BeeThOven Festival

Just out of curiosity, in a forum full of composers like this, perhaps it would be nice to ask what a composer thinks and what goals they set for themselves (an active one, in other words, someone who truly does it for a living) ... before philosophizing about what "should be" with reference to historical models that are long past.

In short, Beethoven's society was slightly different from ours; there is no artist in the world who lived in his time... others were even too far ahead, very few in their more recent past, but by providing their own current response to the musical problems of their own time.

Today it is difficult to be composers "simply" because the world is one, music easily reaches even non-professionals, there are many people, there are many lobbies and the "weight" of history is enormous. In this regard, incredible as it may seem, but today those who have breathed less history are probably advantaged...

No, I expressed myself poorly!

With a chosen few, - few compared to a population - I don't mean those who can benefit from art; on the other hand, if someone like me benefits from it alone, that already says a lot.

The chosen few are those who truly know how to express and construct Art!

In other words, just as writing is not enough to make literature, likewise, painting, composing, or making a film is not enough to make Art.

What is Art above all? For me, Art is a non-economic activity that, by connecting with the evolution of aesthetics, seeks to represent the reality surrounding humanity. Or even better, to put it in the words of Milan Kundera, those who practice an Art that does more than just represent reality pursue "an intention to know, to understand, to grasp this or that aspect of reality."

Claudio, I know my discourse scares you - to say nothing else - but I belong to that school of thought which, like Sciarrino, believes that "(...) works of art serve us more for the problems they raise than for the problems they have solved; for what they make possible they are needed, and not for what they have defined. Art is therefore a participant in the creative discovery of the modern, it elevates human consciousness. At the same time, art also reflects the disasters and incongruities of life.

It would be wrong to ignore the therapeutic value of art, whose preferred subject, by an overwhelming percentage, is human suffering, the exhaustion of happiness, rather than its dissolution in revelry.

In the face of the awareness of suffering, it is inevitable for the listener to take a position. This is the real reason why most people do not love highbrow music: engaging in listening requires effort. (...)"

For this reason, I believe that songs like "Fin che la barca va" or films like the Pierino series, even if conceived within an art form, have nothing to do with Art. Let us analyze these social customs, let us ask ourselves why the majority of people prefer these products to others; let us not demonize those who consume all this, but please, Art is something else. Then, as always: the difficult judgment belongs to posterity.

Ok, now the music changes for Daniele... but someone will have to ask this question anyway...

danielescarpetti wrote:

Here is the real reason why most people do not love classical music: committing to listening takes effort. (...) »

Either Beethoven is not

Come, Frank, I understand that you want to look for contradictions, of which I am certainly full, but obviously Beethoven appeals to the circle of those who listen to classical music, those who go to the theater and thus a minimum percentage compared to a population. Then, certainly if you bring Beethoven to a public square it is easier that there are people compared to Stravinsky, but everything is relative and I am certainly not the one to say so.

Sciarrino is then referring mainly to the art music of the last century, the avant-garde and contemporary music ...It's obvious, isn't it?

danielescarpetti wrote:

obviously Beethoven appeals to those within the sphere of classical music listeners, those who go to the theater, and thus represents a minimal percentage compared to a population. Then, certainly if you bring Beethoven to a public square, it is more likely that there will be people compared to Stravinsky, but everything is relative and I am certainly not the one to say so.

...and did it really take that long..?

danielescarpetti wrote:

but everything is relative and it is certainly not for me to say.

The problem is that from your interventions, one understands quite the opposite of "everything is relative": instead, it seems like one is reading only about Absolutes (and the most Absolute of Absolutes, obviously, is Beethoven!).

PS There would also be something to discuss regarding the killer use of quotations...

RedScharlach wrote:

The problem is that from your comments one understands quite the opposite of "everything is relative": instead, it seems like one is reading only about Absolutes (and the most Absolute of Absolutes, obviously, is Beethoven!).

PS There would also be something to discuss regarding the killer use of quotes...

For me, it's you who are biased!

The quotes? What do you mean?

Frank wrote:

...and did it really take that long..?

