Ludovico Einaudi, Minimalism and Contemporary

micamahler wrote:

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 never said anything like that, Red. I was probably referring to the case of Filidei. I didn't say that DANZA MACABRA is garbage, or that it sucks.. I said that it doesn't have much to do with contemporaneity (meaning with the world that surrounds us now, at 00:26 on 4/09).

Analysis is important when criticism becomes personal or when stupid comparisons are made; I appreciate Filidei's music, the problem is that it isn't part of the world but only of a dusty niche.

RedScharlach wrote:

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 is probably not necessary for that idea; I don't find the piece boring, do you? I find there are micro-variations applied not to timbre but to pitch, register, density, and dynamics, as well as harmony in some parts. I find it a very interesting piece. I need to do a score analysis.

RedScharlach wrote:

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

Einaudi is not minimalism, sorry. And perhaps you are referring to rhythmic micro-variations rather than metric ones.

RedScharlach wrote:

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

Einaudi is not minimalism, he is contemporary music. Like Francesconi for that matter, which is elite contemporary music.

RedScharlach wrote:

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

The connection lies in musique concrète, in timbral research, and in the use of what is vulgarly still defined as "noise". Then I agree with you, at a syntactic level the connection to Sciarrino is more evident given the figural nature of the piece. If we refer to that aspect, we are in the '70s/'80s. Not by chance did I say: Sciarrino in the '90s was already History! But Filidei in the '90s was much younger... okay, I'll take it. But his way of writing hasn't changed that much from the '90s to today. It is still on that same line.

RedScharlach wrote:

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

Of course, studying it at a desk serves to highlight the deep relationships. I often find listening more useful than desk analysis, imagine that.

But who calls it noise???

Aside from this, you are only talking about your own tastes

night

micamahler wrote:

But who calls it noise???

Aside from this, you are only talking about your own tastes

night

well, unfortunately it is a definition that still exists. Organized noise is still music. The Intonarumori!!

Of course, I am talking about my tastes and the reality that I see and observe. The lobbies, the stale music of the Biennales, and the arrogance of certain creators are certainly not something I am making up. Then everyone does as they believe, we are free to deny the evidence, everyone has an opinion and it is right that it be so, otherwise can you imagine what deadly boredom that would be?

From my point of view, no one prescribed the composer to do research. A doctor is a doctor even if they don't do research; not everyone must necessarily find the chemical formula for an antibiotic to be or feel like a doctor.

Moreover, in music one does not need to find "cures" for new diseases and the fate of humanity does not depend on a new or old code... what matters is writing interesting, recognizable music for an audience (whatever it may be). If Filidei satisfies this paradigm, he is a composer in every sense, whether people like it or not, research or no research.

On a more general note, I don't remember who, but someone wrote that in terms of tonality, Chopin was recognizable by Schumann even though they were between I and V. Well, it could be that a group of people has taken Donatoni's language as a sort of tonality, a code, and with the necessary differences expresses themselves... what is the problem? Perhaps Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Berg, Strauss and company were not composers? Were they not great composers? They wrote great and praiseworthy music and for this reason they are written in the books of music history, they are still performed extensively even after 3 centuries (for some) and that is enough.

Then, if someone has a researcher's inclination, welcome... but from my point of view it is a bit much... I will repeat myself, as I was saying, one is already a composer when one writes well, in an interesting and recognizable way, for an audience... even if the pieces were tonal

let it be clear, I was not being offensive; in this forum it is known that I can be much more offensive. My comment was bounded: anyone who uses the terms "casta", "intellettualoidi" and "human race" in a discussion about music, in my opinion, is not having a discussion about music but a bar conversation.

Furthermore, as for the discussion about the audience and the attitude of composers towards them, if so far no one in this bar conversation has shown themselves to be fully in agreement with you, perhaps it might also depend on you. Which does not mean that you are wrong, just as the lack of "popular" success does not mean that those in the casta are wrong (beautiful sociological analysis, my goodness, truly from a composer!). Simply put, you are not interested in the opinion of others, and those in the casta (...) are not interested in the opinion of the popular audience.

Ah, talk to me and about me, not about "musicologists". I am not talking about "composers."

thallo wrote:

let it be clear, I was not being offensive; in this forum, it is known that I can be much more offensive. My comment was bounded: anyone who uses the terms "caste", "intellectualoids" and "human race" in a discussion about music, in my opinion, is not having a discussion about music but a bar conversation.

Furthermore, as for the discussion about the audience and the attitude of composers towards them, if so far no one in this bar conversation has shown themselves to be fully in agreement with you, perhaps it might also depend on you. Which does not mean that you are wrong, just as a lack of "popular" success does not mean those in the caste are wrong (beautiful sociological analysis, my goodness, truly from a composer!). Simply put, you are not interested in the opinion of others, and those in the caste (...) are not interested in the opinion of the popular audience.

