Dissenting opinions on Giovanni Allevi

First of all, I apologize for the tone I used; I was tired, I wrote late, and... well.

The reason Allevi is attacked is because he placed himself on the same level as Mozart or spoke of Beethoven as if he were his cousin; and regarding the criticisms directed at him for these reasons, I absolutely agree, and it also greatly annoyed me when for an entire year RadioRai, at the end of every day's broadcast, aired "The anthem of the Italian Republic conducted by maestro (sic!) Giovanni Allevi".

What I do not share is the fact that a great confusion is being made by bringing in very different musicians following him and throwing them all into the "they make music for money" pot, as if this, in turn, were an abominable thing. All the greatest in music have also made music for money, that is, to earn their bread.

Musically speaking and regardless of the quality of the results, Allevi has made easy-listening music, but also not; in the first two albums there is a lot that is not "easy" at all. And yet he didn't sell those albums; and I wonder how many of those who criticize Allevi today for his subsequent choices have actually sat down to listen to them (the same can be said of Einaudi, who was compared here: many have only listened to Le Onde or little else). Did Allevi not make artistic choices? That may be true, but when he tried to make them, nobody followed him.

As for marketing, then, one can only say that he found people who knew what they were doing and he contributed his own part; but marketing also exists in the classical world, even if the environment is far more selective than pop in terms of merit.

Then there is the question of whether it is "classical" or not. In a strict sense, Classicism goes from Sammartini to Haydn. Before that is the Baroque, and after that is Romanticism. And we all know this. But, in a broader sense, the term can become ambiguous: Is West Side Story classical music? ...And the Gymnopedies? ...And Rhapsody in Blue? ...And Star Wars? ...And Für Elise? In the common sense, "classical" is music written to be played with classical instruments (this applies not only to European culture, by the way: there is also Indian classical music, Chinese classical music, etc.). Therefore, whether one likes it or not, the usage has now become established where a composer who writes their own notes and performs them with classical instruments belongs to the "classical" genre. Of course, in the literal meaning of the term, it is a contradiction: a classical author should be at least dead for a while; and in other arts, no one would say "I am a classical poet" or "a classical painter." But that is how it turned out, probably also due to a matter of commercial catalogs. And so: Does Allevi make classical music? In the common sense, certainly yes, as much as this may not be pleasing. This was the meaning of my provocative comparison between Moonlight and The Swimmer (which was not between Beethoven and Allevi, Simone, of course). Anyone listening to these two pieces today from their own playlist, relaxed on the sofa, does so regardless of the context that produced them, because modern consumption is different from that of the 1800s; and, without a shadow of a doubt, they can feel very similar emotions listening to one or the other piece, considering that Moonlight is no less catchy, simple, and repetitive than The Swimmer.

But in fact, the premise of my first intervention was exactly this... If Allevi, instead of talking bullshit and comparing himself to Mozart, as you say or saying that Beethoven had no rhythm, had simply limited himself to doing his job, in my opinion, today no one would have anything to say. In life, you also need a bit of humility, especially when you are a public figure, because it takes very little to ruin yourself but, above all, to come across as an imbecile. Then, I am sorry to say it, but the greats, the real ones, are always extremely humble people.

Rather than humility, with Allevi I would speak of a lack of sense of proportion and, above all, a lack of respect and manners.

Being polite does not mean speaking in a low voice or behaving like court eunuchs.

Regarding the idea instead that "music that is not easy to listen to" (and one must also understand what that means...) necessarily means serious music and/or of high artistic depth, I take the liberty of sincerely disagreeing.

The fact is that in the playlist there is Pausini and Allevi, not Beethoven and Allevi. A word to the wise is enough.

I agree with Tiger's reasoning. A small thought is worth more than a thousand words.

Tiger wrote:

The fact is that in the playlist there is Pausini and Allevi, not Beethoven and Allevi. A word to the wise is enough.

Oh come, excuse me..! You know perfectly well that it's not true: Pausini makes pop songs, while Allevi makes instrumental music (even within a pop context, but it is a completely different genre and with structures different from a song). Excuse my frankness, but it is worth saying that you are lying knowing that you are lying, and perhaps you are happy if we stay here making fun of each other and telling ourselves that Allevi makes the same genre as Pausini. But the truth on a musical level is that one uses the song form and makes songs, while the other doesn't use any part of the song form at all (which you should know and have studied, if you compose music) and gradually adopts different structures (often borrowed from 70s progressive, truly). I don't know your experience or your competence, but I think that this thing you wrote really makes no sense.

