Ludovico Einaudi, Minimalism and Contemporary

Einaudi is a fine composer; he has written things for the general public ("pop-oriented") and more demanding works. To evaluate a composer, one must know their entire repertoire, and indeed, if one were to think (regarding Einaudi) only of "Le Onde," it would be a major mistake.

That's what I think too; I've had the chance to hear him live and he is anything but a bluff, as many academics portray him.

In reality, he made precise choices regarding music, in the sense that he preferred not to follow the path of competitions and managed to find a connection with the audience that other composers unfortunately would like (an obviously masked, unadmitted complex) but cannot find because they are trapped in a closed system, where at the end of a concert one expects comments from one's own colleagues—what if I'm not mistaken, good Donatoni defined as "the Indian Reserve of contemporary composers," a metaphor with which he showed us that he already saw it coming back in the '80s... in reality, both he and Berio, the most important exponents of the avant-garde in Italy, understood that the future of music was contamination, and so it is happening.

It is also true that, as an old composer said, "if it is art, it is not for everyone; if it is for everyone, it is not art," but there is always a difference between an Indian Reserve and music that speaks to those who do not necessarily know how to analyze Ferneyhough. In my opinion, the problem does not lie in the "dissonances," as some still think, much less in the type of writing being homogeneous or heterogeneous. The problem is something else: perception.

Today's audience does not know what it means to listen to a piece; they limit themselves to hearing it, and even for certain musicians, it is almost an effort to concentrate and not look at the clock during a concert or a listening session of contemporary music. The perceptive modes that had been regained in the '60s/'70s, where concentration was a fundamental act of listening (I am talking about Psychedelic and Electronic Music, Pink Floyd, Tangerine Dream, Progressive Rock, etc.), were lost in the years of rampant consumerism, materialism, "everything immediately," and image: the '80s. Precisely the decade in which avant-garde composers began to re-propose "the new language" by recovering the syntax of music from the past, expressing themselves without relying entirely on the automatic mechanisms of structuralism or aleatoric music. Alessandro Solbiati rightly said "the audience must make an effort, must concentrate and be curious in listening." I agree with him, but the path is not immediate; you cannot expect concentration and curiosity all at once with Stockhausen or Xenakis! It is a gradual path, perhaps starting with minimalism, with Glass and Nyman, then Reich, and little by little arriving at Lachenmann.

But I am optimistic; I believe there is an improvement underway in this sense. Probably the Internet, by opening new information channels, gives everyone the possibility to enrich themselves culturally and musically, but it is also the task of composers to engage with the audience, to close themselves off less in laboratories and research centers, and to leave less space and fewer possibilities for stardom and protagonism to certain mere performers who act superior and wouldn't be able to write down a single note (recently I read an interview with Pollini in which he was very clear on this matter, he himself being a world-renowned performer!).

It could all be true, but Einaudi's large audience only looks for Le Onde and similar works. This does not automatically mean that his more demanding works are also popular.

Oracolo wrote:

It may all be true, but Einaudi's large audience only looks for "Le Onde" and similar works. This does not automatically mean that his more demanding works are also popular.

Don't believe it. The piece "the elements," dedicated to Luciano Berio, received widespread acclaim; as far as the general public is concerned, there is a proverb: few but good.

I am fully convinced that a composer will receive great acclaim from an enormous number of people when they succeed in "striking a chord" with everyone in emotional rather than conceptual terms, even while constructing their pieces conceptually. Many of Einaudi's pieces have great emotional depth; of course, they must be listened to without a critical spirit but simply by enjoying their expressive qualities... didn't it happen that way for certain short piano pieces from the Romantic period? Think of Chopin's Preludes, for example. Or Schumann.

It is certain that a composer's goal should not be the conquest of the masses, but experimentation, moving forward, and above all, the expression of more or less complex but very personal feelings and concepts. When he proposes his music, there are those who follow him, those who ignore him, and those who detest him. The important thing is to never let oneself be conditioned by unjustified criticism that often and gladly comes from academic circles themselves and from the will of the public. The public needs musical education, while radio and TV peddle the annoying earworms of the moment which have little to no musicality.

I am firmly convinced that every artist is free because they propose their Art and do not impose it.