Forgive me Frank, but once again: I have been talking about the classical audience for a long time and not the entire population. Try re-reading, and you will see how many times I have said: this.

Red, for me Beethoven is absolute and I have no problem saying it and repeating it. But it is my subjectivity and that is how it shall remain.

This hasn't prevented me from listening to all music, though! And even from loving it!

Ah, then I had misunderstood this first message

danielescarpetti wrote:

I heard the advertisement for it on Radio tre, in addition to the symphonies, all the concerts and sonatas.

Not bad indeed. I only hope that since it is the Rai symphony orchestra, Radio tre, in delayed broadcast, transmits at least something.

Once again I wonder - an absolutely rhetorical question - why Beethoven. Why him again and always?

They talk about squares, they talk about radio, a rhetorical question is posed... I had absolutely no idea that a selection had been made

... not so bad.

Don't try to be clever with me, Frank. You know well that Radio 3 is the cultural radio station of the country; it is the radio that takes an interest in classical music - even if now a little less than in the past -. Yes, people talk about 'piazza' but meaning that he is the only classical music composer - along with Mozart - who can fill a piazza. Come on, Frank!

The point of the matter is that no one - except for Luca, who has said his piece and whom I thank again - has wanted or known how to answer the question of why Beethoven? This is the point, dear FranK!

What is the answer? The answer is because Beethoven, through his music, manages to speak to men. From man to man, despite being a genius - and what a genius - he knows how to remain at the level of any of us. His life, his countless struggles, the many adversities, have not only not broken him but have made him stronger. Each of us, if they wish, can recognize themselves in him, in his best parts and in his worst. He, an absolutely human man - meant as human weaknesses and virtues - more than anyone else has known how to summarize within himself all the contradictions, all the limits of human beings. But through his genius, he knew how to elevate them to Himalayan peaks. And that is why the man of yesterday, today, and tomorrow has had, has, and will have need of Beethoven. Beethoven is hope, he is strength, he is the need and the desire to react and never bend, and all of us need this to live. Amen!

I have said it and now, quite rightly, give me all the criticisms you want!

Bianca wrote:

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.

i add that (since it might be difficult to grasp the distinction immediately) when I said that there is an "a priori" difference in the musician's intentions, I did not say that the judgment about them must be a priori, but that this (possible) difference exists prior to any judgment. Furthermore, leaving aside the fact that "a priori" we are forced to do many things, for example choosing whether or not to take an interest in a certain work, on which we might eventually express an a posteriori judgment. On the other hand, I began by saying to prioritize answers to "how" rather than to "why"...

The point is something else, Thallo also gave the answer; Red ... I gave it too...

...and there are answers that can be questions

Some other ideas, would Chopin's pianissimo work in a square?

I am in Milan, I am halfway between Turin and Verona... there are entire buses of people who pay to go to Verona ...but they would never go to a square in Turin for free.

What are the costs of a classical ensemble compared to a late Romantic one?

A study claims that the average housewife likes listening to Vivaldi... and not Beethoven. For radio, she would listen to Vivaldi

I need to carve out an audience, even if it is of classical music enthusiasts, that is not Italian-based but global...

... absolutes are absolute.

I know many Easterners; for them, Beethoven is someone who insists on only one way... therefore very boring, they would pay to listen to Messiaen

With great sympathy, these are just one millionth of the questions that someone who wants to establish absolutes should answer, which from my point of view are, moreover, useless. Because if there is a rule in music, it is the one that says 2+2 does not equal 4. Therefore Gesualdo is as valid as Donatoni as Scriabin as Beethoven... then we can look at the music and start talking about complexity and understand more... but not find the magic little formula 2+2=4.

danielescarpetti wrote:

The point of the matter is that no one - except Luca, who has said his piece and whom I thank again - has wanted or known how to answer the question of why Beethoven? This is the point, dear FranK!

i have answered, it's just that, as the second part of your message makes explicit...

What is the answer? The answer is because Beethoven, with his music, succeeds in speaking to men.

