TOSCANINI - Art, virtue, sweetness

As good as he may have been, Toscanini is a person I do not like. I consider him a great ignoramus and a blowhard. His way of expressing himself is well suited to environments such as gambling dens, certainly it is not appropriate for a great conductor.

It might be out of place, but I'm only now reflecting on his "they are dogs"... toSCAnians

And yes, I agree with Simone. I loved conductors like Bernstein, who loved the orchestra and had great respect for its members. It is better to be loved than to be feared. I still always recommend reading his wonderful book "The Joy of Music" ED. Longanesi. In the book, there is a reference to the orchestra lessons that the Maestro held for young people in the 60s, I believe, footage that should be mandatorily shown in schools!

pianoexpert wrote:

films that should be mandatorily projected in schools!

In this regard, I remember this topic

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2389-bei-video-di-leonard-bernstein

Simone, frankly it is becoming very difficult for me to understand how one can say of a conductor that he was a model of exact interpretation, certainly uncompromising, who read scores with impressive precision and fidelity and... I could go on, that he was a blowhard - synonym for a soap bubble - and ignorant.

You can say that he had a terrible character, yes, but everything else is out of the question.

Being a bighead doesn't mean at all that he is ignorant, and at least that wasn't the meaning I wanted to give it, and I only realize now that I wrote 'ignorant' instead of 'rude', mea culpa... From the dictionary of the Italian language, one reads among the various interpretations of 'pallone gonfiato' [bighead/puffed up]: "is said of a person esteemed and appreciated much more than they are worth". Well, he may have been a great in his work, but honestly, I have no respect for someone who treats orchestral musicians in that way. All his musical merits are recognized, of course, to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but even the much-cited "dockworkers"—who nowadays can certainly count some graduates among them, given the times—wouldn't use those manners, let alone a musician of such fame! Swear words, blasphemies, grave insults and imprecations towards conductors, where are we? At general markets??

Personally, I am of the opinion that the best results are always obtained from group harmony, esteem, and mutual respect. I don't believe that Toscanini's problem was due to his character; on the contrary, normally certain manners are used by the insecure to flaunt their position; if anything, I would find the problem in the character he has fallen into. When one becomes so famous and ambitious, it is easy to fall prey to pride and arrogance (this time intended in the strict sense of the terms: "Deep-rooted conviction of one's own superiority"). On the other hand, I find it quite curious that no one, after having suffered his offenses, has ever picked him up by the "scruff" as one does with cats to kick him off the stage. If anything, the patience his orchestral musicians have had in submitting to certain acts of rudeness is something worthy of esteem!

To exemplify, I would like to draw a parallel. You, Daniele, are certainly a cultured person, someone who has studied, made sacrifices, and set goals for yourself. Let's imagine that you have to work with people who have pursued different studies than yours but who are necessary to you as members of a group of which you are the coordinator, which in a certain sense automatically places you, at least on an organizational chart level, above the others. If you were to insult those working with you, regardless of your intellectual and cultural supremacy, you would have lost from the start, because beyond more or less valid reasoning regarding the role you are fulfilling, there is a matter of human dignity at the base of everything; and whoever does not respect the dignity of others, no matter how much they may stand above others, has lost from the start and in the eyes of those watching automatically becomes inferior and to be pitied. The few "Great Ones" I have been able to know are or were people of a disarming simplicity who put respect for others and human dignity first. I believe these are the true values to pursue. This was just to clarify the concept better

Dear Simone, once again, I must emphasize a concept that is very dear to me: one cannot judge people and facts with the benefit of hindsight. In other words, if we decide to discuss and address facts and characters that do not belong to our historical period, we cannot do so prejudicially without contextualizing everything within the time to which we refer.

It is absolutely obvious that if today we were faced with a conductor who, however great, behaved as Toscanini did, we could only deplore his attitude.

But the behavior that Toscanini exhibited between the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th had its reason for being. With this, I do not want to entirely excuse his behavior or change anyone's opinion about the conductor from Parma; I simply want to emphasize the importance his figure had in the field of musical direction, the enjoyment of past music, and in the theater more generally.

Toscanini was part of that generation of conductors who acted as a bridge between those of the 1800s, who thought their main task was to make contemporary or recent compositions known to the public and that the reinterpretation of classics was entirely secondary, and those of the 1900s who, instead, were primarily interpreters of the classical repertoire. Another fundamental difference concerned physical technique, or baton technique, which was fundamentally functional in 20th-century conductors and almost artificial for those of the 1800s. In short, one cannot ignore the fact that Toscanini operated amidst a musical reality completely different, not only from the current one, but also from that which existed from the post-war period onwards.

But Toscanini was also a great reformer, and perhaps even more so in lyric theater. He activated many of the changes suggested by Wagner and Verdi, and all of this still has a strong influence on today's performance practice in the opera world. It was he who first, at the Teatro Regio in Turin and later at La Scala, had the orchestra pit installed. Until that moment, orchestras performed the score at the level of the stalls, which might have been fine for the music of the early 1800s but could no less be so for the late operas of Verdi and practically all those of Wagner or Richard Strauss. Darkness in the auditorium was his idea, intended to ensure that the audience focused on the stage from the very beginning. But certainly, the most important thing was his insistence that a performance could not reach a high artistic level if there was not already a unity of purpose among all the various protagonists.

