Well it has been a while, but it isn't really collaborative if I don't write too, so here it goes. Feel free to give me hell if I don't update semi-regularly. Anyways, to the subject at hand. Chris from Iowa sent in this question:
Why are composers writing less for string orchestra, and more for band?
Well let me just do some listing of potential answers here so I don't have to come up with coherent transitions (I, like Bruckner, am opposed to transitional material):
-- There is plenty written for String Ensemble today, it is just that it is mostly educational pieces written for starter through high school groups. Which makes sense, as pure string ensembles haven't exactly been a popular medium for a long time but they are still traditionally segregated from the winds and percussion while they are learning to play. Incidentally, most of the music written for band is also educational, but unless you are a middle or high school band/orchestra teacher, you generally have no reason to keep up on this music.
-- This is purely a matter of opinion and personal experience, but many string players and string-based ensembles are more resistant to playing new music, with the exception of those that decide to focus exclusively on contemporary music. With a focused string ensemble that makes sense, as the main cannon of music for them will be late baroque / early classical music and programming a Ligeti string ensemble piece would be a little odd. The ensemble probably doesn't focus on the needed technique to pull such a piece off and programming considerations may not allow it. Some wind ensemble are starting to fall in to this mold as well, with there now being a large enough canon where they can focus strictly on "classics" if they want.
-- The Wind Ensemble is a younger group in it's modern form. As such most of the music written for it focuses on modern techniques that most modern players are currently familiar with. String ensembles on the other hand, may focus on period appropriate performance technique, which takes considerable scholarship and study to accomplish and may not allow them to also focus on the rigorous demands of much contemporary string music. With much of contemporary music exploring timbral variation, composer's may also be drawn to a more varied group of instruments than a string ensemble. Homogeneous ensembles in general do not get as much written for them (well maybe in small group, but not in large group.)
Really though all this leads to the title of the post (who would've guessed)
-- Composer's will write for what people will play. Unless you are already an established composer of X notoriety (Measured in metric notoriety units), you will write for what you think you can get performed and performed well. If more string ensembles express interest in composer's writing music for them, then rest assured that it will get written. As it stands now, the conventional wisdom among many composers is that wind ensemble is the large ensemble that has the greatest desire for new music (you'll also be competing with less historical titans focusing on wind ensemble.) Mind you, my experience may vary from many others, as I studied at programs where the wind ensembles were the premier ensembles and not the orchestras. Composer's who studied at larger institutions that attract the highest quality string students may have a different experience. Although even those schools will be more apt to focus on full orchestra over string ensemble.
Well that is my rough opinion on the matter, and as always, I have not proof read for logical inconsistencies. Feel free to bring up more questions to either Chris or myself, or to call me retarded in the comments.
email Brian: Bivdub@gmail.com
email Chris: chris@wilsonmarimba.com (look at the big man with his own domain)
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The Collaborative Process: A response to a question by orchestral and jazz marimbist, Chris Wilson.
Been a while but I'm gonna try and keep on rockin out blogs as long as no one is gonna keep on reading them. Here is the latest question from C-dub for our collaborativity:
Why do you think the marimba has failed in both the symphonic and jazz settings? (this could be one for us to argue about, I have my opinions!)
I'd like to state for the record, that I have my doubts about his ability to argue or his possession of opinions. But that could be an entire blog post in itself, so I'll spare the discussion here (hint: it ends with he is a robot from the planet Marimbasly here to steal our advanced posifunkitronics technology. Boring stuff really).
Well, as an opening qualifier, I'd like to say that I think the marimba is probably gaining ground as an orchestral instrument, and possibly as a jazz instrument as well (not as acquainted with modern jazz orchestration trends), as percussion becomes a more vital role in the modern orchestra. I think it is a ways off before people need to start worrying about which principal marimbist auditions they need to fly out for, but I'd venture to say that it is being hauled out on stage in more orchestras each year.
