"the composer should restrain his inspiration and follow nature"

The first question I would ask myself is: what is meant by "nature"?

Franz Joseph Haydn, in a conversation with Beethoven around 1793, said: «You have much talent and you will acquire even more, enormously more. You have an inexhaustible abundance of inspiration, you have thoughts that no one has ever had; you will never sacrifice your thought to a tyrannical norm, but you will sacrifice the norms to your imaginations: you have given me the impression of being a man with many heads, many hearts, many souls.» Beethoven was 23 years old and had not yet even written the Trios op. 1, which are from 1794.

I am impressed (positively!) by the Haydn quote reported by Carlos. These are important words: much more "weighty" than many other praises that the young Beethoven received, including the famous dedication from Count Waldstein.

It makes me think: what an eye for detail... Haydn!... [ an ear for music would be more appropriate ] To be able to recognize a weeping willow even when it is still a shrub among many others.

Regarding Barbara's question (and Xenakis' request for clarification), perhaps by "nature" one can mean, in this case, the codified rules (of harmony, of form). At least, that is how it seems to me.

And regarding whether or not to follow these rules, in music history, everything has happened: rigid observance, spontaneous fidelity, conscious betrayals, unconscious betrayals... all regardless of the quality of the music that resulted from them.

I would consider that by "following nature" one meant to "rely on one's own instinct," "giving voice to one's own inclinations." Also because the ego is a reactive impulse, rather than a spontaneous one.

I understood "following nature" as following the codified rules of harmony, form, proportions, etc. (trying to put myself in the mind of whoever said that phrase to Beethoven) imagining that at the time - at the peak of the gallant style - there was a widespread idea of nature as something non-disruptive. And therefore, great importance of proportions, symmetry, harmony, pleasantness. But I wouldn't stake my reputation on it. It could very well be that Otello rightly understands it as "relying on one's own instinct" (that is, on something within one's own interiority), which brings the meaning of the phrase in the exact opposite direction. Chis

Barbara wrote:

«the composer should restrain his inspiration and follow nature»

From my point of view, the composer must let his inspiration explode... far from castrating it...

On second thought, and even after reading your comments, I must say that Haydn's statement allows for interpretations that are even opposite to one another. If we evaluate the sentence by placing it in the context of the Austrian master's life and existential vision (as he was a fervent Catholic), then it is also plausible to believe that Haydn meant that the composer should temper his passions and direct them toward composing hymns of glory in excelsis Deo. As was obvious, however, Beethoven thought well to go his own way in any case. And he did very well.

Premising that understanding historical etymologies is always an undertaking... how to say, if you don't know it, you don't know it, and at least I don't know it... that being said, I am adding another hypothesis, which was the first one to come to mind: on one hand, the exterior understood as "decorative" musical creativity, let's say; on the other, the deep nature, in a Schopenhauerian, Romantic sense, as well as one's own nature, which in Beethoven's case should be the powerful side, Sturm und Drang style. So, I was thinking precisely of the opposition between the galant style and proto-romanticism, Empfindsamer Stil (C.P.E Bach, to be understood) and Sturm und Drang (Beethoven...)

Several interesting interventions, I don't know, but I don't know how much (or I can't associate it myself - my own limitation obviously) was taken into account that the phrase came from admirers of Mozart and Haydn.

I was trying to imagine someone who has Mozart in their ears and then speaks of "nature"...

On second thought, and even after reading your comments, I must say that Haydn's statement allows for even opposing interpretations. If we evaluate the phrase by placing it in the context of the Austrian master's life and existential vision (as he was a fervent Catholic), then it is also plausible to believe that Haydn meant that the composer should temper his passions and direct them toward composing hymns of glory in excelsis Deo. As was obvious, however, Beethoven thought well to go his own way in any case. And he did very well. (Otello)

Before trying to respond to Barbara, I would like to revisit this last intervention by Otello because, frankly, I am having difficulty following it.

