BeeThOven Festival

ttw wrote:

I'll play devil's advocate:

- Bach's music was written before Beethoven's but was disseminated much later (thanks to Mendelssohn)

Well... "devil"... not even that much... since Bach used to sign S.D.G. on his scores.

ttw wrote:

- Beethoven's music was written when that music was right for the Napoleonic cause

Napoleon!?... And who was this man?...

Jokes aside, when I listen to the Eroica, I don't exactly think of Napoleon and his fine white horse...

It seems to me that the Eroica, and also Beethoven's other masterpieces from those years, is music "a little bit" broader than the Napoleonic era.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be as interesting today as it can be seen to be instead.

Frank wrote:

http://www.pianoconc...-ruolo-sociale/

Cute the example from Maestro Prosseda... if he says it, and he plays everywhere... in the world...

Inventing new forms of music communication: not just concerts in theaters. Proposing live classical music even in very small doses, with micro-concerts of 5-10 minutes in schools, public places, shopping malls, private homes, could perhaps gradually create greater interest and break through that rubber wall that separates most people from listening to a Beethoven sonata.

Damn, of all people, Beethoven... he could have chosen Bach... right?

Yeah, ugh, always him!

Bianca wrote:

I would just like to clarify that I am not contesting your points of view, on the contrary.

Don't worry, I didn't think that at all!

Anyway, I am very used to being contested and for me it is better that way!

Goodness!... it's true!... always Beethoven ....

he could have taken C.P.E. Bach, who is so seductive ... and instead no

Pio wrote:

... is this what you are referring to?

http://www.pianoconc...na-composizione

By the way. As far as I am concerned, I believe there is an "a priori" difference between music and music. From a musicologist's point of view, perhaps it may also be correct to think that such a difference has been overcome, but from the point of view of music, no. Or rather, from the point of view of those who produce music. The difference lies primarily in the "aspiration," that is, the intention that moves the composer. Unfortunately, it is a difference that can be fully perceived only by those who dedicate themselves to composition, whether they be artist or craftsman. Distinctions and categories, as always, are not sharp, but, to generalize, it is easy to intuit that, for example, those who write "commercial" music do so with a "commercial" intent, those who wrote "rock" music did so with a "political" intent, that the expression of a feeling guides singer-songwriters, and so on. And those who write art music? What is their "aspiration"?

As a musicologist, I disagree :-) it was predictable...

Paul McCartney's aspirations do not seem lesser to me than those of Pietro Mascagni; evaluating aspirations is difficult regardless, and I really don't know who can do so with objectivity, especially since it would be appropriate to evaluate THE MUSIC, i.e., the result of the aspirations, and in this sense it is right to make distinctions. But a posteriori, not a priori. There are elements of unity between different pieces and there are elements of diversity. Everything must be adapted to particular cases. In our usual and much-criticized discussions about musical value, we cannot diminish the artistic value of a tarantella in favor of a symphony. In the same way, however, we should evaluate a tarantella according to specific rather than general criteria, and the same goes for a symphony.

My usual conclusion is of an ethical nature. Feel free to appreciate whatever you want, but remembering that comparison with "everything else" should not be derogatory. Fools say "what I listen to is better than what you listen to." If we want to have a joking, cafe-style discussion and so on, then it seems obvious to me that what I listen to is much better than what you all listen to :-) but if we want to have a serious discussion, then let's set aside the "cutest in the class" rankings and talk about complexity.

I liked both because both of you say things that are also shareable.

I don't want to make rankings and, much less, I don't want to denigrate anyone, especially those who, within their objective limits - we all have them - try to give the best of themselves in building their art.

However, those who do it solely with exclusively commercial intent are excluded from this discussion.

That being said, not as a composer and much less as a musicologist, I think that the aspiration of a cultured composer - regardless of their musical genre - should be, to put it in Beethoven's words, to pursue what his muse - mind - suggests to him and turn it into music.

danielescarpetti wrote:

That said, as neither a composer nor a musicologist, I think that the aspiration of an educated composer - regardless of their musical genre - should be, to put it in Beethoven's words, to pursue what his muse - mente - suggests to him and turn it into music.

You can read between the lines; in my opinion, the composer is thinking about something else entirely... from an aspiring composer who has written a few pieces.

danielescarpetti wrote:

However, those who do it solely with exclusively commercial intent are excluded from this discussion.

Look, I don't understand this. I used to cook for work, and what I cooked for work was just as good as what I cooked at home for my boyfriend. I don't compose for work, but I sing for work; I get paid to do it, and if I weren't paid, I wouldn't do it. But I don't think this automatically excludes my entire emotional world and my technical abilities related to music.