That is why I do not harbor all this resentment toward a Giovanni Allevi. Personally, I do not like his music; I find it predictable, full of juxtaposed stereotypes, and without any underlying research. In his early albums, there is something slightly interesting, in my opinion. The problem is something else: Allevi is the classic case of an overrated artist useful to business and record labels for making money; after all, he is a composer who knows music, has studied, and when he speaks, he often and gladly says the right things. However, they often do not correspond to the results. His music does not reflect what he says. Of course, it wouldn't have caused such an uproar if he hadn't defined his as "today's classical music":

With a phrase like that, he ignores the meaning of the term "classical" (he ignores it because he knows it) and continues to pass it off as contemporary when it has nothing to do with everything that has happened from the post-war period onwards.

This cannot be said of Einaudi. He is not a marketing phenomenon; he is a composer who has chosen to undertake a different path from many of his colleagues who receive commissions, publish with Ricordi, record, and write the same old thing for years just because they have made their way into "Art Music" festivals—the so-called Indian Reserves.

One thing is certain: if certain conceited people who use the 12 tones just to enchant their colleagues in the room are convinced that they will pass into History because of competitions won or a name in the New Grove, they are mistaken (unfortunately there are many, very many). History is capable of forgetting you for over a century. Just think of a Vivaldi or Bach himself, who did not practice their profession inside a Reserve.

Feldman wrote:

"the Indian Reserve of contemporary composers"

But it wasn't just Einaudi who didn't get it... aside from the jazz musicians (should we even count them?) a few other Italian surnames: Negri, Sollima, Lorenzini, Boccadoro, Ferrero, Cascioli, Ballarini...

Clearly, there are "surnames" that carry weight, and this contributes as well

I didn't know that donatoni had used a metaphor that I also used here just a few days ago

http://www.pianoconc...faro-da-grande/

Obviously this does not change its value. To the list of AAA, I would add all film music, let's face it... I have known Hans Zimmer for years for what he has done, I know Einaudi because he is often mentioned in forums...

Now I say... surely he won't be the only one, it seems he is being described as the savior of the fatherland...as many have decided to make music. I don't understand why to praise him and not others of the same level. Could it be the quantity? Then if that were the case, the good Pausini still counts. She won't have composed anything profound but, from what is said... she touches the hearts of many people.

What is the yardstick?

Marzapane wrote:

I didn't know that donatoni had used a metaphor that I also used a few days ago here

http://www.pianoconc...grande/

If I'm not mistaken, Donatoni went to the Maurizio Costanzo Show ironically dressed as an Indian...

Marzapane wrote:

Obviously this does not change its value. To the list of AAA I would add all film music, let's face it... I have known Hans Zimmer for years for what he has done, I know Einaudi because he is often cited in forums...

Undoubtedly. It's just that film music remains, nonetheless, applied, functional music, so the contact with the audience is created through Cinema.

Marzapane wrote:

Now I say... surely he won't be the only one, it seems he is being described as the savior of the fatherland... like many others have decided to make music. I don't understand why to praise him and not others of the same level. Could it be the quantity? Then if that were the case, the good Pausini still holds up. She won't have composed anything demanding, but from what is said... it touches the hearts of many people.

No one is praising him. I opened this topic to talk about him, about minimalism (an aesthetic dear to him, which can be a good topic for discussion) and contemporary music.

Pausini has nothing to do with Einaudi because she does pop and her goal is to gather an audience, whereas Einaudi's is not (nor is that of any composer).

A composer writes based on their own needs, which are very personal. They then have the sacred duty to spread their music before an audience; there are those who follow them and those who abandon them, and he does not decide that.

Instead, the problem is that there exists a kind of lobby that makes itself the emblem of "contemporary music," with composers different from one another but linked by unique writing methods, with an audience of specialists who, instead of "enjoying" the music, limit themselves to judging, analyzing, and criticizing it. Now, this lobby (the Indian Reserve, precisely) is mainly characterized by young composers who were students of composers who in turn were students of Berio, Donatoni, etc. While these were representatives of a modernism now passed into History, of a complex period of experimentation and contrasting aesthetics, the students and the students of the students have built a kind of "academicism" for its own sake to crystallize and enclose in a reserve everything that their fathers had done. That is the substance.

I am not against experimentation; I think it is the essence of a composer's activity. But closing oneself in research centers and Biennales and drastically limiting contact with the public in the name of "high, superior, cultured music, of Art" is the worst thing in this world, and it has nothing to do with the musical situation during the era of classical, romantic, etc., composers.

