Supremacy in music

it's not the best to start a new thread with a reply to a message, without indicating where that message comes from and without introducing the new discussion.

I say this for the sake of order

It baffled me too, I think it refers to this

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2069-la-musica-di-beethoven-e-le-sonde-voyager/

No, it is the sum of several topics.

Very journalistic maneuver... pieces of more discussions put in a row in a certain way lead the discourse where perhaps it was not intended to go...

I haven't framed the discourse

An introductory heading?

You are completely right, but things got out of hand for me because, unfortunately as often happens in topics and discussions, one thing leads to another and it ends up in a mess. I tried to remedy this by condensing everything into a new topic, but the operation was undoubtedly unsuccessful. I apologize!

An introductory preamble, if it can be called that, is something I have, and I wrote it quite some time ago; I am re-proposing it in its entirety, while being aware that there are things there that I have already reported here but which are consequential to the discussion and I cannot remove them now, and for this too I apologize.

Who was the greatest composer in the history of music? How many times have we encountered or asked ourselves this question? Innumerable times! And to think that in reality, it is one of the most wrong questions one can ask, and anyone who, in various capacities, tries to peremptorily assert one composer rather than another, always commits an error: each of us can, at most, express a personal preference linked exclusively to their own feelings because, to assert a primacy, one would inevitably have to start from the assumption that it is possible to compare the greatness of a composer of one era—and thus, as such, a representative of a certain musical aesthetic—with a composer of another era and, therefore, a representative of another musical aesthetic. It would be like asserting that in a certain era of music history, an aesthetic perfection was reached that was absolutely superior to those preceding and following it. Yet, despite this, the assertion of a primacy is often heard and stated by musicologists, musicians, and intellectuals of various kinds.

In reality, this question had its raison d'être as long as the musical repertoire performed in theaters—and thus that which only the public could know—was essentially comprised of the Classical and Romantic periods. Today, as listening increasingly embraces—for what has remained and is possible—music composed in the two thousand years that separate us from the birth of Christianity, the question has lost all its legitimacy and reasonableness.

The primacy that prevails today is that of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. A primacy that, while certainly starting from his undoubted greatness, is also due to characteristics that make him the most suitable among all great composers to occupy this role in a society based on economy and consumption.

Let us therefore try to trace, in broad strokes, the history of primacy in music and try to focus on why Mozart holds it in this short span of time.

As I have already said, music as art, like all arts, has its greatest geniuses distributed across all its various eras; men who knew how to elevate themselves through their abilities, innovations, and characteristics above what was the standard average of their historical compositional phase. But as we know, until the Age of Enlightenment, music was considered more a moment of leisure or a celebration of some liturgical occasion than an art. Only in the nineteenth century, with the access of the rising bourgeoisie to theaters, did the need to listen to music from the past, and not just that composed by contemporary composers, become increasingly pressing. In reality, for a long time, the past was limited to reaching Haydn and Mozart, and it was only with Mendelssohn that the acceptance of Johann Sebastian Bach's music began; meanwhile, as we well know, for many other composers of the Baroque period, and even more so of preceding periods, one had to wait until the twentieth century, and even now this has not yet reached its proper goal.

As I have already said, Beethoven's advent in the history of music brought about a total change, to the point that the composer from Bonn can be considered a true watershed. After him, all composers, for better or worse, inevitably had to deal with his enormous and, from many points of view, mysterious and absolutely cumbersome legacy. In this context, the musical world began to divide between Beethovenians and Mozartians. In this regard, the phrases of three of the most important protagonists of the post-Beethoven era are very symptomatic.

At his death, Franz Schubert said: «Beethoven knows everything, but we cannot yet understand everything, and much water will flow in the Danube before all that this man has created is universally understood. Not only is he the most sublime and fertile of musicians; he is also the strongest. He is equally strong in dramatic music and epic music; in lyrical and prosaic; in a word, he can do anything. Mozart stands to him as Schiller stands to Shakespeare. Schiller is already understood, Shakespeare will not be for a long time. All"

already include Mozart; no one understands Beethoven. »

Hector Berlioz: « (...) The other day I listened to one of Beethoven's last quartets (...) there were almost three hundred people; only six of us were left stunned by the intensity of the emotions felt, and furthermore, we six were the only ones who did not find this composition absurd, incomprehensible, barbaric. His music has reached such heights that we felt breathless (...). It is music suitable – only – for him and for those of us who have followed him into the immeasurable heights of his genius.(...) »

A Luigi Cherubini also resided in Paris, who, by Beethoven, was considered the greatest of living composers. Although he was not very convinced that the great German deserved the fame he enjoyed, it was he, in his capacity as director of the Paris Conservatory, who instead contributed to bringing much of his music to the French public: the Eroica, the Fifth and much more; and if Berlioz was struck by it upon listening, the same fascination concerned Liszt and Mendelssohn – the latter also in Paris for a few months from December 1831 – but not Chopin who, like Goethe, continued to harbor very strong objections to the German musical genius, to the point of refusing to be present at the 1845 inauguration of the monument to the Titan in Bonn because the idea made him nauseous. Chopin was certainly by far closer to and a supporter of the greater greatness of Mozart.

