This is the first time I have come across him. Had a listen and some of the pieces sounded like someone mucking about on the piano to me.

wireman wrote:This is the first time I have come across him. Had a listen and some of the pieces sounded like someone mucking about on the piano to me.

Thanks for you response Wireman, my sentiments exactly.

Again i need to empathise this post is not a personal diatribe against Einaudi, but rather to express an opinion on what is commonly agreed as a ridiculously overrated musical success, based on a minimalist who composes simple branded ambient back ground music.

It's also wildly agreed that Einaudi's music is apathetic, insipid flavorless dull repetitive and disingenuous.

Therefor it can only be perceived by the more serious musical artist, that Ludovico Einaudi is no more then a new age ambient minimalist, who has superseded to a status which far surpasses his mediocre talent.

All that said, i wish the man well..
but we shouldn't cultivate mediocrity.

pianoworldstage wrote:Therefor it can only be perceived by the more serious musical artist, that Ludovico Einaudi is no more then a new age ambient minimalist, who has superseded to a status which far surpasses his mediocre talent.

All that said, i wish the man well..
but we shouldn't cultivate mediocrity.

Again, you seem to talk with a perspective that there is an objective scale to compare against (and for some strange reason, that scale seem to match with your personal preference and judgment.. what a surprise!)

Fact is, art is all the same. Including what one can judge as being pretense of art. Tastes are different.

Without a foundation of objectivity , there can't be mediocrity, because there's no scale to have a middle of. And if you pick some objective criteria, you'll often find that the resulting scale doesn't match your own likings.

I know it's painful. But that's how it is. Luckily we have the skip button.

That said, this is a very interesting philosophical issue, and not only for music. We feel so strongly that there is objectivity in our judgement (that, says, Bach is better than Einaudi).. and even more: we feel that our judgement has superior value to someone else's, typically as the result of experience, continuous exposure to the subject, studying.. (all quantifiable factors, incidentally)...

It seems very odd that there is no objective notion of quality in art, but only subjective taste.

But: could it be that there is? An objective notion of quality for fields where there is not an immediately obvious scale? Is there a recipe/algorithm that we can use to determine the inherent quality of a piece of art, resulting in a nice number that can be put on a scale (or at least an interval)?

One has to be careful of what one wishes for... but this is a problem that, in a form or another, has been studied quite a bit, both from a scientific perspective and a philosophical one. For the latter, I cannot but recommend "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", which has a really nice train of thoughts on the subject.

As of science, there have been simular conundrums in mathematics, for example a similar situation with the very definition of number until a couple centuries ago; and of course that problem is central to cognitive science and hard AI, which is my old academic field.

Not cracked yet, I'm afraid.

Perhaps Einaudi is mediocre, and there's an intellectually honest, non self-entitled reason for saying it and showing why. Not today, however. Even as my own judgement agrees with yours.

pianoworldstage wrote:Again i need to empathise this post is not a personal diatribe against Einaudi...

You could have fooled me! And the platitudes at the start and end don't negate the vitriol in between.

Let me remind you of the forum Rules which you are skirting in a risky manner:

Not to post any material which is knowingly false, inaccurate, harmful, threatening, harassing, invasive of a person's privacy, or tending unreasonably to discredit or malign.

Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law.

Music isn't one thing, it's many different things. Yes, it is an art. But it is also entertainment, product, something to dance to, a vehicle for comedy, drama, politics, therapy, medicine, a companion for the lonely and isolated, a great excuse to get together with friend and family, and countless other things.

It doesn't have to be great art to be great music, actually it doesn't need to be art at all. And we should be careful to understand music for what it is rather than measuring it against the yardstick of art as an absolute gold standard.

Andy :beamup:

"The tale is as old as the Eden Tree - and new as the new-cut tooth -
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it Art ?"

We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yolk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, for the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it Art ?"

When the flicker of London sun falls faint on the Club-room's green and gold,
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mould -
They scratch with their pens in the mould of their graves, and the ink and the anguish start,
For the Devil mutters behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art ?""

From The Conundrum of the Workshops.

