Beethovenians, is it a scherzo?

... little by little we come to understand each other

Tiger wrote:

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

... so it is only an enrichment.

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

Well, let's not fossilize and let's try to understand each other.

In the context of this discussion, no one has argued that the music of living composers must stay out of theaters. On the contrary, I think I can say that, among those who intervened, everyone hopes that it enters the theaters.

What cannot be - and must not be - demanded is that it completely or largely replaces historical music or, even better, the great repertoire. This is not only due to economic damage, but because it would be an impoverishment of the musical spaces themselves, in addition to depriving the thousands of people who rightly continue to request it.

Therefore, the right path - and here I repeat the concept already expressed - is to pair historical music with new music.

But not only that!

Always in Bologna, in addition to world premiere operas for the theater, there will be a real review dedicated solely to new music, something that until recently was by no means guaranteed.

I am thinking of the now consolidated Rai Nuova Musica festival, held in Turin by the Rai National Orchestra, and I hope and assume that something similar happens in other theaters as well.

And yet it moves... therefore! Something has changed and it is hoped that it will continue to change more and more with everyone's contribution, naturally.

Of course, however, if one intends to return to how it was in the nineteenth century where exclusively contemporary music was performed... besides supporting a stupidity, we would deprive ourselves of further interpretations which, not always - or necessarily - have something new to say but which anyway, when listened to in their designated places, provide emotions that to many - including certainly myself - result as unreachable and imperceptible if hidden - or subordinated - by a support or a video.

"Historicized" music is merely an intellectual concept that does not exist in reality.

Until it is played, music does not exist.

If they started proposing only contemporary music (that which is considered such today), I would avoid purchasing phonographic recordings and going to the theater.

For what reason go there? To hear cacophonies with high intellectual content, perhaps written by the hand (or rather, excuse me, the PC keyboard) of a young composer with a little beard and a bomber jacket?

What elevated aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual concepts could his work possibly extract...

The truth is that today our society is constructed in such a way that art cannot be produced as it once was, and as long as it remains so, I thank Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Bruckner, and all the old composers of yesteryear every day for having had such grandiose and clear ideas!

Obviously, I want to specify that as much as I have appreciated some of Celibidache's interventions, I am in complete disagreement with this latest one of his.

The only true truth in discussions like these is that ... truth does not exist.

It is wrong to want to set aside the art of the past, but it is equally wrong to close the doors to the new.

The new is a question mark that we must know how to welcome not prejudicially, but with humility and a great desire to under-stand.

Something is wrong here. It feels like it has become a dialogue between the deaf.

Given that some of us are more interested in historical music and others in contemporary music, I note that starting from the so-called Bach revival by Mendelssohn onwards, all concert halls worthy of the name have always presented a mix of the two genres.

I can take the concrete case of S. Cecilia, whose archives I am digging through to find old concert programs for my website.

In the last 130 years, S. Cecilia has constantly presented absolute world premieres, often of music commissioned by them. Of this music, some has survived, while others are completely forgotten (perhaps they were not worth much).

In the old concert programs, I find the premieres of Respighi (just to name one), but then I read many names of composers that I have never heard mentioned. S. Cecilia makes the new proposals; then history decides what must remain alive and what must disappear at the bottom of the archives.

I will add that several musical institutions, following the lead of my website, send me their concert programs in which I often find contemporary music alongside classical music.

I have a bad suspicion that those who complain about the lack of contemporary music do not actually attend concert halls.

Celibidache wrote:

"Historicized" music is merely an intellectual concept that does not exist in reality.

Until it is played, music does not exist.

If they started proposing only contemporary music (what is considered such today), I would avoid purchasing phonographic media and going to the theater.

For what reason go there? To hear cacophonies with high intellectual content, perhaps written by the hand (actually, excuse me, by the PC keyboard) of a young composer with a little beard and a bomber jacket like a paninaro?

What elevated aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual concepts could his work possibly extract...

The truth is that today our society is built in such a way that art cannot be produced as it once was, and as long as it remains so, I thank Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Bruckner, and all the old composers of yesteryear every day for having had such grandiose and clear ideas!

Contrary to Daniele Scarpetti - I hope he won't hold it against me! - I am instead convinced that this intervention is worthy of being framed (however, the superficial opening "Historicized" music is merely an intellectual concept that does not exist in reality. Until it is played, music does not exist. clashes a bit, which is the usual little fairy tale useful for telling oneself when one wants to avoid thinking about the present in perspective).

However, I would like to bring the discussion back to its origin; otherwise, we will never understand each other. The question is: what sense does it make for the Ninth Symphony to be made that way? And, if we want: does it make sense to propose a Ninth Symphony like that, or wouldn't it perhaps be better to propose, in its place, a good unknown and uncelebrated piece (contemporary or not, it doesn't matter much)?