At the inauguration, however, Robert and Clara Schumann were well present, also fervent admirers of Beethoven's music. And, in this regard, it is very symptomatic and illuminating for fully understanding what the real relationship of the musical world of that time was with Beethoven and with Mozart, how much Clara wrote on November 24, 1842, in their diary: « (...) I feel a completely personal sentiment for both these great masters, Beethoven and Mozart. I love Mozart in a particular way, but I venerate Beethoven as a God, but an inaccessible God, who never becomes part of us.(...) »

I could continue but, I think it is already more than sufficient to make understood what the feelings towards the music of the genius from Bonn were on the part of his successors. Until about 1920, Beethoven's primacy, despite various contrasts, was substantially solid, although a well-informed minority opted for Mozart. However, the advent of the first avant-gardes definitively brought Johann Sebastian Bach's greatness into the right light and, especially in more intellectual circles, his gigantic figure made its way increasingly. From this moment on, however, and with ever greater force in the following years, the figure of Mozart began to take precedence; Bach was no longer just the preserve of a certain intellectuality and the Beethovenians, consequently, became a little less frequent; the subsequent rediscovery of ancient repertoires led to a much wider fragmentation of judgments.

The beginning of the assertion of Mozartian primacy, if one thinks about it, corresponded to the possibility, never had before then, of being able to listen to music not only in theaters but also through technological media. This meant that art music, until that moment the preserve of only theater audiences, could be listened to by anyone who had a radio or a gramophone at their disposal. In this way, it too became, despite itself, a source of consumption, and inevitably inserted itself into that economic logic typical of our way of being and living. Soon, within the scope of this discussion, Mozart's music and figure were the most suitable to play a role of "primacy". But why is Mozart more "marketable" than Bach or Beethoven? A first reason can be identified in the fact that Mozart, among all the giants of music, was the one who knew how to unite perfection with beauty, lightness, serenity, and in many of his pieces, a certain catchiness—in the most positive sense of the term, obviously. This means that, besides being widely appreciated by the most demanding listeners, it is also – at least in much of it – very accessible even to audiences not very accustomed to listening to classical music or even absolute laypeople.

A second reason, already far less noble, is linked to the winning models of our day, those that are bombarded upon us and instilled every day: Mozart is considered the quintessential precocious genius, the "child" genius – although Mendelssohn was so in a certain way more. In an era where we are surrounded by parents anxious to make their children "little geniuses," ready to overwhelm them with courses of all kinds and this often at the expense of their right to play and have fun, the model of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Leopold – his father – certainly does

school.

The third, absolutely unnoble, is linked to the image of Mozart that is usually presented to us: that of an eternal child always ready to laugh and joke, much devoted to women, uncommitted from every point of view, for whom the film “Amadeus” served as a school and the icing on the cake.

Let's think instead for a moment about Bach, an upright man of great faith dedicated to producing many children and of iron morality: how much more outdated one could propose today.

Let's think about Beethoven, a surly man full of ailments, probably, in certain cases, a bit unpleasant and a nuisance, a true failure with women and moreover who took it into his head to provide moral and philosophical guidance through his music. No! A Bach and a Beethoven are models that are absolutely out of fashion today.

And so surely Mozart, among all the great musical geniuses, is the most suitable to fulfill the function of primacy in today's world dominated by the desire for everyone to be a phenomenon, by lack of commitment, by the desire to have fun at all costs and where the rules are strictly dictated by the market, with all its perverse laws.

The musicologist Claudio Casini, starting from the premise that Mozart represented a transitional period in history, that of the late 1700s where: « (…) a cosmopolitan society found itself in a phase of total, irresponsible suspension between the end of the old regimes and the announcement of the new ones. This could be the explanation of why Mozart is so close to us.

Mozart interpreted exactly that moment (…) He did not reform, he did not change, he did not theorize (...) in a time – which also in this regard reminds us much of our own – in which precepts are many and certainties are few (…) he limited himself to expressing the uncertainties of an era of transition. But he did so with a particular style, introducing these uncertainties into the certain universe of traditional forms. (…) he assimilated all existing musical forms (...) but none of them after him remained the same as it had been previously. He imprinted everywhere the character of his personality which was subversive, without vocations and manifest messages or voluntarism, as would later happen to Beethoven, but by virtue of a restless vitality, paroxysmal to the point of burning through his vital energies in a short time. (…) After Mozart, Europe went in search of new certainties, we know well through which convulsions: bourgeois ideology was born, nationalisms arose, art expressed messages, Beethoven busts populated pianos. At the dissolution of all this, the West, once again cosmopolitan, recognizes itself in the musician of uncertainties, in him, the “brother” Mozart, who had sought in Masonic culture the ideals of a new order.(…) »

Also on this subject, the music critic Enrico Girardi asserts that Beethoven has been: « (…) for generations the musician par excellence, as still demonstrated by the quantity of busts placed on the pianos of hundreds of thousands of bourgeois homes in Europe (…) Today it is a bit less so. In the collective perception, Bach remains the patron saint, but he is there in the background, untouchable, divine, distant; in the ears of most, the classical sound they are invested with is that of Mozart. The spree for the 250th anniversary of the Salzburg native's birth was nothing more than the certification of a fact, perhaps because a “Figaro” says more things to modern man than a Beethoven symphony. (…) Beethoven is a Juve that has fallen into Serie B (even if no fault has been attributed to him) which will soon return to the highest levels as long as he knows how to retain his “best men” and acquire others of value.