Art is, of course, whatever anyone declares it is. :-D

Hugh Robjohns wrote:Let me remind you of the forum Rules which you are skirting in a risky manner:

Not to post any material which is knowingly false, inaccurate, harmful, threatening, harassing, invasive of a person's privacy, or tending unreasonably to discredit or malign.

Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law.

As of which the said post contains neither of the above.

Conscientious objections are welcome,
however your caveat sounds ominous,

Therefor allow me to reiterate,

This critique has been to express the opinion and merits of Ludvico Einaudis artistic works and nothing more, in contrast i wish the man well.

pianoworldstage wrote:As of which the said post contains neither of the above.

I disagree. Your posts on this specific musician are clearly hateful and are intended to discredit and malign. Despite your disingenuous claims that you 'wish the man well', it's blatantly obvious that you don't: you despise him and his musical outpourings. Your posts come across as those of a bitter and malicious man, trying to hide his resentment and loathing behind supposed quotations of others.

All you had to say was, 'Can anyone explain why this pianist's music has gathered such a strong public following when I find it disappointing and unfulfilling?' Instead you went to considerable lengths to thoroughly denigrate the man, his talent, his music, and those who enjoy it -- and not just once, but twice! Some highlights included:

• his music is bland repetitive inarticulate, lacks any meaningful substance virtuosity and harmonic conservatism.
• unmemorable and humourless soulless unpalatably synthetic and cheap, and is clearly an overrated accomplished musician
• bland unchallenging unsophisticated or simply bad
• how did this man reach such musical success? with such an insipid mediocre talent
  ridiculously overrated musical success
• A cheap branded composer, who attracts a cheap branded audience.
• a ridiculously overrated musical success, based on a minimalist who composes simple branded ambient back ground music.
• Einaudi's music is apathetic, insipid flavorless dull repetitive and disingenuous
• Ludovico Einaudi is no more then a new age ambient minimalist, who has superseded to a status which far surpasses his mediocre talent.

I don't object to anyone expressing their personal opinion -- it's what the forum is for -- unless that opinion is clearly 'hateful' and unreasonably discrediting someone without a right of reply. And especially when the indicter excuses their bile by disengenuously claiming to 'wish the man well'.

There are many people of limited ability who have risen, inexplicably, to fame, glory and public adoration. It is frustrating to the many highly skilled and talented musicians and artists who don't 'make it'... but such is life. Denigrating in public those you feel unworthy might make you feel better, but it doesn't sit within the positive, supportive and respectful ethos Sound On Sound tries to maintain in these forums ...so you won't be doing it around here. Okay?

Hugh Robjohns wrote:... Denigrating in public those you feel unworthy might make you feel better, but it doesn't sit within the positive, supportive and respectful ethos Sound On Sound tries to maintain in these forums ...so you won't be doing it around here. Okay?

Three cheers for you, Hugh. Well said.

Hugh Robjohns wrote:There are many people of limited ability who have risen, inexplicably, to fame, glory and public adoration. It is frustrating to the many highly skilled and talented musicians and artists who don't 'make it'... but such is life.

I concur with what you say Hugh, and don't refute that for one moment, and your absolutely right "frustrating" is the correct word to use.. but as you say, such is life..

Allow me to extend my courtesy to the forum for any breach of obstinancey upon whom may of perceived this post as being callous or derogatory. It wasn't my intention to create a sense of detraction amongst othere patriot's of the SOS forum.

Best wishes
PWS.

The positive, supportive and respectful ethos of this forum is why I come here.

pianoworldstage wrote:Allow me to extend my courtesy to the forum for any breach of obstinancey upon whom may of perceived this post as being callous or derogatory. It wasn't my intention to create a sense of detraction amongst othere patriot's of the SOS forum.

I do not accept your “courtesy”. I am blocking you and your steaming piles of pustulant prose forthwith.

blinddrew wrote:"The tale is as old as the Eden Tree - and new as the new-cut tooth -
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it Art ?"

We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yolk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, for the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it Art ?"

When the flicker of London sun falls faint on the Club-room's green and gold,
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mould -
They scratch with their pens in the mould of their graves, and the ink and the anguish start,
For the Devil mutters behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art ?""

From The Conundrum of the Workshops.

Though without those pustulant piles of fertilizer I wouldn’t have seen this excellent poem :D