Are you saying that someone can listen to, perhaps in a car, a Pausini song and then an Allevi piece interchangeably, as if they were one and the same...? I don't know, think about it. Honestly, I think anyone who doesn't live on the Moon knows that it isn't true, in the same way that in the 70s people didn't listen to Domenico Modugno along with Stephen Schlaks (I use this example because my interlocutor seems to be at least as old as I am, with respect). Are we going to tell each other that "Piano Karate" resembles Pausini's songs? Come on, let's try to be a tiny bit honest, for heaven's sake...

Open content (youtube)

P.S. For the record, this piece is written in 10/16. Not that it means much or that it's a merit in itself on an artistic level, but one certainly cannot compare something like this to Pausini's songs, or say that it is a piece designed to make money.

Is this supposed to be the difficult music to listen to? 2 minutes and 40 seconds of notes crumpled here and there over a syncopated pseudo-continuo?

Without even bringing American jazz musicians into it, who wouldn't even stop to listen, but things like this (and far better) the 70s progressive groups could do blindfolded, perhaps with their backs turned and without needing to write them down.

Allevi hasn't invented anything. He has only seized the opportunity of a moment of dazzling unpreparedness from the audience.

Celibidache wrote:

Is this supposed to be the difficult music to listen to? 2 minutes and 40 seconds of notes crumpled here and there over a syncopated pseudo-continuo?

... but things like this (and far better) '70s progressive groups did them blindfolded, maybe with their backs turned and without the need to write them down.

I didn't say it was good, just that it is difficult to listen to (maybe precisely because it's bad, if you want) and that in any case it doesn't resemble Pausini's songs. I was contesting the fact that there is no need to make comparisons that don't hold up from a musical point of view; moreover, one is a song, the other is a "thing," no...

For the rest, don't even worry about it, I grew up on Area.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

This was the meaning of my provocative comparison between Moonlight and The Swimmer (which was not between Beethoven and Allevi, Simone, for heaven's sake). Anyone listening to these two pieces today from their own playlist while relaxed on a sofa does so regardless of the context that produced them, because modern consumption is different from that of the 1800s; and, without a shadow of a doubt, they can feel very similar emotions listening to one or the other piece, considering that Moonlight is no less catchy, simple, and repetitive than The Swimmer.

This seems indisputable to me, and besides, it is nothing new: Adorno classified different types of listeners, from the expert to the good listener to the consumer of culture... Whether or not we agree with Adorno and his value judgments, we must recognize that one can listen to and appreciate the first movement of Beethoven's op.27 no.2 without being able—I won't say understand, but rather translate into a concept—its identity (made, for example, of a balance between the components of the writing - bass, arpeggio, "melody" - which finds truly few comparisons in other composers of the era, and even in other Beethoven pieces, and which perhaps can more typically characterize the slow movements of Schubert): instead, we can listen to and appreciate this music because—let's say—it immerses us in a particular atmosphere, it makes us dream... and evidently this type of listening for some may be supported as much by Beethoven (this Beethoven!) as by Allevi. Clearly, those who listen to Beethoven have—on top of that—the gratification of enjoying authentic Art Music.

For those curious about the listeners described by Adorno in *Introduction to the Sociology of Music*, here is a summary by Raul Catalano. The listener of Allevi could be, if we follow Adorno, a particular mix of culture consumer and emotional listener (whereas perhaps I would exclude the exclusive listener of light music).

http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/1650/835717-1165937.pdf?sequence=2

According to Adorno, six models of listeners can be distinguished: the first is that of the expert who, generally, is one with the professional musician. This is <one who listens in a perfectly adequate way, is fully conscious, nothing normally escapes them, and who at the same time knows how to realize what they have heard>.

The second type consists of the good listener: what distinguishes them is a decent ability to follow the logic of complex compositions even if they do not possess a significant background of technical and theoretical knowledge. According to Adorno, they <understand music roughly as one understands their own language, even if they know little or nothing of grammar and syntax>.

The third is instead the consumer of culture who represents, in Adorno's eyes, the first symptom of the decay into which music has fallen victim in contemporary society. <Conformity and conventionalism – the philosopher observes – sufficiently define the social character of this type of listener> as they feel the need to collect records and author memorabilia, to frequently inform themselves through specialized magazines to increase their musical culture, and they subscribe, "blindly" and with great enthusiasm, to any concert season they become aware of.

