It looks like and is another world

I just saw Frank on FB

in every era one looks back with nostalgia and regrets those attitudes or facts that at the time were not even well appreciated and which are only evaluated positively in hindsight. but in effect, never like now is nostalgia felt. because of how society is immersed in its apathy and superficiality.....incapable of listening and reflecting. After all, children are taught the value of 'everything right now' from birth....which translates into the so-called tablet always in hand. how could they appreciate music that requires effort in listening and reflection?

....but I like the "fuss" about performances....it is not for pure gossip, but for comparison!

Ha ha ,,, Nancy...you're nagging...but I thought Frank meant that every time someone posts something, people talk about everything except reflecting on the post.. it always happens ..

Indeed beautiful...in those years you would turn on the TV and find interviews with Pasolini, or who knows.. De Chirico, Roberto Longhi...

Now you turn it on and....you'd feel like you never did.

I don't think there can be more attention to certain "reflective" themes precisely because of the fact that society tends to be increasingly "anesthetizing" towards everything. In fact... apathy, superficiality...

It is logical to be, to become ...and even....to teach our children superficiality...because it is what they will need if they want to emerge..

There is nothing we can do.. not even fighting with all our strength.

Schopenhauer said... it is not possible to live in a social context without taking on its appearance..

We are and will always be what others want to see...the....normality!!

Whoever is not normal....like me for that matter...or like many of you...don't come telling me they don't feel at least a little.....MARGINALIZED..

unfortunately you are right.

nancy wrote:

....but I actually like the "nagging" about performances.... it's not for pure gossip, but for comparison!

As Fabio rightly understood, I wanted to divert attention from the work itself and from its interpretation. If one wishes, one can talk about it, while keeping well in mind the role (let's say relatively "recent") of Philology and Musicology

Frank wrote:

As Fabio rightly understood, I wanted to divert attention from the work itself and its interpretation. If one wishes, it can be discussed, while keeping well in mind the role (let's say relatively "recent") of Philology and Musicology

no no for me it's fine like this!!!!!!!!!

In fact, Frank, even the video you posted about Michelangeli... with that eloquent presenter ha ha... a respect, a shyness in presenting and speaking with an artist of that caliber.....you can feel it instinctively....today....gone.

What times...

antares86 wrote:

Frank I just saw him on FB

I think it is important to know where we come from, even to be more aware of where we are. I know it's a more or less shareable, more or less convenient topic... but videos like these should be spread. Let's just say that I have a certain vocation

I agree...

Frank wrote:

It seems and is another world, 1971, RAI, Saturday night.

dI would say it made one really want to run and pay the RAI license fee

Ha ha...true true..

In every era, there are lights and shadows.

But if we stay within the scope of Rai, nowadays, there is a Rai 5 channel that alone would deserve the payment of the license fee.

There is Rai 3 which does many very interesting things and it might be that a "FranK" from 2040 will re-propose clips ... who knows? maybe of Che Tempo che fa with Daniel Barenboim and Claudio Abbado, or of Augias talking to us about Beethoven.

As for the interviews of back then... I would like to remind you that a certain Dario Fo and his spouse were banned from Rai for many years and, only around the second half of the 70s did they make their first reappearance on screen.

Today fortunately everyone can find a place in Rai ...! or is someone excluded?

And who is not normal or is not normal?

I do not feel like an outcast, perhaps I am normal and I never realized it?

Daniele also has his reasons, thank you for sharing this point of view.

Watch out Daniele... today people's desire to read is no longer being stifled and it's no longer banned like once upon a time.. look at Dario Fò.

Today they make Bruno Vespa write books.. and not reading is just... a consequence.

There is a false democracy that is much more subtle and ambiguous than in the past..

That's all for now.

fabio73 wrote:

Watch out Daniele... nowadays people's desire to read is no longer being stifled and it is no longer banned like in the past.. look at Dario Fò.

Today they make Bruno Vespa write books.. and not reading is just... a consequence.

There is a false democracy that is much more subtle and ambiguous than in the past..

This above all.

No, I do not agree.

Today Rai is much more democratic than it used to be. Every day Corrado Augias on Rai 3 presents books that are all very interesting and often highly critical of the status quo.

There are historical programs that are truly interesting and not at all undemocratic or biased.

You are a painter, in addition to being a music enthusiast and a piano player: Rai 5 has programs on figurative arts that are formidable, as well as dedicating programming to classical music; until recently, this was a true utopia on Rai..

I know the Rai of the 60s and 70s well, and from that era I only miss the television miniseries, which many today do not even know what they were.

Listening to the News at that time meant listening always and exclusively to one political side.

danielescarpetti wrote:

In every era, there are lights and shadows.

