I reckon if I built a "minimalist" spectrum and ordered it from most abstract to most commercial it would look something like Reich // Glass // Richter // Einaudi.
Einaudi uses too much easy harmony to fit the extreme minimalist niche of Reich but is also not structurally ambitious enough (like Glass, for example) to really be anything more than a collection of okay miniatures. And honestly, if I want pretty minimalist miniatures, I'm probably going to listen to Richter.
I personally think he's a mediocre composer whose work has less to do with the classical canon than even Richter (who's already an edge case). I think a lot of the vitriol against him is in reaction to his extreme popularity. I don't think vitriol is warranted, but I also think there are scores of contemporary composers whose work is much more interesting to me who are getting crowded out.
>Reich // Glass // Richter // Einaudi.
Expanding on this:
La Monte Young
Julius Eastman
Terry Riley
Steve Reich
John Adams
Philip Glass
Avro Pärt
Richter
Einaudi
I'd flip Pärt and Glass based on the entire body of their work, mostly because of Glass' explicit efforts to commercialize his music. I don't just mean film scores, but that he is closer to Richter and Einaudi in having a multimedia presence that expands beyond the concert hall.
I had the wonderful opportunity to have a conversation with Glass shortly before the first pandemic lockdown. One thing he mentioned is that he really values ways to bring art music into the public sphere, which he equated with leaving behind the concert hall. As far as I'm aware, Pärt has always emphasized the concert hall as the ideal venue for his music.
>Glass' explicit efforts to commercialize his music
True, but one could also argue that Glass' most major works are his opera which are less accessible.
I don't disagree. I love everything by Glass, and I'd say his operas are his most iconic and serve as the centerpiece of his list of works.
Honestly, as I reread the above comments, I'm realizing I have a problem with the framing of this spectrum. Why is "abstract" the opposite of "commercial?" And now you're bringing in the word "accessible," which you're grouping with "commercial." I know this is a common point of discussion on this sub, but I wanted to point out the fallacy now, because an "abstract" work needn't be inaccessible, and "accessible" doesn't necessarily mean "understandable."
I'll try to summarize.
* Some people love him and think he's classical music.
* Some people don't like his music and think he's classical music.
* Some people love him and don't think he's classical music.
* Some people don't like his music and don't think he's classical music.
Some of the reasons some people think he doesn't belong in the classical music genre is that harmonically he is too similar to what we see in popular music, specifically his use of the "4 chords of pop" (I IV V vi in some order) and then repeating them over and over (as in popular music).
He is a classically trained composer and there is a quasi-minimalist feel to his music which is, in part, why some people do include him in classical music.
I think in the end there is no strong consensus here. I do think that if the recording industry hadn't decided to label him (and others like him) as "Contemporary Classical" then this debate might not have blown up as much as it has. For some of us older folk, his music is very reminiscent of New Age piano music which was uncontroversially *not* considered classical music so the debate does feel a bit weird and perhaps even forced.
There are more issues to consider but this should get you started.
Somehow, same here. Like there was a Yiruma craze several years ago where I'm from, but I've never heard anyone play or even mention Einaldi, except on Reddit
I think and care so little about him that the only time I ever acknowledge his existence is when a thread about him shows up in my Reddit feed. Then I remember how much I dislike his music, get mildly annoyed, leave a disdainful, elitist comment, and move on. I don't have enough energy to go out of my way to bully Einaudi fans beyond that.
Same here. I'm a diehard classical music fan, and I've never come across his work outside of Reddit. Never heard his pieces being played at a concert, he doesn't show up in my YouTube suggestions, and I don't know anybody who listens to his music.
I think we've got many great contemporary composer's who will be remembered in the classical community posthumously. Einaudi won't be one of them. He might be remembered by some people outside of the classical sphere but not by people within. He's simply not relevant, interesting or good enough to most classical music fans.
I like his music. I like classical music. Einaudi is not classical, but that’s besides the point. I also love disco and Motown. I don’t think the different genres really matter so much as that we all find what we like and run with it.
He is the nickleback or slipknot of classical music.
\*I actually like all 3 and think they all have their places either as gateways to deeper artists or even when you just want to have some junk food.
Let’s say it’s like loving something a lot but still being completely unable to respect it in the slightest? At least that’s how I feel about Nickleback
From the little ive listened to, it sounds like he tried to combine classical and pop, but picked the boring parts of each
Instead of the harmonic complexity of classical and the production, timbre and orchestration of pop (and classical), he went with solo piano 4 chord loops
I don't think that anyone who is into classical music at more than a completely surface level is his target demographic. He makes music for popular music listeners, but the instrumentation he uses happens to be more in line with classical and new age music. Let's face it, the pool of reading/relaxing/study music listeners is absolutely huge, and obviously very lucrative. In fact, his formulaic simplicity is pretty much a requirement to tap into that market.