Outside of metaphor, the argument translates well if instead of players we consider performers. How much useless Beethoven has been played in recent decades. Remove Pollini and Schiff and others of that caliber, how many performers can say something truly interesting today playing the Pathétique or the Waldstein?»

But, in reality, regarding all this, a great musicologist like Massimo Mila had already said everything in one of his essays with a somewhat ironic title “Program for a Mozartian Circle” written in 1942 on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the Salzburg native's death and in the midst of the Second World War: « (…) Most likely we are passing – with the complicity of calamitous times – from a Beethovenian age to a Mozartian age. This is not, naturally, about doctrinal revisions on the value of the two artists, now safe from any critical recrimination. It is about the sequel that their art, marked by such different human characteristics, can expect to find in the contemporary world. It is about – let us even use the discredited word – the Mozartian “fashion” which seems very likely to want to replace the Beethovenian “fashion”. (…)». Mila then recalled that Mozart and"},

Beethoven is an indisputable copy, much like « Aristotle and Plato, Ariosto and Tasso, Racine and Corbeille etc. », which, depending on various historical eras, are distributed based on the human experiences of the present. The popularity of Mozart is « (…) A synthesis of eighteenth-century culture, his art flourished on the extreme limit of a world swept away by the Revolution: and upon the ruins rose the second term of the binomial, Beethoven, the dazzling musical prophet of new times. (…) And this arrangement has persisted to this day. (…) » But now: « (...) Mozartian serenity begins to appear as a balm to the bitterness of the times, a beneficial divine gift. (…) »

I acknowledge this, but was it really necessary to transform him into an icon of consumerism?

And yet, what was written on the occasion of the publication of Beethoven's complete works by Deutsche Grammophon is incontrovertible: « Is Beethoven the greatest composer of all time? Many musicians think so. It is certainly true that no composer has been able to equal him in the sublime summit of the Nine Symphonies, the profound despair of the Appassionata Sonata, the infinite beauty of the Cavatina from the Quartet in E-flat major, or the extraordinary originality of the Eroica. His works have certainly, more than all others, had a determining impact on the history of music, and no composer, in the centuries following his death, has been able to escape his direct influence. Even today, numerous musicians draw their inspiration or their ideas from Beethoven's music. (...)

(...) Ludwig van Beethoven was one of the greatest creators of our civilization and was probably the most influential composer in all of history. (...) he was indeed one of the first great artists to create a moral mission for art in a humanistic rather than religious sense. His nine symphonies, his sixteen quartets, his thirty-two piano sonatas, constitute not only a summit of practically unequaled richness, but also a spiritual autobiography of their author. In them, Beethoven transcends all his spirituality and all his overflowing love for the entire human race. Music is a form of revelation, of philosophy, higher than any other, and through it, Beethoven directs his message to the entire Earth. »

It is indeed so: the greatness of the genius from Bonn must be evaluated not only based on the pure greatness and beauty of his music but also from a much more complex perspective. He knew how to translate into music everything that Western culture, through various branches of Art—from Homer to Socrates, from Dante to Michelangelo, from Shakespeare to Goethe, to Kant—represented and projected toward the future, and it is for this reason that he can be considered absolutely one of the greatest creators of all time."

Establishing the primacy of something over the rest presupposes the existence of a complete awareness. The problem of "awareness" has plagued the majority of philosophers and scientists for millennia. With a few sparse exceptions, such as Pyrrho or Montaigne, the desire to reach the phoenix of awareness has agitated the existence of all humanity since time immemorial.

Gödel's theorem dismantles every theory of predictability. Its proof is based on the peculiarity of prime numbers: the impossibility of predicting their succession. When positive natural numbers are multiplied by each other, one does not obtain a sequence that fills all numbers. Sooner or later, a number appears that turns out to be the first of its series, and it is impossible to predict when this will occur: if it were predictable, it would mean that that number is not the first of its series but the nth of another series. It is therefore deduced that if a true statement is aggregated to every prime number, there will inevitably exist a true statement that cannot be deduced from all previously known true statements. The formulation of a universal axiomatic system is therefore impossible.

What then would this "awareness" of which so much has always been spoken be? It would seem to be a complete system of knowledge, judged possible, indeed inevitable, even by Einstein, according to whom "God does not play dice." But since the impossibility of proposing a predictable and finite universal system seems indisputable, it follows that "awareness" as such should arise before the analysis and subsequent evaluation of any event. This is indeed what happens in any religion or in every system based on dogmas and aprioristic beliefs. Is it acceptable? According to which criteria? And for what reason should one dogma be more or less true than any other, considering the obvious unprovability of the dogmas themselves?

