 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: claclaws
Date: 2007-07-19 00:23
Yesterday I went to a matinee concert given by Jerry Chae, principal clarinetist of Seoul Philharmonic Orchestra.
First time to go to his concert so I was very excited. Very nice tone, from pp to ff, though a little to small sound to my (untrained) ears. Looking at his setup was a joy too. He uses the Backun bell.
Two of most common modern pieces, Premiere Rhapsodie (Debussy) and 3 Pieces (Stravinsky) were in the program.
Here's my question: How can an amateur, not so very knowledgeable about late 19th-20th c. music, enjoy these types of music?
Despite the gratitude for such a nice concert I felt sorry there were no 'encore' performance. It would be perfect if fhe clarinetist played something 'digestible' i.e. even a simple song the audience knows....
Lucy Lee Jang
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-19 01:14
Shows the difference in perspective...
If I go to a concert of Premiere Rhapsodie and 3 Pieces, I leave wishing they'd played something modern rather than old standards.
As with just about any type of music, at first listen you likely have a certain level of liking or not liking it, and you can pursue trying to learn more about it or not, in the same way you would with baroque opera, swing jazz, calypso, tango, or hip-hop. Some music is more approachable than others, and it's a lot easier if you're constantly exposed to it, and if you're a part of the culture or find some personal relevance.
I'd recommend a lot of listening, playing pieces from that era, and reading up on the background of the composers and their world. I also find that people who have played any given piece have a LOT more to listen for than people who haven't, and personally think there are some pieces that are unlistenable to anyone except people who have played them. :P
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ZCClarinet
Date: 2007-07-19 05:12
Here's a specific listening path help getting you to liking un'digestible' music:
Start with pieces that uses different collection like octatonic and pentatonic instead of purely diatonic:
Cathedrale Engloutie
Prelude pour l`apres-midi d'un Faun
Both Debussy, which should get you to start "understanding where he's coming from"
You may also enjoy Debussy's Ballade, Passepied and Reverie (all of which you can also play on piano pretty easily). If you find yourself really liking Debussy, eventually listen to his piano etudes, which are really transparent so you can really hear and experience his raw compositional abilities.
After you've listened to some Debussy, go to pieces that really break from conventional collections and instead suggest their own:
Quartet for the end of time (just mvmts 5 and 8 for now)
Take a break and go to some 12 tone based music:
Berg Violin Concerto (This might be a stretch... but I like it)
By now, the Debussy Premiere Rhapsodie should seem rather 'tame'.
You can approach the Stravinsky through his earlier compositional "eras" - learn about each of them and try to get a taste from each. Be sure to include Symphony of pslams and Rite of spring somewhere in there.
Of course almost everything I've listed makes strong use of pitch class sets we all know and love (major and minor chords and such), which is why they're so easy to access by people who are not quite ready to leave the tonal world. You can branch off into works of each composer or each composition style for more listening as Alex suggested.
If you'd like to continue on your journey from tonality, try the rest of the quartet for the end of time, then move to Schoenberg (definitely read his 'Theory of Harmony'), Bartok and Webern. If you'd like to keep going, investigate John Cage, then go to Stockhausen, Reich, Schaeffer, and Varese (this is currently my own limit).
By now, pieces like Ligeti's Lux Aeterna ought to sound beautiful.
Extra credit:
I highly suggest sitting down with a score of both clarinet pieces and getting your hands dirty in analysis when you feel inclined. Look up papers that music theorists have written about them... and come up with your own conclusions too. It's certainly not necessary from a listener's standpoint, and I've known many clarinetists who have even performed both without any analytical idea of what's going on in the music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-07-19 07:45
I can only tell you what I did to get to the situation where I can listen to any music and "judge" it objectively. I also used to not like "weird" music. I had two revolations. The first was Petruchka. After not listening to it for a couple of years I listened again and thought it was one of the most beautiful music I've ever heard. I started looking more into similar stuff.
Then after a few more years I heard a CD of some modern/jazz/avantgarde music that mostly I thought was "werid" but one place was one of the best bass clarinet playing/improvising/composing I've heard, so I bought the CD and listened to it a lot. At first I fast forward many parts but the more I listened the more I realized the other parts were also great (it tooks months).