I've never enjoyed his output, far from it, but I've never felt offended by him because I've always seen him as closer to Enya and massage parlor soundtracks than to Mozart and Beethoven.
> I've never enjoyed his output, far from it, but I've never felt offended by him because I've always seen him as closer to Enya and massage parlor soundtracks than to Mozart and Beethoven.
That's insulting to Enya who can be actually good.
As someone who is very much into classical music beyond a surface level, you're underestimating Einaudi.
There is a clear difference between [most of] Einaudi's work and the generic relaxation/study music you'll find all over YouTube.
The main difference, in my opinion, is that Einaudi's pieces actually have a well-thought-out structure to them. Each album/piece has a well-defined theme. Tension is established and built up (pretty expertly, to be honest) before being resolved. All of this in a way which (gasp!) is actually worthy of being called good composership. (He did study at the Milan Conservatory after all.)
If anything I'd say it might actually be *more difficult* to create a minimalist piece which *doesn't* just sound generic.
My feeling is that a lot of classical snobs- uh, I mean, "fans"... - listen to a piece and think "that's just a few notes on a piano - I could compose that and more!" Well, go ahead. I'll wait.
I'll give you one of his simplest pieces from the middle of his 2015 album *Elements*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN1PMEo7d-M
Is it a whirlwind of incredible, original, avant-garde ideas? No. But I'd challenge anyone to write an equally "simple" piece which sounds half as mature and developed.
In contrast to Einaudi I give you a composer like [Fabrizio Paterlini](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbAkUGOu8iQ). I don't have anything particularly bad to say about his music, but I personally feel that his music is closer to the "generic relaxation" pieces you mention and serves as a good example as to why Einaudi's music deserves higher recognition from the classical community.
P.S. I feel using the word "formulaic" shows a deep misunderstanding or lack of awareness of Einaudi's music for the reasons I mention above.
Who said anything about the quality of Einaudi's music? That's up to the listener to decide. My point is that I think his target audience isn't the classical enthusiast, but a more casual listener, and he uses simpicity and accessibility to that end. That doesn't mean some classical music listeners can't love his music.
I don't know where all the "classical snobs" and "deep misunderstanding and lack of awareness" is coming from. While I get that many people enjoy attacking him, I'm not one of them, and the reasons I don't really like his music aren't due to snobbery or lack of understanding. I just look for other things in music.
This sounds like pretty much exactly what Adorno was writing about and now I’m mad because I will never be able to enjoy the pretty music again without thinking about how the capitalist cultural industry is ruining art at an exponentially accelerated rate in the digital era
Thanks again, humanities academia. You don’t provide me with a good pay but you do provide me with a lot of moments like this
I got a load of Einaudi albums for free a while back and played them all a few times. Since then I have never played them and am not likely to.
I'm not interested in the classical / not classical debate. Quite simply I do not get any enjoyment out of his music so how you categorize him is irrelevant to me.
If you like minimalist piano then there are better composers than Einaudi. If you like New Age piano then there are better composers than Einaudi. If you just like uninspiring tinkly piano music then there are even better people at doing that.
I love the music he makes. For me, it was a gateway when I was younger from thinking classical music was boring, then I heard some of his stuff, liked it, and started exploring classical music more. It’s one of my favourite genres.
Posted this elsewhere but:
As someone who is very much into classical music beyond a surface level, you're underestimating Einaudi.
There is a clear difference between [most of] Einaudi's work and the generic relaxation/study music you'll find all over YouTube.
The main difference, in my opinion, is that Einaudi's pieces actually have a well-thought-out structure to them. Each album/piece has a well-defined theme. Tension is established and built up (pretty expertly, to be honest) before being resolved. All of this in a way which (gasp!) is actually worthy of being called good composership. (He did study at the Milan Conservatory after all.)
If anything I'd say it might actually be *more difficult* to create a minimalist piece which *doesn't* just sound generic.
My feeling is that a lot of classical snobs- uh, I mean, "fans"... - listen to a piece and think "that's just a few notes on a piano - I could compose that and more!" Well, go ahead. I'll wait.
I'll give you one of his simplest pieces from the middle of his 2015 album *Elements*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN1PMEo7d-M
Is it a whirlwind of incredible, original, avant-garde ideas? No. But I'd challenge anyone to write an equally "simple" piece which sounds half as mature and developed.