Haydn was certainly a fervent Catholic, but it is also true that in his catalog, between masses and oratorios, he is far from the volume composed by Mozart, who, though equally Catholic, was sui generis.

Between 1796 and 1801, he composed three oratorios that are to be counted among his greatest masterpieces: "The Seven Last Words of our Saviour on the Cross", "The Creation", "The Seasons", and so it is worth saying: thank God for creating them; but it remains true that Haydn's name was primarily linked to the fact that he was the father of the symphony, the quartet, and the sonata, and thus above all a secular musician—forgive the term—in every sense. The truth is, as Richard Strauss said a long time ago—and unfortunately it is still largely true today at least regarding Haydn: "People still try to dig in the precious mine of Mozart, but in Haydn's mine there are perhaps even more hidden treasures than suspected.". But that is another matter altogether.

"the composer should restrain his inspiration and follow nature"

I read that this was one of the typical pieces of advice given to Beethoven by some admirers of Haydn and Mozart...

... is that really the story? Could it be? (Barbara)

perhaps "nature" can be understood, in this case, as codified rules (of harmony, of form). At least, that's how it seems to me.

And regarding whether or not to follow these rules, everything has happened in the history of music: rigid obedience, spontaneous fidelity, conscious betrayals, unconscious betrayals... all regardless of the quality of the music that resulted. (Luca)

Several interventions, all interesting, I don't know, but I don't know how much (or I can't associate it myself—my own limitation, obviously) was taken into account that the phrase came from admirers of Mozart and Haydn.

I was trying to imagine someone who has Mozart in their ears and then speaks of "nature"... (Barbara)

First of all, hi Barbara, nice to meet you!

You are right! You speak of "admirers of Haydn and Mozart" and not the composers, one of whom had already passed on to a better life and, in part, from my point of view Luca has answered you, in the end, what those admirers meant was essentially calling Beethoven back to respect for "codified rules (of harmony, of form)".

But then, you will wonder, why call it "following nature"?

Because in the ideas and thought of the Classical period and also the Romantic period, Nature—with a capital N—played an absolutely central role.

A poet like Hölderlin, a contemporary and beloved by Beethoven, considered Nature to be akin to universal harmony, to immanent truth; it was beauty and perfection: Nature is not living because it receives life, but because it gives life; it is not divine, but it is the Divine.

The theologian and philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), speaking specifically about music, expressed himself thus: "And since it feels itself in every small dissonance, grasping within the narrow scope of our limited combinations of sounds and our tonalities all the vibrations, movements, modes, and accentuations of the spirit of the world, of the universe, is it still possible to doubt that music surpasses all other arts in interior efficacy? It must surpass them, just as the spirit dominates the body: indeed, music is spirit, akin to the deepest energy of great Nature, movement."

Even Beethoven himself, influenced by Enlightenment ideas, had a pantheistic vision of Nature: "Almighty, in the forest! I am blessed, happy: every tree speaks through you—O God! What splendor! In such a wooded region, in every treetop there is peace, the peace to serve Him—In the woods there is an enchantment—It is as if in the countryside every tree makes me understand its voice saying to me: holy, holy!".

From all this, it can be deduced that for the men of that period—Goethe at the forefront—the musical perfection achieved by Haydn and Mozart represented the voice of Nature and thus of the Divine.

Beethoven, on the other hand, upon arriving in Vienna, understood immediately that an era had...

It has been said, and I repeat it here: Beethoven is part of that very small group of men who had the opportunity to combine their genius and character with a historical situation favorable to change, to the revolutionizing of the status quo.

Carlos here recalled the Trios of Opus 1! Well, even from these early works and, in particular for 87 bars of pianissimo in the finale of Trio No. 3, Beethoven received scoldings from Haydn, who considered such a choice too reckless and innovative: people would not understand it.

Essentially, this is the story of the entire compositional life of the genius from Bonn: how many works that we today consider absolute masterpieces were poorly criticized, starting with the Eroica? So many, countless, and, naturally and above all, the Himalayan masterpieces of the last ten years of his life.

