Where is the Good Music?

Expression and Emotion

2007-09-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting discussion in class the other day. We were talking about the various elements of music. Those components that are used to construct a piece. One person kept coming back to emotional impact and expression. I argued that these were not actual components of the music. These were not tools that a composer used to construct music but more results of that construction. In fact, I argued, these were almost more a result of the performers' actions than composer. I said that a composer can use things like dynamics and orchestration to build effects that a performer will re-create to effect an emotional response but these elements on there own are not expressive or emotive.

Reflecting on this exchange, I know that composers, when writing, are typically thinking expressively and are writing specifically to generate an emotional response. Many get emotionally worked up when writing.

What do you think? Are expression and emotion ingredients of a piece of music or are they results of the composer's work with inherently inexpressive tools?

Convincing others

2007-09-16T08:40:00.000-07:00

The first full week of school is now behind me and I'm reminded that knowing that a piece of music is good and convincing others of that fact are sometimes two very different things. I have four different ensembles that I work with and four very different sets of music. The pieces that were tuneful went over fairly well. Despite the fact that some of these piece were a little harder than the groups could handle on the first day, a melody is easy to grasp on to and the players can hear immediately what is supposed to happen, regardless of their ability to make it happen right there and then. Pieces that base there interest on other elements such as harmony or sometimes rhythm, are harder to grasp immediately and can quickly be dismissed as garbage. A piece that comes to mind that fits that description is one that describes tunes coming through mist. The instruments that depict the mist play the same note, on and off, for the first three of four pages of their parts. Somewhat understandably, a first read of this piece can create a skewed impression of the piece!

This also brings up the impact that an individual part in a large ensemble score can have on an individual player. A good part can convince some that a piece is good while a boring part can have the opposite effect on another player. I wonder how many tuba and horn players hate marches.

Thankfully, most of the musicians I work with, from grade 9 to adult, are patient and inquisitive and know that I don't typically program music that I don't believe in. I'm OK with having differing opinions on the pieces of music that we perform. With groups of 45+ you are never (or very rarely) going to have total agreement on the quality of a piece of music. As long as the musicians have something that they enjoy playing on each program and that the program is cohesive and provides and audience with something to react to I'm happy. I would much rather have an audience leave with a strong reaction against a piece of music than no reaction at all. I can think of a number of movies that I was disturbed having seen but was glad that I'd seen them. Music is the same. Not all music should produce the reaction of people leaving the hall whistling a tune with a smile on their face.

Acton Ostling

2007-08-29T09:21:00.000-07:00

I was going through my computer the other day doing back-ups and clean-outs and found this. I wish I knew where I downloaded it from but it is a great list that I thought was appropo of our discussions. I'd be curious to know your thoughts. Acton Ostling was involved primarily in band music and this list does reflect a larger ensemble bias.

Criteria for Assessing Quality in Music
(as determined by Acton Ostling Jr.-1978)

1. The composition has form – not “a form,” but form – and reflects a proper balance between repetition and contrast.

2. The composition reflects shape and design, and creates the impression of conscious choice and judicious arrangement on the part of the composer.

3. The composition reflects craftsmanship in orchestration, demonstrating a proper balance between transparent and tutti scoring, and also between solo and group colours.

4. The composition is sufficiently unpredictable to preclude and immediate grasp of its musical meaning.

5. The route through which the composition travels in initiating its musical tendencies and probable musical goals is not completely direct and obvious.

6. The composition is consistent in its quality throughout its length and various sections.

7. The composition is consistent in its style, reflecting a complete grasp of technical details, clearly conceived ideas, and avoids lapses into trivial, futile or unsuitable passages.

8. The composition reflects ingenuity in its development, given the stylistic context in which it exists.

9. The composition is genuine in idiom, and is not pretentious.

10.The composition reflects a musical validity which transcends factors of historical importance, or factors of pedagogical usefulness.

The Answer?

2007-08-14T07:04:00.000-07:00

The purpose of this blog from the outset has been to determine quality in music. My biggest question has been, how do you determine that a piece of music is of quality, regardless of style, performance, and personal taste?

As I've been writing a new podcast for my Music Advanced Placement course, I've been talking about melodic variation and how a composer works with a theme in much the same way a good speaker will work with a theme. From that, I can't help but wonder if this is the key to what I've been looking for.

Like a good speaker, a composer takes a theme - melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, whatever - and works with and develops that theme. The progression through the piece is clear and you leave with a sense that you've been taken somewhere. A story has been told. You've been on a journey.