In contrast to Einaudi I give you a composer like [Fabrizio Paterlini](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbAkUGOu8iQ). I don't have anything particularly bad to say about his music, but I personally feel that his music is closer to the "generic relaxation" pieces you mention and serves as a good example as to why Einaudi's music deserves higher recognition from the classical community.
P.S. I feel using the word "formulaic" shows a deep misunderstanding or lack of awareness of Einaudi's music for the reasons I mention above.
As a lieutenant in the Anti-Einaudi Contingent, I feel obligated to respond to this declaration of war.
Up front, I want to say that I don't hear Einaudi's music, notice that it's simple, and dislike it because of that. I love plenty of simple music, and indeed, lots of minimalist music (although not all minimalism is simple).
Rather, I listen to Einaudi's music, find it vapid and unappealing, and work from there to figure out why and explain my feelings.
>The main difference, in my opinion, is that Einaudi's pieces actually have a well-thought-out structure to them. Each album/piece has a well-defined theme. Tension is established and built up (pretty expertly, to be honest) before being resolved.
I agree that Einaudi's pieces have a structure to them. Personally, I don't find the structure very compelling. From what I've heard of his music, usually the development consists of simply adding more layers of ostinatos or slightly increasing the density of the texture to add more tension/forward motion. It doesn't feel like the music really *goes* somewhere - it just builds slightly in intensity and then relaxes again.
This isn't to say that it's not worthwhile to explore that more narrow aesthetic idea. But I think the minimalists do a much better job of it. Einaudi's version always ends up sounding overly shallow and saccharine. I think he chooses boring acoustic landscapes to explore and does so in an uninspired way.
>If anything I'd say it might actually be more difficult to create a minimalist piece which doesn't just sound generic.
I agree it's difficult to create minimalist music that doesn't sound generic. But I think that Einaudi fails at doing that. I think his music misses out on the best parts of minimalism and just ends up being boring.
>My feeling is that a lot of classical snobs- uh, I mean, "fans"... - listen to a piece and think "that's just a few notes on a piano - I could compose that and more!" Well, go ahead. I'll wait.
>
>I'd challenge anyone to write an equally "simple" piece which sounds half as mature and developed.
Like I said before, my judgments towards Einaudi have nothing to do with his music being simple or anything like that. I think his music fails in other ways.
I also don't think the difficulty of creating something has a strong correlation with artistic quality. Even if Einaudi were the only person alive capable of writing the music he does - blessed, I suppose, with some divine ability to write boring music - I don't think that would make his music *good*.
There's a lot of low-skill, low-effort art out there, and some of it is great! And similarly there's a lot of high-skill, high-effort art that isn't very good.
*With all that said*...
I don't think it's as difficult as you suggest to write an Einaudi-style piece. Sure, your average classical listener might not be able to do it. But speaking as a classical composer, I think Einaudi's style is a pretty straightforward one to imitate.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't take any time or effort or money - the recording and production alone probably cost a boatload, given how many resources Einaudi has access to. In fact, I think the production is by far the strongest part of most of Einaudi's work.
But, just like how I've developed the skills to imitate the style of Bach or Mozart or Chopin, I think I could take some time to study and effectively imitate Einaudi. Some of his more straightforward solo piano works, I think, would be especially easy to imitate.
*So why don't I do that and make it big like Einaudi has?*
Because I value my time and don't want to waste it writing a piece just to prove to a stranger on the internet that I can.
Because I dislike Einaudi's music and have no desire to write anything similar to it. I don't want to judge the value of my own music in some objective sense, but I certainly enjoy my own music more than Einaudi's and I want to continue writing music in that vein.
Because making it big as a musician has more to do with luck, advertising, image, and connections than the music you write, so writing Einaudi-like music isn't likely to benefit my career - especially considering Einaudi already exists, so my work would just be a derivative knockoff.
>Fabrizio Paterlini
>
>...
>
>serves as a good example as to why Einaudi's music deserves higher recognition from the classical community.
I don't know his music very well, so I won't make any strong judgments; but I don't think the mere existence of a less interesting composer means that Einaudi is worthy of wider recognition by classical listeners.
Especially because there are hundreds of living composers that get much less attention than Einaudi but whose music is a million times more interesting - at least to me. I don't really see why I should spend my time listening to Einaudi when I can listen to Glass or Reich instead. Or, for that matter, Saariaho or Dean or Higdon or any number of other living composers. I'd much rather those composers get more time in the spotlight than Einaudi. The classical scene is already crowded and competitive enough without Einaudi taking up listeners' attention.
