BeeThOven Festival

...I hear many creaks...

I am replying to Luca by quoting him, so as to refresh my memory and avoid gaffes

thallo wrote:

I don't want to trivialize and I don't want to sound accusatory, but around the corner looms the figure of Gigi D'Alessio ... which creates a lot of emotional resonance :-) it is complex to do, but one should find that limit, that argumentative nuance that allows us to say that Beethoven is liked by everyone but in a different way from how Gigi D'Alessio is liked by everyone.

you commented on this immediately as well. Personally, I suffer from a kind of sentimental shame towards a certain type of music. That is, there are pieces that strike my heart, but it is rare that I speak about them clearly. Music is part of my inner self and I like to let it remain there. Doing a bit of self-analysis, I could say that my passion for musicology also arises from wanting to bring order to my feelings, which otherwise I would not have been able to fully express. After all, I am a Scorpio.

Therefore, I always like to draw lines between expressive depth and pathos, or "Gigi-ism" [cheap sentimentality]. As far as I know music, I believe there are authors more "pathetic" than Beethoven, who nonetheless defends himself very well. And even if Beethoven were the most sentimental, one would need to hit the mark with this sentimentality. I don't know, Daniele's last message, however far it is from my inner world, tries to describe this sentimentality. He is a man speaking to men, or something like that. Gigi D'Alessio speaks to women, so we have exorcised his ghost.

In my opinion, Beethoven's success is not just emotional; it is a cultural brand that makes us feel more intelligent, even without venturing into the unknown. The chic that requires no effort.

This idea of mine stems from what I consider to be musical organization, as... discipline or as philosophy. One must understand the object "classical music" from a standpoint of "placement," marketability, social utility, and production. I don't think there are specific personalities who make a "choice" in everything and anything; there are structures to which we are subject and to which we cannot rebel. But, summarizing greatly, I think the reasons for Beethoven's success, up to the Turin concert, are these:

1) he has been mythologized as a character, leading to a "mythical" success that we have discussed elsewhere, in a period when myth mattered more than history; today Beethoven's myth is established, so much so that we all know his face (how many know Monteverdi's?), his name has been given to dogs and even Zecchino d'Oro made a song about his "grandmother."

2) he constitutes a considerable part of the repertoire of two of the most successful "repertoires" in the world, namely orchestral music and piano music; the music industry has favored composers of these two repertoires for decades, for easily arguable reasons, which I will explicate if necessary;

3) probably today he is not the most played in theaters, but since classical music is becoming popular music, it is leaving places of worship; being "the" classical [composer], it is normal that he is proposed more often; because he reassures, he is a known name, he allows you to say "I love classical music" without forcing you to listen to extremely long symphonies, strange structures, unusual harmonies, and allowing you (yes) to not go deep into anything. Because symphonic music IS a vague music for those who do not cultivate it. And I don't think that those who listen to Beethoven are automatically profound people or enthusiasts of "cultured" music. Those who listen to the quartets are, those who listen to the fifth are not (not necessarily). And that is the problem with being "mainstream": you attract a large audience but that audience is less interested in substance and more in the social factor (i.e., I listen to Beethoven to qualify myself in the eyes of people as a cultured person).

4) I could even talk about money. I believe Beethoven is appreciated by those who don't pay :-) let's be sincere, on one hand there is a CD with yet another Beethoven seventh, on the other a CD with, I don't know, Skrjabin's Prometheus performed by a Norwegian pianist. I buy the second one, because perhaps I don't know the work or I don't know the pianist. I know the seventh by heart... this clarifies the different ways of approaching the "new" in the world of music. If you are not an enthusiast, you prefer to listen to what you already know something about or what you have already listened to; if you are an enthusiast, you prefer novelty (even if moderately new, sometimes).

5) Beethoven, however, is in good company. I continue to say that, in my opinion, the number of Nozes [Nozes/Nones?] played around (which is many) is similar to the number of Mozart's requiems. And it is, however, lower than the number of "Verdian galas."

danielescarpetti wrote:

It is the second time that you mention Vivaldi to me in a discussion and, as last time, I respond to you as Stravinsky responded to whoever mentioned him: "Who, Vivaldi? That composer who composed the same concerto 500 times?"

Evidently, it is the second time that you miss the opportunity to give your own answer on the subject. It could be that you do not have one, so the issue can be addressed when you have reached more maturity.

Since you leave chatter about a great composer, I will leave you with the facts of another great composer

J S Bach 4 Harpsichords Concerto BWV 1065 after A Vivaldi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACY9eYH4rqM

Bach was an intelligent person, he knew where to look... the first TRUE orchestrator in the history of music. Not even Bach knew how to do so much... so much that he didn't even orchestrate.

