BeeThOven Festival

Just to clarify: Chailly did very well to record Beethoven.

What surprises me - and afflicts me a little - is the need to purchase yet another complete cycle of the Symphonies, when at home we might already have three or four, or ten. To me, it seems ultimately like a form of fetishism. Let's be clear, I've been there too: for a while, I bought every recording of The Art of Fugue that I could find around. But having reached twenty-three, I realized that in the end I preferred playing it on the piano (no matter how badly!), or studying the score... The same goes for Beethoven (in fact, now I think I'm actually going to play op. 31 no. 3 for the umpteenth time!).

Dear Red...

don't be surprised and don't grieve, since, after all, you went through the Art of Fugue too and you did well.

And now that you say you are going to revisit op. 31 no. 3... what can I say?... I think you're doing the right thing. Life is short and we become attached to "someone" more than to "someone else"... it's just how it is.

Regarding Chailly, the triumph of marketing... what can I say?

Until a few years ago, Chailly was here in Milan conducting the Verdi Orch., and I was happy. Now he is in Leipzig, and good for him. I liked "his" Beethoven heard live very much, but consulting his discography, I was sorry that he hadn't recorded anything by Beethoven. When the Symphonies came out, it was wonderful for me.

I also already had my complete sets from the past (three)... and it's not that I am enthusiastic about all the symphonies in Chailly's recently recorded complete set... But that is another matter.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

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.

Vasco has been around for quite a while...

I think Rotore hit the nail on the head a bit; we aren't talking about Romantic myths... but about more modern myths that are probably equally ephemeral.

In your opinion, what is a myth?

It's true Frank:

Vasco has been around for quite a while (I thought of it later) and indeed he has become a myth.

Slip away Vasco from my question to Rotore.

What is a myth?... Good question.

In my opinion, it is a product of 'crystallization' that occurs around a historical figure or a historical period (sometimes even a land) for which what is real becomes emblematic of something ideal, something great... something that lends itself to the most various interpretations and revisitations, sometimes even spanning millennia.

And this happens with the contribution of many, mostly unconsciously.

To me, myth is like a fascinating slit that opens onto an aspect of the world (what personally attracts me most is the myth of Odysseus)... it is a 'seductive image' from which we—as adults—can also eventually emancipate ourselves. But myth remains a serious matter: terribly serious and... seductive.

Being as concise as possible:

Frank wrote:

In your opinion, what is a myth?

Something unreachable.

RedScharlach wrote:

Just to clarify: Chailly did a great job recording Beethoven.

What surprises me - and afflicts me a little - is the need to purchase yet another complete cycle of the Symphonies, when at home we might already have three or four, or ten. To me, it seems ultimately like a form of fetishism. Let's be clear, I've been there too: for a while, I bought every recording of The Art of Fugue that I could find around. But having reached twenty-three, I realized that in the end I preferred playing it on the piano (no matter how badly!), or studying the score... The same goes for Beethoven (in fact, now I think I'm going to play op. 31 no. 3 for the umpteenth time!).

Forgive me if I insist!

Fetishism is when one buys everything of a work - or in this case, of a complete cycle - that the market offers, regardless of importance.

I mean: many complete recordings of Beethoven's symphonies have been made - let us remember in this regard that music of the past lives only through interpretation, an interpretation so subjective that people speak of Beethoven's symphonies in relation to their conductor and the year of recording - and many of these are frankly useless, in the sense that they have - for better or worse - nothing new to say. It is extremely difficult today, after such a copious discography, to add anything unsaid about Beethoven's symphonies: but Chailly has said it! And how he said it! Therefore, it is indispensable in the discography of a Beethoven enthusiast and also of a passionate classical music listener

Frank wrote:

Vasco has been around for quite a while...

I think Rotore hit the nail on the head a bit; we aren't talking about Romantic myths... but more modern myths that are probably equally ephemeral.

In your opinion, what is a myth?

LucaCavaliere wrote:

it's true Frank:

Vasco has been around for quite a while (I thought of it later) and he has indeed become a myth.

Set Vasco aside from my question to Rotore.

What is a myth?... Good question.

In my opinion, it is a product of 'crystallization' that occurs around a historical figure or a historical period (sometimes even a land) for which what is real becomes emblematic of something ideal, something great... something that lends itself to the most various interpretations and revisitations, sometimes even spanning millennia.

And this happens with the contribution of many, mostly unconsciously.

To me, myth is like a fascinating slit that opens onto an aspect of the world (what personally attracts me most is the myth of Odysseus)... it is a seductive image from which we—as adults—can also eventually emancipate ourselves. But myth remains a serious matter: terribly serious and... seductive.

I think that today, as ever, there is a major misunderstanding about what a myth is. Or rather, the word 'mythical' is confused with 'myth'.

The word mythical is used improperly today—in my view—to describe a singer, a soccer player, a... who is great!

At this point, even my friend Piero, who is an avid fisherman, becomes mythical—and thus a myth—because he caught a Guinness World Record fish, complete with a photo in the newspaper and a television report.

But is that being mythical? Is that a myth?

Obviously not!

Sula De Filippi, please.... I'll skip over it!

Vasco Rossi is a myth? The answer is no!

Vasco Rossi may become a myth when and eventually, flown away—hopefully as late as possible—to another life, by the generations to come and by the populations of at least part of this planet, he will be remembered as such for this and that reason.

Beethoven became a myth not because he decided so and his contemporaries consecrated him as such, but because post-Beethovenian and international generations have consecrated him as such and, he will remain so, as long as he is recognized as such.

But as always, dear Frank... in this forum there is a desire—I don't know to what extent naive or intentional—to homogenize everything, to make everything the same, and to empty the meaning of things and of greatness.