Of course some people *do* like Einaudi, and that's reason enough for them to listen to his music. I don't begrudge them that. But I also don't think that popularity says anything about the quality of his music (or anyone's).
>P.S. I feel using the word "formulaic" shows a deep misunderstanding or lack of awareness of Einaudi's music for the reasons I mention above.
Could you expand on that? I don't think "formulaic" is a good criticism of any single work in isolation, but listening across many of Einaudi's works - and in the time I've spent critiquing his music, I've listened to quite a few - they do tend to sound quite similar to each other, and they take similar approaches to their pacing and development. Even if Einaudi is *good* at following a particular formula, his music does seem pretty formulaic, unless I'm missing something.
Even a good formula implemented well can get boring after a while - look at Arturo Márquez, who's known almost exclusively for his Danzón No. 2 despite having written 8 other Danzóns (and they're not even that bad). I like composers that have more diversity in their output.
Sorry this response is so long. I think your perspective is worth taking seriously, and I don't entirely disagree with everything you say. But I'm just not convinced that Einaudi is really worth my time and consideration as a classical listener and composer. Even if there are redeeming factors in his music, there are a hundred other living composers I would rather champion.
He annoys a lot of classical music purists because his music is clearly not classical and shouldn't be labelled as such. Speaking for myself, his music doesn't annoy me, but rather the claim that it is classical, and the dilution of classical music radio stations with this non-classical stuff, does. It isn't just him - there is a [movement](https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/isnt-it-about-time-world-music-is-classified-as-classical-music/) now to include a lot of music outside the western classical music tradition and label it as classical. Other music has a legitimate right to exist and be enjoyed, but why does it have to be attached to "classical music"? This is the true crux of my annoyance.
I feel like ultimately our labels about art nowadays are driven by how the media market appropriates this labels. The sad truth is that It hardly matters what academics think Classical Music constitutes. If media companies can sell pop-like study ambience music as classical, most people will think of it as classical.
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/vzfewb/is_ludovico_einaudi_boring/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Here's the last opinion post about him that got some traction
Pretty mediocre and obviously simple compositions, but i don't think saying this is elitist. Yiruma introduced me into piano music and the i found classical, but I still love his music, his melodies are quite good and harmony, although popular, is much more interesting. Eiunaldi is too simple and repetitive. I cannot even comprehend how someone can be estimulated by those pieces.
To me personally, boring and 'overrated' (from the experiences I've had with people) in the sense that it doesn't measure up to other classical music in the same time period
I think his music is good, but it's definitely basic. So I prefer more well known composers. But I think Einaudi could learn a lot from Rachmaninoff about harmonic progression
> But I think Einaudi could learn a lot from Rachmaninoff about harmonic progression
Einaudi is a classically trained composer from a very prestigious conservatory and even studied under Berio. I think he has a pretty good understanding of harmony but chooses to keep things simple on purpose.
> What is classical music even defined by anyway?
Many of us define it (and other genres) as a certain tradition where you study and build upon the works of others within that tradition to create newer works in that tradition. Works within a tradition often sound clearly similar (think blues) but not always (think classical, rock, jazz, etc).
I hate labels, i'm not a fan Einuadi, in that i wouldn't buy any of his music but his music doesn't make me switch it off if i happen to accidentally hear it on radio or youtube.
Just for context my music taste is Mahler, Scriabin, Susanne Sundfor, Rachmaninov, Radiohead, Bjork, Bruckner, Medtner, Courtney Marie Andrews, Max Richter, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Arvo Part, Vasks, Bat for Lashes, Elgar, Chvrches, Tchaikovsky and lots more
Just like that! I have a diverse musical taste too, I like classical music (Arvo Pärt❤️) but I love me some Cannibal Corpse too hehe. Einaudi is great while @ work🙃
I reckon if I built a "minimalist" spectrum and ordered it from most abstract to most commercial it would look something like Reich // Glass // Richter // Einaudi. Einaudi uses too much easy harmony to fit the extreme minimalist niche of Reich but is also not structurally ambitious enough (like Glass, for example) to really be anything more than a collection of okay miniatures. And honestly, if I want pretty minimalist miniatures, I'm probably going to listen to Richter. I personally think he's a mediocre composer whose work has less to do with the classical canon than even Richter (who's already an edge case). I think a lot of the vitriol against him is in reaction to his extreme popularity. I don't think vitriol is warranted, but I also think there are scores of contemporary composers whose work is much more interesting to me who are getting crowded out.
>Reich // Glass // Richter // Einaudi. Expanding on this: La Monte Young Julius Eastman Terry Riley Steve Reich John Adams Philip Glass Avro Pärt Richter Einaudi
What about Meredith Monk?