What confuses the issue with music is that it is so abstract and so many things, I we've discussed, get in the way of ones understanding of the story. The first thing that gets in the way is the composer's (or speaker's) language. If you are a uni-lingual English speaker and you go hear a talk about wine in Mandarin, you're not likely to get much out of it. The speaker may be brilliant but you don't understand the language so the art of the speech is lost on you. I believe, in an early blog, that I commented on a composer friend that believed that serialism was amusical. I would argue that it is not the language that is amusical it is that so few people speak or understand serialism well enough to truly appreciate good serialist composition. Having said that, there have been times when great composers have used serialism to great effect - thinking of Stravinsky - and his use of the language seems to transcend the language itself.

We've discussed the impact of the performance on an audience's ability to understand and appreciate a piece of music. Again, I turn to speech writers and speech deliverers. One doesn't have to look far into the world of politics to see that there are some brilliant speech writers who's work regularly gets butchered by their employers. Likewise, there is the occasional speaker who is able to make the most boring, directionless, meaningless speech come to life. We've discussed this in terms of music at length in recent blog postings.

I also think of great improvisers. When I was playing much more jazz than I am now, I would marvel at those improvising musicians who were able to tell a story through the course of a solo. Gary Burton, jazz vibraphonist, comes immediately to mind. Every time I hear a solo of his, I feel like, not only have I been told a great story, but I understood every word of it. The more I think about it, I think that those who are truly great improvisers are truly great spontaneous composers.

I'd be curious, as always, for feedback on what I've written. It seems so clear and simple right now. I must not be awake and I'm likely missing something big. Talk to me!

Harry Potter, The Postman and Formulaic Writing

2007-08-07T13:32:00.000-07:00

This may say more about me than I should be sharing but...

I'm reading this blog about a postman in the UK who, in the middle of the massive flooding they had a couple of weeks back, gets in his 4x4 to deliver the latest Harry Potter novel to eagerly waiting fans. What does this have to do with music? Nothing. Almost.

There is then a discussion about the whether this postman was a hero or not. There were those that thought the postman should be locked up for potentially risking his life to deliver "J K Rowling’s formulaic, middle-class ideals espousing tripe and helping Bloomsbury become fat at the expense of intellectual nourishment."

So, I'm reading this thinking "Hey! Back off! I like Harry Potter." But then I wonder if I'm a blatant hypocrit. Is Harry Potter great literature? No. Is it a great read? Sure. At least I enjoy it. So, what about all of that formulaic crap band music that I regularly insult? Just because it is formulaic, does it mean that it is bad? Some would argue that Mozart and Bach were formulaic composers. Perhaps they were. There are certainly things about Mozart's music that make it instantly recognizable as Mozart and not Salieri. Perhaps there is some good Jim Swearingen or Anne McGinty. I haven't found it yet, and I can't say that I'm pouring through the collected works, but maybe there is something of quality that I'm missing because I look at formulaic music as boring, lazy and unoriginal.

Hhmmm....

Performance Quality

2007-08-01T10:03:00.000-07:00

I was teaching at a music camp last week and was reflecting on quality of performance and how it can change your perception of the quality of the piece of music. I won't name the camp, the performers or even the pieces of music as the performers worked very hard on preparing the music and they were at camp to learn. They learned a lot from working on these pieces regardless of the final performance.

There were a few pieces that were performed that I had a tough time with. The pieces were often by big name composers but pieces that I did not previously know. The performances were of average quality (or in a couple of cases, less than average) and I did not come away being moved by the music in any way (outside, perhaps by being moved into frustration!) Now, I know that just because a composer has a reputation of quality, it doesn't mean that every piece that that composer has written is a masterwork. I'm reminded of George Gershwin's comment, and I paraphrase, that he wrote six tunes a day simply to get the bad ones out of his system. I have no doubt that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart had their bad days too! But when the performance itself is questionable it can often be hard to get beyond the performance and get to the music. Do you have any techniques that you use to hear the music despite a poor performance?

The opposite is also true. I am reminded of a repertoire session that I attended years ago at a music conference. The band was conducted by a long string of conductors who had five pieces each to perform. Most of these conductors sight-read the pieces with the band giving lack-luster leadership to average sight-reading. One conductor, who I'd spoken to in the bar the night before, had prepared all five of her works and admitted to not liking one of them. She refused to tell me which one she didn't like but because of her preparation, the resulting performances of all five of her pieces was far better than anyone else's. What could have been five, poor pieces came off better than potential masterpieces conducted by less prepared conductors.

