Dissenting opinions on Giovanni Allevi

Already after two passages, you are forcefully emphasizing your being female.

This inevitably leads one to think that you are simply the good old Radicchio making a comeback...

Anyway, I assure you, that my way of living music is so far from Allevi, from contemporary atonality, from Mozart's nocturnal music, from Pollini and Muti, that all these discussions seem completely useless and devoid of substance to me.

But no other voice in favor of Allevi? All his fans evidently don't follow classical music forums but perhaps only pop music ones! But even there, it doesn't seem to me that much is said about the "phenomenon". It seems to me like the advertising for a well-known mineral water: "is anyone there?"

When confronted with the evidence, Radicchio always avoids answering. He acts as if nothing happened...

Now he'll wait a bit and then come out with another delusion about the compositions for organ or violin by his idol...

He always does this...

Pinksword wrote:

Are you perhaps trying to say that Mozart is outdated because he is tonal?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 atonally just because that is contemporary? Or should they write however they want, period, beyond trends and techniques?

I cannot give you an answer...

Giovanni, the wolf loses its hair but not its vice.

You can write however you want, but disillusion yourself that you are significant. Mozart was, and certainly not because of the G major arpeggio. If anything, Monteverdi was significant because of the blessed arpeggio within a tonal context. And yet you studied in Milan, you should know something about it... don't bullshit yourself.

Celibidache wrote:

Already after two passages, you are forcefully emphasizing your being female.

Either she is the wife or he is little Johnny.

I would say the time has come to close the topic; I have read thousands of posts containing nonsense like this all over the web. This is a serious forum and there are much more useful and interesting topics to participate in. We all know that little Johnny will only talk about his arpeggios... therefore, a sterile topic.

Zazza is perfectly right, but I want to see how far it is possible to go with mental masturbation...

TheSimon wrote:

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 just mine, he composes Pop music. If placed next to Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Allevi disappears, and that is what Ughi, Muti, and company claim.

--- and as Celibidache says, it's already good enough that he disappeared ---

I repeat myself, however, because it seems to me that these points have not been argued, which, if it were true that you wrote a thesis on the subject, would have been the key points upon which the thesis work should have focused.

Furthermore, can we read this thesis? You must have a copy in PDF format! I would be interested to read how you defended Allevi in a thesis work that should be correct and supported by a supervisor.

Here he is, already gone...

He would want all of us to think like him and to adore her like a deity.

There is no shared argument. He has been doing this for years.

If it is truly "him" and he spends time on these outings, it further demonstrates what he is worth.

Celibidache wrote:

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 shark of the music market like Giovanni Allevi.

Because this is what we are talking about... A trickster who has managed 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 things more complex like Pink Floyd in thirty seconds (and without wanting to), than Allevi in twenty-five entire albums.

Get updated.

a like is not enough for me in this case.

I subscribe to every word of this post.

Pinksword wrote:

(...)

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

it's true. Those who want to belittle Allevi do so out of fear.

In my opinion, they are right; I agree with the various Ughi Muti etc. because I am also afraid of him.

THIS:

I am afraid of the fact that what is not elevated and excellent is being passed off as such. If this operation occurs (successfully), it is because the widespread taste - musical education - is unable to discern, lacks sufficient maturity to see/feel the shallowness (I am not saying ugliness) of what is being peddled as 'supreme height'.

If basic musical education in Italy (not conservatory level) were of a different level, no 'Allevi-Operation' would succeed.

I correct myself: I don't have 'fear' but rather the 'certainty' of finding myself facing a painful socio-cultural situation.

In my opinion, Allevi is nothing more and nothing less than what the image of today's society is. Razzi to politics is like Allevi to music.

Allevi and all those like him (who think mostly about selling)

They are very clever in proposing "simplistic" music ....by now it is difficult to find ordinary people (non-musicians) who elevate themselves to listen to Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert ...even if there were new geniuses like these...

Now I don't know how much success they would have ....they wouldn't be able to understand what their works contain ...it was a more cultured era that liked beauty and refinement ....

Nowadays instead everything is simplified... not only music (for example.... painting... now it is limited to some brushstrokes here and there, almost at random... of color... whereas before it also contained architectural structures).

unfortunately it is so.... But lovers of beauty do not listen to Allevi.

But often the works were not even understood at that time by contemporaries...

Of course.... but if they remained, there is a reason!!!

I think no one will remember allevi..

One cannot remember him ....

Some greats did not have great success in their era, but later their greatness was recognized!

What greatness will we remember of Allevi? I think none

This is the argument I rely on.

You cannot say that Battisti was a great singer, despite this his songs are works of art and his voice, although occasionally out of tune, lends itself magnificently to those lyrics and that music. This is why we all know Lucio Battisti and so it will be for generations to come.

The credibility of what one wants to pass off as art also depends on how much it resists time. True Art, with a capital A, is immortal and its song will endure forever.

TheSimon wrote:

This is the argument I rely on.

You cannot say that Battisti was a great singer, despite this his songs are works of art and his voice, although occasionally even out of tune, lends itself magnificently to those lyrics and that music. This is why we all know Lucio Battisti and so it will be for generations to come.