Forgive me and forgive all of you, but from someone like you I do not expect such statements... I already tolerate them from Rotore.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Forgive me and forgive all of you, but from someone like you I don't expect such a statement...

Mine was a question, even though I supported part of Rotore's answer... there is little difference between legendary and myth. The problem is that, aside from a few attentive people, the rest (of the world, we are in the era of the popular) quickly gets confused... therefore...

danielescarpetti wrote:

...in this forum there is the will - I don't know to what extent naive or intentional - to homogenize everything, to make everything equal and to empty the sense of things and greatness.

Perhaps the answer should be sought differently. Those who describe how, on average today (I was specifically talking about modern myths), everything becomes homogenized... does not mean that I approve or that I do the same. In fact, in reality, the post to be quoted was

Frank wrote:

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

And I am not speaking for myself; mine was just a prompt in terms of myth and... false ones (not as Luca described) or taken by mistake.. whoever they may be... there are too many

Obviously, for me, I have no need to act like a little teacher here on the forum

danielescarpetti wrote:

...I've already been mistreating them since Rotore.

If Vasco is a myth for several stages packed with fans scattered around the world... how is that my fault? I have only told one side of the coin

Look... I dedicate a song to you Daniele, so we can make peace

Open content (youtube)

danielescarpetti wrote:

from the generations to come and from the populations of at least one part of this planet, such will be remembered for this and that reason.

This seems like an important point to me, in the sense that I am not sure if this is the definition of myth. Myth is not a memory; it is something that almost pre-exists... perhaps it is how a people, through the deeds of gods and heroes, has explained a mystery.

There are no gods, heroes maybe... but who are these heroes... yesterday and today?

Tiger wrote:

...but who are these heroes... yesterday and today?

Eh... another question on the matter. I don't have any answers in my pocket, I only know that Luca was asking

LucaCavaliere wrote:

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

Since the models and all the schemes have changed… if something is useful, one procures it from the models available to them. I am not certain that today the model is the Romantic myth.

Rotore wrote:

If for many packed stadiums of fans scattered around the world Vasco is a myth... how is that my fault? I have only told one side of the coin

Look... I dedicate a song to you Daniele, so we can make peace

Already gi

come on, not Kempff though

antares86 wrote:

come, not Kempff though

Kempff was one of the greatest Beethoven interpreters. For me, he is the best! :wub: :wub:

danielescarpetti wrote:

Kempf was one of the greatest Beethovenian interpreters. For me, he is the best! :wub: :wub:

Schnabel Schnabel Schnabel!!!!!!!

Frank wrote:

Since models and all patterns have changed… if something is needed, one procures it from the models available at hand. I am not certain that today the model is the Romantic myth.

mmm... Frank!

It seems to me you meant "I am certain that the model is not the romantic myth." Am I wrong?

If I am not wrong, know that I agree. In fact: I feel like protesting "romanticism? who was this one?" The idea of myth comes from "a little bit" further than the 1800s...

And also regarding the fact that "if something is needed, one procures it from the models available at hand," I agree.

In fact, as I understand it, myth is something rather 'rubbery': malleable according to the needs of the case, the era, or the place.

P.S. a modern myth ( ) that attracts me not at all is.... philological interpretation

danielescarpetti wrote:

I frankly do not understand these, 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 found its proper conclusion.

Come on, don't take it like that! Look, I gladly concede this to you: Beethoven is the greatest composer in the history of music.

It's just that (as I wrote quite some time ago) I don't understand where this statement leads us. I mean: we could also agree on the fact that Dante is the greatest author in the history of literature. And I am perfectly fine if Benigni, before an immense audience, says: "Dante is the greatest!". However, wouldn't you find it a bit ridiculous if at a literature conference a group of Italian studies scholars fought over whether Dante is or is not the greatest? Well, I must say that in a non-generalist forum, but one specifically dedicated to classical music, the question of primacies seems a little... futile.

I smile!

My dear friend, your writing confirms to me that there is a problem of misinterpretation regarding my way of writing and, surely the fault is entirely mine for not being able to convey my thoughts to you exactly.

The word primacy can be understood in two ways. In a personal manner and thus, each of us - or at least a good part of us - I suppose has theirs: Gilda - hi Gilda - has Chopin, Antares - hi Antares - has Liszt, you have Bach - you just said it, now don't take it back - and ...Rotore - hi Rotore - has Vasco. I have Beethoven! On this, there is nothing to object to.

Then there is a story! A story that fully fits into the more complex History of Music and is the one that has warmed - and still warms some even today - many scholars and enthusiasts of music in various capacities, essentially from the post-Beethoven era to the last century, and it is to that which I usually refer.

A futile topic?

Perhaps, I'm not saying no! But on my part, as long as I hear and read things that are not shareable on the matter, I will feel authorized to state my thoughts in this regard and, let it be clear, I am not just talking about this forum now, but I am referring quite generally.

I will try to explain myself even better.

As long as going to the bookstore and leafing through a recent history of music, upon reaching Mozart I read: Mozart, that is to say, the divinity - or similar idiocies - I reiterate, I will feel authorized to counter and reply in this regard.

I hope I have clarified my thoughts, I greet you and it gives me great pleasure to have met you! :)

LucaCavaliere wrote:

mmm.

P.S. a modern myth ( ) that attracts me not at all is.... philological interpretation

Come on, Luca...! That is not a myth. That is a way of reinterpreting...! And besides... don't lump everything together, because that is always wrong! :)

Now don't you start treating me like a little teacher too!

Yes Daniele... I know it's not a myth (as I intend this word).

But since it is a word that has absorbed various meanings, well, on this occasion, I also allowed myself to... expand

But then... grant me this... it is a bit of a myth: how many people are there (many for me) who, if the interpretation isn't "philological," would discard everything regardless?.... Am I wrong?... If I am wrong, all the better.