Only Good and Bad Music?

Valchiria wrote:

Thallo, McDonald's probably works. The next question is: "if it works (a term typically linked to technique) is it automatically also art"?

1) is art well-written or poorly written? No, because if we limit ourselves to this distinction, then the sacred word "art" has nothing to do with it.

2) rhetorically, I believe that the word "art" has become a useful artifice just as much as the word "freedom" in politics. It means absolutely nothing but is very useful for closing discussions. Defining what is and what is not art is extremely difficult, and it is so difficult that, sometimes, it proves to be completely USELESS. This comment still partially responds to Carlos's topic: when I said that I don't feel the need to divide the musical world into two segments (good music and bad music), I also meant that I don't feel the need to divide the musical world into art music and non-art music. Because I believe that distinctions of this type are not only extremely difficult to formulate but are essentially useless. It would be like dividing the objects of the world into objects longer than one meter and objects shorter than one meter: what is the point?! So, what is the point of understanding if a piece of music is art or non-art?! Provided that it is even possible...

3) once again, I believe that there is a subtle ethical discourse underneath. McDonald's is not art but Vissani is... and what about your mother's lasagna? It has less technique than McDonald's (because, yes, accept it, McDonald's certainly has the consultancy of better chefs than your mother), it has less success than McDonald's, it is less original than McDonald's. And as for taste, it is all a matter of point of view; I am sure an American prefers the hamburger. And this is where, probably, you will say "but Americans have shitty tastes"... ta-da! Ethical discourse: either you prefer lasagna or you are ignorant. If you work for a multinational, you are a slave driver. Fast food, by the mere fact of being fast, is worse than slow food (sandwiches, devil's food).

The same, identical argument applies to music. Allevi is not art, Mozart is art. And what is "Bella ciao"? Allow me to say that any disgusting piece by Allevi is TECHNICALLY more complex than Bella ciao, but I don't go to my grandfather and tell him he is ignorant because he listens to Alpine choirs instead of Mozart.... and here lies the ethical discourse. I have never seen a discussion where people complain about the repertoire of Alpine choirs, suggesting they could all sing Palestrina instead of singing those ugly, insipid songs. However, arguments against Allevi are plenty... and generally the argument is "Allevi makes simple music, Allevi thinks he's a god, in reality he is shit, whoever listens to him is shit". And this is all an ethical discourse, because it has little to do with the notes...

4) And, therefore, final question: what is the use of dividing music into poorly written and well-written? Artistic and non-artistic? Who draws up the ranking? Who decides? And which of you has the courage to make a list, not long but not short either, of pieces indubitably well-written and pieces indubitably poorly written?

I would start with examples concerning myself, because I am more aware of this compared to the historical repertoire; I make two distinctions: music written for Jingles and music written for oneself:

Music written for Jingles: the criterion used by those who subsequently published the pieces (not just mine) was quantity; I absolutely do not think they were looking for anything special.

I say this because a distribution company I have "collaborated" with has more than 90 "composers"—in quotes because they make no distinction between those who write with a minimum of knowledge and those who copy and paste—but precisely for certain reasons, those who must work with tight deadlines and are tied to a market that requires multiple short pieces for commercials, etc., must be able to rely on quantity and do not ask how that "product" (I don't like that term anyway) was reached. If, for example, I were in charge of such a company, first of all, I would have closed after 2 hours because I am more of an "investigator" from a compositional point of view; then, instead of having 2000 pieces available, I would have had 100, which might have been listened to with suspicion by advertisers.

However, I think this way, and regarding myself, it's not that just because they published something (which will never be used, I know for certain—this is not an a priori complaint, it is faith in the impossibility given what is circulating and the judgment methods of those who decide and listen) I am satisfied and consider myself a "composer"; rather, I believe that those compositions, if circumscribed within a certain scope, can have a "meaning," but if compared to other genres and more "learned" music, they would stand no chance.