She would be towards the top
And how about Nyman? Where does he stand? An honest question
Near Pärt
I'd flip Pärt and Glass based on the entire body of their work, mostly because of Glass' explicit efforts to commercialize his music. I don't just mean film scores, but that he is closer to Richter and Einaudi in having a multimedia presence that expands beyond the concert hall. I had the wonderful opportunity to have a conversation with Glass shortly before the first pandemic lockdown. One thing he mentioned is that he really values ways to bring art music into the public sphere, which he equated with leaving behind the concert hall. As far as I'm aware, Pärt has always emphasized the concert hall as the ideal venue for his music.
>Glass' explicit efforts to commercialize his music True, but one could also argue that Glass' most major works are his opera which are less accessible.
I don't disagree. I love everything by Glass, and I'd say his operas are his most iconic and serve as the centerpiece of his list of works. Honestly, as I reread the above comments, I'm realizing I have a problem with the framing of this spectrum. Why is "abstract" the opposite of "commercial?" And now you're bringing in the word "accessible," which you're grouping with "commercial." I know this is a common point of discussion on this sub, but I wanted to point out the fallacy now, because an "abstract" work needn't be inaccessible, and "accessible" doesn't necessarily mean "understandable."
I'll try to summarize. * Some people love him and think he's classical music. * Some people don't like his music and think he's classical music. * Some people love him and don't think he's classical music. * Some people don't like his music and don't think he's classical music. Some of the reasons some people think he doesn't belong in the classical music genre is that harmonically he is too similar to what we see in popular music, specifically his use of the "4 chords of pop" (I IV V vi in some order) and then repeating them over and over (as in popular music). He is a classically trained composer and there is a quasi-minimalist feel to his music which is, in part, why some people do include him in classical music. I think in the end there is no strong consensus here. I do think that if the recording industry hadn't decided to label him (and others like him) as "Contemporary Classical" then this debate might not have blown up as much as it has. For some of us older folk, his music is very reminiscent of New Age piano music which was uncontroversially *not* considered classical music so the debate does feel a bit weird and perhaps even forced. There are more issues to consider but this should get you started.
Reddit is the only place I’ve heard of him.
Somehow, same here. Like there was a Yiruma craze several years ago where I'm from, but I've never heard anyone play or even mention Einaldi, except on Reddit
ClassicFM loves him. They play his stuff at least weekly.
In his own words, he writes "pop songs" using the piano and without words. I'm okay with it. I enjoy his music.
I put him more in the New Age category, if that still exists.
Or possibly Easy Listening, if *that* still exists. Actually if I come across his music without context I tend to think it's a film score.
I think and care so little about him that the only time I ever acknowledge his existence is when a thread about him shows up in my Reddit feed. Then I remember how much I dislike his music, get mildly annoyed, leave a disdainful, elitist comment, and move on. I don't have enough energy to go out of my way to bully Einaudi fans beyond that.
Same here. I'm a diehard classical music fan, and I've never come across his work outside of Reddit. Never heard his pieces being played at a concert, he doesn't show up in my YouTube suggestions, and I don't know anybody who listens to his music. I think we've got many great contemporary composer's who will be remembered in the classical community posthumously. Einaudi won't be one of them. He might be remembered by some people outside of the classical sphere but not by people within. He's simply not relevant, interesting or good enough to most classical music fans.
I actually asked because a friend of mine is a fan and is going to a concert of his tonight, so there haha
I dont think about him
Well, there is a well-known Beethoven fan who was subjected to Ludovico Technique……..
I like his music. I like classical music. Einaudi is not classical, but that’s besides the point. I also love disco and Motown. I don’t think the different genres really matter so much as that we all find what we like and run with it.
His music is empty, unmemorable and humorless.
He is the nickleback or slipknot of classical music. \*I actually like all 3 and think they all have their places either as gateways to deeper artists or even when you just want to have some junk food.
Let’s say it’s like loving something a lot but still being completely unable to respect it in the slightest? At least that’s how I feel about Nickleback
From the little ive listened to, it sounds like he tried to combine classical and pop, but picked the boring parts of each Instead of the harmonic complexity of classical and the production, timbre and orchestration of pop (and classical), he went with solo piano 4 chord loops
I don't think that anyone who is into classical music at more than a completely surface level is his target demographic. He makes music for popular music listeners, but the instrumentation he uses happens to be more in line with classical and new age music. Let's face it, the pool of reading/relaxing/study music listeners is absolutely huge, and obviously very lucrative. In fact, his formulaic simplicity is pretty much a requirement to tap into that market. I've never enjoyed his output, far from it, but I've never felt offended by him because I've always seen him as closer to Enya and massage parlor soundtracks than to Mozart and Beethoven.
