 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: VermontJM
Date: 2004-10-03 04:22
Hey all...
I just got back from a concert by the Vermont Contemporary Music Ensemble. Their whole program was great, but here are two pieces that I thought others may be interested in-
One is for Bb Sop. Clarinet and piano. It's called "400 Owls trying to outwit a giant badger in the rain" by David Gunn. This is a really fun, interesting piece.
The other that really impressed me was "Landscapes" by Michael Hopkins. It is for string quartet and bass clarinet. The bass plays some of the hardest, coolest, most virtuosic music I have ever heard for the instrument. It uses the FULL range- right down the written low C (below the written middle C - anyone playing would need this option on their instrument.) This piece was comissioned by the VCME and they premiered it last night.
Just as a disclaimer, I know most of the people in this group and the artistic director is my instructor (so I tend to be prejudiced in favor of anything they do...) , but I thought others would want to know about the pieces, since it's always nice to add to repetoire or at least check things out!
Have a great weekend!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-10-03 04:32
Yeah ..... But can you dance to it?
/gives it a 75 ...GBK ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-10-03 04:39
Is this a requirement for music to be good GBK? Careful on whose toes we tread on. :-}
--Michael
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-10-03 04:46
My post was facetious, of course (note the wink).
I am all for new repertoire for the clarinet, bass clarinet, ocarina, theremin, or any instrument which a composer designates to convey his thoughts.
Unfortunately, outside of college or university settings, where there is a built-in captive audience, most of it will never be heard ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-10-03 05:12
So how can we get it heard?? This is how I make my living and it's not at a conservatory. Any ideas are most appreciated!!
M
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-10-03 05:29
I'm largely in favor of forgoing the concert hall as a venue for new music. I find them very stuffy and restrictive, and conducive to dozing off and going stir-crazy. Perhaps "new music" concerts would have a more receptive crowd if it wasn't so often played in "old music" venues.
When did the "sit down, shut up, look forward, and keep your hands to yourself within the confines of your bolted-to-the-ground-chair" dogma become standard for concerts, anyways? My favorite performance ever was in a quintet in the lobby of a symphony before the concert... people who wanted to listen came by and stood around, or sat at a dozen or so tables; and everyone was free to walk and talk, yet the music felt no less valid or appreciated than if you'd played it on a stage with an audience that's not allowed to move until the applause.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: VermontJM
Date: 2004-10-03 14:37
Mnorswor,
Don't you think a forum like this is a start? I mean, we hear a piece, talk about it, other people look it up and bang- the music is out there. David Gunn has recordings of his pieces, and even though many of his pieces are comissioned by or written for the VCME, they have been played elsewhere. There is definitely a buzz in VT about him- I don't know about other states.
What this group has done is set up relationships with a couple of contemporary composers . This allows the composers to get their music out, as well as getting people to concerts who may like those composers. I feel like so much of it is about creating a buzz about the music and getting people talking. I plan on trying to track down a recording of that concert and making people listen.
Cheers!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom J.
Date: 2004-10-04 23:55
I've just discovered that there is precious little clarinet music by Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf.
So I am now arranging for clarinet and piano a number of tunes from his classic opera "The Transformation of the Lycean Peasants Into Frogs"
Anyone interested ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-10-05 01:25
Tom J. wrote:
> So I am now arranging for clarinet and piano a number of tunes
> from his classic opera "The Transformation of the Lycean
> Peasants Into Frogs"
Opera?
I thought that was Symphony #5 (A major)? ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Contra
Date: 2004-10-05 02:39
Heh, ocarina. I haven't seen any new music for that since the the Legend of Zelda games.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-10-05 03:27
Took weeks to get the Zelda ocarina music out of my head. Thanks for reintroducing it. :P
Perhaps I'll use it for an upcoming orchestration project...
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-05 09:57
"400 Owls..." by David Gunn - does anyone here know how to get it?
