Beethoven's music and the Voyager probes

Mmmmm...

I practically disagree with almost everything you said Daniele, but I'm avoiding responding because as I've already said, this topic is endless and I maintain the idea that talking about it wouldn't lead to anything anyway; it wouldn't make you change your mind and you wouldn't make any effort to change mine... So it's better to remain friends without wasting time uselessly

There is no one more deaf than those who do not want to hear. I cited Monteverdi first and foremost... Stravinsky is Russian at heart, Messiaen is the new frontier of music. Berio is another face of the musical frontier.

We are already at 5 and there aren't just Germans

I would slip Wagner in there as well, peace to Verdi's soul. For several reasons mentioned by someone, Verdi doesn't hold up... at all.

Come on Daniele, I'll give you some ideas for Mozart

Symphonies (Jupiter)

Masses (the one in C minor)

Opera (and well, it has no rivals)

TheSimon wrote:

Mmmmm...

I don't agree with practically anything you said Daniele, but I am avoiding responding because as I have already said, this topic is infinite and I maintain the idea that talking about it anyway would lead to nothing; it wouldn't make you change your mind and you wouldn't make any effort to change mine... So it's better to remain friends without wasting time uselessly.

Sorry for quoting myself, but rereading it I realized that the meaning can be ambiguous...

I said it because I have expressed my point of view on other topics already, not because it is actually useless.

However, I am glad to see where this matter will end up...

Miles Davis gave a long interview to a music critic. At the end of the meeting, the critic said goodbye to Davis, telling him: "I understood everything you told me, Miles, and I thank you for it". Davis looked at him slyly and asked him: "You understood everything I told you? Are you joking?". "Not at all, Miles. I mean it". Davis shook his head and concluded: "It's not possible: we are not the same person".

TheSimon wrote:

Sorry if I self-quoted, but rereading it I realized the meaning could be ambiguous...

I said it because I had already expressed my point of view on other topics, not because it is actually useless.

However, I am pleased to see how this matter will end...

Don't worry Simone, friendship is, as far as I'm concerned, out of the question, and as for the beers and sausages - alas - health problems advise me against using them.

The last thing I want to do, anyway, is convince someone of something. Everyone - living and breathing - has their own ideas and it is right that they keep them or change them if they think it's better.

I reiterate, and this time seriously: there is level and level of quality among artists; some are geniuses, others great, others large, others... mediocre! Finally, I am convinced of one thing that is always a matter of taste: to a painting by Raphael, someone might always prefer the one made by their next-door neighbor: Or not?

As for the rest, what can I say? Stravinsky is a genius and this is indisputable regardless of whether he was Russian, French, or American... but what an abyss, ladies and gentlemen, there is between him and Rachmaninov... Then everyone can think whatever they believe best, for goodness' sake! And let it be clear to me that I like Rachmaninov—not everything, but I like him!

WAM wrote:

Come on Daniele, I'll give you a few ideas for Mozart

Symphonies (Jupiter)

Masses (the one in C minor)

Opera (and well, it has no rivals)

Thanks, actually I was joking a little!

But I won't take any of your tracks because I am convinced that the greatest work of Mozart in absolute terms, which lasts only 46 bars, is actually the Motet "Ave verum Corpus" K. 618. In it, in these 46 repeated bars, all of Mozart's sacred music is summarized. I don't know if I said too little!

Ciao WAM!

I don't speak of "non-Western" classical music because it is not a subject that can be resolved in a single topic, and I am not an expert. What would you think if I wrote a topic titled "Western Classical Music"? I would think I was being a bit presumptuous...

That said: practically every culture has indigenous musical traditions passed down orally. Some are very structured and form traceable repertoires, which are very present in the local culture. Music of this kind has begun to be considered "classical" in opposition to international pop music, to avoid the negative connotation of the term "Folk" (also German, from VolkMusik, meaning popular music) and because these musics, even those passed down only orally, are experienced by those societies as fundamental, as an indispensable part of their own culture. In short, it is the matter of values I was talking about before.