From there I realized I must be missing something in a lot of music so I started listening to so much different music, hours almost every day, from the most basic and popular to some really obscure things. The most important thing is to listen ACTIVELY. This means, trying to understand why everything that is happening in the music is happening. This includes both musical and outer musical reasons.
After a lot of active listening I realized more and more that the most basic principles in EVERY music are the same. Not things like harmony, etc. but much more basic. This is about understanding the idea in the music and how everything else in the music is connected to that idea.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2007-07-19 08:03
There are a number of composers who have taken just one or two steps away from the classical. There are some really, really famous approachable pieces by the likes of Walton (Belshazzar's Feast), Bernstein (Chichester Psalms), Orff (Carmina Burana), and even Stravinsky in his early years (e.g. Firebird). Modernist afficionados might discount these but they're sufficiently different from Mozart and Beethoven to be worth listening to as a first step.
When I sang in a choir our choirmaster gave us a fantastic illustration. Divided into sections we sang the scale of C. First section starts on C. Second section starts on E. Third section starts on G. Choirmaster says, 'That's Mozart'.
Next, first section sings the scale of C major. Second section sings E major. Third section sings G major. It's gnarly, but it also makes perfect sense.
'That's Walton', explains the choirmaster.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-07-19 11:22
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> I pretty much end at the Corigliano Concerto. Works like that I
> really like a lot, but past it (microtones, multiphonics,
> serial, computer assisted) leaves me in the dust - could care
> less about it.
Too bad. Mike Lowenstern gave one of the most exciting and easy-to-listen to performances at ClarinetFest. (OK, so it didn't have serialism - at least I don't remember that it did ...)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2007-07-19 13:49
It's funny how some modern composers just 'click' for different people, of course. One of the finest concerts I ever attended was a performance of James MacMillan's 'The Exorcism of Rio Sumpul', all heaps of scary stacked semitones and most notably a percussion section featuring a man banging a bent iron fence railing (I jest not) with a club hammer. Having said that, Mahler 7 makes my ears bleed :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-07-19 16:10
To my up-tight ears and closed-off mind Lowenstern was pretty mild. What he seemed to be doing was to play in 2-movements. He recorded the first "movement" onto an endless, solo loop. Then, as it replayed, he "accompanied himself." Kind of cool.
But other performances of modern music brought me no joy. I could find nothing to ground myself in the performances by Stephen Vermeersch, and by the Schwas Trio (Allison Storochuk, Cl, William Street, alto sax, Corey hamm, Piano). Too bad, too, because Street has a wonderful, "classical" sound.
I even had trouble with Derek Bermel's Thracian Sketches. And the dude with the "not-so good clarinet" blowing subtone bubbles in a big vat of water?
Clearly, I don't know the conventions that guide such musical developments --a disadvantage; but with all of the music that I find attractive, it is unlikely that I'll undertake to get up to speed on this stuff.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-07-19 16:41
What bothered me the most (and I feel was most disturbing) at the conference was the 1 hour(!) performance by Patricia Kostek of 4 (or 5 - the noise runs together in my head at the moment and I don't have the schedule in front of me) premieres of new music scheduled at the beginning (!) of a shared recital. The recital started at 4:00 and was scheduled to last maybe an hour and a half or so. There were 4 other performers, and they were asked to keep their performances to 15 minutes, so they (and the audience) all assumed that each performer would be be onstage at more or less 20 minute intervals.
The idea behind the premiers was a good one (all composed by composers in the area with a northwest native Indian theme).
The execution:
Unfortunately, after 1 hour of excruciating pain, just about everyone was gone from the hall. I sat through the first 15 minutes, thinking it couldn't get worse. It did - I ended up staying the whole hour thinking it would end sooner that it did. There were a number of us ready to get up and applaud just to move along to the next piece.
The next 4 performers played to an essentially empty hall.
In my mind, just because Ms. Kostek was a co-chair of this event gives her no right to cause that kind of scheduling to be done. She could have either played shorter excerpts from each new piece or had the common courtesy to reschedule herself last. Premiering 4 new pieces is risky enough by itself - I'd never seen that many done at once. It didn't work ...