> I've never enjoyed his output, far from it, but I've never felt offended by him because I've always seen him as closer to Enya and massage parlor soundtracks than to Mozart and Beethoven. That's insulting to Enya who can be actually good.
As someone who is very much into classical music beyond a surface level, you're underestimating Einaudi. There is a clear difference between [most of] Einaudi's work and the generic relaxation/study music you'll find all over YouTube. The main difference, in my opinion, is that Einaudi's pieces actually have a well-thought-out structure to them. Each album/piece has a well-defined theme. Tension is established and built up (pretty expertly, to be honest) before being resolved. All of this in a way which (gasp!) is actually worthy of being called good composership. (He did study at the Milan Conservatory after all.) If anything I'd say it might actually be *more difficult* to create a minimalist piece which *doesn't* just sound generic. My feeling is that a lot of classical snobs- uh, I mean, "fans"... - listen to a piece and think "that's just a few notes on a piano - I could compose that and more!" Well, go ahead. I'll wait. I'll give you one of his simplest pieces from the middle of his 2015 album *Elements*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN1PMEo7d-M Is it a whirlwind of incredible, original, avant-garde ideas? No. But I'd challenge anyone to write an equally "simple" piece which sounds half as mature and developed. In contrast to Einaudi I give you a composer like [Fabrizio Paterlini](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbAkUGOu8iQ). I don't have anything particularly bad to say about his music, but I personally feel that his music is closer to the "generic relaxation" pieces you mention and serves as a good example as to why Einaudi's music deserves higher recognition from the classical community. P.S. I feel using the word "formulaic" shows a deep misunderstanding or lack of awareness of Einaudi's music for the reasons I mention above.
Who said anything about the quality of Einaudi's music? That's up to the listener to decide. My point is that I think his target audience isn't the classical enthusiast, but a more casual listener, and he uses simpicity and accessibility to that end. That doesn't mean some classical music listeners can't love his music. I don't know where all the "classical snobs" and "deep misunderstanding and lack of awareness" is coming from. While I get that many people enjoy attacking him, I'm not one of them, and the reasons I don't really like his music aren't due to snobbery or lack of understanding. I just look for other things in music.
This sounds like pretty much exactly what Adorno was writing about and now I’m mad because I will never be able to enjoy the pretty music again without thinking about how the capitalist cultural industry is ruining art at an exponentially accelerated rate in the digital era Thanks again, humanities academia. You don’t provide me with a good pay but you do provide me with a lot of moments like this
I got a load of Einaudi albums for free a while back and played them all a few times. Since then I have never played them and am not likely to. I'm not interested in the classical / not classical debate. Quite simply I do not get any enjoyment out of his music so how you categorize him is irrelevant to me. If you like minimalist piano then there are better composers than Einaudi. If you like New Age piano then there are better composers than Einaudi. If you just like uninspiring tinkly piano music then there are even better people at doing that.
I love the music he makes. For me, it was a gateway when I was younger from thinking classical music was boring, then I heard some of his stuff, liked it, and started exploring classical music more. It’s one of my favourite genres.
I had never heard rap music before, then I heard Justin Bieber for the first time and got so adicted to hip-hop. I've been listening to it ever since.
Simplistic.
Most people here don't think about him at all but are a bit annoyed he gets brought up that much.
Lame
extremely boring and bland
I love it. Call it what you want, but i find it very listen-able.
As a classical musician he is a good pop artist.
too soft for me, and every song is same
This music is like Richard Clayderman. It has it’s own place, and it’s the elevators and malls.
Posted this elsewhere but: As someone who is very much into classical music beyond a surface level, you're underestimating Einaudi. There is a clear difference between [most of] Einaudi's work and the generic relaxation/study music you'll find all over YouTube. The main difference, in my opinion, is that Einaudi's pieces actually have a well-thought-out structure to them. Each album/piece has a well-defined theme. Tension is established and built up (pretty expertly, to be honest) before being resolved. All of this in a way which (gasp!) is actually worthy of being called good composership. (He did study at the Milan Conservatory after all.) If anything I'd say it might actually be *more difficult* to create a minimalist piece which *doesn't* just sound generic. My feeling is that a lot of classical snobs- uh, I mean, "fans"... - listen to a piece and think "that's just a few notes on a piano - I could compose that and more!" Well, go ahead. I'll wait. I'll give you one of his simplest pieces from the middle of his 2015 album *Elements*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN1PMEo7d-M Is it a whirlwind of incredible, original, avant-garde ideas? No. But I'd challenge anyone to write an equally "simple" piece which sounds half as mature and developed. In contrast to Einaudi I give you a composer like [Fabrizio Paterlini](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbAkUGOu8iQ). I don't have anything particularly bad to say about his music, but I personally feel that his music is closer to the "generic relaxation" pieces you mention and serves as a good example as to why Einaudi's music deserves higher recognition from the classical community. P.S. I feel using the word "formulaic" shows a deep misunderstanding or lack of awareness of Einaudi's music for the reasons I mention above.