The need for reassurance seems to have been born along with man. This has always resulted in a prevalence of suggestions rather than the search for and dissemination of well-understandable information and knowledge and adequately clear methodological expositions. Any belief is based on the idea that somewhere else comes a different indication of much higher quality than everything else: a high inspiration to cultivate spiritual values. On the other hand, providing more or less noble explanations for true motivations is a mechanism known since the times of Aesop. It is evident that being on the side of the angels is much more reassuring than being part of the monkeys. Disraeli's phrase in polemic with Darwin is paradigmatic in this sense: "The question is this: is man a monkey or an angel? My God, I am on the side of the angels." Clearer than that...

The problem is thus the illusion that the conflict between faith and science, religion and secularism, spiritualism and materialism is a false issue or one of little importance. The opposition is instead serious and profound and does not seem easily resolvable.

In the same way, it will never be possible to establish the actual primacy of so-called classical music over other forms of musical expression or the superiority of Beethoven over Mozart or Bach.

If I answer you, we will end up fighting.

I consider your "introductory hat" absolutely delusional.

thallo wrote:

If I answer you, we will end up fighting.

I consider your "introductory hat" absolutely delusional.

And suddenly it is evening

Everyone stands alone on the heart of the earth

pierced by a ray of sunshine:

and suddenly it is evening.

Salvatore Quasimodo

First of all, I want to complete the formalities of the topic:

1) B&B! Beethoven Bach

2) Mozart, Handel

3) Vivaldi, Corelli, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Benedetto Marcello, Preisner

4) . . . . .

And then give an 'impression'.

Perhaps it will end with beer and sausages. It is quite predictable.

But in this discussion there is an underlying "problem": when one asserts something that is felt to be born 'from within', one always ends up making 'politically incorrect' reasoning (and getting reprimanded).

It is true that at school, discussions about who is top of the class are not pleasant. But here we are not talking about a schoolyard. We are talking—in their absence—of great artists from the more or less distant past. We are talking about men who have left 'something impalpable' but which we feel as a powerful—and good!—part of our lives.

It seems to me a 'healthy' thing for each of us to put on the table what we feel inside.

A great thing, when you think about it, is Music...

a trying to talk about it without sophisms, laying bare one's own feelings, one inevitably ends up in incorrectness and partiality. I have come to terms with it: to speak of Music—not of forms, not of harmony—in a way that is alive, participatory, and fertile with suggestions, there are only "incorrect" ways.

But speaking about musical works in a rigorous and correct manner seems to me to lead only to that: to the satisfaction (!?) of having done something rigorous and . . . correct.

hello to everyone

Luca

LucaCavaliere wrote:

to speak of Music – not of forms, not of harmony – in a way that is lively, participatory, and fertile with suggestions, there are only "incorrect" ways.

But speaking of musical works in a rigorous and correct manner seems to me to lead only to this: the satisfaction (!?) of having done something rigorous and . . . correct.

Some call it culture

alright. call it culture. (i prefer music)

LucaCavaliere wrote:

fine. call it culture. (I prefer music)

I'm intruding, but art music is culture

To answer all of you, I will do so in this topic because I think it is the one that can best summarize all the topics discussed.

If I answer you, we end up fighting.

I consider your "introductory hat" absolutely delusional. (Claudio)

Absolute delusion (Part two)

Dear Claudio, I can assure you one thing: I have other problems, and the last one would certainly be fighting with you or anyone else. That said, despite everything, I will allow myself once again to rave; then, if you wish, I will stop, simply because I do not like leaving a discussion without having clarified my thought or delusion, so to speak.

I do not know if, regarding my "hat," you consider my personal statements delusional – I assume so! – or also the quotes from various musicologists that I have reported – I assume and hope not, because once again, if that were the case, I must repeat: if the musicologists of today and tomorrow are like you, we are fried! – because, regardless of whether one shares their thought or not, it is the tangible demonstration that the discourse on the primacy of music – at least that one! – is not my delusion, but a real problem that has persisted from after Beethoven to the present day, as demonstrated by the statement of Trias – the greatest living Spanish philosopher, and thus not of German culture – when he writes that « Johann Sebastian Bach is surely the greatest composer of all time ». One cannot therefore disregard this issue which has engaged the cream of international musicologists for almost two centuries now and continues to be a major topic, enriching itself – this part, yes! - with new facets and new points of view through the ever-widening knowledge of pre-Bachian music and by framing and historicizing even the 20th century. This remains true that one cannot and will never be able to disregard Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, and their historical and artistic importance, whether you like it or not; rest easy about that.