New Music needs and inhabitates new places, Alex, that´s for sure - right now I have a premiere before me (3days to go and there´s not a single fingernail left to gnaw on!), in a vault, where corpses were literally stacked during WW II, and we played in a pump-house and a sewer, on top and between enourmous cast-iron pumps, another one had the whole ensemble shrouded and caged in semitransparent folio serving as a projectionsurface for slides, and so on...we all love those challenges new and strange situations for performance put before us, most often a concert goes hand in hand with quite radical re-arrangement of the stage/audience- layout. It´s already exciting just to sit next to some new instrument, other than the orthodox arrangement in an orchestra... I wouldn´t go so far to say that the concerthall is dead, it´s just that many of those performances which changed a stratum in my world substantially were held in areas outside the usual confrontative stage-situation, both as a performer and even more as a listener.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom J.
Date: 2004-10-05 22:39
GBK,
You're right, as always. It's a symphony by Dittersdorf.
What a cool title, though.
Are there any postings of unusually titled works ? (not necessarily clarinet repertoire).
'Gnarly Buttons' is also cool.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: VermontJM
Date: 2004-10-06 02:36
Do a search for David Gunn online. You can also check out the VCME website- www.vcme.org --- contact the aritistic director and he can probably hook you up with a way to reach David. You can also read program notes (written by David) on this site.
Best of luck! It's a really fun piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-06 11:30
I'm dead set against crap being composed these days and players trying to pass it off as music.
I guess it's highly subjective as to what is music and what is crap. These days though nothing is considered crap - that's the problem.
Here are a couple examples of highly modern works which I don't call "crap"
Nichifor: "Carnyx" for solo clarinet - amazing work (it's on Andrew Simon's CD titled "HOT"
Nicolas Bacri: Concerto da Camera op 61 (1999) for Clarinet and string orchestra (premiere was at the belgium clarfest and recorded on the Clarinet Classics label) - to me the best modern concerto written. Very Bartokish in it's sound
Husa Evocations - another great work
Several of the works I heard this past summer at Clarfest I was tempted to open my cellphone and play a few rounds of blackjack - I was that bored or my ears were that assaulted.
Academic crapola written by composers who don't have the talent to write music that is actually music. Similar to a 4 year old throwing a can of paint on a canvas and selling it for thousands of dollars calling it art.
I really dislike being aurally assaulted.
Charlatans..........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-06 11:32
btw - I haven't heard the pieces that the thread was referring to so of course no comment at all about them. They could be great! (I'd take their word till hearing em)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-06 12:38
go ahead, david Blumberg,
define at least intersubjectively, if not obejctively, what´s the distinctive criterion between "crap" and "no crap" - the very word 'crap' isn´t at all suited to lead/enhance/begin a differentiating discussion the fluid dynamics analytical and/or hermeneutical state of the work of art today demand so crucially. What I value very much are advices and hints at pieces/compositions other performers consider worth every effort, like in the latter part of Your post, as I will check out those copositions You mention certainly - but to label contemporaries trash in such a general and undifferentiated way is not very helpful; I presume You have some peculiar works in mind? What are those, and why?
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-06 13:00
Ok, I started to write that I wouldn't specify a piece but I'll go with this work as my personal opinion of a crappy piece
Rochberg Clarinet Concerto
It was written for Gigliotti. I was at it's premiere and though it tried to be tonal at times it just didn't work for me. He's a quite famous composer - it goes pretty much downhill from there.
btw, I posted due to GBK getting jumped on for making his joke. It's not Michael either as I like Michael and would defend him if someone was giving him a hard time. It's the notion that all contemporary (con and temporary is the word) music is somehow valid just because it is written down.
Is all art valid just because somebody creates it?
Is nothing at all considered crap these days?
Post Edited (2004-10-06 13:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-10-06 14:10
"Is all art valid just because somebody creates it?"