In my not-so-humble opinion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-19 19:38
My intro into a symphony was Mahler's 9th (literally was the 1st symphony I ever heard in jr high). From that I within a year started listening to stuff like the Rite of Spring and liked it a lot. That style of music is just about my favorite, but just not way, way, way past it to the point of questioning if it is really music or not.
To me it's like throwning blood on a statue of the virgin mary and calling it modern art.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-07-20 07:42
Alex, that CD was Double Trio - Green Dolphy Suite but it doesn't mean it will do the same for others. Although I recommend every musician and especially clarinetis to listen to this CD. It is like Mark Charette said, if there is easy-to-listen to parts then it makes you listen and slowly you understand more and more.
I used to make the same generalizations like David Blumberg above, and decide what music I like based on style, or what things were used to make it (i.e. electronic), or time composed, etc.
IME the most important is to be able to judge everything objectively, so you can explain why something is good or not, and seperately from it why you like it or not. There is a lot of psychology and philosophy in it too. This is IMO one of the most interesting things about all music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-20 07:55
clarnibass wrote:
> IME the most important is to be able to judge everything objectively
As far as music goes, while I do approach with some objective aspects, I always prefer to be very subjective. It often makes one come off as rude, but as long as you're willing to eat your words later, I find it also leads to more interesting, honest discourse.
Especially in academic circles, everyone seems so quick to nod their head and say "hmm", rather than "that was really cool" or "that put me to sleep." Boring music often ensues.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-07-20 10:30
Mark, my sympathies re. the ClarinetFest concert. I didn't attend the Fest, but the scheduling does sound unfortunate. The problem with modern music, as with modern anything else, is that Sturgeon's Law tends to come into play: "Ninety percent of everything is crap." History hasn't winnowed the new music yet, and the only way to winnow it is to listen to it, so I thank Mark and the few other sufferers for enduring what sounds like a long display of egotism and boring noise in the hope of recognizing something good. Too bad more educated listeners won't do the same, because I suspect that unwillingness to sit through the ninety percent that's crap means this generation's best composers never get heard and go to their graves unknown.
I'm also in favor of booing and throwing fruit, and even a modest amount of rioting, by the way. Okay, just kidding about the fruit. It stains the carpets. I don't favor property damage. But booing, hissing or otherwise indicating disapproval on the spot: bravo. I think audiences would be more willing to listen to new music if we weren't quite so well schooled to pat our hands together politely at the end no matter what's just assaulted us. Maybe "everybody's a winner" works for five-year-olds at a talent show, but come on--these composers are big boys and girls now. As an amateur composer myself, I want to be heard and yes, I do want to know what people really think.
It does somewhat disturb me to see music such as Stravinsky's Three Pieces (1919) and Debussy's Premiere Rhapsody (1910) referred to as modern. In fact, it bothers me to see serialism described as modern. Serialist composition dates back at least to the 18th centyry: J. S. Bach.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2007-07-20 13:44
Leila - that's Modern with a capital 'M'. The really weird stuff is 'Contemporary' with a capital 'C' :-D
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-20 19:41
Of course what Mark didn't like could possibly be loved by someone else. I've heard many, many "contemporary" works, and liked very few of them. Michael Norsworthy performed a work at ClarFest at Elsa's tribute concert titled "bug" which was about a computer virus taking over an active computer - that was quite cool and did have the various bells and whistles, but no computer assist. I enjoyed that one a lot.
You have to remember that the player performing the works doesn't think "wow, this stuff is real crap, I think I'll really torture my poor listeners by playing it". Though once after a Philadelphia Orchestra Concert after a really lengthy Shostakovitch Symphony the Summer Concertmaster came up to me and said "were you as bored as I was"?
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-07-20 19:57
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Of course what Mark didn't like could possibly be loved by
> someone else.
True enough ... but the scheduling was inconsiderate at best.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-07-21 00:47
Bassie wrote,
>>Leila - that's Modern with a capital 'M'. The really weird stuff is 'Contemporary' with a capital 'C' :-D
>>
LOL! (Leila's my evil twin, btw. She only likes music by ABBA.) What I should've said more clearly is that terms like "modern" and contemporary" (capitalized or not) eventually lose their teeth and grow long, long beards. I'd rather see us call Stravinsky and Debussy and others of their time "early 20th Century composers."
