Ludovico Einaudi, Minimalism and Contemporary

thallo wrote:

i just found myself a slip-up where I shouldn't have... i hate re-reading my own messages...

anyway, black ambient is the future

what is it? a black-on-black text editor or a genre of metal music?

thallo wrote:

Since I cannot say everything I would like to say, I will start from the beginning: Einaudi.

A personally do not particularly like Einaudi. And I do not consider him the flagship of post-minimalism. Perhaps Feldman (user) does not know it, but I am a great admirer of historical minimalism and many authors and compositions that are post-minimalist in various ways. "Experts" tend to criticize this term, post-minimalism, because for at least 30 years it has served as a catch-all for an infinite series of different styles and research. Well, many of these styles or micro-genres, in my opinion, are now far from the scope of so-called classical music or contemporary classical music. It is art music, "fringe" music, frontier music, but saying that Einaudi was a student of Berio is not enough to include him in a discussion of alternatives to research music.

Einaudi is the first one who does not define himself as a minimalist precisely because he is not; besides, minimalism and post-minimalism do not exist, otherwise we would have to talk about post-donatonism, post-ligetism, post-lachenmannism, post-bettinellism, post-structuralism and 200,000 other "posts," right?

I believe instead that among his many influences there is also minimalism, particularly the version defined by some as the "watered-down" minimalism of Glass, Nyman, and Adams.

Furthermore, I do not understand what you mean by research music. Every artist in their field conducts a certain type of research, so I absolutely disagree with this label.

thallo wrote:

I do not like the same argument regarding the gap between pop and "classical," because today "pop" is not an alternative to classical. It is an alternative with a sea of different genres, including many subgenres of rock. Is Burzum pop? Is DJ Spooky pop? Is John Zorn pop? None of them do "classical," with the inevitable quotation marks, but that does not mean they can be considered popular. The clash between classical and pop is a founding myth of "classical" musical avant-garde; it is not a problem in itself, it is a problem at the moment we pose it as a problem.

But indeed it does not exist, since this "gap" was alive during the period of the avant-gardes; now contamination has as its object the opposite of difference.

One should reflect on the concept of "pop," given that definitions are used so much: pop stands for "popular," therefore Mozart and Handel should also be popular. So let's try to specify: light pop? 883. Pop rock? Bob Dylan and many other greats I won't list. Rock? Now we are already in a less pop realm, for enthusiasts and with increasingly specific branches. This is what I mean by the fragmentation of genres. Today a composer has the possibility to fuse multiple elements coming from different areas but with common points; by contamination, I do not mean the banal re-presentation of something pop or rock with an orchestra or chamber ensemble, but rather something more complex, namely the fusion of structural and logical procedures from different musical genres, a synthesis that takes into account the perceptive capacities of the audience and the conceptual needs of the composer.

thallo wrote:

What is being discussed under the surface is not "pop" understood as a musical genre, i.e., definable by MUSICAL characteristics, but pop as a consumption dimension, probably defined by sales percentages or recognition. And here the problem is much broader. Does Mozart sell more or less than Lady Gaga? Well, Mozart HAS SOLD more over the years for sure, he is better known (he has had more time to become known) and he will be in the future too. Does Ivan Fedele sell more or less than Lady Gaga? Certainly he sells less, but he has income, he has the possibility to survive and do his job, like everyone, and if he wanted to enter a market logic, he would do different things from what he does. And therefore, in a certain sense, he would no longer be Ivan Fedele.

It is always linked to a "market," certainly not that of Vasco Rossi, but surely the niche market of the elite. This is because he is one of the "favorites."

thallo wrote:

What should Ivan Fedele do to enter into competition with Lady Gaga? Should he do what Einaudi did? And what did Einaudi do to enter into competition with Lady Gaga? From my point of view, Einaudi's possible choices were two: to do what he wanted, from an aesthetic point of view, and to have had "luck"; or to make commercial choices, in a commercial sense, and go looking for luck. I do not pass value judgments; I am a person who believes deeply in professionalism, and for me, achieving success is not a sin, it is a symptom of well-utilized abilities. But if we are talking about musical popularity in terms of COMMERCIAL popularity, then we exclude a series of styles and genres a priori.

Popularity should not be sought; it arrives on its own and depends on how you work and what you propose. If someone avoids the public, it is obvious they won't obtain it, or if they do obtain it, they still remain...

an intellectualoid tied to a "caste".

thallo wrote:

We cannot "blame" Xenakis for doing what he liked, nor can we praise Einaudi for doing what he liked. Combining moral judgment with aesthetic criticism effectively means saying that Xenakis had an obscure reason for making his music (namely, that he wanted to kill classical music, as many fools continue to claim) and at the same time asserting that Einaudi also had ulterior motives for writing what he wrote (namely, to make money and become famous).

