Beethovenians, is it a scherzo?

Xenakis wrote:

Dear Micamahler, some statements have a very clear definition: "regime" or "dictatorship."

Poor Ligeti, for years he had to write as others said... then fortunately there are places that made him write what matters and is interesting; peace to the soul of a few slightly deaf listeners.

Do you know what is "interesting" about that period? Directly, those who "governed" were able to carry out censorship, so they were very prepared people who even went as far as nitpicking certain intervals that could or could not be used in music (I am trying to avoid thinking about our "representatives")

Frank wrote:

(I am trying to avoid thinking about our "representatives")

interval!?... why censor?... what's wrong with taking a little break every now and then!?

RedScharlach wrote:

it is not the task of history to pass down to us what is valid. This is a very widespread view, but it is also simplistic; it relieves us of the commitment to try to understand—in short, it is too easy and convenient. There exists – I will give the first example that comes to mind – no reason to consider the work of William Byrd, considered as a whole, inferior to that of Beethoven: no reason related to the quality of the music (one only needs to leaf through any page of Byrd to realize this), but many reasons related instead to the history of listening. And yet today, out of 100 people who listen to Beethoven, how many listen to Byrd? The historical destinies of a composer are not decided by the quality of the music – in any case, not solely by quality: things, in this regard, are somewhat more complex.

Finally, reconnecting also to the wreckage of that Scherzo, perhaps good only for the conductor's ego, I have no difficulty recognizing that if I had to choose between giving up such a Scherzo – and actually not just this Scherzo, but all the secondary pages of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, and all the other greats – or Laborintus II or Partiels, I wouldn't think for a second, and I will gladly keep Berio and Grisey, and I will gladly leave the scraps of Beethoven, Brahms, and Mozart to lovers of classical music. But this concerns exclusively my personal tastes... and then, as Daniele Scarpetti rightly observed, the beauty is that we are not required to make this choice, and we can quite easily continue to listen to one and the other.

I am very interested in this part of your argument also because when you refer to history, I suppose you are also referring to a previous statement of mine regarding history and how it can pass down the validity or otherwise of an artist and their importance.

In the musical field, that point of mine is naturally valid for composers who have worked from the 19th century onwards, since it is from Beethoven onwards that music is recognized as high art.

Descending from Bach and gradually, through the greats of the Baroque period to go back as far as the Middle Ages, it has taken about two centuries of musicological studies, and not history itself, to make us know the greats of Ancient music.

Renaissance and medieval music experienced a strong boom of attention only around the eighties/nineties of the last century, but this boom was not followed by what would have been desirable: true seasons like we have today for opera, symphonic, and chamber music, and this is certainly also because, for the majority of high-art music listeners, ancient music continues to be unappealing. We can ask ourselves why, give the answers we believe are most appropriate, but I think it is a matter of fact.

I think that this part of your intervention is - as you yourself state - influenced by your personal tastes and, on this, one can only bow down.

From my point of view, however, without wanting to take anything away from Byrd and his great importance, I find it difficult to compare him to Beethoven.

And of course: you are a Beethovenian, you will say!

Yes, I am a Beethovenian, there is no doubt. But I think there is a very significant difference regarding the function and importance of a composer like Beethoven within the context of music history compared to, not so much Byrd, but also almost all composers.

Then surely one can prefer Byrd or others over Beethoven, and heaven forbid it weren't so.

Let's keep Berio and Grisey, and woe to anyone who takes them away from us. And yet I think that even they - like Bach (even Bach), Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, and any other great - have music that we can quite easily do without. No?

danielescarpetti wrote:

Berio and Grysey, let's keep them and woe to anyone who tries to take them away. And yet I think that even they - like Bach (even Bach), Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms and anyone else great - have music that we can quite easily do without. No?

I don't know about you, but I am happy to do without Beethoven's Op. 49 and the sonatinas. Shall we talk about Op. 79?

Sincerely, no work of Bach comes to mind that isn't worth it.

Celibidache wrote:

(Perhaps it is a projection... that mechanism that causes us to see our own unconscious character attitudes, repressed from consciousness, reflected in others...?)