That being said, Einaudi is proof that a "cultured" composer must step outside a certain system to bring people closer to their music.

While it is true that a composer does not write for the audience, it is also true that a composer without an audience is practically dead.

Marzapane wrote:

What is the yardstick?

and I told you so. The difference is that Einaudi writes starting from musical experiences that range from minimalism to so-called classical music, while Pausini writes songs for the audience. It's different.

I'll write something stupid, but minimalism is avant-garde

It's just that the repetition brings the genre very close to the repetitiveness of pop music... in fact, some exponents of 1960s minimalism have recently turned to unrestrained pop, making heaps of money and making, well, "only" pop music.

Anyway, I am one of those who is fascinated by experimentation but when they want to listen to music... they choose something else. Maybe not Einaudi, but composers of greater substance. In my opinion, Einaudi remains a well-known but mediocre composer; to be clear, not low-quality, but someone who exceeds the average but is not on the same level as others... perhaps less known, but who propose slightly "thicker" music.

And I must say, while he was fleeing from the reserve in the 1980s, there is someone who built one of those reserves but whom he himself minimized: Messiaen. Now, how can you even compare them? In the 1970s, Stravinsky was still around... okay, fine, but Einaudi is a good well-known composer... not a great one.

Tiger wrote:

I'll write something stupid, but minimalism is avant-garde

It's just that repetition brings the genre very close to the repetitiveness of pop music... in fact, some exponents of 1960s minimalism have lately turned to unrestrained pop, making heaps of money and making music that is precisely "only" pop.

It depends, you know; to make pop, you have to use the song form, you have to include lyrics. Or a techno track, with its obsessive repetitions that have nothing to do with minimal iterations, which are based on gradual micro-variations.

Tiger wrote:

Anyway, I am one of those who is fascinated by experimentation but when they want to listen to music... they choose something else. Maybe not Einaudi, but composers of greater substance. In my opinion, Einaudi remains a well-known but mediocre composer; to be clear, not poor, but someone who exceeds the average but is not at the level of others... perhaps less known, but who propose slightly "thicker" music.

Can you give me the names of these lesser-known ones that I might not know? I would like to listen to something, thanks.

Could you explain to me what Einaudi's mediocrity consists of in practice? I mean, on an analytical level, how do you justify the mediocrity? Not through repetition, I don't think, since that is a prerogative of much non-mediocre ethnic music. I would like to know the processes that generate mediocrity in Einaudi; can you describe them? There is nothing better than criticism accompanied by a beautiful 20-page analysis!

Tiger wrote:

And then I want to say, while he was fleeing from the Reserve in the 1980s, there is someone who built one of the Reserves but whom he himself minimized: Messiaen. Now, let's be real! In the 1970s, Stravinsky was still a face... okay, fine, but Einaudi is a good well-known composer... not a great one.

Even Donatoni, if that's the case, built a great Reserve, or rather, his students built it (let's call things as they are).

Stravinsky was still alive but he was old and his music was already old: I am sorry that someone still defines him as "contemporary."

I didn't say that Einaudi is a great one.

I only say this: History teaches us that novelty arrives when students distance themselves from the Masters without forgetting their lessons. Today, the opposite is happening; students form their own individual paths but with foundations tied to their Masters, creating what is defined as "academicism." Donatoni and Berio were not academicism, in their time.

Today their students practice academicism because they do not distance themselves from the Masters in a radical way; they simply lock everything in a "cage," building walls.

It has already happened in the past, obviously. History repeats itself! Just as they criticized Bruckner, they criticize Einaudi and those like him who do not conform to the rules of the Reserves. But it is History that decides, not academicism.

First, for clarity, I belong to the category of students of Donatoni's students (as do many others, for that matter: most current composition teachers have studied, more or less, with Donatoni), and taking the metaphor of the Indian reservation as a given, I must say that I don't fully understand the connection with Einaudi. I am not very familiar with his history, and I am happy to read your post, so I can clear my ideas a bit... but I don't know how much Einaudi can represent a pertinent alternative to the Indian reservation. I mean, it seems to me that he does his job, and I don't think he is looking for any legitimacy from the Academy, nor that he is interested in its "spaces". Unlike Allevi, he has not based an aesthetic on the fate of "contemporary classical music"! I therefore wonder: why Einaudi specifically, and not for example Romitelli, who in his own way acted much more within the system?

