Beethoven's music and the Voyager probes

Eh, good question... To answer you, I'll have you imagine the expression of an alien civilization after listening to the fifth [symphony]... Now imagine their expression when, upon a second listening, they are presented with Jammin'

The news is true and you can find it here:

http://www.lvbeethoven.fr/Curiosites/Espace.html

As for the rest, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are not representative of the music of 1977, let alone that of 2012 but, whether one likes it or not, they are the ultimate expression of all of humanity's music.

danielescarpetti wrote:

The news is true and you can find it here:

http://www.lvbeethov...tes/Espace.html

Thank you

danielescarpetti wrote:

As for the rest, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are not representative of the music of 1977, let alone that of 2012

The part I meant to imply was written up until 1977... clearly the last 50 years have produced much other music.

danielescarpetti wrote:

but, whether one likes it or not, they are the ultimate expression of the music of all humanity.

I must say that I do not fully agree because the first question that arises spontaneously is: “but who said so?”

Or rather, I respect the fact that at a level of taste you and others can and must write and declare your own tastes... but if I had to choose 3 composers, I would have kept Bach... and I would have added others.

All this to say that I am part of humanity and I feel represented by other music; I don't know how much interest that is for the discussion, but the point is that being representative of everyone is in itself a stretch.

You would have to tell an Indian that all Western music is not representative of that world which indeed has quite different dynamics and is contained within humanity

Eh, I knew you would answer me like that! When I finished the post, I made a bet with myself... and I won!

Dear Kappa, there are essentially two fundamental problems. The first is that personal tastes, of which all of us, individually, have the sacrosanct right to have, are one thing, and determining who, more than others within the history of music, is the most representative, the tip of the iceberg, is another. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven certainly are, and this is regardless of our personal tastes, which can quite easily and rightfully go in other directions if we so deem it.

The second problem is that you will now tell me, insisting rightly here as well: yes Daniele, but of Western music and not of other cultures?

Ok, Kappa, but aside from the fact that Voyager was a product of a Western country and departed from there, thus there was certainly a bias in choosing the musical material—even in this, whether one likes it or not, the West – which is also full of outrages and unforgivable injustices – and therefore Western culture is the only one – and let it be clear that I state this with full respect for the cultural greatness of other civilizations – that has expressed a classicism. One could search in vain and name great composers who are an expression of a classicism of Indian music or others. If I am wrong, I ask for forgiveness and I take it back!

In a world that as early as 1977 showed the first signs of globalization and which today is in the midst of this phenomenon, we witness artists coming from countries of Asian culture or other cultures who perform, conduct, music of Western culture or compose music that seeks to combine their original culture with that of the West. Or not?

I am not responding to the topic yet (which I find intriguing) due to time constraints, but regarding Daniele's final remarks, I would like to submit this topic

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/850-oriente-ed-occidente

... I will add nothing for now.

@danielescarpetti

The predictability of my response is due to the fact that the word humanity has a precise and common meaning for both of us, therefore

danielescarpetti wrote:

in the context of music history, be the most representative, the tip of the iceberg. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven certainly are, regardless of our personal tastes

Strange, I would have said something like Monteverdi, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Messiaen

… I am writing your response in the envelope

danielescarpetti wrote:

Western culture is the only one – and let it be clear that I state this with full respect for the cultural greatness of other civilizations - that has expressed a classicism.

danielescarpetti wrote:

For the rest, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are not representative of the music of 1977, let alone that of 2012, but, whether one likes it or not, they are the ultimate expression of all of humanity's music.

I maintain my view that it is not certain that they are the "ultimate"; I aim for other models (and not subjectively, mind you!) but at most they are a part of the "ultimate"...

On this, there is probably no sense in discussing, but why Bach and not Wagner?

Frank wrote:

I am not yet responding to the topic (which I find intriguing) due to time constraints, but regarding Daniele's final remarks, I would like to submit this topic

http://www.pianoconc...te-ed-occidente

... I am adding nothing else for now.

