|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: a typically bland effort from a tediously faithful composer Ludovico Einaudi's music frustrates me. It's unfair to say his music is bad, because it's not bad; it is pretty, emotional, and occasionally shiver-inducing. Even so, his music is still infuriating, as notwithstanding undoubted emotional appeal, it's stayed cemented for nearly two decades. His earliest works, Salgari and Time Out, experimented with form and melody, and even with their rough patches, surprising surges of ingenuity uplift them. Ingenuity is long behind him it would seem, as Elements just affirms his current unsurprising world, where pretty and unchallenging overshadow creativity, where two perpetually locked iron doors seem entrenched, replacing now disintegrated glistening gates.
Elements has moments that satisfy temporarily, subsequently fading away as if they never existed. Always expectant, waiting for anything, but still nothing - is how I find myself in regard to this album. When each shiver doesn't last, I begin to wonder what exactly is missing. To sum it up, everything about Elements is too easy: repetition always, reliant on cyclical arpeggios always, and formulaic songs always. Opening track, “Elements,” builds to this faux finale with strings, percussion, and background synths, all trying to add dimension but they simply can't, for they too follow similar cyclical patterns. Similarly, “Four Dimensions” is anything but multi-dimensional, with all instruments still just repeating or wandering only slightly, if at all. Then, “Night” shows Einaudi's inability, or refusal, to expand melodies to actually form melodies.
Obviously, Einaudi has found what works for him, as he's stuck with it for several albums now. Considering his earlier works, it seems that he's composing just for money, which I certainly can't fault him for, but it's still disappointing, given he's knowingly thwarted his potential. That being said, Elements is yet another step away from risk, wherein an answer lies to unleashing a work that's original and, for all Einaudi knows, possibly exceptional.
| other reviews of this album |
|
I'd say that your penultimate sentence doesn't need as many commas as it has (I'd remove the one after 'earlier works' and both surrounding 'in doing' so) and as a personal preference this review is slightly too familiar, but it's well written all the same so have a pos :]
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
it was originally gonna be "a typically uncompelling effort from an unfortunate stalwart in pop disguised as classical" but i thought that was too much
he gets too much love on here and everywhere else. i personally don't get it but as long as people enjoy it
| | |
you just have to approach it as what it is, pop music
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
well i did. it is pop instrumental music no one can deny that but it can be done better than he does it.
i changed the commas so hopefully it reads better. i'll probably go back and try to make it sound less casual at some point.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
"Complaining over fairly nice music is pretentious, but reviewing music in general is pretentious too. Regardless, it gives us the chance to express our admittedly self-important thoughts, which just might hold some truth. And, in my opinion, Ludovico Einaudi is uninspired and stuck in this box where he has found this formulaic way of composing that sufficiently captivates his audience.
this whole part is pointless. and you say the music is uninspired and safe about a dozen different times here it seems. try spicing up your arguments in subsequent reviews.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
i only said those words once each. do you mean that i shouldn't have structured my review around the idea that i thought the album was safe?
| | |
Well written review, pos'd.
Anyway, you write like your vote is less than 2.5
I haven't heard lot of this, but the little I heard make me totally agree with you. Einaudi is becoming more bland and lazy as the time passes.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
i can see why it might seem that way, but i don't think this is poor. i think it's average and i definitely understand why people like him so much, but plenty of others are making similar music like michael nyman, dario marianelli, max richter, thomas newman, robert rich, etc...
we like who we like and i prefer others. it's just a shame einaudi isn't branching out
| | | Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off
not a bad review but I don't agree at all
| | |
@ShakerFaker I like Einaudi too, I grew up with his music, but none of his works can go beyond the 3.5 imo, because none of them is "excellent", or even "superb".
He is just a lucky guy who can write very pleasant music, but there's a huge difference between what's musically relevant, and what is nice to listen to.
Definitely if you call what Einaudi writes "masterpiece" and you don't know classic music, I've some bad news for you.
| | |
I do not like this review. I agree with your the gist of your review without having heard a second of it (I say this as someone who gave In a Time Lapse a 4.5 review but probably wouldn't like it at all on a re-listen). But outside of a good introductory paragraph, I didn't get anything out of this review. There's no analysis. Something like this:
"There are nice moments, but they are ultimately forgettable, satisfying in the moment and subsequently fading away as if they never existed. You are always expectant, waiting for something, but you get nothing"
is pure wankery; the second sentence is completely unneeded and the first sentence has questionable value in a review ("fading away as if they never existed" is melodramatic nonsense). A much stronger review would have said: "Elements is such an unimaginative and safe release that a brief review suffices: each song can be characterized as the same
| | |
Just for the sake of knowing where I come from, here's a review of Einaudi's music distilled to a couple sentences that I think actually provides insight into the album:
"Much like mainstream radio pop artists, Einaudi displays a talent for writing catchy melodies over repetitive and uninventive chord progressions. He also displays a fine sense of dynamic control, which couples with his gentle touch on the piano to create piano songs that are undoubtedly pleasant and pretty. However, there's no melodic or harmonic development in his pieces: songs rarely leave their original keys, there's no daring explorations in tempo or rhythm, and his music lacks even basic chord substitutions to make the harmonic underpinnings more interesting. As a result, hearing the first phrase of any of his songs is enough to have a sense of how the rest of the piece is. That doesn't mean Einaudi's music is bad, but it does mean that his songs lack the depth that make them rewarding listens. It very truly is instrumental pop." I would also make comparisons to Chopin, Debussy, Satie to fill out the review and talk about how these composers, even Satie's Gymnopediae (which were intended as elevator music), are more harmonically daring.
Obviously this is personal preference, and I don't mean to try to write your review for you or say you need to write my way. But just as constructive feedback, your reviews should ideally be a little bit more meaty; I can't help but note the irony of your review having the same issues as Einaudi pieces.
| | |
Also, yes my Einaudi reviews are terrible as well. I didn't actually really have a sense of perspective of what kind of things I should be talking about, so I just kinda talked about whatever.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
Thank you for telling me. I wondered why this got neg'd and I'll try to improve in the future.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
I don't spend very much time on my reviews. I just hope writing more will help me improve but I see where you're coming from and I really appreciate it. I'll work harder on my next reviews.
| | |
I didn't neg you, so that's still a mystery. But I do think that this review was lacking, so I'm not surprised. Gotta beef up on the analysis.
And that's no problem. You have nice prose, so if that's what your goal is, then carry on! Writing practice is always good, even if you're not too invested in the content itself.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
Of course but because I'm writing for an audience who may be affected by what I say I should make the needed changes.
| | |
the review argues exactly that though
well and that exactly that is redundant at this point and thus a 2.5
| | |
@ShakerFaker, I won't argue against you trying to better your craft. 
@Jac, I agree with you 100% on that point. But that strikes me more as a symptom of an inadequate amount of analysis/ explanation: if he spoke more about what about the album's poppiness made it an average/ bland/ mediocre listen, then it wouldn't look like he's shitting on pop as a whole. Certainly there are criticisms as pop as a genre (in general) that could apply to Einaudi's music, and this is probably what he is referring to.
Even if he does think pop is bad as a sweeping generalization, we'd have a better sense of where he's coming from if he had some more analysis.
| | |
God smileys on this site are still fucked up? c'mon
| | | |
|
| |
