I always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.
I simply did not understand Thallo's objection, specifically the reference to bad music.
I have never particularly appreciated Wagner, and of the great composer I only know the symphonic pages, as opera (in general) does not please me and I simply cannot manage to listen to it (Thallo, forgive me!).
The Overture to Tannhäuser is music that spiritually elevates; however, Wagner's spirituality was not always so elevated, and he himself paid the consequences by plunging into the abyss of solitude and despair (the abandonment of my dearest friends).
Can a man of not very high spirituality give life to something spiritually elevated?
Yes.
And this consideration, which may understandably appear banal or obvious to many, is, in my eyes, something astounding.
____
To the moderators: I am often OT (Off Topic), but never, I hope, OF (Off Forum).
It wasn't an objection, I was referring to RedScharlach's comment about more "wicked" music by the same composer, or more "good" music by the same composer. In reality, the concept was expressed in a more refined way, and even more refinedly it was clarified (Mendelssohn's quote is very beautiful), but I didn't fully understand what you meant regarding this, Viola. Your specifics satisfy me :-) and sorry for not accepting the dinner invitation, I had just started making some cauliflower pakoras with peach chutney, a bit heavy but good
V
Viola
Member
Reply 63 by Viola
Posts
191
thallo wrote:
It wasn't an 'objection, I was referring to RedScharlach's comment about more "wicked" music by the same composer, or more "good" music by the same composer. In reality, the concept was expressed in a more refined way, and in an even more refined way it was clarified (Mendelssohn's quote is very beautiful), but I didn't fully understand what you meant regarding this, Viola. Your specifics satisfy me :-) and sorry for not accepting the dinner invitation, I had just started making some cauliflower pakoras with peach chutney, a bit heavy but good
Mendelssohn's quote is beautiful and, read in the original language, has an impressive strength.
Thank you Thallo!!!
We'll eat something else for dinner, though.
And above all, we'll drink. I have a wine (red) that is legal opium. By the second glass, you'll see the ceiling of the concert hall open up.
I have never particularly appreciated the man Wagner, and of the great composer I only know the symphonic pages, as opera (in general) does not please me and I simply cannot manage to listen to it (Thallo, forgive me!).
But this has nothing to do with bad music. It's simply that you don't like it. Bad music is an absolute; 'I don't like it' is relative.
... and everything (or almost everything) in the world is relative.
V
Viola
Member
Reply 65 by Viola
Posts
191
Frank wrote:
But this has nothing to do with bad music. You simply don't like it. Bad music is an absolute, "I don't like it" is relative.
... and everything (or almost everything) in the world is relative.
Sure, Frank.
I am happy to correct myself if I understand the error.
Did I speak in terms of "bad" music?
Where?
When?
If so, "correct me" immediately.
There is an epidemic of pseudo-intellectuals going around. ;-)
Everything is clear now Viola, I was responding to Thallo who was talking about "bad" music by quoting you
thallo wrote:
I don't understand the connection with Tannhäuser, but I am sincerely curious to read about it, if Viola has the chance to make it explicit. I admit that "bad" music does not come to mind at this moment. Not even in Wozzeck.
But in reality he was referring to RedScharlach (as Thallo himself clarifies after my intervention)
Reading this, I made a mix with these statements of yours:
Objections and/or any extremely useful corrections are welcome, but they must be pertinent.
Of course, now that the misunderstanding is clear, I understand why (perhaps) it is not pertinent. I will wait for your response in other topics then.
V
Viola
Member
Reply 69 by Viola
Posts
191
Frank wrote:
Of course, now that the misunderstanding is clear, I understand why (perhaps) it is not relevant. I will wait then for your response in other topics.
Now I understand, thank you.
I will try to respond to you regarding this.
By bad books and bad music, I meant all that artistic and literary production whose first year of life will also be its last.
People should dedicate their short existences to getting to know the great masters of all centuries, the richly gifted spirits. Only artists and literati of this kind are capable of educating and teaching.
As for bad music (and literature), that is, music/literature whose sole purpose is to entertain or amuse, I find it useless, if not harmful, as it provides no nourishment.