Boredom is one of the most subjective things in the world; do you think that the value of a composition and a composer should be established by your preferences or by a decontextualized phrase from Stravinsky? Let's act like semi-serious people. History has already given its reasons for Vivaldi.

..ah, when Vivaldi presented the 4 woodwinds in pairs in Dresden... the others (we know who? They were also very intelligent) immediately understood what had to be done.

Vivaldi - Concerto per molti strumenti RV 569 - Allegro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGZUrc07MU0

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Frank wrote:

J S Bach 4 Harpsichords Concerto BWV 1065 after A Vivaldi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACY9eYH4rqM

My skin is tingling and excited

A wonderful union, 2 great Masters at work in a single work

Open content (youtube)

Claudio, your little game is very fun, but I know you know that what results from it isn't true. Mozart and Verdi, composers extremely different from each other and extremely different from Beethoven, evoke different emotions. Don't make me tell you, because you already know!

Valchiria wrote:

...I hear so many creaks...

Watch out, they say that when mirrors break, they bring seven years of bad luck and after that... you'll feel like listening to Wagner! and then Papa Wotan might get even angrier with you!

Frank wrote:

Evidently, this is the second time you have missed the opportunity to give your answer on the subject. It could be that you don't have it, so the issue can be addressed when you have reached more maturity.

I will skip your professor and student relationship...

Boredom is one of the most subjective things in the world; do you think the value of a composition and a composer should be established by your preferences or by a decontextualized phrase from Stravinsky? Let's not act like semi-serious people. History has already vindicated Vivaldi.

...but it is strange that it is permissible to be bored with Beethoven while if you do so with Vivaldi, there is thunder and lightning. Not quite fair, this!

Ok, let's act like serious people. My relationship with Vivaldi is actually quite good. I find some of his concertos wonderful and others boring and repetitive. I am more interested in the sacred Vivaldi and especially the operatic one! But I doubt that the housewife from Voghera is interested in this latter Vivaldi who, moreover, was ignored by Stravinsky himself, since at that time he was not known. I hope I made up for it in October!

..ah, when Vivaldi presented the 4 woodwinds in pairs in Dresden... the others (we know who? They were also very intelligent) immediately understood what had to be done.

Vivaldi - Concerto for many instruments RV 569 - Allegro

Yes, this is one of Vivaldi's best! :wub: :wub:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGZUrc07MU0

Open content (youtube)

Rotore wrote:

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

Thank goodness I was useful for something

Rotore wrote:

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

If you really want to hurt yourself, go to my blog which is accessed from my profile and....good luck!

thallo wrote:

I am replying to Luca by quoting myself, so I can refresh my memory and avoid gaffes

4) I could even talk about money. I believe Beethoven is appreciated by those who don't pay :-) let's be sincere, on one hand there is a CD with yet another Beethoven seventh, on the other hand a CD with, I don't know, Scriabin's Prometheus performed by a Norwegian pianist. I buy the second one, because perhaps I don't know the work or I don't know the pianist. I know the seventh by heart... this clarifies the different ways of approaching the "new" in the world of music. If you are not an enthusiast, you prefer to listen to something you already know something about or that you have already listened to; if you are an enthusiast, you prefer novelty (even if moderately new, sometimes).

5) Beethoven, however, is in good company. I continue to say that, in my opinion, the number of nonas played around (which are many) is similar to the number of Mozart's requiems. And it is, however, lower than the number of "Verdian galas".

You know, Claudio, this post of yours, at least in spirit and purpose, resembles mine with which I opened the topic "Primacy in music". The one that you defined... wait a moment... Ah yes, "Absolutely delusional"!

but I don't get offended :-) I am used to feeling affection towards people who share almost nothing of what I say :-)

ohh, I love you too. In truth, I always have!

do we want to quote your snappy responses to that message??

That being said, the emotions of Mozart, Verdi and Beethoven have nothing to do with my point, they were exorcised along with D'Alessio. I was talking about the marketability and social recognizability of the "classical music" product.

As for the other message, I don't know. Do you think a classical music enthusiast buys super famous pieces?

thallo wrote:

But, summarizing very briefly, I think the reasons for Beethoven's success, up until the Turin concert, are these:

1) he was mythologized as a character, leading to a "mythographic" success which we have also discussed elsewhere, in a period when myth mattered more than history; today Beethoven's myth is well-established

Dear Thallo,

it has been quite a while since that post of yours, of which I am only quoting what matters most to me. It is true that we had discussed it elsewhere: Romantic Mythologies on Beethoven. Without quoting the interventions verbatim, I had thrown out three things that had contributed to building the 'Beethoven-myth' (deafness, seizing fate by the throat, living only for Art), and then you and Daniele continued the discussion by noting how recently 'serious' historiography has been going in quite different directions... All very true.