But in fact I wasn't referring to all students, given that Einaudi himself was a student of Berio.

What ultimately comes through is that, as you say, Einaudi does his work with a certain dose of humility; he doesn't seek legitimization, he hasn't set up Allevi's aesthetics... whereas many exponents (especially young ones) of the 'Riserva', who actually profess to be the heirs of Beethoven, do so because as students they analyzed his music. The problem is that Beethoven was not part of any 'Riserva'. Poor Fausto, like others, followed the path of experimentation without avoiding contact with popular music (I am referring to rock, in particular). It is true that people like Romitelli, linked to the system, are hard to find: the conceit hovering in certain environments is nauseating. Regarding the fact of considering Romitelli a giant (as some claim), I would be very cautious since he is a giant only to certain colleagues of his, therefore... let's say he was a good composer, he did his job, like Einaudi. One chose the path of complexity, the other that of simplicity.

Honestly, I find some things in Feldman's posts that don't add up, but not taken individually, rather in the general discourse he wants to conduct. There are many strengths ... but ...

The first point is on the educational aspect:

Feldman wrote:

Now, this lobby (the Indian Reserve, precisely) is primarily characterized by young composers who were students of composers who in turn were students of Berio, Donatoni, etc. While these were representatives of a modernism that has already passed into History, of a complex period of experimentation and contrasting aesthetics, the students and the students of the students have built a kind of "academicism" for its own sake to crystallize and close off in a reserve everything that their fathers had done. That is the substance.

Given that I passed through the hands of the two schools that are most in vogue in Lombardy: let's say children of Bettinelli and children of Donatoni. In two words, I could say that the "Donatoninis" exist and the "Bettinellinis" do not... and that says a lot. But let's be a bit more precise.

Even if "that is the substance," if the children of a composer (or rather a teacher) fail to mature their own autonomy but remain bound to the father's style, it means that the Maestro has failed.

Therefore, the first errors are not those of Donatoni's students, who are at most "succubi" ... but because Donatoni had the ability to do what he did, the others live on reflected light.

A thing that also happened, but very sporadically, among the less gifted, was with Bettinelli's students.

Personally speaking, I grew up more in the Bettinelli period than in Donatoni's; in the latter case, there is "his" method for writing .... His nice little calculations, his machine, and not the drive for research, the development of one's own poetics and musical inclination. (Berio is a parish apart).

And indeed, Bettinelli says somewhere in his didactic texts that a good teacher should not show their own music to students so as not to influence them. Coincidentally, no student of Bettinelli has ever shown me their own score... all of Donatoni's students have shown me (and let me pore over it, shall we say?) more than one of their scores. Not to mention today, where with the internet everything is everywhere ... before, in some cases, things had to be "begged" for.

This was a first point.

Feldman wrote:

Stravinsky was still alive but he was old and his music was already old: I am sorry that someone still defines him as "contemporary."

I disagree here too and I would like to introduce another discussion; for half a century now, one can no longer just speak of a composer and that's it, the issue has become specialized.

There is the expert in film music, the traditional composer, the experimental composer, etc.

This is a classification that can be smelled, breathed, and is very evident; it creates all the lobbies we know. Because they are lobbies, everyone seeks out their own kind and forms a parish ... and I say, rightly so. It would be more than fair if there weren't a choice... in fact...

The problem that Feldman (user) brings up is how one of these specialized figures, the "experimentation" man, can reach the general public or a "substantial" audience...

Are we sure that those in this niche are interesting? The struggle is to have more pieces played at the Biennale and not to reach the hearts of the people... let me romanticize this thing a bit. Whoever has more performances is more "Powerful," has more connections, more prestige ... that's all...

But returning to Stravinsky, a traditional composer, one of the 2 greatest geniuses of the 20th century, he took dodecaphony and gave it a whole new air just when he was an old man (understand well, dodecaphony, that thing which when it was presented it was said would leave no room for the composer's personality and anyone who touched it would write like Schoenberg) ... it's a pity that if one truly studied his music, one would realize, not only today, but at the time, how modern it was. And indeed, he, who classifies himself as a traditional composer, has nothing to envy of anyone (including the most famous of his contemporaries).

