The Musical Value Of A Composition

Very difficult question, I wouldn't know how to answer...

An extremely difficult topic to resolve and justify. We have already discussed it in the past using "the society of freeloaders" as an example; we could probably stay here talking about it until the end of time and still fail to obtain an explanation of objective value.

I can tell you how I justified certain considerations... My approach was rather relegated to "common sense," as dear Frank rightly judged in one of my posts.

My explanation focused on a comparison of attitudes within the compositional field rather than on the results of the writings. And I posited a Beethoven with a time machine coming to visit us today, with today's musical technology at his disposal provided by a recording studio. At this point, we take a DJ: Albertino, Tiësto, whoever you want, anyway someone who makes disco music. We let Beethoven listen to disco music for a day, and we do the same with a DJ by letting him listen to a symphony. At this point, we ask Beethoven to write disco music (obviously providing him with someone who uses a PC and who corrects nothing but only does what Beethoven tells him, including re-listening), and we do the same with the DJ, asking him to write a symphony using only a piano and staff paper for help... To make a respectful parallel, we must put Beethoven in a position to work as DJs work today and, likewise, today's DJs in the conditions in which Beethoven was composing (we will spare him the deafness, which is already quite something).

It seems clear to me that the reasoning speaks for itself...

Evaluating the matter objectively, as I was telling you, is a topic that leads nowhere, thorny and without possible outcomes. Convincing someone of the superiority of one genre over another is impossible. One is a genre and the other is another; how can you compare apple pie with cacio e pepe spaghetti? There will always be those who say the pie is better because it takes more time to make it, requires more ingredients, more skills, but in the end there is always someone who doesn't like sweets and prefers a good gricia 100 times more (there, provided that it is good, of course).

First, I will answer you as a "scholar":

if one wants to make an "evaluation" of a piece, one must decide beforehand, limited to what exactly you are evaluating it by. The concept of value is a highly variable concept; there are economic, emotional, cultural, and historical values, and they are all important values. There are innovative and very well-written pieces that had no historical value because they were lost for years or because they were written in a period already full of other masterpieces or in a period when that genre was no longer popular; conversely, there are "banal" pieces, simple and not particularly intriguing, that changed the history of music and art (the example I always give is L'homme armé, one of the most important little songs in the history of ancient and medieval music, but we could also mention Fra Martino Campanaro or Giro giro tondo). My training makes me say that I consider it "correct" to give evaluations within the genres to which a piece belongs. Especially if the piece is expressly written to follow a logic of genres. That is, TODAY an hip-hop piece is just a hip-hop piece, and it makes no sense to evaluate it with criteria such as, I don't know, harmonic richness or timbral variety. There are expressly cross-over pieces, meaning spanning multiple genres, but the vast majority of today's music, that which is called "commercial" but which would make more sense to simply call "pop," follows a strict logic of genre. When judgment is limited to the genre, it manages, incredibly, to be more serious. If I say that a piece is the best piece in history, it is practically impossible to prove my statement. But if I say that the CD by "Vattelappesca" is the most interesting death-metal CD released in Italy in 2012, i.e., by greatly limiting the scope of my judgment, then my judgment gains more value, it is more easily demonstrable; one just needs to know all the other CDs of that genre released in that place in that year.

Very personal response.

Evaluating music serves almost no purpose, especially in opinion battles. My personal experience tells me that there are criminals raised on Mozart and wonderful people who have listened to Laura Pausini for a lifetime. And so, to each their own music; I don't listen to classical because it is objectively better, but because I like it more.

TheSimon wrote:

I can tell you how I justified some considerations... My approach was rather relegated to "common sense," as dear Frank rightly judged in one of my posts.

The presence of this aspect

Pio wrote:

Would the goal be to provide more elements to those who are not industry professionals and to make them re-evaluate the classical repertoire?

leads me to approach the discussion in a different way.

In a similar context, several years ago, I wrote the following, which I still feel I share... let's say 90% of it; I am posting it anyway in the hope that it becomes a stimulus for discussion.

---------

"If I have to relate to another person on the subject who is not an industry professional, but "only" a listener and consumer of the complete musical landscape, there are few alternatives.

Or rather, first one should understand if both interlocutors are willing to build that piece of bridge that will allow both to meet and unite.

A preliminary question could be: what percentage of tracks do you consider valid in the "club music" landscape?

And then I would follow up with a nice "what about these tracks strikes/pleases you most"?

For every piece of evidence, I would show how this aspect is present in art music to the nth degree, even with practical examples.

Unfortunately, constructive comparison costs energy for both, and if one wants to build their little piece of bridge... they must invest a bit of time.

Some levers:

-if he liked the "melody" element, I would take a piece by Chopin, hum the various themes to him, and highlight them during the guided listening

-if he liked the "rhythmic" element, I would take a piece by Bach, and show him what rhythmic variety means

-if he liked "form" (verse, chorus, choral counterpoints, all sorts of elaborations, etc.), I would explain to him what a form "really" is

...and so on for the lyrics, for the tension aspects, etc.

The beauty is that in the end, the interlocutor will continue to listen to "club" music... but at least they will have understood what the tools are to "evaluate a composition" ("exponent" and "greater presence of all elements (...which are then constructs)").

This "thankless" job has happened to me and continues to happen even now, and I must say that so far I have managed, more or less, to embark on a listening path... starting from Pachelbel's canon, Mozart's Requiem, Beethoven's Für Elise, the Wedding March (even the two main ones, a good comparison), Air on the G String, Liszt's Liebestraum, Albinoni's Adagio (which is very popular now), and so on; surely there will be some foothold... advertising truly provides many ideas (fortunately, at least this).

It also happens that the interlocutor doesn't give a damn about what you say... the work will be very long and will hardly bear good fruit.

But if someone truly wanted to understand, industry professionals really have all the tools without "falling into" technicalities.

Frank

PS

I'm adding a bit more fuel to the fire (deliberately provocative); established that music must be accessible at multiple levels, and the more levels it satisfies, the more valuable it should be... I ask:

ONE

- is the music of the 1900s avant-garde better (which PERHAPS reaches the professional and not the people): "one less target"

- is the music of the current G. Allevi better (which reaches the people and not the professionals): "one less target"

... I'm getting ahead of myself... is there a target that matters?

DUAL

Must music, in order to be beautiful, necessarily be genius?"

---------

Aside from the somewhat provocative final questions, I must quote Thallo's very personal response.

thallo wrote:

Very personal response.

Evaluating music is almost useless, especially in opinion battles. My personal experience tells me that there are criminals raised on bread and Mozart and wonderful people who have listened to Laura Pausini for a lifetime. So, to each their own music; I don't listen to classical because it is objectively better, but because I like it more.