Ah, talk to me and about me, not about "musicologists". I do not talk about "composers".

Forgive me Thallo, but you rely too much on terms; learn to read between the lines and do not take big words I used like "intellectualoids" or "caste" to make a flag out of them.

You know well what I meant, no point beating around the bush.

Secondly, you yourself admit to not having read all the comments, so the first one to start bar chatter can only be you and no one else; get informed, read, and then we can talk; for now, every criticism of yours is totally devoid of content (by the way... what do you have to say against bar chatter? Do you know that great conversations can arise over a beer? You don't know? Pity.)

No one has found themselves fully in agreement with me? Ah well, you have to ask every user that, or if you have formed an opinion, you should just be thankful, since good arguments are based on contrasting thoughts (or are you also part of the "one-theme sonata party"? If your name is Franz Joseph Haydn I can listen to you, otherwise.... now don't bring up monothematicism, read behind this line)

That said, I have never INCITED anyone to popular success, for heaven's sake. I spoke of presenting oneself to the audience, of perception and intelligibility which, excuse me, have absolutely nothing to do with success.

I am very interested in the opinion of others; otherwise, I wouldn't have opened this thread. If those in the "caste" (as you are calling them now) are not interested in what the "pop audience" says (obscene definition, if you'll permit me. The audience is public, as long as it is made up of mere mortals and not members of the lobby in question), that will be their problem; they demonstrate it extensively with their music.

Now I am not talking about musicologists, I am talking about you and about you. Goodbye for now.

Ps Thallo: if you want, found a party based on censorship so we can filter the terms you don't like. Next time I promise I will use... "perdindirindina!"

Eagle wrote:

From my point of view, no one prescribed that the composer must conduct research. A doctor is a doctor even if they do not conduct research; not everyone must necessarily find the chemical formula for an antibiotic to be or feel like a doctor.

Moreover, in music, one does not need to find "cures" for new diseases, and the fate of humanity does not depend on a new or old code... what matters is writing interesting, recognizable music for an audience (whatever it may be). If Filidei satisfies this paradigm, he is a composer in every sense, whether people like it or not, research or no research.

On a more general note, I don't remember who, but someone wrote that in tonality Chopin was recognizable by Schumann even though they were between I and V. Well, it could be that a group of people has taken Donatoni's language as a sort of tonality, a code, and with the necessary differences expresses themselves... what is the problem? Perhaps Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Berg, Strauss and company were not composers? Were they not great composers? They wrote great and praiseworthy music, and for this reason, they are written in the books of music history; they are still performed extensively today after 3 centuries (for some), and that is enough.

Then, if someone has a researcher's inclination, all the better... but from my point of view, it is a bit much... I will repeat myself, as I was saying, one is already a composer when one writes well, in an interesting and recognizable way, for an audience... even if the pieces were tonal.

Wise words Eagle!

Don't you think that perhaps this is a less fertile era than others?

Ettore wrote:

Don't you find that perhaps this is a
less fertile era than others?

History teaches us that one era can be artistically less fertile than another. However, this is a discussion that needs to be clarified, once and for all! There has never existed a crisis of music as an art genre: if anything, only the crisis of a certain way of writing music occurs. As far as our time is concerned, much of the music composed by Igor Stravinsky remains a valid example, and the challenges between different ways of understanding music (tonal and non-tonal) are an exhilarating stimulus for the development of music itself. (...) Music, as an art form and therefore as human expression, can never end. It will never die, as long as man exists. I, for one, am an example of this. [Leonard Bernstein]

In another field, when asked about the "crisis of cinema," Fellini replied: "As long as I feel like making films, for me the crisis of cinema will not exist at all." And he added, in his typical whimsical way: "Perhaps I am wrong, but how could I claim otherwise?"

Feldman wrote:

Ludovico Einaudi is one of the contemporary composers who is certainly most known and appreciated by the general public,

Why, Alessandra Celletti no? So based on what was the choice?

So why not Giulia Mazzoni, just to mention the newly discovered worst?

It is not a matter of choice; I have reiterated that the general public is not a yardstick for evaluating a composer. The fact that Einaudi manages to capture the attention of many people nonetheless does not stem from clever commercial operations (which we know all too well), but from his personal choice of simplification (not simplisticity) which leads to an emphasis on expressivity (linked to diatonic material of modal-tonal derivation and easily accessible melodism) and the cancellation of technicality. While these choices can be considered "extreme" on one hand, they can nonetheless be seen as a starting point for reconsidering the approach between composer and audience today.

I do not know who Celletti and Mazzoni are; I cannot speak about artists whom I do not know.