Talking about Xenakis means talking about music from how many years ago? I believe it is useless; the avant-gardes belong to the past and cannot be taken as examples today, an era with completely different conditions!

thallo wrote:

i just found a blunder where it shouldn't be... i hate re-reading my messages...

anyway, black ambient is the future

genre to say the least... unsettling

Feldman says (in short) "by contamination I mean the fusion of structural and logical procedures from different musical genres, a synthesis that takes into account the perceptive capacities of the audience and the conceptual needs of the composer."

Can you give me some examples? As stated, it is a phrase that means everything and nothing at the same time.

Ivan Fedele wrote a piece in which the soloist is the Apulian tambourine, Gervasoni used fado (in another way), and there will surely be many others, but it seems to me that you do not want to refer to composers like them. Not even Romitelli, who contaminates in both Index of metals and Professor Bad Trip! nor Verrando in Tryptich. But perhaps in some cases they are just citations...

If I can give an example, lateral to the "classical-based contemporary music", Erykah Badu represents a name where there is a lot of contamination, from soul music to hip hop, from electronic to reggae, jazz and more. I like her very much!

What I find incorrect (if the word incorrectness is acceptable) is the premise that seems to be at the base of your thinking: your personal taste. And it seems evident to me because overall I find the argument rather hazy, and generally arguments are hazy when taste is involved.

You say: "if someone avoids the public, it is obvious they won't achieve it (popularity), or if they do achieve it, they remain an intellectualist tied to a 'caste'." For what reason do you decide that if someone achieves popularity they are an intellectualist tied to a caste? Who are you referring to? I can't understand.

One last thing, probably a huge cliché: you say that Romitelli is listened to by 3 people in Paris while Einaudi is listened to here and there (forgive me if I summarize what you say so brutally, but copy-pasting would take me an hour). Is that perhaps a symptom of greatness? According to this reasoning, Sokurov is terrible and the Vanzina brothers are the best, Philip Roth is terrible and 50 Shades of Grey is the best there is.

Mah!

micamahler wrote:

Feldman says (in short) "by contamination I mean the fusion of structural and logical procedures from different musical genres, a synthesis that takes into account the perceptive capacities of the audience and the conceptual needs of the composer."

Can you give me some examples? As stated, it is a phrase that means everything and nothing at the same time.

Ivan Fedele wrote a piece in which the soloist is the Pugliese tambourine, Gervasoni used fado (in another way) and there will surely be many others, but it seems to me that you do not want to refer to composers like them. Not even Romitelli, who contaminates in both Index of metals and Professor Bad Trip! and even Verrando in Tryptich. But perhaps in some cases they are just citations...

If I can give an example, lateral to the "classical-based contemporary music", Erykah Badu represents a name involving much contamination, from soul music to hip hop, from electronics to reggae, jazz and so on. I like her very much!

No, no, excuse me, we are misunderstanding each other and I understand that these are difficult issues to deal with and even explain.

I will provide concrete examples shortly. I am only saying that Romitelli, Gervasoni, and Fedele limited themselves to using folk instruments; unfortunately, I did not mean this.

If you take a harmonic stereotype from rock (a chord sequence, for example) and use it as starting material, you can develop it using rhythmic variations applicable to other parameters, you can freeze the harmony and work on the rest, you can build motivic structures and derive other structures from them to be used later. If you do this, you have an element that is already present in people's collective memory and is easily codifiable (the material), you have the possibility to develop it according to your technical and expressive needs (in this sense, you have a stimulus for research), while at the same time maintaining a good affinity with the starting material (without destroying it, of course) facilitating listening in terms of perception and intelligibility (naturally, you can insert episodes where more or less attention is required; this could favor possibilities within the same piece for the progressive development of perceptive capacities). If you add to this a certain freedom in the choice of instruments (say, you use the electric guitar) and electronics, you are establishing a relationship with the audience without letting yourself be conditioned by superficiality (it is another thing to write a piece using the song form, using a gimmicky melody and stereotypes juxtaposed here and there; in this way, one does not redeem the elementarity of the base material and there is no type of research).

micamahler wrote:

What I find incorrect (if the word incorrectness is acceptable) is the assumption that seems to be at the base of your thinking: your personal taste. And it seems evident to me because, overall, I find the argument rather hazy, and generally, arguments are hazy when taste is involved.

You say: "if someone avoids the public, it is obvious they won't achieve it (popularity), or if they do achieve it, they remain an intellectualoid tied to a 'caste'." For what reason do you decide that if someone achieves popularity, they are an intellectualoid tied to a caste? Who are you referring to? I cannot understand.