It goes without saying that writing is one of humanity's great achievements and, translating the concept into the musical realm, I feel compelled to say that this makes the difference.

Even when taking very rich cultures with great tradition, such as the Japanese one, it is no coincidence that one begins to be known once there is a sort of "imitation" of approach compared to Western culture.

Even when the means were not lacking, it was Western composers who were known elsewhere and not vice versa.

A long discussion that can be explored in depth, but in general, I think that only music for meditative purposes can refrain from being written... besides, writing implies several little things, such as planning.

An aspect that is generally undervalued today (something that must become a source of great concern, for me it already is) and is anyway neglected in the musical field by other populations. (Frank)

I can subscribe to this sentence in its entirety.

Ciao Frank!

P.s: To you Kappa, I will respond in a new topic because we are going too far off topic.

Hello everyone,

I read the old topic pointed out by Frank (thanks) and also the new one opened by Daniele on Primacy in Music.

I, in an attempt to provide some input, am for the moment staying "on the Voyager probe". For two reasons. 1) primacy in music 2) understanding of music.

1) Primacy. The people who decided what should be on that disc attached to the Voyager made, in turn, a discussion about primacy in music. It is quite common to ask others, or oneself, the little question "on a desert island, being able to bring no more than 10 things... what would I bring?". Those people instead asked themselves "wanting to attach a 'curriculum' of humanity [and not having (unfortunately?!) a 32GB USB]... What do we send?".

it is clear that, in good conscience, they will have tried to choose the best.

2) Understanding. I imagine that those who made these choices hoped, even just a little bit, that an eventual other civilization beyond our solar system, listening to the first movement of the Fifth, could understand and appreciate it, and that it would also make their hair stand on end as it does ours (assuming they have any).

Now I go back to the question that Thallo asked CrazyPiano on 24.04.2012 in the topic pointed out above by Frank: What do we mean by "understanding"?

I, reflecting on it some time ago, had found this answer.

'Understanding' is com-prehension [com-prendere]: to take 'with me'. To feel that that thing (that music, that painting...) becomes a bit part of me, of my inner world. And to feel that I too (born so few years ago) belong a bit to that music born long before me, that in it I feel 'understood', 'comprehended', and that with it I am well. I like it.

But if I feel a certain work as "mine", it is because I have breathed its same air, I belong to the same ground (historical-cultural).

it is for this reason that we do not understand Chinese music (http://www.pianoconc...te-ed-occidente). For the same reason why we do not understand Chinese: we have not been immersed in it. But we don't even understand Italian before being immersed in it for at least two years (even without knowing how to speak it yet).

Then, in adulthood, there can be knowledge even without understanding. I mean that I can come to know how to say 'mamma' in Chinese without truly com-prehending that word: without it resonating inside me as it does inside a Chinese person, or as 'mamma' resonates inside me in Italian. I imagine however - those who know another language well can say so - that after a while of 'immersion' in a new language, beyond the meaning of the words (knowledge), the 'flavor' of the words (understanding) also emerges. Unfortunately, it is an experience that I lack.

Therefore, if we do not understand Chinese (the music or the language, it's the same) so... with a snap of the fingers, it seems very unlikely to me that an eventual alien could understand and be moved listening to that disc that is on the Voyager (who knows where it is? ).

In any case, as a fervent Beethovenian, it has always pleased me that the first movement of the Fifth was among the chosen ones

(... whether the jury was popular or musicological... )

bye!

I am coming here to rediscover the origins of the topic "The primacy of music". And I immediately take a strong stance (but always premising that my judgments are not on people but on statements).

danielescarpetti wrote:

Dear Kappa, there are essentially two fundamental problems. The first is that personal tastes, which all of us, individually, have the sacrosanct right to have, are one thing, and determining who, more than others, within the scope of music history is the most representative, the tip of the iceberg, is another. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven certainly are, and this is regardless of our personal tastes, which can quite easily and rightly go in other directions if we so deem it.

