Leopardi and Chopin unhappy and joyful

Valchiria wrote:

Read the sublime bullshit that one of the so-called great Italian "intellectuals" writes about music. Unmissable and ineffable are the digressions on flats... Scalfari, the perfect product of a Crocean culture, proud, in its stupidity, to be ignorant of science and music. Triumphant with the enviable culture of a classical high school, in which in fact one learns little of both mathematics and music. Are these gentlemen not ashamed? Too busy with their little plays as devout atheists with the good pope? A bit of music and a bit of decency wouldn't hurt, please!

http://espresso.repubblica.it/opinioni/vetro-soffiato/2014/11/19/news/leopardi-e-chopin-infelici-e-gioiosi-1.188564

I don't know if you are an intellectual or not, but I think your bullshit alone is sufficient, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps a bit of decency wouldn't hurt you either!

Valchiria wrote:

Aren't these gentlemen ashamed?

No, they aren't ashamed at all.

One only needs to read the nonchalance with which, at the end of the article you reported, the commenters who were dissuading them from persevering with articles that are embarrassing even for those who read them are being thanked...

I am reminded of the "culture officials" of the good Franco Battiato.

When you are a culture official here in Italy, you say and write whatever you please.

Given that Scalfari is not a "cultural expert" of Italy but one of the greatest Italian journalists and founder of the newspaper La Repubblica, as well as having been its director for many years, what I find scandalous is the post with which this topic was opened.

I do not know if the error regarding Chopin's concerts and sonatas belongs to Scalfari or to whoever reported the article on the website, and I am certainly not the one who can say whether it is true that flats can make music more or less melancholy: however, I remember that Musicistada also speaks of flats in this sense elsewhere in the forum.

That being said, what makes Valchiria's presentation of the issue appear to me as a huge load of bullshit—to use his term—and, above all, arrogant, is the desire to throw everything into one pot, as if, as I believe, the things that bother him about Scalfari are quite different from his actual or presumed musical culture: Croce and his followers, the devout atheists, the "good" Pope, and probably even more. Lorsignori was an epithet forged by Mario Melloni—known as Fortebraccio—to lash out against Christian Democrat and Socialist politicians from the columns of L'Unità, and this makes everything quite clear regarding Valchiria's line of thought.

dear Daniele,

assuming that it is «all quite clear» exactly in the way you mean (but only Valchiria could confirm or deny), I understand the tone of her post.

I know nothing about Valchiria. But if she frequents this forum, I presume, as with any other participant, that music is a large and important part of her life. What I understand from her angry tone is the annoyance of hearing people talk about music (even about music) with pretensions of "substance" and "depth" not from a Giovanni Bietti, a Quirino Principe, a Paolo Isotta, or a Fabrizio Della Seta - all very different from each other, but all "armed" in the subject - but from a person who in other previous articles (on the same L'Espresso website) had already demonstrated in other musical articles their "knowledge" of what they would have wanted to treat with acumen.

As well as the annoyance caused by the sublime indifference that a Scalfari can afford himself in the face of civil but harsh criticisms that, also as commentators for L'Espresso, have been directed at him: both in the reported article and in the one from July 4th

http://espresso.repubblica.it/opinioni/vetro-soffiato/2014/07/02/news/se-la-musica-annuncia-il-futuro-1.171756

Culture-attaché, the great journalist Scalfari is one, whether he wants to be or not, from the moment he deals with many themes in a reflective and in-depth manner.

The dangerous thing (perhaps 'dangerous' is an exaggeration), the delicate thing, is that these thinker-characters have at their disposal a microphone, a publishing house, a resonance, which is much stronger and vaster than that of a blogger or a forum user. And, unfortunately, due to indisputable merits earned in certain fields, they become too casually authoritative even in others.

Do you remember Karl Barth, the great theologian, and his statement? "The angels sing Bach to praise God, and play Mozart to have fun".....

And also Franco Battiato himself, who once stated that Schubert seemed to him like a 'badly made Beethoven'....

All culture-attachés who, despite great merits, on some occasion have missed the opportunity to remain silent.

Ok Luca, after reading this piece by Scalfari on music, I can only acknowledge that he certainly knows much less than I do on the subject. And that is saying a lot.

However, I continue to think two things: Scalfari is not a cultural official: he is a man of culture but not a cultural official. This does not change the fact that, like all cultured people, he has certain cultural fields that he would be better off not entering.

Battiato was so because he was an assessor for culture, but in itself this is absolutely no guarantee and, in Battiato's case, given certain embarrassing blunders...