Some of these cultures have developed musical notation and an "authorial" system. But it is fundamental to understand that it is NEITHER the notation NOR the authorship that characterizes the concept of classical music or art music. No one knows the authors of Gregorian melodies, we have lost almost every trace of ancient Greek music, and much of the popular melodies until the end of the 1800s reached us through transcriptions. That said, in China, Japan, Korea, and Persia, there have been musical notation techniques and, above all, a great deal of historical treatises. This is also a complex discussion; we are convinced that scores serve only one purpose and that music is only written music, but we should understand that even in the history of Western music, the role of notation has changed immensely over time. Not all scores are "prescriptive"; many are descriptive, and others have an almost exclusively archival value. Some stunning medieval codices were merely very expensive jewels; no one ever used them to read or make music. Musicians play from memory and improvise EVEN in the West, and they have been doing so for centuries.

That said, here are some links on other musical notations:

http://www.corea.it/notazione_musicale.htm

http://www.musicalhexagram.com/it/libro/prefazione-di-zhao-feng.htm

Other online research clarifies the individual histories of national musics a bit more.

As for the rest, regarding the issue of non-German musicians, I find myself truly embarrassed... we have spoken other times in this forum about how much J.S. Bach's HISTORICAL importance is very relative. And it is not something that can be easily niche-categorized... another matter, then, is the choice that time has made among Bach's compositions, as among those of Mozart and Beethoven. Once again, I must repeat how a large part of Beethoven's compositions were sympathetically ignored until the 1900s, and are still little appreciated today. Same thing for Mozart, same thing for Bach.

That being said, the historical, artistic, and theoretical weight of Monteverdi is widely comparable to that of Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Without a doubt. Similar weight could be attributed to Palestrina, Josquin Desprez, Gesualdo, and, without any rancor, the mere fact that you do not know them or do not "practice" them or do not appreciate them does not mean they lack historical and artistic importance.

In this sense, your battle against Wagner is inexplicable. If you want, we can open another topic to discuss it, but here I will limit myself to giving a "sententia," in Latin: Wagner is the most important composer of the 1800s. And it is absolutely possible to make a "valuable" comparison between him and Beethoven, even if I do not like this type of comparison. But I truly do not understand how certain passions can cast such a thick blanket of ham over your eyes and your ears. Practically ALL poets of the late nineteenth century and many novelists have spoken of Wagner; many painters have made portraits of him or used iconographic themes related to his works; many philosophers have used the characters from his works to illustrate ethical, ontological, and other criteria; practically ALL composers following him (and many contemporaries) copied him; the greatest THEORETICAL revolution in 1900s music actually has its roots in his compositions; he is widely cited in the histories of architecture, scenography, theater, and directing; he practically invented the fantasy genre, which today is a respectable cinematic and literary genre. I mean, what more do you want?!

danielescarpetti wrote:

and let it be clear to me that I like Rachmaninoff, not everything, but I like him!

...not me, others represent me better....

danielescarpetti wrote:

I reiterate, and this time seriously: there is level and level of quality among artists; some are geniuses, others are very great, others are great, others... mediocre! Furthermore, I am ultimately convinced of one thing: that it is always a matter of taste.

I don't really think so; I believe I have several technical means to exclude taste from a historical-aesthetic-technical compositional evaluation when comparing the work of a Chopin to that of a Grieg and saying that despite them being very great musicians, the giants are others—and I am not including my favorites, among whom Scriabin figures, whom I never mentioned... for example. (Oh god, another Russian)

And I would like to propose a comparison between 2 pieces by 2 different (perhaps

thallo wrote:

I mean, what more do you want?!

... he even invented a type of theater, and there is still room to expand into other fields.

Yes, Wagner has the requirements to be a giant.

Kappa, you can also find news in this documentary (minute 43)

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/5899-ludwig-van-beethoven/