Maestro Rattalino, Thank you for everything!

mauhaauhhahauhahahuau i didn't see this one coming XD

Oh come on, they're a certain age, they haven't played for 50 years, what were they expecting? A perfect performance? It's already a lot that they even attempted it. These critics make me laugh; I'd like to see them study it, and perform it again with their eyes closed after only one year and see what they manage. Certain pieces of a certain difficulty, if they aren't constantly practiced, end up like this, but it takes nothing to get them back on track. You just need to sit down there for a month and they come back as good as new, even better, because over time we have digested them. Take Chopin's studies: study one, leave it for a month, and then play it again. I am certain that blocks and missed notes will not be lacking...

but precisely, I presume they had informed him on what he should have at least alluded to.... I'm not saying review the whole Polacca.... but at least a handful of bars.... to mention, just right..

...I think the meaning is the one described by Antares...

Ok but let's also not forget that Rattalino was not made famous by concertizing and his way of playing; in fact, I don't think he has performed many concerts, he is very well known for his books on authors and interpretation. In the end, to each their own task. That he made a complete fool of himself seems obvious to me. In his place, I wouldn't have accepted to play and would have simply said that it had been years since I last touched the piano, having dedicated myself to other things in the musical field, and that I would leave the task of playing to someone who deserves that spot, perhaps even in a joking way. There would have been nothing wrong with that... It would have been something quite different and more worthy of respect.

exactly, but if you agree to play at least review something.... otherwise refuse..

Well, how can I disagree with you on this?

...to be mean...maybe he had even practiced/reviewed

tiger.... come... if someone reviews it, I hope they don't make mistakes like this... let it be even if it's been 50 years since they even touched the piano (something I doubt given that he says he doesn't touch the polacca, not the piano)

Perhaps the issue with the criticism being attempted stems from the fact that it is evident that anyone who takes on the position of "critic" must have specific expertise, otherwise we could usher in an era where anyone can sit on a jury.

It's fine that it is the era of Ventura (who, as far as I know, does not have specific musical training) and X Factor; however, I have always imagined the world of the piano to be a bit more serious from this point of view.

But it is quite evident that I was wrong...

I didn't quite understand your comment Marta, could you be a little more explicit?

It must be said that I have never met Maestro Piero Rattalino in my life, but instead I have purchased his books and read them always with greed, curiosity, admiration, and satisfaction. In some cases, I have even given them as gifts to friends and students because I found (and find) them to be very interesting. However, I cannot help but feel disappointed by an episode such as the one proposed during a television broadcast on a national channel. Regardless of what one might think of Augias, I find it misplaced to blame the host for the debacle: after all, Maestro Rattalino sits in front of a piano, not in front of a small table or a computer. Therefore, I find it predictable—if not obvious—that he would be invited to play. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible to me how the question and the subsequent embarrassing performance were not discarded afterwards. It goes without saying that—probably—no person in Italy is more competent in the field of the history of piano interpretation and the history of this instrument; but this really has little to do with me regarding piano performance and, consequently, with active participation as a juror in very important piano competitions or with teaching at the Accademia di Imola (which represents excellence in our country) which can launch the career of a young artist. In memory of him, in this regard, certain past statements of his are also surprising concerning performers who may not be liked for their interpretations but who have been or are undeniably pianists of high caliber, such as Sergio Fiorentino or Andrea Lucchesini.

I agree on this; in fact, I repeat, in his place I would have refused to play, perhaps even sarcastically, rather than making a scene like that. The fact remains that for me Rattalino is a person who is truly very well-prepared in his field of interest (which is not concert performance). Aside from this incident, however, I continue to have respect for him and his treatises, which I still find very interesting and in-depth.

TheSimon wrote:

could you be a little
more explicit?

In particular, about what?

I don't understand what your criticism is directed at: whether it's the choice to touch upon Chopin's polonaise despite knowing it would lead to an embarrassment, or if you are contesting Rattalino regarding his treatises and his critiques in the musicological field.

I "almost" know Rattalino personally, since my girlfriend studied at the Imola Academy where he teaches. She told me that one day a few years ago she caught him in a classroom playing Liszt's B minor sonata and she burst out laughing (given the performance), and from that day on every time he saw her, he would give her a dirty look ahahah. Let's just say he isn't very well-regarded in there (honestly I don't understand why, perhaps because he tears practically everyone down critically, and he's right to do so).

Well, as for playing, he plays every now and then. He's no virtuoso; it's not his main job..

Great biographer, hats off to him; if it weren't for him, a lot of important material would be missing. Especially regarding 20th-century pianists, almost all that is available are his writings

Ok Mephisto, you'll agree that to criticize one must also know how to do [the thing]... right? I understand that in the era of TV pundits, everyone feels obligated to express a more or less authoritative opinion. But biographies are one thing, knowing how to play is another. If I see a pianist at work, how can I say they have technical problems if I am the first one to have them? How can I claim they have musicality problems if your interpretations (are there any?) are close to "zero"? How can I claim, because I have understood and demonstrated in some performance, that a certain interpretation has value?

What are the criteria for doing this, and by which one is qualified to be part of a commission and say "ok" or "no" to a candidate?... and obviously, this applies to everyone.

TheSimon wrote:

I don't understand what your criticism is directed at, whether it's the choice to touch upon Chopin's polonaise despite knowing he was heading towards an embarrassment

Sorry, I hadn't read this post.

...obviously I am referring to the content of the video, namely the fact of being in a position to evaluate another... when this video testifies to a certain level of preparation.

Precisely the awareness of being what he is should have pushed him to oppose the publication of this video. Someone might say, but then should he have hidden himself?

I don't know, but if I were in his place, since as Mephisto reminds us: "he practically tears down everyone critically"... before consenting I would have practiced a lot of self-criticism ... and I would have torn myself down, consequently not consenting to the public viewing of my performance.

Then regarding his writings, nothing to say, anyone who hasn't gone through it... but in my opinion, these are two different types of work... and two different specializations.

So we are saying the same thing...