Hal

I heard it this morning, and it seemed like a nice little album, nothing particularly surprising though. I'll listen to it again more carefully.

Yes, exactly. So it's not me who believes they are indivisible; there are those who divide them. It's different.

No, my dear, that is absolutely not the case.

They are two different things, you are absolutely right. But at the moment when the message is present (because it can be) in analytical reading, they can be assimilated. The book must, the music can. Therefore, if present, talking about mere entertainment is a partial reading.

In the examples mentioned, it seems to me that I talked about moments when the message is present and is EVIDENT. If it is not - as could be said about the example you provide - we enter into another discussion, don't you think? The point is: in the face of the EVIDENT presence of the message, does it make sense to say: but it's just music? For me, no.

@ajejebrazorf - I would separate the analytical perspective from the personal taste one. From the latter viewpoint, everyone does what they please, and I certainly won't be the one to dictate behavior. However... "Art cannot simply be an expression of a political belief," you say. This does not mean it CANNOT be, and when it is (as in this case), it is not possible – from an analytical standpoint – to pretend it doesn't exist, especially if one wants to see things as they truly are in their entirety and not in pieces, perhaps just the parts we like or find convenient. That’s the point. And if someone pretends nothing is happening, they are seeing only a fragment of the work, there's little room for argument. I don't care if they do this for their own convenience, laziness, or malice. They do it. And, mind you, I am NOT talking about the artist, but about the artist's work, its conscious and actual content (if present). About what the artist wants to communicate with their work. It is up to the audience to look deeper if they wish, and I believe there are cases where it is wrong to remain indifferent or neutral regarding this content aspect (when present). If you don’t like my value judgment (it's wrong not to look deeper), the fact remains (not seeing these aspects leads to a partial/incomplete analysis of the work itself).
Moreover, from an analytical perspective, meaning looking beyond appearances, comes the individual stance which – in my opinion – must be present (without this hindering the enjoyment of the work itself). Let’s be clear. Beautiful music? Innovative? Interesting? Talented? Well-structured? Good. But is that all, or is there more? In this case – and it's not the only one – I see that there is more and that the work as a whole can indeed be condemned. A well-written book with structural validity is also assessed in terms of its content, isn’t it? Or is only the formal structure relevant? If "Mein Kampf" were also the best written and most progressive literary book in history, that wouldn’t change my condemnation of its content by a single punctuation mark: 0 stars out of 5. “Wow, what talent. But how well he writes, oh, what a sublime passage.” Who gives a damn, what is he saying? Likewise, this album could also be musically interesting, intricate, an expression of pure talent, but the work itself, being a vehicle for stupid messages, can only be stigmatized in my opinion (or celebrated... as seems to occur... their website is delirious!). Because the content is part of the work, and I believe it can be subject to criticism or praise. Let’s do it. Take a stance. Those who wish to, of course. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the one-dimensional view of “Oh how beautiful, but how well it sounds. That’s it, I’m not interested in anything else." Too easy, too comfortable, and ultimately, in my opinion, also sterile and pointless.

@sorciopeloso - Everyone can relate to music or anything else however they please. However, I criticize the hypocritical attitude (or superficial, if you prefer) of those who say that these matters we are discussing have nothing to do with music. That one doesn't want to talk about them is one thing; claiming they are unrelated is another. These aspects are not always present, but sometimes they are, and one cannot hide behind the notes on the sheet as if everything ends there. You yourself say “after all, it’s music, not a political/social manifesto.” In this case, that’s simply not true. Everyone can do what they want, listen, explore, delve deeper or not, it’s their own business. But don’t come tell me – minimizing – that when we’re talking about characters like these, we’re talking “only” about music. Because that’s a real load of rubbish!

@mementori - I understand what you’re saying. Sometimes debates last for whole days; this is not the first time it happens, and it won’t be the last. It always occurs when we touch on live wires, sensitive topics, and there are plenty of them

The discussion seems interesting to me, and I would like to share my thoughts if possible. I won’t be brief; I apologize in advance to those who prefer extreme succinctness, but the theme is complex and requires a reasoned reflection that no one is obliged to read. I would start with the premise. This puts me fundamentally at odds, even though I appreciate the fact that the reviewer raises important questions. To begin with, the underlying thesis outlined is not true: the repudiation of war is not a commonly accepted value; indeed, it is very much up for debate in recent years. The idea of war as a preventive tool against the emergence of international terrorist hotspots is gaining traction. At the same time, in certain Islamic regions, particularly in the last ten years, the notion of employing new forms of warfare against the West has intensified. Alongside this, other military conflicts have continuously developed in the Third World, sometimes in indifference—often due to servile media—and almost always in the interest of stoking them to favor our economies. All this, however, has significantly contributed to altering the conception of the value that condemns war. Whether the idea of the rational use of military means is right or wrong (I am firmly in favor of the latter hypothesis), I believe it will be possible to clarify this better over time, in light of the global consequences of these changes. For now, without dwelling on the causal aspect of this situation, I acknowledge that this vision of "useful war" belongs not only to those who lead and sustain certain Western governments but also to a significant part of public opinion, which, probably far removed from the last world conflict, has called into question the condemnation of war as a means of resolving disputes, just to remember our ever-too-forgotten Constitutional Charter. However, there is always another part—equally significant—of public opinion that has developed a diametrically opposite idea, within which many people—from different backgrounds—have linked mere condemnation to a very specific way of life, making choices consistent with these principles. Thus, the starting point is much more complex than it seems.
I am also perplexed by the second section of the premise. The mere fact of having been born in the privileged part of human society is, in your opinion, a factor of general guilt. A real condemnation without appeal ("silent accomplices of the worst crimes perpetrated against humanity"). Let’s think this through. Here I see the risk of a dangerous simplification. What you say, in fact, would mean that there are no effective distinctions within this part of society (since we are all guilty). But there is more. To link the fact of being guilty to having been born in this part of the world would be akin to a real exemption of responsibility. We are Westerners; we are already guilty from birth; hence, even assuming behaviors in opposition to our status, we remain guilty of original sin and in eternal contradiction. It would be like saying that it is worth conforming to the characteristics of our world, acknowledging them. And this conclusion (not intended by you) is the least shareable part of your reasoning because it is instead necessary to make the necessary distinctions within our society by identifying relative responsibilities. Let’s not deceive ourselves and acknowledge the fact that it is ALSO our responsibility (each in a different measure) for the state of the world around us, and if each one did their part, perhaps many things could truly change. In other words, I reject the passive attitude of your words ("There cannot, in my opinion, be coherence between our conduct and our ideals, but only a lacerating contradiction with which we are forced to coexist, given that the system conditions us and obliges us to follow certain tracks.") You say that "this does not mean we are condemned to a passive abandonment in the face of the immutable." And ins

"That whirlwind, the tango, that little devil, defies the weary years; made of dust and time, man lasts less than the light melody, which is only time. The tango creates a confused unreal past that is somehow certain, the impossible memory of having died fighting, in the suburbs, at a street corner." (J.L. Borges)

Alfred Brendel records for Philips Classics; if you take a quick look on Google, you'll find a lot of information about him. I have some Philips records, mostly dedicated to Beethoven's piano compositions, but I believe his repertoire is quite extensive. Bye.

Well, the interpretations of Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli are indeed from another planet. Anyway, for this afternoon I’ve chosen to listen to Chopin, precisely inspired by this reading. I’ve put on the player some recordings by Brendel, an interpreter I sometimes enjoy, but at other times he leaves me rather cold, though I can’t quite explain why. Bye.