From which, two statements I believe in:

1) there is NO ONE who does it "only" for work. Even the worst DJ believes they are making art and puts effort and feeling into it.

2) if you do it for work, you are good, because in the world of music-made-for-work, they haven't written "jocund" on their forehead. They hire professionals. And professionals are good; I have the deepest respect for them. Between a professional who plays without necessarily feeling the sense of the infinite in that moment and a non-professional who puts their soul into it but, alas, DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO PLAY, I prefer the former.

Thallo, my post was indeed for you.

However, I did not speak of a ranking among aspirations. I spoke of difference.

A composer of "classical" music who is called upon to write a soundtrack for a film does so with a different "intent" than when they write any other type of their work. This is almost tautological, but it can provoke reflection. I have often clashed on this topic, but I do not want to imply that in the second case the result must ultimately be better or superior in axiological terms. It's just that there exists a "difference" that is not one of result, but of purpose. Therefore, it is possible to say that "art music" is "different" from a "soundtrack," for example—different, I repeat, not better or worse. If the musicologist is unable to perceive this difference, this is a limitation of the musicologist, not of the music. One can meet on many paths taken toward different destinations.

So you are right, the intentions of Mascagni (who, among other things, was one of the first composers to write for film) are not far from (whether minor or major we shall disregard) those of Paul McCartney (allow me the short circuit), but they were most likely not the same as those of the great Ludovico Van.

thallo wrote:

Look, I don't understand this. I used to cook for work, and what I cooked for work was just as good as what I cooked at home for my boyfriend. I don't compose for work, but I sing for work; I get paid to do it, and if I weren't paid, I wouldn't do it. But I don't think this automatically excludes my entire emotional world and my technical musical abilities.

From which, there are two statements I believe in:

1) there is NO ONE who does it "only" for work. Even the worst DJ believes they are making art and puts effort and feeling into it.

2) if you do it for work, you are good, because in the world of work-made-music, they don't have "jocund" written on their foreheads. They hire professionals. And professionals are good; I have the deepest respect for them. Between a professional who plays without necessarily feeling the sense of the infinite in that moment and a non-professional who puts their soul into it but, alas, DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO PLAY, I prefer the former.

Ok, Claudio, let's just say your level of democracy is too high for me.

I suppose, at this point, that for you even a song like "Fin che la barca va" is art, and therefore it becomes difficult for me to engage on these standards.

The DJ is an excellent and highly respectable worker, but my friend Claudio as well - someone with the same name, I'm not talking about you - is convinced he is painting pictures that are art. The important thing is being convinced, probably.

For me, Art is something else. Something much less democratic that concerns a chosen few.

Any other ideas to add flavor to the comparison ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dNLAhL46xM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLqVioiDldc

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Wonderful, besides I would marry Chaty too

Thallo, my post was indeed for you.

:-)

A "classical" music composer who is called upon to write a soundtrack for a film does so with a different "intent" than when they write any other type of their work.

No. But just no. The

Common sense, of a composer, are never traceable, except in the presence of sketches (statements are almost always ex post). But it is not the intention that defines the artisticity of a composition, just as it does not define its form, nor its use.

Ok, Claudio, let's say your rate of democracy is too high for me.

I suppose, at this point, that for you even a song like "Fin che la barca va" [As long as the boat goes] is art, and therefore it becomes difficult for me to engage with these canons.

As above. If musicology and related analytical subjects presume to be "scientific," then they must withstand the analysis OF even bad compositions. You know that in my view all this has an ethical dimension; I don't want to be someone with their nose in the air, I like to get my hands dirty, and I think music is made for those who love to get their hands dirty. But, regardless of ethics, here the problems are disciplinary. There should be a discipline for everything. What is the discipline that studies "Fin che la barca va"? For Adorno, it would probably have been the sociology of music, because in his intentions (and in Daniele's discourse) the product "Fin che la barca va" is completely lost in its becoming a marketable object. According to this logic, we should stop speaking in artistic terms about anything that is exchanged for money. I think, instead, that the artisticity of a composition lies not in its result (I flip the terms of the discourse with Bianca) but in the reaction of the public, of the audience of users. If there is someone who considers "Fin che la barca va" a musical piece, then I must be able to understand the reasons, analyze its forms, and draw an aesthetic discourse from it. Alas, it is not scholars who decide what to study; it is history that decides what will be the object of study.

For me, Art is something else. Something much less democratic and which concerns a chosen few.

this side of yours scares me. I believe you know it.

Wonderful; besides, I would marry Chaty too

Here is one thing we all agree on

thallo wrote:

Alas, it is not scholars who decide what to study; it is history that decides what the object of study will be.