There is a saying: "There is no such thing as bad music, just bad musicians." I don't believe this. If I did, this whole blog would be pointless, but there is definitely an influence that an interpreter/performer has on a composition. This is a hell of a responsibility that the performer takes on and can be a hard thing to sift through as a listener.

Any thought? Any similar experiences?

George Crumb

2007-07-27T07:15:00.000-07:00

Wow! I heard a performance of a work by George Crumb last night. I didn't get the programme so I don't remember the title. What was appealing was the amazing variety of sounds that came out of flute, cello and piano. What was particularly effective was the interaction of the harmonics on the cello and harmonics on the piano. Not often one hears harmonics on a piano! I couldn't help leaving thinking two things: Crumb tends to be a bit long winded - as cool as the sounds were, the piece felt a bit long and was it a great piece of music? The sounds were interesting and the piece was enjoyable but is it a good piece. Should I run out and purchase a CD of this piece? Will it stand up to repeated listenings? Or was it simply an intriguing sound scape?

Programming

2007-07-23T11:17:00.001-07:00

OK, it almost came down to fists last night. I was having a pleasant conversation with a friend regarding programming wind band concerts. We have something in the wind band world that is unique. It is called, by some, academic repertoire. This is music that is played primarily by university ensembles because it pushes the students both technically and musically and conductors can get away with programming it because it doesn't matter if there is an audience or not. At least, that is how the argument goes.

I have a hard time with this whole argument. My "professional" ensemble exists to play for a paying audience. We don't make much money but we always have more people in the audience than on stage (occasionally it is close to the same number but normally we are outnumbered by audience members.) We (I) have taken the approach that we must think that the music is of high enough quality to warrant public performance. Often, this means that we play what some call academic music. Our audience, although not huge, seems to enjoy the repertoire.

The argument has been made that if we were to play movie soundtracks and medleys from musicals, we would get a larger audience. I'm not so sure about that. Would we get a different audience? Certainly. Would it be larger? Maybe. Would we be challenging our musicians? Not so much. I think that it is important to centre our programming on music that is written for our ensemble. Does this mean that we don't do more orchestral transcriptions or more "pop" oriented repertoire? No, there are certainly times when that is appropriate. But, there are groups who do that repertoire, do we need to be another one of them or should we work on creating an audience for repertoire written for our ensemble? 100 years ago when John Philip Sousa's band was at the top of the Billboard charts (and he was), there wasn't much repertoire written for band so opera arias, and orchestral transcriptions were core repertoire. Now we have a different problem. There is so much quality repertoire written for large wind ensemble that I won't be able to play it all in my lifetime.

Do we "give the audience what it wants" which is often an nicer way of saying pander to the lowest common denominator? Or do we try and create an audience for a growing quality repertoire of culturally relevant new music? Does this mean that repertoire has to be really strange and have no melody? No. But it does mean that it has to be quality, relevant, and written for type of ensemble. You know where I stand. How do you feel?

Double Saxophone Concerti

2007-07-21T11:21:00.001-07:00

First, do we really need a solo piece for two solo alto saxophones? Some would argue that a piece for one solo alto sax is one too many. I think the idea is a good one but the realization of that idea that was aired in Killarney last week was far from the best realization of that. The piece was 3/4 hard, loud jazz/rock, in-your-face playing using the instrumentation of a big band followed by a short, quiet section that seemed anti-climactic and pointless. The two sections seemed completely unrelated. The work generated more controversy than any other at the conference, judging by the people I spoke with. There were those who gave a huge standing ovation and seemed to be turned on by the jazz/rock, in-your-face nature of much of the piece. The two soloists have a band at home called SaxAssault. Many of us felt assaulted. Now, if you go to the composer, Andy Scott's website you can read that the work is influenced by a trip to Hiroshima and that is more about a yearning for peace than a work reflecting war. The questions that arise then are, why didn't we get this information in the programme? Without this information, the audience still came to a strongly divided reaction. Why? Are the programme notes necessary? If anything, in this case, the piece would have had more people less angry and thinking "OK, I get it but it still isn't a great piece of music." Interesting to note, Andy Scott won the 2006 British Composer Award for Wind Bands for this piece.

I guess the piece is effective at the very least. I tell my students, when we tackle more musically challenging works, that I don't care if people hate the piece that we're performing. What I don't want from an audience is apathy. Andy Scott was the most successful composer of the week if that is the only criteria for judgement.

The question is then begged, do you have to like a piece for it to be good? There are many great movies that deal with very difficult subject matter. Why is it that we equate liking a piece of music with it being good?