This statement, for example, I do not share. I do not believe that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are the most representative of human music history. If you want, I can argue why. But the main point lies in the fact that just as the Voyager mission must be "contextualized", musical historiography must also be contextualized.

We all study Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, more than others, because 19th-century German musical historiography asserted that those three are the greatest of all time.

The second problem is that you will now tell me, insisting rightly here as well: yes Daniele, but of Western music and not of other cultures?

Ok, Kappa, but aside from the fact that Voyager was a product of a Western country and departed from there, thus there was certainly a bias in choosing the musical material

In the same way, textbooks from I don't know who and I don't know where have said that Western culture is superior to other cultures. And I must say that in Italy we are still resistant to understanding that IT IS NOT SO".... and this error lies both in your message, which I quote now, and in Frank's, which you quoted (without mentioning EVERYTHING ELSE of that discussion...)

, even in this, whether one likes it or not, the West – which is also full of outrages and unforgivable injustices – and thus Western culture is the only one – and let it be clear that I state this with full respect for the cultural greatness of other civilizations – that has expressed a classicism. In vain one might search for and name great composers who are an expression of a classicism in Indian music or others. If I am wrong, I ask forgiveness and I take it back!

Non-Western musics have a classicism, they have authors, THEY HAVE A MUSICAL NOTATION, often even more precise than ours (limited to that repertoire, see Chinese notation).

To connect this to the discussion on understanding, Bach is virtually incomprehensible to a large part of the world's population. And not only for technical reasons but for broad-spectrum cultural issues. He communicates "values" that a fifteen-year-old from Congo, a fifty-year-old Peruvian, or a thirty-year-old Mongolian do not share.

My argument is not iconoclastic, let it be clear. But one should abandon Western conceit to be a little more malleable... at least in online discussions of this type!

As I said not long ago in another discussion, let's fight for the values of others, just once. How is it possible that we CASUALLY say that Beethoven is the greatest and CASUALLY we like Beethoven? Let's fight other people's battles, let's demonstrate that we are able to look further than our own noses...

Alright Claudio, surely you must be right and, on the other hand, I asked for indulgence regarding my possible ignorance from the very start precisely to prepare myself and so as not to hurt too much when I fall.

I repeat, I have no prejudices towards other civilizations and far from it, I do not consider ours superior, and I am always ready to fight the battles of others.

Regarding primacy in music, I have already said my piece in the correct topic - at least regarding the primacy of Western music - but I think that if you have knowledge that goes beyond that, you shouldn't limit yourself to saying "Non-Western musics have a classicism, they have authors," but rather enlighten me as to who these famous and great authors are - at least some of them - and also how you could make it possible for me to listen to them, so that I can get an idea! Otherwise, what you are saying are just empty buzzwords and therefore nonsense! Don't you think!

I always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, I provide the response in Italian.

[RunAI:lang=it]
Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

Forgive me always Claudio, but it occurred to me while I was vacuuming. You claim: "We all study Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, more than others, because 19th-century German music historiography asserted that these three are the greatest of all time."

Now you apply all of this to us Italians, known philophiles in every respect, but the French, the Spanish, the English, and great Mother Russia.... I find it a bit difficult to believe that these strong ethnicities and cultures bow to the will of Teutonic culture.

The reality, it seems to me, is that the fact of the matter is that they—apart from Russia, which had a Stravinsky but who then became French and finally American—do not have composers—or at least none come to mind for me—who can compete with those three.

We have one, and it is Verdi. But we are such idiots that we have reached the point of having the opera season of the greatest Italian opera institution opened by Wagner in this bicentennial. I know! You won't even agree with this, I read your discussion with Carlos regarding it: but there, he is right|

danielescarpetti wrote:

The reality, it seems to me, is that the fact of the matter is that they - apart from Russia, which had a Stravinsky but who then became French and finally American - do not have composers - or at least none come to mind for me - who can compete with those three.