I, and I think you others too, approached art music at a young age not because I knew what was written in it, but because it was "my" music.

This is at the same time a jab at conceptual music, which must be "understood" to be appreciated... ergo, who at the age of 10 would approach it, unaware of everything that might lie behind it?

... throwing in one last bit of nastiness for the day"}

Frank wrote:

I, and I think the rest of you, approached art music at a young age not because I knew what was written inside it, but because it was "my" music.

This is at the same time a jab at conceptual music, which must be "understood" to be appreciated … ergo, who at the age of 10 would approach it, unaware of everything that might lie behind it?

… throwing in one last bit of nastiness for the day

mmhmm, I'm feeling the blow.

If one wanted to find a single term to distinguish what I like to call “art music” — and not for a merely snobbish reason, but because among the various adjectives usually used I consider it the most appropriate for the reasons I will set forth — and, not so much or not only club music, but light or pop music, I think that term is “complexity.” The more or less pronounced complexity depending on the case is what makes the difference between a song that, however beautiful it may be, can never reach that of a symphony, and even more so that of quartets or pieces of a polyphonic-contrapuntal character; «here is the real reason why the bulk of people do not love learned classical music: committing to listening requires effort,» as Maestro Salvatore Sciarrino wrote in his “Le figure della musica da Beethoven a oggi.”

It therefore seems highly unlikely that one could convince someone who only listens to songs about the importance of approaching music that has, as its main peculiarity compared to what they habitually listen to, complexity.

Personal tastes must always and anyway remain indisputable; beauty in music is transversal, in the sense that it can belong to all musical genres, and there is nothing strange if even those who frequent art music listen to music of other genres.

A while ago I read — I don't remember where now — that John Lennon's “Imagine” had been decreed the most beautiful song in the world. I am not interested here in discussing how legitimate or right it is to decide such things — and I could say the same for symphonies, quartets, etc. — and I do not know exactly the terms by which it deserved this primacy — I imagine that the beauty of the melody and the lyrics of great poetic and substantive value did most of the work — what matters to me here to state is that it is undoubtedly beautiful and that, like many other songs, I prefer listening to it over symphonies that I simply do not like.

I am making this point also because I want it to be very clear that, on my part, there is no prejudice toward any type of music and that, however, I dread and am absolutely opposed to a “new culture” that today seems increasingly to take hold and which tends to homogenize and make everything conform without any distinction.

I had the umpteenth proof of this reading in the newspaper “La Repubblica” on Friday, January 11, 2013, the interview with Alessandro Baricco, musicologist, novelist, essayist, and more. In the nineties, Baricco wrote a book titled “L'anima di Hegel e le mucche del Wisconsin,” whose contents I partially shared and partially did not. While his ending, containing an open criticism of all atonal music from Schönberg onwards, seemed absolutely unshareable to me, I found myself in absolute harmony with his beginning, when Baricco, having graduated on the philosopher Theodor Adorno, reports one of his statements: «Works of art, and completely those of supreme dignity, await their interpretation. If there were nothing to interpret in them, if they simply were and that was it, the line of demarcation of art would be erased»; he then continued that the consequence is therefore that: «(...) any musical product to which the practice of interpretation adheres, in reality, is determined as art music.»

Now it is indubitable — from my point of view at least — that if the other Arts require the need for interpretation by those who enjoy them, art music instead requires, first and foremost, the interpretation of those who make that mass of sound accessible to the public, who in turn can understand and interpret it subjectively.

Today, however, Baricco no longer thinks this way, erasing that «line of demarcation» asserted by Adorno to distinguish Art from the rest. In fact, the writer states: «(...) we should understand that we have moved beyond. There is no longer any line of demarcation between high art and popular art. There are ugly things and beautiful things, living and dead, simple and more complex. That's all (...). I have not disavowed Adorno, but knowing him well, I have been able to evaluate his tragic errors over the years.” Even! — «It is a starting error. We mistake for high art an art that at the time was popular. Verdi's theater was popular. It was what they did at that time, without asking if it was learned or popular.»

Thus, the process of homogenization and conformism of our time reaches completion, and when intellectuals and men of culture like Baricco subject themselves to it, the worst is truly to be feared.

Even from the premise, that «we should understand that we have moved beyond» makes me shudder. It is the usual story that happens every time a “new culture” wants to displace the “old” one: one tries to"},

cancel what was previously stated. Did this not perhaps happen at the beginning of the twentieth century with Romantic culture? To then claim that high art was popular in its time is to say something that is not exactly true. In reality, as Maestro Sciarrino instead states: «(...) the ideal and original conjunction between artists and the masses (...) has occurred exceptionally in history, for example with Greek tragedy and nineteenth-century melodrama».

Great music before Beethoven was the exclusive preserve of the nobility and the clergy; from Beethoven onwards, it also included the emerging middle class who accessed theaters or the salons where it was performed. Only with the invention of the radio – and thus towards the end of the nineteenth century – and, gradually, increasingly with sophisticated technologies, has art music been able to become a common heritage for all the masses; in reality, we are the first generations that can listen to and, if willing, approach all music, from Gregorian chant to that which is contemporary to us. If Baricco's reasoning were true, it would mean that past generations were by far more cultured than current ones. But that is not the case!

Today we face the risk that in a short time art music will pass into oblivion. Letting that «line of demarcation» fall would be equivalent to letting all the great music that made our Western society great and unique die – as much as the best that has come from the hands and brains of men from our past.

Let us return, then, to the initial question: what can be done so that many approach art music? Today, those few who approach it are mostly people coming from families where it was already listened to; a few others do so because in middle schools – the only schools in Italy where one studies a bit of music, apart from Conservatories obviously – they found a teacher who knew how to instill in them the desire and curiosity to tackle this repertoire, or because they have a relative, a neighbor, or a friend who listens to it; but the sad fact is that its charm is increasingly exhausting for new generations. Young people who listen to art music are branded by their peers as old bores who listen to music that is abundantly outdated and do not know that the same accusation was made thirty or forty years ago to those who are already elderly today. Because this music, this great music, comes from far away and must go far, and if this does not happen, all of us – indiscriminately all of us – will be much poorer and emptier.

A country that were a little more civilized than ours would ensure that everyone could know and choose which music to listen to and love, and it would do so through its school system, whose main task is to educate and enlighten on everything. But we are in a country where money is cut from schools, just as it is from culture and theaters, and only we will be able, if we want, to make the wind change direction; and it certainly won't happen by homogenizing and conforming everything.