And so, how did it end? Barbara, let Milan Kundera tell it to you; he has not only written "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" (which became famous due to a bad film), but also countless and wise essays, and this one in particular, in its conclusion, always moves me: « Beethoven, in the last ten years of his life, no longer expects anything from Vienna, from the aristocracy, or from the musicians who honor him but no longer listen to him; nor does he, for that matter, listen to them, if only because he is deaf; he is at the summit of his art; his sonatas and quartets are unique; in terms of structural complexity, they are far from classicism, but for this reason they do not approach the easy spontaneity of the young Romantics; in the evolution of music, he has taken a direction that has not been followed; devoid of disciples, devoid of successors, the work of his evening freedom is a miracle—an island. »

It is a matter of school of thought, dear Daniele Scarpetti. For my part, I share the thought of Alberto Savinio, according to whom, "Bach and Mozart (as well as Haydn, by necessity - Otello's note) are the greatest representatives of pre-Socratic music, of the music preceding the discovery of musical consciousness, which occurred in the early 19th century through the work of Beethoven" (Scatola sonora, p. 51).

For Savinio, the love for the music of the pre-Beethovens, for this music that does not increase human potential, but also does not create anxiety, is an effect of fear. It is music that sounds in a conservative, static, reassuring way. Very differently from the art of Beethoven, which is overwhelming and a proponent of progress.

I cannot help but feel the same way.

Hi Otello, I should preface that I am not familiar with this book you are talking about and therefore the answer I give you will be based solely on what you have written; I would need to properly understand how to interpret this part of your speech: "For Savinio, the love for the music of the pre-Beethovens, for this music that does not increase human potential, but also does not create anxiety, is an effect of fear. It is music that sounds in a conservative, static, reassuring way. It is music that sounds in a conservative, static, reassuring way." Above all, I am referring to the effect of fear—what is it referring to!?!

Thank you!

I am happy to answer you, Daniele. To do so, however, I prefer to quote Alberto Savinio once again:

"[...] There is more depth, in the precise sense of the word, in a thought of Heraclitus than in all of Bergson's 'Creative Evolution'. There is more depth, in the precise sense of the word, in the solitary song of the scholion of Sicilo than in all of Bach's colossal work. And it is precisely this lack of depth in Bach, this naive seriousness of his, this "not posing a danger," that creates his charm and justifies the attraction he now exerts on the bourgeoisie. And above all, his organization as a methodical, calm man faithful to his wife. Because as far as organization is concerned, in Bach's great compositions, there is already the tank and the Panzer division."

("Bach and Counterpoint", 1941, from "Scatola sonora")

Since we are mostly talking about Beethoven anyway, I wish to quote another passage from Savinio's magnificent book:

"[...] In general terms, all pre-Beethovenian musicians operate within a Ptolemaic concept of the universe; therefore, in order to adapt to this different and lesser measure of the universe, we must make an effort of mental reabsorption and retrogradation, similar to what we would have to do if we wanted to believe again that the earth is the center of the universe, and that at the apex of the stellar pyramid overlooking our planet sits the Eternal Father surrounded by light, with a white beard open on his chest and hands raised to bless his children. In particular, Palestrina forces us into a purely liturgical path, Vivaldi forces us to walk quickly on our feet and keep our heads at rest, Bach forces us into an interwoven cage of counterpoints closed to every horizon's gaze, Rameau forces us to twirl around dressed in crimson satin, Mozart forces us, much to our grave disappointment, to make ourselves very small and innocent. This is for the pre-Beethovenians. As for the musicians from after Beethoven up to those of our day, the Romantics force us to bow our heads and close our eyes under the weight of a melancholy sweetness, Wagner forces us into certain feelings between heroic and foolish, which we bitterly regret in hindsight, Debussy forces us to transform into disjointed and limp creatures that cannot stand upright, Stravinsky forces us to live like neckless puppets occasionally traversed by an electric current. He alone, Beethoven, does not force us to change, to deform, to diminish, or to exit our condition as men. Because he is a man and his music is the music of a man. Because his greatness, which is immense, is nothing but the immense enlargement of man. Because his voice, which is extremely high, is nothing but the extremely elevated elevation of the human voice."