As for the rest, regarding the issue of non-German musicians, I am truly embarrassed... we have spoken other times in this forum about how J.S. Bach's HISTORICAL importance is very relative. And it is not something that can be easily pigeonholed... (Claudio)

I do not know what you have said previously, but you, my dear son, with Bach once again make me shudder from the horror of your thinking, which I hope, with the years and the serenity of a beautiful old age – it is a wish I make for you, naturally! - you can extensively revise. Alberto Basso, among the main scholars and biographers of Bach, said that the composer from Eisenach represents « a historical figure so central and decisive for the events of music » and Giulio Confalonieri added: « Outside the grayness of his mortal days, Bach rises and dominates the history of the spirit, a solar hero, servant of God and master of men. ». This may be enough to answer you... then do as you wish, think what you want!

alother point, then, is the choice that time has made among the compositions of Bach, as among those of Mozart and Beethoven. Once again, it must be repeated how a large part of Beethoven's compositions were sympathetically ignored until the 1900s, and are still little appreciated. Same for Mozart, same for Bach. (Claudio)

Aside from the Bach discussion, which we all know how it went, Mozart was widely known and loved by his successors, starting with Beethoven himself. Regarding Beethoven, his last masterpieces were ignored – except for the Ninth, naturally – because they were absolutely misunderstood by many of those who succeeded him, but about this, if you have read me, I have already spoken extensively. The heroic Beethoven was known, and if Beethoven imposed his primacy on the musical scene throughout the 19th century and part of the 20th, it was above all because of this. If even today the third style is ignored – or not appreciated for what it is truly worth – it is because an extremely tedious ignorance prevails even among many professionals.

That said, the historical, artistic, and theoretical weight of Monteverdi is widely comparable to that of Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Without a doubt. Similar weight could be held by Palestrina, Josquin Desprez, Gesualdo, and, without any rancor, the mere fact that you do not know them or do not "practice" them or do not appreciate them does not mean they lack historical and artistic importance. (Claudio)

Once again, we are throwing out names as if playing a game of chance. And so be it!

But you, Claudio, tell me: what do you know about the music that I practice? As a matter of course and knowledge, I listen to all music from Gregorian chants to Nono, Berio, Boulez, Vacchi, Clementi, Guarnieri... and I think I can distinguish a great master from a great one and from a mediocre one. Palestrina was a great master, Desprez too; as for Gesualdo, he was a great [master] and

... we are already moving into personal tastes, in my opinion.

In that sense, your battle against Wagner is inexplicable. If you want, we can open another topic to discuss it, but here I will limit myself to giving a "sententia", in Latin: Wagner is the most important composer of the 1800s. It is absolutely possible to make a "valuable comparison" between him and Beethoven, even though I do not like this type of comparison. But I truly do not understand how certain passions can cast such a thick blanket of ham over your eyes and your ears. Practically ALL poets of the late nineteenth century and most novelists spoke of Wagner; many painters made portraits of him or used iconographic themes related to his works; many philosophers used the characters from his works to illustrate ethical, ontological, and other criteria; practically ALL composers following him (and many contemporaries) copied him; the greatest THEORETICAL revolution in 1900s music actually has its roots in his compositions; he is widely cited in the histories of architecture, scenography, theater, and directing; he practically invented the fantasy genre, which today is a highly respectable cinematic and literary genre. I mean, what more do you want?!

We all study Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven more than others because nineteenth-century German musical historiography asserted that these three are the greatest of all time. (Claudio)

There is no one more deaf than those who do not want to hear.

I would put Wagner in the same category, rest Verdi's soul. For several reasons cited by someone, Verdi does not hold up... at all. (Kappa)

Yes, Wagner has the requirements to be a giant (FranK)

Exactly, my dear friends: "There is no one more deaf than those who do not want to hear"; rather, in our case, there is no worse reader than those who do not want to read. I already clearly told Kappa that Wagner can only be counted among the greats, and I think I also said it to you, Claudio, and therefore: what battle are we babbling about here? I adore Wagner, but I would like to remind you—to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, as Simone says—that the scenography and directing in Wagnerian theater, that Copernican revolution, was due in particular to a "certain" Adolphe Appia and not to Wagner himself. This does not take anything away from his greatness, let it be clear, it was just to specify it.

That said, reminding you that regardless, Wagner was German—and from head to toe, I would say—and therefore he could also be part of that German imposition mentioned above—but he is not—I limit myself to claiming equal treatment for Verdi—that's all!—a composer who, in a path diametrically opposite to but contemporary with Wagner, starting from the Rossinian-Donizettian-Bellinian legacy, brought melodrama to Himalayan and brilliant heights such as Otello and Falstaff, not to mention that absolute masterpiece which is his Requiem Mass in memory of Alessandro Manzoni.

You, Claudio, arbitrarily assert that Wagner was "the most important composer of the 1800s.". I think instead that, excluding Beethoven in the nineteenth century—a full century, whether people like it or not—of great composers, there are three greats: Wagner, Verdi, and Brahms—in chronological order—and that all three can well hold a place in Olympus.

And at this point, what surprises me—or perhaps, on second thought, does not surprise me at all—is your absolute failure to mention Johannes Brahms, the third great German B, after Bach and Beethoven.

I do not think it is an oversight but something intentional, and why is that?