The credibility of what one wants to pass off as art also depends on how much it resists time. True Art, with a capital A, is immortal and its song will endure forever.

it is exactly like that.

it is time that tells if something (not only in music) is classic or not.

not the position they assign you on the shelves of CD stores

Considering that Fedez is in the close-ups of the shelves, it seems to me that the argument holds up perfectly.

You have already said everything... I am arriving late. What can I say. With much respect for those who want to climb to success, I am not an admirer of Allevi. I joined Uto Ughi's protest regarding the choice to have Allevi conduct the Christmas concert in Parliament. If Allevi could represent Music in Italy, then a very misleading message was sent. It is another thing to make money with catchy little tunes and curly hair. Anyone can attempt to do it, better if politically supported and not just so. Being on an entire page of Corriere della Sera is not for everyone. Time will tell. We can only express opinions. The discourse of "innovation in Music" does not suit me, perhaps credible to some unwary person. Such phenomena have also existed in the past. Many will remember Valdos de los Rios who limited himself to taking Mozart and enriching it with drum backgrounds, or other composers, very similar to Einaudi, who insisted on "repetitive" music. No one remembers instead Jacques Loussier, a genius, great Musician and pianist who modernized Bach with his jazz trio. An operation that no one has been able to reproduce. In short, beyond our personal opinions, we shall see. Perhaps too many words are not needed, in this case.

I have only just seen the discussion, but I do not agree at all with any of you.

Therefore, if you were looking for the devil's advocate, I will gladly play the part.

In the years of endless controversy regarding Allevi, I have become convinced (and the number of interventions in this discussion demonstrates this amply) that there is a decidedly hysterical attitude toward anyone who dares to propose light music for solo piano, especially if it is based on notation (and this is what, in modern convention, makes it defined as "classical"). Of course, regarding Baglioni, for example, no one will ever say anything bad about him here, because he doesn't write like Mozart did... he makes songs, pounds the notes, and that's that; the same goes for Bollani because "he does jazz anyway."

I read that Einaudi, Allevi, Bomoll, Mizzoni, would all be made of the same stuff... Are we crazy...?!? We are in a music forum, and it is assumed that these gentlemen musicians know the artistic currents of the twentieth century: one cannot confuse Allevi with Einaudi, Glass, Thiersen, and other post-minimalists; and I say without hesitation that whoever does so is an ignorant person who reasons with prejudice, who does not know how to distinguish one expressive mode from another.

Another thing that infuriates me is that, to support the anti-Allevi thesis of "I know they are all the same," Bomoll or Mizzoni are always brought into it, while highly respectable musicians with solid "classical" foundations like Giovanni Sollima, Licia Missori, or even Alessandra Celletti are punctually forgotten, or established session musicians like Giorgio Costantini (whom I don't like, but that's taste): people who nonetheless try to combine chickpeas with beans, as they say in Rome, while we pretend not to know that with the much-coveted "cultured" compositions you don't have the slightest hope of making a single cent.

Therefore: Is Allevi bad? Is Allevi wrong? Who knows.

Anyway, if someone wants to explain to me why we should still be sitting there nitpicking over the Adagio from Moonlight instead of Allevi's Nuotatore, I would be grateful.

I'm responding to you in rhyme, since if you talk about everyone, I'm caught up in the middle too...

Everyone can believe and say whatever they want. Sincerely, if a person likes Allevi, I couldn't care less. Allevi, as well as Bomoll, do their job, and if they have people following them, those people can't be complete idiots—on the contrary!! If you aren't worth a... beeep ...it's hard to convince others that you are worth something! (Here I am sticking up for him). Probably, if we are here mentioning their names, it is because they knew how to move, and in a world like this, it doesn't matter whether people speak well or badly of someone; the important thing is that they talk about them, that's how the image spreads and, whether you like it or not, by reaching millions of people, you will inevitably find followers. Returning to Allevi, the central topic of this thread, I don't reproach him for having followers, of course not, but if a person says bullshit about which the entire academic community tells him all sorts of things, even if he is a goat who understands nothing about music, I still start asking myself questions. Allevi has self-defined himself as the inventor of a new musical style: modern classical music... I don't think it takes a genius to say that his music has nothing to do with classical music. It lacks the characteristics, the form, and the spirituality. Then let's move on to marketing moves, such as the fact that he conducted the orchestra at the Senate. I simply cannot see any artistic reason behind that choice. Am I wrong? Maybe! What can I tell you? In the end, we have to leave space for young people too, but I always think there are people in Italy much more deserving than Allevi of conducting the orchestra at the Senate. As it happens, the choice fell on him right when he was at the peak of his career. Could it be a coincidence?

Is Allevi hurting anyone? Is Allevi wrong? Who knows.

Anyway, if someone wants to explain to me why we should still be wasting our time on Moonlight Sonata's Adagio instead of Allevi's Nuotatore, I would be grateful.

Here I think you have already answered yourself. The answer is inherent in the question. Because evidently Beethoven has resisted time, Allevi.... We shall see, or posterity shall see, although I don't have high expectations.