("Beethoven alone a man", from "Scatola sonora")

Otello wrote:

It is a matter of school of thought

(...)

For Savinio, the love for the music of the pre-Beethovens, for this music that does not increase human potential, but also does not create anxiety, is an effect of fear. It is music that sounds in a conservative, static, reassuring way. Very differently from the art of Beethoven, which is shattering and a proponent of progress.

I cannot help but feel the same way.

I feel compelled to underline the initial little phrase. Savinio's opinion is very "strong," so much so that it no longer forms part of "pure" historical considerations, but becomes thoroughly critical, ideologized, and "scholastic." That type of criticism that almost flows into mysticism (and rhetoric), and which, not without reason, addresses authors more than works. I do not share it; I cannot help but see how far some statements (on static music, on Bachian depth, or on Ptolemaic cosmology) are from musical reality—from the notes, in short. Est modus in rebus: in criticism, one can say almost anything; it is an authorial operation, there is a signature at the end; but if one does history, or musicology, or analysis, then one must strive to be an exegete, to establish (albeit in different ways) a clear hierarchy between oneself, the texts, and the contexts.

This is not an attack on criticism or on Savinio (and even less so on Otello). But when delving into musical matters, it is always good to remember that some opinions, even those that appear most shareable or objective, stand on an "ontological" plane different from that of "History."

That being said: we could even try to understand what the hell the Italian "estro" translates to... because if the original is in German, then it can be anything (Eingebung? Anwandlung? Inspiration?). The same applies, albeit less complicated, to the word "natura."

thallo wrote:

we could even try to understand what the hell 'extroverted' Italian translates to... because if the original is in German, then it could be anything (Eingebung? Anwandlung? Inspiration?. Same thing, although less complicated, for the word "nature".

True, I hadn't thought of that at all

Today I continue by quoting:

Scientific propositions are true or false, because they are falsifiable judgments of existence; philosophical statements, on the other hand, are authentic or apocryphal, because they are judgments of meaning. The truth of a proposition is always hypothetical, and only its falsehood is experimental; the authenticity of a statement, however, is verifiable, and its apocryphal character is merely suppositional. The scientific criterion is experiment, which can falsify but not verify; the philosophical criterion is experience, which can confirm but not refute. We can never guarantee the endurance of a scientific proposition, nor certify the death of a philosophical statement.

[Gómez Dávila, "In margin to an implicit text"]

Therefore, one cannot see who could ever be right in a discussion, whatever the level of consideration may be. For my part, I discuss to give and receive a contribution of information.

Define "philosophical statement".

And then link this definition somehow to Savinio's quotes, which do not seem to me to be "philosophical statements".

And then reread my sentences on "history", "analysis" and "criticism"...

I have sought and I seek to make distinctions precisely because the hierarchical relationships between opinion, texts, and contexts in historiography, analysis, and musical criticism are methodologically different. If a critical opinion is virtually unfalsifiable (insofar as the criterion of falsifiability is simply nonsensical within a field like criticism, which is considered non-disciplinary, much like literature or journalism, as I was saying before), historiographical opinions and analytical opinions MUST maintain a relationship with factual data.

The statement "Napoleon was born in 1550" is false, even if not with the same mathematical falsity for which 2+2=5 is false. Of course, tomorrow we might even discover the falsity of the texts that supported our knowledge about Napoleon, but dismantling the possibility of a judgment of falsity and truth for non-mathematical assertions in such a radical way would undermine much of human academic culture.

