Dissenting opinions on Giovanni Allevi

TheSimon wrote:

Forgive me Pink, but if you think you can defend Allevi by trying to denigrate the images of "milestones" of music such as Ughi, Pollini, Accardo, and Muti, then it is truly useless for us to be here discussing this, because I have absolutely no desire to descend into discussions whose content is ridiculous by definition.

The point we must discuss, in my opinion, is this... Allevi claims to have invented a new musical genre: "Modern classical music." In my opinion, and not mine alone, he composes Pop music. If placed next to Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Allevi disappears, and that is what Ughi, Muti, and the whole gang claim. One does not need to be a composer to express an opinion of this kind. I am not a Chef, but if I am given a dish cooked by a Chef, I can say whether it is good or if it disgusts me. Joe Bastianich is not a Chef, he is a restaurateur, but as an expert, he certainly understands more about dishes than I do. Here, the argument is perfectly analogous. Pollini is not a composer, but one certainly cannot say that he is not an extremely learned person regarding music, surely much more so than you and me, just as Bastianich was when speaking about cuisine.

If I want to dismantle Bastianich's opinion, I cannot say that he doesn't understand a f***, because I wouldn't be discrediting Bastianich, but I would come across as an i@@@t for saying it. Therefore, I must either construct an argument motivated by objectivity or one that is at least persuasive in its logic—something that can make others notice different points of view—or I simply limit myself to saying that Bastianich doesn't understand a f*** and I look like an i@@@t.

It is not my intention to denigrate the work of great masters.

I only want to point out, though I believe it is clear to everyone, that the performer and the composer are two different artistic figures.

And so I am here to ask you, in your opinion, what the real reason for such media obsession is.

To which I add a veritable smear campaign carried out periodically by La Stampa of Turin and Il Fatto Quotidiano….

When we try to diminish the work of another, we always do so out of fear. Why does Allevi cause such fear?"

That the composer and the performer are two different artistic figures is certain, but it's not as if one is a pastry chef and the other a mechanic...

Here is the point, that is exactly it: I believe Allevi doesn't scare anyone; rather, I believe he makes tempers flare because he has undeservedly occupied positions that do not belong to him. I say again... See one example among many: the conductor at the New Year's concert.

TheSimon wrote:

That the composer and the performer are two different artistic figures is certain, but it's not as if one is a pastry chef and the other a mechanic...

Here is the point, that is exactly it: I believe Allevi doesn't frighten anyone; rather, I believe he makes tempers boil because he has undeservedly occupied positions that do not belong to him. I say again... See one example among many: the conductor at the New Year's concert.

The Simon,

I take note of your idea. You say "undeservedly," and yet if you observe things from another point of view, Giovanni Allevi is the most transparent example there is of meritocracy in the music world. He writes his pieces, performs or conducts them, the audience follows him, stop.

He was invited to the Senate. The others weren't?!

In my opinion, the reason for the "boiling" is something else. It is inconceivable that in a world made of recommendations, protégés, and nepotism, a nobody has made his way solely thanks to his art.

TheSimon wrote:

 

That the composer and the performer are two different artistic figures is certain, but it's not as if one is a pastry chef and the other a mechanic...

 

 

And anyway no, they are much more distant than one might think. The performer considers the score to be an indisputable "given." The composer must indisputably subvert it.

Discussing "classicism" is a contradiction in terms. It makes no sense.

And I am very sorry that artists of the caliber of Ughi have fueled the fame of a music market shark like Giovanni Allevi.

Because this is what we are talking about... A trickster who knew how to make himself quite a bit of money.

If then we want to talk about "modern classical music" (idiotic and de-thinking terminology in itself), they made more complex things like Pink Floyd in thirty seconds (and without wanting to), than Allevi in twenty-five whole albums.

Get up to date.

Pinksword wrote:

The Simon,

I take note of your idea. You say "humbly," yet if you look at things from another point of view, Giovanni Allevi is the most transparent example there is of meritocracy in the music world. He writes his pieces, performs them or conducts them, the audience follows him, stop.

He must have been invited to the Senate. The others weren't?!

In my opinion, the reason for the "bubbling over" is something else. It is inconceivable that in a world made of recommendations, protégés, and nepotism, a nobody has made his way through solely thanks to his art.

But how can one speak of "the most transparent example there is of meritocracy in the music world," or "making one's way solely thanks to one's own art" regarding someone who is where he is thanks to Jovanotti? What kind of reasoning is that?

One can speak of meritocracy when starting from 0 and becoming someone through your own strength, not with the help of others, especially if these others are already quite established in the musical landscape. I am ready to bet that if he had never met Jovanotti, we wouldn't be here talking about him.

As for him writing his pieces and performing them, good for him. He will have his circle of people following him and that is perfectly fine, but you cannot expect everyone here to say that Allevi is a phenomenon.

Regarding the fact that he was invited, one needs to see who invited him... You know, when a Nobel Prize is chosen, the selections are made by the greatest minds in the world. If Razzi called him to conduct the orchestra in the Senate, you understand well that the invitation is worth little. The point is that he is not an orchestral conductor and it is a job that should have been left to conductors. This too is further free image propaganda.

