your closing: "it is a cultural brand that makes us feel smarter, without venturing into the unknown. The chic that requires no effort"

RedScharlach wrote:

I meant to say: okay, Beethoven is the best, I gladly concede that to you (although, staying within the realm of personal taste, I have a slight preference for Bach).

Once that has been established, what are we supposed to do? Shall we compile a ranking of composers, 1st place Ludwig van Beethoven, 2nd place Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, etc. etc...?

To tell the truth, they seem like a lot of bar talk to me. Nothing against it, mind you! But one shouldn't then expect them to have any value as technical, aesthetic, or historiographical arguments...

Once again, I repeat that this is not the point or, at least, it is not the point that raises my 'why'.

I have also said other times that personal rankings do not interest me.

I will try to rephrase the question to make it more explicit: why is it that when it comes to proposing a complete set of symphonies, piano sonatas, or quartets, it is almost always Beethoven? And I don't say this out of prejudice but as a statement of fact.

Frank tells me: because they sell! OK! But why do Beethoven's sonatas sell more than those of Mozart, or Schubert, or Prokofiev, or....?

Why do Beethoven's quartets sell more than those of Mozart, Schubert, Bartok, ...?

Why do Beethoven's symphonies sell more than those of Schubert, Mahler, ...?

There must be some answers to my 'whys', right? And this regardless of our sacrosanct personal tastes.

Beethoven is "Pop". Sure, I've already said that. But not all of Beethoven is pop. Is Opus 106 pop? Is opus 133 pop?

One last thing: the village festivals! Claudio, it is obvious that our national composer Peppino is more present at village festivals. Bands—and especially village bands—try to play pieces that are more easily band-like or, in any case, more adaptable to a band formation. And who is more like Peppino Verdi than anyone? I would love to hear a band play the last movement of Beethoven's Seventh and see what comes of it!

In fact, in the square, nobody plays op. 133

danielescarpetti wrote:

There will be or there will be answers to my whys, won't there?

A fitting answer, on a "sociological" level, was given by Thallo shortly ago: it is the chic that requires no commitment. Or rather, to be more precise, Western society recognizes that those who listen to Beethoven are listening to demanding music: but more than an act of listening, it is very often a very superficial re-listening, which does not presuppose a genuine attempt at understanding. In somewhat harsher terms, Adorno would have spoken of reification.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Don't hate me, but you can find a bar-sport anywhere within a 100 m radius of my/your front door, but a music bar instead.....

On this, I agree!

I must admit that you are wonderful, with my "catchphrase": "... because it pulls ... ?" I want to imply many things and many have emerged from your writings.

Just a good-natured provocation, which goes hand in hand with what was written a few posts ago by the good Micamahler... let's forget about symphonies for a moment, Beethoven is also much more than that...

Does the same applies?

RedScharlach wrote:

A hit response, on a "sociological" level, was given by Thallo not long ago: it is the chic that requires no effort. Or rather, to be more precise, Western society recognizes that those who listen to Beethoven are listening to demanding music: but more than listening, it is very often a very superficial re-listening, which does not presuppose a real attempt at understanding. In somewhat harsher terms, Adorno would have spoken of reification.

Yes, I agree, but once again this response does not answer why Beethoven and not someone else.

And then to answer that smart aleck Micamahler - I still haven't understood if you like Mahler or not -, there is no opus 133 but there is opus 106 which... anyway!

But aside from the public square, let's move to the theaters, to the places dedicated to music: there is a certainly more attentive audience that loves that type of music and, even there - especially there I would say - Beethoven's complete works prevail. So?

Stepping into the bar for a moment, once I proposed a top five of favorite composers... Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart (Chopin defended himself well) were in the running. For the sake of accuracy, however, I must say that for the most part, the regulars of the topic were not deep connoisseurs of the 1900s... so few Stravinsky, no Messiaen, and other musicians of any significance.

I myself had listed Beethoven among my preferences... well, after, how many? 5 years?, I don't know if I would keep him... instead, never ever, for now, I would remove Bach

Bar... by bar...

Frank, if you read me, I spoke about symphonies, concertos, piano sonatas and quartets.

In Turin there are symphonies, concertos and piano sonatas... or so the advertisement said.

Not much else remains!

Frank wrote:

Stepping into the bar for a moment, once I proposed a top five of favorite composers... Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart (Chopin defended himself well) were in the running. For the sake of accuracy, however, I must say that for the most part, the regulars of the topic were not deep connoisseurs of the '900... so few Stravinsky, no Messiaen, and other musicians of any significance.

I myself had listed Beethoven among my preferences... well, after, how many? 5 years?, I don't know if I would keep him... instead, never ever, for now, I would remove Bach

Bar... by bar...

Yes, I remember it well!

What can I say Frank.... I feel sorry for you!

Ah well, yes. Opera, chamber music, masses... eh, speaking of masses.

Perhaps Bach is the most well-known and appreciated one, boasting a vast non-paying audience... I myself tackle a piece by Bach every Sunday at the end of the celebration. Aside from other well-known gentlemen, from Frescobaldi to Buxtehude, Petrali, etc.