I consider all those who adhere to a caste to be intellectualoids, period. In themselves, I believe that personalities like Fedele and Romitelli are not intellectualoids but intelligent, which is different. It's a pity they don't put their intelligence at the service of ordinary human beings (I am referring to the living, naturally).

micamahler wrote:

One last thing, probably an enormous cliché: you say that Romitelli is listened to by 3 people in Paris while Einaudi is listened to here and there (forgive me if I summarize what you say so brutally, but copy-pasting would take me an hour). Is this perhaps a symptom of greatness? According to this reasoning, Sokurov is terrible and the Vanzina brothers are the best, Philip Roth is terrible and 50 Shades of Grey is the best there is.

Mah!

Of course not, popularity does not determine greatness. The problem is that if Romitelli is listened to by only 3 people, it's not because he didn't seek popularity, but because he never related to a normal audience (like other illustrious colleagues of his, he preferred to huddle in a corner with a few followers... but the fault lies with people who are not curious and not interested, eh! Of course, if you don't give people the tools to understand, listen to, and perceive music, but demand they listen to Filidei & Co. just like that, after a bit of rock—but come on, it's obvious it's just an excuse to stay closed in one's own Reserve....)."}

Sorry everyone:

a demonstration about Cinema, they want a music concert that is not necessarily cinematic but can be recreational (the concert) for mere mortals, cinema enthusiasts and more. They are open to contemporary composers, i.e., from today. A piece of this genre is presented:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a073v6fxD2A

Describe the reactions to me, I am curious. Booing? Okay. "Eh, but they did it with Stravinsky too" response: study Music History.

First: Filidei is not Stravinsky. Second: pieces like that one (Danza macabra) you can find dozens of these days, they are stereotypes.

Is it an appreciated piece? Perhaps, among his colleagues. Will it make History? Given the characteristics, conditions and precedents in the past... I seriously doubt it. But... but it is avant-garde music, it is experimental, it is modern! No, it is not modern. It is the music that was being made thirty, forty years ago. Avant-garde? Well, if Filidei had written it in 1965 perhaps... or in 1956, let's say 1974! But it is from 1996, guys. The '90s, do you realize? The Donatonini were already out of fashion! Sciarrino was already History!

Now, I don't have a problem with Filidei, let me be clear. I chose him because he is one of the youngest followers.

Explain to me how one goes forward with music proceeding at this pace, with these parallel worlds made of snobbery and lines to follow to get the performance at the Venice Biennale? I am waiting for solutions. I would like to know, thank you

Open content (youtube)

Feldman wrote:

songs like that one (Danza macabra) you can find dozens of these days

I didn't know it! I am listening to it ... Very rhythmic ... Beautiful!!!

My favorite is Ogni gesto d'amore, which has a stimmung that reminds me a little of the Lumen you spoke about a few posts ago.

RedScharlach wrote:

I didn't know it! I am listening to it ... Very rhythmic ... Beautiful!!!

My favorite is Ogni gesto d'amore, which has a stimmung that reminds me a little of the Lumen you spoke about a few posts ago.

Very rhythmic yes, it is an interesting piece. I like it too.

The problem is that I consider it a simple stylistic imitation, nothing more. I don't sense contemporaneity in it. If I listen to a Beethoven Symphony, I feel something from the 1800s. If I listen to a piece like this, as interesting as it may be in itself, it has nothing to do with today's world, with contemporaneity.

But today it is impossible to be original, music is dead.... ecchilodice??? Francesconi. Oh well....

The road of vicious circles leads nowhere. They are at the Biennales.

As before, the fact that YOU don't hear it doesn't mean that OTHERS don't hear it too

Feldman wrote:

I consider everyone who adheres to a caste to be an 'intellectualoid', period. In themselves, I believe that personalities like Fedele and Romitelli are not intellectualoids but intelligent, which is different. It's a pity they don't put their intelligence at the service of ordinary human beings (I am referring to the living, naturally).

ok, I believe this message marks the end of my interventions in this discussion.

Perhaps I didn't read the previous messages correctly; it was difficult for me to keep track. But if your considerations involve terms like "caste", "intellectualoids" and "human race", well, I really have nothing to say.

My opinion is that your discourse is bar talk. Nothing serious.

And this is coming from someone who has never made preliminary distinctions between Romitelli and Burzum.

micamahler wrote:

As before, the fact that YOU don't hear it doesn't mean that OTHERS don't hear it too

let's go back to the starting point. Others who? Colleagues?

For someone talking about their own music

Feldman wrote:

I would only accept criticism if accompanied by a 50-page analysis, otherwise I wouldn't be interested

I would say that for this reason

Feldman wrote:

First: Filidei is not Stravinsky. Second: pieces like that one (Danza macabra) are common nowadays, there are dozens of them; they are stereotypes.

