It's tough to be away ... Dear debasers, I apologize once again; I have had little time to take part in the discussion. I’m responding now, but I believe I won’t be brief, especially since something substantial has emerged in the comments, so I’ve decided to reply in a detailed manner. I hope no one gets bored. Alright, let’s give it a shot... Yes, Beethoven was considered a romantic as :::burns::: says, the romantic who closed the era of classicism according to many, and this was, after all, the main theme of this review. This, of course, speaking of always precarious boundaries. Anyway, this is the key point that emerges from the words of Thomas Mann, written with the significant help of Theodor WIESENGRUND (that’s why he’s cited in the text) Adorno, to the extent that the authorship of the cited work is debated. These words of Mann/Adorno are, in my opinion, magnificent; it’s art that springs from art. Words that soar as high as Beethoven's work. I’ve wanted to discuss this sonata that I love very much for some time, but on one hand I've noticed the impossibility of describing the ineffable, as has rightly been highlighted, and on the other hand, when I read those passages, I couldn’t detach myself from them, which is why I'm on this page. But there’s another reason: since we have spoken so many times about writing on music, I wanted to bring an extremely elevated example as a contribution to this eternal discussion on debaser. Certainly, not everyone can write like Mann/Adorno, but these words demonstrate that one can speak about music in such an elevated way that it becomes a pleasure to accompany the listening experience. I've seen that the theme has been touched upon in fragments in the comments, and all in all, I hoped for that.
To :::Punisher:::, see, dear, as you already know, what leaves me puzzled about your intervention is the fact that it has little to do with music except very slightly. Why? Do you really have nothing to say about Beethoven or this work? You can do it in your own way. Others have done so. Focusing only on the review seems a bit pointless and deliberately provocative, in my opinion. But as I said... patience. The only somewhat interesting point was the judgment on the so-called "self-ghettoization" of classical music, but to me - placed this way - it’s hardly comprehensible; it seems like nonsense. Classical music has its own language and history; it can be discussed differently, true, but discussing it with respect for that very history is not, in my view, incorrect in itself. Furthermore, if you want, you can talk about it in your own way in the comments (which, for me, should mainly serve this purpose). However, I believe that when discussing a revolutionary work like this one, as rightly pointed out by :::Wanderer:::, and even if with different but very interesting nuances by :::Henry Purcell:::, I think one can use (as far as possible) a language that isn’t superficial without it becoming scandalous. In fact, I ask something of those who may know more than I do: within the sonata, I’ve perceived something that resembles ragtime and "improvisation" (I’ll post the sample of the passage later). Is it madness? Perhaps not, after reading what :::floydman::: has written as well; it’s curious to find these shared sensations.
Regarding Michelangeli's interpretation, dear :::Henry Purcell:::, I believe that beauty lies in that somewhat "limping," dragged out suffering passage of the first movement that becomes incredibly tempestuous. I have never heard this music in other interpretations like this. The arietta is then decidedly inspired, but I truly don’t know how to describe it. As an amateur, it struck me in an inexorable way. Difficult, really too difficult to explain better. The other theme of this proposal was related to interpretation. What are its characteristics? What is the role of the interpreter? I hoped other listening suggestions would emerge beyond this. Those of ::Mullah:: (Pollini
