Dissenting opinions on Giovanni Allevi

Allevi's audience has my full sympathy; I understand their cultural discomfort and I am very sorry about it, which does not make me happy at all because I know that for the most part it is not their fault; they are merely the final victim of a long chain of a vicious cycle whose first link is the institutions.

These do not educate or elevate man through culture but rather push him towards mediocrity because they are managed by mediocre people who, lacking the intellectual means to improve their people and partly out of self-interest, yield "to the demands of the many" even if this were anti-educational and destructive: this is what populism, which is talked about so much, actually is.
Allevi has composed both commercial pop and made vague attempts praising "high-quality" art music that are of an extremely lower quality compared to what a good composer is typically capable of writing... there is a continuous "winking at everyone" that makes his compositions sloppy and devoid of a sincere and profound message: the substance of real value is truly missing.
Even in traditional music defined as "artistic," composed in the 1700s-1800s-1900s, there is a part that can be considered poor; how many composers of the past have been forgotten? The same will happen to Allevi.

Therefore, regarding the Allevi affair, for me everyone is somewhat to blame, except for his audience:

-Allevi is to blame because he presents himself as the "Mozart of the 2000s," provokes in a completely misplaced way to make people talk about him, and misinforms the public.
-The institutions are to blame, e.g., the Christmas concert at the Senate which publicized him immensely, and let's not forget the numerous television appearances on RAI where he is idolized by incompetent presenters in programs that have huge viewership (how much influence does state TV have over the masses? How is it managed? And by whom?).

How can a person approach culture if they have no stimulus?

The advice I usually try to give to those who listen to Allevi and take disproportionate pleasure in it is to undertake a listening journey through great music, both "artistic" and "pop." They must face their cultural condition little by little, with honesty, and without the presumption of knowing more than high-level professionals.

When I first approached great music, even I did not understand certain composers, and some music felt heavy to me. Just as a novice reader would struggle to read and understand books of high philosophy: it is physiological that it be so.

Allevi can boast 95% of an audience that is naive and incompetent. This should provoke reflection.

MephistoPheles wrote:

Allevi's audience has my full understanding; I understand his cultural discomfort and this makes me very sorry, it does not make me happy at all because I know that for the most part it is not his fault, he is only the final victim of the long chain of a vicious cycle whose first link is the institutions.

Given that I absolutely agree with the last part of your writing, I take the liberty of disagreeing, however, with this part. This is not because I want to be the champion or the lawyer of the institutions, but because I think it is always right to make distinctions and, above all, when making evaluations that affect the institutions and their potential responsibilities.

I have the impression that the old saying "it's raining, the government is a thief" has now—unfortunately—become a conviction and a cliché for almost everyone, and this certainly does not help because, on one hand, everything is lumped together—creating distrust toward everything and everyone—and on the other hand, it does nothing to solve problems at their real root.

I do not think that in the creation of a phenomenon—in this case musical—the problem is institutional in nature. We live in a system based on profit at all costs and a character like Allevi lends himself—fits perfectly—to building a machine that brings in lots of money for him—first and foremost—but also for the many who do business around him and, naturally, all this comes at the complete expense of real meritocracy and real culture. This is therefore the first link in that vicious cycle, not the institutions.

Institutions which, moreover, can become, in good or bad faith, accomplices to this phenomenon.

It is not for me to decide now whether it was good or bad faith—I do not have the means and knowledge to express myself in one sense or the other—and I therefore limit myself to recording what happened in 2013, during the Christmas concert.

In the presence of the Head of State, Giorgio Napolitano, the President of the Chamber, Gianfranco Fini, Silvio Berlusconi—no longer Prime Minister—ministers and parliamentarians, the President of the Senate, Renato Schifani—that is, the one who, given his position, had made that decision—justified this choice with these words: "Maestro Allevi is the author of a new music that combines the ancient and traditional language of classical music with rhythmic and melodic elements of our days, giving rise to an original harmony accessible to all."

Now, I do not know Schifani's relationship with the "ancient and traditional classical repertoire," but it is evident to me that—if in good faith—he is absolutely ignorant on the matter and was advised by people who certainly had an interest in this happening. If in bad faith, he himself could have become an accomplice and promoter of this publicity.

But, I repeat, there are no grounds to say what the truth was!

danielescarpetti wrote:

Now, I do not know Schifani's relationship with the "ancient and traditional classical repertoire," but it is evident to me that - if in good faith - he is absolutely ignorant on the matter and was advised by people who certainly had an interest in this happening. If in bad faith, he himself could have become an accomplice and promoter of this publicity.

But, I repeat, there are no grounds to be able to say what the truth was!

unfortunately, in one case or the other, the substance does not change

No, that's enough now.

I'll tell you what the real reason for Allevi's success is.