Either you give the answer you mention or nothing :-)

My answer could be summarized in the phrase "it's chic and requires no commitment". Valid from the point of view of the listener, the orchestra, and the municipal administration.

From man to man, despite being a genius - and what a genius - he knows how to remain at the level of any one of us. His life, his innumerable struggles, the many adversities, not only have not broken him but have made him stronger. Each of us, if they wish, can recognize themselves in him, in his best parts and in his worst. He, an absolutely human man - understood as human weaknesses and merits - more than any other has known how to summarize within himself all the contradictions, all the limits of human beings. But through his genius, he knew how to elevate them to Himalayan peaks. And that is why the man of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, has had, has, and will need Beethoven. Beethoven is hope, is strength, is the need and desire to react and never bend, and all of us need this to live. Amen!

I'll be the mean one :-) let's try an experiment...

From man to man, despite being a genius - and what a genius - he knows how to remain at the level of any one of us. His life, his innumerable struggles, the many adversities, not only have not broken him but have made him stronger. Each of us, if they wish, can recognize themselves in him, in his best parts and in his worst. He, an absolutely human man - understood as human weaknesses and merits - more than any other has known how to summarize within himself all the contradictions, all the limits of human beings. But through his genius, he knew how to elevate them to Himalayan peaks. And that is why the man of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, has had, has, and will need Giuseppe Verdi. Giuseppe Verdi is hope, is strength, is the need and desire to react and never bend, and all of us need this to live. Amen!

From man to man, despite being a genius - and what a genius - he knows how to remain at the level of any one of us. His life, his innumerable struggles, the many adversities, not only have not broken him but have made him stronger. Each of us, if they wish, can recognize themselves in him, in his best parts and in his worst. He, an absolutely human man - understood as human weaknesses and merits - more than any other has known how to summarize within himself all the contradictions, all the limits of human beings. But through his genius, he knew how to elevate them to Himalayan peaks. And that is why the man of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, has had, has, and will need Mozart. Mozart is hope, is strength, is the need and desire to react and never bend, and all of us need this to live. Amen!

From man to man, despite being a genius - and what a genius - he knows how to remain at the level of any one of us. His life, his innumerable struggles, the many adversities, not only have not broken him but have made him stronger. Each of us, if they wish, can recognize themselves in him, in his best parts and in his worst. He, an absolutely human man - understood as human weaknesses and merits - more than any other has known how to summarize within himself all the contradictions, all the limits of human beings. But through his genius, he knew how to elevate them to Himalayan peaks. And that is why the man of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, has had, has, and will need Antonio Carlos Jobim. Antonio Carlos Jobim is hope, is strength, is the need and desire to react and never bend, and all of us need this to live. Amen!

Who finds the differences? :-) this is one of the problems, in my opinion, of absolute statements. If we are talking about Daniele, everything is fine, but if we are talking about "man", then a cynical little smile comes out :-)

danielescarpetti wrote:

Quotes? What do you mean?

Let's just say that I often find them slightly... out of context! For example, the scope of Sciarrino's discourse is anything but aimed towards the definition of an Absolute: so much so that the points of reference regarding his figures range from Beethoven (rightly!) to Stockhausen, to Persian rugs (and these latter ones, you'll grant me, are difficult to classify within the scope of Art with a capital A, in the Western and "heavy" sense of the term).

PS curiosity: but do you transcribe the quotes yourself, word for word, or do you have some more "economical" method?

Very mean Thallo!... it wasn't hard to find the differences!

Anyway – absolutes and absolutism aside – I had read your response. I had asked you to clarify it a bit for me, but then your 'like' to the clarification given by RedScharlach made me realize that I should have been satisfied with that. And so I did.

Sincerely, I must say that however, that clarification – regarding the fact that « more than a listening, it is often a very superficial re-listening, which does not presuppose a real attempt at understanding » - leaves me "a bit unsettled"... Would Beethoven authorize a placid, superficial re-listening?... Well, anyway: at this point I am inclined to say that everyone is responsible for the quality of their own listening and re-listening.

