Beethovenians, is it a scherzo?

Tiger wrote:

The 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 statement that obviously also applies to the music of the 1900s).

Excuse me, but... what would this "need of modern man" be that an opera (all of them?) composed in previous eras would no longer be able to satisfy???

Besides, personally, I have never heard this "music of the 1800s."

I have heard Schumann, Brahms, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Mahler, who all respond to my sensibility. Perhaps I am easy to please, perhaps I don't have the needs of a "modern man," but I assure you that I don't walk around in a Mozart-style wig and that my favorite square in Milan is Piazza Gae Aulenti (if that counts in my favor).

[Nothing to add - or take away - regarding what has become the main theme of the discussion and on which I am reading interesting contributions]

P.S. it's not my case, but there are many modern men - with modern problems - for whom Gregorian chant and Ambrosian chant are still very useful.

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 also wonder – reading what Terenzio writes – what actually happens when we listen to a terrible Beethoven, or a terrible Mozart at a concert (and Mozart in particular, how difficult it is to listen to a sensible version of him!). A typical critique of Adorno: 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, doesn't it? And rightly so, artistic directors will continue to program them.

The point is that in both the case of the umpteenth Ninth and the case of the new piece, we only know afterwards if they are terrible or not, not before; therefore, only afterwards can we say whether we have thrown our money away or spent it well.

But then, excuse me, there is a bit of a difference between "terrible" when listening to a repertoire piece and "terrible" when given to a work that we are hearing in its absolute premiere.

In the first case, that "terrible" is directed not at the work, which is now consecrated, but at the interpretation given. In the second, having no points of comparison, the judgment is inevitably on the music itself, which may or may not please us.

Only potentially by listening to it again, with a different interpretation, could we perhaps change our judgment. Or not?

Let's take, for example, this interpretation of the Ninth, which I continue to think is artificial.

If the Ninth had originally been performed like this, that is, with the same notes, the same instrumentation but with metronomic tempos of this kind, it would be .... horrible. At least, it appears so to me. (Beethoven was already deaf, among other things, and wouldn't even have noticed)

But if someone were to interpret it like this one day, as we usually listen to it, we would realize that it is ... the masterpiece that it is!

Listeners at the theater - or "experts" - have truly different reactions depending on the various interpretations: ranging from the most unrestrained enthusiasm, to polite applause, to boos and hisses. It is certain that this latter attitude is more likely in opera than in symphonic music, but I have attended symphonic concerts with truly glacial applause and others that were absolutely warm: and it was the same music, the same composer.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Only perhaps by listening to it again, with a different interpretation, could we also change our judgment.

That "perhaps" is actually a very remote hypothesis: music, today, practically never has a second chance.

Or, just to give another example - but the reasoning is analogous - for years I have been going to the Conservatory, and from some classroom one can always hear the same measures of Beethoven's Pathetique resonating! Generations of students struggling over the same passage ... and rightly so, every piano student who respects themselves will want to play it too ...

Natan wrote:

Above all, let's make room for 360° art and not just the usual tracks that generate revenue

PS

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

This principle should always be respected. Unfortunately, you have to consider that today it is very difficult to "generate revenue" regardless.

We are dealing with a dark century, and if we call a great performer (which means spending money between them and instrument servicing), we cannot ask them to perform only modern and contemporary repertoire, because we already know the effects... and the audience would also be right.

And besides, what is the point of still dividing into periods... Music should be made, not discussed.

RedScharlach wrote:

I go to the Conservatory, and from some classroom you can always hear the same measures of Beethoven's Pathétique resonating! Generations of students struggling over the exact same passage... and understandably, every piano student worth their salt will want to play it too...

Studying is one thing, becoming great performers is
another...

When you go to university (for example), everyone studies anatomy using the same books as in the past.

The same thing happens in music... one shouldn't feel disturbed if the umpteenth student plays (badly) the Pathétique.

However, in art (and not only), having studied does not mean being able to make art as a direct consequence.

Celibidache wrote:

 

 

we cannot ask him to play only modern and contemporary repertoire, since we already know the effects...

 

 

 

Instead, nobody knows the ninth... but please.

In case no one knows the sound!

If Celibidache weighs effect against the Ninth, he is comparing apples to pears. If one compares effect with sound: which is why we already know them... which is why regarding Celibidache, the audience would also be right to get bored, and especially with the Ninth because if you really want to compare Classicism music with something unheard of, perhaps it's the case that with something unheard of, the audience would have no reason to get bored; it wouldn't be a re-listening but a listening. So what?!

If we put it in these terms, dear Celibidache...

Perhaps it is better to dismiss the discussion from other directions.

Open content (youtube)

Xenakis wrote:

Maybe it's better to let the discussion go to hell from other sides.

... but feel free to stay here

this is already the second discussion in fifteen days where the off-topic is more interesting than the on-topic ..

I think the real problem is educating the public to contemporary music, and this can only be done gradually.

What is the point of organizing a concert entirely of contemporary music and having an empty hall?

Aside from economic issues, if the hall is empty, I haven't educated anyone at all.

Welcome to concerts that, alongside well-known composers (Beethoven, Mozart, etc.), include something new.

Gradually, the audience gets used to it and becomes curious.

Daniele mentioned the case of Bologna, and I spoke about Santa Cecilia.

This year, Maestro Pappano took advantage of the cycle of Beethoven's symphonies to insert some treats that were, truth be told, exquisite.

With the Ninth, he included Francesconi; with the Eighth, Sollima; and with the Third, Nieder in absolute world premiere (commissioned by S. Cecilia).

The only viable path for a concert society is this one. Everything else should arise outside of concert halls (schools, RAI, etc.).