For our part, for those of us who, in one way or another, whether as professionals or simple lovers, must never lose the desire and the stubbornness to continue talking to anyone who intends to approach it, and the desire to fight so that it can continue to live and not become a museum piece.

I hadn't realized the complexity of the question I naively asked; there are enough insights here to give 10 lectures. I have other questions that are tormenting me following your prompts... I will process things a bit and we shall see.

For now, thank you

I am responding to some of the things written by Danielescarpetti, which I do not agree with. But I should preface this by saying that my comments are not intended as an attack.

danielescarpetti wrote:

If one wanted to find a single term to distinguish what I like to call "art music" and—not so much or not only disco music, but light or pop music—I think that term would be "complexity."

[/Quote]

I disagree. There are "certain" complexities; there is no "the" complexity. It is the same argument I was making regarding value and values. The "pop" galaxy has explored complexities different from those explored by the music you define as "art music." I will stop here to say that the academic world, today, tends to speak of art music in an inclusive way, incorporating into it part of the repertoire once considered "pop." And the trends of the Anglosphere lead to increasingly dismissing the differences between highbrow and lowbrow, both from a sociological point of view (culture is culture, whether academic or popular) and from a technical-musical point of view (as I was saying, the complexities of pop are as complex as those of "classical").

It therefore seems highly unlikely to be able to convince someone who only listens to songs about the importance of approaching music that has, as its main peculiarity compared to what they habitually listen to, complexity.

Elaborate on this importance of approaching complex music. Was there a moment in your life when you decided to listen to complex music to improve yourself, to implement some kind of change, or did you simply do it and continue to do so for reasons of taste?

While personal tastes must always and anyway remain indisputable, beauty in music is transversal, in the sense that it can belong to all musical genres, and there is nothing strange if those who frequent art music also listen to music of other genres.

Some time ago I read—I don't remember where now—that John Lennon's "Imagine" had been decreed as the most beautiful song in the world. I am not interested in discussing here how legitimate or right it is to decide such things—and I could say the same for symphonies or quartets, etc.—and I do not know exactly the terms by which it deserved this primacy—I imagine that the beauty of the melody and the lyrics of great poetic and substantive value did most of the work—what matters to me here to assert is that it is undoubtedly beautiful and that, like many other songs, I prefer listening to it over symphonies that I simply do not like.

Well, putting aside the discussions on complexities, "Imagine" is a song of gigantic historical significance. No composition by Sciarrino has such a heavy role in human history. This makes knowing it important and "cultured" in itself (notwithstanding that appreciation is a matter of taste, precisely).

I had the umpteenth proof of this reading in the newspaper "La Repubblica" on Friday, January 11, 2013, the interview with Alessandro Baricco, musicologist, novelist, essayist, and more. In the nineties, Baricco wrote a book titled "The Soul of Hegel and the Cows of Wisconsin," whose contents I partially shared and partially did not. While his ending, containing an open criticism of all atonal music from Schönberg onwards, seemed absolutely unshareable to me, I found myself in absolute harmony with his beginning, when Baricco, having graduated on the philosopher Theodor Adorno, reports one of his statements: «Works of art, and completely those of supreme dignity, await their interpretation. If there were nothing to interpret in them, if they simply were and that was it, the line of demarcation of art would be erased»—he then continued that the consequence is therefore that: «(...) any musical product to which the practice of interpretation adheres, in reality, is determined as art music.»

Now it is indubitable—from my point of view at least—that if the other Arts require the need for interpretation by those who enjoy them, art music instead requires, first and foremost, the interpretation of those who make that sound mass accessible to the public, who in turn can understand and interpret it subjectively.

Today, however, Baricco no longer thinks this way, erasing that «line of demarcation» asserted by Adorno to distinguish Art from the rest. In fact, the writer states: «(...) we should understand that we have gone beyond. There is no longer any line of demarcation between highbrow art and popular art. There are ugly things and beautiful things, living and dead, simple and more complex. That's all (...). I have not disavowed Adorno, but knowing him well I have been able to evaluate his tragic errors over the years ". Even! - «It is an error of"}

departure. We exchange for art high culture an art that was popular in its time. Verdi's theater was popular. It was what they did at that time, without asking if it was highbrow or popular."\n\nThus, the process of standardization and conformism of our time reaches completion, and when, intellectuals, men of culture like Baricco subject themselves to it, the worst is truly to be feared.\n\n

\n\n Argue this 'worst' :-) that is, what can this thing lead to? To the extinction of the human race and to the tyranny of an alien race? I don't like Baricco, but I personally believe in differences of merit (of value, we might say here). Avoiding distinguishing between "high" music and "low" music allows us to find beautiful things and ugly things in both. That is, to make distinctions a posteriori (after analysis) and not a priori. Adorno is criticized by many today—I can't stand him, for example—but I imagine my academic opinion is still somewhat weak in this sense... but besides the fact that I don't see how a world of anti-Adornian academics can change a world on which Adorno had NO influence, we should resign ourselves for a moment to the fact that history moves forward. Our discourse will change nothing, the invocations against or in favor of the good old days will change nothing; art history is made by artists and not by musicologists, and musicologists should at most try to interpret it, to understand it, not to oppose it. Saying "there is nothing left to understand" or, a bit like Adorno used to do, "you believe you understand but in reality there is nothing to understand," has the value of a mumble in front of a white wine drinker sitting at the table of a Bergamo bar. At least that's how I see it.\n\n I will continue the comment later, excuse me, I have to run...\n\n

Here I am again, continuing the comment

danielescarpetti wrote:

Even from the premise, that "we should understand that we have moved beyond" makes me shudder. It is the usual story that happens every time a "new culture" wants to displace the "old" one: an attempt is made to nullify what was previously stated.

I disagree with these statements on many levels. As I was saying before, I think that when talking about music, one should remember that music is historicized; it changes over time and its meanings change relative to time, history, and the moment in which it is listened to, composed, or played. "New" music is new, old music is old. One must resign oneself to this, while trying not to take it to extremes. Bach is old; you can delude yourselves as much as you want, but Bach is old—not only that, whoever listens to Bach today (one random one of the many Bachs) does so with different ears, different methods, and different expectations. To ignore all this is naive.

In this sense, twentieth-century "culture" did not displace Romantic culture,

Did that not perhaps happen at the beginning of the twentieth century with Romantic culture? To then claim that high art was popular in its time is to say something that is not exactly true.

putting it in these terms means anthropomorphizing in a "pitiful" way (in a positive sense). Culture is fluid and historicized; it changes with days, months, and years, not from the top down but in a homogeneous way. Tastes, movements, and aesthetics succeed one another on their own, and this process is unstoppable.

