Fino ad essere stata l'eccellenza nel 1700 per il numero di Principi (Maria Pia Barrese di Pietraperzia che andò in sposa al Barone di S. Andrea (parrocchiani della Chiesa del S. Salvatore già esistente nel periodo di Carlo Magno) ai Principi Lavia parrocchiani di S. Maria Maggiore. I 24 baroni non erano un'invenzione, tutt'altro se riuscissi a elencarli tutti, in barba alla mrmoria, voglio provarci e se mi sbaglio qualcuno di Voi mi correggerà: 1) Barone La Motta. 2) La Motta di S. Silvestro, non era parente del primo. 3) Barone Speciale. 4) Barone Caccamo. 5) Barone Marrocco. 6) Barone Cirino (fondatore Banco di Sicilia dopo la prima guerra mondiale). 7 Barone Giancalogero ( noto x le Sue vigne stupende nella vallata omonima. 8) Barone S. Andrea (Noto x aver preso in giro Icilio Felice frate francescano) attualmente San Felice da Nicosia. (Vedi il testo Bisaccia Eroica). Perdonate l'età che mi ritrovo e la memoria che vacilla. Posso solo dire che dopo l'arrivo della Repubblica Italiana e l'uscita di scena di questa scia di famiglie nobiliari gli abitanti di Nicosia videro davanti a sé sfilare come a carnevale i carri allegorici la fine del periodo d'oro della città. Finì per sempre l'epoca dell'abbondanza dell'altruismo, del benessere socio-economico. La città non fu più quella di prima. La gente andò a cercare fortuna in America e non ritorno più nel Suo amato paese. Le guerre fecero il loro enorme passo verso la distruzione. L'abbandono fu totale. Chi si rimbocco' le maniche furono pochi. Il Seminario dove i bambini di appena 11 anni furono affidati dai genitori a sacerdoti senza scrupoli e ne morirono a centinaia fino al punto di far chiudere quel seminario di San Biagio. Rimasero così la Stazione dell'arma dei CC Il Carcere Giudiziario con finante col convento dei Frati Minori, la questura della P.S. e il Tribunale che x leggi e leggine è stato pure tolto. Cosa dire? Sono molto dispiaciuta e nell'amarezza che serbo nel cuore dire che: "Tutto va bene Madama la Marchesa" Scrisse Manzoni ne "I PROMESSI SPOSI!"

Thanks Basilio Timpanaro for his kind reply, and for his explanations. I avoid getting involved in discussions in which individual taste is prevalent. What I note is a certain expressive uniformity and, forgive me, a lack of rhetorical and dynamic sense. Those who appear on KZbin must also take into account the criticism and sometimes question themselves. So in full respect of his reasoned beliefs I tell you that a few words of criticism is much more useful than the many unfounded praises that lower the levels of the comments that rage on KZbin. With my regards.

Dear friend, I must this time absolutely agree with you, about the necessity for a musician of taking in account the criticism, and therefore some useful advice and suggestions, that people can give about the way you play; this is much more honest and useful than the empty words of praise that sometimes you can read on KZbin (or other socials), on performances honestly disappointing or even disgusting. I, myself, work every day with criticism, about myself and about my pupils, since I am harpsichord teacher in a Conservatory; I try always, within my possibilities, to stimulate in my pupils the attitude to compare the different ways you can interpret a music and to question my and their own way. However, coming to the content and the core of your criticism, I sincerely do not agree. I have listened again carefully to my recording (it was made several years ago) and I still like it; I don't think it lacks of expression and rhetoric, I really think that this piece must be played with delicacy subtlety of articulation and phrasing, and I can still listen to all this in my performance. And frankly I must say I don't like some interpretation (that you maybe already know) with heavy touch, strong chords, excessive overdotting (which I consider nowadays old fashioned), etc.. Of course, though, it is a matter of taste and every opinion has its right, better if based on the close study of the score.Please accept my best regards.Basilio

