some considerations on the world of music and the reasons that led to the victory of "Il volo" at the Sanremo Festival:
it really seems that music is no longer enough, and that something else is always needed to attract the viewers' attention.
Child prodigies who are fake little tenors, talent shows, music is an almost insignificant backdrop. What matters are the alleged "emotions", the possibility of identifying with them, the stories of "normal" people who take the spotlight and become famous.
Those who are not normal, and indeed spend years of their lives dedicating themselves to music with dedication and sacrifice, no longer interest the general public. Their stories are too boring.
If you like, I have written an article on my blog about this topic.
True, these are considerations that almost everyone who knows how to distinguish even a little bit makes now.
The problem, or part of it, as you say, is that these people sell in specific countries (for whatever reason?) and are passed off as representatives of Italy (as a whole), when in reality they only represent a part of it—the part that has had far too much voice, publicity, but even more opportunities.
A me i "talent" hanno sinceramente rotto, basta che uno suoni (anche maldestramente, suono male quindi me ne intendo) velocemente delle scale, ed ecco che tutti si alzano in piedi, assistiamo (purtroppo) alla solita standing ovation, quasi un tributo alla (mancata, ma tanto manca poco al salto di qualità: pubblicitaria e remunerativa) carriera.
You are truly a bore... pop is just like that! When will you write comments about the worldwide success of Madonna, who doesn't know how to sing?! You are all falling for something that has been going on for decades, DECADES. And nobody has ever died...
And, no, these aren't considerations that everyone who knows even a little bit makes. I know a little bit and I don't agree with these considerations.
This is what I think: you don't like the festival? Don't watch it and don't bother those who want to see it. Democracy is doing whatever you want, just as you would want to do. Every year it's the same story. Let's reflect on the matter!
This is what I think: you don't like the festival? Don't watch it and don't bother those who want to see it. Democracy is doing whatever you want, just as you would want to do.
Every year it's the same story. Let's reflect on this issue!
Right to criticism and opinion; what kind of democracy is it if only those with positive judgments can express themselves?
A side note aside, in any case, I fully agree with the fact that music is increasingly in decline. We have gone from the complexity of classical music and the beauty of Romanticism to the simplicity of contemporary minimalism. Yes, I call it minimalism; current "music" is composed of only 4 notes, there is no longer an in-depth search; how can you explain to me that great authors spent years writing great works while now they only take a few months (recording included) to put something together?
It's true, one can listen to whatever one wants, and it is also right since it is a subjective matter, but it is equally true that one cannot claim this is "great music" given that it is not, and this is an objective judgment.
HA
Historical author
Reply 7 by Historical author
Criticism (positive or negative) can, at most, be directed at the artists... those who enjoy it, if you will, cannot be under judgment. I have read all sorts of things... you know how the festival is, it has always been this way; if there are people who like it... what is the problem? I repeat, if not interested, one can alternatively go to the theater to listen to some serious opera.
HA
Historical author
Reply 8 by Historical author
Lowseling wrote:
but it is equally true that one cannot claim this to be "great music"
Pop music isn't great music? And who decides that? Listen to, for example, a bit of the Beatles... but Lady Gaga is fine too
Lowseling, you have no reason to believe what you have written. And indeed, as usual, none of those who think that pop music is "small" music ever ventures a serious argument. Everything ends in pronouncements, in phrases thrown out there.
But the thing that bothers me most, in this case, is the idea that EVERYONE who understands music agrees with you. It's not true! Question your own opinion, strive to know before judging.
You are truly a bore... pop is just like that! When will you write comments about the worldwide success of Madonna, who doesn't know how to sing?! You are all falling for something that has been going on for decades, DECADES. And nobody has ever died...
And, no, these aren't considerations that everyone who knows even a little bit makes. I know a little bit and I don't agree with these considerations.
I believe the festival is more of a social phenomenon than a musical one, and that is exactly what I wanted to comment on.
I was left amazed, and partly also amused, by the mix between reality show/child prodigies/fake "Italian-style" operatic singing
The product is particularly disgusting, from my point of view, but I consider it a television product, not a musical one.
Madonna and pop music have absolutely nothing to do with it, sorry Thallo, I didn't understand what you don't agree with
some considerations on the world of music and the reasons that led to the victory of "Il volo" at the Sanremo Festival:
it really seems that music is no longer enough, and that something else is always needed to attract the viewers' attention.
Child prodigies acting as little tenors, talent shows, music is an almost insignificant backdrop. What matters are the alleged "emotions", the possibility of identifying with them, the stories of "normal" people who step into the spotlight and become famous.
Those who are not normal, and indeed spend years of their lives dedicating themselves to music with dedication and sacrifice, no longer interest the general public. They have stories that are too boring.
If you like, I have written an article on my blog about this topic.
I am replying to you by quoting you, so that my aggressiveness will seem motivated.