Music written for myself: in these cases (even if the part "assigned" to commercials was still written because I felt like doing it, not for secondary purposes), everything is in a state of flux, as I have said other times; therefore, not having a recognizable style yet, I am influenced by the music I listen to and, at a technical level especially, I do not yet have the means to define this same music as "well-written"; I believe it is poorly written, not as it should be, but this does not take away (statistically speaking) from the possibility that someone might like it, though even this factor does not determine the intrinsic value of the composition; on the contrary, it determines (as in other cases of music written without following very precise criteria) a more or less pleasant or more or less "ignorable" perception, something that can be observed over time, but this is just what I think, the same person who judges what they write.

What I sense in what I listen to that was written by others is very often coherence and compactness, even if they are contemporary pieces, and here something enters that cannot be easily defined, because it doesn't seem to me that I have the means to analyze such pieces if there are already difficulties with "dated" ones; however, they give me this sense of precision, of coherence indeed.

I will give some very well-known examples: Lontano by Ligeti, Ramification - Penderecki's most famous compositions - Bartok - Sciarrino - Donatoni, etc..

Even though we are talking about absurd levels, the sensations I have (which logically cannot be compared to reasoning) are of absolute coherence.

Could it be that I also perceive that whoever wrote such works was and is a "complete" person?

Valchiria wrote:

Thallo, probably McDonald's works. The next question is: "if it works (a term typically linked to technique) is it automatically also art"?

For heaven's sake, hold on! This is certainly not the reason for a classification that only takes into account the parameter of "well-written/badly-written". Otherwise, one would really have to bring ethics into it as Thallo says, and that is certainly not the purpose. The classification into "art music" vs "the rest" that someone suggested would suffice. But I don't want to fall into the usual snobbery, because you end up saying that if you listen to Mozart you are intelligent, but if you listen to «La montanara» you are not. And, while we're at it, «La montanara» is very well written! Of course, as Thallo anticipated a couple of posts back, considering it within its context; but isn't that what has been said for a long time also regarding well-known composers who insert themselves into fields that do not belong to them? Aside from this, can I state that the theme song of «Goldrake» is well written? In my opinion, yes, but naturally I must consider it within its context, which is that of an anime theme song. Whoever says "eh well, it might be well written but Chopin's mazurkas are better!" in my opinion misses the point, for example. After all, I probably made a mistake making that McDonald's example and I am contradicting myself, because I myself compared two different contexts. So I must agree with Thallo (once again): McDonald's "is very well written" and it is wrong to compare it with haute cuisine, because it has nothing to do with it, so pardon me...

thallo wrote:

2) rhetorically, I believe that the word "art" has become a useful artifice just as much as the word "freedom" in politics. It means absolutely nothing but is very useful for closing discussions. Defining what is and what is not art is extremely difficult, and it is so difficult that, sometimes, it proves to be completely USELESS.

I am worried about writing this, but you are implicitly saying that art does not exist... the worst part, in the parallelism, is that freedom doesn't even exist (given that it is regulated daily by our politicians).

The mockery is that we are so much slaves to the mechanism that we have arrived at defining it as useless (art and practically freedom ... it might be a coincidence).

I am not saying "I agree" or "I don't agree"... but I would reflect on the subject.

Art and freedom exist regardless! The problem is being in a condition to desire them... and in effect, I am starting to desire art... and given the times we live in, almost, perhaps, even a little bit of freedom.

I have often said that, in my opinion, art does not exist. It is a way of relating to things or events. But it is a very subtle difference and complex to explain. And it is entirely my own opinion, which I would not feel comfortable advocating as universal. I do, however, think that an artistic experience exists, created in equal percentages by the object-event and by the attitude with which you approach that object-event. Art music, for me, is a way of listening.

But if I had to academically define the word "art", I would find myself in great difficulty.

I'll just throw this out there:

"art f. Any form of human activity insofar as it is a proof or exaltation of their inventive talent, and of their expressive capacity in the aesthetic field".

It's from the Devoto-Oli dictionary. But... I don't know... The second part convinces me more than the first: the "exaltation of inventive talent" seems unsettling to me...

Great insights, let's meditate together ... I mean Thallo, basically you are arguing that if you bill ... works?