David Blumberg wrote,
>You have to remember that the player performing the works doesn't think "wow, this stuff is real crap, I think I'll really torture my poor listeners by playing it". >
No, but I'll bet a lot of them are trying awfully hard to pretend they can see the Emperor's new clothes.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-07-21 09:07
Alex, maybe I wasn't clear what I meant by objective, or maybe you misunderstood. Objective could be very detailed but as long as someone is able to understand the music and the difference between liking something and understanding it. There is music that I like that I'd admit is not very good, and vise versa, and I can explain very detailed and specific exactly why I like or don't like it, and why I think it is good or not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-07-21 11:24
Yes, great advice from Alex. But you may never like spinach.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-07-21 16:54
Lelia, I love thee! Exquisitely insight.
Mark,
Almost every session I attended in Vancouver ran over --making it a hard sprint to get to the next (across campus) venue --and I was shut out of the heavily guarded Chan center a couple of times for being late.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-21 17:30
I guess I just prefer to not be able to quantify things sometimes. I've been to concerts with people who get upset if you say you don't like something but can't explain why, and that itself upset me. **Having** to explain why you like or dislike something leads to a certain elitism that further shuts out the elusive casual audience and, I think, does a disservice to the music.
It's a balancing act, really, once you get far enough into it. You have a sense of whether you like it or not, and you have objective criteria that you can look at to try to quantify why it was good or bad. Both are valuable, both have their place. The problem is that, in trying to sound smart, lots of people will only divulge their objective reactions, being either silent or ridiculously euphemistic about their personal reaction to the music. At that point, you only get one side of the story.
Modernism, in reaction to WWII etc., decided to go objective-only, trying to remove emotional reaction from music. It led to a lot of music that, while of decent quality by its own criteria, is in many cases not particularly fantastic to listen to unless you've gone into significant depth of study. It's one way of going about it, and, personally, it makes me a bit crazy.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-07-22 14:16
I've heard it quite simply termed as an analogy. You go to a Baseball game.You can enjoy it on its own terms, knowing nothing ,simply watching the action and the crowd and listening as well. Then after you have learned the many moves, the movement of the ball as controlled by the amazing pitching ability, the kind of pressure under which the players perform, the umpires, the methods of each memebr of the team as they go through their amazingly practiced and perfected movements, you then begin to enjoy it much more, even becoming obsessive about the game. (You may even compare it to playing Chamber Music, or Orchestral Music.)
It is the same with almost any music. It can be enjoyed in a sensual manner, anything at all. The dangerous thing about music is hating it without knowing what is going on, insisting on your sensual pleasure above all. If it doesn't please, then , "I hate this, or that"!. Then, you've closed off all possibilities of real enjoyment, on an intellectual basis, dare I mention the word.
Knowing the works, the style of early composers, even composers who wrote simple chants is a trip and gives you the undersdtanding needed to really love the music that follows, all of it. Then, Gesualdo appears for what he really is in history.
As a clarinetist, I had nothing for History of Music, I just hated it. But, after a time, a long time of listening and learning about our great heritage, this wonderful gift, I have finally become elevated to be able to understand what it is that I am hearing . The more contemporary music I listen to, it becomes more comprehensible.
The richness that awaits the patient and dilligent listener is really a great gift, giving constantly for all of our lives.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2007-07-22 14:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-07-22 16:36
I agree with Bob, great advice by Alex 
Alex, maybe you are "arguing" with what you think I said and not what I meant (because I probably wasn't clear again)...?
> I've been to concerts with people who get upset if
> you say you don't like something but can't explain
> why, and that itself upset me.
That's mostly a matter of personality. For example, I wouldn't get upset by either.
> **Having** to explain why you like or dislike something
> leads to a certain elitism that further shuts out the elusive
> casual audience and, I think, does a disservice to the music.
Who said having? It sounds like you are imagining someone forcing someone else. I meant I do the explaining to myself in my head, unless someone asks me.
