If I may, I would like to bring the discussion to another level. I should preface that I am not a composer. I am only a piano graduate (or rather, today one would say a degree holder, according to the old system) and therefore I have only passed the complementary harmony exam, as all pianists do. Subsequently, I studied a 4th-year program in principal harmony, which I did not take. Both in the complementary and principal courses, it is a "fairly" primitive thing to know how to harmonize a melody or a bass line, first in writing and then, perhaps at the piano, always observing the main, few, and "sound" rules that are part of our DNA as musicians (no parallel fifths and octaves, the third is not omitted and not doubled, the fifth can be doubled and can be omitted, etc.). Then we discover that there can be a chord on every degree of the scale and that with this sufficient little "game" we can use the "harmonized scale"... then we can evaluate and classify seventh chords, framing everything within a richer harmony, etc. If we venture into the sonorities of the '1900s'... everything even shatters; harmonic hierarchies and monarchies fall. The tonic is no longer the King, the dominant is no longer the Prime Minister, the third of the chord (which decides the mode) is no longer the Queen, and... the leading tone... is no longer the Sovereign's lover. Even in other application modes of modern harmony, such as jazz, ninths, thirteenths, and so on appear, which flavor the dish of melodies that are dated and revisited for the umpteenth time. Even in Blues, some notes of the melody become uncertain, oscillating, dancing, vibrating, especially in the human voice and/or in instruments with non-fixed pitch. Music, as Massimo Mila metaphorically describes it—as a girl with all legs and few curves—becomes an interesting mature woman, with great charm and elegance.
This boring preface of mine is to maintain that we are in an era of Music where one must renounce the "banal" and truly not confuse it with "simplicity." Various Allevi and Einaudi think they are imposing a simple Music accessible to everyone, and those who approach to taste their music finally find it accessible. Obviously, one learns quickly and thinks that banality and the exasperated repetition of musical figures finally open new horizons. In airports, in stations, at all the Musikmessen in Frankfurt... one often hears people trying to play Einaudi's "waves"... I would almost say, observing the pianist, with an effort and a "transport" similar to that produced by a Chopin ballad. This is a widespread and cunningly commercial phenomenon: making people believe they are saying something easy and interesting, directed mainly at those approaching Music for the first time. I see several socio-cultural disadvantages in these operations. First of all, a distancing from true knowledge of Music and Art. A confusion sown among new generations of aspiring musicians and the public. A refusal to understand or at least to approach the study of musical structures, in whatever mode they present themselves (classical, pop, rock, jazz, etc.) in order to embrace precisely "easy banality."
One must consider the necessity of having the "tools," the implements, and having the knowledge to use them. Therefore, it is difficult or almost impossible to suggest to a simple "music lover" how to conclude a composition, how to manage it, or how to start it, etc. It is not enough to apply a recipe or a sequence of operations; just as to pilot an airplane, it is not enough to have a pilot near us telling us which buttons and levers to use to bring that "beast" down... without risking getting hurt. Instead, I hope for an ever-increasing approach to study and to the Masters who can transmit notions and knowledge (even if not always strictly academic) and, above all, who can instill and transmit, despite the "do-it-yourself" attitude, their precious experiences.
Do not hold it against me for these "established" convictions of mine. Thank you for reading me for so long.
Happy studying to everyone.
