Beethovenians, is it a scherzo?

Tiger wrote:

So modern music is outside of the theater

Either on a television screen or on a stage... respectively film music and Jazz (if we forget about pop music for a moment)

Tiger wrote:

Exactly Daniele, there is those who like light music, those who like ancient music and today we can say, those who like modern music.

Now what should the artistic director of a theater propose? Obviously the music that fills the house. Thanks Terenzio. Therefore modern music is outside the theater

Excuse me, but in your reasoning there is something that is not clear to me: I didn't quite understand what you mean by modern music.

In any case, a director of a theater dedicated to classical-operatic-contemporary cultured music has—as I have already written—unfortunately, a duty linked to the budget balance. This is the sword of Damocles that inevitably hangs over his head, regardless of his real or presumed intentions.

Taking this into account, it seems to me—and the Teatro di Bologna is an example of this—that today, compared to the past, there is an attempt to launch newer repertoires, if not outright contemporary ones.

Last year, among other things, there was a beautiful pairing of Nono/Beethoven. This year Sciarrino and more.

This is certainly a first step towards the appropriation of new music within classical spaces. The important thing is to persevere and hope that, in the end, the numbers add up.

What is not clear?

Nineteenth-century music surely isn't modern music. And I must say that even ninth [sic] is no longer truly modern for decades. This doesn't mean it has no value... but simply that it is historicized music. The theater follows budgets, therefore it follows the audience, so there is no space for music written from 2000 onwards and there is very little for music written from 1900 to 2000. VideoClip is probably right.

Look, I don't think that 19th-century music is modern. The point of misunderstanding is simply due to the fact that you introduced Pausini into the discussion, and so I was wondering if by modern music you meant that kind of music or, conversely, today's and even yesterday's classical music.

Having clarified this: I continue to think that the right path is the one I indicated. Then again, what Videoclip says is also fine too.

Music of the 1800s is music of the 1800s, so much so that it no longer responds to the needs of modern man but to a tiny subset of "devoted" and nostalgic listeners. (A discourse that obviously also applies to the music of the 1900s).

Let's not talk about opera, which is definitively dead and stripped of its function. In short, it no longer serves to aggregate (and as a stimulus to leave the house) but at most to create "disputes" on the WEB about who has it harder... well! That's another story

Tiger wrote:

but at most creating "disputes" on the WEB about who has it harder ... well! That's another story

...uhmmmm!!!

I was thinking that I have it soft and so it is truly better if you give up.

danielescarpetti wrote:

My experience as a simple listener tells me that constancy rewards, indeed, reason. And therefore one must not give up on this path.

In my opinion, this depends relatively on the composer.

Natan wrote:

i. It is not the audience that needs to be educated, but the artistic directors... who have now become atrophied.

I would suggest a reading of the article proposed here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/5719-ivan-fedele-premio-honegger-2016/

Frank wrote:

In my opinion, this depends relatively on the composer.

The composer does his job and does it based on those parameters that he considers most in line - as Beethoven would have said - with his "inspiring muse",

Music education - as with all culture in general - instead depends primarily on those who govern and those who hold roles of general cultural enrichment in a society.

If we expect it to come from below ... we are waiting for a piece. Rather: requiem aeternam!

To me, it seems that contemporary music is performed, perhaps less followed.

Regarding the execution of pieces written today, perhaps it also depends on the artistic content

Example of today's music being performed and listened to

http://www.ilcorrieremusicale.it/2012/11/07/franck-bedrossian-manifesto/

danielescarpetti wrote:

The composer does his job and does it based on those parameters that he deems most in line

I like it

> Music education - as with all culture elsewhere - instead depends primarily,

> on those who govern and those who hold roles of general acculturation in a society.

Of course, however...

I understand someone who started smoking in the '50s more than someone who starts today. You realize that the excuse "I didn't know" doesn't hold up, etc.

For me, it's the same for culture; on average, a normal person TODAY is a graduate (no one stops at third grade anymore); if someone doesn't understand that autonomy (in all fields) is acquired through knowledge, don't you realize that it cannot be the problem of those who try to be as little ignorant as possible?

Let's say that

> If we expect it to come from below

Nowadays, even less "If we expect it to come from the government". It is too convenient to always wait for others... you are a graduate ("tu maiestatis")? And you still haven't understood that one needs to "KNOW"?

It is a very complex discussion, dear Frank. In reality, we addressed something similar in the past in another forum, if you remember.

Of course: theoretically, greater schooling should have led to greater general acculturation and thus to greater awareness, research, and love for what lies at the base of our common knowledge.

In reality, that is not how it turned out! And regarding why it didn't turn out that way, one can easily indulge in speculation, and every answer—naturally pertinent—can be right and fit, at least in part.

At least in part because, precisely, there is no single and decisive answer, and everything we can say regarding it is always relative and not absolute.

The fact remains that we find ourselves in a sort of impasse: from the bottom up, this thing cannot arise, and those who should facilitate a cultural rebirth do not have the capacity or the means to do so.