I see the results on my website. Alongside the catalogs of the usual names, I am inserting Italians who are less known to the general public.

Who, outside of a musically cultured circle, knows the name of Sgambati, Martucci, or more simply Casella or Dallapiccola?

Following the site statistics, I see from my visitors' paths that almost everyone enters with a Google search related to one of the usual names, then while browsing they discover someone like Malipiero and linger out of curiosity.

If the site only had Malipiero, Casella, etc., no one would enter.

Out of curiosity, the most popular page is the text of Mozart's Requiem.

I have thought several times about including some living composers, but having only one person in the editorial staff (me), it becomes too complicated to follow the evolution of their catalog.

Terenzio wrote:

Welcome to concerts that, alongside well-known composers (Beethoven, Mozart, etc.), include something new.

Piano piano, the audience becomes accustomed and curious.

Umberto Eco used to say that books speak to one another across time.

... and if this is true for books, it can only be equally true for musical scores.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Umberto Eco used to say that books speak to each other across distances of time.

... and if this is true for books, it can only be equally true for musical scores.

It is the exact same thing: language.

The problem is that often, in the musical field, precisely those who are closest to music (students, teachers, academics...) tend curiously and strangely to undervalue, downsize, or rather, mistreat their art.

In itself, it is a behavior that has no equal in other artistic fields.

Celibidache wrote:

The problem is that often, in the musical field, those who are closest to music (students, teachers, academics...) curiously and strangely tend to undervalue, downsize, or rather, mistreat their art.

In itself, it is a behavior that has no equal in other artistic fields.

This statement of yours is very interesting and deserves further in-depth discussion.

If what you assert is true, why, in your opinion, does this happen?

I think, for example, of this statement by Tiger from a few days ago in this discussion:

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 dysfunctionalized. 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.

which, not only do I disagree with entirely, but it worries me because it is said by a person who, I assume, is close to music, but it seems made specifically to demotivate any aspiration to persevere in demanding more attention for all that music we usually define as "cultured."

Think that what worries me is that a listener might only fossilize on tonality, i.e., roughly on 100 years of music....and consequently, due to the drawer, interpreters and artistic directors.

For me, it's simple. Ever since it was established that art needs a budget, meaning money to survive (I remind everyone that paper is not music. The Ninth won't suffer from it, but I remind you that if it had remained in a drawer, the problem wouldn't even have arisen)... we are relying on an extremely small cake.

Either nobody eats, or we all get eaten.

Besides, do we want musicianship to be a profession? In which case we must be ready to satisfy a clientele that has its own needs and limits. We continue to RE-listen to the same piece for our entire lives.

Clear as day.

Natan wrote:

Besides, do we want being a musician to be a profession?

Always like this out of curiosity and to better understand your point of view: would you (you all) want being a musician not to be a profession?

... perhaps he means an artist.

Natan wrote:

Besides, do we want being a musician to be a profession? In which case we must be ready to satisfy a clientele that has its own needs and limits. We continue to RE-listen to the same piece for our entire lives.

Clear as day.

Do we continue to perform always the same Shakespeare...?

Where does this clear resentment toward the classics come from? From that "recent century" of music?

It is a matter of Music so significant that a great performer is not enough to do it justice, to dissect everything contained within each of those compositions. The interpretations and insights are simply infinite.

Where is the problem? Everyone has their own passions...

Unfortunately sometimes, when these discussions are made about the "senility of classical music," or that "one can't stand Beethoven anymore," people haven't even sat down to (truly) listen just once.

Zazza wrote:

... perhaps he means an
artist.

Still waiting for Natan to clarify his point of view on the matter - and, taking this opportunity, I ask another question to Tiger and Natan: so if I have understood your thinking correctly, you would like theaters that no longer perform historicized music - as Tiger defined it, if I am not mistaken - but exclusively contemporary music: where by contemporary is meant exclusively that of our own days? - I respond to you that, yes, on this I am perfectly in agreement.

An artist - who truly aspires to be such - never creates for profit

Tiger wrote:

Music from 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 statement 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 people (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.

Always to understand, I want to ask one last question to Tiger.

You define listeners of "historicized" music as a subset. A subset, I assume, within the scope of total music listeners.

Let's take the case of Bologna - which I obviously know a little bit - i.e., an Italian city - we know that in Italy, compared to certain European cultural realities, we are very much lacking - among many other things.

In Bologna, adding up all the subscribers to "historicized" music reaches a figure exceeding 6000. It is certain that a portion has more than one subscription in their pocket. Then there are those who go to the theater - or to places where "historicized" music is played - more or less occasionally by buying a ticket each time, the figures of which I do not know. And here too, it is obvious that a part of them are the aforementioned subscribers. Now, I don't know, in the end, how many people in Bologna and the surrounding areas, in total, leave their homes to go to these places to listen to this music, but it is obvious that we are talking about several thousand.

Now the question is this: are you so peremptorily sure that several thousand people - in Bologna but also in other realities, more or less - who over the course of a year leave their homes to go and listen to "historicized" music, are truly a subset? Considering then that, regardless, many other people do not leave their homes - for various reasons of their own - but follow this music on the radio, on TV, on records, CDs, YouTube, and company.

I say that we continue to fossilize on words rather than on concepts. It is not normal for a theater not to play music by living composers. Furthermore, it is also a great opportunity for the performer to be able to receive thought directly from the composer who can tell it to them. Moreover, it has great power; often some "found" solutions—even by chance—by the performer can modify a piece in progress while it is being born.

... so it is only an enrichment.

Renouncing all of this for me is an impoverishment (for everyone) and not just economic... since then, on pieces not covered by copyright, the usual SIAE people feast on them.