For orchestras, I'd say once again it comes down to tradition, much the same as euphonium. The earliest significant piece I see written for Marimba is the Creston which is from 1940, about 10 or so years after orchestras started getting scared of new music by my estimation. Even if the instrument were around earlier, another issue is that it is an instrument which really has to be worked around to some degree when orchestrating. It is much like the harp in that it either woul need to be duplicated or used only in delicate passages or smaller orchestrations, lest it be lost completely in the texture of the orchestra. For many orchestras, I imagine the size of the instrument itself is something that has to be considered, since they do not always have vast stages to work with, and the marimba takes up a considerable amount of room.
Once again the issure of why it is not becoming a standard instrument is similar to the euphonium issue: Until someone writes our times canonic literature that includes the use of the marimba, orchestras don't need them. And until then, the use of it is discouraged to young composers who are often forced in to writing for "standard orchestration" (i.e. early-mid Romantic orchestration) if they hope to get works performed. Even if a competition allows non-standard orchestrations, it will often stipulate that the composer has to pay for extra performers, which is outside the means of many.
Side note: I feel that it got more of a foothold in band, because of its use in early literature, and with enough keyboard percussion it can help fill the absence of the large homogenous section that the orchestra has in the strings.
As far as jazz goes, I don't know enough about the relative progression of the vibes versus the marimba to know if there was a technical or financial reason why one would have won out. But style-wise, I think the vibes gets a clear edge in jaz because of the style of sustain that it can produce. The marimba is pretty much limited to rolling to produce any substantial sustain, which does not lend itself well to the jazz style. Think about how often you hear piano tremelos in jazz; it is just not charactersitic. The other problem is that jazz often uses large, complex chords which can be produced more easily in their entirety on a vibraphone holding the sustain down than the marimba. The marimba would have to sacrifice too many notes if it were to replace the guitar, piano, or vibes as a comping instrument, which would be its seemingly obvious non-solo function.
Anyways, I got work to do, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to argue, Chris, if you have the ability.
Why do you think the marimba has failed in both the symphonic and jazz settings? (this could be one for us to argue about, I have my opinions!)
I'd like to state for the record, that I have my doubts about his ability to argue or his possession of opinions. But that could be an entire blog post in itself, so I'll spare the discussion here (hint: it ends with he is a robot from the planet Marimbasly here to steal our advanced posifunkitronics technology. Boring stuff really).
Well, as an opening qualifier, I'd like to say that I think the marimba is probably gaining ground as an orchestral instrument, and possibly as a jazz instrument as well (not as acquainted with modern jazz orchestration trends), as percussion becomes a more vital role in the modern orchestra. I think it is a ways off before people need to start worrying about which principal marimbist auditions they need to fly out for, but I'd venture to say that it is being hauled out on stage in more orchestras each year.
For orchestras, I'd say once again it comes down to tradition, much the same as euphonium. The earliest significant piece I see written for Marimba is the Creston which is from 1940, about 10 or so years after orchestras started getting scared of new music by my estimation. Even if the instrument were around earlier, another issue is that it is an instrument which really has to be worked around to some degree when orchestrating. It is much like the harp in that it either woul need to be duplicated or used only in delicate passages or smaller orchestrations, lest it be lost completely in the texture of the orchestra. For many orchestras, I imagine the size of the instrument itself is something that has to be considered, since they do not always have vast stages to work with, and the marimba takes up a considerable amount of room.
Once again the issure of why it is not becoming a standard instrument is similar to the euphonium issue: Until someone writes our times canonic literature that includes the use of the marimba, orchestras don't need them. And until then, the use of it is discouraged to young composers who are often forced in to writing for "standard orchestration" (i.e. early-mid Romantic orchestration) if they hope to get works performed. Even if a competition allows non-standard orchestrations, it will often stipulate that the composer has to pay for extra performers, which is outside the means of many.
Side note: I feel that it got more of a foothold in band, because of its use in early literature, and with enough keyboard percussion it can help fill the absence of the large homogenous section that the orchestra has in the strings.
As far as jazz goes, I don't know enough about the relative progression of the vibes versus the marimba to know if there was a technical or financial reason why one would have won out. But style-wise, I think the vibes gets a clear edge in jaz because of the style of sustain that it can produce. The marimba is pretty much limited to rolling to produce any substantial sustain, which does not lend itself well to the jazz style. Think about how often you hear piano tremelos in jazz; it is just not charactersitic. The other problem is that jazz often uses large, complex chords which can be produced more easily in their entirety on a vibraphone holding the sustain down than the marimba. The marimba would have to sacrifice too many notes if it were to replace the guitar, piano, or vibes as a comping instrument, which would be its seemingly obvious non-solo function.