Pinksword wrote:

TheSimon wrote:

That the composer and the performer are two different artistic figures is certain, but it's not like one is a pastry chef and the other a mechanic...

And anyway no, they are much further apart than one thinks. The performer considers the score to be an indisputable "given." The composer must indisputably subvert it.

Furthermore, you are expressing absurd opinions. According to you, the composer and the performer are much further apart than one thinks? Can I ask you a question? Are you a musician? Because if you tell me that the score is an indisputable given for the performer, the first thing that comes to mind is that you probably have never properly read a score. The composer, for his part, perhaps writes it and does not subvert it, since he is the one writing it himself. The performer must deal with reconstructing it, and often composers listen to performers play their works without providing indications, also to evaluate how the performer understands their own piece. Moreover, there are rules to follow; the composer gives indications to the performer, but in the end, everything comes down to one's own sensitivity, intelligence, and the ability to extract the composer's ideas from the paper—that is why for 200 years the Ninth Symphony has been heard played by different orchestras conducted by the most disparate conductors. If everything were an "indisputable given," we might as well have computers play it.

Guys, we are talking about a zombie... a living dead.

He already had his moment and it is also more than past.

Pinksword wrote:

What was a dodecaphonic series supposed to do? :-)

It is true that everyone is free to express their own opinion, while respecting the person, but similarly, a composer must feel free to write whatever they want, don't you think?

Look, a C major arpeggio from 500 years ago, a dodecaphonic series is 100 years old... as for being significant and contemporary, you're not even close, are you?

Of course someone should be able to do whatever they please, but don't tell us that joke. He writes pop, good for him. He thinks it's not even significant for the pop world; there are better examples that arrived at least 40 years ago. Incomparable with the scope of people like the Beatles or Lady Gaga; perhaps you should have written your thesis on the latter.

TheSimon wrote:

Are you a musician?

I imagine it's a rhetorical question,

Pinksword wrote:

I did my thesis in Humanities

You see, I am Flaubert but I write Armony... and the worst. But yes, I am a classic

Ettore wrote:

Practically a martyr

I must say that this C major arpeggio from the hymn of Series A really killed him. But please, if by courage we mean the courage not to be ashamed, then we agree.

This other one should also be ashamed of the G major arpeggio

Open content (youtube)

Incorrigible Radicchio...

I always report the history, and not its thousand interpretations.

When Allevi was published in 1997, with his first solo piano album "13 fingers" from Jovanotti's Soleluna label, it went completely unnoticed.

Many years later, Allevi's second album "Composizioni" (Soleluna/Universal) decreed the end of the collaboration with Jovanotti's record label.

Until that moment, despite two studio albums, Giovanni Allevi remained a complete unknown.

International success arrived with a series of concerts starting from the Blue Note in New York in 2005.

And here I was hoping you were that hot babe with the lightsaber...

Instead we are still here doing propaganda without a future... by now these things don't interest anyone anymore!

Deal with it. You are only talking about "history"... about old things...

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

2008. With Evolution, Giovanni Allevi aims for symphonic music and publicizes Evolution.

He goes to direct his music in Beijing, in a concert for Chinese TV during the Olympics, and in Italy he faces the 'Evolution Tour' with the Orchestra of I virtuosi italiani.

The success is so great, all dates sold out, in addition to the novelty of seeing a contemporary composer in jeans and Converse directing his own music, that Giovanni Allevi is invited to hold the Christmas Concert in the Senate.

Did they do well? Did they do badly? Every year someone is invited...

And who cares? Almost a decade has passed...

If you like Allevi, if he excites you, dedicate this time to listening to him, instead of coming back, after years, to act like a fanatic indoctrinator.

I went to read what Radicchio says, I'm sorry, I am not him.

The discussion about Giovanni Allevi had already started here, and I entered out of curiosity due to one fact: comment after negative comment being tossed back and forth, so much so that I wondered: what could have possibly happened?

To the eyes of a stranger, it might seem like an obsession, much like the "fanaticism," as you call it, of those who follow him.

There is something true in your arguments, Celibidache, but you are so frightened and defensive that perhaps, for the moment, it is better not to talk about it.

Yes, you are right... I am sincerely very worried about the uneducational effect of Allevi.

But a bit less than usual really... since that gentleman is now just a dinosaur in the eyes of a teenager...

Pinksword wrote:

This other one should also be ashamed of the G major arpeggio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRrsD4RH9SY

You answered yourself. What year was it used? Significant, today? Ahahah

Open content (youtube)

Celibidache wrote:

Yes, you are right... I am sincerely very worried about the uneducational effect of Allevi.

But a bit less than usual really... since by now the gentleman is just a dinosaur in the eyes of a teenager...

hmmm....you are still frightened.

Zazza wrote:

You answered yourself. In what year was it used? Significant, today? Ahahah

I answered myself. I am a woman.

Do you perhaps mean that Mozart is outdated because he is tonal? Do you want to interpret the entire history of music as a progressive overcoming of tonality? And what if it weren't so?

Must a composer write atonal just because that is contemporary? Or should they write however they want, period, beyond trends and techniques?

I cannot give you an answer...