"the composer should restrain his inspiration and follow nature"

thallo wrote:

But this discussion between you and me, besides being off-topic, ends up becoming incomprehensible to others.

I struggle a little, but these comparisons are always interesting.

I really like discussing things with you, Thallo: you are cultured and endowed with logic. You have many reasons, even regarding me. But you too have your beautiful mystics, it seems to me.

However, I do not want to further bore our fellow travelers, nor do I intend to be intrusive with the exquisite hosts. Therefore, I conclude by stating only that the truths I have encountered until today, in every field, did not then appear so true when put to the test of facts. But I harbor much hope.

A greeting to you and to everyone. And a thank you to Barbara, who started such an interesting discussion.

I thought I had said my piece (regarding "following or not nature") and wouldn't write anything more in this discussion. But the discussion went elsewhere (which, most of the time, doesn't bother me).

So: I didn't know who Alberto Savinio was. Following Otello's citations, I went to look for news about him on the internet.

Now, just two opinions on the excerpts from his "magnificent book" that Otello cited.

"In general terms, all pre-Beethovenian musicians operate within a Ptolemaic concept of the universe, whereby we, in order to adapt to this different and lesser measure of the universe, must make an effort of reabsorption and mental retrogradation (…) Only he, Beethoven, does not force us to change ourselves (…)".

Here it seems to me we are close to fanaticism.

Probably at twelve years old, I was also that absolute. Why deny it. After two years, I was already more cautious in my judgments.

I appreciate Thallo's coolness in judging Savinio's statements as "a bit 'strong'", "vague and unargued", and at most calling them a "little phrase".

To me, frankly, faced with things like the comparison between Sicilo's epitaph and Bach's work, only to arrive at the Panzer Division...

Faced with these statements, Fantozzi's synthetic judgment on Battleship Potemkin came to mind.

You are absolutely right, Luca Cavaliere. On the other hand, your caution in judgment is quite evident. And I do not struggle to explain it to myself, having learned the harmony of your mind with that of Fantozzi.

Otello wrote:

And I don't struggle to explain it to myself, having learned the harmony of your mind with that of Fantozzi.

I hope I didn't misunderstand the irony. Because read this way, it just seems like an insult.

Dear Thallo, it seems to me that I have shown the utmost respect and the best behavior towards everyone. I have expressed value judgments (and how would it be possible not to?) regarding artistic or intellectual matters. But I never dreamed of thinking that I was expressing merit judgments towards people. Luca Cavaliere defines me as a fanatic by extension, since I shared Savinio's opinion on Bach's music; he establishes that I have a pre-adolescent mental age; and concludes by stating that the "magnificent book that Otello cited" made him think of Fantozzi's synthetic judgment. Who is offending whom, then? Will I be free to think as I believe, or must I account for it to some of the members? Did I ask anyone to share my opinions? Have I countered anyone by asserting that those arguments made it difficult for me to keep my cool? In short, this whole business seems truly a 'Fantozzian' affair to me.

Kind regards.

The issue, from my point of view, is quite simple: on a forum, one should not write as if in a personal diary, but rather converse with others. It is not the speaker's corner, where we take turns saying something; it is more like an expanded and themed chat. For this reason, I myself have asked you several times to elaborate on some of your messages, because I wanted to converse, to discuss certain topics, not just to read you.

Look, no one came here to give a lectio magistralis to anyone else. Personally, I do not appreciate 'ipse dixit' and I prefer that even insults are countered with arguments.

Regarding insults: everyone has their own different sensitivity. Even after re-reading Luca's message, I find nothing offensive towards you. I find a judgment regarding Savinio; in fact, I find a judgment regarding a quoted sentence from a book by Savinio. From my point of view, saying "you are stupid" or saying "you said something stupid" is different. We all say stupid things. Even Savinio.

But—and here lies the beauty of the forum—you have the opportunity to plead any cause you wish. To plead a cause is not to account to the members for how you think. It means, sometimes, deigning to give others attention, moving from being a baptist (the voice crying in the wilderness...) to an evangelizer, at the very least. The ideal would be the dialoguer, who does not necessarily consider their own news to be good...