Aristotle draws a famous distinction between actuality and potentiality. For example- wood has the pontential to be hot, but is only actually hot when someone sets fire to it. However- nothing can be simultaneously in a state of potentiality and actuality. Once the wood is actually burning, it loses it's potential to be hot, because it actually is already hot!
So what does this have to do with art. Well- Aristotle also gives an example about the potential of a block of marble to actually become a statue. The capacity of marble to become a statue is latent within the marble. It becomes a statue when a sculptor comes along and reshapes it.
But nowadays you could actually put the lump of marble on show and call it a sculpture, thus contradicting Aristotle and creating something which is potentially and actually a statue. Hey, maybe I should do that...
So, in answer to your question, who says that anybody even has to create the work of art in question in the first place?
But what you could do, David, is put a piece of your own crap on a pedestal. Will it be considered crap, or is it a work of art??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-10-06 15:30
This, of course, all depends on whether you are all that concerned with your music being considered "art" or not. Modernists, by definition, care greatly about striving toward a pure, universal art. On the other hand, some composers write music with the opinion that there is no reliable definition of art, and it is therefore not something to concern yourself with. Oddly, the latter often write some pieces that are considered very "artistic" by persons who would define music as such... they just don't have as much music-world baggage when composing.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-10-07 13:05
Hi all. Although I make my living doing contemporary music, and I choose to do it btw, I will admit that there is a tremendous amount of crap out there. All too often, as David mentions, there is the notion that just because it's composed by someone respectable (or at least presumably so) that it's a great piece of music. Primary examples include almost everything written by John Harbison and others of this nature. I have my favorites, like everyone else, but there is much that I simply cannot tolerate.
I'll write more later on today when I've got more time. For now, it's off to rehearsal.
--Michael
P.S. David, the Rochberg concerto is a great pile of crap, IMHO. I concur.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-07 16:03
I expected it to be a great work.
Tony sure thought it was (guess when personal ego is involved ya can't pan it).
Personally I prefer the more modern works. I'd much rather hear Stravinsky than Bach or Beethoven. I absolutely love most Bartok works and the Schoenberg Chamber Symphony is among my very favorite works.
As well I've heard a lot of really modern works that I walked away from thinking "wow, cool work!!" - several I heard this past summer.
But I personally feel that composers when they compose should have the audience in mind.
I'm not saying that the audience must be entertained at all times, but I don't think that they should be assaulted either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2004-10-08 04:09
David Blumberg- I've noticed that every piece of music these days seems to be "wonderful".
But all is not lost- my composition teacher lets me know in no uncertain terms if my music is no good, so not everyone is willing to accept just any rubbish.
I always try to write music that someone, somewhere, may actually want to listen to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-08 13:49
The question about the difference between a mere matter of taste and a differentiated sentence, in reference to a work of art (or any cultural good/artefact) is to be answered neither by the emphatic nodding to each other of an initiateds´-in-group, nor by external variables like audience´s attentandce, renomee of the composer, or anything else that is not part and parcel of the work´s being-itself. This no-go includes many heavily trodden paths, like the term of oeuvre ("composition x was written by N.N., he/it is excellent, therefore y by the same must be as well" - this sort of talking tells much more about the internal disposition of the critic´s frame than about the work in question), or of circumstances of perfromance ("piece x was staged in Darmstadt, therefore excellent"). It is regretably widespread, the confusion of taste and sentence, probably because both forms of utterance use constative structures and end in a full stop, and in the hardly ever contradicted presupposition that a term like "the colour of sound" does indeed mean anything intersubjectively. There are philosophical/musicological positions which state that non-justifiable semantics and nothin but authoritative/ex cathedra forms of speech are just the way how artefacts in general and works of art in particular are both established and received (that htere´s no use in trying to go beyond a mere exchange of opinions) - but to allow that appears to me as resignative surrender and the forfeit of coming to grips with the state of the art(s). I agree that it´s save to say that there are a wole bunch of 'bad' pieces as well as performers out there, but which is which is impossible to say outside the hermenteutical formation of the work/performance. One´s own likings/dislikings have absolutely no role to play in the cabbale whether piece x is a work of art or just an artefact (and the great leaps electronic music is taking at the moment, the latter case itself becomes instabile as well, since there are 'intelligent' systems emerging, learning and self-expanding and -correcting; I am thinking of the link between machines and man, which so many astounding composers and performers explore); the post-structuralist/deconstructivis/complex plateau we´ve arrived on make selfprotectice reflexes like "it don´t mean a thing if it aint got that swing" or "there has to be tonality to make it worth listening to" understandable to me, but as a composer performer to me it seems very poor, boring and limitedly blase. One doesn´t ahve to become a cyberpunk to apprecciate electronic music, and clarinetists like Sclavis or A. Braxton hammer away at the questionable wall between so-called jazz and so-called New Music to the good of many more than just the afficionados.