In reality, as Maestro Sciarrino instead states: "(...) an ideal and original conjunction between artists and the masses (...) has occurred exceptionally in history, for example with Greek tragedy and nineteenth-century melodrama".

This is the second time you have called Sciarrino "Maestro." Is there some kind of relationship between you and Sciarrino? I like Sciarrino's music, but there are people who act as musicologists or music historians, and there are people who are composers. Sciarrino's analysis is so synthetic that it becomes misleading. From what Sciarrino says, it seems that the success of nineteenth-century Italian melodrama is something more than the success of pop music today. Or at least, you put it that way. Not knowing the source text of the quote thoroughly, I don't know what Sciarrino really meant. But even in these terms, it is all a connotative argument. One cannot compare with such ease the situations of Periclean Athens, nineteenth-century Milan, and today (an expanded "today," because magically if we speak of today, we are speaking of the globe). Therefore, unless the discussion becomes more specific and precise, I prefer not to give opinions on the matter.

Great music before Beethoven was the exclusive prerogative of the nobility and the clergy,

Oh God, I don't know, not always; let's see what is meant by "great music." As usual, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance skew things, given that in Italian cities, a lot of profane music was likely widespread. But it is also true that the concept of nobility changes through the ages. Here too, the statement is so generic that perhaps it is better not to offer further opinions.

(to be continued...)

(to be continued...)

Only with the invention of the radio – and thus towards the end of the nineteenth century - and, gradually, increasingly with sophisticated technologies, art music has been able to become a common heritage for all the masses and, in reality, we are the first generations that can listen to and, if they wish, approach all music, from Gregorian chant to that which is contemporary to us. If Baricco's reasoning were true, it would mean that past generations were by far more cultured than current ones. But that is not the case!

shey are different levels of enjoyment. Today we have a concept of plebiscitary mass that has never existed in history; it is true that today more people listen to classical music and music in general. But this does not automatically make the enjoyment of music in the past "elitist." There are a thousand nuances between the two extremes, and certainly the phenomenon of nineteenth-century Italian melodrama, of dance songs in the Italian Renaissance, of great instrumental virtuosos throughout Europe in the nineteenth century were, in their own way, mass phenomena. However, if we keep the discussion vague, we can say everything and its opposite. We should understand where this line of reasoning leads in order to center it better.

Today we are facing the risk that in a short time art music will pass into oblivion.

... really? But you just finished saying that we are more cultured and that there is more of an audience than in the past? Conservatories in Italy are teeming with students, there are dozens of music schools that live quite well, new markets like the Far and Middle East idolize Western musical history...

To let that «line of demarcation» fall would be equivalent to letting all the great music that has made our Western society great and peculiar die—as much as the best has come from the hands and brains of men from our past.

like when at the beginning of the twentieth century they displaced Romanticism, and in fact today nobody knows Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann, and instead we all listen to Korngold?

Here I am peremptory, although always with respect (to the person, not the opinions): what you have said is a big, huge, and foolish lie. For decades now, the repertoire has never decreased; it has always increased.

[

Let us return then to the initial question: what can be done so that many approach art music? Today those few who approach it are mostly people coming from families where it was already listened to; few others do so because in middle school – the only school in Italy where a bit of music is studied, apart from Conservatories obviously – they found a teacher who knew how to instill in them the desire and curiosity to tackle this repertoire, or because they have a relative, a neighbor, a friend who listens to it; but the sad fact is that its fascination is increasingly exhausting for new generations. Young people who listen to art music are branded by their peers as old bores who frequent music that has been abundantly surpassed by time and, they don't know, that the same accusation was made thirty-forty years ago to those who are already elderly today. Because this music, this great music, comes from far away and must go far away, and if this does not happen, all of us – indiscriminately all of us – will be much poorer and emptier.

neither my mother nor my father ever listened to or played music; in middle school my music teacher told me that I SHOULD NOT go to the conservatory because I was too intelligent (...) and throughout my entire classical high school, I was the only one, among students and teachers, who knew who Wagner was. Am I an anomaly? I have the presumption to say that as long as there are anomalies like me, we can remain optimistic. I am optimistic towards new generations. Besides, if you use the adjective "bore," I suspect you don't have much to do with new generations... ... ... but maybe I am wrong.

A country that was a little more civilized than ours

so you admit there are countries that do more? Great, then the problem is only for Italy, not for the world. That consoles me. I just have to resign myself to the idea that it will be Ukrainians, Japanese, and Canadians playing and singing in the future. So I see no reason to worry.

would ensure that everyone can know and choose which music to listen to and love, and it would do so through its school, whose main task is to educate and make people knowledgeable about everything.

make people knowledgeable about everything? Mmm, are you telling me that you remember and appreciate everything they taught you in school?

But we are in a country where money is cut from schools, just as it is from culture and theaters, and only we will be able, if we want to, make the wind change direction and it is"}],

of course, by standardizing and conforming everything, which will happen.

On our part, for those who in some way, whether as an industry professional or a simple lover, must never lose the desire and the stubbornness to continue talking to anyone who intends to approach it, and the desire to fight so that it can continue to live and not become a museum piece.

something has truly gone completely off track...

anyway, I've said my piece, you've said yours

As an outside reader... I really like Thallo's common sense, but I also appreciate Daniele's stances, as he has used many citations to explain his points of view. Also as an outside reader, it seems to me that Daniele formulates his thoughts on the subject starting from the sources he cited, while Thallo gives me the impression of judging the matter in a more personal way. Citations and sources aside, Daniele, how do you truly see things? This is not my way of putting pressure on you, I assure you it is just curiosity.

I think that what distinguishes these different worlds is, rather than the intrinsic complexity of the piece being listened to, "intention" and the lack of "education." The former is a corollary of the latter. By education, I mean the term in all its meanings: listening education, and education in a civil sense. Personally, I have often found myself talking to people (who didn't know I was a classical pianist) who would start with sentences like: "So-and-so went to see Beethoven at the auditorium, what a f&ing bore!". Well, in this sentence, both aspects of the education I was just talking about are identified. At times, in this society, it seems to me that listening to classical music makes one seem less "cool." This idea should be eliminated immediately. This lack of education then leads to a lack of intention. Just as you cannot win a swimming race if you dive in thinking "I'll lose anyway," in the same way it is not possible to approach such an aesthetically beautiful and pure creature if we cover our ears and hearts with manure.

The first question that comes to mind when I hear statements about classical music like the classic "Beethoven is so boring," is...

ME: "But have you ever listened to a Beethoven sonata? A piano concerto? A string quartet? A symphony?".