The fourth type consists of the emotional listener, namely one who uses music as a tranquilizer, as a diversion to discharge tensions accumulated daily and who, for this reason, is uninterested in any listening that requires even minimal tension or conceptual effort. In light of such premises, this listener prefers light or popular music and, for this reason, it is to them that the cares of the cultural industry are directed.

The fifth, namely the resentful or hostile listener, can be further distinguished into two subspecies: the lover of pre-romantic music and the jazz fan. The former identifies in the work of Bach and Vivaldi the pinnacle of musical composition of all time; therefore, they confine themselves to their exclusive cult. The second is instead convinced of the superiority of jazz over any other type of music and, for this reason, reacts disdainfully to any objection to their musical belief. The foundation of their position is usually motivated by a traditional superiority of jazz over "commercial" music and its greater immediacy compared to classical music. However, Adorno notes, they do not realize the fact that <jazz is also chained to commercial music> and that <theirs is a static listening>. They despise official musical life as being washed out and illusory, but they cannot go beyond this observation and take refuge in past eras that they deem safe from predominant commodification,"

from reification. But with its rigidity, it is tributary to that very same reification against which it opposes itself> .

The sixth type consists, finally, of the exclusive listener of light music who, for him, represents nothing more than a pastime. This is, according to Adorno, the perfect model of listener that the culture industry has an increasing need for, as he passively listens to any song that is properly packaged for him. Although the facade of his listening model can be summarized by the sacrosanct request to "be left in peace," his is instead a "morbid" listening and, above all, perfectly structured by the advertising bombardments of the mass media. For this reason, the pastime listener is the one present to the greatest extent in Western society. For Adorno, furthermore, <rit is difficult to link him to a specific social group> or to a <precise political profile, as he adapts – both in the musical field and in daily reality – to any form of dominance that does not too overtly prejudice his standard as a consumer>.

While admiring Adorno and despite being mostly of identical views, I must nevertheless note that the philosopher demonstrates that he still belongs to that old ontological conception according to which being is identified with consciousness and which, consequently, considers acting according to intellect, through speculation, to be the highest point of human action.

(so much so that "the emotional listener" is certainly not highlighted)

Nothing could be more wrong and further from reality.

Oh, finally! Well done RedScharlach.

I, unlike Celibidache, instead think that we are right at the heart of the matter: the modes of musical consumption.

It doesn't seem to me that emotional listening is neglected; the fact is that it is relative, because it depends on one's own culture and habits. There isn't just one musical genre for this type of listening: lounge music, for example, can also fall into the species described by Adorno; I, on the other hand, have a venue where, as "tranquil," I use baroque music, just imagine...
Is it possible? Of course, because the consumption changes: it has a constant dynamic compared to other genres and therefore, in my case, it also works as "ambient" music. If I am traveling by car, instead, I can listen to something that helps me contemplate the landscape (Einaudi is a great example, so much so that his genre is also used extensively in cinema), or vent with a blast of Prokofiev's Third Concerto with Abbado and Yuja Wang, which I blasted just yesterday in the middle of traffic... This is to say that consumption changes everything and those who make music (in the sense of composing it) cannot help but confront this, putting Allevi, Philip Glass, and Mietta into the same cauldron ("spiteful and resentful," as Adorno writes). The only thing that restores an objectivity of merit and that can make us reason about the consumption of a piece is musical thought "in itself," without other implications; this is why I say and reiterate that there is more affinity between Moonlight Adagio and Il Nuotatore than between Il Nuotatore and Marco, if he has indeed left.

I am reflecting on this classification:

RedScharlach wrote:

The second type consists of the good listener: what distinguishes them is a decent ability to follow the logic of complex compositions even if they do not possess a significant background of technical and theoretical knowledge. According to Adorno, they understand music roughly as one understands their own language even if they know little or nothing of grammar and syntax > .

Continuing the parallelism, the good listener would be a preschool-aged child. Let's say 5 years old?

What do you say Red (or what do you all say)? From all points of view (Allevi, in this question of mine, is marginal)

Guys, it's been six pages that we've been saying:

The fourth type consists of the emotional listener, namely the one who uses music as a tranquilizer, as a diversion to discharge daily accumulated tensions and who, for this reason, is uninterested in any listening that requires even the slightest tension or conceptual effort. In light of such premises, this listener prefers light or popular music and, for this reason, it is to them that the cares of the cultural industry are directed.