Composition and Personal Finance

2007-07-21T10:48:00.000-07:00

I suck at both!!!!!!!! Probably for the same reason. A good composer will have a minimum of material to work with and will budget the use of that material through the context of a piece. We've all heard pieces where there are too many ideas and it is impossible to follow them all. Consequently, the piece feels like total randomness. Likewise, there are pieces that use an idea and do everything they can with it in an exciting two minutes. Unfortunately, the piece is 20 minutes long.

A good composition, like sticking to a good budget, is all about economy and pacing. The best compositions have a point that they want to make (a theme or central idea) and use it effectively and creatively. They also pace the use of that idea in such a way that it is easy to follow and you feel that you have been on a journey when the piece is finished.

Hmmmmm....... New topic for discussion:

Accountants make great composers. Charles Ives sold insurance. I can't think of any accountant/composers.

General Wrap Up of WASBE

2007-07-19T08:15:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm back from Ireland and have taken a few days to get back in to the swing of things. I heard so much music over the week away and it's hard to figure out where to begin. Some general observations:

1) For the most part, people (or at least the folks I hung out with) agreed on what was good music and what was not. The fact that there was general agreement on the quality of the music seems to indicate that there is such thing as good quality music and it is not simply a matter of taste.
2) On the rare occasion that people didn't agree, opinions seemed to be polarized. There was a concerto for two saxophones that people either loved or hated. There was no in between.
3) One of the pieces that I enjoyed the most was a piece by a friend of mine, Christopher Marshall. I had interviewed him for a podcast and he explained the construction of the piece, Resonance. Was the reason I liked the piece that I had had time to digest the construction of the piece and knew what to expect or was it simply a great piece of music? You can hear the podcast and the piece itself.

In the coming posts, I'll spend a little time deconstructing some of the pieces that I liked and didn't like in an attempt to reach some conclusions about the general nature of quality in music.

Composers

2007-07-13T03:28:00.000-07:00

One of the great opportunities I've had at this WASBE conference has been to talk about concerts and particular works with other conductors and composers. It is interesting to hear how composers analyze a piece compared to conductors. Of course, each of us is different and one can't be quite so general to say that all composers listen in a particular way but there are some similarities, especially when these composers are not performers themselves.

The composers that I've spent the most time with seem to analyze the craft of the composition much better than I do. One is obsessed with form. His comment is that solid form in a piece can mask all sorts of faults in other areas. Others look at orchestration as one of the more essential elements. Personally, I think I listen for pacing first. If a piece has good pacing, that assumes good form and can often bring about a more poignant emotional reaction.

Guilty Pleasures?

2007-07-11T05:21:00.000-07:00

Couldn't help but reflecting on how familiarity and perhaps sentimentality affect ones enjoyment of music. I was at a concert yesterday that included two percussion ensemble pieces that I was intimately familiar with from my university days. I spoke with others after the concert who were not nearly as enthusiastic as I. I haven't heard either piece in a very long time and perhaps the fulfilled expectation of the music that had not been heard in quite some time created the right balance. Many people speak of similar things with favourite pop tunes of their youth. Either the familiarity or the remembrance of events or feelings that they experienced that are associated can cause enjoyment of the piece, regardless of quality. It's called a guilty pleasure, no?

Issue Rise again at WASBE

2007-07-09T22:54:00.000-07:00

It's the morning of the third day of the WASBE conference in Killarney, Ireland and the best expression at this point is likely, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There are certain issues that rear their head at every conference I've been to (this is number 5). It is a world conference and there are performing ensemble from all over the world and from different cultures and different programming aesthetics.

So far, we have heard three bands and one chamber ensemble from Ireland, Sweden and the US. The programs have been very different. Without getting into the specifics of who played what (you can read more about that at the WASBE web site) there are some questions that have come to mind yet again.

First, as a conference delegate, I pay a large sum of money to travel a long distance to hear some great concerts. There are certain types of repertoire that I don't need to hear. Not that I've heard any pop transcriptions yet (re-settings of pop tunes or movie soundtrack music for concert band) but I do get offended when I hear these pieces on a WASBE program. There are so many great original works for wind band, I don't need to hear transcriptions at all unless they truly offer something special. One that comes to mind from a conference in Sweden four years ago was a setting of dance from the Terpsichore that was the finest orchestration of that music that I've ever heard.

Second, what is the role of an encore? The conference dictates that no encores shall be played. This is as much an organizational issue than an aesthetic one. With the demands on the concert hall, you can't have performances go over time. But rarely do I hear encores that fit the programme. The US military bands always end concerts with a Susa march, regardless of what else is played in the concert. This doesn't bother me too much as I've come to expect it but they are often jarring to listen to. The biggest issues I have are with the top military bands who often programme more challenging repertoire to listen to. If you have just made it through a major contemporary work with unconventional harmonies and creative orchestrations, to jump into a rendition of The Stars and Stripes Forever just doesn't work.

