Beethovenians, is it a scherzo?

Here we return to the discussion that we have faced countless times here on the forum: "Is it better to have a Beethoven symphony or a society of gluttons?" I continue to hold the opinion that asserting the superiority of one over the other is merely a matter of common sense or, if we want to bring it into the field of science (which has some greater semblance of objectivity), statistics; because there are no objective aesthetic parameters that allow us to establish with full knowledge of the facts that Beethoven's Ninth is better. It brings to mind a comparison that could be made between the Pamela Andersson of 20 years ago and Nadia Rinaldi. Who is more beautiful? I would say Andersson because she reflects my stereotype of female beauty, but if someone came to me and said that between the two, Nadia Rinaldi is the most beautiful, with what arguments could I succeed in dissuading them? I could start defending my thesis by saying that Andersson is thinner, and he could destroy it by saying that a woman is more beautiful if she is a bit curvy.

Why should my perspective be correct and his not?

However, in this case we do have signals, and they are those I was referring to before, namely one could be precisely "durability."

I agree with what Celibidache has just written, although introducing a limitation and specifying that I am not a composer, I have never written a note, and therefore I do not have to defend my category. I do not understand the split of technique from the more purely artistic metalanguage. I believe that the difference is made by those who possess both. I mean... there must be something that differentiates those who have studied from those who haven't, and often the final result demonstrates this difference. While I think we all agree that art is not pure technique, as a famous television commercial used to say, "there is no power without control." We could make a parallel in the piano. Is it better to have a technically perfect pianist who doesn't miss a single note, or a pianist who captures you thanks to their interpretive skills? I say quite simply: "better one who possesses both characteristics!" I do not think there is a great difference in the world of composition from the parallel just stated.

That being said... I don't understand why every time contemporary music and musical aesthetics are discussed, something must happen. I beg you to look within yourselves and discuss as civilized people without continuing to play "who has it bigger" for the following reasons:

1) It irritates me because I find this discussion very interesting, and reading rivalries displeases me because it not only ruins the atmosphere of the discussion but distracts everyone from the topic at hand.

2) They are sterile discussions that lead to nothing and therefore serve no F***

3) They only generate friction

4) It is an attitude that never allows things to end the right way

5) It is an attitude that forces me to close discussions to prevent the situation from degenerating

6) It is an attitude that, in the worst cases, despite my attention, still degenerates and forces me to take measures that I would not want to take

THEREFORE

please let us return to discussing civilly while respecting each other's ideas; otherwise, you will force me to close the topic. I invite those prone to conflict to use the rule... "If you write something I don't agree with, I avoid responding."

Sorry, of course talking about today's composers as "the society of freeloaders" is not very elegant.

Perhaps the point was: is it better to listen to this piece of crap joke or a wonderful unreleased track? It seems to me I am reading that no one was referring to Pausini's unreleased track, a few names were even mentioned... just so as not to be misunderstood. But anyway....

Here, contemporary music has nothing to do with it (Del Tredici is neo-romantic, Bollani is a jazz musician, Morricone makes music for films. Where is the 'contemporary' in that?), moreover, it ended a long time ago and has been historicized. We are talking about the interpretation of a piece from the 1800s versus a good unreleased track... and if not of the same quality as the Ninth, then something close to it or even surpassing it. If we don't go listen to this blessed unreleased track, we will never know. Just for completeness, as someone noted at the premiere of some works by our beloved Beethoven, he was called a butcher. Huh!? But in the meantime, they went to the theater anyway, we didn't. We feel the need to hide behind who knows what protective shields

I agree with Simone regarding the resentment; however, observed from an alternative point of view, I find such fervor for subjects like these extraordinary (precisely in the sense that it goes beyond the ordinary), especially when evoked by such a disastrous interpretation of the Ninth (consider that Dominique Prévot had given it to me on DVD, and it is so incredible that I don't dare throw it away). The discussion remains at high alert levels, and sometimes unnecessarily exceeds them.

As rightly reiterated by Simone, it would be a pity to let oneself be conditioned by such an unnecessarily heated atmosphere, also because the insights are truly interesting.

AH! with my sincere pleasure (which continues to this day) I got married in 1985... !! and you Terenzio, in the '80s, were you still blissfully and splendidly in diapers?

A big fraternal greeting to everyone, truly to everyone from the bottom of my heart.

But I actually didn't write that, Tiger. Can you show me where I compared today's composers to a society of freeloaders? Speaking of objectivity, one tries to exaggerate. If you can't be objective even when the matter should be obvious, let alone when we go back to talking about contemporary music. This is exactly what I am referring to. If you then bring unreleased tracks into it, we are back to the market. Today you have to listen to what they have invested money in... If an unreleased track has funds to self-finance its own advertising campaign, perhaps (if it truly captures people's interest) it will make headway; otherwise, it will remain something that is listened to by 100 people and no more.

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?

danielescarpetti wrote:

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

Regarding Opus 79, you who are a musician, carefully analyze 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 Op. 79.

I apologize because once again I will be off-topic, but this discussion has developed here.

Finally, on Radio Tre, they are broadcasting the third phase of music lessons concerning Beethoven's sonatas. This morning Giovanni Bietti addressed Opus 79 and expressed concepts substantially similar to those maintained by me, especially regarding rhythm and its importance towards the future musical history (and not just Beethovenian).

Dear Tiger, if you have half an hour and the desire to listen, you will hear more organically, extensively, and technically an opinion that speaks of the value of this Sonata.

Let it be quite clear once again: none of this is intended by me to impose or change ideas. It only has the aim of giving those who wish to do so the possibility of forming their own.

Dear Daniele

just yesterday I heard Bietti talking about op. 79 ... and I was thinking of you!

it is a sonata that I like very much (for a long time). I might be OT too, but I wanted to say that I find his style and his way of talking about music very effective and profound. On this occasion, it also seems to me that he gave the right weight and the right space to all the movements of the work in question.

He and Pestelli (and when the good Paolo Terni was around) are the ones from whom I always expect something beautiful and interesting.. Even if it were about Für Elise.

congratulations to you for your observations on the sonata... a month ahead of Bietti!

danielescarpetti wrote:

First of all, let's clarify who the people are.

The people who frequent a musical theater are, for the most part, composed of people who have always listened to classical music and therefore know how to distinguish a Karajan performance from that of Muti and know how to choose - each based on their own subjective evaluations - who they like more and who they like less.

The other minimal part is composed of the "occasional" listeners - let's call them that - who are attracted to the event perhaps because it is the Ninth or Don Giovanni or, in any case, music or operas that have a greater appeal than usual

Sorry Daniele but . . . I am not so sure that Don Giovanni has a greater appeal compared to the . . . norm

Open content (youtube)

Ahahahah who knows why but I suspect he/she didn't have the usual one in mind

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Sorry Daniele but . . . I am not so sure that Don Giovanni has a greater appeal compared to the . . . Norma

Other times .... other times, dear Luca. And above all ... another Norma .

Open content (youtube)