Not to mention chorales known like "If thou wilt receive me, Good Father" ...etc, etc. A very long list.

Shall we talk about some cantatas?

As someone once said, there is no Jazz enthusiast who hasn't heard Bach...

Still staying on topic

Beethoven made two masses, one discrete and one superlative

But for the rest, dear Frank, the same applies to you as what has already been said to the others: let's not play at not understanding each other. I asked a question to which, apart from Luca, no one answered me. And not even You!

Aside from the fact that I wrote the first "?" myself...

danielescarpetti wrote:

What can I say Frank....I'm sorry for you!

Nothing is forever, Bach endures... and not only in my ears.

Speaking of pop-ular... happy listening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6T6uTH1gkfc

We even talked about it

http://www.pianoconc...ll-flying-bach/

Sure, always at the bar

Open content (youtube)

Mine was an innocent report... let this turmoil come. I didn't think I would give life to such a compelling topic

Frank wrote:

A parte che il primo "?" l'ho scritto io...

Sì, ma poi io ho chiesto perché tira - fra l'altro tu l'avevi messo con un punto interrogativo - e su questo non mi dai risposta neanche tu.

Nulla è per sempre, Bach resiste ...e non solo nelle mie orecchie.

Bach è anche nelle mie orecchie visto che, qui sono l'unico che lo ha difeso in un certo momento mentre gli altri appassionati di Bach dove erano?

Ma, se è lecito, sono curioso: cosa ti ha fatto allontanare da Beethoven?

Mi rispondi almeno su questo o no?

Chiaro, sempre al bar

E come no! Mi sono già ubriacato!

Azzurro wrote:

Mine was an innocent report... let this turmoil come. I didn't think I would give life to such a compelling topic

It is normal for it to be like this! When talking about Beethoven, burning passions are unleashed - in one sense or another - and things go this way. And so once again: why does this only happen with Beethoven?

There is no answer, or who knows, it will be a fall into the wind! (Bob Dylan)

danielescarpetti wrote:

But, if it is permissible, I am curious: what made you move away from Beethoven?

More than from Beethoven, from classicism in the strict sense, and given that a large part of Beethoven's works fall into this sphere… unfortunately, I can no longer include among my top 5 favorites a composer whose repertoire I no longer feel is completely mine.

Obviously, this is clearly a matter of taste; it's not as if Beethoven needs my preference. If we set taste aside, the list of valid composers is very long... including Beethoven, and I don't need to tell you that.

I understand!

But you know Frank, you are telling me about classicism in the strict sense and as such, I think primarily of Haydn and Mozart. If we view Beethoven's music through its evolutionary path, it has very little in common with that of his two predecessors.

In effect, I wonder, and I ask you, how much of the classical is in Beethoven? How much of the romantic is in Beethoven? And finally, how much of "the other" is in Beethoven?

And, let it be clear, it is not just the simple division into three styles that I want to allude to!

One could say that from Opus 1 onwards, there is already "the other" in Beethoven!

Beethoven was a composer who, certainly starting from the classical style, went through romanticism to arrive at "the other". But throughout all of this, there was never a lack of a bit of classical, a bit of romantic, and a bit of "the other."

Frank, Beethoven is a miracle. If after Beethoven there had ever been a composer as brilliant as him, the history of music could have gone from the beginning of the 1800s to the end of the 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s in a single .....pffffffff, breath.

But fortunately it wasn't like that - at least from my point of view - you know how much beautiful romantic and late-romantic music we would have had to give up.

As an ignoramus, B.'s first symphonies seem like Haydn to me... or rather, when I listened to the first one for the first time, I never in a million years would have guessed it was by Beethoven. Same for some piano sonatas, like Op. 49... Beethoven? ... well, who knows?

Stellina wrote:

As an ignoramus, B.'s first symphonies seem like Haydn to me... or rather, when I listened to the first one for the first time, I never in a million years would have guessed it was by Beethoven. Same for some piano sonatas, like opus 49... Beethoven? ... well, who knows?

As an even greater ignoramus than you, I tell you that it is true: Symphony No. 1 is influenced by the Haydnesque style.

But then there is that Minuet (the third movement) which is already Beethoven. Not only because the melodic invention is typical of him, but because it is already a Scherzo in every sense of the word.

But that's not all: notice the harmonic expansion in the developments, the extension of the movements, the accentuation of somewhat rustic aspects, the attraction to certain flashy aspects. All of this is already Beethoven. A young Beethoven seeking his own original path after the great Mozartian and Haydnesque symphonies, a path he will definitively find in the Eroica. The beginning of the Eroica, with its homage to Mozart, is a farewell to classicism.

Opus 49 is from 1796—if you are referring to Sonata No. 2—and from 1798—if you are referring to No. 1—a Beethoven who had already composed Opus 7 and No. 10 No. 3, which are something else entirely. They are two easy sonatas conceived for his students and, as such, they should be viewed.