Power of Light Music

Well, not bad for people who played by ear, right? 😆

Open content (youtube)

I love the Beatles. I remember when they showed them on the News for the first time: "four crazy guys with long hair...". I stopped to watch them and felt a great energy. I wasn't wrong, even if they didn't correspond to my way of being. From that moment on, all my peers started playing the guitar and growing their hair long. I wore my hair short and played the piano....Just imagine what happened!!!!!! 😆

gian wrote:

Well, not bad for people who played by ear, right? 😆

Sorry gian but this statement of yours is interesting; I have always been curious about what technical and compositional skills the greats of popular music had and have. If I'm not mistaken, Lennon and McCartney also played the piano, though to what level no one knows, partly because their goal was to write only their own music without too much interest in either technical or compositional aspects. But I wonder how it is possible that they played by ear? I mean, they must have had at least a minimal foundation, like recognizing a major chord from a minor one; I understand the compositional side can be a "gift" because it includes both the artistic/irrational side but without excluding the theoretical/technical one. Even Lucio Battisti, word has it that he was completely self-taught on the piano as well. Even Joe Satriani, a great instrumental guitarist, started out completely self-taught; then, by his 4th album, he decided to study with jazz pianist Lennie Tristano. In fact, let me tell you an anecdote: my piano tuner (and what I am writing is not intended as criticism, of course) ... tunes the two pianos of Eros Ramazzotti, one grand and one upright which his daughter studies, and I, curious as a monkey, since I didn't know that Ramazzotti played the piano, asked him: "Ha! He plays the piano?" and he replied "He doesn't even know how to play a chord"! 😆

Open content (youtube)

What an interesting discussion!

However, before embarking on any discussion about light music (musica leggera), it would be good to understand how to define it. It seems like nonsense, but it is not at all obvious, exactly as the definition of "classical music" is not obvious (and I won't even tell you the obscenities I've had to hear regarding that).

Wikipedia tells us that light music is nothing more than mainstream pop music & co. Well, does this mean that all non-mainstream pop is not light music? What is it then? And what about folk? And IDM? And industrial?

I've become quite confused. One thing that is more or less certain is that people often speak of light music in opposition to the infamous "classical" music. So, it follows that all music that cannot be defined as art music (colta) is called light. Not that defining "art music" is any easier, but then we'd be here all night.

Let's take the usual division into periods for granted. At this point, we are left with contemporary music, and good luck figuring out what that really means either. The big problem is that nowadays people only hear talk of contemporary and light music, while classical music belongs to another era.

And yet today there is so much music of such depth, such listening difficulty, and such reflexivity that I find it completely impossible to call it "light." Nor can it be called contemporary, given that it often has nothing to do with art music. And it is not uncommon for music to use only part of the typical structures of light music, but by positioning itself at an unspeakably higher level.

We find numerous examples in electronic music, industrial, certain punk, black metal, ambient and its derivatives, and drone. I find it difficult to call light and mainstream a music that is the exact opposite of mainstream and which often turns out to be much more difficult to listen to/perceive/understand than much classical music.

What a confusion, eh? I've just thrown my doubt out there, what do you all think?

Hi Giuseppe...

interesting discussion, I agree... What you say about "non-light light music" is very interesting: it's true, some pieces have a certain depth in any case that makes them difficult to categorize as "light"... I believe there is no such thing as cultured music and uncultured music: every style, even if in different forms, always has something to communicate, inevitably: when music does not even communicate the most insignificant state of mind, it is not music: it is noise. Only noise does not communicate, in my opinion...

The anecdote told here on the Forum regarding the definition of "noise" comes to mind: "that which disturbs listening"...

In any case, this is my opinion: any type of music communicates, and sometimes "light" music truly has a profound value.

Interesting topic, therefore... other opinions!

Hi!

Light or not light... that is the problem. We must not be too caught up in terminology. "My son doesn't do comic theater, but serious theater" "But do you sing pop music?" "No, I do Opera" ..... "but do you study Music seriously or for pleasure?"

Everything has a base, a common foundation... perhaps the mode, the repertoire, the intention changes... but not the foundation.

Vocal technique is one and only. He who sings pop music uses less "opening", he who sings opera "opens" the space of the vocal cords completely and seeks the maximum resonances in the facial cavities he possesses. Both must know and use breath technique well.

He who practices comic theater engages his gestures, rhythm, and words as fully as one who performs dramatic theater.

He who plays a Bach prelude or a Jazz improvisation on the piano appeals to the same principles of piano technique.

Whether studying seriously or for pleasure.... one studies.. (if one studies!)

It seems that everything considered "sacred" and important is deemed more "cultured" and impenetrable than everything that, apparently, is lighter and easier to approach.

Such is the case with Pop Music, Comic Theater, and Song.

Let us instead think about HOW such modes should be practiced and how false it is to relegate everything considered "light" to Minor Arts

For example, Operetta has recently seen the disappearance of great artists who represented it worthily. It is extremely difficult, and whoever succeeds in performing it must be an Artist of "multifaceted genius"

We, the generation of the 60s, listened to and saw great Song Artists and did not give much consideration to their Art. Some, even today (Ranieri, Morandi, etc.) sing well because they know breath technique well.

I remember great artists like Simonetti and Luttazzi, dedicated at that time to Pop music, but very talented classical pianists.

In short, let's not get confused. There is no "artistic" hierarchy when talking about valid Art and in particular good Music. It's just a change of clothes.

However, it is appropriate not to confuse certain products that "relieve" our boredom and which have very little of Music, as well as someone who lives in Albano and has the pretension of singing Leoncavallo!!!! Pffft!!!!!!