Hal

Thank you for your response, but it seems insufficient regarding the themes raised in your first intervention, to which I tried to reply. I’ll summarize for mutual clarity. You assert that primordial creation (from scratch, from nothing...) is the primary value for establishing the hierarchy of values in music. Based on this assertion, you claim that Bach (along with Handel, Haydn, and Vivaldi) embodies this value of primordial creation. Consequently - in your reasoning - for this reason such composers are hierarchically (necessarily) superior to Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, etc. Therefore, the primordial creators hold more value than those who followed. They are truly "the greatest musicians of all time," in short. Was this the logic, or am I mistaken? Let’s pretend the answer is yes. The weaknesses I perceive in this logic are several, and almost all concern the confusion between factual and value judgments. The first involves the concept of creation from nothing, which does not seem entirely debatable to me (factual judgment), but this is indeed the least. The second regards the "primordial" artists mentioned, who - in my opinion - do not all hold the same value, considering specifically Vivaldi to be a step lower (value judgment). The third concerns the chronological/historical reading that becomes a value judgment in your argument (the descent of a value judgment from a factual judgment ---> the truth of the latter does not imply that of the former). In fact, your logic (even though you now say otherwise) results in the exclusion of composers like Mozart and Beethoven from the pantheon of the greatest musicians of all time (as they are not primordial). In your subsequent response, at the moment when you say you are compelled to state that Beethoven became a musician because Bach was there before him, you refer back to these concepts, reaffirming them. But in my opinion, the fact that Beethoven was a musician with Bach’s legacy behind him - I’m sorry - does not diminish his figure, value, importance, or centrality in the history of music at all. A history that is always moving, by the way.
Why don’t we agree? Because your logic seems overly simplistic for me and is too schematic. To give a banal example, your reasoning amounts to saying that once the alphabet was invented and perfected, everyone who came after necessarily holds less value than those who constructed the alphabet itself. Perhaps going so far as to say: "Bravo Saba, but if Dante hadn’t existed...?" But what sense does that make?? To me, it makes no sense. And that’s the point of the discussion I would like to highlight. I find the transition that leads you to this conclusion simplistic. Because the reality of things is far more complex and requires greater contextualization. I do not deny, nor would I ever presume to deny, the greatness of Bach; on the contrary, I completely agree with everything you say about his monumental work, that it is the foundation upon which our music has been built. Conversely, I only deny the hierarchical relationships you’ve constructed, which I believe to be somewhat arbitrary. That a chronological precedence exists is undeniable; it is ontological, but the innovative value of the musical language of Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms is not inferior to that of Bach. It is subsequent, but not of lesser value. Because musical language evolves according to historical perspectives, and this is what I was trying to talk about. Furthermore, the fact that this value (not lesser) exists (at least for Beethoven... shame you didn’t mention Brahms...) is recognized by you yourself when you state that with him symphonic music dies. It’s just that you place it in relation and proportion to Bach. Regarding the rest of your intervention, I also think that Stravinsky is not a latecomer, but at the same time, I was questioning his assertions, stating that perhaps he was exaggerating. Nevertheless, in this case, I would not dismiss

Well ... I don’t mind your review, even if I find your reasoning too schematic, a bit Taliban (no offense) and therefore not entirely shareable. The structure of your logic is demonstrated by the last comment that refers to the classics to reinforce the theses, moreover with a forced comparison with Physics, which seems inappropriate to me. Instead of strengthening them, it weakens them for me. In fact, the "greatest musicians of all time" that you cite as progenitors of a language are indeed important, but not all in the same way, generalizing too much. Thus, surely Mozart and Beethoven do not need to bow before Vivaldi, who from the perspective of innovation of musical language contributed to a lesser extent than they did. This opinion belonged, for example, to Stravinsky (not just anyone...), who pointed out how the formal structure of his works suffered a bit from repetitiveness (essentially saying he always wrote the same concerto...). Maybe he exaggerated, I don’t know, but compared to Mozart and Beethoven, Vivaldi can well stand one step back. A different discussion is for Bach (whom Beethoven considered immense), who represents the foundation of musical language, even though it seems reckless to assert that he started from nothing... a long discussion... we would need to take additional steps back... However, the foundation was not the arrival and it has never been immobile and forever defined. Thus, the composers who followed and whom you mentioned evolved quite a bit compared to the fundamental premises set by Bach. Mozart and Haydn defined the formal perfection of classicism in concertos and sonatas, for example (I cite Mozart's symphony 41 above all), forms upon which composers like Beethoven and Schubert provided further contributions. The latter, for me, represents the archetype of romanticism (for instance, with the construction and perfection of lieder, but also with symphonies and quartets), but I realize we have different opinions. The former, however, represents revolutions that are seemingly tombstones. Forms like the sonata and the symphony find in him new, unimaginable pathways. The symphony is thus absolutely revolutionized progressively. Beethoven's musical formal perfection is then the fifth, from which onwards everything changes, up to the introduction of vocal parts in the ninth. No longer just the orchestra but also four soloists and a choir, with the aim of giving semantic significance to the music thanks also to Schiller's words. Just for this reason, what sense does it make to create a hierarchy that places Beethoven outside or on the margins of the pantheon of those who constructed a language? How is it possible to deny that he is one of the greatest musicians of all time? For me, that is a senseless statement. His was a shocking revolution, which Verdi, for example, harshly criticized. Something that then opened new perspectives beyond the symphony itself; keep in mind that Wagner considered the ninth as the very premise of his works. Regarding the piano sonata, it should be noted that Beethoven reached absolute formal perfection, effectively declaring its death as Adorno said. Or should we talk about how Beethoven approached the string quartet? Another revolution. Thus Brahms, so heavily criticized during his lifetime, represents one of the greatest innovators of symphonic forms from a formal perspective. His return to pure music, picking up where Beethoven left off (the premiere of Brahms is called the Tenth, placing it directly after Beethoven's Ninth), creating the idea of the progressive development of thematic cells - a process described by Schoenberg, who spoke of a progressive Brahms, I believe in 1936 - represents a fundamental language innovation that, among other things, opened some paths to Mahler and Bruckner. Brahms himself reopened the entrance of popular music into cultured music (Hungarian Dances). Brahms is one of the greatest musicians to have graced this Earth because he inn