But if Beethoven is, symphonically, the most performed as Daniele says (in Italy Verdi will be performed even more, and so be it), if he is the one who 'draws' the most crowds, in the end it is true that this depends on the fact that he is the most mythologized. And here the discussion seems to spiral back into things already said.

But don't you think—I do—that the 'myth' has its own seriousness and necessity?

Without taking anything away from the seriousness of a more 'real' musicology, don't you think that the Beethoven-myth serves many (mostly neophytes) in opening themselves up to music?

Since the dawn of time, man has produced myths (Odysseus, Prometheus...) more or less consciously: myths that lend themselves to the most varied interpretations and revisitations, sometimes even spanning millennia.

Why 'myth'?... I think of myth as a fascinating snapshot that 'opens' an aspect of the world (in Beethoven's case, Music), a 'seductive object' from which one must then—as adults—emancipate oneself (and this 'emancipation' is what I sense in the adult tone of your and Daniele's interventions that followed in that discussion).

But myth is useful. Don't you think?... Don't you think it is still useful today?

bye

to you and to everyone

Hi Luca

LucaCavaliere wrote:

But myth is necessary. Don't you think?... Don't you think that even today it is necessary?

Perhaps today there are too many myths and too little faith... I am not saying "in what" must be unique, but perhaps there are truly too many myths

actually, Luca, I strongly believe it. I think every point of access to music is useful, and I think the Beethovenian myth is a very widespread point of access.

That being said, I would be happy if there were others, and I am convinced that there are. If a book like "The Da Vinci Code" were ever written about some great composer, other than Beethoven, I would be veeeery happy. Some time ago I was told that in "Fifty Shades of Grey" there was a classical music playlist and that coinciding with the novel's publishing success, those cited pieces also saw a boom in online purchases. And I am happy.

I don't want to say that I mind Beethoven being played a lot around. But I would certainly like there to be fewer steps in this hierarchy of composers. It is not possible that every time discussions are held where first there are Beethoven, Mozart and Bach, distributed in various ways, and then everyone else... and it is NOT possible precisely because we engage in discourse outside of the market, or aware of the weight of the market. That is to say, we must be aware that the points of access to Beethoven's music were not created by Beethoven alone; they were created by his listeners, his scholars, his fans. And it would be nice if we tried to create points of access for other composers as well. I always speak ill of romantic myths, but I do so because it annoys me to see that we have failed to provide alternatives.

It has been quite a while since that post of yours, of which I will only quote what matters most to me. It is true that we had discussed it elsewhere: Romantic Mythologies on Beethoven. Without quoting the interventions verbatim, I had thrown out three things that contributed to building the 'Beethoven-myth' (deafness, seizing fate by the throat, living only for Art), and then you and Daniele continued the discussion noting how recently 'serious' historiography has been going in quite different directions... All very true.

But if Beethoven is, symphonically, the most performed as Daniele says (in Italy Verdi will be performed even more, and so be it), if he is the one who 'draws' the most crowds, in the end it is true that this depends on the fact that he is the most mythologized. And here the discussion seems to spiral into things already said.

But don't you think—I do—that the 'myth' has its own seriousness and necessity?

(...)

But myth is useful. Don't you think?... Don't you think it is still useful today? (Luca)

Luca, hello dear! Myth is useful today just as it was useful yesterday and as it will be useful tomorrow because we also live, or survive, on myths.

That said, to create a myth—a serious and lasting myth—it is certainly not enough to be deaf, to seize fate by the throat, and to live only for Art. If behind these impositions and choices there isn't above all a character of great intellectual and temperamental depth, and who, within the scope of their work, has not known how to produce masterpieces that transcend and rise above certain boundaries, the myth is not created. In other words, all this could only happen because behind it was someone like Beethoven and not just any random Joe. To me, all this seems quite evident and therefore...

si would be happy if there were others, and I am convinced that there are.

I don't want to say that I am sorry that Beethoven is played a lot around. But certainly, I would like there to be fewer steps in this hierarchy of composers. It is not possible that every time discussions are held where first there are Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach, distributed in various ways, and then everyone else... (Claudio)

Claudio, hello dear! ... and therefore myths, romantic—but they were certainly much better at creating them than us—or otherwise, are not created by sitting down and calculating them. Myths have their own strength, their own reason for being, and their own purpose if they are supported by great characters. In the 20th century, I know at least three who deserve this treatment, but if this has not happened—or has only partially happened—it probably lies in our inability to make them so.