> The problem is that, in trying to sound smart, lots
> of people will only divulge their objective reactions,
> being either silent or ridiculously euphemistic about
> their personal reaction to the music. At that point,
> you only get one side of the story.
Again it sounds (but maybe I'm mistaken) that you meant that in reaction to what I wrote. It sounds like you are describing someone who is trying to show off, etc. and it is the opposite of what I described. IMO it is better to use the approach I explained by being modest and respectful.
> Modernism, in reaction to WWII etc., decided to go
> objective-only, trying to remove emotional reaction
> from music. It led to a lot of music that, while of
> decent quality by its own criteria, is in many cases
> not particularly fantastic to listen to unless you've
> gone into significant depth of study. It's one way of
> going about it, and, personally, it makes me a bit crazy.
Sometimes I will try to undersatnd why I or anyone was or wasn't emotional when listening to specific music. This doesn't mean I'm against being emotional to music, just the opposite, I think it is great if music moves you, but seperately I can figure out why. Some people can get very emotional from music that was composed very analitical, I've experienced that from both sides. Also it is possible to listen to something that was all emotions for the composer/player/whoever and it isn't emotional at all.
My apporach which I tried to describe is very different from the problematic things you described, but from your reponse, I think I just can't explain it very clear (especially in English) so I'm sorry.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2007-07-22 20:53
> Leila's my evil twin, btw. She only likes music by ABBA.
:-) Oops, my bad. Some sort of latent dyslexia coming out, like so often in my sightreading.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-07-22 21:23
For David Blumberg:
You may or may not have touched a nerve. To answer honestly, yes there are many that I would just as soon never play. There are some that are not well made, and there are some that are terribly made, and lets face it, some are quite ugly, and some are terribly difficult and ugly as well.
There are also those which are quite lovely.
But, all of that is beside the point. I believe that it is the clarinetists duty to play new music and to foster its composition. It is a prime duty, for if we do not ask for new compositions, we are failing in our duty as musicians.
It also has been and remains a great learning experience, and life affirming, if you will.
I have had 51 new works written for me, and there are four more that I am premiering in September in Boston at the Berklee College of Music in Boston, composed by composers on the staff, (which I consider an honor). I will be there for the last week in September, the concerts and seminars on the 26 and 27th.
Three of the four or five works are by John Bavicchi, Thomas Mcgah, and Jim Toguchi. Bavicchi has a large number of works written for clarinet, including a Sonata, a Concerto for clarinet and Wind Band, and unaccompanied "Canto #1" and a string Quartet foir quartet and Clarinet, all dedicated to me. Thomas McGah has written a Arabesque Giocoso, and The dream itself Enchanted Me, and Toguchi, a Marionette Sonata.
And so it goes. They are so far, beautiful.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2007-07-22 21:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-22 23:40
There are quite a variety of "new works" being composed out there. I was faculty at the "Fame" Festival where our Composition teacher Ken Lampl (Juilliard Composition Faculty) wrote a symphony which we performed. It was very tonal, and "normal" shall we say. Felt a lot like Shostakovitch.
There's good modern music and there's crap. Maybe time will tell, but if asked - I'll tell directly 
Phillip Glass's compositions are a great example of "music" that I don't really consider being music at all. He's a big name, and seems to be going down in history as an important composer, but I just don't get that stuff at all. I wouldn't even want to play it to someone in a coma.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2007-07-23 02:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-23 17:44
Regarding Philip Glass... have you listened to his orchestral stuff? I find it completely different from anything else he's written, and like it quite a bit better.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2007-07-23 22:24
That's surprising. I've always thought Glass to be especially tame and tonal. How well do you know the 2nd symphony, or the soundtrack to "The Hours"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-07-24 08:42
I used to not like Philip Glass. Then I didn't listen to his music for some years. Then I saw a film he made music for, and it was great! Then I heard some more music from him and some was also great and some I thought wasn't as good. I realized I didn't like it before because I didn't understand it. Does anyone remember the name of film I'm talking about, I think it is something a bit similar to"aneskatsi" but I can't remember the exact name. Plus IMO whether his music is "tame and tonal" (described above) is not why it is good or not, it is possible to completely dislike music that is "tame and tonal" (but again, not because of it).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