Even someone like Massimo Mila, for one, started from positions that were certainly not favorable toward this musical genius—because he was such—only to later, at a later stage, candidly confess his own errors regarding him: "The essay on Brahms, for the centenary of his birth, is the disastrous starting point of a long journey of approach, which through successive stages would have led me from a state of intolerant deafness, complicit with the anti-romantic prejudices of 'modernity', to a condition of almost idolatrous affection (...) Brahms is the first and probably the greatest master of Decadentism, that is, of modern civilization. Decadentism which in music (...) means precisely the entry of culture as a component of artistic creation, the unavoidable necessity to deal with a past accumulated over centuries, the obligation to consciously assume one's historical responsibilities (...) Brahms as the last Verdi and then Reger, Debussy, and Busoni (...) began, as Schönberg says of Brahms, 'to write music for adults'. (...) They were prepared to follow in the footsteps of the past and to annex historical culture among the creative forces of art; and they did so with a power of assimilation that their successors lacked."}

neoclassicists. (...) Brahms takes the bass from a Bach Cantata for the passacaglia of the Fourth Symphony, and no one even notices, because the power of his musical fantasy, nourished by culture, ensures complete homogeneity: thus the Bach quotation, similarly to what will happen in Berg's Violin Concerto, will compose itself like those little pieces of epidermis taken from a healthy part to be placed inside a large burn, where they gradually sprout, restoring the entire destroyed tissue.

In the soul of whoever wrote the Fourth Symphony and the Clarinet Quartet, the forces that shook the world in the last hundred years have passed, along with the life experiences upon which Proust and Kafka, Freud and Joyce, Musil and Thomas Mann arise. It's just that Brahms is the greatest of all, and the history of culture will never be able to form a complete and exhaustive picture of European decadence as long as it neglects to annex musical values. On the other hand, musical culture is reluctant to recognize the modernity of Brahms' art, because it still lies under the partisan remnants of a polemic whose historical justifications are now exhausted. Yet Schönberg had clearly seen that when at Wagner's death "it was a matter of profound contrast," already at Brahms' death "there appeared in its effective reality, i.e., the difference between two personalities, between two expressive styles, not so contradictory as to prevent the simultaneous presence of the qualities of both in the same composition."

These words Mila wrote to him in 1966; it is regrettable to note that after almost fifty years, things are probably still so.

I am not talking about "non-Western" classical music because it is not a subject that can be resolved into a topic, and I am not an expert. What would you think if I wrote a topic titled "Western Classical Music"? I would think I was being a bit presumptuous...(Claudio)

On one thing, in the rush to write, you are right, I wrote something stupid: in reality, I didn't mean to say that other cultures do not have a classicism, but that they do not have high-sounding names to propose, but for the rest you confirm what I already knew and what I can deduce from one of those manuals you lash out at, accusing them of Western centralism.

e let it be clear to me, I like Rachmaninov, not everything, but I like him! (Daniele)

...not me, others represent me better.... (Frank)

Even for me, without a doubt; it's one thing that you might like something from a composer, and it's another to feel represented by that composer.

Primarily for France, I think you should delve into Messiaen, but truly deeply. (...and maybe I was thinking of Ravel and Debussy, oh well) (Frank)

Messiaen is the new frontier of music. Berio is another face of the frontier of music. (Kappa)

Even here, dear Frank and Kappa, I am sure I have already said how great Messiaen was and that I have no problem counting him among the greatest, so I don't understand why you insist. If it's because you want him before Stravinsky, I'm sorry: for you it may be so, but not for me. Let's go back to tastes!

Vivaldi? (Daniele)

Ask Bach and his transcriptions... he knew whom to honor.

Even Vivaldi could be ok (note the "could") (Frank)

So let's go back to Alberto Basso: "One of the most astonishing qualities of the man Bach – and which makes him an almost unique case – is his extraordinary interest in the works of others, together with absolute, almost virginal respect for their art, without receiving anything in return, not even that courteous attention that is characteristic of a civilized society. Study was the purpose of his vitae, his art was the full mirror of constant scientific application. (...)"

The fact that Bach transcribed pieces from other composers like Vivaldi and Pergolesi and others does not make them of the same level as his for this reason. Otherwise, so would Duke Johann Ernst of Saxony-Weimar, whose concerto Bach transcribed.

Vivaldi was a great composer, but Bach was a giant, and here I stop!

But in your opinion, in the history of music (Western), how many composers have known how to do something as great as The Art of Fugue or the Quartet Opus 130 with the Great Fugue attached as a finale? - damn, nothing comes to mind.

Nothing of Mozart, help meeeeeee!!!!! -. (Daniele)

Exactly, I repeat, take it out (Frank)

So, dear Frank, if you remember well what I wrote in the Edumus forum, among the three great giants, Mozart is certainly the one least related to me. I won't hide from you that very often I prefer listening to music by other composers to his. This does not change the fact that Mozart was a very great composer and surely today it is a very common sentiment: he is the greatest of all among musicians. It would therefore not be fair to remove him; in doing so, one would do something absolutely

arbitrary and would, once again, allow personal taste to prevail over an impartial analysis of this giant.

Mmmmm...

I don't agree with practically anything you said Daniele, but I will avoid responding because, as I have already said, this topic is infinite and I maintain the idea that talking about it would lead nowhere anyway; it wouldn't change your mind and you wouldn't change mine... So it's better to remain friends without wasting time unnecessarily.

Forgive me for quoting myself, but rereading it I realized the meaning could be ambiguous...

I said it because I have expressed my point of view on other topics already, not because it is truly useless.