I'll start from there. On almost everything else, I agree, I believe. Then even here, it depends on what you mean by scholars. If you are talking about me or you (I imagine), then I agree; if you are talking about those who hold a certain power, then no. History is made more by interests than by ideas. One can console oneself by thinking of being "this plate of grain," but not much more than that.

The fact is that one could say, well, but there are better ideas, more beautiful works that must eventually impose themselves, there is a higher good that transcends interests. Personally, I believe that even the grandchildren of my grandchildren will not see this world, but not because I am a pessimist. Simply because I believe that if a "good" or a "better" exists, it cannot be proven as those who perceive it would wish. And even if it could be, there will always be someone (perhaps the majority) who doesn't give a damn or will never want to be persuaded. For this reason, I agree with the fact that results must be analyzed.

However, if you try to understand the reasons why "Fin che la barca va" is a much broader success than "Lamento della ninfa" (assuming it is true), you will probably have to get your hands dirty with reasons that are not solely musical, or at least with a different weight. Furthermore, I don't think it is easy to discover a relationship between the form and the success of a work, an art piece, or any other ingenuity. Personally, I do not consider success to be a relevant parameter for my evaluation of a work, but that is a personal matter. There are, however, well-known studies (conducted by those American rascals) showing how an individual's aesthetic evaluations are strongly influenced by the evaluations of the masses. By "strongly," I mean in an almost total way. Cases of dissent are rare. It is a natural phenomenon that has its biological utility.

The "result," therefore, is not a static thing that you find there in your hands, well-defined and dead like a ripe pear; it is not so only because we assume its continuing life (since we are talking about the result of a human activity), but also by virtue of its previous life. This previous life can tell you a lot about it and can even make you change your mind; most of the time, it can reveal aspects it carries within itself that you might otherwise miss. Therefore, if it is appropriate to analyze the result from a dynamic context perspective (performance, reception, dissemination...), it can be equally appropriate to analyze it from a phenomenological perspective. And besides, where does it say that intentions are not interesting and should not be relevant? Why deprive oneself of an aspect that might even be pleasing? I should better define what I mean by intention, but I would go too far off track. If you replace it here with purpose or aim, the same applies to what preceded it.

Like Daniele, I also have a few words to say regarding the various like-this scattered left and right.

Personally, I feel much closer to an "a posteriori" judgment, as read in Thallo's messages. And Daniele, who knows me, knows well how little I care about the author's original intentions. However, I don't feel I can entirely set aside a discussion on 'aspirations,' even though I agree that evaluating aspirations is difficult.

I also agree with Daniele, who maintains that from all these discussions, those who work exclusively with commercial intent should be excluded. This fits perfectly with Thallo's rebuttal, which claims that even the worst DJ believes they are making art and puts their soul into it... Of course: all of this is very true.

However, at the level of musical composition (of any genre), I fully agree with Daniele in those cases where, regardless of a professionalism and mastery that are certainly of a good level, the composer does not bring out their best to please the audience, but, sensing the "way the wind blows," composes something ad hoc to please the public.

danielescarpetti wrote:

For me, Art is something else. Something much less democratic and that concerns a chosen few.

I must imagine at this point that you are an Artist with a capital A: because I find the assertions about the "chosen ones" and about Art with a capital A credible only if pronounced by an Artist with a capital A.

RedScharlach wrote:

i find the assertions regarding the "chosen ones" and with Art with a capital A to be credible only if pronounced by an Artist with a capital A.

[neither do I share that statement of Daniele's about art]

But, whether uppercase or lowercase, a devaluation like this is not possible: it is not necessary to be artists to enjoy, delight in, live, or discuss art.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Like Daniele, I will also say a few words due to the various like-this scattered left and right.

Personally, I feel much closer to an "a posteriori" judgment

Certainly, no "a priori" judgment makes sense. But just so as not to leave misunderstandings for those reading, phenomenology (a polyvocal and complex notion) does not deal with a priori judgments but with intentional objects.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

it is not necessary to be artists to enjoy, delight in, live, or discuss art.

I agree: for this very reason I found the statement that Art with a capital A concerns only "some chosen few" somewhat disconcerting... it is precisely the kind of elitist attitude that empties theaters and concert halls. Art (more familiarly, with a lowercase 'a'!) should instead concern as many people as possible, and we ourselves can do something to open the doors of theaters and concert halls instead of closing them: first of all, by changing our attitude.

I'm quoting Red who is quoting Luca; it's almost as if one has to also understand the mechanism just to appreciate it... at this point the '900' would be worth throwing away... it's not like I have to study someone's code for a month before going to a concert to enjoy something that should delight me for a few minutes... the senses (...via the ears).