Sanremo Festival: why "il volo" won

Once I saw a video produced with a composer if I remember correctly, but now the name escapes me (I probably have Alzheimer's, otherwise it 'cannot be explained' that I forget almost everything after a few seconds), ah yes, Roman Vlad.

Basically, he started by defining the music that we usually discuss and you discuss here on the forum, using a term that even today I agree with; he defined it as "exact music," because unlike pop music (to stay on theme), which is often re-presented with interpretations that partly go beyond presenting it exactly like the original: use of different instruments compared to those used for "the first one"; transposition, agogics; whereas when reading the score of a "classical" composition, although not always, there are indications regarding agogics, very precise indications, so the reading of it is not left to the free will of whoever performs it.

From this point of view, even if (as I specified) it is not always so, I share this way of defining "that" music which, let me clarify (so I can connect to your discussion), is not for me the only worthy one in the world; for me, "Uomini soli" by Pooh is a masterpiece (but also and above all for the message, for the meaning I perceive from the lyrics, beyond the music), yet I do not love listening to this group; Bach (the father) remains my cross (in a good way), it might even be due to the "trauma" experienced while listening to the first and penultimate "concert" of my life, passion according to Giovanni; Jean Michel Jarre "was" a great one, but my esteem drops "if I find out" that one or more sequences that characterize him were obtained thanks to the Matrisequencer (I am a bit picky about this); "A Salty Dog" by Procol Harum I consider a masterpiece in its "simplicity."

I have not yet argued properly and I don't know if I will try (at least) to do so, but I wouldn't want a twisted message to be passed compared to what this post was born for: in every genre logically there exists the beautiful, the ugly, the masterpiece, always speaking subjectively.

However, I cannot help but admit that I simply cannot conceive how (unless one totally identifies with another person's life experience, thus trying to put oneself in their shoes without prejudice, which is one of the ways to understand, exactly as it would happen vice versa towards us) a remix (you understand how I feel) of a pop music piece like, for example, Madonna's "Frozen," can be considered a masterpiece; I have listened to 4 remixes and they are (in my opinion) superfluous, they kill the agogics, the nuances, which are also (I have never denied it and it doesn't change if the genre is different, in fact, but it depends on the piece) necessary in this genre. I don't think that if the opposite had happened chronologically I would have changed my mind. Meaning hip hop for example, except for a few, very rare examples of which I am often not even aware, it might also be "tradition," but hearing the usual kick and snare rhythm makes me collapse to the ground; regarding the remix in its broadest sense, which (unfortunately) has its own widespread use and works as mass destruction, I believe that with this latter, almost all "treated" pieces are reduced to soul-less mono-thematic blocks, they take away from the original its essence, its strength, but not because I am a nostalgic for the original, but rather because of the reduction of the latter to a sequence of clichés that do not allow the pieces subjected to this practice to stand out as happens with originals instead.

I think the question has no answer other than: it has been this way since pop was born.

We industry insiders can perhaps be satisfied with just the music, since we perceive it from "the inside," but the general public, who cannot do so for the simple reason that not everyone can be a music expert, needs other stimuli.

In the '70s, it was enough to have the artist on stage giving a show while singing playback; then videos arrived, and today one cannot think of a song without a video.

Pop requires spectacle, which often takes over and the music takes a backseat... this is the spectacle being proposed today because it is what people want.

If "Il Volo" won, aside from the cute song, they won because they brought back to fashion something that disappeared with Pavarotti, Domingo, and Carreras and was continued, poorly, by Bocelli, who is still living off his past glory despite being a terrible singer, neither here nor there.

in regards to the songs and the composers, a separate post should be opened, but I can make a brief mention...

Why did the same singers sing decidedly better during the COVER night?

The first impression is that the songs are written without knowing who will eventually sing them. Of course, the audience doesn't know these things, and if a melody is too low for the voice singing it, no one says "look at what this person wrote, didn't they realize the singer can't go that low?"

Everyone says: "look at that singer who isn't quite getting there."

perhaps the songs in question were written by those who perhaps knew how to write them?

perhaps whoever wrote the songs had the foresight to write for the voice that would eventually sing it, thus being able to exploit its best characteristics?

perhaps the distinction between the two themes of the track was more consistent and didn't induce boredom like with the new ones, where the second is often an imitation of the first?

and what can be said about the terrible arrangements, not even worthy of a first year of composition, that we heard in the new songs?

I think Il Volo won because they are kids, because "lyrical" technique still inspires a sacred sense of awe, and because the song was written perfectly to win Sanremo.

But I still have many doubts regarding this. In the sense that Il Volo is not the only pop-opera reality in Italy, nor even at Sanremo. There have been quite a few crossover singers, before and after Bocelli, and excluding Bocelli, the others haven't had such great success: I remember Irene Fargo, Alessandro Safina, Filippa Giordano, Piero Mazzocchetti... even Jalisse were somewhat crossover, and the great Giuni Russo participated in Sanremo for the last time with a WONDERFUL piece that is an example of how operatic-pop can even be something beautiful and modern (thanks to Battiato's arrangement).

this is also why I say that one must not generalize and trivialize. Il Volo is a complex phenomenon that should be contextualized: they are reassuring, young, they were the stars of one of the most watched television programs in recent years (Ti lascio una canzone...). Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with Pavarotti and company, nor even with Bocelli, who despite being a mediocre opera singer remains a great professional in an absolute sense.

Open content (youtube)

I also wanted to make it clear that our amazement at Il Volo's victory is ridiculous. For YEARS there have been operatic pop, or pop-opera or crossover singers, and we are only realizing it now...

thallo wrote:

i also wanted to make it clear that our astonishment at Il Volo's victory is ridiculous. For YEARS there have been operatic pop singers, or pop-opera or crossover, and we are only realizing it now ...

...because certain people only go through San Remo

Frank wrote:

Personally speaking, I don't know how to do only that

... but since when is form alone the thing that conditions the quality of a piece?

Form, by itself, conditioning the quality of a piece?... Never.

You said it correctly: personally.

Well... know that I didn't doubt it

To lighten the mood a bit