I will go further, there is a very "nice" fashion today that uses the following terminology regarding music: "his music was old." Are we joking? Is Bach's music old? Is Mozart's? Chopin?... like these, Stravinsky's is also extremely current. I understand that even today (as then) someone still sees him as an old Strauss ... it's a pity the notes say otherwise.

Given that I don't want to make it a matter of right or wrong (yes/no tradition, yes/no avant-garde), to close the discussion I will only say that those who tie themselves to tradition (and is a great artist, a genius in Stravinsky's case) do not risk being"} ,

to feel like one could say "old era was his music". An interesting parallel is that of furniture: there are those who like an avant-garde design (psychedelic lights, more enchanting colors, geometries, edges, etc.) and those who prefer traditional (classic) .... after about fifteen years, the furniture that was the pride of technology smells old (that color is no longer used, etc.) ... those "classic" ones can at most be called "used". This is one of the costs of fashion....

Obviously, I know well that research pays off if one finds. Therefore, here are just as many musical geniuses like Berio who have found their way and established themselves.

The game is this, a matter of choices and one's own inclinations ... if we were lucky enough to have teachers who contributed to making us composers and not parrots, and who indulged them.

One last thing, from another point of view I believe it is useful to know how to write like Bach and I find it useful to know how to write like Donatoni ... but now that he has died and his stylistic traits can be catechized (incidentally, his students (and colleagues, not to mention them) did so while he was still alive ...).

In general, it seems to me the usual "struggle" between didactic limits and raw material (talent)... where the teacher must arrive and when the student should be talented.

The fruits are indeed the generations following certain schools. Another small example: Messiaen. Great teacher, practically the entire 20th century passed through his hands. How many of his "class" (I mean the students of Messiaen's class) replicated him? Let's wedge in, for example, good Grisey. Did they pass the baton to each other? (I really don't think so). Talented he was, an excellent teacher his master...

These are the first things that come to mind while reading the posts in the topic... in reality, there would be a lot to say..."}

RedScharlach wrote:

Premised for clarity that I belong to the category of students of the students of Donatoni (as do many others, for that matter: a large part of current composition teachers has studied, more or less, with Donatoni),

I would say just as many have passed through Bettinelli... we must see whom we consider teachers. A bit subtle, but I am sure you will catch on...

RedScharlach wrote:

i don't know how much Einaudi can represent a pertinent alternative to the reservation of Indians.

The problem is that a composer's style is never an alternative but a prison; one must make one's own music and not that of others... if there are affinities, then fine. No one invents anything, we all feed on the music of others, but to say that a composer's style is a goal is very wrong: as a teacher and composer. At most, it can represent an in-depth study to understand and know what a style is made of, things that can be deduced from musicians even slightly thicker than Einaudi. Which [style/approach] I find very likable; he does not take a challenging stance toward other lobbies, and among those of his own level, it is certainly one that he has achieved—as Feldman says, a bit of a large audience, certainly, not with the most sophisticated works... but at least he has made an impact.

Your comment is truly full of insights; one could write an essay on all of this

I hope to comment thoroughly, even if it is not easy. In general terms, I agree with you regarding the schools of thought, and the fact that a "reserve" has formed around the figure of Donatoni (it brings to mind "C'È MUSICA E MUSICA", Luciano Berio's grand TV program, where our interviewee interviewed a student of Donatoni—I have posted the video at the end so you can realize the extent of this fanaticism), the fact is that I believe it is necessary to make a clear distinction between "donatonini" (or "bettinellini"), who simply limited themselves to imitating the Maestro, and the students who built the reserve: these are not imitators, but composers each with an individual style. However, if we go and "dig" into every style, we find the same constants which, as it happens, are those of the Donatonian aesthetic. Often, one does something that, by the will of others, becomes something else. Writing in that way, with a bit of effort, is not difficult nor inconvenient. You just have to study hard (as is right) and that's it: you enter the system, you get your fine performances, you shut yourself into your refined little environments with your sophisticated and snobbish audience, you strike grand poses at conferences, you become meat for the jaws of musicologists from the most disparate musical magazines, you become the darling of juries in certain competitions where it is already known (more or less) who might win (I mean what type of composer, with which style).

The problem, in my view, is precisely specialization (and consequently, the lobbies). This way, anyone could pretend to be a musician; they just have to let themselves be carried away by the dust clouds that occasionally (more often than not) hover in conservatories.

