Pollini And Baroque Music

Ettore wrote:

Did you see Pollini last night on Fazio? What do you think about the statement that baroque music, nowadays, is commercial music?

I didn't see him, but are you sure he said that? Couldn't he have said that, today, commercial music plays for the audience the same role that baroque music played in its time? Just trying to imagine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPJ9Y43V460

Around minute 8.00, there is talk about music intended to be "popular." Immediately after, Pollini's famous opinion "against" music as entertainment (which I do not share). And here he says that it happens with baroque music, or with light music, to put it in the background and not pay much attention.

There you go, not everything said by great instrumentalists is agreeable

Open content (youtube)

thallo wrote:

Here, not everything that great instrumentalists say is agreeable

I found it sacrosanct...

prefacing that he did NOT say that baroque music is commercial, I nonetheless do not agree with the idea that music should only be listened to in a "super-speculative-attention" mode. Much less do I agree with the expression "light music," although I do not know how consciously Pollini used it, and with the idea that the entertainment function of music is a bad function.

In my opinion, it was linking back to what was said just a moment before: namely, that music is a language that, contrary to what is said, is not at all universal. It changes depending on the times and cultural contexts. Certain genres are easy for the Western "man on the street" ear to understand—someone who is not particularly passionate or curious from a cultural point of view—because they respond to the "musical linguistic canons" that we have all been programmed with since birth. "They speak our language." Those who do not feel the need to go beyond "pure entertainment" listening (depriving themselves, according to Pollini's highly shareable opinion, of the true beauty and depth of the musical experience) are not willing to make any effort to understand different languages and therefore tend to appreciate and listen exclusively to music they can understand.

In this sense, it is undeniable that certain (and I emphasize certain) Baroque music (in particular from the so-called "Italian school") has had analogies with today's so-called "light" music since its very inception. It wants to be catchy; it simply wants to amaze and entertain the audience. It is no coincidence that Italians were so successful in 18th-century society.

Quite different pretensions were held, say, by the unmeasured preludes of Louis Couperin, Bach's Art of Fugue, and the so-called contemporary music of the 1900s.

On the other hand, there must be a reason why even today, to advertise automobiles, Vivaldi's Four Seasons are used and certainly not a piece by Luigi Nono.

Then Pollini thinks that "easy" music is all rubbish, and here everyone can think as they wish (if for this reason, moreover, even "his" Chopin is very "easy").

I think it would be a grave cultural crime to brand Vivaldi as mere entertainment "background" music, and the same applies to certain (and I emphasize certain) so-called "popular" music of today.

Pollini tends to "ennoble" music by placing it at the center of attention; for him, background music, company, or performing everyday tasks throughout life accompanied by some light music that one might hum along to is probably inconceivable. Of course, this way of understanding clashes with many musical genres (cinematic music at the top) where, however important, the music is not the main actress. I probably do not feel like embracing the Maestro's Thesis; in my view, music can also be entertainment, but it is true that a call to attentive and detached listening, especially regarding great authors, is fundamental to grasp its nuances, structures, and to honor the "gratuitous" sacrifice of the composer.

I agree with everything you said, except for this:

pestatasti wrote:

[...] if for that reason, moreover, even "his" Chopin is very "easy" [...]

Do you mean that he plays Chopin in a banal way (which would already be debatable) or that Chopin is an "easy" composer (which would be heresy)?

Carlos wrote:

Do you mean that he plays Chopin in a banal way (which would already be debatable) or that Chopin is an "easy" composer (which would be heresy)?

I don't know, but replacing "easy" in quotes with "banal" doesn't seem obvious to me; effectively, Pestatasti's phrase is a bit cryptic

Destroyed wrote:

I don't know, but 'easy' in quotes doesn't feel like an obvious substitute for 'banal' to me; Pestatasti's phrase is actually a bit cryptic

In fact, I asked for explanations: "easy" has numerous meanings, namely:

1 That it can be performed without complications, that it does not involve problems - SYN easy, convenient

2 That it can be understood without difficulty - SYN simple: book f.; obvious and banal

to cite only the first two. It is prone to misunderstandings and it seems to me that we are all trying to split hairs (also because it is worth it).

Perhaps the problem of the tacit acceptance of "commodification" should also be addressed, i.e., that Pollini is on Fazio to promote record sales (and there is no doubt about this).

However, this in itself is not the shameful thing; what is more shameful is the fact that to do so, one must bend to Fazio's style; some will say that Fazio's style is the only one possible today to interact with the television audience. Exactly!

I have often heard baroque music being snubbed by these high-profile classical music figures, expressing rather "ignorant" judgments.

Gianni22 wrote:

I have often heard baroque music being snubbed by these high-profile classical music figures, expressing rather "ignorant" judgments.

Excuse me, but that phrase is directed at the "consumerist," "entertainment" use made of music in completely unrelated situations: waiting rooms, airports, supermarkets.

More than once I have happened to catch Vivaldi's Four Seasons playing in a dentist's office; I have never had the pleasure of tasting suffering to the rhythm of Stravinsky. There, this is what Pollini was referring to: this is the degradation of listening attention.

Then, if it takes so long to understand that it is not an offense to baroque music, but to how it is used, then I'm backing out.

Gianni22 wrote:

I have often heard baroque music being snubbed by these high-profile classical music figures, expressing rather "ignorant" judgments.

But did you hear what he said? He didn't snub anything at all...

idk.....pollini said something trivial. Music as a catalyst for emotions must be contemplated in religious silence. No one would be scandalized if I said that Hegel cannot be read, and especially understood, on the subway. You can read Fabio Volo on the train... without losing anything of it.

riccardoM wrote:

bho.....pollini said something trivial. Music as a catalyst for emotions must be contemplated in religious silence. No one would be scandalized if I said that Hegel cannot be read, and especially understood, on the subway. Fabio Volo, you can read him on a train... without losing anything.

This, on the other hand, is nonsense, excuse me if I may: reading does not need hearing, music does. A detail not to be underestimated...

Oh, don't even mention it... you're right! I hadn't considered that in libraries it is written: "make as much noise as you want, you won't disturb anyone"

A nice discussion is being created

riccardoM wrote:

Oh, come no... you're right! I hadn't considered that in libraries it is written: "make noise, you won't disturb anyone"

I agree, in the end, when a composer writes, they are present (or should foresee) what they put on paper.

In general, I find that it is beautiful to "see" music but above all to hear it. But perhaps this falls not within the sphere of understanding (the subject of contention) but of enjoyment...

riccardoM wrote:

Oh, come no... you're right! I hadn't considered that in libraries it is written: "make noise, you won't disturb anyone"

una b