It certainly could be ... in that case I should thank you for the free diagnosis! I admit that psychoanalysis has always fascinated me – moreover, more as literature than as science (I believe that in this regard the clearest vision is, again, that of Popper).

danielescarpetti wrote:

From my point of view, however, without wanting to take anything away from Byrd and his great importance, I find it difficult to compare him to Beethoven. And of course: you will say you are a Beethovenian! Yes, I am a Beethovenian, there is no doubt. But I think there is a very significant difference regarding the function and the importance of a composer like Beethoven within the context of music history compared to—not so much Byrd, but also almost all composers.

The point—that is, the misery of historicism—is precisely this: the function and importance within the context of music history. On which we all agree: Beethoven is more important than Byrd. But this still tells us nothing about the music of either one or the other. We all read the music history manuals, all the books on musical aesthetics, agreed, they are perfectly fine: Beethoven will have three chapters, and Byrd a small paragraph; regarding Beethoven, such and such an exegete will say one thing and so-and-so another; regarding Byrd, little or nothing; Beethoven will have influenced all composers after him, and Byrd, Morley, and a few others. But after having read all these interesting things, let us also try to open a score, to study, and perhaps to listen—and not just to listen, but to listen while trying to understand what is happening in the music, rather than the importance that such music has had in history: which is certainly relevant, but risks distracting us from the truly fundamental things. Let us not delegate our judgment—or our attempt to understand—or perhaps our ability to love something new and unknown, to history.

To the last question, I respond: certainly!

Tiger wrote:

I don't know about you, but I am quite happy to do without Beethoven's Op. 49 and the sonatinas. Shall we talk about Op. 79?

Sincerely, I cannot think of any work by Bach that isn't worth it.

Are you sure that out of Bach's 1128 BWVs, none can be done without?

Regarding the two Opus 49s, nothing to object to!

As for Opus 79, you who are a musician, analyze well the apparent docility that hides a refined and skillful art, especially regarding the continuous and brilliant rhythmic solutions. Think for a moment about those three movements which are certainly dry and concise: but how much compositional skill is behind them? How much expressive effort? That refined conciseness is the second anticipation—the first being Sonata Op. 54—of Beethoven's late period. Think of the Quartet Op. 130 and you will realize that its fourth movement "Alla danza tedesca: Allegro Assai" is the twin of the "Presto alla tedesca" that begins Opus 79.

Opus 79 is a genius work!

Dear friends,

I am glad that such topics warm the hearts of a forum that was absent for a while, just as I am happy that you adhere to the correct rules of care and respect for others. Let heated exchanges and conflicting opinions be welcome, within the limits of the norm (but also a little beyond). For now, I follow you with great pleasure and attention.

A warm greeting,

Tiger wrote:

I don't know about you, but I am quite happy to do without Beethoven's Op. 49 and the sonatinas.

o no! . . . no.2 in G major, no. Do you want to take away one of an amateur's dearest memories of adolescence!?

even not the first in G minor, which I like even more

not to always harp on about it but . . . I am convinced that if on the title page of that one in G minor

there were written Mozart, everyone would say that it is . . . a little pearl.

Open content (youtube)

And yet no, dear Luca, it says Beethoven right there, so as always everyone has their own "albert bass" [skeletons in the closet], ehm ehm ... skeletons in the closet. The classification parameter suggested by Daniele does not seem universal to me.

Speaking of Daniele, yesterday I skimmed through Bach's entire oeuvre... and yes, I wouldn't give up even the last piece from "Notenbüchlein für Anna Magdalena Bach"

As you can see, the true universal parameter is one's own taste. To each their own.

Tiger wrote:

As you can see, the true universal parameter is one's own taste. To each their own.

S o l i   D e o   G l o r i a

I think we cannot do without only the music that interests us. It is not written in anyone's DNA that we cannot do without the music of Beethoven or anyone else. One thing is certain, we can do without nonsense like this joke but regardless, it certainly doesn't count for the conductor (for him it must have been necessary, at least I hope), so in this case too, I find no universality. Let us remember that there is a taste for the hideous; 1,000 people, 1,000 heads, 2,000 ears, 1,000 worlds

Tiger wrote:

But no, dear Luca, it actually says Beethoven, so as always everyone has their own "alberti basses," ehm ehm ... skeletons in the closet. The classification parameter suggested by Daniele does not seem universal to me.

Speaking of Daniele, yesterday I skimmed through Bach's entire oeuvre... and yes, I wouldn't give up even the last piece from "Notenbüchlein für Anna Magdalena Bach"

As you can see, the true universal parameter is one's own taste. To each their own.