"It really seems that music is no longer enough": this is pop. Music is just one element of the pop scene, of the image of a pop artist, of the appeal that pop has on the audience. And this is a statement, in the sense that I don't see how one could disagree.
"Alleged emotions, identifying with them" etc... practically ALL the epistolary literature of the great classical composers is made up of emotional narratives of musical evenings. They talk about fire, lightning, hearts breaking, sudden fantasies. Very rarely do they talk about tonicizations and false recapitulations; they almost always talk about emotionality. And social relations, like "so-and-so was present, so-and-so was present". This is music. The emotional deprivation of music is a very precise historical phenomenon that took hold in the 1900s, especially in the second half of the 1900s. To think that pop can be devoid of emotionality, even of alleged emotionality, means having frustrated expectations.
"Those who are not normal"... do you really think you are the only one who has dedicated your life to the study of music? Here you are, because it is a direct and somewhat resentful question, precisely like the sentence from which it derives. Do you think those who make pop do not dedicate their lives to music? I would like an answer and an argument. Obviously, you can also choose not to answer or argue, perhaps because you feel offended. In that case, it would be useful to think that pop musicians also have a dignity to be offended; it would be useful to think that when one wants to make sociological discussions about the music market, about talent shows, about boy bands manufactured at a table, there is the possibility of doing so SERIOUSLY, without catchphrases, without dividing the world of musicians into "normal" and "abnormal". The world of pop, classical, jazz, and rock is too complex to be treated in this way.
It always comes to mind that even in Naples, they make bad pizza.
Tout to say that in every genre one can find more or less worthy compositions... the comparison should be made in a homogeneous way. I am certain that comparing one of my pop arrangements (for example the medley "Danny Boy and Candlelight Waltz"), a folk melody revised in a Jazz key (I don't know, the classic Jingle Bells) and something more demanding (like the Kleine Fuge), would probably come out a bit confused from the subject since the ratio would be one (the composer) to many (the genres in which the composer expresses themselves).
I hope and expect that every single piece is compared within its genre; I always like to observe how an artist moves or can move in different fields. In my specific case, I want to see how many people can tell me that my Medley is banal (all to be proven, eh!) just because they presumably think I wouldn't know how to write something more demanding... then study my Kleine Fuge a bit and we'll talk about it again.
Tout to say that these are choices: just as I am certain that an artist can show their signature in any field... I am also certain that there are genres that can more easily accommodate imposters, not musicians. Therefore, I can intuit an underlying argument, but it is not enough because high-quality works are heard (and seen) immediately. And let's not forget that the pop world also lives on clips; a song without a video is probably only half a song.
I won't pronounce judgment on the San Remo festival, but in fact it is a form of entertainment and certainly not a pop music competition. Why this? Because there is a clientele that wants these products and there are those who must respond with products. A classic market law... supply/demand.
Faced with this mechanism, there are several possibilities: the artist can decide to write the most worthy song in the world to insert into that context made of those nice little things described in the posts preceding mine. I believe that today there are sufficient means to be known throughout the world; if someone thinks they have the talent to emerge, they can easily step forward. The good thing is that we do not have to depend on the San Remo Festival to be appreciated as singer-songwriters, singers, etc... we have a global base, specifically listeners who are considered less ignorant and capable of understanding, compared to those who watch RAI Italian television, if it is still called that.
The small composer is one who, among all the existing compositional techniques, is able to practice only the verse-chorus alternation.
If this then coincides with 80% of pop - roughly speaking - well... that's not my fault.
is this a serious enough argument?
Thallo... I also respond by quoting
«Music is just one element of the pop scene, of a pop artist's image, of the appeal that pop has on the audience».
Ok. If this is pop, then this seems like another serious argument to me.
That is - observing what happens on the other side - it may also be true that «ALL the epistolary literature of the great classical composers is made of emotional narratives of musical evenings. They speak of fire, of lightning, of broken hearts, of sudden fantasies. Very rarely do they speak of tonicizations and false recapitulations; they almost always speak of emotion»
Yes, but then, all those broken hearts went on to crystallize into something - a symphony? - that was a whole. Even standing alone with respect to the more or less petty biography of its author.
G
Gerardo
Member
Reply 14 by Gerardo
Posts
277
@Thallo
> Very rarely is there talk of tonicizations and false recapitulations; it is almost always about emotionality..
Apropos of this, after many years I have come to the conclusion that only a small slice of listeners (professionals) engage in these types of reasoning... those who, due to professional deformation, are in contact with subjects oriented toward composition. If you ask a pianist for an opinion on your piece, they will answer: I like it, I don't like it; they tell you about possible relationships to the emotional aspect and, at worst, they tell you "it reminds me of x" or "it reminds me of y".
in reality, yours is also a sentence. You have not demonstrated or argued "why" the small composer uses verse and chorus. As usual, it is very easy to refute this argument using early music or certain specific genres: the ballad singers of the '300s used only verse and chorus, the opera composers of the '700s rarely questioned the structure of the da capo aria, most Lieder are strophic. More generally, GENRE music has stereotyped forms, and pop songs are not the only genre music in history.