However, I am pleased to see where this matter will end up... (Simone)

Dear and kind Simone, it is certainly not up to me to decide and dictate what the rights and duties of a forum moderator are. I know that what is usually expected from a moderator, in general, is at least a certain impartiality towards points of view if they are stated politely.

That said, please believe me, in truth I am quite happy that you are also giving your opinion, because you are a professional and I have had the chance to see your balance in how you present yourself.

Perhaps I would have preferred it if, instead of merely telling me that you "don't agree with practically anything" I wrote, you had provided a bit more reasoning, if only so that I could respond. I think I at least deserve that; otherwise, this is how people are silenced, even if—it is true that in a second moment you attempted to correct yourself, and I acknowledge that.

Unless you also believe I am raving... and then.....!

Well done, anyway, to whoever has read this far!

In this forum, I am not only a user but also a moderator, although I very rarely don the mantle.

But I repeat to you that quoting other discussions by assembling them into a single message is ill-advised. Your message is already very long (but that is not a problem) and articulated; the quotes from books and other forum discussions make it truly complex. What's done is done, I say this for the future.

As for the merits, I have no interest in carrying on an opinion war.

Personally, I consider myself a child of so-called postmodernity; I have approached different cultural (as well as musical) fields, trying to put them on the same level, discriminating a posteriori rather than a priori. I do not like making rankings of musicians, just as I do not like making rankings of disciplines, and this has caused me many headaches over time. Why? Because Daniele's quotes show how the vast majority of "musicological" literature (in a broad sense...) has questioned, especially in the past, this famous primacy in music that the topic discusses.

I do not like these topics. I consider them delusional. And here I repeat that my judgment is not directed at people but at themes. Whether Daniele says it or Trias says it—to whom I have no personal affection and towards whom, therefore, I do not feel I have any particular deference—it does not interest me. I do not like maximalism; rereading myself, I sometimes find maximalist judgments, but I am almost never proud of them, and in that sense, I take back what I said about Wagner, because the reality of the facts is that I am not interested in expressing a judgment on who the greatest composer of the 1800s or the 1900s or of human history was. I deem it useless. And delusional, in the sense that it serves more to give air to one's voice than to produce anything good or scientifically serious. Or maybe yes, and I am wrong, but my opinion at least serves to clarify... my opinion. IT does not interest me and I deem it delusional. And many of my musicological professors were never interested in such things.

When I am older, I might change my mind, perhaps. It infuriates me that a person older than me can consider some of their own convictions as "inevitable" for everyone, but probably I too have said similar things in other situations. So, peace; make your rankings and go to the bathroom with a ruler in your pocket...

Ok, Claudio!

Allow me, however, to give you three suggestions that, obviously, you won't give a damn about: the first is not to fly into a rage because, in reality, it serves no purpose; you save yourself two efforts: getting angry first and then calming down later. The second concerns Etiquette – or whoever is in charge -: it is preferable to tell an older person that they are

I don't believe that anyone among us is interested in creating rankings and records in music. I say this for myself, and I see it in you as well: both in those who shun them with disgust (Thallo), and in those (Daniele) who lend themselves to contemplating a phenomenon that has indeed occurred in the history of musical criticism, trying to understand what the historical-cultural foundations of certain judgments were (whether they were sensible or nonsensical), sometimes approving them, sometimes rejecting them.

Then, it is clear that each of us has our own personal "preference" rankings [the term 'preference' is reductive: I don't know how many would feel satisfied claiming they listen to Beethoven, or Mahler, or whoever else, just "because it is pleasant." But so be it. For what I mean, I will keep this term with all its smallness]

It is a childish game to say who are, for me, the giants, the greats, the good ones, the less great, etc.

But it is a naive game to which I willingly lend myself. If for no other reason than because in the past, in Armando Orlandi's old forum, more than once thanks to "naive" comments, I received stimuli to deepen, meditate upon, and discover points of view and musical works that, perhaps, I would not have approached.

Of course: "art music is culture" (ttw wrote this and I agree). But when three days ago I wrote about preferring music to culture, I meant—perhaps too laconicly—that music always remains 'beyond' any 'talking about music.' That is what I meant.

I like 'talking about music' and reading critical essays. And even 'talking about music' for me is culture.

But I wish to specify that I consider both rigorous analyses and more emotional expressions to be equally serious.

There is not just one way to talk about music (and about art in general). It is correct to 'contextualize,' but personally, I find 'decontextualizing' more beautiful. Obviously, one can disagree, but for me, the writings of Romain Rolland deserve the same respect as the analysis of Hanslick: not out of benevolence, but due to equal seriousness.

I repeat: there is not just one way—good and fruitful—to 'talk about music.'

And it comforts me that in the epigraph to Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, he did not note "from the mind – may it reach the minds" (excellent ones), but, as we know, "from the heart – may it reach the hearts."

danielescarpetti wrote:

All right, you're right Claudino, I am old and obsolete, but I cannot resign myself to the fact that things in music are becoming so conformist. Your – or your collective – way of thinking will lead to making everything the same, making everything worth the same, that art music is just a lie invented by old musicologists, philosophers, and intellectuals who didn't know what to write and delighted in wasting time on nonsense, just to enchant people.