They invariably answer: "Of course!". And when would they ever have the face to admit their ignorance?

Thus, my second question routinely follows: "What Beethoven have you listened to?".

Them: "The one that goes... Ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta taaa ta taaaaa..." and invariably they bring out the Ode to Joy, which is the only thing they learned in middle school playing the recorder.

So I reply: "Ah, the Ode to Joy from the last movement of the Ninth! And then?".

Them: [Silence...]

At this point, I press further, asking: "But how can you say it's boring if you have listened to practically nothing by an author and the only thing you have heard, let's say, in middle school is the Ode to Joy played on a recorder to boot?".

The scene continues with various excuses until the point where, after a while, it feels natural for me to call them Cliffhangers instead of using their names.

The practice is always the same: they take up absurd arguments just to have to stick to their point as perfect ignoramuses and rude people, because they don't have the face to admit that they know absolutely nothing.

I do not judge the fact that people do not love classical music; I mean, there are masochistic and self-harming people, let alone those who do not like classical music, but at least, I say, listen to it and then express your opinion! It's like wanting to express an opinion on a book without even having read the blurb on the back cover. And it pains me to say it, but a large responsibility for this style (that classical music isn't "cool") is attributable precisely to music teachers of early childhood; don't say no and let's not hide behind falsehoods... Obviously, I am not generalizing; there are those who love their profession and do it with great dignity and skill, but most do not do their job well: either because they are unable to teach despite perhaps being a great musician, or because they are just sitting in the job just to make ends meet.

However, let's return to the topic and why I brought up education and intention in listening. As I said in my first post, I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to compare different genres of music because they belong to different eras, different styles, and are directed at people with different education, backgrounds, and lifestyles. These elements make comparison impossible. The discussion, therefore, reduces in my opinion to a matter of attitudes. I cannot find anything else I can use to bring this discussion onto a plane of rationality since liking or disliking is a subjective factor. And it is for this reason that I pushed the reasoning toward common sense. But is a track by DJ Albertino on par (in terms of attitude) with a Beethoven symphony and vice versa? I cannot believe, and in fact I refuse to believe, that young people prefer repetitive and deafening music made of 2 drum grooves that repeat infinitely and a 4-note melodic line, compared to"}

a symphony. There is only one explanation: if you listen to classical music, you are not a poser; if you listen to house, you are a poser. I think that one can calmly listen to classical music, appreciating its extremely high content, and continue to act like a poser by also listening to house music, but giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

That's all from me

Good night, it's late, tomorrow I need a cannon blast to wake up

I apologize if I am only now getting around to responding, but unfortunately time is a tyrant.

First of all, I thank Simone Renzi for the hospitality he grants me in this forum, and then it seems appropriate to first give a response to this statement by Pio:

« I had not realized the complexity of the question I naively asked; there are insights here for 10 lectures. I have other questions that are tormenting me following your prompts... I will process this a bit and we shall see »

Yours is not a naive question; on the contrary, it is a question that hits the mark in the sense that, from my point of view, it is vital for art music to continue living and, it would be important, that we ask this question with more insistence while trying to find its proper answer.

I now come to Thallo, whom I thank very much because, despite his extreme criticality regarding what I have written, he felt it worthwhile to analyze everything with such extreme meticulousness.

Years of experience in forums teach me that when faced with such opposing opinions, there is little sense in continuing a discussion that, one way or another, would lead to nothing, as the two parties involved will remain substantially fixed in their ideas and thus, as you rightly concluded: « well, I've said my piece, you've said yours ».

I will not stand here advocating my ideas because if someone else wants to – though it doesn't seem to me that they will – they can have their say on the matter, but I wish to make a few points, between the serious and the facetious.

If one wanted to find a single term to distinguish what I like to call “art music” from not so much or not only disco music, but light or pop music, I think that term would be “complexity”.

I disagree. There are "complexities," there is no "the" complexity. It is the same argument I was making about value and values. The

music of other genres.

A while ago I read – I don't remember where now – that "Imagine" by John Lennon had been decreed the most beautiful song in the world. I am not interested in discussing here how legitimate or right it is to decide such things – and I could say just as much about symphonies or quartets etc. - and I do not know exactly the terms for which it deserved this primacy, – I imagine that the beauty of the melody and the lyrics of great poetic and content value did most of the heavy lifting – what matters to me here is to affirm that it is undoubtedly very beautiful and that, like many other songs, I prefer listening to it over symphonies, which I simply do not like.

Here, setting aside discussions on complexities, "Imagine" is a song of gigantic historical significance. No composition by Sciarrino has such a heavy role in human history. This makes knowing it important and "cultured" in itself (keeping in mind that appreciation is a matter of taste, precisely)

In reality, as Maestro Sciarrino instead states: «(...) the ideal and original conjunction between artists and the masses (...) has occurred exceptionally in history, for example with Greek tragedy and nineteenth-century melodrama".

Second time you call Sciarrino "maestro". Is there some kind of relationship between you and Sciarrino? I like Sciarrino's music, but there are people who act as musicologists or music historians, and there are people who are composers. Sciarrino's analysis is so synthetic that it becomes misleading. From what Sciarrino says, it seems that the success of nineteenth-century Italian melodrama is something more than the success of pop music today. Or at least you put it that way. Not knowing the source text of the quote thoroughly, I do not know what Sciarrino really meant. But even in these terms, it is all a connoted discussion. One cannot compare with such ease the situations of Pericle's Athens, nineteenth-century Milan, and today (an expanded "today", because magically if we speak of today we speak of the globe). Therefore, unless the discussion becomes more specific, more precise, I prefer not to give opinions on the matter.

You know dear Thallo, I am sure that in all my raving, I have never named an opera by Maestro Sciarrino to use as an example, let alone to compare with anything, much less the song "Imagine". If I have mentioned the Sicilian composer twice, it is only because, at least in this case, I find myself in harmony with his thought. This does not mean that I am necessarily always in harmony with him, nor do I think that a thought coincides, for better or worse, with the qualitative value of composing in a person. If, therefore, we want to talk about the real or presumed importance of Maestro Sciarrino, it will be appropriate to open another topic.

But now that I think about it, your provocation brings to mind a kind of game.

It is true Thallo, I cannot give you the upper hand even here: the song "Imagine" has a gigantic historical significance. But let's take what you consider the greatest among the composers of art music of the last century – for me it is Stravinsky, but I leave the choice to you rightfully – and of these, take one of his absolute masterpieces. Well, in your opinion, does "Imagine" or that absolute masterpiece of that composer have more historical importance? I suspect and fear that your answer will always be "Imagine" and, unfortunately, once again for good reason. And tell me, what should we deduce from this?