Anyways, I got work to do, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to argue, Chris, if you have the ability.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The collaborative process - Why do I need a recording?
The eminent Christopher E. Wilson has sent me this as my first question(s) for our coblogeration:
I'll tackle the first paragraph today, and leave the second paragraph for the near future, where we'll all be too concerned with bears with wielding machetes enslaving us to care about such frivolity as music or procedural crime dramas.
The reason why we want a recording comes down to basic composer/performer etiquette if nothing else. Did you know that it takes time, effort, and sometimes alcohol expenses to successfully write a decent piece of music? Much in the same way a performer would be in the right to be pissed off by a venue cancelling a show at the last minute, a composer can get a bit miffed if a commissioned piece fails to receive a performance after sinking many, many hours that could be spent looking at lolcats in to writing a piece. And as long as you are performing it you may as well get a decent recording, right? The performer generally wants a decent recording of any pieces they are performing, which is their musical skill, so it stands to reason that the composer would want audio documentation of their skill as well. This is even more important with premiers, since it can help document any progress the piece makes over time. Unfortunately, we do not live in a musical climate where new works are played in overabundance either, so the recording of the performance of a new work may be the only for a long time (or ever), or may be the determining factor in convincing other performers to take on the piece. Or more importantly to the composer, that recording may help them get a job or residency or admittance in to a school/festival that could help further their career. Then you as a performer can say you knew them before they got big, and who doesn't want that.
That last point bridges in to why Finale and midi recordings are not good enough. Take a look at a Finale box sometime: does it say music notation software, or music performance software. Finale is a great tool for getting a general idea of a piece but it does not capture the essence of a piece. Midi sounds, especially those shipped with notation software, are a pale comparison to real instruments. If you don't believe me, I'll post an audio track of the most Chris Wilson playing the last movement of /dances and then I'll post an audio track of it being played by my computer using the best sampled marimba sound I've got. Unless you spend countless hours teaching yourself make midi imitate a classical setting and many dollars on the best samples available (and yes the best orchestral sound libraries can cost in the $1000's) then what you'll get will sound like a robot playing a Walmart clarinet. Sure, all the notes are there, but there is no nuance or energy to the performance. Some people do excel at making computers sound stunning, but they are generally working for Multimedia, where that is the skill that they are hired for as much as their writing (usually more than their writing.) Many composers also shy away from the use of notation software, so this isn't even an option for them. Finally, many extended techniques are not performable by even the best notation software and samplers out there.
Summary of above: when you tell the composer to use a midi recording for something, you are telling them that you can't play it better than their computer, which is hopefully selling yourself short. While my computer may play something more accurately than you, if I wanted to listen to pure accuracy I'd turn on my metronome and rock out all day.
Also, I get off on knowing that I've made Chris spend long hours of suffering learning whatever bear of a piece (and believe me, as I'm not a marimbist, even when I think something seems reasonable it turns out to be a bear, although I'm getting better) and if I don't get a recording, I have no evidence that I caused him to fight through intense frustration and, hopefully, many delicious salty tears. But that is a Chris exclusive reason, I assure you.
As for sending recordings out to competitions and schools. I'll keep this brief, because I should actually get some important work done today. I've had composition profs at various schools tell to NOT send in midi recordings of works, cause it never does the piece justice and adjudicators will generally give the piece a better mental performance without the midi polluting their view of the piece. So there you go, no recording in many instances is a better recording than a midi recording.
As for program notes, that seems like Chris tossed that in at the last minute as a big "F You Brian." Chris knows that I personally dread writing program notes, especially on programmatic and non-programmatic pieces. I usually do end up biting the bullet and writing something, and usually I hate it every time I read it afterwards. I think that actual program notes are of secondary importance when submitting to a composition, as often these are blinded and I have my serious doubts as to whether anything other than the music will have any effect on the outcome. Hell, the title itself is probably of secondary importance, although I still wouldn't suggest calling your piece Girls Gone Wild Sonata Number 2: The Teabag. What is important is to include any performance notes that are vital and the list of any parts that double on various instruments / list of percussion instruments needed by part on any submission in advance of the piece. These are generally to express any unusual requests or advanced techniques for which there is no standard notation. Unusual notation should also get a footnote in the score to explain it.