Third, the effect of a good performance (or the opposite) can truly colour your hearing of a piece of music. There were pieces performed last night that I may have had a very different opinion of had a different ensemble played them. Likewise, I have found myself write notes that I have to find a recording of piece x because it was hard to truly judge the work due to a poor performance.

Finally, the ordering of pieces in a programme is critical. I will use last nights concert as an example again. There were to short brass pieces by Penderecki and Takemitsu performed without a break between them. They were similar enough that they worked brilliantly together and the pairing actually made each of the pieces better. Later in the programme there was a Morton Gould piece that sounded more like Ives, followed by an Ives work. These were both longer although still only 3 minutes or so each) but they were similar enough that I thought that the Ives was redundant.

I'll likely write more about specific pieces as time allows throughout the week. TTFN.

Putting it to the Test

2007-07-06T07:58:00.000-07:00

I'm off to Ireland today to see if I can what little I've learned so far about discerning quality in music to the test. This is my bi-annual trip to the WASBE conference. (No, not the wasabe conference.) WASBE is the World Association for Symphonic Bands and Ensembles. For most, that won't make it much clearer. This association is dedicated to the promotion of symphonic bands and wind ensembles as serious and distinctive mediums of musical expression and cultural heritage and encouragement of the composition of band literature of excellence that reflects national heritages and transcends international boundaries. This is a world-wide organization that wants great music for bands that are made up of large groups of wind and percussion instruments.

Why would you have to have an organization to do that? Well, traditionally, bands have been thought of utilitarian ensemble or training ensembles. When most people think of this type of band music, they think of enduring the marathon school concert or listening to national anthems played on a runway for visiting dignitaries. They don't often think of attending a concert at the local symphony hall and hearing a quality performance of high quality music. This is what WASBE and it's members try to change. Logically, there is no reason that the instrumentation of the ensemble should dictate the quality of the music. If this were true, then one could say that Opera is better music than string quartet repertoire. One might argue that a rock band instrumentation infers lesser quality music than the Symphony Orchestra, but you would quickly find that it isn't the instruments that create the quality in the music, it is the intent and talent of those using them.

So, this week, I will attend a dozen concerts, go to many workshops and repertoire sessions that will all revolve around the creation, promotion and discovery of great music for a particular instrumentation. I expect that I will be impressed by many outstanding performance and that I will come back, having learned much about this great and expanding repertoire. Will I like every piece I hear? No. But hopefully I will like enough to inspire me. Even more importantly, I hope that there are a number of new pieces and composers that intrigue me and make me want to explore further.

My intent is to write to this blog regularly while I'm away. The reality may be different. I am also writing and podcasting for the association and the sessions go from 8:30am until past midnight every day. Please check back and at the very least, there will a significant update when I return.

Canada Day Fireworks

2007-07-02T12:27:00.000-07:00

So, I'm sitting up on a hill watching the Canada Day fireworks last night and thinking to myself. Lame, lame, lame... And wondering why so many people think that this is an exciting thing to do. Outside of the blowing stuff up thing that appeals to many guys, and the pretty colours, what is the appeal? There is no seeming archetecture to the presentation. No clear starting point, no build, no single climax, and certainly no denouement. The pattern seemed to be: blow things up, run around and re-set, blow more things up, re-set, blow the big pile of things up, go home. The best part was that there seemed to be a recording of Dukas' Sorecerer's Apprentice playing far away from a tiny speaker. I could just hear it when the music climaxed and the fireworks didn't.

The whole pattern seemed to point to a lot of piece I've heard. Know over-riding arch or structure that drives the large scale piece. Some good ideas, but not enough to sustain anything. And not even any unique enough ideas that you could forgive the structural flaws.

Belated Happy Canada Day!

New Music (to me)

2007-06-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

OK, it's been a few days. Winding down from the school year while I wind up for a couple of major concerts and a trip to a music conference next week.

I performed, with the Pacific Symphonic Wind Ensemble, last night at a choral festival opening ceremony. When I wasn't performing, it was interesting to sit and listen to the choirs sing. Now, despite the fact that my wife is a singer and as a music educator, I'm never too far away from choirs, I have to say that my knowledge of choral repertoire is very limited. Listening to the groups last night, I couldn't help but reflect on the quality of the performances and the quality of the repertoire.

