The So-Called "French Musical Baroque"

LucianoP wrote:

How can such things be endured? That is, how can one endure that Italy does not protect and value such a heritage?

Why must we every time make a fool of ourselves in front of the civilization of others?

How much has Italy invested in culture and education in the last ... let's say 40 years?

I believe the explanation lies in the eventual response

Luciano, saying that I don't agree with your way of seeing things is an understatement. Similar discussions should be addressed with judgments of personal taste. In other words, limit yourself to saying that you don't like French Baroque; you would make a better impression. Because phrases like "the so-called 'French musical baroque' is such a cultural mystification it makes one want to vomit" or "the 'nothingness'... that made art" and "All inexorably 'the same' and fake" are phrases that, as they are, simply demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. Les indes galantes doesn't even drive me crazy, but it is one of the most important works in music history. Rameau is a genius whose works are still rarely performed, despite all productions of his operas being world-class events!

But it also seems useless to talk about it; these discussions drive me crazy... there is a repertoire highly appreciated all over the world, studied by thousands (not dozens) of scholars and performed by just as many musicians, but OBVIOUSLY you are right and everyone else is a bumpkin. Can't you just limit yourself to saying that you don't like it? Do you have to make such grand claims by saying that it is the death of art? Oh, sure, we all know that in the 1700s in France art died because of De Lalande, social decay led to the extermination of the human race and the current financial crisis. All thanks to the French Baroque...

LucianoP wrote:

I know it's never good to generalize, but I feel compelled to say that the so-called "French musical baroque" is such a cultural mystification it makes one want to vomit. Dozens of scholars, hundreds of performances (even impeccable ones) for "nothing" ... made into art. [...]

Why must we every time make a fool of ourselves in front of other civilizations?

Yeah... why?

For those who do not know what we are talking about, here are some examples of the anti-artistic disease that afflicted France between '600 and '700. I am only posting vocal music, considering the section we are in.

Couperin

DeLalande

Lully

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

LucianoP wrote:

I know it is never good to generalize, but I feel compelled to say that the so-called "French musical baroque" is such a cultural mystification it makes one want to vomit. Dozens of scholars, hundreds of performances (even impeccable ones) for "nothing" ... made into art.

Thus France has reconstructed at a desk a most mediocre musical tradition of the 1600s and 1700s, all made of decorative emptiness.

Today I was listening to "Les Indes galantes" again... a beautiful bore: what insipid, useless music, without depth, without any science or profound idea.

All inexorably "the same" and fake: the death of art.

It might be parochialism, but I believe that any comparison with our own heritage from the same period is absolutely embarrassing, in terms of both quality and quantity of works.

Only that current France is intelligent and promotes culture, even when it exists only in appearance: and indeed at Versailles there are very long lines of tourists to see a failed and ambiguous architectural project, but which with the right marketing attracts the masses. In Caserta, only a handful of people visit a colossus about which practically everything is unknown. How can such things be endured? That is, how can one endure that Italy does not protect and enhance such a heritage?

Why must we make a fool of ourselves every time in front of the civilization of others?

That is exactly what I have always thought too. Then last year I heard Sokolov playing (on the piano) Rameau.

Now I have many doubts...

Gassy wrote:

That is exactly what I have always thought too. Then last year I heard Sokolov playing (on the piano) Rameau.

Now I have many doubts...

I agree on Sokolov (he plays superbly), but Rameau's music for harpsichord, except for a little something, is in my opinion (from what I have heard) of a disarming mediocrity. Above all, it is very repetitive and harmonically insipid. Even in pieces that are potentially more captivating and with interesting ideas, it ends up becoming tiresome: think of "La poule"; Scarlatti, with those rhythms, is able to build a castle, whereas in Rameau the phrases invariably close in on themselves.

No, really, someone tell me or make me understand where the genius or the real greatness of this composer would be. I am not able to grasp it.

I only say that it is the same beauty as the gardens of Versailles. Decoration transported directly from painting to reality, without any architectural criteria.