Frankly, I don't know what classification parameter I suggested - in fact, I didn't even realize I had suggested one: it's old age advancing, have patience!! - and ... anyway, as always, in the face of anyone's personal tastes, I bow down!

ps: Anyway, I take your response to Luca's joke as a great compliment to Beethoven: what would have been a little pearl for Mozart becomes an "alberti bass" for Beethoven ... ehm skeletons in the closet. Ergo: someone like Beethoven shouldn't have stooped so low!

Dear Daniele, I am responding to you using your own parameters

You claim that none of us can do without ALL of Beethoven's music, but we can with others; however, this is obviously just your own requirement driven by taste and is perfectly respectable, of course.

Tant'amount is that for you alone, some works are not worthy... and reading your posts, one also knows why. You do not like the Alberti bass, and the Beethoven works containing it do not please you... a coincidence? Not exactly, I would say, but the list can be lengthened.

If doing without some of a composer's works makes that composer less important to history, then you aren't even saving Beethoven, and for what? Precisely for an Alberti bass which is only your own problem of taste. You even put your personal opinion ahead of Beethoven (let alone Bach or others). It is clear that those two sonatas do not need the two of us to survive and bring joy to many second-year piano students who can have the joy of saying they have performed something by Beethoven.... do we all know that those two sonatas are dedicated to amateurs? Therefore, Beethoven had no choice but to avoid "getting his hands dirty"

Tiger wrote:

Dear Daniele, am I responding to you using your own parameters?

You claim that none of us can do without ALL of Beethoven's music, but we can with others; however, that is obviously just your own requirement driven by taste and is perfectly respectable, of course.

Are you joking or are you being serious?

When did I ever say that all of Beethoven's music is indispensable?

Please re-read what I wrote, please!

Are we understanding each other, or are you trying to be clever?

Then I fear I have understood nothing of your speech.

Aside from the fact that when I read discussions about music, I find observing resentment between parties truly uncomfortable, I also want to try to have my say, hoping not to be told that I need to brush up on my grammar or that I should go back to the books.

I believe that everything has its time and that there are truly few points of connection to be able to evaluate different situations belonging to different eras using the same yardstick.

In the 1800s, there was no television, cinema did not exist, information was limited to the newspapers of the time and posters. Making oneself known on an international scale was certainly more difficult. Setting aside work time (which was surely on average less stressful than today's), couples could stay at home to copulate or dedicate their free moments to the theater; one of the few forms of distraction. Everything was slower, from means of transport to lifestyle.

Today we live in a completely different time that I would define as chaotic, stressful, noisy, and excessively fast... We have information 24/7 via TV, smartphones, tablets, newspapers, billboards, radio, etc., etc. We can listen to whatever we want whenever we want, and we have a practically infinite range of opportunities to manage our free time.

You understand well that the listener of the past was, by necessity, very different from today's listener, who has access to a significantly greater number of musical styles than what could be offered in the 1800s. Let's even assume that much of the selection of this catalog of offers is not done so much by the listener as by the publisher. Here too, complexities increase greatly, because it is no longer like before; now we are continuously bombarded with multimedia content and there is no longer the ability to choose without being somehow "deviated" by the will of those advertising what we listen to. Thus, the range narrows and Pausini fills stadiums.

The surrogate of what we might call artistic vein has been diminishing proportionally to technological growth. Today, a hack who doesn't even know the value of notes can sit in front of a computer and make disco music that sells a million records.

The point, then, in today's society, I don't think is so much establishing how much artistry there is in a musical idea, as understanding how long it will last over time.

If Beethoven has survived 200 years of history where humanity has changed so radically, perhaps, in his music, there is truly something immortal, and it is therefore the market, over time, that establishes what is valid and what is not.

I strongly agree with what Terenzio says, and in my opinion, the fact that people skip the first movement of contemporary music to go directly to the second movement where Beethoven is played, depends on the fact that there is no education in listening. Pausini certainly reaches the average listener more directly. Stockhausen needs to be listened to, re-listened to, and understood. In a frantic society like today's, the average listener has neither the time nor the desire to sit there and try to understand music that doesn't resonate with them; that is why education in listening is necessary. Perhaps modern minds are too superficial to analyze deeply what is presented to them. Perhaps we will have to wait for times when machines will perform our tasks while we have all the time to deepen our understanding of art and give things their proper weight.