The phrase by Karl Barth—theologian and philosopher—is actually this: Perhaps when the angels are intent on praising God, they play Bach's music. I am certain, however, that when they are among themselves they play Mozart, and then even the Lord finds particular delight in listening to them.

Now, it frankly seems to me that, beyond an evident preference of Barth for Mozart's music over Bach's, there is nothing scandalous to say in all of this. His own tastes, in other words, which I don't know if the Lord shares or not but...

But let us come then to Valchiria's intervention, which could have been perfectly fine, let it be clear, if he hadn't stuffed it with other things that are completely out of place and denote a resentment towards the "character" Scalfari, his ideas, and his life experience. The whole thing was then seasoned with strong arrogance. And here I really cannot accept it.

Massimo Mila was a Crocian: does Valchiria have something to say against Massimo Mila as well? Was he someone who also talked bullshit about music—and about other things too????

"Devout atheists" then, what does that actually mean? A devout atheist is defined by someone like Maurizio Ferrara, for example. There is a hell of a difference between Ferrara's thought and Scalfari's, if I may say so.

Scalfari is someone who, especially in recent years, has sought a dialogue with the most progressive personalities of the Catholic Church, starting with the much-lamented Cardinal Martini, whom you know much better than I do.

So what is strange or even worse, wrong about all this, if not the usual visceral anticlericalism of certain people who position themselves at opposite extremes?

... everyone interprets it however they please, my opinion.

hi Daniele

Yes: Scalfari knows less than you. But due to the principle of "authority > prestige" that prevails in Italy, regarding music he has more credit than you. The principle is that of the Surname. Because of this principle, any famous soccer player, to speak/divulge about music, would have more space and microphones available than you. Perhaps even more than Scalfari.

i reiterate, for the last time, that the annoyance felt by Valchiria - which is also mine - I am almost certain is the annoyance of seeing people of very high profile pontificating about music when they have had the slightest preparation-training in the matter. It would seem not even amateur, from what we are forced to read.

it is the problem of musical culture (basic) in Italy!... People more prepared than me tell me that the problem is the culture (basic culture) in Italy: based on the "principle", very Hegelian and Crocean, that which is worthy of being taught-passed down-divulged is first and foremost theoretical thought and, therefore, that in which this thought most concretizes itself: Philosophy, literature... A little less poetry.

As far as artistic thought - not only musical - is concerned in Italy, in the education of a "normal" person (no conservatory, no fine arts), there is nothing beyond middle school.

The matter was well explained in this intervention by Quirino Principe also noted on our forum (I don't know if you had listened to it)

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2862-quirino-principe-facciamo-lavorare-la-testa/?hl=%2Bquirino+%2Bprincipe

All this is a great sadness. And it can lead to visceral reactions from those who seriously consider music.

But I agree with what you say about Scalfari and Valchiria's intervention: too many things thrown together hastily, and too many herbs thrown into a single bundle (devout atheists, anticlericalism...). After all this, it is better that I stop and leave it to Valchiria, if she wishes, to clarify her thought better.

Valchiria wrote:

... everyone interprets as they see fit, my opinion.

Message received, and understood.

I will keep it in mind for future occasions.

x Daniele (and anyone else)

Rests understood that, beyond the opening post of this topic, I am very interested in your considerations regarding my penultimate post and what Quirino Principe states in the video of that intervention.

Forgive my insistence, but it is a subject that interests me very much. ciao

My dear Luca, granted and not conceded that I can afford to judge what Quirino Principe says, first I would also add this and, finally, this other video to better understand his thought and which serve to clarify - or perhaps further confuse??? - the whole thing.

Now, I cannot help but agree with many of the things he says but, however....! However, they taught me one thing: when everyone is guilty, no one is guilty.

The consumer society of the spread, of the economy, Croce, Gramsci, not to mention the faults of Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular...

If, I wonder...!!!??? in these 2000 years there had not been Christianity, are we so sure that things would have gone better?

If instead of idolizing God, we had idolized Lucifer as the true creator of this universe, would things have gone better?

Perhaps Principe would do better to give speeches that are more, how should I say, down-to-earth and perhaps even - who knows?? - he would succeed in better serving that cause of Music and Culture to which we all long!

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

when in the Faculty of Musicology I met Della Seta, I had an epochal disappointment. He is an extremely annoying, rude, distrustful person, and viscidly interested in female company. Or, at least, that was the impression he gave me.

No, just to say, that even the greatest scholars are sometimes people you wouldn't want to associate with at all...

Reevaluate the ignorant. Especially those ignorant of classical music. Classical music makes people worse :-)

danielescarpetti wrote:

If, I wonder...!!!??? in these 2000 years Christianity had not existed, are we so sure that things would have gone better?

