Going back to my roots

Sorry to the maybe 3 people who read my blog that have been panicked due to the lack of updating this month. I have been busy with working retail in December, trying to brush up on my theory/history/aural skills in the event of having to take any entrance exams, and listening to a ton of classical to mid romantic era music.

It struck me recently, that while I am acquainted with much of this music, I don't really know it. There are large chunks of important genres that are almost foreign to me. For instance, I've listened to more string quartets in the last few weeks than I did my entire undergrad and master's combined. I've been taking the time to analyze some of them as I go along (starting off with early Mozart and Beethoven and I'll progress move to later quartets as I go, if anyone would be interested in me posting these analyses let me know and I'd be happy to scan them in,) and many of them really read like a how-to guide on 4 part writing. Which leads me to question why I was never connected to these during my studies.

I know that as a student it is upon me to go out and learn of my own volition, and that traditional style string quartets may not be in vogue or something to that effect (by the way, go ahead and replace string quartet with any standard chamber group if you'd like,) but in retrospect it really seems like in an effort to progress forward, the study of composition doesn't do enough looking back. I don't know if it was taken for granted that I was intimately acquainted with the music of the classical and romantic era when I signed up for a music major, but my knowledge of them was cursory at best as I came from a wind ensemble background and an unmusical family (my musical exposure was classic rock and Percy Grainger effectively.)

So much of the time spent on just straight up listening for so many years has been on listening to contemporary and 20th century music; I always had the impression that you had to know X contemporary trends. I recall that the first string quartet I ever listened to critically was Black Angels, and the first set that was suggested I listen to was the Bartok Quartets. They are excellent pieces, but I am curious as to how I'll view those differently, once I get a larger perspective on the medium, starting at Mozart/Haydn and moving through to them. I feel in the rush to make sure I knew what was going on now, the knowing how it got there was glossed over. To quote Mr. T, "You can't know where you're going, if you don't know where you from."

To be clear, I don't think this was an issue with my music history training. I think what I feel was lacking was connection to the past through studying compositions of the masters and applying the lessons learned to my own writing, which is to some degree what I am trying to do now. While fostering an individualistic voice is important to a do as a composer, I feel that much of my studies focused too much on that, rather than working on nuts and bolts. The structured parts of my studies often focused on using contemporary techniques such as serialism, algorithms, or aleatoric elements, rather than working on developing a mastery of traditional elements. I also don't mean this to imply that all composition studies should be rooted in traditional tonality. The music of Hindemith is almost certainly informed by Bach, but his tonal language is certainly not in the same sphere.

So what is my point here? Hell if I know, if you came to this blog looking for a point you came to the wrong place. Maybe I'm just bitter about missing all this great music that I had dismissed for so long as being dull or predictable or whatever I thought I was supposed to think of it in the face of the bold dynamic world of modern composition. Maybe I am annoyed that I feel, as a composer, there is an expectation to know all the music of the past, the present, and the future, while many musician's can be contented with the past. There is so much music out there, that sometimes I wonder how a composer can keep up with everything and still find time to write. But mostly, I guess I'm wondering how I connect myself to a past that actually connects to people, and how to do so without falling in to a pale imitation of a passed era. Is it even wise to try and connect to these roots, or will it get you slapped with a "Neo-X" label in a negative fashion. Is it wiser to explore the branches and leave the roots alone altogether nowadays?

Anyways... that is enough of that business. I planned on trying to explore the issue of being prolific in this topic as well, but I didn't get to it and I don't feel like it now. I also have another topic half written about some issues with wind ensemble and why it is considered by many "serious" musicians to be a second rate ensemble. I'll get that out eventually, but I think I'll try and get another collaborative process in, during the next week and do it properly unlike the last half-ass one.

The Collaborative Process - Solo for Euphonium and orches... hahahaha just kidding.

Hey there folkses. In a hotel room, so I figured I'd pound one out (a blog that is). I'll get to the second half of the last question by the end of the week, but for tonight's collaborazzmatazz Chris sends this:

As a Euphonium player and composer, why do you think that the Euph has failed to make it as a symphonic instrument?

Well... this is actually kinda tricky as my understanding of the issue goes. First of all, I'd like to say to Chris at least Euph is used in some standard orchestral repertoire: Dons Juan and Quixote, Janacek Sinfonietta, The Planets, Ravel's Pictures orchestration, and a handful of others. Nowadays, the euphonium is used to cover many instruments that have either fallen out of common use, or that it can adequately replace. Examples are instruments such as tenor tuba (which is effectively the euphonium), wagner tubas (which apparently a bitch to play and require even more horn players), and French Tuba. It could even be used to replace instruments such as ophecleide and serpent if desired. So for a period at the end of the 19th / early 20th century, it was (in a roundabout way) a standard of extended instrumentation.

Now as I am not an expert in the development of the orchestra and I don't have any of my bookses at my disposal (and I don't know how to or apparently care to look up things on the darpanet), the rest may be a bit of speculation. My guess would be as orchestras around the world focused less and less on new works as composition went in, umm... less audience friendly ways, the orchestra kind of fell in to the standardized instrumentation that the majority of early-mid romantic orchestral works. And when something gets standardized, composers are more likely to write for that instrumentation (well some are, although many will write for whatever and if the orchestra doesn't wanna fill in the instrumentation then they don't play the work). So it kind of ends in a feedback loop, where if it isn't standard, then it is an inconvenience to write for it, but as long as no one writes for it, it won't become standardized. Which is a shame, cause the euphonium really fits nicely in to an orchestra as a conical brass tenor solo voice that can easily chameleon in to many sections. In wind ensembles it is used to add some more presence to horns, smooth out the trombone section, add depth to the tubas by playing in octaves, and the most unusual standard usage is as a solid tenor/bass voice for the woodwind section, especially the clarinets.

Unfortunately, I do not see this trend changing anytime soon, as most orchestral call for scores specify standard orchestration. There are a handful of composers who use the instrument, but not enough to change the paradigm. Anyways... I could go one and may edit this later, cause I'm tired and don't care like proofreading to make sure I didn't say anything idiotic. So get your digs in now.