History demonstrates that specialization mortifies quality: there are many film music composers in Hollywood (since you mentioned it) with an extremely poor vocabulary of styles, archetypes, and techniques. Then there is someone like John Williams, who is anything but a lobby specialist, and whose style incorporates almost all of the European and American 1900s.

In the end, having more performances does not mean being a great who will pass into History. I will be very curious to see which of the most prominent names from the Biennales will be able to hold their own against Bach, Beethoven, and Co.; of course, musicologists can also fill history books with names that certainly do not deserve it.

They really went after Satie—and big time! Not to mention Bach in the 1700s. Shall we talk about poor Anton Bruckner?

As for Stravinsky, I think his music is timeless, like that of the giants. Do you know what the problem is? If I were to write like Stravinsky today, he would be recognized immediately; that is why his music feels old and he is not contemporary.

Unfortunately, they have removed the videos from the broadcast... as always.

Feldman wrote:

You know what the problem is? If I wrote today like Stravinsky, he would be felt immediately; that is why his music is old and he is not contemporary.

This is an important sentence, especially if written in another way:

If I wrote today like "composer X" (contemporary and at the level of Stravinsky... are there any?) they would be felt immediately, which is why I delude myself into thinking my music is contemporary. You could include Helmut Lachenmann... the point is always the same.

A Bach was called old when he was still alive; just think that people are breakdancing to his notes today... you follow your own path and if flowers are meant to bloom, they will; at a certain point, you might discover that you are neither Bach nor Stravinsky (nor even Einaudi or Allevi)... but being a clone of Lachenmann will not bring satisfaction (in this case too, "by pure chance," people speak of 'Lachenmanninis'). Therefore, it is better to follow one's own nature and musical instinct.

The first sentence I wanted to respond to was this:

"While it is true that a composer does not write for the public, it is also true that a composer without an audience is practically dead."

A composer can die before discovering whether they have or do not have an audience—for example, if they do not satisfy their own need to write... they are dead nonetheless, and in my opinion, this connects back to nature and musical instinct, which, if stifled, leads to frustration. And following one's instinct does not necessarily mean having "followers"... later you find out whether they arrive or not, but what can you do if they don't?

I acknowledge that I am not the Stravinsky of the moment; choices are made... but one is denying oneself; on one hand, one is catering to or pleasing an audience, or on the other, one is imitating something else that works but perhaps has little to do with us yet has an audience (reflected light)... in essence, little changes...

So, how much does the audience matter in compositional choices? And if it matters, why should Nannini (who, incidentally, studied with Bettinelli) have made an unacceptable choice? ... because as you wrote regarding Pausini: "Pausini has nothing to do with Einaudi because she does pop and her goal is to gather an audience, whereas Einaudi's is not (nor is that of any composer)."....?

Are we sure? No composer at all?

Free questions

I apologize for some grammatical errors and oversights, excuse me. I will provide a response tomorrow.

Dear Feldman and Frank, I cordially disagree with almost everything

Feldman wrote:

Regarding the fact of considering Romitelli a giant (as some claim), I would be very cautious given that he is only a giant to certain colleagues of his, therefore...

I sensed Romitelli's stature in June, listening to Professor Bad Trip performed by an ensemble of twenty-somethings at the Bouffes du Nord, full and enthusiastic. You will say: Paris is not the universe... And I will reply: the first of the Sagra was in Paris, and not by chance...

Frank wrote:

And indeed Bettinelli says somewhere in his teaching texts that a good teacher should not show their own music to students so as not to influence them.

I absolutely disagree. Obviously, I am not talking about the basics (harmony, counterpoint...), but about the actual craft. A good teacher must show their own music: one must show who they are, not hide behind words. Music speaks for itself. I am not interested in what a teacher knows in theory (I have heard far too many theories) but in what they do in practice, in what they compose.

As for the danger of "influencing": maturity of judgment, and the relative detachment, the student has an obligation to win it for themselves; no teacher can instill it in them. If the student remains submissive, does not achieve their own autonomy, they are simply not suited to being a composer (after all, a doctor doesn't prescribe being a composer!).

The problem arises when the didactic constraint lasts too long, for years and years: in reality, one year is sufficient to understand what needs to be understood (and sometimes, as Boulez says, two weeks are far too many!).

