zigghio

Of course, I even said it in one sentence; it was right for me that there was a possibility for those who were economically excluded to access certain things. I was criticizing another aspect, and above all, I wanted to make it clear that the dualism of intellect/ignorance is not so simple to unravel, and I believe it is difficult to convey that—I've tried with my last lines.

Mauri, the terms I used in the sense I mean are not condemnatory and do not contradict my first comment. Perhaps it has a bit muddied the waters for you, the phrase "all art today is bourgeois" with "the plebeian mass." Well, for me, nowadays it is the middle-bourgeois mass that is plebeian, as those who once defined themselves as plebeians have disappeared today. Consumerism has suddenly wiped out an entire social class; I don't know if one realizes this. What has happened in Italy: the low-middle Italian class, once humble and dignified as a peasant mass, no longer exists. They have transformed into people who desire nothing other than to imitate the stars of TV and high society. In Western societies, there has been an "anthropological mutation," especially in Italy, namely that process that began in the late '50s whereby the cultural identities of the country were progressively sacrificed to the "violent" industrial and commercial development of the boom, in the name of that "cultural homologation" that annulled the socio-cultural variety of Italy, born from a millennia-old history. Italian society, once agricultural and rural (at most small industrial), has become a consumeristic society characterized by frenzied industrialization and savage urbanization. Logically, the value that art holds in the eyes of this new uniform class also changes.

Massimo f. indeed I was aware of the anachronism of my statement; in the 18th and 19th centuries, information, printing, and education had not yet had their boom, and this is what transformed civilization. Literacy does not necessarily mean cultural growth, my observation was merely that today, even people who have little to do with art have access to it. I'm not a fascist nor a conservative, mind you; I base myself only on historical facts. What happened that changed the course of history was this transition from voters to elected officials. So what changes?? Even in my hometown, someone used to get elected; now I’ll give it a try, I’ll get elected too, since I’m literate. This way of thinking has ruined art as well, and has also tarnished what I call "holy ignorance," because in the 18th century, there existed a sacred ignorance of the people, untainted by the written word. The printing press caused more harm than one can imagine; the ignorance that existed before among the masses was something precious and pure. Today, even that has been lost. Now we have a vile ignorance (vile comes from the Greek laikos), compromised, just like the ignorance and arrogance of approaching certain works and manifestations of human intellect with a wrong mindset.

Beethoven was a romantic.

who knows where Chester is :-))

Michelangeli is untouchable, you're right Hal, I like him a lot too (his Piano Concerto No. 5 "Emperor" with Giulini is sublime) although I slightly prefer Backhaus for the piano sonatas. There's no need to say what I think about the one you reviewed, it stands up there along with the other piano sonatas like the "Appassionata," "Waldstein," "Moonlight," and "Tempest," which remain my favorites. In my opinion, Beethoven was one of the few to be "completely" Dionysian in content and Apollonian in form.

I agree, really horrible, worse than Riot Act, empty album, hideous cover, plus I heard you have to pay 50 bucks to see them, in short, they are really finished. What a shame, an undignified and inglorious end.