As for the "maestro" with whom I call Sciarrino, whom you also say you like, how should I call him being a composer and moreover of a certain stature: lawyer? Engineer? Architect? Doctor?... Certainly not Salvatore because, I can assure you, he is not my cousin.

I had the umpteenth proof of this reading in the newspaper "La Repubblica" on Friday, January 11, 2013, the interview with Alessandro Baricco, musicologist, novelist, essayist and more. In the nineties, Baricco wrote a book titled "The Soul of Hegel and the Cows of Wisconsin" whose contents I partially shared and partially did not. While his ending, containing an open criticism of all atonal music from Schönberg onwards, seemed absolutely unshareable to me, I found myself in absolute harmony with its beginning, when Baricco, having graduated on the philosopher Theodor Adorno, reports one of his statements: «Works of art, and completely those of supreme dignity, await their interpretation. If there were nothing to interpret in them, if they simply were, the line of demarcation of art would be erased» so he then continued that the consequence is therefore that: «(...) any musical product to which the practice adheres, in reality, is determined as art music"}

of interpretation."

Now it is indubitable - from my point of view at least - that while the other Arts require the need for interpretation by those who enjoy them, learned music instead requires above all the interpretation of those who make that sound mass accessible to the public, who in turn can understand and interpret it subjectively.

Today, however, Baricco no longer thinks this way, erasing that "line of demarcation" asserted by Adorno to distinguish Art from the rest. In fact, the writer states: "(...) one should understand that we have moved beyond. There is no longer any line of demarcation between learned art and popular art. There are ugly things and beautiful things, living and dead, simple and more complex. That's all (...). I have not disavowed Adorno, but knowing him well I have been able to evaluate his tragic errors over the years". He even goes so far as to say - "It is a starting error. We mistake for learned art an art that at the time was popular. Verdi's theater was popular. It was what they did at that time, without asking if it was learned or popular."

Thus, the process of homogenization and conformism of our time reaches completion, and when intellectuals, men of culture like Baricco subject themselves to it, the worst is truly to be feared.

Elaborate on this "worst" :-) that is, what can this lead to? The extinction of the human race and the tyranny of an alien race? I do not like Baricco, but I personally believe in differences of merit (of value, we might say here). Avoiding distinguishing between "learned" music and "non-learned" music allows us to find beautiful things and ugly things in both. That is, to make differences a posteriori (after analysis) and not a priori. Adorno is criticized by many today—I cannot stand him, for example—but I imagine my academic opinion is still weak in this sense... but beyond the fact that I do not see how a world of anti-Adornian academics can change a world upon which Adorno had NO influence, we should resign ourselves for a moment to the fact that history moves forward. Our discourse will change nothing, the invocations against or in favor of the good old days will change nothing; art history is made by artists and not by musicologists, and musicologists should at most try to interpret it, to understand it, not to oppose it. Saying "there is nothing left to understand" or, a bit like Adorno used to do, "you believe you understand but in reality there is nothing to understand," has the value of a mumble in front of a white wine drinker sitting at a table in a Bergamo bar. At least that's how I see it.

What was said before about Maestro Sciarrino also applies to the philosopher Adorno: I have not expressed judgments of merit on his philosophy, and there is no sense in doing so here. If I mentioned him, it is because Baricco speaks of him and because I recognize myself in this sentence of his. Recognizing oneself in a person's thought does not automatically mean sharing everything they say. If we stay on the subject of music, for example, I do not share at all what Adorno stated regarding Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.

The worst, Thallo, is when pieces of our culture are lost, especially that which comes from afar and has immense value. But it is so for any piece of culture. For example, we in Italy are losing dialects—which is a great popular cultural heritage in this case—it is a serious loss that, in this case too, will lead us neither to extinction nor to tyranny, but will make us poorer inside.

Even from the premise, that "one should understand that we have moved beyond" makes me shudder. It is the usual song that happens every time a "new culture" wants to displace the "old" one: an attempt is made to nullify what was previously asserted.

I do not agree with these statements on many levels. As I was saying before, I think that when talking about music, one should remember that music is historicized; it changes over time and its meanings change relative to time, history, and the moment in which it is listened to, composed, or played. "New" music is new, old music is old. One must resign oneself to this, while trying not to take it to extremes. Bach is old; you can delude yourselves as much as you want, but Bach is old—not only that, whoever listens to Bach today (one random one of the many Bachs) does so with different ears, different methods, and different expectations. To ignore all this is naive.

I would be tempted to tell you that here you horrify me; if young musicologists all think this way, we are fried. From my point of view, it is you who are asserting "a great, big, and foolish lie." Defining Bach's music in these terms—just as one would define the music of the greatest composers of the past—is a mistake that demonstrates, once again, to what immense power even people of great culture and intelligence—I know you are one!—are being homogenized and conforming to the trend."}

negative of current times. What, moreover, surprises and saddens me most is seeing how in this forum frequented by many musicians, no one – I say no one! – has had anything to say about at least this.

like when at the beginning of the twentieth century they displaced romanticism, and indeed today nobody knows Chopin, Liszt and Schumann, yet we all listen to Korngold?

In this sense, twentieth-century "culture" did not displace romantic culture.

The fact that there was this will on the part of the intelligentsia and many composers of the early twentieth century does not mean that this actually happened – and fortunately not – but this does not change the fact that there was this extremely harsh attack. Think of Debussy and think, above all, of Stravinsky and Cocteau. Look Thallo, I now propose to you a writing by another philosopher contemporary to us of Spanish nationality, Eugenio Trias – but then don't tell me that even he has no influence on the modern world, I beg you -: « Neoclassicism, in particular Igor Stravinsky, already undertook a path in this direction. The twenties seem to foreshadow the crisis of modernity and the avant-gardes of the eighties of the twentieth century. The invectives hurled by Stravinsky against Beethoven, responsible in his view for romantic music and the emphasis on emotion and expression (two forbidden words in the neoclassical phase of Stravinskian aesthetics and poetics) are well known. » Then Stravinsky would redeem himself on this by composing in 1944 a Symphony in C+ in three movements with a blatant quotation of Beethoven's Fifth and, above all, by repeatedly listening in his old age to Beethoven's last quartets, but the attack on romanticism certainly happened.

would make it so that everyone can know and choose which music to listen to and love, and he would do so through his school which has as its main task to educate and make people informed about everything.

make people informed about everything? Mmm, are you telling me that you remember and appreciate everything they taught you in school?

Ok Thallo! "It should have as its main task to educate and make people informed about everything". Is that better?

I now come to answer Simone but I will do it quickly here because I think I have already done so.

