For long, dark years, Nino Rota was considered by official critics to be nothing more than a curious and picturesque case. A musician who, although endowed with great potential, had not known how or wanted to write "modern music," entrenching himself in anachronistic and obsolete positions. Fortunately, times have changed (even if some still pretend not to notice) and it is now known that the works of art that survive over time are those endowed with strength, elegance, fantasy, freshness, and above all "truth," qualities that Rota certainly did not lack. Thus, his critical history appears to me as a demonstration of how short-sighted dogmatism can easily become blind, incapable of distinguishing noteworthy artistic phenomena from interesting but sterile exercises in calligraphy. And there are still those who think it is essential for an artist to be "up to date".... Glenn Gould said, in this regard: "What must be done to explain to these people that art is NOT technology??".
...which, coming from the most "technological" pianist in history, is no small matter..
Nino Rota: Concerto for harp and orchestra (1947) (2/2)