So that should do it for today. Feel free to express your opinion below or suggest topics that you would like Chris or myself to tackle. And don't forget to check out his post over here.
The following questions are often asked by student performers... Why are composers always asking for recordings of their works? Finale exists, so why can't you send a midi recording of your works? Is it really that important when applying for schools/competitions that you have not only a live performance, but program notes?
Also, let's say a composer gets you a score last minute asking for a recording. If you are not going to be able to record it perfectly, what's the best approach? Should the piece be slowed down, should notes be taken out, certain passages simplified? Why?
I'll tackle the first paragraph today, and leave the second paragraph for the near future, where we'll all be too concerned with bears with wielding machetes enslaving us to care about such frivolity as music or procedural crime dramas.
The reason why we want a recording comes down to basic composer/performer etiquette if nothing else. Did you know that it takes time, effort, and sometimes alcohol expenses to successfully write a decent piece of music? Much in the same way a performer would be in the right to be pissed off by a venue cancelling a show at the last minute, a composer can get a bit miffed if a commissioned piece fails to receive a performance after sinking many, many hours that could be spent looking at lolcats in to writing a piece. And as long as you are performing it you may as well get a decent recording, right? The performer generally wants a decent recording of any pieces they are performing, which is their musical skill, so it stands to reason that the composer would want audio documentation of their skill as well. This is even more important with premiers, since it can help document any progress the piece makes over time. Unfortunately, we do not live in a musical climate where new works are played in overabundance either, so the recording of the performance of a new work may be the only for a long time (or ever), or may be the determining factor in convincing other performers to take on the piece. Or more importantly to the composer, that recording may help them get a job or residency or admittance in to a school/festival that could help further their career. Then you as a performer can say you knew them before they got big, and who doesn't want that.
That last point bridges in to why Finale and midi recordings are not good enough. Take a look at a Finale box sometime: does it say music notation software, or music performance software. Finale is a great tool for getting a general idea of a piece but it does not capture the essence of a piece. Midi sounds, especially those shipped with notation software, are a pale comparison to real instruments. If you don't believe me, I'll post an audio track of the most Chris Wilson playing the last movement of /dances and then I'll post an audio track of it being played by my computer using the best sampled marimba sound I've got. Unless you spend countless hours teaching yourself make midi imitate a classical setting and many dollars on the best samples available (and yes the best orchestral sound libraries can cost in the $1000's) then what you'll get will sound like a robot playing a Walmart clarinet. Sure, all the notes are there, but there is no nuance or energy to the performance. Some people do excel at making computers sound stunning, but they are generally working for Multimedia, where that is the skill that they are hired for as much as their writing (usually more than their writing.) Many composers also shy away from the use of notation software, so this isn't even an option for them. Finally, many extended techniques are not performable by even the best notation software and samplers out there.
Summary of above: when you tell the composer to use a midi recording for something, you are telling them that you can't play it better than their computer, which is hopefully selling yourself short. While my computer may play something more accurately than you, if I wanted to listen to pure accuracy I'd turn on my metronome and rock out all day.
Also, I get off on knowing that I've made Chris spend long hours of suffering learning whatever bear of a piece (and believe me, as I'm not a marimbist, even when I think something seems reasonable it turns out to be a bear, although I'm getting better) and if I don't get a recording, I have no evidence that I caused him to fight through intense frustration and, hopefully, many delicious salty tears. But that is a Chris exclusive reason, I assure you.
As for sending recordings out to competitions and schools. I'll keep this brief, because I should actually get some important work done today. I've had composition profs at various schools tell to NOT send in midi recordings of works, cause it never does the piece justice and adjudicators will generally give the piece a better mental performance without the midi polluting their view of the piece. So there you go, no recording in many instances is a better recording than a midi recording.