As an outside reader... I really like Thallo's common sense, but I also appreciate Daniele's positions, as he has made many citations to explain his points of view. Also as an outside reader, it seems to me that Daniele formulates his thought on the subject starting from the sources he has cited, while Thallo gives me the impression of judging the matter in a more personal way. Citations and sources aside Daniele, how do you truly see the matter?

Etc.

I think that what I have now written to Thallo can remove any doubt about my thought and, if that were not the case, I am ready to try to make it even clearer. As for your intervention, apart from "Thallo's common sense" which leaves me with some doubts for now, I am substantially in tune with what you have written.

I was pleased to read your point-by-point response. Not to defend Thallo, also because he is not at all the type who needs defending, I believe that his criticism regarding Bach has a different meaning than what might emerge from a first reading.

I am reposting it for clarity:

...I think that when talking about music, one should remember that music is historicized; it changes over time and its meanings change in relation to time, history, and the moment in which it is listened to, composed, or played.

I don't see how not to agree with him in this first opening; I might perhaps have something to object regarding the fact that meanings change in relation to time. Just to cite an example, it comes to mind Beethoven's Op. 110, where the meaning of great hope for humanity, with which it concludes, should not be determined by the time we are in and the history we live in, or perhaps I have misunderstood Claudio's spirit of the idea and he will correct me if so. Certain works, in fact many works, are, in certain ways, symbolisms... Something that leaves not only a good memory of harmonies in the ears but also a "morale". I think that in the end every artist, in the various expressions of art, whether it be painting, poetry, music, or sculpture, creates their work inspired and moved by a motive. Sometimes these motives can be political in nature and the artist can shape their work to mock a regime or more generally those in power (see Mozart, for example), or they can carry with them a thought directed toward the fate of humanity (see Beethoven, for example); these are just examples, take them for what they are, it's not that Mozart or Beethoven did only this! Saying that music changes with time seems right to me; saying that meanings change with time does not. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding Thallo's intervention.

"New" music is new, old music is old. One must resign oneself to this, while trying not to take it to extremes. Bach is old; you can delude yourselves as much as you want, but Bach is old :) not only that, whoever listens to Bach today (one of the many Bachs) does so with different ears, different methods, and different expectations. To ignore all this is naive.

Well, on this I find myself in agreement, if I understood correctly... I think I have understood that Thallo is not at all defaming and/or belittling Bach's music; on the contrary, he belittles today's listeners who probably cannot extract the most from his music, without blaming them but justifying them due to different times. In fact, I find myself particularly in agreement when he says that those who listen to Bach today do so with ears, methods, and expectations different from the listeners of that era. And how could it be otherwise... There are a billion differences, to say the least, in terms of: physical, human, psychological, cognitive, personal, character (which is perhaps the same thing), etc. etc.

Just talking about hearing is an immediate topic. The men of the 1600s/1700s had much more precise and powerful hearing than ours, which is accustomed to the noise of traffic, horns, planes, and racing cars.

Even at a cognitive level, we, with our fast and frenetic lives, cannot compare ourselves to the men of Bach's time. The concept of speed (we have talked about it 1000 times also with Pianoexpert) is something that has accelerated over time and continues to accelerate... Look, for example, at the need to produce increasingly faster computers, or more high-performance machines, or even faster means of transport (see the TAV/high-speed train). Will all this speed really be useful? Well, let's not go too far, that is another topic that would require another thread... There are also other motivations, even of a cultural type, and an acoustic type. Just think that Bach's music was not born for the piano; despite it being 'Für Klavier', in Bach's time the piano did not exist, or rather, Bach knew a prototype of the piano that disappointed him greatly! In short, there is a sea of motivations, and listing them all would be truly impossible.

The experience of years in forums teaches me that when faced with such opposing opinions, it makes little sense to continue a discussion that, whether it does or would, would lead to nothing, as the two parties involved will remain substantially fixed in their ideas and thus, as you rightly concluded: "oh well, I've said my piece, you've said yours".

I will not, therefore, stay here advocating my ideas because if someone else wants to – but it doesn't seem to me that they will – they can have their say on the matter; however, I want to make a few points, between serious and facetious.

On this, I do not agree... Okay, probably everyone will stick to their own idea, but arguing one's beliefs as much as possible is first and foremost a way to enrich oneself with different points of view.

and it is above all very useful for those following the discussion but perhaps do not have arguments to express their opinion. In short, culture is also transmitted in these ways... Let us not forget that every time we want to strengthen a reasoning that has already been exhaustively argued, we tend to simplify, and we also give those who did not clearly understand our point of view the chance to learn new things and be able to reuse them in life.

Whether unwillingly, or perhaps intentionally, you also cite in your message the importance of this transmission of culture:

...when pieces of our culture are lost, especially that which comes from afar and has immense value.

Ultimately, it is I who thank you, for the beautiful points of reflection...

See you soon

A beautiful discussion, truly. Thank you :-)

citing everything again would be tremendous and extremely long. So I will try to give a speech "off the cuff," my own, based on my way of seeing things that we have discussed.

I am an optimist. Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but I am. I am 31 years old and I generally feel closer to fifteen-year-olds than forty-year-olds, so basically when someone expresses doubts about the "new" generations, I feel it deeply. Even though I don't really belong to a new generation myself. I think that optimism and positive thinking can be useful in communicating culture, in valuing beauty and art; rather than complaining about what others do not know, I think it is useful to talk about beautiful things to "entice" those who listen to me. Then maybe in practice I never actually do it, I don't know, those who live with me should tell me that, but at least in theory I am deeply convinced that the values of music are passed down in an active and positive way.

On the other hand, in my personal experience, at a certain point I met someone, my boyfriend, who never loved classical music. I fought my own private wars with him, trying to make him listen to things I considered wonderful, only to discover that, despite him being intelligent, cultured, and well-disposed, Beethoven does not have the same effect on everyone. Not only that, but even if you don't listen to Beethoven, you aren't necessarily a bad person. And in parallel, he introduced me to a world of pop-rock music, of which I knew almost nothing, approaching it in a "cultured," technical way, and I discovered that I was an ignorant goat. And on top of that, presumptuous, because like everyone (alas) I also thought that Art was with a capital A, that pop was with a lowercase p, that without sheet music people did nonsense etc. etc. etc.