Is it an appreciated piece? Perhaps, among his colleagues. Will it make History? Given the characteristics, conditions, and precedents in the past... I seriously doubt it. But... but it's avant-garde music, it's experimental, it's modern! No, it's not modern. It's the kind of music that was being made thirty, forty years ago. Avant-garde? Well, if Filidei had written it in 1965 perhaps... or in 1956, let's say 1974! But it's from 1996, guys. The '90s, do you realize? The Donatonini were already out of fashion! Sciarrino was already History!

...about fifty pages of analysis would be missing

thallo wrote:

ok, I believe this message marks the end of my interventions in this discussion.

Perhaps I didn't read the previous messages correctly; I found it difficult to keep track. But if your considerations include terms like "caste," "pseudo-intellectuals," and "human race," well, I really have nothing to say.

My opinion is that your discourse is bar talk. Nothing serious.

And this is coming from someone who has never made preliminary distinctions between Romitelli and Burzum.

If anything, it is from the musicologists that I don't expect anything serious. Sorry, but this comment of yours is offensive to me.

I prefer to express judgments as a composer, not to hear them from someone who talks about music without making it. If you'll allow me, a musicologist must analyze the reality surrounding them, not analyze just to show that they "know so much." I have read analyses by musicologists: series and series of mental masturbations, all because, I repeat, making music is one thing, talking about it is another. Therefore, feel free to consider yours as mere bar chatter!

And then, as I always say: if you deem mine a non-serious discourse... do a proper analysis and we can talk about it. Otherwise, I'll leave you to your hot air. What a bunch of individuals.

Gentlemen, let's behave and not descend into personal attacks. There is no better weapon than argumentation.

Personal opinion, nothing would be more effective than a nice page of analysis, perhaps comparing a piece by Filidei with anyone else who seems or might seem like an old fossil

Gerardo wrote:

For someone talking about their own music

I would say that for this

...about fifty pages of analysis would be missing

I have not received any request for analysis from the author, so...

Anyway, I've said my piece: the track is a stereotype of things already done; if it has no audience, it's because, being a stylistic exercise from many years ago, first of all, it wouldn't make sense to listen to it—one goes to listen to Schaeffer, Russolo, Penderecki, etc.; second: if the masterpieces of the avant-garde did not have a common audience due to the fracture that had been created, how can one expect a track in the vein of THOSE things already done to conquer one? I think it's an absurd thing. Then, analysis might help me understand how it is constructed, what relationships it used, etc., but it is certainly true that to understand its unsuitability today, it is enough to listen to it, ask oneself a question, and give oneself an answer.

I forgot: if I had the score for "Danza Macabra," I wouldn't hesitate to dive into it and analyze it. That much is certain.

Frank wrote:

Gentlemen, let's behave and not descend into personal attacks. There is no better weapon than argumentation.

Personal opinion, nothing would be more effective than a nice page of analysis, perhaps comparing a piece by Filidei with anyone else who seems or might seem like an old fossil

Frank, I have never snubbed someone's comment in that way. If I do, it is because it lacks content. I believe I have provided some, content, otherwise such a heated discussion would not have opened up. I am sorry that Thallo, an intelligent, helpful, and competent person, reacted this way.

Evidently, they did not read between the lines. Their business.

Based on Frank's proposal, I'm launching one of my own:

let's all do a commented and argued comparative analysis of two pieces: one by Einaudi and one by a contemporary of his, for example Luca Francesconi. All while keeping in mind the "perception" factor in relation to an audience x not necessarily composed of experts.

Are you in?

i'm launching two pieces:

http://www.youtube....h?v=9qvglWAHDak

http://www.youtube....h?v=9qvglWAHDak

sorry, the links are these:

2005

2005

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

First you say that analysis is useless, now you say it's useful... First you talk about contemporaneity but you don't say what its characteristics are (but does a contemporaneity exist or is it just a word?)...

Mah

I tried listening to this piece by Einaudi (and also the other one you posted at the beginning)... But must it necessarily stay in 4/4 from beginning to end, and repeat each phrase two/four/sixteen times? Otherwise, is it not understood?

Metric variety seems to me the most interesting aspect of minimalism... If you take that away too...

PS Besides, knowing Berio's opinion on minimalism, I believe that the 'in memoriam' that Einaudi dedicated to him would not have pleased him very much... unless Einaudi's intentions were ironic!

PS 2 It is not clear to me the connection between Schaeffer, Russolo, Penderecki, and Danza macabra, which is instead based on a figurative idea (in the style of Sciarrino obviously, not Donatoni).

PS 3 Do you really think that the score is necessary to understand the musical idea? Of course, analysis deepens understanding: however, it should be possible to understand the music just by listening to it, without having to study it at a desk... Don't you think?