I was at the Auditorium in Milan last night, and I suppose you weren't.

He conducted, with the choir, the orchestra and four soloists, the world premiere of one of his sacred cantatas, which left everyone STUNNED!

You cannot imagine... contemporary rhythms, six-voice counterpoints, soloist virtuosity... a Monteverdi, a Palestrina catapulted into today!!!

But not only that... melody, emotions... full orchestration, a fresh, new sound.

I think of all the words spent above... institutions, education, marketing...

Allevi is where he is because he has IMPRESSIVE talent!

It has been said that he will be forgotten.

I, on the other hand, think that Allevi must still be discovered.

I am sorry danielescarpetti, but I must completely disagree. (even without having the exact culprits, we have the consequences, which I think is already something valid)

Be careful not to make, at the source, our usual all-too-Italian mistake: trivializing the obvious. This was precisely the greatest damage. Exactly because it was considered such, it was often set aside, creating much greater harm.
-Did it seem so obvious to us to provide solid foundations of art and music in schools to our children?
-Did it seem so obvious that those sitting in institutional seats were competent enough to establish a serious and appropriate criterion? (it makes me think also of the disastrous way in which the three-year programs are organized, speaking of us musicians).

The "obvious" has always led to a lack of deep insight.

Watch out for the basic scientific argument: it is Anthropology; that the State is involved is only a logical consequence.
You cannot, anthropologically, not consider the State when talking about the problems of society; it would be like not considering cigarettes when talking about lung cancer: whether it manages it well or manages it poorly, it is the primary responsible party for the cultural situation, no less than the collective mentality that determines the economic and social one. (Universal suffrage, in this sense, has ruined us).
Who organized the schools? Who trained the current generation? Who culturally trained their fathers?
In fact, in a society, the State acts in place of the good father of a family, and the children of an inept person have much more probability of becoming inept...
The mentality certainly does not change on its own; it changes as the contexts in which one lives vary, along with the quality of schools, and very gradually: if today nothing is done to improve culture, in two generations we will not be able to be surprised or trivialize the fact that nothing has changed. We must first and foremost begin to change the mentality of children through schools and institutions, so that when they are parents in turn, from a psychological point of view, they will further empower their own children.

Pinksword2 wrote:

No, now that's enough.

I'll tell you myself what the real reason for Allevi's success is.

I was at the Auditorium in Milan last night, and I suppose you weren't.

He conducted, with the choir, the orchestra and four soloists, the absolute premiere of one of his sacred cantatas, which left everyone AGAPE!

You cannot imagine... contemporary rhythms, six-voice counterpoints, soloist virtuosity... a Monteverdi, a Palestrina catapulted into today!!!

But not only that... melody, emotions... full orchestration, a fresh, new sound.

I think of all the words spent above... institutions, education, marketing...

Allevi is where he is because he has IMPRESSIVE talent!

It has been said that he will be forgotten.

I, on the other hand, think that Allevi still needs to be discovered.

listen to as much music as you can.... Mahler, Mozart, Bruckner, Bach, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Chopin, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Saint Saens, Khachaturian, Mussorgsky... Stravinsky! seek out the best conductors in history, Toscanini, Furtwängler, Celibidache, Kleiber, Franco Ferrara, De Sabata etc... the pianists Horowitz, Cortot, Rubinstein, Eugene D'Albert, Bolet, Sokolov, Kocsis, Gilels, Wilhelm Kempff, Schnabel the list is very long....

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

*kLeiber* Mendelssohn (oh I can't get one right today)

(I made a mess, sent the posts a hundred times, sorry! I have a slow connection)

Open content (youtube)

MephistoPheles wrote:

*kLeiber* Mendelssohn (oh, I can't get one right today)

(I made a disaster, sent the posts a hundred times, sorry! my connection is slow

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCEDfZgDPS8

There is a fundamental error.

It is totally useless to try to demolish Giovanni Allevi (...and then someone explain to me why one should do it) by opposing the great composers of the past to him.

I repeat, it is useless, in fact, counterproductive, because it can generate even more of the idea in public opinion that Giovanni Allevi has "surpassed" tradition.

Open content (youtube)

Pinksword2 wrote:

It is a fundamental error.

It is totally useless to try to demolish Giovanni Allevi (...and then someone explain to me why one would even want to do that) by contrasting him with the great composers of the past.

I repeat, it is useless, in fact, counterproductive, because it can generate even more in public opinion the idea that Giovanni Allevi has "surpassed" tradition.

no but what contrast? there is a wonderful and extremely rich reality and in my small way I try to make it known so that everyone can enjoy it! and among the many, I am sure there are also those who will understand!

Stravinsky and Khachaturian are contemporaries! one died in 1970 and the other in 1978... they are two of my favorite composers...