But if we stay within the realm of Rai, nowadays, there is a Rai 5 channel that alone would deserve the payment of the license fee.

Yes, in effect it is true. In fact: I also add RAI Storia.

When I can afford to turn on the TV (without already having a program in mind), I always flip between these two channels, and, if I don't find anything that appeals to me, I turn off the TV without even looking at the others.

Even if it has only happened two or three times that I wasn't interested in what was on RAI Storia

Yes, I took for granted the exclusion of those historical sections etc... I know 'Fai Storia' etc.. or Focus and others still.

But to call it democratic...

In the 70s, the web was just a mirage. Now the web gives everyone the possibility to search and form a healthier idea of things.

I feel the market push and the politicization of television very strongly, both Rai, Mediaset etc.. how can one not see it?

Maybe it's just my hatred for television... there is nothing I can do about it.

I would also add Rai Scuola

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Yes, in fact it is true. In fact: I will also add RAI Storia.

When I can afford to turn on the TV (without already having a program in mind), I always flip between these two channels, and, if I don't find anything that appeals to me, I turn off the TV without even looking at the others.

Even if it has only happened two or three times that I wasn't interested in what was on RAI Storia

Allow me to also suggest Rai Scuola and, since new technologies allow it, the various podcasts of programs - like Augias's - which can always be recovered on the Rai websites.

fabio73 wrote:

If one took for granted the exclusion of those historical sections etc... I know Fai Storia etc.. or Focus and others still.
But to call it democratic...
In the 70s, the web was only a mirage. Now the web gives everyone the possibility to search and form a healthier idea of things.
I feel the market drive and the politicization of television stations like Rai, Mediaset etc. very strongly; how can one not see it?
Maybe it's just my hatred for television... there's nothing I can do about it.

My dear Fabio, what does being politicized mean to you?

From my point of view, we are all politicized, even those who say that politics doesn't concern them or doesn't interest them, or that it is something dirty and disgusting, and this for two reasons: the first is that even if we do not take an interest in politics, it is politics that takes an interest in us, for better or for worse. The second because even choosing not to be interested in politics is doing politics. Being politicized does not mean having a party membership card in your pocket, or calling yourself right-wing or left-wing.

No! Being politicized means expressing any opinion of one's own - or even pretending to be absolutely indifferent to everything - on anything that concerns our being "social beings".

Politics is what has governed the human world forever and will always govern it.

It follows then that everything - but truly everything - is politicized, including the web. It is so in its truths and, above all, in its infinite hoaxes - which we often talk about - that today as ever influence and decide even who can become "president".

Orwell's "1984" is still absolutely current, it's just that it no longer lives only on television, but rages through the Internet and is even more dangerous.

I understand, I understand what you are saying and I respect it. I am not saying that there isn't a triangle of light in the darkness of the media... but... to define TV as democratic...

On TV, you cannot intervene if you don't like something and you are forced to endure it while complaining... along with you, there are millions of people doing the same thing... this is the drama.. in the morning many find themselves in the office, and aware of being more or less passionate about the usual programs, they are able to say to each other: "did you see last night?" without even saying what they are talking about... the other person perhaps smiles etc etc... everyone knows... do you understand what I mean? In the real world, you would never go to another human being saying... did you see last night? That person would answer you... in what sense? If you saw it and I wasn't with you... how can I have seen it? Have you gone mad?

TV, on the other hand, has this power... a great power that if properly exploited could change the world but... unfortunately, it is not so.

You are certainly "sane" people and perhaps that is why Daniele might have taken offense at what I stated, as you surely scrutinize programs by taking refuge in the crumbs that TV leaves for those whom TV itself is uninterested in... the non-mass... so to speak... people who seek culture, exchange, information growth..

But anyway, you can't do anything. An unchangeable medium, so to speak..

The web is not like that... even if it has a more dangerous face.

The web offers a panorama and you don't choose good or bad channels, but you go to a bad channel and you can heavily criticize everything.

The web will change the world (even though the web is also a victim of manipulation as you say) and the world itself will no longer be able to proceed flailing as it has done so far.

As for politicization, of course not... I wouldn't want to have the classic political debate that has nothing to do with the discussion, but I would say I agree.. we are all politicized or rather... channeled..... since childhood to follow the so-called... right tracks, and this justice is based on "social conventions" accepted by everyone.

Politics is very important, I would say.. and those who remain uninterested in the fate of the world, I believe, do not even have a great interest in "their" world.

So I understand many things but... regarding the web, evidently.. we have a divergence of opinion.

The discussion, however, always bears fruit.

@luca.

Yes, yes, beautiful Rai history... I quote that... unfortunately it is always the way things are told... even from middle school books, things were filtered... but it's normal..