I will start with this: every single performing group was outstanding from a technical and expressive standpoint. Young voices, singing en-mass in a large, reverberant space can send chills down ones spine, regardless of what it is that they sing. I'll comment on the repertoire of a couple of groups. One group, from Cuba, was extremely exciting. They were an acapella vocal septet that sang vocal-jazz, beat-box grounded pop and traditional Cuban tunes. I have to say that it was hard for me to hear them clearly. What I did like was the percussion sounds that they were able to achieve without using any percussion instruments (except for the Cuban tune when claves were played). The Cuban tune itself had some very cool grooves to it. Being a percussionist, I was riveted and spent much of the tune trying to figure out the many ways one could interpret the grooves. I have to ask myself though, was I interested in the technical aspects of the performance and the way the music worked rhythmically or was it good music? I have to say that there was at least one moment where I thought that the tune should have ended (and the audience agreed because they started clapping) yet it kept on going.

The other reflection was on the massed choir numbers. The first piece reminded me a lot of many of the formulaic concert band pieces that are pumped out my a number of music publishers. For those of you who do not have ready access to a school music programme, you may not have been privileged to hear one of the many clones of a composer's first successful piece. This unfortunate composer wrote something that was truly new and refreshing that was unfortunately picked up by a music publisher who guaranteed an income if a certain number of new pieces were churned out every year that sound like that first thing he or she wrote. This poor composer has a family to feed and has to keep cloning that first piece to make sure that they keep their job. There is much more to this rant but I'll leave it here. The piece that I heard last night was safe. Nothing special. Nothing offensive (unless boredom is an offence - and maybe it is). The other piece was a setting of a Maori lullaby. Again, it was nice and safe, but didn't do anything for me. Not that I'm any kind of expert on Maori music, but I've been lucky enough to hear a bit in the last couple of years - both in New Zealand and from groups that visited from there. I had high expectations that weren't realized.

That is the topic of another post, I think. Sometimes we have these expectations that might be unfair that really colour the way we listen to a piece. When those expectations aren't realized, the piece falls flat for us. Is that the fault of the piece or is it the fault of our expectations?

Wow! Someone is reading and commenting!

2007-06-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

It's a landmark day on this blog. My dream has come true and there is an actual dialogue on the subject that is under way. Please, check the comments and feel free to add your own. From what I can tell, I have had people drop by the site from almost every continent on the planet. Some actually return! I really want this blog to be a sharing of ideas and not a platform for my opinion. Jump in! State your piece!

Atonality and "The Balance"

2007-06-15T18:19:00.000-07:00

A couple of posts ago, I talked about the importance of a balance between the expected and the unexpected - to truly enjoy a piece of music, you have no what the parameters are and be surprised often enough by deviation from those parameters to keep interested. Today, I was speaking with a composer friend who has recently finished his doctorate in composition. A doctorate in composition not involves writing a substantial amount of music but it also requires the study of a great works in a variety of styles and by a number of composers.

The conversation got onto atonality and the question was, although atonality was important to explore, is there any truly great music composed with that asthetic? My friend was complaining that he studied a particular work by one of the big atonal composers and, no matter how deep he got into the piece and how many times he listened to it, it never spoke to him. He questions whether it is truly a great piece of music and whether anyone enjoys it as a piece of music.

For those who do not know the concept of atonality, let me explain it this way: In tonal music, there is one pitch that is emphasized as the tonal centre - a symphony in C typically begins on the note C, works around C and returns to C. That is a simplification but it is essentially true. In atonality, the concept is that all notes are given equal emphasis so that there is no one pitch that feels more like "home" than any other. The way the great atonal composers (Webern, Schoenberg, Berg) wrote to satisfy this harmonic language was by creating a tone row using all twelve notes of the chromatic scale in any order that they wished. Once established, that tone row had to be left intact and all notes must be played in the sequence. The sequence can be used harmonically (ie. portions of the row played simultaneously as a chord) or melodically and the row can be played backwards, forwards or upside down, but the row itself must be kept intact. If you wish a more in depth definition of atonality click here.

One can argue that they find atonal composition fascinating. The act of composing an atonal piece is truly a intricate act of balancing melodic and harmonic lines within the limits of the tone row. It is a musical logic puzzle. The question is: is this music in the sense that it somehow moves you and as such you want to listen to it and play it again and again? Or is it an amazing display of logical thinking that can be inspiring but in a more analytical way than a musical one?

I think that, for this composer in particular, atonal music is not music. Or it is certainly not great music. I would guess that there are many people out there who would argue that they get the same or greater emotional or spiritual experience from some atonal works as they do tonal works.