I cannot contrast Allevi's person even with Einaudi, who despite composing the same genre demonstrates decidedly more seriousness and intellectual honesty as a man, without self-defining as the "new Brahms", saying that "Beethoven has no rhythm" or "I am a contemporary classical music composer".

You know, in the nineteenth century there were writers and musicians who were criticized. Baudelaire and Liszt criticized Chopin's wife, George Sand, for her little phrases that "pleased the bourgeoisie so much"; she really made excellent fees: look at how many people today read Baudelaire and listen to Liszt, and how many instead read George Sand? It is truly sad that often this desire to emancipate oneself does not come, that there isn't that sparkling curiosity that pushes us to improve ourselves and we close ourselves in our shell of convictions...

Curiosity should be an inexhaustible source of energy, because music is life, made by living men for other living men. Not a form of retaliation for those who profit on our backs without it being their due?

MephistoPheles wrote:

no but what to oppose, there is a wonderful and extremely rich reality and in my own small way I try to make it known so that everyone can enjoy it! and among the many I am sure there are also those who will understand!  

 

Stravinsky and Khachaturian are contemporaries! one died in 1970 and the other in 1978... they are two of the composers I prefer...  

 

 

 

I cannot even oppose the person of Allevi to Einaudi, who despite composing the same genre demonstrates decidedly more seriousness and intellectual honesty as a man, without self-defining as the "new Brahms", saying that "Beethoven has no rhythm" or "I am a contemporary classical music composer".  

 

You know, in the nineteenth century there were writers and musicians who were criticized. Baudelaire and Liszt criticized Chopin's wife, George Sand, for her little phrases that "pleased the bourgeoisie so much"; she really earned excellent fees: look at how many people today read Baudelaire and listen to Liszt, and how many instead read George Sand? It is truly sad that often this desire to emancipate oneself does not come, that there isn't that sparkling curiosity that pushes us to improve ourselves and we close ourselves in our shell of convictions...

Curiosity should be an inexhaustible source of energy, because music is life, made by living men for other living men. Not a form of retaliation for those who profit on our backs when they are not entitled to do so?  

 

 

 

No words have ever been more apt and timely. Giovanni Allevi is the only composer in the contemporary landscape who is not satisfied, who continues to surprise, who catches even his own fans off guard with works that are increasingly deep, diverse, and complex.

Only three days ago he conducted the world premiere of his sacred cantata "Sotto lo stesso cielo" (Under the same sky) at the Milan Auditorium, a thrilling piece in terms of innovation, grandeur, lightness, and depth.

And I cannot help but think of the violin concerto, the toccata and fugue for organ… One really cannot say that Allevi is catering to the audience with these expanded forms, and yet his audience follows him and is proud of his courage.

In short, until now I had refrained from expressing a judgment, but after the concert the other night in Milan, I can only see in him an indisputable point of reference, especially in terms of intellectual honesty.

MephistoPheles wrote:

no but what is there to oppose? there is a wonderful and extremely rich reality and in my own small way I try to make it known so that everyone can enjoy it! and among the many, I am sure there are also those who will understand!  

 

Stravinsky and Khachaturian are contemporaries! one died in 1970 and the other in 1978... they are two of the composers I prefer...  

 

 

 

i cannot even oppose the person of Allevi to Einaudi, who despite composing the same genre demonstrates decidedly more seriousness and intellectual honesty as a man, without self-defining as the "new Brahms", saying that "Beethoven has no rhythm" or "I am a contemporary classical music composer".  

 

You know, in the nineteenth century there were writers and musicians who were criticized. Baudelaire and Liszt criticized Chopin's wife, George Sand, for her little phrases that "pleased the bourgeoisie so much"; she really earned excellent fees: look at how many people today read Baudelaire and listen to Liszt, and how many instead read George Sand? It is truly sad that often this desire to emancipate oneself does not come, that there isn't that sparkling curiosity that pushes us to improve ourselves and we close ourselves in our shell of convictions...

Curiosity should be an inexhaustible source of energy, because music is life, made by living men for other living men. Not a form of retaliation for those who profit on our backs when they are not entitled to do so?  

 

 

 

No words are more apt and timely. Giovanni Allevi is the only composer in the contemporary landscape who is not satisfied, who continues to surprise, who catches even his own fans off guard with works that are increasingly deep, diverse, and complex.

Only three days ago, he conducted the world premiere of his sacred cantata "Sotto lo stesso cielo" (Under the same sky) at the Milan Auditorium, a thrilling piece in terms of innovation, grandeur, lightness, and depth.

And I cannot help but think of the violin concerto, the toccata and fugue for organ… One really cannot say that Allevi is catering to the public with these expanded forms, and yet his audience follows him and is proud of his courage.