Thank you all for your attention to this debasers album. I'm glad that it can interest many, as it represents a noteworthy novelty in the "classical" sector. I wanted to add a few things that I didn't write in the review to avoid making it too heavy. They concern Schiff's project. He is complementing his studio recordings with parallel live performances. It's truly an intense undertaking, hats off to him. I read that he decided to embark on this journey believing that he now possesses the maturity necessary to do so. He achieved that maturity by studying for decades, leaving us, among other things, with some wonderful interpretations of Schubert's piano works, as Grass rightly pointed out (his sonatas D. 537 and D. 859 for Decca are splendid). I really liked this statement because it emphasizes his approach, which indeed requires—not just technical skill—a certain degree of maturity, essential for fully understanding all that is contained in this monument dedicated to the piano. Beethoven said of his piano works that beneath those keys lay his heart, and perhaps these words say more than a thousand others. Schiff's chronological reading can highlight changes, the evolution of that heart. A new album is expected to be released every six months, so enthusiasts should be on the lookout, as the fourth volume is coming out soon. Bye :)

But what a lot of goodness and goodness. Bah...

Really very beautiful, I enjoyed the opening piece which, in its delicacy, is in harmony with the description of the album that also seems interesting. The closing of the review is beautiful as well. I will follow the advice, thank you.

Non hai fornito un testo da tradurre. Per favore, inviami il testo in italiano e sarò felice di aiutarti con la traduzione.

I like to think of Petrucciani as a giant of the piano who left us pages of wonderful music. If he had lived a little longer, perhaps he would have gifted us a thousand more... what a pity. An addition to the review. If I remember correctly, Estate - the musical theme tackled by Petrucciani and so loved by him - was written by one of our musicians: Bruno Martino. It has now become an established standard (thanks especially to Petrucciani) for its sweet and bittersweet musicality. The words of this piece, I don’t remember who wrote them, I remember being beautiful: “Estate, sei calda come i baci che ho perduto...” And then that central passage “Odio l'Estate...”. Ah, the quote seems to be from Il Postino. Bye.

I learned about the first two albums' existence through Debaser: listened to and forgotten. Some good impressions but no love at first sight. If I happen to come across Nick, I'll give it a quick listen... ola.

Dear Grass, time is a tyrant, so it's difficult to be present on time, but even if I'm late, I always seem to arrive. I know this record well, which I got a while ago because I really like Brendel, as I've mentioned on other occasions. As for the bagatelles, since the piano is the cornerstone of Beethoven's musical history, they are objectively a part of his music, but (perhaps) less significant than others. The revision of the pianistic writing is (perhaps) more inherent in the evolution of the 32 sonatas, and I wouldn't overlook the "Diabelli Variations." In this discussion, I see the bagatelles as being at the end. Therefore, despite their beauty, I don't feel I can evaluate them in the same way as his other works; in the market of scores, I would take away a little point. However, if I were to focus on Brendel's approach, then the discussion might be different. This, like many others he has dedicated to Beethoven, is a superb album, recorded by a great interpreter. Bye.

The first film of the saga wasn't that bad after all, despite some doses of sticky rhetoric, but the rest of the "saga" deserves a quiet oblivion, along with the various soundtracks, worthy of testicular hammering that were so in fashion in the gyms of the '80s.