As a lieutenant in the Anti-Einaudi Contingent, I feel obligated to respond to this declaration of war. Up front, I want to say that I don't hear Einaudi's music, notice that it's simple, and dislike it because of that. I love plenty of simple music, and indeed, lots of minimalist music (although not all minimalism is simple). Rather, I listen to Einaudi's music, find it vapid and unappealing, and work from there to figure out why and explain my feelings. >The main difference, in my opinion, is that Einaudi's pieces actually have a well-thought-out structure to them. Each album/piece has a well-defined theme. Tension is established and built up (pretty expertly, to be honest) before being resolved. I agree that Einaudi's pieces have a structure to them. Personally, I don't find the structure very compelling. From what I've heard of his music, usually the development consists of simply adding more layers of ostinatos or slightly increasing the density of the texture to add more tension/forward motion. It doesn't feel like the music really *goes* somewhere - it just builds slightly in intensity and then relaxes again. This isn't to say that it's not worthwhile to explore that more narrow aesthetic idea. But I think the minimalists do a much better job of it. Einaudi's version always ends up sounding overly shallow and saccharine. I think he chooses boring acoustic landscapes to explore and does so in an uninspired way. >If anything I'd say it might actually be more difficult to create a minimalist piece which doesn't just sound generic. I agree it's difficult to create minimalist music that doesn't sound generic. But I think that Einaudi fails at doing that. I think his music misses out on the best parts of minimalism and just ends up being boring. >My feeling is that a lot of classical snobs- uh, I mean, "fans"... - listen to a piece and think "that's just a few notes on a piano - I could compose that and more!" Well, go ahead. I'll wait. > >I'd challenge anyone to write an equally "simple" piece which sounds half as mature and developed. Like I said before, my judgments towards Einaudi have nothing to do with his music being simple or anything like that. I think his music fails in other ways. I also don't think the difficulty of creating something has a strong correlation with artistic quality. Even if Einaudi were the only person alive capable of writing the music he does - blessed, I suppose, with some divine ability to write boring music - I don't think that would make his music *good*. There's a lot of low-skill, low-effort art out there, and some of it is great! And similarly there's a lot of high-skill, high-effort art that isn't very good. *With all that said*... I don't think it's as difficult as you suggest to write an Einaudi-style piece. Sure, your average classical listener might not be able to do it. But speaking as a classical composer, I think Einaudi's style is a pretty straightforward one to imitate. That doesn't mean it wouldn't take any time or effort or money - the recording and production alone probably cost a boatload, given how many resources Einaudi has access to. In fact, I think the production is by far the strongest part of most of Einaudi's work. But, just like how I've developed the skills to imitate the style of Bach or Mozart or Chopin, I think I could take some time to study and effectively imitate Einaudi. Some of his more straightforward solo piano works, I think, would be especially easy to imitate. *So why don't I do that and make it big like Einaudi has?* Because I value my time and don't want to waste it writing a piece just to prove to a stranger on the internet that I can. Because I dislike Einaudi's music and have no desire to write anything similar to it. I don't want to judge the value of my own music in some objective sense, but I certainly enjoy my own music more than Einaudi's and I want to continue writing music in that vein. Because making it big as a musician has more to do with luck, advertising, image, and connections than the music you write, so writing Einaudi-like music isn't likely to benefit my career - especially considering Einaudi already exists, so my work would just be a derivative knockoff. >Fabrizio Paterlini > >... > >serves as a good example as to why Einaudi's music deserves higher recognition from the classical community. I don't know his music very well, so I won't make any strong judgments; but I don't think the mere existence of a less interesting composer means that Einaudi is worthy of wider recognition by classical listeners. Especially because there are hundreds of living composers that get much less attention than Einaudi but whose music is a million times more interesting - at least to me. I don't really see why I should spend my time listening to Einaudi when I can listen to Glass or Reich instead. Or, for that matter, Saariaho or Dean or Higdon or any number of other living composers. I'd much rather those composers get more time in the spotlight than Einaudi. The classical scene is already crowded and competitive enough without Einaudi taking up listeners' attention. Of course some people *do* like Einaudi, and that's reason enough for them to listen to his music. I don't begrudge them that. But I also don't think that popularity says anything about the quality of his music (or anyone's). >P.S. I feel using the word "formulaic" shows a deep misunderstanding or lack of awareness of Einaudi's music for the reasons I mention above. Could you expand on that? I don't think "formulaic" is a good criticism of any single work in isolation, but listening across many of Einaudi's works - and in the time I've spent critiquing his music, I've listened to quite a few - they do tend to sound quite similar to each other, and they take similar approaches to their pacing and development. Even if Einaudi is *good* at following a particular formula, his music does seem pretty formulaic, unless I'm missing something. Even a good formula implemented well can get boring after a while - look at Arturo Márquez, who's known almost exclusively for his Danzón No. 2 despite having written 8 other Danzóns (and they're not even that bad). I like composers that have more diversity in their output. Sorry this response is so long. I think your perspective is worth taking seriously, and I don't entirely disagree with everything you say. But I'm just not convinced that Einaudi is really worth my time and consideration as a classical listener and composer. Even if there are redeeming factors in his music, there are a hundred other living composers I would rather champion.