Fantasy, it's always nice when you trivialize and misunderstand others' messages.

I said that discussions about music can take many forms and that the value of pieces must also be given in relation to the discussion we are having. In this sense, speaking of Allevi as a classical music composer is senseless; we will always end up saying he is an idiot. I, on the other hand, prefer to consider him a composer of commercial jingle music. In that field, he doesn't stand out among the best, but he has professionalism. Furthermore, I appreciate the talent of the marketing managers at Ricordi BMG, who promoted him everywhere, placing his CDs in the classical section of their megastores and in the classical section of online megastores, conducting an almost perfect campaign. The true talent lies not in Allevi, but in those who promoted him.

I don't know if my questions have remained forgotten or not.

I consider the McDonald's example inapplicable because it was managed by stopping talking about the sandwich and focusing on services... in reality, regarding the genuineness of the product, the McDonald's sandwich is perfectly comparable to a mother's sandwich or that of a great Chef

...perhaps mom "wins", precisely craftsmanship.

I continue to maintain that mine are not intended to be answers, but perhaps provocations, questions, and prompts.

I ask Thallo to decontextualize the McDonald's sandwich and re-express, in this parallelism, a possible answer or in other words, or in more comparable terms, his idea. Although it is quite clear... it still leaves me with a small percentage of dissatisfaction. That is, the McDonald's distribution chain is a model to imitate and in this regard we must express a judgment, but perhaps we are talking about the sandwich

I go grocery shopping, with one euro I can't buy anything at the supermarket... not even bread, soon enough... a word to the wise is enough...

thallo wrote:

Fantasy, it is always nice when you trivialize and misunderstand the messages of others.

In this sense, speaking of Allevi as a classical music composer is nonsensical

- First: I have never mentioned his name, perhaps not even in any of my forum posts

- Second: At most, I cite him as a Composer

- Third: At most, you will hear me say that he has drawn attention back to instrumental music (also solo, with traditional means and devoid of various clips, played by the same composer and conducted in the case of an orchestral formation) gaining the consensus of listeners, which is the normal job of a composer. I would like to hear another composer expressing themselves in these terms, Thank you.

- Fourth: If someone knows how to do their job, they earn money. Therefore, he knows how to do his job, meaning he composes music to live, receives commissions, etc.

- Fifth: follow Xenakis's suggestion, talk to us about the McDonald's sandwich, you will see that you will be even more convincing to the audience

With respect

Fantasy

Xenakis wrote:

I consider the McDonald's example inapplicable because it was managed by stopping talking about the sandwich and focusing on services... in reality, regarding the genuineness of the product, the McDonald's sandwich is perfectly comparable to a mother's sandwich or that of a great Chef.

...perhaps mom "wins," precisely due to craftsmanship.

talking about the sandwich things change, but if you talk about the sandwich you cannot talk only about genuineness. Which is, moreover, a non-technical discussion... genuineness means nothing. We can talk about sanitary integrity, taste, presentation, the level of the recipe, the gastronomic technique applied to achieve that result. These are all "characteristics" of the sandwich. And many of them also depend on the production system behind it. You or your mother cannot buy anything with one euro because you are at the bottom of a long production and distribution chain that McDonald's, like others, skips entirely. You buy bread in a shop, which probably didn't produce it but bought it (already made or in semi-finished form) from a laboratory, which used, as often happens today, non-"base" products—that is, not water, flour, yeast, and salt, but mixes of flours, stabilizers, natural aromas of various kinds, all produced in turn by food companies, which, if all goes well, bought from the farmer. Large companies skip some of these steps and cushion the prices. Sometimes, in the case of excellent companies, they implement a direct control that you or your mother (but not even the baker) can manage.

With this discussion, I don't mean to say that your mother's sandwich is less good, not at all. I mean that "good" and "not good" are poor judgments, precisely like "well-written" and "not well-written." Regarding music, as with sandwiches, discussions can be made at various levels. And there are poorly written songs that have a very interesting production system behind them, perhaps unique, or very interesting philological stories: L'homme armé, the famous medieval song, is nonsense, but it changed the history of music. In the same way that, I don't know, Tetra Pak changed the history of food.