The same situation applies to musical analysis, a technical discipline in which some of the truth criteria adopted for judging statements are provided by simple linguistic consensus. At a basic level, analyzing a musical piece means fragmenting musical elements and defining them according to definitions coined long ago. If the harmonic sequence I call a "cadence" does not actually meet the technical criteria of a cadence, then I have said something stupid. Problems arise when the level is no longer basic but becomes, let's say, advanced...

Transforming "classical" musical analysis into true hermeneutics is a process that leads to tangencies with criticism. And it is precisely here that the fundamental difference between criticism and analysis lies. Analysis bases every assertion on its relationship with the musical text (whatever it may mean, because even a CD can be a text) and on the elaboration of a technical language (elaborated in sometimes disparate ways). Criticism is often vague and selective; it asks much about the "why" and little about the "how".

Savinio's statement "There is more depth, in the precise sense of the word, in the solitary song of Sicylus' scholion, than in the entire colossal work of Bach" is vague and unargued. What is the precise meaning of the word "depth", for example? It has no contact with the "historical truth" of the things he speaks of. Sicylus, for example, wrote no scholion; the one being referred to is an epitaph. Although not an expert in Greek music, if that noted epitaph was ever actually sung (literally or in an expanded form), it is likely it was done so in the form of a threnody and, therefore, in a chorus. It is probable, therefore, that it was not even solitary. To claim that Sicylus' epitaph is deeper than Bach's entire oeuvre, then, even before deciding whether an opinion is shareable or not, is simply an unargued sentence. Savinio's criticism, like much criticism, leads to a series of aporias; it does not clarify but complicates things, often making them more interesting or finding fans and detractors.

But let us always remember that not everything in music is a matter of opinion.

Heisenberg, Russell and Gödel almost entirely demolished the physical and mathematical systems preceding them, without replacing them with stable and definitive theoretical complexes. On the contrary, they demonstrated that absolute knowledge is not and will never be accessible to man. The efforts made by the best among us consist of seeking ways that allow for an existence that is, as much as possible, less dramatic for ourselves, and by extension for the majority of humanity (since the malaise around us will sooner or later impact our own existence, no matter how well we may believe we are doing). Yet, we verify daily the insignificance of the results we manage to achieve. We have spent tens of thousands of years moving from the club to nuclear energy, but our impulse is still that of destroying our fellow beings. This would seem to demonstrate that the first problem is finding the tools to modify our way of feeling and our behavioral systems. Do we want to act, then, by perpetuating the same methodological errors that have extensively shown their insufficiency? Do we still believe we can solve our problems by repeating the usual behaviors? One only needs to look around to become discouraged. On the other hand, the very fact that we are destined to end takes any meaning away from our actions. So what to choose? Accumulate as many material goods as possible or renounce everything? As far as I know, no system of thought has yet found the solution, regardless of whether one clings to rationalism rather than religion, or to philosophy instead of science. And vice versa.

Life is too short to believe that we can find some kind of answer. Gramsci (a rationalist in many respects) stated that to live meant to be a partisan. To take sides, therefore; to lean towards a thesis, to align oneself with a choice. Is it possible to do otherwise? I think not. Because, in the end, everything is open to opinion.

Even the one you are using right now is rhetoric cloaked in mysticism... Heisenberg, Russell and Gödel did physics and logic without demolishing anything; on the contrary. They demonstrated (especially Russell and Gödel) that the METHODS were partly wrong, not the substance. The paradox works like this: Achilles REACHES the tortoise! And that is the point. The fact that he reaches it serves as evident proof that the reasoning itself has problems, and is not strong enough to lead to the truth.

But this discussion between you and me, besides being off-topic, ends up becoming incomprehensible to others. I still believe very much in communicability, otherwise I wouldn't write on this forum :-) and in that sense, I would be curious to read your arguments in favor of Savinio's assertions. Or rather, I would be curious to understand if you think there is the possibility of arguing in favor of a thesis or not. You said that you "feel it" that way. So I imagine that the "historical truth" or analytical truth of past music interests you only up to a certain point...