I, on the other hand, thought we were talking about the music of this century and that it didn't specifically refer to clubbers. Also because you shouldn't compare Beethoven to a clubber, it wouldn't make sense. Let's just say that Stockhausen died quite a while ago, especially musically. There are people who are light-years away aesthetically, writing contemporary ART music.

""Art Music" of our days".

An assertion of seminal importance that opens the doors to the root of the problem: when does music become "art music"?

When does "music" become "Music"?

Perhaps when it is written by a "doctor" in an academy thinking about Immanuel Kant?

Or when it is steeped in mathematical speculation and particle physics?

To be honest, I believe all this sea of speculation that I observe as much on forums as outside among "the chosen ones" (they have been the same since the world began) is the most distant (and harmful) environment for the production of true works of art.

That is why "the greats" are always so few... (and always described as temperamentally unbearable)

Whether one likes it or not (not everyone accepts the truth of things... in fact, there are those who still say that truth does not exist...),

artistic creation is not a purely and simply intellectual event. Not everything is explainable, not everything can be traced back to something exact, to a formula, to a measurement, to a sentence that is clear and understandable in every aspect.

In essence, without mystery, without the inexpressible, without "metalanguage," there is no Art, only technique.

In fact, psychologically speaking, the activity concerning the "arts" is (ratio brevis...) a line of communication, a bridge, a connection between intellectual and rational activities and those that are differently unconscious.

To express it in more Jungian terms, the "spirit" (which is the place within which our process of artistic creation occurs) is the meeting/mediation point between intellect (rational thought) and the soul (which is our personal attitude toward the unconscious).

Consequently, it is inevitable that creation will always involve an interpenetration of intellectual elements with others of an emotional nature.

Therefore, if we reduce music to a single technical or "aesthetically theoretical" fact, we demonstrate, despite all our vast technical culture regarding music, that we have not yet grasped the sense, the profound meaning, the nature, and the purpose of Art itself.

Furthermore, if we show that we are not emotionally mature (that is, willing and accustomed to living through the full human range of emotions), we will hardly ever succeed in producing art that is, for better or worse, remembered over time.

For this reason, some composers, far from being mentally sane, are remembered among the greatest... Their insanity opened those doors that the average person refuses and fears to open."

Xenakis wrote:

Pearls before swine Frank, he doesn't even know the difference between Bollani and Billone. Perhaps they only differ by a few letters.

Your intervention is too witty to be understood on the fly; you found generalizations and respond to a peremptory and "dictatorial" (let's not even go there) definition—let's say monochromatic—with an impressive corollary of aesthetic varieties that only those who listen to and live music can truly understand. But above all, they are just some of our beacons abroad.

The complete fragment would actually be: "..Nolite dare sanctum canibus, neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, et conversi dirumpant vos".

Did you study Latin at school?

Well, the part that is in my opinion most "juicy" is not so much the "holy to the dogs" (and our more vulgar pearls before swine), but the "Conversi dirumpant vos", meaning the dogs which, angered by the uselessness of what is "holy"—that is, higher than the earthly condition and more eminently material than the things necessary for immediate daily life—turn against you out of rage.

And that is exactly what has happened here as well.

As soon as someone tried to move the argument to higher levels (that is, more spiritual and less technical/theoretical), the Pharisees of the temple immediately became incensed like rabid dogs left without food for days.

And perhaps it is precisely food that is most lacking, but food for the soul.

People spend their lives making themselves look big through others, via knowledge of "Donatonis and Billones," inviting everyone to go to school and study, forgetting to nourish themselves. (In fact, to tell the truth, also misrepresenting the "Billones" who would have preferred not to be remembered for "that music stressed and unlucky intellectuals listen to," but as true composers)

Anyway (and it would be too long to explain everything I have read that is completely CANNONED from root to stem, but time is a tyrant), I wanted to clarify that the entire salacious diatribe regarding the term "paninaro" on which you all burst out laughing (risus abundat....), was set up (like much of the argumentation offered here—to me) on the erroneous assumption that I was alluding to the "paninari" of the eighties,

since I am so old that I stopped in the 80s.

Well, it is with sincere pleasure that I want to clarify that in the eighties, I was blissfully and splendidly in diapers!

Good evening and good Bollanis.