A composer has the sounding result of her/his working in mind at all times, otherwise she/he wouldn´t be composing at all. Since there are absolutely no independ, objective (in an extrinsic sense)criteria about whether the outcome will be 'crap' or non-crap', to say nothing about the invariably variable inner frameworks of those receiving finally, the composer sine qua non has to fall back upon her/his own ears and imagination of hwo the sounds will e like. Even when a piece is conceived at the computer (or, though less detiled and flexible, at the grand piano) completely, to demand that the performance-situation to be anticipated a s s u c h whilst writing a piece, is without any sense (it isn´t a problem concerning processing-capabilities or range of imaginative power - it´s about the categorical difference between the work of composing and the work of performing).
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-10-10 20:32
Very interesting Markus.
I will say, however, that I think that some composers, such as Finnissy (whom I've just spent a week with and played a premiere of a new concerto written for me) does not hear the sound of what he's composing immediately. He *sees* the sound in the context of the score, as an artist with a brush might see his/her painting. I believe that Brian Ferneyhough works in much the same way. The act of sitting down and composing/copying out a score is as much, if not more than, important as the eventual rendering of the score by human beings. Therefore, there is also a visual component involved, usually before the concept of sound, in the compositional process. Because afterall, a c# quarter note will vary in length depending on an eventually determined tempo and rendering by any number of different performers.
The other interesting thing to consider is whether or not all composition is merely transcription. There's a large bit of this in the interview part of Finnissy's book (published by Ashgate) about this. I'll say no more so as not to spoil it for those who wish to read from this great master himself.
More discussions? Opinions? All welcome and appreciated.
--Michael
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-10-10 21:14
Some people (myself included) are of the opinion that any piece of music only exists intact inside the composer's head. Anything beyond that is a close (or not-so-close) approximation.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-10-11 03:30
I don't agree with the above statement because the perception of the composer will inevitably change with the passage of time and ultimately change his/her's "perfect rendering" of the piece in their head.
Also, I find that many composer's learn from the performers doing their pieces. All too often, performers come up with something the composer never thought of. Sometimes they love it, sometimes they hate it, however, it does change their fundamental perception of the piece in question. And, quite frankly, I believe that many more composers would actually sit down and play their pieces if they believed as you do. Yet, the days of composer/performers seem to have vanished. Michael Finnissy, the aforementioned composer I work a lot with, DOES still play all of his own piano music as well as conduct many of his ensemble pieces. He offers a unique double perspective that I find rather refreshing. Why don't more composers now do this??? A good question I think.
Michael
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-10-11 04:35
I totally agree. While their perception of the piece may change greatly over time, I still suggest that, more than anywhere else, if you had to pinpoint one place where the essence of the piece resides, it's in the head of the composer. Even if they are playing it themselves, and it sounds just like they imagined it, there will likely be on some level something in their head that can't be perfectly captured through sound. Excuse me for being overly philosophical.
I've learned immensely from having people play my pieces. Whenever possible, I like to have a good draft played, after which I revise the piece, taking into account the differences between what I thought and what I heard, as well as any suggestions (and improvisations) I liked from the performers.