What can I say, I changed my mind, and I became convinced that complexities (as I called them in previous messages) exist in any piece. Even more so, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in the ears of the listener. And I'll try to make you understand what I mean... For me, there are feelings, "emotional states," that cannot be experienced without having seen or heard or read a certain thing; that is, I don't know, when I had crushes I always thought of Sappho, the image of fire under the skin, the malaise of love, all adolescent nonsense that I have always lived in a "cultural" way. For me, art has always had this value, an emotional value. Guernica teaches you death, Petrarch teaches you solitude, Beethoven teaches you active joy, Wagner makes epic fantasy sound, all an imaginary world of mine that I considered non-existent outside of that world. Well, for me, someone who read The Lord of the Rings without having listened to the Wagnerian Tetralogy was an idiot.

The problem is that I have met people who have read The Lord of the Rings, people who spoke of genocides without having seen Guernica, very romantic people who ignored all Greek and Latin poetry and Petrarch. In fact, they were able to find those same emotional worlds of mine in something else, in other works of art, which I did not consider art. Like manga, like anime, like graffiti, free-jazz, Brit-pop, singer-songwriter music.

After meeting these people, how can I consider my culture intrinsically superior to theirs?? I know that FOR ME Gesualdo is important. And I am certain that over the centuries one will never forget Gesualdo, because it has never happened in human history that traces of previous cultures were truly lost (cases are very rare and isolated, and often caused by catastrophic events like barbarian invasions...). Generally, the inverse process occurs: the mythologizing of the past and the invention of a pseudo-history, like with the Old Testament, which tells stories without any documentary evidence and which for centuries have been mistaken for true stories (there is no archaeological evidence of the existence of biblical Jerusalem, think about it... and despite this, we still talk about it today).

For this reason, and because of my studies, I believe that culture is... summative, or additive, I don't know. The twentieth century was born ON romanticism, it didn't displace it, it continued it. For this reason too, I say that Bach is listened to in a different way, and he is old. We are the young ones, and we learn from Bach, but we learn to do something else; culture is not repetition, it is interpretation, MISUNDERSTANDING, renewal, loss and return. It is alive and fluid but only moves forward. We are not talking about values right now. Bach has immense value for those who know how to listen to him, or for those who know how to play him. But the wonderful theological discourse on, I don't know, the role of pietism in his chorales that I could make TODAY, and which also shows how much I may have learned from Bach, is a discourse that NO contemporary of Bach could have made. Therefore, even in a good way, we must understand that we are NEW compared to Bach, we have different means and

"let's use" Bach for our purposes.

This, for good. For bad, we must never forget that there are millions of things that Bach does not say and that we know, feel, and live thanks to something other than Bach. To me, the musical "Hair" taught me things that I would not have found in Bach. Lucio Battisti told me things that Verdi wouldn't even have dreamed of. The same goes for Keith Haring, Banksy, Asimov, and millions of other artists who NOW are part of my emotional imagery as much as Virgil and Mozart. For what reason should I discriminate against them a priori?

Besides, it is my ears that make the difference. I am convinced of this. The richer you are, the more beautiful things you find. I like Ivan Graziani not necessarily because of Ivan Graziani's merit, but also because of my own. It is a bit like the thought behind Cage's music: if you want to find beauty, and you put in the effort, you can even find it in the noise of a concert hall during 4'33''."

Ok, but then perhaps the differences are not so much in the subjects as in the methods, in how they are expressed, and in music, as in other arts, related to the level of language with which these subjects are expressed. Of course, Verdi wants to say something, just as Lunapop wants to say something too, but perhaps one should analyze the depth of the idea being communicated and the level of language that describes this idea. To draw a parallel, I too can say right things, but one would have to see what I say and how I say it. Dante argued an idea of great depth in verse, and for this reason he earned the title of "supreme poet," and it is, additionally, because of this that Dante is Dante and I am nobody at all... . In short, what I want to say is: it's fine that it's impossible to compare different styles, but let's also try to be mentally malleable... "Love Generation": two drum patterns, a whistle, three chords, the lyrics which are what they are; the whole thing put together for 4 bars and repeated for 4:30 cannot be on par with a Beethoven symphony, nor even a Bach minuet, nor even the Toccata in D Minor. And I didn't even pick an overly discredited example; otherwise, if I had really wanted to lash out, I would have taken that old Commercial Disco song (from about 15 years ago) whose lyrics I remember well because they were, to say the least, hallucinatory:

"Question.. You know that thing you use before making love babe, you know it right? But you don't know what it is? Then you've chosen the wrong person for me, love!"

and the chorus exalted the artistic merits of the song like this... "if you wanna cum, put on a condom". That was the entire text of the track. The music accompanying it was, in my opinion, much more ridiculous than the words.

First of all, I thank you; I didn't think I had opened such a stimulating discussion.

I want to clarify that I am not trying to claim that: "classical is better than disco music," but, in the perspective perhaps mentioned by Frank, to make people understand that classical is not so dull and that it can have much to offer even to a layman... I hope I have explained myself clearly.

Before Pio, another point of view on the matter

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2017-il-fatto-che-simili-opere-restino-inaccessibili-alla-massa-e-forse-una-necessita/

Explaining to a "layperson" the difference between "classical" and "light" music, or we could say between "art" music and "entertainment" music, or between "art" music and "show" music, with all the criticizable inaccuracies and inevitable shortcomings of such definitions, can be extremely difficult in words (and quite risky), but it becomes easy by resorting to a simple metaphor: what difference can there be between a book like Harmony and, say, I promessi sposi? Between a "summer thriller" and Il fu Mattia Pascal? It is the difference that, whether one likes it or not, exists between art and spectacle.

"Spectacle" is a great thing; it requires professionalism, skills, and (sometimes) talent... Art itself is, and performs (or rather can be and perform, and very often does) as a spectacle. Let's say that art and spectacle are two concentric circles where the larger one, that of art, is not satisfied and does not primarily want to entertain, aiming much higher, tending towards something that belongs to the world of the spirit... something high, absolute, and ineffable that, indeed, can only be authentically understood with the spirit and not with pure reason.

It is obvious that, in the listener, there must be the same will (I would say curiosity) and the need to seek that something... If I only want to dance, it is clear that I will not appreciate a Bach fugue.

Nevertheless, one should forcefully reject any categorization, as if so-called "classical" music were all an excellent artistic product and so-called "light" music all pure entertainment. The Vespa by Lunapop is one thing, Via del Campo by De André is another... One could cite countless "works" from the Rock epic (Beatles, Doors, Jimi Hendrix, King Crimson, Pink Floyd...) which in my opinion have profound artistic dignity... Even so-called "disco music" intertwines with electronic music...

It is not then about asserting the anthropological superiority of those who seek and understand art over those who seek only entertainment. People are different and everyone makes their own choices.

However, let us not say that art music is dull or is something for "insider" intellectuals just because it is not understood by those who do not feel the need and do not have the desire to understand it.