Tying it all together:

between a McBacon and a sandwich made by my mother, I judge according to personal taste. BUT if I want to give a technical judgment, I must evaluate many other things, and some of these things make me say that the McDonald's sandwich is interesting, meaning it is "well-written."

Fantasy wrote:

- First: I have never mentioned his name and perhaps not even in any of my forum posts

in reality you have even opened a discussion about him http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1674-allevi-si-lamenta-i-miei-critici-sono-come-travaglio-con-berlusconi/#entry13380

- Second: at most I cite him as a Composer

i don't understand this specification. What, did I say he is a hack?

- Third: at most from me you will hear that he has brought attention back to instrumental music (also solo, with traditional means and devoid of various Clips, played by the same composer and conducted in the case of orchestral formation) obtaining the consensus of listeners, the normal job of a composer. I would like to listen to another composer expressing themselves in these terms, Thank you.

what does that have to do with my discussion? Now let me summarize what happened. I made a complex argument, you responded "ah, but then you mean that if it has public success, the music works?", I said you were trivializing and gave the example of Allevi, who is someone who has public success. Then you took offense, waving a magnificent straw man.

According to my technical discussion, it is not Allevi who has sparked interest in instrumental music. And you aren't saying much about this.

- Fourth: If someone knows how to do their job, they earn money. Therefore, if he knows how to do his job, meaning he composes music to live, receives commissions, etc.

nde you tell me where I denied this? I even said that I recognize professionalism in Allevi. That is, he does a job, for which he is paid.

- Fifth: follow Xenakis's suggestion, talk to us about the McDonald's sandwich, you will see that you will be even more convincing to the audience

thallo wrote:

in reality you even opened a discussion about him http://www.pianoconc...oni/#entry13380

In reality, if you read the topic carefully, I am referring to an interesting article, so at most I am referring to the content written by a journalist; I was also asked why I found the article interesting and I replied... unlike others who left answers hanging

This was the interesting part I read in the article:

"The elements required for one to actually be a composer, that is, one is a composer if:

Writes their own pieces

There are performers ready to play them

Has an audience

There is criticism

Has a recognizable style

Note, I did not speak of content... I leave that to the composers."

Where do I cite Allevi? The fact that he is the subject the journalist focused on is Allevi, does not change the contents of what I wrote ... for me the journalist could have even referred to ... put whoever you want.

To tell you the truth, more people mention him than I do

The title of the discussion (which you opened) was:

«A***** complains: My critics are like Travaglio with Berlusconi» and in the first post (yours) you wrote:

I propose this interesting article

A***** complains: My critics are like Travaglio with Berlusconi

(link)

"Certainly, one thing must be recognized about A*****: the ability to give answers with a weight equal to the questions asked."

So I would say that you certainly named him. Let's not pull each other's legs, eh!, what do you say?

To those who pass by and read, let's say above all that it was only the title of the article

above all, let's ignore the content

which is a beautiful way to start a discussion, and to end it ahahaha

anyway... McDonald's and sandwiches are becoming misleading and I am asking again, for a list, neither small nor large, of examples of poorly written music

thallo wrote:

I'm relaunching the request, once again, for a list—neither small nor large—of examples of poorly written music

Eh, well, then if the list comes out you say "eh, but now you have to tell me why" and when someone has told you why you say "eh, well, but that is your opinion". So let's do this: in the global-terrestrial universe there are no pieces written poorly: only those written well, which however people like or don't like... alright? In fact, now that I think about it: not even that, because if there are none "written poorly" then there are none "written well", only those "written" and, perhaps, those "written better", but poorly, no, there are none...

.

see? Discussing is useless, I'm always right anyway

thallo wrote:

see? Discussing is useless, I'm always right anyway

Only if you can convince me with excellent arguments that this piece (taken in its context and all those things) is well-written and that the problem is only that I don't like it... anything but McDonald's!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5kouBpLbr0

Open content (youtube)

Carlos, I am really curious to see how Thallo will come out of it