A reading, in order to be profitable, must lead to nourishment; otherwise, one can do quite well without it.
V
Viola
Member
Reply 70 by Viola
Posts
191
Fun for its own sake is something that leaves no marks and, if prolonged, clouds the mind.
Another thing is pleasure, which implies a higher degree of consciousness.
A reading, to be fruitful, must lead to nourishment; otherwise, one can do quite well without it.
Unless one wants to live 'day by day'!... and there can come (damn if they can't!) moments in life when someone wishes to live day by day. And thus renounce great nourishments.
Aside from this - bitter - consideration, in general terms I agree with you. If for nothing else than the fact that life is short (compared to when it was created great and beautiful)
For dinner, however, we are eating something else.
And above all, we are drinking. I have a wine (red) that is legal opium. By the second glass, you see the ceiling of the concert hall opening up.
. . . "A curiosity: am I the only South Tyrolean in the forum?" (cit.)
Who knows?... surely the only one... Prophetess of Lagrein dunkel
V
Viola
Member
Reply 73 by Viola
Posts
191
LucaCavaliere wrote:
Unless one wants to live ‘day by day’!... and there can come (damn if they can't!) moments in life when someone wishes to live day by day. And thus renounce great nourishment.
Aside from this - bitter - consideration, in general terms I agree with you. If only for the fact that life is short (compared to when it was created great and beautiful)
Of course, although with the expression “vivere alla giornata” [living day by day] I mean living the present with intensity and pleasure, since there is no certainty about the future :-) and pain is always ready to bite.
V
Viola
Member
Reply 74 by Viola
Posts
191
LucaCavaliere wrote:
. . . «A curiosity: am I the only South Tyrolean in the forum?» (cit.)
Who knows?... surely the only one... Profetessa del Lagrein dunkel
Your quotations are becoming increasingly refined. :-)
I have to correct you (eh eh eh) dear Luca.
South Tyrolean, yes, but prophetess of the Golden Serpent, divine Abruzzese nectar.
Fun for its own sake is something that leaves no mark and, if prolonged, clouds the mind.
Today is a day for quotes, so I quote Borges quoting Montaigne: "I do nothing without joy. If I encounter a difficult passage in a book, I skip it, because in reading I see a form of happiness."
Many writers have written about the book in such a brilliant way. I want to refer to a few. First, I will refer to Montaigne, who dedicates one of his essays to the book. In that essay, there is a memorable phrase: I do nothing without joy. Montaigne points out that the concept of mandatory reading is a false concept. He says that if he finds a difficult passage in a book, he leaves it; because he sees in reading a form of happiness.
Today is a day for quotes, so I quote Borges quoting Montaigne: "I do nothing without joy. If I encounter a difficult passage in a book, I skip it, because in reading I see a form of happiness."
Regarding the book, so many writers have written about it in such a brilliant way. I want to refer to a few. First, I will refer to Montaigne, who dedicates one of his essays to the book. In that essay there is a memorable phrase: I do nothing without joy. Montaigne points out that the concept of mandatory reading is a false concept. He says that if he finds a difficult passage in a book, he leaves it; because he sees in reading a form of happiness.
I was wondering: someone like me who reads Topolino (the comic book) with great pleasure and consistency, is that a bad or a good read?
V
Viola
Member
Reply 78 by Viola
Posts
191
danielescarpetti wrote:
I was wondering: someone like me who reads Topolino (the comic book) with great pleasure and consistency, is that a bad or a good reading?
I turn the question to you:
do you consider it a pastime or a reading?
Said honestly and without any resentment, it seems to me that after my intervention regarding the burka, you are intervening to put me in a difficult position.
I have expressed my thoughts honestly, whether shareable or not, here and elsewhere.
That being said, I have nothing against readers, even regular ones, of Topolino or Lancio Story.
Every truth can be refuted; mine, like yours, like anyone else's.
I do not have a truth. I only have opinions.
My opinion is that Topolino is not a profitable reading. This does not make you a worse man, nor does it make me a better person.