This begs the question: how much of the definition of greatness in a piece of music is dependent on the listener rather than the composer (and from this morning's post: the performer)? If the equation ways heavily or entirely on the side of the listener, then we're back to: if you like it, the music is a great work for you.

This is scaring me. I want to be able to say that piece X is a great work of art. Period. I may not like it or understand it but it is a great work of art in the way that the Mona Lisa is considered a great work of art. Is it possible to get to this point?

Why I Hate Mozart

2007-06-15T06:53:00.000-07:00

Well, I don't really hate Mozart. But I thought I did for years. I was convinced that his music was trite and pointless (except for the Requiem). It bored me.

It took me an awfully long time to get past that enough to realize that Mozart was actually a descent composer. The issue was not with him, it was with those who chose to play him. He was the master of simplicity. This is a big plus and an even bigger minus. His simplicity allows him to be accessible to the masses. You know what to expect when you listen to Mozart. There aren't a lot of surprises. He was a master of form and many have followed his example. Even if you've never listened to Mozart before, you understand the structure of his compositions.

The minus is that he is accessible to the masses. Every beginning pianist, junior string orchestra, and beginning band on the planet plays Mozart. As an educator, I think this is good. Every music student needs to be exposed to the great composers. As an audience member, my experience with Mozart gets loaded up with poor performances of a great composer.

It wouldn't be so bad if it stopped there. The problem is that there are far too may professionals who offer poor performances of Mozart. Hell, it's easy. You have a CD or a concert that you are programming and you come up 5-10 minutes short of music. Let's add a Mozart. We can throw that together quickly and it'll sound good. WRONG!!!! You don't programme any music as an after-thought. It will come off sounding like it. Yes, the professionals can get all the notes in the right place and it sounds "good," but it lacks expression and the careful attention to detail that makes a performance truly special. (you'll note that I said that I like the Requiem - I've yet to hear anyone programme that as an after-thought!)

One of the turning points in my view and understanding of Mozart was about 10 years ago at a conference in California. I got myself to the early morning session on rehearsing one of the Mozart Wind Serenades. I have to admit that I was sitting in the audience before the session began wondering why the hell I sacrificed precious hours sleep for this, but I was there so I might as well stay. It was fascinating. I can't remember the name of the conductor who was presenting, but the ensemble was faculty at one of the bigger music schools in the US. They'd played a pretty boring concert the evening before but they came alive in the hour and a quarter that they spent working just the first movement. The way the phrasing, balance and overall structure of the movement was worked, made the piece come alive. It was riveting and an experience that continues to influence me a decade later.

So, it is not Mozart that I hate. It is all too many of the performances of Mozart. A good performance can sometimes sell a poor piece, and a poor performance can often sink a good piece. How do we distinguish between the two? Perhaps that is the subject of a future post.

Affected Judgement - Putting music in context

2007-06-13T20:27:00.000-07:00

So, you are at a concert or you have your iPod on shuffle in the commute home and a piece of music comes up that you have begin to have a significant abdominal reaction too. If you are in the car, you simply skip to the next tune, if you are in a concert, you fake a sudden coughing attack and excuse yourself. As you're standing at the bar in the lobby, you wonder what it was that you didn't like about what you just heard. You reflect on the balance between expected and unexpected. It seemed to have enough of each to appeal. Perhaps the piece is in a style that evokes strongly unpleasant memories. That road trip in a rental truck with access to nothing but country music for days on end. Perhaps it reminds you of that dance in junior high. You know the piece that was playing when you got so nervous around a cute girl that you almost woofed on her shoes?

Nope, it's neither of those. Perhaps, it is what preceded the piece in question. This happened to me at a concert in Singapore a couple of summers ago. A fantastic ensemble was playing a program of high quality music. I can't remember what came first, but it was followed by a slightly outside wind ensemble work with a good dose of humour and a strong infusion of Dixie. Not that I'm a huge Dixie fan, but in small doses or the right context, I can really get into it. Well this piece really put me off in a big way. I spoke with others at the end of the concert and many really liked the piece. A lot of these people are people whose tastes I often share. I suspect that it was a descent, high quality piece. I have no doubt that the conductor thought so. Why such a strong negative reaction?

The analogy I have developed to explain this experience is that of a great meal. A great meal has a flow to it. The appetizer leads to the main course and the dessert wraps up the meal appropriately. The wine(s) are chosen to work well with each course and the meal is comes together as a total entity. Some people have no problem starting with a butternut squash soup, following with a heavily spiced cajun burger and finishing with angel food cake. The problem is that the burger would destroy any memory of the soup and the angel food cake would have no taste after that burger.

