Composers or composition students?

a million dollar question ...

i'll venture a synthetic answer ...

the composer has assimilated everything he studied and went beyond ...

wishing to define "beyond":

finding his own personal style
using technique without showing it
transgressing the rules studied without drawing attention.

I like your intervention RStrauss, there is just one limit... you speak of:

> has assimilated everything they have studied

i would say, that there is still much to study

> transgressing the studied rules without drawing attention.

I don't know which rules you are referring to, whether in terms of good taste or otherwise, but the codes have been open for almost a century, so it becomes difficult to say "You have transgressed the rules," because immediately after, someone will counter-question you: "Which ones?"

I would only add one thing if wanting to define "beyond"; I would say that one should be recognizable, so style can become a medium and not the end goal.

I would like to be more concise than RStrauss

I think it is a matter of credibility; on one hand, it implicitly contemplates what has already been listed, but on the other hand, it does not "discriminate" regarding code, style, syntax, etc.

Zazza wrote:

I like your intervention RStrauss, there is just one limit... you speak of:

> has assimilated everything they have studied

done would say, that there would be more to study

i wanted to be concise, but what you say is correct. by “total everything they have studied” I meant the cycle of studies normally completed, which is what gives you all the technical foundations to start from.

I'll give a silly example: all instruments are studied, including the tuba and the piccolo. I doubt there is a book that advises you to put these two instruments together and make them play four octaves apart, but if you need it for a particular passage, no one prevents you from doing so.

i agree with you that one never finishes studying, but the study you do “later” is different from the study you do while learning.

Zazza wrote:

> transgressing the studied rules without drawing attention to oneself.

I don't know which rules you are referring to, whether in terms of good taste or otherwise, but the codes have been open for almost a century, so it becomes difficult to say “You have transgressed the rules”; immediately after, someone will counter-question you: “Which ones?”

and you respond: the rules abound in the books studied at school ... at school (repeat).

Zazza wrote:

Add only one thing if wanting to define “everything else”, I would say that one should be recognizable, so style can become a means and not the end

in my opinion both things must exist ...

to summarize like Frank:

i feel the need to find my own style that is, however, recognizable.

As I heard recently on TV from an art critic (regarding contemporary artists), one can consider oneself a full-fledged artist (or, in our case, a composer) when a large enough group of people recognizes them as such.

thallo wrote:

As I heard recently on TV from an art critic (regarding contemporary artists), one can consider oneself a full-fledged artist (or, in our case, a composer) when a large enough group of people recognizes them as such.

the statement is a bit shaky ...

now I'll drop the bombshell ...

also Allevi is considered an artist ...

but Allevi is an artist. He does things that you don't like (and that I don't like), but he does it for work, he does it according to inspiration and he does it with a following.

Let us always remember that, even in Allevi's case, our tastes are not "the" tastes

thallo wrote:

but Allevi is an artist. He does things that you don't like (and that I don't like), but he does it for work, he does it according to inspiration and he does it with a following.

Let us always remember that, even in Allevi's case, our tastes are not "the" tastes

i am not talking about tastes, those are not up for discussion ... and we professionals must distinguish personal taste

from a technical evaluation ... so if you don't like it (as I don't), I am not happy about it, but for our discussion it is
completely irrelevant ... I am talking about the quality of the music which, in Allevi's case, is not abundant.
and I am not speaking by hearsay, I am speaking with knowledge, having obtained many of his pieces for piano and having played them

multiple times, precisely to be sure of what I am saying.

Tons of smoke and almost no roast, good for the younger generations with easy palates who will accept anything that sounds "alternative".

in Allevi's case, we are not talking about music but about very high-level marketing.

His staff ... selling an inferior product to the masses and making a lot of money. ... those are true professionals in their work.

A character constructed ad hoc to seem like the classic stereotypical mad artist, who even had the audacity to say that

he conceived I don't know which of his pieces in the bathroom ... and it shows ...

A character who pretended to conduct an orchestra; in fact, to an expert eye, it surely won't have escaped that the real conductor

was the first violin

A character who defined himself as the new Mozart ... oh please .. come on ...

If there was a definition of an artist, this is certainly not it.

Thallo you disappoint me ... I didn't expect this defense of Ricciolino from you!

Everything you say does not affect the definition of Allevi as a composer. The definition of a composer does not include the honesty with which you compose or the independence of production. A composer is someone who composes music with artistic intent (intent, not results, because otherwise we would have to exclude all bad composers) and who is recognized as such by a group of people. I am not moving a single millimeter from this definition :-) at most I will add, but I will not take away

Painter or painting student? I believe a painter is someone who goes beyond painting techniques. The same should apply to music, right?

thallo wrote:

when a large enough group of people recognizes it as such.