It is thus within this framework that his figure and also his behaviors must be evaluated, which were certainly often very harsh and offensive. The internal logical process that led Toscanini to decide to subvert the established order clashed within him with what were the innate characteristics of his character: it was necessary to demonstrate toughness to assert his ideas, to show that he was serious and that his priority and absolute intention was to modify that iron system in which he was forced to act. If we give credit to the testimonies of those who knew him in his youth, Toscanini was a very shy and quiet boy, as did those who knew him at an older age affirm. It was only on the podium that the transformation of the person occurred: a sort of Jekyll and Mr. Hyde—allow me this metaphor, which I always like so much—in short. It was the priority and absolute importance of music, the enormous passion, that transformed him. An importance so overwhelming as to make him ready for anything just to shake off lethargy and routine. It was at this point that people began to speak not only of his resoluteness and the absolute intransigence with which he rejected opinions he judged wrong, but also of his tremendous outbursts of anger against musicians and organizers. Toscanini—who, in this regard, I would say resembled Beethoven in every way—was completely self-assured—and not at all insecure as you hypothesize—to such an extent that he considered himself a complete being—and in a certain sense, how could one blame him given the results—and therefore he threw soul and body with all his energy into his work and could not understand, let alone excuse, anyone who did not do the same. His conception of art-music was so great that for him it was unacceptable to approach it without giving everything of one's being. But do not think that in private, during his various outbursts, he did not feel ashamed of certain behaviors. No, quite the contrary, and there are various testimonies on this. But inevitably when he was on stage, Jekyll took over: he was capable of patiently enduring hours and

...ore, when he felt that everyone was following him and when he felt that they were giving their maximum, but if he only suspected that this cooperation was not 100%, he became a beast. He broke sticks and scores, yelled, said swear words, blasphemed, threw the music stands around the empty hall and insulted loudly.

Now the question is: can we forgive him? I, dear Simone, would say yes indeed and without any doubt. Fortunately there was Toscanini; if not, others, those who came after, perhaps we should have forgotten them or anyway things would have been all different.

Ah Simone, I am not cultured and I have not studied. I can only consider myself someone who loves!

Your contribution is very beautiful! I truly enjoyed reading it

However, I continue to hold my opinion, just as you will hold yours and so be it... Long live freedom of thought!

As I also said in the previous post, Toscanini's professional activity is something that is not up for debate, but education and artistic and professional merits are, in my opinion, two separate things. I do not believe the rules of good manners belong only to this century, and "forgiving him" (to use your own word) his flaws—I don't see how that could be linked to professional merit. It brings to mind, to take it to an extreme, Benigni when he proposed the electrician paradox regarding the "good things" he was acting: "It would be like if I called the electrician to redo the electrical system in my house, then he assaults my grandmother, rapes my daughter, but okay, it doesn't matter because look at what an electrical system he made me, tac, tac, look how well the light turns on!". Ahahaha, obviously this is taken to the point of absurdity... But to say that even if someone was a reference in their work such that people still talk about them 57 years after their death, one must expect that his negative sides are also talked about in the same way; and if today one can say something bad about Toscanini, it is only because of his manners, without taking into consideration all the merits he had and that no one wants to take away from him.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Ah Simone, I am not cultured and I haven't studied. I can only consider myself someone who loves

It didn't seem that way to me, even judging from the intervention. But even if that were the case, does it seem like little to you? There would be so many!!

Congratulations Daniele. I am not on the side of aggressive people, even if they are valuable. Despite everything, I can understand that such a great figure could likewise, despite his greatness, have a difficulty and a behavioral disorder. Watching the video I have on DVD, I certainly do not approve, but there was probably no malice. HOROVITZ would certainly have collaborated with him and... all the more so he would not have become his son-in-law. You argue this probable double personality of his very well. It was a pleasure reading you.

Thank you, first of all!

Sometimes I find myself amazed by certain coincidences. Yesterday we spoke about Toscanini and today, Rai Storia, one of the most beautiful programs on TV and on Rai 3 in particular, aired an episode dedicated to the Maestro from Parma. In reality, only a brief mention is made of Toscanini's behavior and what interests the program – obviously – is his political relationship with Mussolini and fascism.

Obviously, I thought a lot about you. I was thinking about your statements and especially this one by Paolo: "I am not on the side of aggressive people, even if they are of value.". But some statements from Simone regarding the evaluation of Toscanini come to mind.

Now, I can assure you that if this episode had not aired today, I would not have reopened the discussion, considering it not exhausted, but sufficiently addressed, although remaining a bit perplexed – as you will be about me – regarding some of your statements.

If you haven't seen it, I invite you to watch this program, once again, not to change your opinion, but because it seems important to me to properly understand how complex and multifaceted the personality of this great man was.

I saw it by coincidence too :-) very interesting. Anyway, I believe that Toscanini's way of doing things was truly partly a product of a historical period very different from our own. I cannot stand rude conductors but, alas, very often it is worth dealing with unpleasant people when their value is high and indisputable. Toscanini was an undisputed and unquestionable authority, and perhaps the orchestras he dealt with were not made up of professionals as we understand them today...

I haven't had the chance to see it yet, unfortunately I am very busy during this period; however, I promise myself I will do so as soon as I have a little time available, in the meantime thanks for the link.