Feldman wrote:

In the end, having more performances does not mean being a great who will pass into History. I will be very curious to see who, among the most prominent names of the Biennales, will be able to hold their own against Bach, Beethoven and Co.

How often I hear this phrase! Frankly, I only accept this argument if you are one hundred percent sure that your music will survive the years and "will be able to hold its own against Bach, Beethoven and Co."!

Frank wrote:

This is an important sentence, especially if written in another way:

If I were to write today like "composer X" (contemporary and of the same level as Stravinsky... are there any?) it would be immediately felt; that is why I delude myself into thinking my music is contemporary. You want to include Helmut Lachenmann... the point is always the same.

I agree with you. Lachenmann is old anyway; not like Stravinsky, but he is old, it's past stuff. It makes no sense to write like him today, just as it makes no sense to write like Glass.

Frank wrote:

They called Bach an old man when he was still alive; just think that breakers dance to his notes today... you follow your own path and if flowers are meant to bloom, they will; at a certain point, you might discover that you are neither Bach nor Stravinsky (but not even Einaudi or Allevi)... but it won't give you satisfaction to be a Lachenmann clone (in this case too, "by pure chance," people speak of Lachenmanninis). Therefore, it is better to follow one's own nature and musical instinct.

Sure, but centuries have passed! Let's not confuse the present with the future; if Haydn had simply imitated Johann Sebastian, he wouldn't have done anything striking on a historical level.

Frank wrote:

The first sentence I wanted to respond to was this:

"While it is true that a composer does not write for the public, it is also true that a composer without an audience is practically dead."

A composer can die before discovering whether they have or do not have an audience—for example, if they do not satisfy their own need to write... they are dead nonetheless, and in my opinion, this connects back to musical nature and instinct, which, if stifled, leads to frustration. And following one's instinct does not necessarily mean having "followers"... then you find out whether they come or not, but what can you do if they don't arrive?

I acknowledge that I am not the Stravinsky of the moment, choices are made... but one is denying oneself; on one hand, one is catering to or pleasing an audience, or on the other, one is imitating something else that works but perhaps has little to do with us yet has an audience (reflected light)... in essence, not much changes...

It's not about catering to the audience, but about proposing to them a certain type of music, endowed with a certain degree of complexity. To do this, you must necessarily find a point of agreement that lies in material of popular derivation, which is already present in people's minds. This in itself is not relevant at a compositional level since the substance is not given by the objects but by their development over time, which can be conducted through complex relationships (Haydn did the same, and so did Beethoven. The Pastoral has starting material of popular derivation, but the substance lies in its elaboration... I don't understand what is wrong today with taking a rock or pop stereotype and developing it while taking into account past experiences, avant-garde, and tradition. This is what determines contemporaneity, in my opinion. Romitelli's work was a bit different; he used popular stylings in a context more closely linked to musical research conducted in a laboratory. It would be absolutely shareable if it were just one way among others of seeing music; the problem is that this type of aesthetic is considered the only one by the elite.

Frank wrote:

Therefore, how much does the audience count in compositional choices? And if it counts, why should Nannini (who, incidentally, studied with Bettinelli) have made an unacceptable choice? ... because as you wrote regarding Pausini: "Pausini has nothing to do with Einaudi because she does pop and her goal is to gather an audience, whereas Einaudi's is not (nor is that of any composer)."...?

Are we sure, no composer?

Questions in freedom

No, contact with the audience has great importance at an expressive level and regarding the intelligibility of the work. Of course, the composer does not cater to the tastes of others in a subtle way like certain Z-list pseudo-artists do. Are there composers who do it? That's their business... even Allevi doesn't do it.

I respond quickly to Red:

I don't think Romitelli can be compared even slightly to Stravinsky; it doesn't seem to me that he stirred anything up. It is true, the premiere of Sagra also took place in Paris, but with very different reactions. The audience was not composed of a crowd of musicologists and colleagues ready to perform an electrocardiogram on the score.

I agree with you on the issue of the teacher, of his works to be shown to students. I believe it is important, without a doubt. But perhaps Donatoni has exaggerated, don't you think?

For the rest, my sentence is said by facing reality. Before me, it is the composers of the Biennales who must ask themselves in all humility "but will my music pass into History? Can it make it?" perhaps a response comes from above of the type "of course, your colleagues will continue to divide it among themselves at the next Biennales!"