As for the hierarchy and its too many steps, while remaining firm that everyone rightly has theirs, I fear here, in this forum, exactly the opposite risk: namely, a will—and not just on your part but in general—to try to flatten everyone and everything as much as possible towards the bottom, and this is not good, at least as much as, if not more than, the will to elevate certain composers.

If Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven have conquered their place in Olympus, there must be reasons. Right, wrong... and all the various shades of gray if you want, but they are there! Do we want to talk about it? Let's talk about it then, but we can only take note of it.

That said, the emotions of Mozart, Verdi, and Beethoven have nothing to do with my discussion; they were exorcised along with D'Alessio. I was talking about the marketability and social recognizability of the 'classical music' product. (Claudio)

When you put Verdi or Mozart in place of Beethoven regarding the strength and hope that the music of the first transmits to those who listen to it—and thus we were talking about feelings—I cannot help but believe that you were not aware that Verdian music and scenarios—beyond the Risorgimento meaning which no longer matters to anyone—transmit no hope: works where the end is always tragic and which, in its final act, ends by saying that in the world it is all a joke and we are all being fooled; what hope can they provide?

Mozart? The importance of Mozart emerged precisely in antithesis to Beethovenian heaviness. In a time increasingly in need of lightness, Mozart could only be its quintessence. Lightness, not hope that arises and asserts itself despite the great heaviness of life—that is Mozart's music.

As for the other message, I don't know. Do you think a classical music enthusiast buys super famous pieces?

If by classical music enthusiast we mean the average classical music enthusiast—of which I am a part—I think that they surround themselves not so much with super famous pieces, but with the music and genre they like most.

It would be nice to be able to listen to all music and, by listening, I certainly don't mean just putting a CD in the stereo once. To make complex music one's own and express a non-superficial judgment takes time, but life is short: ars

longa, vita brevis.

In the end, each of us focuses on "their own" music, because the purpose of music is, first and foremost, to convey pleasure.

Duly, I, who have a disco of I don't know how many thousands of CDs ranging from Gregorian chants to Berio, in the end often listen to the same music. In fact, I mainly listen to classical music radio stations, where there is almost always the same music.

However, if Maestro Chailly decides to record a new complete cycle – after having studied it for thirty years – of Beethoven's symphonies, which has as an extraordinary and peculiar factor, above all, the fact of respecting the metronomic tempos dictated by Beethoven, I, first as a Beethoven enthusiast and then as an average classical music lover, can only buy it and place it alongside the other complete Beethoven cycles that I consider essential.

Hi Daniele,

it is also obvious to me that the myth of Beethoven does not stand solely on those 'heroic' things (so to speak) that I listed: underneath, there must be a great artist... More than true. However, without those 'heroic' things – if you want, from other points of view, even 'pathetic' or 'pop' – the process of mythologization does not seem to me to be triggered. Take Bach!... Is he not also a great artist? And yet, it doesn't seem to me that there is a mythical figure of his with the weight of that Beethovenian one. Personally, I see only one thing ('pathetic', 'extramusical') which, similar to the way those I mentioned for Beethoven would have, could have triggered a process of mythologization: the fact of never having made great trips for educational purposes and yet having assimilated different styles, near and far, past and present.

It could have triggered it. But it didn't happen. Nothing wrong and nothing lost for those who love Bach and his music.

thallo wrote:

the points of access to Beethoven's music were not created by Beethoven alone; they were created by his listeners, his scholars, his fans. And it would be nice if we tried to create points of access for other composers as well

I agree, Thallo.

However, I don't think this was done consciously or intentionally (by listeners, scholars, fans). A myth, not just the Beethovenian one, is something that creates itself: something to which many factors (epochal, cultural, critical) contribute without realizing what one is "collaborating" on. It is a process of 'crystallization' or 'sedimentation': at a certain point you find yourself observing a mythical figure, and it is no small thing to reconstruct who did what, how, and when in order for them to become such. There are probably also "myths" created intentionally at a desk by someone for specific purposes (are these 'artificial myths' what Frank means when he says there are too many of them?).

[I don't know... in this regard, as a false myth, the Roman-imperial rhetoric set up by Fascism comes to mind].

