I invite everyone to listen to the first movement of the same concerto, especially when the piano enters and for all the minutes that follow; one cannot help but notice the number of similarities with Chopin's language.
It is a pity that Chopin was only six years old in 1816. I find all of this very annoying and, in my opinion, it casts many shadows on the figure of the “ecleptic” composer, though someone will surely disagree, oh well.
In my opinion, it is absurd that today we continue to evaluate music with the shortsighted stereotypes that the nineteenth-century tradition has passed down to us. It is a form of ignorance that, in my view, should be re-examined, especially because now there are all the means to listen to everything and more.
In my opinion, it is absurd that today we continue to evaluate music using the shortsighted stereotypes that the nineteenth-century tradition has passed down to us. It is a form of ignorance that, in my view, should be re-examined, especially because now we have all the means to listen to everything and more.
I haven't listened yet, but I find this part of the topic interesting... indeed, even today, much of what is listened to is what someone has decided we should listen to. Why?
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 3 by Carlos
Posts
759
... are you kidding me?
In your opinion, is "the quantity of similarities" sufficient to make the two concerts interchangeable?
In your opinion, is "the quantity of similarities" sufficient to make the two concerts interchangeable?
No, sorry Carlos. I didn't say anything about what I still have to listen to. I said that the concept of 19th-century "selection" was interesting.
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 5 by Carlos
Posts
759
Marebu wrote:
No, sorry Carlos. I didn't say anything about what I still have to listen to. I said that the concept of nineteenth-century "selection" was interesting.
Ok, plausible. Let's not forget, however, that for the most part, we (the audience) did the selection, so, unless everyone is an idiot, there is always a reason. In this specific case, with all due respect to Hummel, I think listening to just the symphonic introduction is enough to understand the reasons for this selection.
T
Tiger
Member
Reply 6 by Tiger
Posts
447
I am asking just to add a little spice to the discussion
Carlos wrote:
Ok, plausible. Let's not forget anyway that the selection, for the most part, was made by us (the audience), so, unless they are all idiots, there is always a reason.
Ok, the paying audience of La Scala is what determines the program... I leave you to your own considerations ...
It is a form of ignorance that, in my opinion, should be re-evaluated, especially because now there are all the means to listen to everything and more.
Precisely because it is true, you must ask yourself why someone listens to Chopin
B
BackSpace
Member
Reply 11 by BackSpace
Posts
181
Valchiria wrote:
Precisely because it is true, you must ask yourself why someone listens to Chopin
Pigrizia? Voglia di pappina pronta?
B
BackSpace
Member
Reply 12 by BackSpace
Posts
181
Ettore wrote:
but nowadays shouldn't musicology have a role in the matter?
Hummel is proof of an actual musicological fraud
B
BackSpace
Member
Reply 13 by BackSpace
Posts
181
Carlos wrote:
Lest we forget, however, that the selection was mostly made by us (the audience), so, unless everyone is an idiot, there is always a reason. In this specific case, with all due respect to Hummel, I believe listening to just the symphonic introduction is enough to understand the reasons for this selection.
You see, I am the audience; there must be a reason if I prefer Hummel... and now others know it too
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 14 by Carlos
Posts
759
Tiger wrote:
Ok, the paying audience of La Scala is what determines the program... I leave you to your own conclusions ...
Well, as long as one reasons this way, what kind of considerations do you want to make? The issue is much more complex and concerns the permanence of certain authors (and, among these authors, certain pieces) in the repertoire; but we are talking about permanence, therefore something that concerns history, reception, etc. Today at La Scala, you listen to Puccini's Bohème and not Leoncavallo's Bohème because the audience, over the last hundred-odd years, has decided that one is better than the other. That is what I meant. Which does not mean that Leoncavallo's Bohème should not be listened to; it's just that someone shouldn't pop up later to say that "it's not right" and that «it is absurd that today music continues to be evaluated with the myopic stereotypes that nineteenth-century tradition has passed down to us». It wasn't nineteenth-century tradition that decided Chopin is better than Hummel. In his time, Chopin was on the market like anyone else, but evidently he was more liked. And it seems we also like Chopin more than Hummel... unless someone wants me to believe that without BackSpace the world hadn't yet noticed his concerto.
PS in the meantime I am reading "I am the audience, there must be a reason if I prefer Hummel... and now others know too" (BackSpace).
Therefore, BackSpace is not "the audience" any more than I am. But the audience is a numerical entity far superior to him and me. The fact that BackSpace prefers Hummel (assuming it is true and not just a provocative whim "just because") changes nothing. The preferences of individuals are valid when, summed up, they change a trend. Even there, it is good to evaluate and, as always, one must wait for time to take its course. If today BackSpace begins his awareness campaign in favor of Hummel and his choice finds resonance, in a hundred years the results will be seen... but I have my doubts.
X
Xenakis
Member
Reply 15 by Xenakis
Posts
287
Interesting question but poorly posted, BackSpace. If we set aside Hummel and Chopin—besides, it's something others are already discussing.
Of course, they choose those who are interested and pay, and as always, quality does not lie with the professionals... so certain music will hardly make its way through or will always remain niche.
Behind the billboards, there is certainly Marketing; even Vasco Rossi at La Scala is part of this type of maneuver... in my opinion, a mistake, so what should we expect or hope for in the future?
It always seems difficult to talk about lesser-known musicians, because one is almost always carried away by a series of ideological excesses.
For me, it is not at all true that taste alone has determined "the best," for two reasons: the first is that it is changeable and is also made up of fashions; the second is that tastes are imposed by custom, and it is increasingly easier to appreciate music that is already known than music never heard before.
Then there are also historical circumstances that can determine the success or failure of an author. History is a filter ("it is written by the winners," someone says) and should simply be investigated.
On the other hand, it makes no sense to suggest the enhancement of one author to the detriment of others, as Backspace does. This desire to make rankings at all costs, instead of simply appreciating diversity, seems like a purely modern vice: it's not that if I discover the music of an Hummel, I regret having listened to Chopin...
In the '50s, Mozart's works that were performed were mainly his late symphonies and few of his operas (Tito and Così Fan Tutte were almost "forgiven" to his genius) and no one showed interest in Schumann's symphonies or Vivaldi's musical theater... And these are certainly not "minor" names. I mean, even criticism changes and, in my opinion, this vitality should not displease anyone.