You, like leo and Piccinesco, are lashing out against a choice of side rather than a lack of quality. If you too do not start making distinctions, questioning WHICH songs are of quality and which are not, then it will remain an unserious discussion, a series of unargued judgments. Or, at best, a matter of taste.
When you then speak of symphonies as a whole, you make the usual mistake of many members of this forum: art music is NOT just symphony. It is not the form that makes music "artistic," it is the substance. And this means that even a song can be art music. Furthermore, being "cultured" does not mean being "artistic," in the sense that a definition of what is artistic and what is not is so complicated as to require an openness of terms. That is, it makes no sense to distinguish a priori between art music and non-art music. I repeat (and I repeat, because sometimes I have the impression of making the same argument on the forum) that pop music, folk music, rock music have influenced some of the greatest social, political, and artistic revolutions of the 1900s. Isn't "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" a crystallization into a whole?! David Bowie's "Heroes"? Kate Bush's "Wuthering Heights"? Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah"? They are all "works" in which music is not the only thing, the only element, but that does not make them less artistic works.
Dammit, I sing opera, a syrupy genre in which the music is often ugly and insipid...
> Very rarely is there talk of tonicizations and false recapitulations; it is almost always about emotionality..
Apropos of this, after many years I have come to the conclusion that only a small slice of listeners (professionals) engage in these types of reasoning... those who, due to professional habit, are in contact with subjects oriented toward composition. If you ask a pianist for an opinion on your piece, they will answer: I like it, I don't like it; they tell you about possible connections to the emotional aspect and, at worst, they tell you "it reminds me of x" or "it reminds me of y"
I wrote this not long ago: on this forum we have a distorted view of the music world, especially the classical music world.
Most "music professionals" are instrumentalists who very rarely understand the "structures" of music. And they always play the same things around, because that is what the market demands... I do nothing but sing Barbieri di Siviglia and I am convinced that the cultural value of an Area CD is much higher than that of a worn-out opera
the composer who does verse-rit.-verse... why does he only do that?... perhaps because he only knows how to do that.
the ballad singers, the opera composers of the '1700s... but of course: there is plenty of small music (more or less small) throughout the centuries.
The symphony was just an example. I also know that simply saying "now I am writing a symphony" is not enough to create something beautiful.
Far from me to speak of symphonies "as a whole" (I am well aware of many Mozart symphonies!)
"It is not form that makes music 'cultured,' it is substance. And this means that even a song can be cultured. Furthermore, being 'cultured' does not mean being 'artistic,' in the sense that a definition of what is artistic and what is not is so complicated as to require an openness of terms. That is, it makes no sense to distinguish a priori between cultured music and non-cultured music."
On this I agree 100%... perhaps I didn't make that clear.
P.S. the other post you opened is lovely... I won't miss it :-)
I am replying by quoting you, so that my aggressiveness will seem motivated.
"Those who are not normal"... do you really think you are the only one who has dedicated their life to the study of music? Here you are, because it is a direct and somewhat resentful question, precisely like the phrase from which it derives. Do you think those who make pop do not dedicate their lives to music? I would like an answer and an argument. Of course, you can also choose not to answer or argue, perhaps because you feel offended.
Hi thallo, I am not offended at all, of course not. In fact, I believe I explained myself poorly: I did not intend to divide musicians into deserving (those who have studied) and undeserving (those who have not).
I meant to emphasize that the "classic" stories of a singer—the one who starts from zero and then manages to emerge, to explain myself better I am thinking of the "boy from Via Gluck", the boy from the provinces who has the dream of being an artist and succeeds in fulfilling it—these stories are completely out of fashion. These are the "normal" stories I was alluding to.
Reality shows elevate to success people who did not expect at all to become pop stars; reality TV and Sanremo celebrate themselves, an omnipotent machine that takes someone at random and transforms them into a TV diva. To give the viewer the illusion that it could happen to anyone.
Between the two stories, and the emotions they evoke, I prefer that of the boy from Via Gluck, who was at least a brave dreamer, an adventurer, compared to that of my neighbor's son who goes to an audition for a reality show and wins a (brief) period of celebrity in the lottery.
thallo wrote:
...it would be useful to think that even pop musicians have a dignity that can be offended; it would be useful to think that when one wants to make sociological discussions about the music market, about talent shows, about boy bands manufactured at a table, there is the possibility of doing them SERIOUSLY, without catchphrases, without dividing the world of musicians into "normal" and "abnormal". The world of pop, classical, jazz, and rock is too complex to be treated in this way.
My point of view was intended precisely to defend "pop" artists, music that I appreciate very much and respect deeply, even that created by naive artists who have not necessarily studied for years.
I did not aim to make sociological discussions, but rather to write down some opinions on the fly, for the pleasure of conversation. Hoping that I was not the one who offended you, as I obviously had no intention of doing so.