In essence, in my judgment, Savinio says nonsense, and in a high-flown style. In the same way that you can quote it, I can denounce its absurdity. And you can counter (on the subject, not on the person). That is how forums work.

I should preface that I know Savinio as the pseudonym of the painter De Chirico's brother; I know he was a composer – but I have never had the opportunity to listen to his music – but I did not know he was also a music critic. My writing, therefore, is based solely on what Otello has reported here and on what I learned, reading about him, in a music encyclopedia which, moreover, confirmed my first impression upon reading the sentences reported here.

From my point of view, the error common to both contenders is the failure to contextualize Savinio's thought; this leads Otello, on one hand, to uncritically accept what he has written and, on the other hand, Claudio and Luca to criticize him harshly without any conditional in his favor.

The writings reported here date back to 1941 and are affected by that climate of which I have already spoken extensively in "Il primato della musica": on one side those who sought to demolish the myth and the primacy that Beethoven held since Romanticism within the field of music, bringing the figures of Mozart and Bach to the forefront, and on the other those who sided in defense of and in favor of the genius from Bonn.

Savinio distinguished, I extract from the music encyclopedia: "music before and after Beethoven, one Ptolemaic and the other Copernican, said this one anchored to codes and constraints, this one absolutely free to express itself".

While it is certainly true that the adjectives used by Savinio may seem absurd to our ears today, it is equally true that in his statement there is also an indisputable truth: the history of music can be divided into before Beethoven and after Beethoven or, more precisely as Maestro Sciarrino states: "We must affirm that Beethoven acts as a watershed. After him, music tends to move out of time and unfold in a sound field.

The concept of 'field' immediately tells us that we have moved from organizational criteria of an acoustic type to criteria of a visual and spatial type."

But not only! As the musicologist Eduardo Rescigno states: "Modern consciousness imposes on every musician, from Beethoven onwards, continuous and troubled creative choices, in the sense that every composition constitutes an individualized outcome, different from previous works of the same genre (whether Symphonies or Concertos, whether Sonatas or chamber works and even theatrical works): it thus becomes unrepeatable. How much this behavior and destiny is closely linked to that individualism which is a fundamental, supporting pillar of the Romantic conception is quite evident: however, upon closer inspection, it is a phenomenon clearly prefigured in the last classical musicians."

And I would like to see that it is not so! Think of Mozart's last three symphonies or the great Da Ponte operas, and the splendid "Die Zauberflöte", or Haydn's magnificent London symphonies, his last quartets, and his final oratorios.

Therefore, Savinio's reasoning, beyond the adjectives, is not so far from all this.

Highly debatable and absolutely unacceptable is what Savinio affirmed about Bach. I am sure that even at those times many did not agree with him but, back then, it could have been legitimate to speak in such terms. The discussion regarding Vivaldi then becomes murkier because, as is well known, until a few decades ago, only his concertos were known of the 'Red Priest', ignoring his entire operatic and sacred repertoire. I do not understand – my own limitation surely – his judgments on the rest of the composers... but I do not regret it much.

Whereas instead, I find myself substantially in agreement with what was written about Beethoven and, frankly, I don't understand why you, Luca, write "Here it seems to me we are close to fanaticism". Savinio speaks of Beethoven in terms of greatness and as a Man, which is essentially what is still maintained today. See Trias, in this regard, we always spoke about it in the "primato", see many discussions we have had among ourselves. Savinio's way of expressing himself – I repeat – may be dated, but in this part there is no fanaticism; instead, there is a realization that continues, albeit described in another way, to be a constant of our modern days.

But finally, it is to Otello that I want to turn to return, finally, to the theme launched by Barbara.

Otello, I think you will also agree with me now, that if Beethoven had listened to Haydn, he would not have composed only sacred music but quartets, symphonies, sonatas – as he did, after all – without too much upsetting the given rules, the form – sonata, and following the dictates of nature.

As for Haydn, if I understood correctly Savinio does not speak of him since you state: "as well as Haydn, by necessity - note from Otello".