That's how the world goes and I must resign myself and lay down my arms because, as always, I have lost!

The best way to close a discussion is to close it, which means not responding. So I take my share of the blame for having continued and for continuing at this moment.

But... I do not use etiquette with those who do not use etiquette with me. I perceive many of your messages as provocative, towards me and towards others. If you treat me like a youngster, I treat you like an old man (completely ignoring what your age actually is, for that matter). Always remaining, at least for now, within the scope of so-called netiquette. In this sense, I would ask you not to call me "Claudino".

And here I close.

Finally, if you permit me, I will close, without lengthy "tugs." I would say we close here. Our creature within the creature works very well. It works well if everyone observes correct behavior, just as if they respect a serene environment, where there is respect and understanding, almost familial. Correctness is respect, for oneself and for others. These are not empty words, believe me. In my life, I have truly tried to strictly maintain a low profile, without excesses, and putting myself at the service of Art, as much as possible given my limited abilities. I am no saint; on the contrary, this costs me a lot. But in my work, as in life, I have often met excellent people. Other times, less pleasant people. But if these simple rules of civility are respected, our future can only be one of friendship and understanding. Dear Daniele, you have managed to make me write some less serene responses, since even with me you had too impudent an approach. And yet, nothing could have personally disturbed you, and if something has intellectually offended you, well, we are here to discuss it. Irritating a person like me, believe me, is not a problem. Irritating Claudio is a titanic feat. If you did it unintentionally, it is my duty as a friend to ask you please to be less arrogant. If you did it intentionally, which I do not believe, it is my duty as a friend to tell you that, in my modest opinion, you are not quite in the right place to express your ideas in this way. With unchanging friendship to all, yours A.

Dear friends, forgive me for reading this only now, but I am tied up with university and therefore do not have much time to log on here to the forum.

@Daniele Scarpetti

Dear Daniele, my post already partially contained the motivations you were seeking from me (which, among other things, you provided in your subsequent post, whether you wanted to or perhaps intended to). To simplify, I do not want to speak about the musical field, but I feel it necessary to draw a parallel with football, where we want to compare the greats of football (a sporting sector in which I have no expertise, but which I chose only for statistical convenience). Trying to draw up a ranking of the greats is always a difficult task, but above all subjective, and past experiences within the forum have made me observe that discussing certain topics can be interesting on a cultural level but perfectly useless in terms of discursive purpose; in short, an experience that enriches us but leads nowhere.

If I had to choose three composers to bring to the island, I might say Bach because he was the first to put "architecture into music," Mozart for his mockery of society through his music, and Chopin because he strikes a romantic chord within me. You might tell me: "And where do we put Beethoven?" Or Brahms, as you rightly recalled... I don't know if my list will change as the years go by, probably it will; I only know that right now I live this reality and no one can ever give me sufficient reasons to change my mind, simply because it has to do with something deeper than the usual objective comparisons of what one person did that another did not; it has to do with the realm of emotions. Only time can modify emotions, and perhaps tomorrow I will see things as you do, or perhaps not, I cannot say. Therefore, do not take it as an offense if I did not want to continue the discussion with you; the fact is that I would repeat myself for the hundredth time. However, I notice that every time these "best of" discussions are reopened, new points of view always emerge, which is why I preferred to listen in silence to what you had to say (one always learns something new). Do not hold it against me then if I did not justify my exhortations, and forgive me if I was not explicit.

I would instead like to open a small parenthesis to "placate the burning spirits." I want to specify that although I am the administrator of this forum, the message in these few lines that follow is not intended at all to have the air of an official reprimand (and it is not); rather, it wants to resemble the words spoken by a friend who wishes to extinguish the flames that developed after an intense high-level reasoning with prose that might even be banal.

We are here to discuss and enrich our knowledge with other points of view. Well, let us always try to do so with extreme serenity without useless friction. I know Claudio's writing quite well and I am only now starting to get to know yours; you both seem to me to be capable people of a certain stature, and I am sure that in the future you can respect each other in your exchanges of opinions (I have already learned to know Claudio: he is a very good person who can sometimes seem more fiery than he actually is, but you understand well that if he had called you "Little Daniel," you would probably have been just as surprised). There has been undesirable people here, and the human level, as well as the cultural one, was certainly not yours. I mean that we are not dealing with the case of unwary people who insist they are black even if it is objective that they are white, or those individuals who, even without knowing anything about the subject they are talking about, vigorously attack others to have a reason that does not exist, that goes against the laws of physics, or that is impossible. I hope that in the future, we can continue to exchange these flows of information on a smooth and paved road, and not one full of potholes like this topic has been. After all, in almost all fields of human knowledge, there are supporters of different sides: let us listen to others, present our ideas serenely, and to close the circle, let us strive to respect each other's convictions.

Harmony!! Let us remember that we are talking about music!

Ad maiora...

Dear Armando and Simone, due to reasons related to the usual tyrannical weather, I am unable to reply to you promptly. I promise myself to do so within the week.

In the meantime, I send you my warmest regards.