Music needs to be sequenced in a similar way and I suspect that in the previous example of the concert in Singapore, whatever preceded the Dixie piece, set me up for a completely different expectation that what was fulfilled. I was expecting to go ne way and the piece took a very hard turn in the opposite direction.

A similar circumstance occurred when an outstanding program of contemporary classical repertoire was performed and followed with an ABBA medley as an encore. In a different setting with a different programme, I'm sure that the ABBA medley would have been well received, but to this day, I have never seen an audience so angry about programming.

How does this relate to discerning quality music? If one is in a situation where the programming itself skews ones judgement, it becomes very difficult to form an objective opinion of the work in question. In wine and food paring, this is considered common knowledge. In music programming, it seems to be rarely considered.

Please, comment by clicking below and tell me that I'm off my rocker or, tell me of similar experiences you've had with poor piece parings. I'd love to hear from you.

The Balance

2007-06-10T08:47:00.000-07:00

One of the concepts that I address with my students is that for one to respond in a positive way to a piece of music, there needs to be a balance between the expected and the unexpected. If there is too much that is expected in a piece of music, than we tend to get bored. Think of any of those pop tunes that hit the radio and get played every hour for a week. By the end of the week, you begin to twitch when you hear it. The piece may have been good but you have heard everything there is to hear in it and you become bored with it. On the other end of the spectrum in the Metheney Song X that I referred to in the previous post. My problem when I first heard it was that there was so much going on that I couldn't make sense of it. It was too busy. Everything was unexpected. We often have this reaction when approaching a new music tradition for the first time. We don't know what to expect. Everything is confusing. We run away.

If you think of those great masterworks - for me the exist in the world of classical music and jazz - where you hear something new every time you listen. There is enough that you know that you can hold on and understand the work, but there is always something new. Think of the great Coltrane albums where you might hear some great piano comping or a drum fill that has been missed on previous hearings. Or think of any great Symphony when a certain conductor or orchestra brings out a countermelody that gets buried with other ensembles. These pieces have staying power. Seemingly, no matter how many times you hear them, there is always something new.

The problem still exists, how do you recognize a piece as a great work on the first listening? My gut tells me that if you are instantly drawn to it, it may not have the staying power to hold up over time. That is not universally true but I usually have to listen to pieces that I end up really liking, a second time.

Thoughts?

Where it all started

2007-06-04T13:05:00.000-07:00

Why isn't this a simple question for me? I know a lot of people who like what they like and don't like what they don't like. Seems simple. I guess a few concerns come to mind. As a music educator and conductor I am in a position where I need to be aware of the fact that music that I like may be lost on my students and audiences and music that they like may be lost on me. Just because I like a piece of music, doesn't mean that it is good and will appeal to my audience.

My first realization of this dilemma was in university while taking a philosophy of art course. The first assignement was to write about a work of art that you really liked and another that you couldn't stand. I had no problem selecting the latter. I had run out and bought Pat Metheny's Song X based on the fact that it hit the top 10 of the Downbeat Readers Poll in the year that it was released. I took it home and immediately popped it on the record player. I couldn't stand it and it went directly onto the shelf until this assignment was given a few years later. I popped the recording on again, fully prepared to hate it and write about all of the reasons why it was a giant piece of crap. Unfortunately for my assignment, the more I listened to it to try and figure out why it was so bad, I started to understand it and hear what was going on. I'm not sure that I ever got to a point where I liked the album, but I certainly can appreciate it.

So liking and appreciating are different things, I learned. But, where is the line between them? Why is it that our opinions can change? Sure, we age and our tastes change, but the piece of music doesn't. How do we tell whether a piece of music is good or not, regardless of how we feel about it?

A Bit About Me

2007-06-02T17:45:00.000-07:00

I'm a 40-year old music educator and conductor. My job is to pick outstanding music to perform with a variety of groups: student and professional, jazz and classical. My problem is this. How do you find the good music? The number of times that I've heard what I thought was a great piece, then a week later hit myself over the head with a large plank because I realize that I had to have been on serious drugs when I made that call. Or, listen to a piece for the first time, put it away, come back to it a year later and wonder why I have enjoyed this masterwork multiple times? I've talked to a number of folks about this and received answers that the run the gamut from "if I like it it is good" to the much more more analytical response that reminds me of the snobbier wine tastings that I've been to. This blog will share new music that I've found and try to discover some failsafe method of determining what makes a piece of music good and what makes another piece bad. I suspect that i will never answer that question, but hope that I'll learn a lot trying.