As for program notes, that seems like Chris tossed that in at the last minute as a big "F You Brian." Chris knows that I personally dread writing program notes, especially on programmatic and non-programmatic pieces. I usually do end up biting the bullet and writing something, and usually I hate it every time I read it afterwards. I think that actual program notes are of secondary importance when submitting to a composition, as often these are blinded and I have my serious doubts as to whether anything other than the music will have any effect on the outcome. Hell, the title itself is probably of secondary importance, although I still wouldn't suggest calling your piece Girls Gone Wild Sonata Number 2: The Teabag. What is important is to include any performance notes that are vital and the list of any parts that double on various instruments / list of percussion instruments needed by part on any submission in advance of the piece. These are generally to express any unusual requests or advanced techniques for which there is no standard notation. Unusual notation should also get a footnote in the score to explain it.
So that should do it for today. Feel free to express your opinion below or suggest topics that you would like Chris or myself to tackle. And don't forget to check out his post over here.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Collaborative Process - an Introduction and Dance for marimba and composer
Well it is so on now. That gangly cracker over at Wilsonmarimba.blogspot.com and myself have decided to get our joint blog venture / publicity stunt a rolling. The goal of this is for myself and Chris Wilson, Masterimbist, to engage in discussion of the typically musical variety. We will be asking each other questions, answering them, and maybe engage in long distance "just friends" spooning afterwards while we watch the sun rise. I would also encourage the readership to submit questions for us to answer from our respective perspectives.
Chris has set the guidelines up as such:
<>
< /chris>
My guidelines for commenting on this site will be a little more lax. I will not delete comments unless it is spam, obvious trolling, or completely irrelevant. I'm assuming there are not many young readers lurking around my blog (or many readers in general) so feel free to go nuts in the comments. And as far as why you should care about my opinion? Hell if I know, you are the one reading this blog. I do my best to back up my ideas as I go along, but I realize that my education is no indication of the validity of my opinion (athough it may mean it is a more informed opinion).
So in short: Keep it professional on Wilson's Site, he has sponsors and VIPs reading his blog ready to drop a 5 gallon money hat and a solid gold 7 octave marimba (or however big they get) marimba on him at any moment. I don't, and as a composer, I doubt I ever will have sponsors to worry about (Brian Van Winkle uses exclusively CARTA manuscript paper... see? sounds silly). Also, I want this to be a place where musicians and others feel free to be completely unprofessional, free from the serious world of music.
Anyways, that does it for my intro. Go over to Wilson's blog to check out the answer he gave to the first question I sent him. I will try and answer his first questions (yes multiple... it was like a 15 parter, I may have to break it up to keep this dialogue going longer) tomorrow or saturday, but I am in the middle of the closing week of playing in a pit orchestra for Little Women the musical and have to finish some DMA apps so if I don't get to them until sunday/monday, deal with.
Also, Chris wants suggestions for a better name. I think this works.
Chris has set the guidelines up as such:
<>
I feel I should make some guidelines. I am not opposed to reader comments or discussion. However, I have no problems with completely deleting inappropriate comments. The point of many of my blogs is to inform younger readers, so the last thing I want is for their opinions to be warped by the uneducated minds of an anonymous reader. If you’re thinking, “well, why should I care about your opinions?” then you can check my credentials on my website.
< /chris>
My guidelines for commenting on this site will be a little more lax. I will not delete comments unless it is spam, obvious trolling, or completely irrelevant. I'm assuming there are not many young readers lurking around my blog (or many readers in general) so feel free to go nuts in the comments. And as far as why you should care about my opinion? Hell if I know, you are the one reading this blog. I do my best to back up my ideas as I go along, but I realize that my education is no indication of the validity of my opinion (athough it may mean it is a more informed opinion).
So in short: Keep it professional on Wilson's Site, he has sponsors and VIPs reading his blog ready to drop a 5 gallon money hat and a solid gold 7 octave marimba (or however big they get) marimba on him at any moment. I don't, and as a composer, I doubt I ever will have sponsors to worry about (Brian Van Winkle uses exclusively CARTA manuscript paper... see? sounds silly). Also, I want this to be a place where musicians and others feel free to be completely unprofessional, free from the serious world of music.
