The Ninth is only the beginning. Why we cannot help but listen to Beethoven today

Thanks for the link Azzurro

sregarding the comparison to Francesconi, I will not express an opinion (not knowing his music).

The article is nice, even if it follows a certain vision of Beethoven as a demigod. Furthermore, a phrase such as:

«The sense of independence from any academic constraint in the name of total ideal and creative freedom».

Induces most to think that:

1) Beethoven was someone who had no rules (such are my intentions for 'academic constraints'). And it is a pity because, just one line before, it rightly speaks of the 'reinvention' of form and not its 'destruction'.

2) that 'rules' are enemies of creative freedom (and from there to saying they are 'enemies of art' is a short step)

3) that it is enough to feel 'free' to be true artists.

I went to the Santa Cecilia concert and I left feeling decidedly satisfied.

I won't comment on the ninth because the article proposed by Azzurro is widely agreeable.

The Francesconi piece was something new and as such it left me very perplexed.

I rewatched the concert on YouTube and my judgment has become positive.

In the hall, the first part of the piece, based on vocalises, sounded a bit muddy and it wasn't clear where they were coming from (soloist or choir?), but watching the video, everything turns out clearer and more remarkable.

It is true that new music must be listened to several times to be appreciated.

The text and notes in the program booklet are very interesting and should be paired with the video, but due to space constraints I cannot reproduce them.

https://youtu.be/xL1yuZ6cvGo

Open content (youtube)

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Thank you for the link Azzurro

suggesting a comparison to Francesconi, I will not express an opinion (not being familiar with his music).

The article is beautiful, even if it follows a certain vision of Beethoven as a demigod. Furthermore, a phrase such as:

"The sense of independence from any academic constraint in the name of total ideal and creative freedom."

Induces most to think that:

1) Beethoven was someone who had no rules (such are my intentions for 'academic constraints'). And it is a pity because, just one line before, he speaks, rightly, of the 'reinvention' of form and not its 'destruction'.

2) that 'rules' are enemies of creative freedom (and from there to saying they are 'enemies of art' is a short step)

3) that it is enough to feel 'free' to be true artists.

I think that Beethoven undertook, starting from his very first works in the main catalogue, an extreme struggle towards form - and at that moment, by form, one meant primarily sonata form - precisely to use it, first for his own purposes and then to surpass it. Something that substantially succeeded in his extreme works and, specifically in Opus 111, as Thomas Mann affirmed in his Doktor Faustus.

That Beethoven broke the rules and that the academic path was very narrow for him is, I would say, unassailable and sacrosanct.

That rules are enemies of creative freedom is also true, but no one thinks they are enemies of Art.

Certainly, however, Art lives and evolves above all because there are artists who break the rules.

Azzurro wrote:

The Ninth is only the beginning. Why we cannot help but listen to Beethoven today

http://www.ilfoglio.it/cultura/2015/10/07/la-nona-solo-linizio-perch-non-possiamo-non-ascoltare-beethoven-oggi___1-v-133588-rubriche_c350.htm

..and how do you see the comparison to Francesconi?

I see it as not only absolutely pertinent from the point of view of the sung text, but also absolutely in line with what is the spirit of this series dedicated to Beethoven titled "Beethoven and his contemporaries", where by contemporaries one means the composer's contemporaries and the contemporaries of today.

Beethoven's music and message are still contemporary and will remain so, as long as freedom is not an acquired good throughout this world, and in this - and for this, but not only for this, - Beethoven must still be listened to today just as then.

danielescarpetti wrote:

I think that Beethoven undertook, even from his earliest works of the main catalogue, an extreme struggle towards form - and at that moment, by form, sonata-form was primarily meant - precisely to use it, first for his own purposes and then to transcend it. Something that substantially succeeded in his extreme works and, specifically in Opus 111, as Thomas Mann affirmed in his Doktor Faustus.

That Beethoven broke the rules and that the academic path was very narrow for him is, I would say, unassailable and sacrosanct.

That rules are enemies of creative freedom is also true, but no one thinks they are enemies of Art.

However, Art certainly lives and evolves above all because there are artists who break the rules.

the fact (personal, I don't know how much it is shared) is that listening to Beethoven, even his advanced works, I don't have the impression of 'broken rules'; if anything, sometimes, of 'new rules'.

Regarding the discussion of rules vs. creative freedom, I disagree, but I would let it go.

And then... In Opus 111 (first movement, sonata-form), apart from the fact that it is stupendous, lapidary, what would be 'formless'?

introduction - exposition - two themes - development - recapitulation - coda... What is missing!?... what would Thomas Mann say about this?

Perhaps I hear/see things that do not exist

LucaCavaliere wrote:

if at all, sometimes, of 'new rules'.

 

New rules compared to what?

This question I am asking you hides another underlying one that I will eventually ask later on.

I quite agree with LucaCavaliere, and I would add some considerations, perhaps a bit naive...

The formal restrictions that a composer imposes on themselves are not a limit to creativity; on the contrary, they stimulate it... they force one to devise solutions to the problems posed. Form is all in all the container, in the sense that it sits within an order of magnitude (temporal extension) that only marginally touches our (my) perception of music. What truly touches us lies in musical objects of medium size, whose meaning we are able to grasp because they have a duration such that they are comprehensible to our attention... it is primarily there that I find the meaning of a composition... in the phrases, their chaining together, the contrast, the development of melodic elements, the counterpoint, the harmonies, the musical "gestures" that the composer performs. And this is the aspect I admire most in Beethoven. His ability to speak in the first person, which translates into the possibility for the performer to identify with what is being played, and not have the feeling of performing an "exercise in style" as can happen in Mozart or Haydn—this is, for me, LVB's main contribution to music...