In short, until now I had refrained from expressing a judgment, but after the concert the other night in Milan, I can only see in him an indisputable point of reference, especially in terms of intellectual honesty.

Is it surprising? Of course, in the sense that you don't intend to

Anyway, the friend is always being sneaky, in every sense

http://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca/2016/04/26/foto/torino_bufera_sul_pianista_allevi_usa_impropriamente_il_logo_di_lingotto_musica_-138527544/1/#1

Tiger wrote:

Is it surprising? Sure, in the sense that you don't intend

 

 

Anyway, the friend is always being sneaky, in every sense

http://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca/2016/04/26/foto/torino_bufera_sul_pianista_allevi_usa_impropriamente_il_logo_di_lingotto_musica_-138527544/1/#1

Read the article, and you'll understand that nothing is written there. It's a matter between organizers, and as usual, the newspaper uses an exaggerated headline to attract attention.

Try to be less superficial.

 

MephistoPheles wrote:

listen to as much music as you can.... Mahler, Mozart, Bruckner, Bach, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Chopin, Liszt, Mendhelsonn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Saint Saens, Kachaturian, Mussorgsky... Stravinsky! look for the best conductors in history, Toscanini, Furtwangler, Celibidache, Kreibler, Franco Ferrara, De Sabata etc... the pianists Horowitz, Cortot, Rubinstein, Eugene D'Albert, Bohzanov, Sokolov, Kocsis, Gilels, Wilhelm Kempff, Schnabel the list is very long....    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-k_loiBYI8 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULmji3DMukQ

Dear Mephisto, I was wondering...

since this is a forum section dedicated to light music, why do you cite the artists mentioned above?

That is, why is it that in discussions about Giovanni Allevi, who should have nothing to do with classical music, various Horowitz and company are always brought into it?

This leads me to "suppose" that there is some kind of "relation."

There is, I assure you...

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Pinksword2 wrote:

Read the article, and you'll understand that nothing is written there.

It is a matter between organizers, and as usual, the newspaper makes an exaggerated headline to attract attention.

Try to be less superficial.

Right, it doesn't matter how someone talks about themselves... as long as people are talking about them. First rule of marketing.

What do you know? Are you Giovanni? Or his PR?

This user again? But they only spam about Allevi. Why don't they talk about anything else?

In my opinion, it's free advertising for Allevi, sending their henchmen here. Ban them, thanks!

Dear Pink, I would be lying to you if I told you that G.A.'s works are profound... and I don't say this without having listened to them with extreme attention, in fact... But have Allevi's fans listened to the rest with extreme attention?

The only thing I feel like telling you is what F. Liszt said long before me
<<Unfortunate is that artist or writer who settles for these false values: he falls into a complacent sleep within his fictitious celebrity and wakes up to find himself facing some vacuous and empty newspaper article, all amazed that the public is no longer satisfied with those beautiful, redundant phrases, with those beautiful words of which only the ridiculous remains>>
.

"Why are Horowitz, Brahms, etc., being brought into this?"
Because Allevi claims to make classical music; nobody, for example, compares them to Einaudi. It is Allevi who—not through his music, but through his verbal provocations—stimulates talk about what is truly of quality. If only that were the case!
But it has never occurred to any of his fans to actually do so... I assure you. Otherwise, he would have ceased to exist.... It is indeed a cliché that Allevi brings the public closer to highbrow music; unfortunately, he pushes them away.

in literary terms, it would practically be like moving a reader away from Umberto Eco and closer to Federico Moccia. One is a Nobel prize winner, the other an author of novellas, I don't know if the connection is clear......XD

"So regarding the Allevi affair, for me everyone is a little bit to blame, except for his audience"

Well done. What can one expect from a society that wanted to appoint Alessandro Baricco as Minister of Education—someone whose highest achievement in life was directing a film (which nobody watched) to prove that Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 is an overrated work? Just send him into exile in Corsica...

Culturally and anthropologically speaking, we Italians have now become nothing more than very sad circus character actors who make the whole world laugh. The only thing we know how to do is applaud and cheer for an Allevi when he should be pelted with tomatoes, as they used to do in the past.

It seems to me that the discussion has now run its course and the answers have become redundant. 99% of the participants in the discussion have expressed an opinion. Certainly, it cannot meet unanimous favor, for cultural and anthropological reasons? To borrow Celibidache's words—it is useless anyway to continue expressing convictions when these, after 8 pages of repetitions, begin to take on a sterile tone; after all, regardless of everything, Pink will continue to praise Allevi and we will uselessly suggest she listen to and get to know the great musicians of the past to have a complete picture. It seems right and democratic to me, at this point in the discussion, for everyone to stick to their own convictions. Unless you want to continue with other content, if you agree, I will close the discussion.