I don't know what your relationship is with this composer but, the reality is that regarding Haydn, from the date of his death in 1809 until about 1950, there was an image that painted him as a noteworthy composer and"} ,

respectful but absolutely uninspiring.

The reasons are various, starting with the fact that he had the misfortune of encountering in his life path, first a Mozart and then a Beethoven. But it wasn't just that!

What I want to emphasize here, however, is my invitation to study him more deeply as he deserves.

Of course, the fact remains that if it hadn't been for Haydn, Beethoven would have been a different composer!

Daniele,

you bring a lot of stimuli and answering you "quickly" is always a bit unpleasant.

At first, Thallo's expressions regarding Savinio's judgments ("a bit 'strong'", "vague and unargued", and then "bullshit") made me feel like I was in good company; now (on the same ones) I read your sentence: "Highly debatable and absolutely not shareable" . . . and I feel more and more in good company!

Do you want to know why it seems to me that the comparison Savinio establishes between Beethoven and other composers borders on fanaticism?

Because in such a judgment, I sense a danger, a "temptation" that even seduces me.

I have also happened to think it. (If I had to keep only one composer, I would have no doubts: Beethoven).

But it is one thing to have a thought "that comes to mind," and quite another to write it down, develop it, theorize it (and publish it!)

To think that only Beethoven "He alone, Beethoven, does not force us to change, to deform ourselves, to diminish ourselves" and to think that only his is "Music of man" "the highest elevation of the human voice," to think things of this kind, I would have to plug my ears and disregard the good received from countless works – huge and tiny – by many other composers, before and after him.

No, I cannot contextualize such judgments.

From an intellectual, I expect something more: that they raise and broaden their own perspective. Even beyond the 'nonsense' of their own era.

Ciao

Luca

The thing I regret most is that I fear Otello has abandoned the company, and I would so much like it weren't so.

You, Luca, see the fanaticism in that sentence: certainly, phrased that way, it is undoubtedly very strong.

However, there is another sentence I wanted to ask Otello how to interpret, and it is this one: "Mozart forces us, much to our grave disappointment, to become tiny, tiny and innocent."

I would therefore like to ask you, Claudio, or anyone who feels like answering this question.

From my point of view, I could read it with two substantially opposing keys of interpretation: the first is that he forces us through his music to regress to an infantile state – and in this case, it would be a negative key of interpretation, or at least that is how I perceive it – and if that is so, I wonder: why? In what sense?

Or perhaps [we become] very small and innocent because of his greatness towards us normal men, and if this were the right key of interpretation, we would be verging on true fanaticism here.

Or......??????

But Otello said that Savinio considered Bach and Mozart the greatest of the "Ptolemaic" age... and so??

Tell me what you think, if you feel like it!

Mozart as an eternal child is another half of Romantic mythology, which, alas, has significantly influenced enjoyment and performance practice ... perhaps Savinio meant "also" other things, but thinking the worst, and therefore thinking that Savinio experienced Mozart as light and childish, one might even be right...

Goodness, it could really be like that, Claudio!

I hadn't thought of it; perhaps it's because I have always found the image constructed and still held by many regarding Mozart to be abominable: that of a very lighthearted, disinterested, playful, childish boy, albeit absolutely brilliant.

However, it must be said that, even in this case, as in Beethoven's: the construction of this romantic image was contributed to, in some measure, by Mozart himself: I am thinking of the famous letters to his cousin and his absolutely libertine lifestyle.

This false mythology was then re-proposed again in 1984 – thus in times far removed from Romanticism – when director Milos Forman made the most famous and absolutely overrated film about Mozart titled "Amadeus," based on a theatrical text by Peter Shaffer which, in turn, drew it from a story by Pushkin, who in turn was inspired by Stendhal's Mozart biography. The film achieved great public success and won 8 Academy Awards, and while it had the merit of making many newcomers love the music of the Salzburg composer, this result was obtained by telling two macro-falsehoods, and many micro-falsehoods, about the life and personality of Mozart: in addition to renewing the image of a Mozart who was a brilliant but infantile, uncommitted, playful musician with an idiot's laugh, the cause of Amadé's premature death is attributed to poor Antonio Salieri!