Carlos wrote:

Eh yeah... why?

Exactly

thallo wrote:

Luciano, saying that I don't agree with your way of seeing things is an understatement.

The world is beautiful because it is diverse; you cannot justify everything just because something is pleasing (at least to you, from what I have understood)

LucianoP wrote:

The world is beautiful because it is varied; you cannot justify everything just because one thing is pleasing (at least to you, from what I have understood)

The opposite also holds true. And, aside from everything, you started it. The "burden of proof" lies with you. If you succeed...

LucianoP wrote:

The world is beautiful because it is varied; you cannot justify everything just because something is liked (at least by you, from what I have understood)

Oh, but I am not justifying the thing because it "is liked," I am talking about Music History. In these other messages, you are lowering the bar and magically arriving at the path of "personal taste" exclusively because I called out your ignorance. Your sentences about the death of art, about banality, about the politics of artistic promotion in France and in Italy demonstrate that you don't know much about the subject. And, along the same lines, asking for the "proof" of the genius of Rameau's compositions, when in your comments you make it clear that you consider all his main characteristics to be ridiculous, is a senseless question. Rameau's music has been HISTORICALLY among the most significant in human history; his theorizations were fundamental for the development of harmonic theory; the innovations in musical theater marked the future of opera in the world. Rameau is important for this and for other reasons. But no genius or artistry can be proven, especially when on the other side there is someone who does not like that music. That is to say, if you oppose reasons of taste to historical arguments, the conversation does not exist.

LucianoP wrote:

No, seriously, someone tell me or make me understand where the genius or the real greatness of this composer lies.

Well, I can give you some points to consider ... if I may, you seem a bit off track.

Some ideas from his theoretical treatise

Treatise on Harmony reduced to its natural principles

He is the first theorist to develop an organic treatise on harmony, basing everything on physical and acoustic laws

He laid the foundations of functional harmony, maintaining that no sound can exist in isolation and in a pure state, but on the contrary, every sound IS connected to others within the context of chords and tonalities

Here, further depth is necessary

Rameau replaces the notion of consonance given by the dyad with that of a single chord (triad) in its major and minor forms.

This chord, formed by 2 superimposed thirds, IS built on a single sound called the fundamental sound, and likewise are its inversions, which always derive from the same fundamental sound

Even among chords, a bond of unity is established, which is provided by a fundamental bass.

In the treatise “Génération harmonique” of 1737, Rameau demonstrates that the fundamental sound coincides with the generating sound of a series of natural harmonics discovered in 1791 by J. Sauveur through the physical phenomenon of acoustic resonance, also called sympathetic oscillation, which occurs when 2 nearby sounding bodies vibrate at the same frequency; the second is influenced by the first through sympathy without being struck.

Rameau defined the tonic, subdominant, and dominant chords as the 3 pillar chords of tonal discourse, thus relating them to all other chords.

He also introduced the naming of diminished seventh, ninth, and eleventh chords.

He developed a theory of "affects" based on the use of consonances and dissonances; for example, "joy" is represented by consonances or prepared dissonances, while despair and fury are linked to unprepared dissonances.

In the work “Démonstration du principe de l'harmonie,” he attempts to demonstrate how musical expression arises from the relationships between different tonalities, thus creating a table of equivalence between affects and tonalities.

A certain Tartini drew from his treatises

After this brief premise, one could speak of the work “Les indes galantes” (Paris, 1735)

Anyone who followed him was C. Saint-Saëns (1835-1921), who at first adhered to Wagnerian aesthetics but later became a champion of a sort of classicism inspired by ancient and recent national musical traditions (from Lully to Berlioz).

In fact, after 1871, he felt the need to recover French music of the past through the performance of music by F. Rameau, whose complete works would be published, as well as the works of composers from the 16th and 17th centuries.

These are the first things off the top of my head... genius or not, he did do something... it's not that we owe him absolutely nothing"

As you can read from your writings... one is talking about theory and not about music. I was referring to that

Frank wrote:

one could speak of the opera “Les indes galantes” (Paris, 1735)

...exactly, let's talk about it...