Allevi=light or popular music (should we say pop?) ... and without bothering Adorno

Anyway, nice post RedScharlach

I'm sorry Croma, those I know (different ones!) who listen to Allevi have something else entirely on their flash drives than classical music; regardless of the affinities you might find between Moonlight Sonata (has anyone analyzed it from a harmonic and not just melodic point of view?) or some Allevi song, I don't know. It is music for those who "are uninterested in any listening that requires even the slightest tension or conceptual effort".

So if a good listener is illiterate, imagine the others

This also seems to me to be a concept already expressed without bothering (the idolized) Adorno.

In my opinion, it's not quite like that. First of all, the same person can be an emotional listener or not depending on how they feel: I can modestly define myself as an "expert" as Adorno writes, but I can also listen to Gino Paoli without feeling like an idiot devoid of emotional tension and conceptual effort.

Then no, I have already written more about this earlier: in my opinion, Allevi's music is logically perceived and understood as "classical," because it is written (or at least he says so) and played with classical instruments. As for the fact that it is bad classical music, we can also agree on that. That his listeners do not know how to listen better, on the other hand, I think is often true, but also not: yesterday I went to my brother-in-law's house, for example, and he had a shelf full of a bit of everything between rock, classical, jazz, and even Allevi, all to be listened to with an excellent valve system. The world is also full of people who enjoy music in different ways and at different times.

Finally, we pop fans always speak in a somewhat derogatory sense, using Pausini et similia as a reference, but there is also very cultured pop. I am thinking of a work like Björk's Biophilia, for example, which certainly requires conceptual effort! And yet she is a pop artist. But there is even so much electronic music that requires an "expert" listening: visit a site like ektoplazm (www.ektoplazm.com) and you will realize that, behind certain genres that many of us are used to snobbish, there is a real culture. Even "ethnic" music requires a cultured approach, and it is an immense and varied world.

With all due respect, there is much to analyze beyond the harmony of Beethoven's Adagio: of course I have analyzed it, Tiger, but I have also analyzed polyrhythms in African music and I assure you that there is no less depth and complexity compared to what we call "art music." It might not be liked, but if we are comparing musicians, certain things are independent of personal taste and cannot be ignored. I, at least, cannot afford to do so.

Frank wrote:

a good listener would be a preschool-aged child. Let's say 5 years old?

I don't know if Adorno, alluding to language knowledge regardless of grammar and syntax, was thinking of children. However, I am certain that, if you want to compose music, the first thing to learn is how to make songs for children: if they like them, you can move forward.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

I don't know if Adorno, alluding to the knowledge of language regardless of grammar and syntax, was thinking of children.

One can be illiterate (in the sense that they never went to school) even at thirty years old. My grandfather had never gone to school and my grandmother had finished third grade. Today I think that on average one is completely illiterate until age 5, referring to our cultural context.

> However, I am certain that if you want to compose music, the first thing to learn is how to make children's songs: if they like them, you can move forward.

... I will try to use it as a selection parameter for my students (my children on the jury). Do you think I risk having an empty class?

Frank wrote:

Continuing the parallelism, a good listener would be a preschool-aged child. Let's say 5 years old?

I don't know if the analogy can be pushed this far... However, I have verified that at two years or slightly more, a child is able to understand simple little songs (like Zecchino d'Oro) by gesturing, in their own way, rhythm and melody.

The case below, 3 years old, is perhaps exceptional, but it demonstrates that even at that age it is possible to understand Beethoven – at least on a motor, dynamic, and (in summary) expressive level (I imagine this applies only to certain pieces, perhaps characterized by a certain rhythmic regularity, certainly not to all).

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

I don't know if the analogy can be pushed this far ... However, I have verified that at two years old or slightly more, a child is able to understand simple little songs (like Zecchino d'Oro) by hinting, in their own way, at rhythm and melody.

The case below, 3 years old, is perhaps exceptional, but it demonstrates that even at that age it is possible to understand Beethoven – at least at a motor, dynamic, and (in short) expressive level (I imagine this applies only to certain pieces, characterized perhaps by a certain rhythmic regularity, certainly not to all).

I must say that my children even appreciate the latest Penderecki, and since we have moved on to emotionality, just the beginning of pieces like Threnody would take their imagination to places that are at least "threatening".

Open content (youtube)