It would be nice to provide some guidelines to define "large" enough... I have composer friends, very talented, who love having a select audience that generally does not exceed hundreds of people but who wouldn't miss even one of their events... what do these critics say in this regard?

I'm rethinking my definition and seeing if Allevi fits. Yes

> a matter of credibility

If he weren't credible, in his genre, he wouldn't sell. His genre is made to sell... therefore he is credible.

I'll add, credibility also made up of recognizability:

For better or worse, he is recognizable.

And he is a composer.

ttw wrote:

It would be nice to provide some guidelines to define "large enough"... I have composer friends, very talented, who love having a select audience that generally does not exceed a few hundred people but who wouldn't miss a single one of their events... what do these critics say in this regard?

Connecting back to thallo as well ... what I strongly doubt is the composition of the group of people ... I agree with ttw ...

100 people with a certain musical competence count much more than 100,000 taken from Allevi's audience (to name one at random!).

Of course, one could object "what is the level of musical culture required to be defined as competent?" ... and we would never end ... without going into specifics, I might venture a definition

to define a competent person: someone who can distinguish good music from bad music, someone who can recognize a good interpretation rather than a bad one, someone who is able to

express a detailed opinion on the statements they make in the matter ... all this, however, under a condition that I believe is indispensable: not being conditioned by personal taste.

Personally, I would opt for the 100 competent ones ...

P.S. this would be a good topic to submit to composers in the form of a survey.

rstrauss wrote:

... I am talking about the quality of music which, in Allevi's case, is not abundant.

In reality, it is lacking in 90% of pop music, but there is always an excellent 10%

Besides, nowadays, there are even GOATs [or 'idiots' depending on context, though 'capre' usually means 'goats/bad players' in Italian slang] among those who compose with a more classical approach...

I think Elfo's question is independent of the results... perhaps...

Who would buy CDs full of bass... harmonized?

Et. etc.

...interesting discourse, let's meditate.

rstrauss wrote:

Personally, I would opt for the 100 competent ones ...

I would make it specific: 100 INTELLIGENT competent people, otherwise it's better to have 1,000,000 incompetents. I will also tell you why. If the 100 competent ones are one-dimensional and cannot see past the end of their noses, they will only consider your music valid if it pertains to their beliefs.

Every reference is purely coincidental...

... recognizing modernity today is harder than it seems; there is a crowd of competent people who like to hear nothing but belches and farts from instruments.

You will say, but these are not competent ...

... and who would establish that?

Mined territory and unanswered questions, absolutes in music do not exist ... one can only establish if something is truly and objectively valid if the code were common; therefore, only if a work is tonal ... all the prerequisites for this type of evaluation may be present ... but we all know that tonality alone is not enough to be truly and thoroughly credible....

As for the rest... no one can have the answer in their pocket, even if everyone has their own ideas.... more or less shareable."

Frank wrote:

I would specify, 100 competent INTELLIGENT people, otherwise it's better to have 1,000,000 incompetents. I will also tell you why. If the 100 competent people are one-dimensional and cannot see beyond the palm of their nose, they will only consider your music valid if it pertains to their beliefs.

... little but certain!

Frank wrote:

I would make a distinction: 100 competent INTELLIGENT people, otherwise it's better to have 1,000,000 incompetents. I will also tell you why. If the 100 competent people are single-minded and cannot see past the end of their noses, they will only consider your music valid if it pertains to their creed.

Any reference is purely coincidental...

on this I agree ... I should have specified, but it's understood that was what I meant ... in the sense that a single-minded competent person as you intend it, for me is not competent in anything; they are

merely a technician who will certainly know the difference between a fifth and a sixth, but it ends there.

just to quote ... I found a person who should have been "competent" who contested the trumpets playing in fifths at the beginning of the 2nd act of La Bohème ... which is evidently a

device used by Puccini to achieve a certain type of sound.

I do not consider this competent.

Frank wrote:

... recognizing modernity today is harder than it seems; there is a crowd of competent people who only like to hear burps and farts from instruments.

You might say, but these are not competent ...

... and who would establish that?

Mined territory and questions without answers, absolutes in music do not exist ... one can establish if something is truly and objectively valid only if the code were common; therefore, only if a work is tonal ... all the prerequisites for this type of evaluation may be present ... but we all know that tonality alone is not enough to be truly and thoroughly credible....

For the rest... no one can have the answer in their pocket, even if everyone has their own ideas.... more or less shareable.

In fact, when I said "to venture," I was well aware of what you are saying.

but all these discussions have to do with value, with skill. A composer is a composer even if they are a bad composer let's strive to give all-encompassing definitions, let's strive to give a definition that also takes into account bad composers, deceitful composers, living composers, dead composers, pop composers etc etc