If instead of worshiping God, we had worshiped Lucifer as the true creator of this universe, would things have gone better?

certainly not Daniele. I agree with you.

But ultimately, it seems to me that everyone is free to give God whatever name and face they want.

Lucifer?... Fine. Light-bringer?... Fine. Fate... Fine.

Even Buscaroli, who professes to be an atheist, later in his Bach wrote 'Chance' with a capital "C".

It made me feel great tenderness. That is also fine.

I listened to the two interventions by Quirino Principe that you pointed out. And I must say that, beyond the privilege he grants himself of inventing myths (that too... is fine), in the down-to-earth part of his speeches, I agree with him.

That is, when he argues the philosophical reasons that underlie the exclusion of music from basic culture in Italy. Hegel, De Sanctis, Benedetto Croce...

Are perhaps these down-to-earth (historically objective) parts of his speech the ones you are writing about:

«I cannot help but agree with many of the things he says»?

The fact is that in Italy it seems so difficult to change things: returning to a normal school with musical education at every level.

Perhaps it is easier for the canals (navigli) to come back to light in Milan and for the belt of bastions to be rebuilt. Mah... What a shame.

thallo wrote:

when I met Della Seta at the Musicology Faculty, I had an epochal disappointment. He is an extremely annoying person, rude, distrustful, and viscidly interested in female company. Or, at least, that was the impression he gave me.

No, just to say, that even the greatest scholars are sometimes people you wouldn't want to associate with at all...

Dear Thallo

Other times you have expressed a 'symmetrical' idea (forgive the term) writing "it is not necessary to be a good person to be a good musician." And also "There are criminals raised on bread and Mozart, and very good people who listen to Laura Pausini."

In all of this, I agree with you.

However, I ask you [in all friendship, and with all the envy for your musicological training path]
if I had also studied musicology, if I had met Della Seta, if I had had the same impressions as you, and therefore agreed with you; don't you think that this judgment of Della Seta is 'about the person'?

And thus 1) useless to the discussion 2) inappropriate to write in a public forum ?

LucaCavaliere wrote:

That is, when he argues the philosophical reasons underlying the exclusion of music from basic culture in Italy. Hegel, De Sanctis, Benedetto Croce...

Are these down-to-earth (historically objective) parts of his discourse what you are writing about when you say:

«I cannot help but agree with many of the things he says»?

The fact is that in Italy it seems so difficult to change things: to return to a normal school with musical education at every level.

Perhaps it would be easier for the canals (navigli) to resurface in Milan and for the bastions' wall to be rebuilt. Sigh... How pathetic.

I think that, as always, judging anyone's thought by decontextualizing it is always wrong: Hegel's thought on music must be seen within its historical period, just as Croce's thought on art must be, just as the thought of everyone else must be. Extrapolating them to use them today not only serves no purpose, but is absolutely counterproductive.

Where do I agree with Principe? Substantially in his passion for the cause of music and culture. In denouncing the absolute insensitivity of the current Italian world toward this problem. Here, I agree.

But I do not agree with him in doing so by lashing out at everything and everyone. And it is on this point that my invitation to get down-to-earth lies.

For culture and music and, more generally for everything, you do not win converts by throwing blame left and right, but by making people understand how important the causes we fight for truly are. Any cause, no matter how just and noble it may be, can only be won by convincing the majority of its goodness.

Only in this way can you change things—all things—dear Luca.

Therefore, professors like Principe must step down from their pulpits and go among the people, speaking plainly, because only if culture, music, and art become a necessity for the many will this cause, like any other, be won.

It makes sense if you distinguish, almost Aristotelianly, a form from its content, a "person" from their "content" :-) which perhaps is also at the base of the differences we are making between "down-to-earth" talk and... "airy-fairy" talk :-) it's December 31st, so I'm in a mood that makes me pull the threads of past years, and a series of recent events make me say more and more that when talking about people, one should take the whole plate. That is to say, for example, Scalfari said some musical nonsense, but this does not imply that he is an ignorant person in an absolute sense, or an old fossil, or someone who exploits his position to say whatever comes to mind. A similar and opposite discussion applies to Principe: one can agree and disagree with what he says, with specific points, or with everything, without automatically considering him a fraud or an absolute prophet.

And in my opinion, this point is part of the discussion. We should try to understand the complexity of people, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That said, as much as parts of Principe's discourse make me smile (and others do not), I love him because he translated Tolkien

This quote seems appropriate to me:

You will never change things by fighting the existing reality; to change something, build a new model that makes the reality obsolete.
[R. B. Fuller]