Just as a reminder

Balakirev

Cui

Korsakov

Musorgsky

Borodin

Tchaikovsky

Rachmaninoff

As far as Stravinsky is concerned, there is a certain Taruskin in this book (in 2 volumes)

http://www.amazon.co...o/dp/0520070992

He demonstrates how Russian Stravinsky is. Obviously this text is a masterpiece...

As far as the French are concerned, there would be much to reflect upon, but truly much. This is said by someone of more German training who has learned a lot from the French.

Listing names is always good, but there are unreachable heights like Messiaen, but do we want to go back in time for a moment?

As far as we Italians are concerned, the list is endless... Verdi is among the greats, but the giants exist and it is good to take them into account.

Some names: Berio? Puccini? Vivaldi? Monteverdi?

Here I'm telling you how it will end... With beer and sausages, as always... There will be much discussion but in the end nothing will be achieved.

This topic does not differ much from the one we already talked about some time ago regarding "why Beethoven's music is better than the society of gluttons?". That is why I argued little and nothing.

It could be TheSimon, but one thing that isn't always immediate is that even among great artists, there are differences in level.

Level can be determined based on many parameters, from the extent of the repertoire, to the fields in which the repertoire is expressed (all fields, from instrumentation to genres, etc.), to the innovative component, to the number of masterpieces versus experimental works of doubtful value or failure. Etc.

To be clear, Franck could have been another Ravel if it weren't for that slice of truly disappointing works; likewise, Reger could have been another Franck if he had used less cerebrality.

But with 'ifs' and 'buts' nothing is achieved; the works remain, and in effect Reger is below Franck, just as Franck is below Ravel.

And I am telling you this as someone who once had Franck in my top 5 composers... eh! Just to set aside the component of taste.

I repeat, being written in Music History books does not automatically mean being a giant.... as it evidently is for some.

Note, I am not naming names

Frank wrote:

Just as a reminder

Balakirev

Cui

Korsakov

Mussorgsky

Borodin

Tchaikovsky

Rachmaninoff

As for Stravinsky, there is a certain Taruskin in this book (in 2 volumes)

http://www.amazon.co...o/dp/0520070992

It demonstrates how Russian Stravinsky is. Obviously, this text is a masterpiece...

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well, Frank!

If we want to make a list of all the composers from every country and compete over who can name more... OK, let's do it!

But I am talking about composers who can be compared to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.

And,,, so what does Cui and company have to do with it, Frank?

You won't put Saint-Saëns in the category of greatest composers now, will you? Let's be clear, a great composer, I have even been at his tomb but... Frank, let's not joke, please!

In Italy, I forgot Monteverdi and I apologize. Berio would be perfectly fine, but we were talking about classical composers.

Puccini? Then why not Rossini too?

Vivaldi? The one who, for 500 times, wrote the same concerto, Stravinsky would have said!!! I'm joking, dear Frank, but as beautiful as Vivaldi is, what does he have to do with the greatness of Bach?

But in your opinion, in the history of (Western) music, how many composers have managed to do something as great as The Art of Fugue or the Quartet Opus 130 with the Great Fugue attached as a finale? - damn, nothing comes to mind regarding Mozart, help meeeeeee!!!!! -.

Tell me, how many?

Cui? Rachmaninoff? And maybe also, why not? Johann Strauss junior along with his father? Oh no, pardon, those were Austrian!

Bye dear Frank, the influence is over... and I go in peace. ...and excuse me!

danielescarpetti wrote:

Maybe I didn't explain myself well, Frank!

Maybe we don't understand each other.

First of all, regarding France, I think you should delve deeper into Messiaen, and really deeply. (...and maybe I was thinking of Ravel and Debussy, oh well)

But then you have to think about something else; I was talking about it in the topic dedicated to mainstreaming

http://www.pianoconc...587-mainstream/

> But I am talking about composers who can be compared to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.

Exactly! I would remove Mozart immediately; he has nothing to do with it.

Let's start with the sins:

> In Italy I forgot Monteverdi and I apologize

There we go

> Rachmaninov?

Another giant

> Well then why not Rossini too?

No, it's a matter of level. Puccini could be okay (note the