RedScharlach wrote:

However, I would like to bring the discussion back to its origin; otherwise, we will never understand each other. The question is: what sense does a Ninth Symphony made in that way make? And, if we want: does it make sense to propose a Ninth Symphony like that one, or wouldn't it perhaps be better to propose, in its place, a good unknown and uncelebrated piece (contemporary or not, it matters little)?

At this point, a question, a reflection, arises spontaneously within me:

can we think of being able to create high-level music if we are no longer able to decently interpret that of the "past"...?

If we are honest with ourselves, we know that both orchestras and soloists today are no longer at the level they once were.

It certainly won't be from the evenings (most honorable and worthy of praise, let me be clear) at Santa Cecilia, or from a semi-forgotten Rai orchestra, that new musical content can emerge that will not be forgotten at the very moment of execution.

Nor even (if we want to be even more sincere) from Rattle's Berliner Philharmoniker or a Gewandhaus led by Chailly.

Today, the problem of the "new" is much deeper and reaches the very root of art: how much importance is accorded to it?

When I find myself with a brilliant recent piano graduate who is about to go abroad for a "masterclass," knowing (in terms of listening, not performance) only two of Chopin's twenty-four studies or having never heard a string quartet in her life, I believe some concern is legitimate and necessary.

This underlying, individual, and personal phenomenon is actually reflected across the entire artistic and musical world.

At this point, it becomes a logical consequence, if not an inevitable conclusion, that even a symphony orchestra of the caliber of the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, under the guidance of a Mariss Jansons, plays a Bruckner 7th that, a few years ago, would have been only a "barely (more than) acceptable" initial attempt. And it is from this widespread "mediocrity" that various "Cobras," immoral charlatans, are born.

The entire music world is in crisis, as much as the world itself is.

What shall we do Red: shall we frame this second intervention by Celibidache as well?

danielescarpetti wrote:

What are we doing, Red: shall we frame this second intervention by Celibidache as well?

I don't know, I don't understand much about the history of interpretation... he could very well be right! And if he isn't right, at least he has a certain consistency: the composers of yesteryear no longer exist, and likewise, the performers of yesteryear no longer exist. But then, I would like the reasoning to continue with the same consistency, and for it to be recognized that even the listeners of yesteryear no longer exist!

So, let's start from the assumption that I understand even less than you; I simply observe that saying there aren't any like they used to be is always stating the obvious.

For the rest, I will limit myself to saying that the history of music - as any other history - has always been made of highs and lows - it was discussed in this regard referring to the galant style elsewhere in the forum - and that, as it always has been and always will be, we will measure the presumed or real importance of the current musical landscape with the benefit of hindsight.

Today, it is certainly difficult to see composers emerging as they did in the past, but it is equally true that perhaps there is generally a certain greater difficulty in being able to do so. In Italy, if you are not Fabio Vacchi, Salvatore Sciarrino, Ivan Fedele, Carlo Boccadoro, and a few others, nobody - referring naturally to the world of art music - knows you.

In reality, to put it in extremes, some eminent unknown person might even have a brilliant score in their drawer, but how could they emerge if they do not know - or cannot - find the way to make themselves known?

The question I am posing is obviously to those who - that is, everyone - substantially know more about this than I do!

danielescarpetti wrote:

For the rest, I will limit myself to saying that the history of music - like any other history - has always been made of highs and lows

Sorry Daniele . . . more than any other story, the story of music is made of . . . highs and lows

Perhaps only the history of HF can hold its own

I apologize to you again for my innate stupidity. You must know that even your second post in this discussion tempted me in that sense but, on that occasion, I self-censored.

Coming to your question (I don't know any more than you do), two banal answers come to mind for me.

1) the emeritus unknown person with the genius score in the drawer must dedicate a little less time to deepening their own Art and more time (much more time) to cultivating a network of "right" relationships [and I am not happy about writing this].

2) the emeritus unknown person with the genius score in the drawer could also meet the publisher or the producer who deeply respects them, but then these people must deal with the marketability assessment of the genius score they have in their hands.

I read too many generalizations in this topic; for example, I don't relate to this definition of what my job should be at all:

"cacophonies with high intellectual content, perhaps written by the hand (actually, excuse me, the PC keyboard) of a young composer with a little beard and a paninaro bomber jacket?"

(now that I think about it, they "used to say" that about Beethoven and Stravinsky too... but not just them)

Therefore, perhaps it is better to first go to the theater to hear the music... and then evaluate. And if, while listening to Beethoven's Great Fugue, we feel like saying that the Maestro is now deaf and no longer knows what he is doing... it won't be a problem with Beethoven. But there are various examples that I could put on the table.