LucianoP wrote:

...exactly, let's talk about it...

Come on, you start (but for real this time). I don't know it. Tell me why I'm not missing out on anything (in your opinion), with concrete examples, and parallels with Italian and German Baroque. Convince me that it's not worth it, but don't tell me yet that it's a beautiful bore: what insipid, useless music, without depth, without any science or profound idea. All inexorably "the same" and fake: the death of art. You've already said this. Tell me why.

I didn't propose it, the ball is in Frank's court

LucianoP wrote:

I didn't propose it, the ball is in Frank's court

You wrote this yourself in your first message and the discussion, moreover, is yours:

«Today I was listening to "Les Indes galantes" again... a beautiful bore: what insipid, useless music, without depth, without any science or profound idea.

All inexorably "the same" and fake: the death of art.»

I'm sorry: it's up to you, otherwise let's stop here to avoid saying more nonsense, what do you say?

Didn't you suggest it?! Excuse me, but what are we talking about then?!

I uploaded videos of wonderful pieces before, but obviously you didn't comment on them. I hope that some of those interested in music found the time to watch-listen to them; after all, this repertoire is little known and a few extra listens never hurt.

For these people, not for you, I am posting other things from Les Indes Galantes.

Les Indes Galantes is an opera-ballet, a massive and very long spectacle made of tableaux, of scenes, that illustrate the lives of foreign populations. The interest in the exotic in this opera is almost revolutionary. Performed for the first time in 1735, it comes 2 years after Vivaldi's "Motezuma," which is considered the first "American" opera in history. Even though Vivaldi "arrived first," in Rameau's opera there are already a multitude of themes that will be typical of this genre: the number of scenes (entrées) has varied over time, but there is already a setting in Turkey, with a Turk who captures a Frenchwoman but then lets her go when her lover comes to save her. Does that remind you of something? If it reminds you of nothing, go read the plot of Mozart's Abduction from the Seraglio.

Here is the beginning of the first entrée, "The Generous Turk"

as you can hear, if you are actually listening to the pieces I am linking, there are many instrumental parts. Obviously, this is due to the fact that the opera-ballet is, precisely, full of danced pieces. Rameau wrote the pinnacle of what could be the instrumental forms of the era and he wrote them in an opera, while in Italy during the same period we still had sketched accompaniments, poor orchestrations, and an instrumental culture that was still struggling to enter the theater. The history of French Baroque instrumental music, on the other hand, is made largely in the theater.

In this regard, here is a Suite extracted from the opera, so we can take our eyes off that terrible production I found on YouTube for a moment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNW6NHm2ofQ

Now, it may not be liked, like everything. But it is very carefully crafted music; in fact, it is much less "French" than much else, Rameau was an intellectual. Compared to the Italians, it is much less concertante, the ensemble is more homogeneous in treatment, and as much as it is dance-like, as all suites originally were, there are fugal pieces, imitative polyphony, and an exciting rhythmic richness.

If we take a Telemann overture, for example, it is all less refined... not to speak ill of Telemann, mind you, but here there isn't even a shadow of imitative polyphony

and one could say that the counterpoint specialists should be the Germans, not the French.

I am adding one last piece, a magnificent aria sung in the Peruvian scene. A true soprano-flute duet, of those that are NOT heard in Handel, NOT heard in Bach, NOT heard in Vivaldi

Anyone who thinks this is a bad piece, given the legitimacy of all tastes, is simply deaf to me.

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Thallo, have you seen if all four acts of Les Indes Galantes are there? If so, why aren't you posting them?

I put them in, but the total duration is about 3 hours...

first part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1keGA5az56I

second part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdpZE_v27ig&feature=fvwrel

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

De Lalande's Leçon de Mercredi makes me think of Handel's "Lascia ch'io pianga" (I hope it is spelled that way, obviously I know we don't use ch' but I have seen the title several times, and I wouldn't want to have "copied" it incorrectly), distantly though.