@@basiliotimpanaro 1548/5000 Dear friend, I have read your reasons carefully and with great respect. Your linear answer that reveals a personality of great professional honesty. I appreciated that you did not use arguments, in some way questionable to defend your points of view. Also I have listened to the Romanesque. The bad recording did not help you: level and homogenize the dynamics by flattening the performance. This is KZbin. Of course, I was surprised by the elegance with which you replyed to my criticism. It rarely happens. I also regret being so brutal in the judgment. One topic that I liked is that of useless and free and substantially false praises. My judgment could be hasty or be the result of my tastes and questionable personal convictions: but I am sincere. Even in these cases there can be some good. In general, in the world of American, French or Dutch harpsichordist, I reproach a substantial inability to dig deep, and understand the musical sense of the Italian repertoire. Too many forget that music must give intense emotions. I regret that even in Italy many do not put to good use the instinctive Mediterranean musicality. The interpretation of pure circus performance will find, to paraphrase Brecht, "a judge in Berlin" that will condemn this fashion. I am not a judge, I am not a harpsichordist but I have good ears and a very long experience. Thank you for your answers and best wishes for your job.

Dear insulajupiter, thank you for your kind reply; it seems that we begin to become almost friends, at least because we both love being clear and try to be honest in our statements. I admit that I often share your opinion about "the world of American, French or Dutch harpsichordist" and, above all, that I hate the "interpretation of pure circus performance" too. I’m Italian but I was trained, as a harpsichordist, in Holland, at the school of Koopman, first, and later of Leonhardt; but, in the more than thirty years since then, I have changed a lot my way of playing and I'm still always looking to improve it, because I believe that in music it's never possible to stay still: you can only go ahead... or back.Regarding my Romanesca ... it is true that perhaps the bad recording does not do justice to some subtleties that I think I did in the execution (or at least that it was my intention to do); anyway ... I'll just have to play this piece in concert in a few weeks and I'll try to learn from your criticism. Sometimes we musicians think that everything that is clear to us it is also evident to the listener and, thus, wanting to be refined we risk not being able to convey these subtleties to the listener.In addition, if you like, and if I can get a better recording in the next concert, I would like you to listen to it (in which case you should then give me your email address, to send it). For the moment, if you were willing and had time, I’d like if you wanted to listen to something else played by me (on KZbin or by visiting my website: www.basiliotimpanaro.com/). Best regards, Basilio

@@basiliotimpanaro you tell me that you studied with Leonhardt and Koopmann. The debt that the historical harpsichord has towards them, especially the first of the two, is out of the question. It amazes me how his teaching is remembered as a Mantra. His school characterized by the "philologically correct" can be criticized without incurring imputations of "lesa maestà". Here I think, with respect to your choice, that it is better to follow other roads rather than those that are now easy and already traveled by many others. I had the opportunity to enjoy an almost infinite series of Leonhardt "disciples". Many of them emphasize this fact, like a placeholder at the table. I do not think you belong to this category, but I wonder you've talked about it. With the frankness that you now know well, I invite you to reflect on the limits of what must be considered a dogmatic position and, if you allow it, an uncritical one. We leave Leonhardt momentarily. Let's take Koopman as an example in his interpretation of More Palatino (watch on KZbin). I wonder what judgment you could give to a student who plays like this ... One can not judge by one single piece. but it is enough to listen to others. It must be said that on how T.K. he plays the harpsichord can and must be criticized: his students should keep it in mind, On T.K. organist the judgment changes: for Buxtehude it is almost unassailable. But of this we can talk about it another time.

Dear Insulajupiter, thanks for your comment; I tried to explain my different opinion with a new commentary on the video, which I would like you to read. Greetings, Basilio.

Gent.ma Chiara, grazie ....e complimenti anche a te (ho ascoltato alcune delle tue registrazioni sul tuo sito)!