That being said, I was reflecting on another "detail": is it music or language that becomes historicized. Certainly language, but I see that you have all used or appreciated interventions where historicized music is discussed; what exactly do you mean? Examples too, please.

RedScharlach wrote:

listeners like the ones from back in the day don't even exist anymore!

Here Red, sharp observation.

danielescarpetti wrote:

I am obviously posing the question to those who - meaning everyone - substantially know more about this than I do!

The discussion is very long, but ultimately, sophisticated music - trivializing and simplifying - can also be a hobby for wealthy composers.

You cite Boccadoro, but 99% of his music is performed only once and randomly by his own orchestra (and he writes well regardless, but he must have an orchestra to hear his pieces performed); someone might know that Mendelssohn received an orchestra as a birthday gift - at his specific request.

Still trivializing: "we like easy wins"; therefore, any wealthy composer would hear their pieces performed (beautiful, ugly, valid or otherwise).

Let's say that compared to the past, patrons are certainly lacking today (just to dust off an archaic term), but in reality they exist, they just do not require sophisticated music or, rather, especially music for images or arrangements (be it Jazz or pop).

Despite my intentional trivialization, there are composers who emerge and make a living from music... so it is useless to complain; the art world has always been ruthless and there is always someone more talented and luckier than us. But this applies to all sectors.

Celibidache wrote:

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

Look, this might perhaps apply to you since you are not a musician. I have not only listened to them but I have also studied them for exams and concerts... so let's try to understand each other.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

1) the eminent unknown with the genius score in their drawer must dedicate a little less time to deepening their own Art and more time (much more time) to cultivating a network of "right" relationships [and I am not happy about writing this].

2) the eminent unknown with the genius score in their drawer might also meet a publisher or producer who deeply admires them, but then these people must deal with the marketability assessment of the genius score they have in their hands.

The problems are essentially budget-related

There are so many theatergoers that if the state cuts subsidies, there is only money for the usual programs. Not to mention the wastefulness of opera; staging a single opera would pay the annual budget of 10 orchestras. A staging ("modern"? Reinterpreted? ... well, let's forget it) just to hear what, the gunshot and the subsequent critiques on blogs and forums... but come on (please)

I am listening to the concert from the Biennale. Program: Liszt, Bartok, Ligeti. As for contemporary music, I might even agree, if it weren't for the fact that the good presenter said that the program follows a common thread. In essence, the festival is built around the theme of memory. Well, does the artistic director know that in Italy there exists a stable of high-caliber composers, the neo-romantics, who would have been perfect? At the very least, could even my stylistic gradient have worked?
So, to say,

Eagle, memory is normally something you bring up with the dead. The neo-romantics are all still very much alive and well.

Frank wrote:

That being said, I was reflecting on another "detail": is it music or language that becomes historicized? Certainly language, but I see that you have all used or appreciated interventions where historicized music is discussed; what exactly do you mean by that? Examples too, please.

I would like to clarify one thing, also because at a certain point the discussion seemed absolutely surreal to me or perhaps—most likely—it is I who do not understand what is being written.

I completely agree with your last intervention. "Historicized" is a term that Tiger used first and which I subsequently put, continuously and ironically, in quotation marks because it is a term I find absolutely wrong.

Knowing Red's opinions on contemporary music, I was also surprised by the fact that he wanted to frame what Celibidache was asserting; so much so that I asked if he wanted to frame the rest as well, always ironically.

Regarding today's listeners, I don't know if they are better or worse than those of the past. The same goes for performers or conductors. Frankly, I find that this question is always very relative and biased and, above all, fundamentally wrong.

Every era has what it has—or what it deserves—and there is no doubt about this, but it would be quite complex to analyze what is truly better and truly worse.

Of course, I absolutely distance myself from and always look with suspicion at assertions of this kind: "The entire music world is in crisis, as much as the world itself." These are phrases that essentially serve to fill our mouths, perhaps to make us feel more intelligent than others: those who have understood everything while others... but which, in reality, mean absolutely nothing and are worth nothing.

Tiger wrote:

The problems are essentially budget-related

There are so many theatergoers that if the state cuts contributions, there will only be money for the usual programs. Not to mention the wastefulness of opera; staging a single opera would pay the annual budget of 10 orchestras. A staging ("modern"? Reinterpreted? ... well, let's forget it) just to hear what, the gunshot and the subsequent criticisms on blogs and forums... oh please

... yes!!! Please, let's forget it, I think this is the only thing we agree on! At salut!