Reviews

Maestro Rattalino, Thank you for everything!

22 replies 5,805 views

Started by

Chopin

Member

Member

Reply 21 by Musick

Posts
164
City
-

In my opinion, Rattalino is not a good critic for the simple fact that he allows himself to be heavily influenced by personal tastes, which I partially share—his passion for Vladimir Horowitz, for example; however, I do not share at all the total downgrading of Georges Cziffra, but as a critic, he should be objective. But leaving that aside, I, who am not a critic, can decree if I want modern pianism for my own philosophical reasons; if I were on a commission, my evaluative criteria would be completely different. In plain words, this is somewhat what happens, which is why it is not well-regarded in academia.

@Chopin, I respond that in my opinion criticism is well done when it is objective and competent, and performed by people who simultaneously have a good ear in the case of music. Rattalino has not dedicated his life to playing the piano, but despite this, his knowledge allows him to know deeply the technical, philological, and historical aspects of performances; he has listened to a great deal, the problem is that he uses it solely to elevate those he prefers. That is not doing criticism, but expressing one's own tastes.

If I take a person gifted with a good musical ear but who has never taken an interest in playing an instrument, and I have them compare a blatantly poor performance with one worthy of praise, they will tell me which is the best; however, lacking knowledge and having never listened to anything, they will instead have difficulty determining which between two nearly equal performances is award-worthy. That is where the technical and philological aspects we are talking about come into consideration.

I doubt that Piero Rattalino has a bad ear, but he probably never had the nervous and physiological qualities to become an established concert artist, which is something completely different from being musical or not, assuming that in his youth it was his main ambition. I know very gifted people who chose to do something else in life. Before being able to speak, we should hear something well-recorded, perhaps from the period of greatest activity. Let us not forget that at a certain age muscles stiffen, reflexes diminish, let alone for someone who touches the keyboard only occasionally.

Member

Reply 22 by DiesIrae

Posts
209
City
-

I agree with MephistoPheles, I don't know if you are aware of the fact that your post implies between the lines that the less technical one is, the easier it will be to give subjective opinions since one can only rely on one's own emotions... which are the most subjective thing in the world.

Technique, at the service of an aesthetic (which in my opinion is not debatable/judgable) is the only thing that can be evaluated...

Member

Reply 23 by Musick

Posts
164
City
-

@DiesIrae

Yes, I agree; however, I bypassed the issue to avoid misunderstandings. It is true that those who have a good ear but are not experts possess the gift of purity of heart that allows them to be subjective. Today, alas, it is more a matter of technique for its own sake in modern "philology" than aesthetic beauty—let's even call it hermetic if we wish; for this reason, someone who is also a technician is needed. There is a conception of "sobriety" that I will never accept, because why deprive a tree of all its leaves? It makes no sense at all. They all sound the same! It is like saying "Music has a personality, but I will be careful not to make it a bit too explicit." This is obviously my very personal opinion and has nothing to do with the discussion; otherwise, we would drift into a completely different topic.

Log in to participate