So, how to get out of it? Let everything go its own way, which is to say towards a drift of our culture, or try to seek to reverse course, everyone according to their possibilities and abilities!

A rhetorical question for me! Obviously, I opt for the second solution, while also greeting any sign coming from above that tells me something is changing for the better.

Small example: until very recently, who would have imagined there would be a Rai television network dedicated to culture and also to classical music? Raise your hand!

Today it exists, and it is Rai 5! Certainly improvable, but it exists!

Another example: until recently, who would have thought there would be rulers who spoke of culture? Raise your hand!

Today they exist! And I already know what many of you will say: just talk. Well, go and ask them, for example, the Accademia Musicale pianistica di Imola, if it was truly just talk or if for them—and those like them—something has truly changed for the better.

Interesting discussion, especially for the questions it raises. I cannot help but share Daniele Scarpetti's opinion: the space occupied by the Ninth Symphonies is not being taken away from contemporary music. Fewer Ninth Symphonies does not mean more contemporary music. At the same time, I cannot help but share Natan's opinion: what is the point of throwing money away on a Ninth Symphony like this? If one wishes, as a joke it can also be funny, but is it worth it? Besides, it is equally evident that this joke works – if it works – only if applied to an icon like Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and not, say, to Sammartini's forty-third Symphony (I'm just saying a random number, I've never heard Sammartini's forty-third Symphony!).

Rather, I would ask myself: is it better to throw money away on the umpteenth terrible version of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or on the absolute first performance of a terrible piece that has just been written?

Let us also keep in mind that the Ninth Symphony, all things considered, does not suffer too much from poor performances, because we all know excellent versions, and in any case, it has its status as a masterpiece that no one can dispute. Instead, what happens with an approximate – or terrible – interpretation of a new work, which we don't know if it is good or not?

I also wonder – reading what Terenzio writes – what actually happens when at a concert we listen to a terrible Beethoven, or a terrible Mozart (and Mozart in particular, how difficult it is to listen to a sensible version of him!). Typical Adorno critique: the audience leaves the hall anesthetized and satisfied, but in reality, they understood nothing; or perhaps the "experts" comment that the woodwinds were unbalanced compared to the strings (the two attitudes are ultimately two sides of the same coin). And yet the greatness of Beethoven, Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Brahms remains indisputable, right? And rightfully so, artistic directors will continue to program them.

RedScharlach wrote:

I also wonder – reading what Terenzio writes – what actually happens when at a concert we listen to a terrible Beethoven, or a terrible Mozart (and Mozart in particular, how difficult it is to listen to a sensible version of him!).

When I said "This can be read in many ways. Ideas? (Consequences?)", I was also thinking about this.

RedScharlach wrote:

Rather, I would ask myself: is it better to throw money away on yet another terrible version of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or on the absolute premiere of a terrible piece that has just been written?

I, on the other hand, have shifted the discussion slightly further; because this is my point, and paraphrasing you:

is it better to throw money away on yet another terrible version of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or to INVEST in the absolute premiere of an EXCELLENT (which, precisely, one must know how to evaluate) piece that has just been written?

It is obvious that if the newly written piece is terrible it should not be performed, but we are comparing paper with performance. On paper, one can evaluate whether a piece is worth it. Precisely, by being capable! So, when in doubt, it's better to perform a Ninth, even if we already know it will turn out to be a load of crap ... of a joke

If interpreting the classics no longer made any sense, even Euripides and Shakespeare wouldn't perform them.

The work is the same... interpretive art.

(Fine... Let's close all the theaters since we can't take those infinite and boring disruptions anymore...)

Natan wrote:

It is obvious that if the piece just written is terrible, it should not be performed ...

To tell the truth, for me it isn't all that obvious. I am not so sure whether between yet another terrible Ninth Symphony and a first - and last - performance of a terrible new piece, the Ninth Symphony should be prioritized (obviously we are speaking in an ideal sense, without "recording" considerations).

I will add one more thing, just to go off-topic, but picking up the discussion on "what actually happens when at a concert we listen to a terrible Beethoven, or a terrible Mozart". Has it not also happened to you, while listening to the most improbable or most indefensible interpretations, to notice something objective but also unheard of and surprising, and perhaps exciting or revelatory, in a very well-known piece of music? And this despite the terrible interpretation - or perhaps precisely because of the terrible interpretation - such as that of this Scherzo.

After two days of deep reflection, I believe I have grasped the profound meaning of this artistic-existential experience: this young lad misinterpreted the advice given to him by his therapist-sexologist: "go slow and beat slowly to reach the final joy"

Celibidache wrote:

(Whatever... Let's just close all the theaters since we can't take those infinite and boring disruptions anymore...)

More than anything, let's make room for 360° art and not just the usual pieces that generate revenue

PS

And besides, music is ALL interpreted; the work is always the same even for pieces written in 2016

... they cut the applause at the end because it lasted 45 minutes