It is true that non-tonal music (where the relevant elements at a structural level are timbral effects, even when inserted into a hierarchical harmonic context made of redundancies on different levels) ultimately succeeds in expressing only a certain type of "affects," whereas diatonic material (even with tonal or modal reminiscences already present in the collective memory) expresses something else; for this reason, I am completely convinced that the choice of musical material is directly linked to the choice of expressive character, especially today when we have at our disposal a significant range of compositional archetypes. Of course, trying to express "anger" or "frustration" with tonality today is quite stupid, given that it is an exhausted system. But if we want to express nostalgia, happiness, or emotion using predominantly dissonant or timbral material, the expression results in being forced: there is no point in calling a piece "happy memories" while using ponticello, harmonics, and wood on a string quartet; you can achieve an excellent expressive result, but one that has nothing to do with the initial intention (in that case, you are desperately seeking happiness through perceptual distortions that lead nowhere).

Another thing is to use a harmonic structure that, in its "skeleton," presents affinities with a sequence found in a rock song about happiness (mine is a simple though naive example): In this case, developing that structure according to procedures inherited from the '1900s' and at the same time considering that sequence not at the level of "harmonic functions" but of "sound," of "sonic result, timbre in becoming," allows us to create a piece with that expressive idea (clearly I have spoken of a simple starting point that must have its own complex development; I believe I have just stated the obvious).

I believe Einaudi's expressive world is quite clear; he has no very direct references to extremely dramatic situations. It is nonetheless a testament to the possibilities we still have by using defective diatonic material more or less related to tonality and modality (I reiterate, not tonal and not modal, that would be different. One thing is a "starting point derived from modality" developed according to criteria born of the avant-garde; another is developing this starting point using criteria OF modality, which creates anachronism and, indeed, a "modal" result).

Schoenberg tried (in vain) to fuse tonal form and rhythm with dodecaphony. I believe the reverse process is possible, i.e., subjecting material of tonal derivation to non-tonal compositional procedures.

Forgive the further reflection.

I am convinced that this historical era is very similar (in its logic) to the 1700s. We have emerged from a period of extreme complexity (the avant-garde), and we have a return to extreme simplicity (and simplisticity, with certain artists of dubious ability) of which Einaudi is an exponent.

In the 1700s, one was emerging from the contrapuntal complexity of the Baroque and entering the disconcerting simplicity of the galant style. Shortly after, with the Second Viennese School, counterpoint joined that simplicity creating a synthesis (I am thinking of Haydn and motivic counterpoint). I believe that today the conditions are the same

Feldman wrote:

But if we want to express nostalgia, happiness, or emotion using predominantly dissonant or timbral material, the expression results in being forced: it is useless to call a piece "happy memories" using ponticello, harmonics, and wood on a string quartet; you can achieve an excellent expressive result, but one that has nothing to do with the initial intention (then you desperately seek happiness through perceptual forcings that lead nowhere).

Your argument is quite clear to me. There is just one aspect I find obscure. I am speaking from the composer's point of view: do you start from the idea of an expression (or an emotion, to put it simply) and then look for the technical means suitable to express it? That is: I want to express anguish, and therefore chromaticism, a lot of ponticello, etc., or I want to express tenderness, and therefore diatonism in ppp? This is what I infer from what you say.

It seems practically the opposite of how I proceed. I imagine a sound (it would be better to say "a sound comes to mind," since I don't know exactly where it comes from"), and this sound already contains its own expression (its own emotion) within itself, and in a certain sense, it is I who must adapt to it, trying to dig, to go into depth.

Obviously, everyone follows the path they prefer!

Well, yes, even if your method isn't that different from mine, because as you say the sound already has its own expression within itself, therefore this is directly linked to the material (which is the "sound" in its concreteness).

I also try to dig and go deep, but I don't always look for the sound; often it arrives intuitively and isn't necessarily pure timbre, often it is a reminiscence (even a stereotyped one) that I then try to develop at a structural level by redeeming its basic simplicity; the fact is that when the sound arrives, it is already linked to an expressive idea, and if that isn't very dramatic (or traumatic, as you see fit), it is useless to use elements that can only ruin the initial expressive intentions!

Feldman wrote:

Well, yes, even if your method isn't all that different from mine

Let's just say the method is ultimately the same for everyone... if instead of sound/material/etc ... we put the word idea

I would like the young person, when they set themselves to writing, to never think of being either a melodist, nor a realist, nor an idealist, nor a futurist, nor any of those devils who burden themselves with such pedantries. Melody and harmony must be nothing but means in the hands of the artist to create Music, and if a day comes when there will be no more talk of melody or harmony or German schools, Italian schools, nor of the past nor of the future etc. etc. etc., then perhaps the reign of art will begin. [Giuseppe Verdi - letter to Opprandino Arrivabene, July 14, 1875]