A while ago by chance (I wasn't looking for it at all, I swear, but this time I am) I stumbled
upon this boy, who (and it really seems like a twist of fate) has the same name as the one we know; reading the comments from those who listened, I couldn't help but think of the comments others wrote about the first Giovanni.
While it remains true that if someone makes their own music and doesn't pose as something incomprehensible or an innovator, it is perfectly fine and certainly won't be attacked in any way—even worse for those who support him knowing they are exaggerating (subjectively and objectively)—do you think he is a sort of remake (moreover, quite the opposite regarding outward appearance) of the one we know, or is it simply a genuine way of doing things?
Specifying that the writer is a total amateur at playing the piano, so from this point of view I won't comment, and I am sorry I don't know how to play it (that part, yes); listening to other pieces by this author, who by necessity has a pop imprinting, am I wrong?
This is not sterile criticism; I ask this because I read comments and there are people who almost "shout" miracle, art—specifying once again (in fact not here, I wrote it in another "place") that for me using the term art is a bit dangerous, both by those who make music and by those who listen to it; it is certainly more "reprehensible" if stated by the one making it, because while the latter probably doesn't know what they are talking about, the former does, at least on paper, though I haven't read any such statements from the person playing in this case, even if (who knows) a person inside might think it and not say it openly.
Anyway, one only needs to read the comments to get an idea of the praises that are (for me) exaggerated, very, too often, in cases like this, even though I am not criticizing the author, but those who, by commenting, praise works of this type far too much.