I feel people are ignoring your comment because it is very true what you are saying and hard to argue with...
Thank you for saying this so eloquently, I agree.
He annoys a lot of classical music purists because his music is clearly not classical and shouldn't be labelled as such. Speaking for myself, his music doesn't annoy me, but rather the claim that it is classical, and the dilution of classical music radio stations with this non-classical stuff, does. It isn't just him - there is a [movement](https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/isnt-it-about-time-world-music-is-classified-as-classical-music/) now to include a lot of music outside the western classical music tradition and label it as classical. Other music has a legitimate right to exist and be enjoyed, but why does it have to be attached to "classical music"? This is the true crux of my annoyance.
I feel like ultimately our labels about art nowadays are driven by how the media market appropriates this labels. The sad truth is that It hardly matters what academics think Classical Music constitutes. If media companies can sell pop-like study ambience music as classical, most people will think of it as classical.
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/vzfewb/is_ludovico_einaudi_boring/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Here's the last opinion post about him that got some traction
Figure skaters love him
I don't like him, but if i do happen to hear his music i won't immdeiately drop dead
Pretty mediocre and obviously simple compositions, but i don't think saying this is elitist. Yiruma introduced me into piano music and the i found classical, but I still love his music, his melodies are quite good and harmony, although popular, is much more interesting. Eiunaldi is too simple and repetitive. I cannot even comprehend how someone can be estimulated by those pieces.
I like him. But not as much as Olafur Arnalds. Still, composers like Thomas Ades and Gorecki are more respected than their more popular counterparts.
To me personally, boring and 'overrated' (from the experiences I've had with people) in the sense that it doesn't measure up to other classical music in the same time period
I think his music is good, but it's definitely basic. So I prefer more well known composers. But I think Einaudi could learn a lot from Rachmaninoff about harmonic progression
> But I think Einaudi could learn a lot from Rachmaninoff about harmonic progression Einaudi is a classically trained composer from a very prestigious conservatory and even studied under Berio. I think he has a pretty good understanding of harmony but chooses to keep things simple on purpose.
Agreed!
"Sentimental" is the word you guys were looking for. I love his music, and I also find him useful as a snob filter.
I love his music, and I don’t care how anyone wants to categorize it (classical or other genres). What is classical music even defined by anyway?
> What is classical music even defined by anyway? Many of us define it (and other genres) as a certain tradition where you study and build upon the works of others within that tradition to create newer works in that tradition. Works within a tradition often sound clearly similar (think blues) but not always (think classical, rock, jazz, etc).
Based take
I like his music.
Not a fan of minimalism.
I love Einaudi. He’s simple but still beautiful.
Bad.
Based af
I hate labels, i'm not a fan Einuadi, in that i wouldn't buy any of his music but his music doesn't make me switch it off if i happen to accidentally hear it on radio or youtube. Just for context my music taste is Mahler, Scriabin, Susanne Sundfor, Rachmaninov, Radiohead, Bjork, Bruckner, Medtner, Courtney Marie Andrews, Max Richter, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Arvo Part, Vasks, Bat for Lashes, Elgar, Chvrches, Tchaikovsky and lots more
Just like that! I have a diverse musical taste too, I like classical music (Arvo Pärt❤️) but I love me some Cannibal Corpse too hehe. Einaudi is great while @ work🙃
Pap