Anyways, that does it for my intro. Go over to Wilson's blog to check out the answer he gave to the first question I sent him. I will try and answer his first questions (yes multiple... it was like a 15 parter, I may have to break it up to keep this dialogue going longer) tomorrow or saturday, but I am in the middle of the closing week of playing in a pit orchestra for Little Women the musical and have to finish some DMA apps so if I don't get to them until sunday/monday, deal with.
Also, Chris wants suggestions for a better name. I think this works.
Monday, November 9, 2009
New Music is Not A Style
A sentiment I run across from musicians and more musically savvy non-musicians (usually soon after I let them in on the fact that I'm a composer), is that they like minimalism (and yes... it is always minimalism), but are not a fan of most "New Music" or "Contemporary Music." While I'm usually too sleepy or disinterested to beat them until they realize how absurd their statement is, sometimes I will put down my drink and pull out my graduation cap, chalkboard, and ghetto blaster to go over this idea with them.
So first, I generally try and see how much they've actually thought this through, rather than going with their gut reaction after they were forced to listen to Pierrot Lunaire (1912) and thought it was weird. I try and see what they consider to be contemporary. Oftentimes, I am amazed to see how far they go back in this timeline, apparently unware of the definition of the word contemporary. Phrases like "Well, I like early contemporary music, like the Firebird" get bandied about. PRO TIP: If you wouldn't consider the Model T a contemporary automobile, then don't consider a piece of music that was premiered during its production life so either. But being pedantic doesn't tend to win people over so let's move on.
Usually around this time, you can figure out whether this person has really listened to much "new" music or was just scared off by early serialism and never looked back (side note for another blog: I think the reason people find this early atonality and serialism hard to appreciate has more to do with a lack of passion in the music than the notes themselves; a lot of these pieces tend to be very spacious, academic, and intropective, without a lot of stable ground for listeners.) It isn't exactly hard to completely avoid significant exposure to new music nowadays, even if you are a rabid consumer of classical tradition music. Much like the spread of the internet has caused people to pick the news outlets that most fit in to their point of view to continue to solidify their position without opposition, the availability of cheap recordings has allowed people to build up a sizeable amount of art music exposure without ever having to leave the safety of the 1800's.
(I may go in to a rant about classical recordings another day... seriously, I know another set of Brahms or Beethoven Symphonies will probably sell, but you can't milk that forver. I recently looked for a recording of Shebalin Symphony No. 5, after reading that Shostakovich considered it one of the most important pieces of Russian symphonic music... one out of print recording. gah.)
At this point, pump up the jams. Start with big names or important pieces, throw in some more listener friendly stuff, but by no means do I think we should sugarcoat contemporary music for people and pretend it is all Michael Torke and Eric Ewazen out there. You may be shocked to find what speaks to certain people; I've had just as many people resond to pieces like Black Angels, De Stijl, or Winds of Nagual as have responded well to more neo-romantic and neo-tonal music. You may even try some later serialists like Karel Husa or Gunther Schuller to show them that even the most dreaded of musical styles developed in to something with more soul to it.
Play them as wide a range of music as you have time for. What you want to impress upon them, is that now, more than ever, new and contemporary doesn't refer to anything meaningful. There are very few composers, even academics, who follow a strict school of composition anymore. Figure out where their musical interests lie and focus on that, but also play music outside of their preferred idiom. In my opinion, this is also a great time to introduce them to instruments and ensembles that they may not be acquainted with as the 20th century really saw an expansion of music written for non-traditional ensembles. If anyone is interested in pieces I would suggest playing, I'll be more than happy to do so, but I assume most people who will be reading this already have an arsenal of pieces to play.
Something I find fun to illustrate the fracturous nature of new music is to play pieces by Milton Babbitt, Corigliano, Ewazen, and Whitacre to someone. Then explain to them that all of them were either teachers or students at Juilliard towards the end of the 20th century or 21st century.
Overall the goal is to educate them on the variety of new music out there. If they seriously claim to hate everything you play them, assuming you played a wide enough variety of styles, then they are just being stubborn and there ain't no educating stubborn. It is also important to realize that not every style is going to reach every person. Hell, I love new music, but for the most part I can't stand electronic art music. The goal here is to find a niche that speaks to them, so that you can infiltrate their listening practices with music from composers who are still alive to appreciate the support, and in turn hopefully they will support the performance of new music. You want to shock the person in to realizing what they've been missing by making a blanket dismissal of all "new" music.