Frank wrote:

New rules compared to what?

This question I am asking you hides another underlying one that I may ask later.

Compared to custom. Obviously.

The Pastoral Symphony comes to mind, whose last three movements have no continuity breaks. Something that, upon listening, does not sound (to me) like a transgression but as an intrinsic norm of the work. The Fourth Piano Concerto also comes to mind: with the piano opening the sound scene alone.

These things, seen from a 'traditional' perspective, could perhaps be judged as "disruptive" attempts... Maybe so.

But not in the direction of an 'aesthetics of negation of form.'

the «underlying eventually» scares me a little . . . obviously

> Compared to customs

I imagined it, but we all have a very varied listening journey (at least I hope) so that the way of expressing oneself on the subject can in any case always be subject to bias without the proper premises. In what sense? Let's imagine the following abstraction:

In the event that you had listened in your life only to late Romanticism, faced with your first time with Beethoven, you might hear those traces, that base that could lead you to speak of "new rules" ... then "developed."

Conversely, assuming that you had listened only to Baroque and Classicism, faced with your first time with Beethoven, you might be led to speak of "transgression."

(U)nfortunately we are in neither of the 2 conditions because our ear is biased by listening to the most varied historical periods. At this point, to be objective, one must classify the aesthetic rules of the different periods (which are never standalone but strongly related to previous ones) and understand how a composer positions themselves within them. Starting from these premises, the rest of the discussion could, in the vast majority of cases, become a consequence, especially if it is an article, albeit a fine one, that is quite concise.

Let's say that this dual way of seeing the issue relatively surprises me, especially if referred to a context of strictly tonal grammar and why not? Formal

Terenzio wrote:

I was at the Santa Cecilia concert and I left feeling decidedly satisfied.

I won't comment on the ninth because the article proposed by Azzurro is widely agreeable.

The Francesconi piece was something new and as such it left me very perplexed.

I rewatched the concert on YouTube and my judgment has become positive.

In the hall, the first part of the piece based on vocalises sounded a bit muddy and it wasn't clear where they were coming from (soloist or choir?), but watching the video, everything turns out clearer and more remarkable.

It is true that new music must be listened to several times to be appreciated.

The text and notes in the program booklet are very interesting and should be paired with the video, but due to space constraints I cannot reproduce them.

https://youtu.be/xL1yuZ6cvGo

Thank you Terenzio, at this moment I can't watch YouTube.... but is the Francesconi piece also there?

Open content (youtube)

Just a tiny contribution to the conversation: use extreme caution when using the word rule in music. I notice, in fact, that often when people say rule in music they actually mean something quite different: it is not about rules, but rather about tools for construction, or something like that. Tonality, for example, is not a rule in the common sense of the term: it is a tool for constructing music.

Besides, I am not sure I understand what is meant by

Crisantemi wrote:

formal restrictions that the composer imposes upon themselves

@ Frank

d'accordissimo.

But I specifically meant the compositional customs of his era... not the customs of my listening and my tastes.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

@ Frank

But I specifically meant the compositional customs of his era... not the customs of my listening and my tastes.

Do you agree that it is a "calculated" datum? We weren't there

Which is why, in my opinion, the sophistications of the language derive from here

RedScharlach wrote:

Just a tiny contribution to the conversation: use extreme caution when using the word rule in music. I notice, in fact, that often when people say rule in music they actually mean something quite different: it is not about rules, but rather about tools for construction, or something like that. Tonality, for example, is not a rule in the common sense of the term: it is a tool for constructing music.

Besides, I am not sure I understand what is meant by

Simply that if you decide to compose a rondo, a fugue, or a sonata allegro, you are voluntarily setting boundaries within which to stay...

Frank wrote:

Do you agree that it is a "calculated" datum? We weren't there

Which is why, in my opinion, the sophistications of language derive from this

sorry but... I didn't understand

Azzurro wrote:

Thanks Terenzio, at this moment I can't watch YouTube.... but is Francesconi's piece also there?

It's the entire complete concert: Francesconi + the Ninth.

Crisantemi wrote:

Simply that if you decide to compose a rondo, a fugue or a sonata allegro, you are voluntarily setting boundaries within which to stay...

So let's say I understand, but I don't agree. Are bricks and cement obstacles for someone who wants to build a house? No, they are not obstacles, they are tools to build the house (this is a metaphor, and should be understood as such). Do a rondo, a fugue or a sonata allegro delimit boundaries? I don't think so. They are also tools in the hands of the composer, and only a composer with little skill can feel bound by them.

RedScharlach wrote:

So let's say I understand, but I don't agree. Are bricks and cement obstacles for someone who wants to build a house? No, they are not obstacles, they are tools to build the house (this is a metaphor, and should be understood as such). Do a rondo, a fugue, or a sonata allegro delimit boundaries? I don't think so. They are also tools in the hands of the composer, and only a composer with little money can feel bound by them.

Precisely, if you reread my post, that is exactly what I am saying

LucaCavaliere wrote:

sorry but... I didn't understand

...and you have every reason to feel that way

The discussion would be too extensive for the time I have available during this period, remind me next time we see each other....that way I will give you "great" satisfaction.

Anyway, it all revolves around "the compositional customs of his era"