Therefore, it is a good thing to strive to try to create and find new points of opening to music tout court that have nothing to do with Beethoven. It is a duty. But a myth – a true myth – is something else. It is not something that can be 'decided' to build. It is something that arises on its own through the unconscious contribution of many, and which, unlike a false myth, constitutes a treasure of reflection to return to – reviewing and modifying it – even in eras very distant from its original emergence.

I'll just throw it out there, but aren't De Filippi's products legends in their own right? Isn't Vasco a legend?

For me, yes... another angle of the discussion

@ Rotore

I collect...

if a historical phenomenon (or a person who existed) becomes or does not become a 'myth', in my opinion, it can only be seen after at least twenty or thirty years. Therefore, from my perspective, it is not possible to answer.

But if for you it is... Those that you have indicated are 'myths' of what?

danielescarpetti wrote:

However, if Maestro Chailly decides to record a new complete cycle – after having studied it for thirty years – of Beethoven's symphonies, which has as its extraordinary and peculiar factor, above all, the fact of respecting the metronomic tempos dictated by Beethoven, I, first as a Beethoven enthusiast and then as an average classical music lover, can only buy it and place it alongside the other complete Beethoven cycles that I consider essential.

Well, this seems to me like yet another marketing triumph (with all due respect to Chailly!).

RedScharlach wrote:

There, this seems to me like yet another marketing triumph (with all due respect to Chailly!).

Marketing? Frankly, it doesn't seem to me that marketing has much to do with it, considering that limited edition copies have been made.

Frankly, I don't understand these of yours—I don't know whether to call them stances or prejudices—and above all this somewhat snobbish air that accompanies your arguments. I have the distinct feeling that much of that atmosphere from the 1920s regarding Beethoven has not yet properly subsided and has not found its proper conclusion.

Once again, it is a fact: many conductors approached Beethoven's symphonies after years of study and, therefore, when they were no longer very young. They approached them with maximum humility, partly because they had to contend with conductors who preceded them of the highest caliber, and partly because approaching Beethoven's symphonies is not such an easy walk in the park.

Chailly, very sincerely, to record his first—and perhaps even last—complete Beethoven cycle, had no qualms about confessing that he has studied them for thirty years and, for the first time in history, decided to record them using the metronome markings dictated by the composer.

Look, this thing is a historical event in the history of Beethoven interpretation. Only Karajan approached and sometimes exceeded those tempos. There are few orchestras in the world that could sustain such tempos without making major blunders. Many blamed Beethoven's choice of those tempos on the fact that he was deaf or that he was truly terrible with numbers. And everyone, starting with Wagner and then Mahler, in their capacity as conductors, corrected them.

Today, thanks to Chailly's undertaking, we know that the tempos given by Beethoven were not crazy at all and that, once again, everything fit into his futuristic vision of music.

I don't know which of you—aside from Luca—has listened to them, but if you have or if you do.... we'll talk about it again!

LucaCavaliere wrote:

an it is also obvious to me that the myth of Beethoven does not stand solely on those 'heroic' things (let's call them that) that I listed: underneath, there must be a great artist... More than true. However, without those 'heroic' things – if you want, from other points of view, even 'pathetic' or 'pop' – the process of mythologization does not seem to me to be triggered. Take Bach!... Is he not also a great artist? And yet, it doesn't seem to me that there is a mythical figure of his with the weight of that Beethovenian one. Personally, I see only one thing ('pathetic', 'extramusical') which, similar to the way of those I mentioned for Beethoven, could have triggered a process of mythologization: the fact of never having made great trips for educational purposes and yet having assimilated different styles, near and far, past and present.

It could have triggered it. But it didn't happen. Nothing wrong and nothing lost for those who love Bach and his music.

Of course Luca, in fact I said that to create a myth, several things are necessary. In the case of a composer, in addition to genius, character traits, the surprises of "destiny," and the historical moment - I will never tire of striking this last key - In Beethoven, due to a sort of "astral conjunction" that is absolutely unique, all these things came true, which did not happen with Bach and, in a very different way, happened for Mozart. Myth, in itself, does not take away or add anything to the value of a musician - or an artist - but it helps to make them even more famous: this too is a fact.

In the 1900s in the musical field, there was that of John Lennon, who had enormous relevance: a great singer-songwriter, very important ideals, life choices of a certain type and, unfortunately, a very tragic death.

But there would be another - or others - who should be more understood, studied, and valued. I think above all of the figure of Shostakovich, of that almost tragic ambiguity of his regarding what was one of the most atrocious regimes in history, his relationship with Stalin and, the music that resulted from all this - absolutely brilliant music. How much could and should be studied and delved into if only we didn't get lost in myths - see above - which are more like is-myths! But it is known, isn't it? Every era has what it deserves!