But regarding the fact that it makes us feel « more intelligent, even without venturing into the unknown », I kindly ask you once more if you can tell me something more.

And this is asked by someone who has given Daniele two answers (one more absolute than the other!). But I am truly interested in understanding yours.

A warm greeting for now. To you and to everyone!

You know Frank, I hear the sound of nails on mirrors,

Frank wrote:

Any other ideas, would Chopin's pf work in a square?

Let's try and see what effect it has. Certainly, a single pianist would cost even less than a classical orchestra, which in turn costs less than a romantic one.

I am in Milan, I am halfway between Turin and Verona... there are entire buses of people paying to go to Verona... but they would never go to a square in Turin for free.

Goodness, my mother-in-law also went to the Arena in Verona, and she, for the rest of the year, only watches soap operas and doesn't give a damn about music. Yes, because, as you well know, everyone goes to Verona, truly everyone. You know what it's like to tell friends, neighbors: I went to Verona to see (hear) Aida! You can't compare the effect it has and... the envy! Plus, you know with that great acoustics there, it's really the best!

What are the costs of a classical ensemble compared to a late romantic one?

See the piano above!

A study claims that the average housewife likes ironing while listening to Vivaldi... and not Beethoven. For radio, she would listen to Vivaldi.

Goodness, the housewife from Voghera here too! This is the second time in a discussion you have mentioned Vivaldi to me and, like last time, I answer you as Stravinsky answered whoever mentioned him: "Who, Vivaldi? That composer who composed the same concerto 500 times?" and, here yes, dear Frank, how boring that is!

I need to carve out an audience, even if it's of classical enthusiasts, that is not Italian-based but worldwide...

... absolutes are absolute.

I know many Orientals; for them, Beethoven is someone who insists on only one way... so very boring, they would pay to listen to Messiaen.

Even Cocteau said that Beethoven was boring but, to motivate him, he said absolute nonsense that even a first-year conservatory student could contest. What can I say?

With much sympathy, these are only one millionth of the questions to which someone who wants to establish absolutes should answer, from my point of view, mostly useless ones. Because if there is a rule in music, it is the one that says 2+2 does not equal 4. Therefore Gesualdo is as valid as Donatoni, as Scriabin, as Beethoven... then we can go listen to the music and start talking about complexity and understand more... but not find the magic little formula 2+2=4.

And like... Ciurlonis! Ok!

On with the remaining millions!

Perhaps the problem with the pf is not economic but "acoustic"... after all, a musician would know. There is music for the squares and music for the salons

On the radio Chopin drives people crazy... a symphony loses too much.

RedScharlach wrote:

Let's just say that I often find them slightly... out of context! For example, the scope of Sciarrino's discourse is anything but aimed towards the definition of an Absolute: so much so that the points of reference regarding his figures range from Beethoven (rightly!) to Stockhausen, to Persian rugs (and these latter ones, you'll grant me, are difficult to classify within the scope of Art with a capital A, in the Western and "heavy" sense of the term).

PS curiosity: but do you transcribe the quotes yourself, word for word, or do you have some more "economical" method?

I used to transcribe the quotes, but now I just copy and paste, since they are always the same ones!

Daniele's claims about Vivaldi are strange, what can I say...

Bach and those of the first Viennese school thought differently; we all know who created the foundations of the classical orchestra...? No. Obviously, the answer is no.

The first in history to have truly orchestrated...

To tell you the whole truth, Stravinsky even had issues with Scriabin (and not just him), so on this matter, composers really don't hold any weight. Furthermore, Vivaldi's 500 elaborations, which are a little more than 400, is called style. Besides, the "400 elaborations of 3 or 4 notes... instead..." or the twisting around the diminished seventh as if it were the eighth wonder of the world... yuuu..uu. Or the usual rhythmic pattern... how boring...

We have understood what Daniele's tastes are, I am satisfied. As well, I can clarify my own

danielescarpetti wrote:

I used to transcribe the quotes, but now I just copy and paste; they're always the same anyway!

Well, after all, everyone shows off their own repertoire... maybe one can read something else too