Contemplazione

Instead, if I remember correctly, he did well in embodying the role of the mad Ranquest in Bram Stoker's Dracula, alongside the monocled Keanu Reeves and Gary Oldman. The scene with the insect meal is horrifying, especially thanks to his constantly moving eyes—the eyes of madness.

@ZannaB: unfortunately, N and M are next to each other on the keyboard, and I often make mistakes...sorry! Actually, the banjo-guitar doesn't exist; it's just that the instrumental credits only mention the banjo in this track, while it sounds to me like there's a banjo in the background and an electric guitar improvising. Maybe they forgot to credit the guitar, but this hypothetical guitar has such a distinct sound that it could also be an electric banjo played by the same musician...who knows?

In my opinion, the most mature film by Verdone, alongside "Al lupo al lupo." It contains one of the rudest lines in non-trash Italian cinema: (scene where they play roll call) "Barbagallo?" "Absent!" "But look, he’s dead..." and Finocchiaro: "he stank when he was alive...imagine what a smell he’s got now!!!" A review that doesn’t just claim the film is bad to seem sophisticated ;)

Pippo, pippuccio... sooner or later I will do it but not right away! I would like to explore a bit more among the genres in the upcoming reviews. If you like Chopin, I’ve already written one about the Polonaises. The next one might be about Tom Waits or Matthew Shipp... why don’t you write something about the great Andrew? P.S.: I found a trio album by Hampton Hawes, with Mingus and Danny Richmond (under Mingus's name)... not bad ;)

Hi Ole, thanks for the tips. I know Rush and Soft Machine, the others I confess I've never heard of, except maybe a few by name. Little by little, I'll try to fill the gap! Christ, a whole lifetime wouldn’t be enough to hear everything that deserves to be heard :)

I am convinced that there should be no taboos (no one is untouchable, starting with Bach) and that everyone should be able to express their opinion, but perhaps a bit more "caution" in being heavy-handed sometimes wouldn't hurt. I sincerely thank Vera for sharing her thoughts on the matter, and I hope that our difference of opinion does not cause any personal friction, now or ever. Believe me, I respect you. Thanks also to Odra for acting as a moderator :))) I am starting to see you as the wise one of the tribe. When you open your mouth, there's never a wrinkle.

Well, our mutual friend shows a bit of antipathy towards him, come on! :)). Quoting Vera, and translating the essence of her words: "original? unique? poet?" (No..a hack, mediocre and lacking sensitivity); "among the composers of the '10 generation, he is absolutely the one with the least genius and compositional ability" (absolutely a half-wit...); "he has managed to soar high in very few compositions, a few Nocturnes and preludes, a few études" (the Nocturnes are universally recognized for the absolute gems they are; perhaps it could be said that three or four of them do not reach the excellence of the others...and what about the Ballades? Mediocre too? The Scherzo op. 31? Shall we not save some Mazurkas and Waltzes? The Polonaises, for goodness' sake, they get a 2). "he has stolen musical ideas as much as he can" (and Beethoven hasn’t?); "... but if by genius you mean the ability to stitch patches..." (he was only good at cheating you out of money, in short..); "socialite composer" (an exacting, false, and slick type, perhaps even gay); "rhetorical composer" (now he's even trying to preach morality to us...); "In short, enough of Chopin" (this alone says a lot about the lack of love for him... it's like saying "Chopin has annoyed us!"). An entirely negative, distorted, and, in my opinion, non-objective image of the artist emerges. A mediocre opportunist, stingy and moreover resentful towards Liszt. ;)

Anyway, far from me to be a stadium fan, I completely agree with what you say about freedom of opinions, etc., etc., but then there’s also freedom of counter-opinion! It can happen to think that certain opinions are "nonsense," right? Without thinking that the person expressing them is stupid! Vera was explicit, and so was I. When I said that all that enthusiasm embarrassed her (in fact, an excessive term), I meant that from a piano expert I would have expected a slightly cooler and more objective analysis, less biased. It seems that Vera's personal lack of sympathy for Chopin was decisive in her judgment (more of a harsh criticism than a review). Tomorrow someone will say that Mozart wasn't a genius because he copied left and right, for example. Or they'll say that since he wrote music on commission he was just a mercenary court flatterer, and blah blah blah. No one comes from nothing; everyone influences everyone. The more a musician is able to creatively take inspiration from what surrounds them, the more their work will be a mature and complete synthesis of a historical era and a geographical and social context. Artistic movements are nothing more than a MULTITUDE of artists who "copy" each other, right? But from this multitude, very few truly leave a mark! Chopin completely revolutionized the way of understanding the piano... Field?

As for the sources of Vera, I also share your certainty about their authenticity, but not about their importance! Even if Chopin drew inspiration (or plundered, as she derogatorily puts it) from Moescheles for the composition of a movement of the concerto in F, is that really significant? To be frank, the two piano concertos are precisely the two "least important" works of Chopin. He remains a composer focused on the piano; his orchestral scores are mediocre by comparison... Therefore, even if he had never composed them, or had entirely copied them from someone else, it would not in the slightest diminish his well-deserved reputation as a brilliant composer. From what I know, John Field was the first composer of "Nocturnes," and certainly Chopin used the same A-B-A' musical structure in composing his. But the results are light-years apart! Regarding Liszt, it is undeniable that he had an unparalleled piano technique, but from an artistic standpoint, he vanishes next to Chopin. He played for everyone, it's true...but also due to a tremendous exhibitionism and an enormous ego, a serious limitation that has almost always affected the greatest virtuosos. Chopin, on the other hand, more sensitive, more reserved (more of an artist!), was not comfortable performing in front of a large audience, and moreover, his more introspective sounds often required a smaller space (hence the salons, in which, as far as I know, he never acted obsequiously as the scheming Liszt did).

Bah... giving a 2 to the Poles seems really excessive to me and a result of a poorly reasoned impulse. Are the Poles rhetorical? In my opinion, it's quite the opposite. And this attack against Chopin from a pianist is something I never would have expected, and it’s quite shameful... to say that among musicians of the '10, he's the one with the LEAST genius and the LEAST compositional ability seems really stupid to me! Then quoting absolutely secondary figures in my view as counterexamples... (John Field, Moescheles, the Symanowska! Are you kidding?) I may not have conservatory studies, but I feel I can confidently say that Liszt (contrary to what you say) is a miserable little braggart of the piano in comparison to the great Poet, and he doesn’t even have a fraction of the melodic genius of Chopin. No hard feelings. By the way, if you find it so "disgusting," it’s unclear why you even went to the Auditorium to hear a recital largely dedicated to him, especially played by the Pollini of today, who is certainly not among your favorites from what you say.