Anyways, let's wrap this up for today, kiddos. Feel free to post any thoughts or suggestions on what I should write about next in the comments. And by "feel free" I obviously mean "I demand you." Seriously, I do better with input.
So first, I generally try and see how much they've actually thought this through, rather than going with their gut reaction after they were forced to listen to Pierrot Lunaire (1912) and thought it was weird. I try and see what they consider to be contemporary. Oftentimes, I am amazed to see how far they go back in this timeline, apparently unware of the definition of the word contemporary. Phrases like "Well, I like early contemporary music, like the Firebird" get bandied about. PRO TIP: If you wouldn't consider the Model T a contemporary automobile, then don't consider a piece of music that was premiered during its production life so either. But being pedantic doesn't tend to win people over so let's move on.
Usually around this time, you can figure out whether this person has really listened to much "new" music or was just scared off by early serialism and never looked back (side note for another blog: I think the reason people find this early atonality and serialism hard to appreciate has more to do with a lack of passion in the music than the notes themselves; a lot of these pieces tend to be very spacious, academic, and intropective, without a lot of stable ground for listeners.) It isn't exactly hard to completely avoid significant exposure to new music nowadays, even if you are a rabid consumer of classical tradition music. Much like the spread of the internet has caused people to pick the news outlets that most fit in to their point of view to continue to solidify their position without opposition, the availability of cheap recordings has allowed people to build up a sizeable amount of art music exposure without ever having to leave the safety of the 1800's.
(I may go in to a rant about classical recordings another day... seriously, I know another set of Brahms or Beethoven Symphonies will probably sell, but you can't milk that forver. I recently looked for a recording of Shebalin Symphony No. 5, after reading that Shostakovich considered it one of the most important pieces of Russian symphonic music... one out of print recording. gah.)
At this point, pump up the jams. Start with big names or important pieces, throw in some more listener friendly stuff, but by no means do I think we should sugarcoat contemporary music for people and pretend it is all Michael Torke and Eric Ewazen out there. You may be shocked to find what speaks to certain people; I've had just as many people resond to pieces like Black Angels, De Stijl, or Winds of Nagual as have responded well to more neo-romantic and neo-tonal music. You may even try some later serialists like Karel Husa or Gunther Schuller to show them that even the most dreaded of musical styles developed in to something with more soul to it.
Play them as wide a range of music as you have time for. What you want to impress upon them, is that now, more than ever, new and contemporary doesn't refer to anything meaningful. There are very few composers, even academics, who follow a strict school of composition anymore. Figure out where their musical interests lie and focus on that, but also play music outside of their preferred idiom. In my opinion, this is also a great time to introduce them to instruments and ensembles that they may not be acquainted with as the 20th century really saw an expansion of music written for non-traditional ensembles. If anyone is interested in pieces I would suggest playing, I'll be more than happy to do so, but I assume most people who will be reading this already have an arsenal of pieces to play.
Something I find fun to illustrate the fracturous nature of new music is to play pieces by Milton Babbitt, Corigliano, Ewazen, and Whitacre to someone. Then explain to them that all of them were either teachers or students at Juilliard towards the end of the 20th century or 21st century.
Overall the goal is to educate them on the variety of new music out there. If they seriously claim to hate everything you play them, assuming you played a wide enough variety of styles, then they are just being stubborn and there ain't no educating stubborn. It is also important to realize that not every style is going to reach every person. Hell, I love new music, but for the most part I can't stand electronic art music. The goal here is to find a niche that speaks to them, so that you can infiltrate their listening practices with music from composers who are still alive to appreciate the support, and in turn hopefully they will support the performance of new music. You want to shock the person in to realizing what they've been missing by making a blanket dismissal of all "new" music.
Anyways, let's wrap this up for today, kiddos. Feel free to post any thoughts or suggestions on what I should write about next in the comments. And by "feel free" I obviously mean "I demand you." Seriously, I do better with input.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)