As for why more composers don't conduct their own pieces, there are a few reasons, and different ones come into play depending on the situation, including:
- The composer might not be a great conductor
- A third-party conductor can do things with the piece the composer might not have thought of
- The composer might get so caught up with the music in his head that he is ineffective in conveying it to the performers
- The composer wants to listen in the audience
- The composer wants other people to experience and like his/her music, and bring as many people into it as possible, to get the word out
- The composer doesn't want to hijack the performance, making it all about themselves rather than the music
- A conductor might already have a good line of communication with his group, and so is more effective in conducting than someone who has to start from scratch.
- The composer might not do well under immediate performance pressure
- The composer might know that he will get upset and tempted to stop if even the slightest thing doesn't go according to what's in his head
I do agree, though, that if the composer is in charge, there's a certain level of personality and nuance that you might not get otherwise.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-11 08:38
Michael,
in what respect "more important" (the writing in comarison to the performing)? The work of art is solely (in, by, with, because of) the performance, writing music, in respect to the performance, has more to do with being a writer than with being a musician. Are composers in fact musicians?
Could You be so kind to give me the complete title, ISBN-Nr. etc of Finnisy´s book? I admire his work ,and would be grateful to be given some insights to his compositions.
Alex,
Thank You for some more philosophy here, music is in bad need for it (otherwise it´d still go on dreaming that romantic metaphysics...!). This notion of the "essence of a work is in the composer´s interieur" is core-Kantianism. I find this interesting because contemporary music(ology), on behalf of New Music, the avantgarde et al, rarely finds it possible to use Kantian positions to defend any kind of modernism (but retro-isms galore, these go straight ahead for any kind of transcendalism). I would rather insist on opting for that there´s no such ting as an essence of whatsoever, a work is a function, not a substance. If it is not audible, it is not there. (There are of course a great many subsets of functions working the background of every performance, as there are the techniqual capabilities of the functional encoder (the composer, who´ll be erased absolutely by the performance of her/his piece, its real existence) and the performing party, the notions and craftmanship of the instrumentbuilders, the physical conditions of the performance´s place...to name but a few. The latter determines the actual horizon of the work of art, but the performance alone is the Dasein of it (an unsettling consequence of this is that the composition itself will be every time a new/radically different one a n d a t
t h e s a m e t i m e un-original, so the result is a n o t h e r o r i g i n a l).
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-10-11 14:44
Finnissy's book is by Ashgate publishing.
ISBN# 1-85928-356-X
Uncommon Ground: The Music of Michael Finnissy
Edited by Henrietta Brougham, Christopher Fox and Ian Pace
Michael
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-10-12 15:51
Like any other art form, music is highly variable in quality; and there is always a significant probability that a new work of art will turn out, either immediately or over the course of time, to be of poor quality. I certainly agree that some (possibly even 'much' or 'most') of new music qualifies for the highly subjective, personal, and difficult-to-define descriptive word "crap". For example, some of us who attended ClarinetFest in Maryland this year and attended the concerto concert heard the new work for bass clarinet and orchestra ---- I, and everyone else I talked to about it, agreed that the performer was technically brilliant but the work itself was, pardon the word, "crap".
Which U.S. Supreme Court justice said he couldn't define 'pornography', but knew it when he saw it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-10-12 16:41
> Which U.S. Supreme Court justice said he
> couldn't define 'pornography', but knew it when he saw it?
Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-12 17:57
But even the word crap can apply from different viewpoints.
Somebody who only likes Bach and Mozart would probably think that the Krouse Bass Clarinet Concerto is crap - I think it's great.
I wonder if a player has ever received a commission and said to the composer "this is crap, I'm not going to play it!"
??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Todd W.
Date: 2004-10-12 23:38
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> I wonder if a player has ever received a commission and said to
> the composer "this is crap, I'm not going to play it!"
Clarinetist Potter Stewart to Jacob Ellis, in Ohio (1964)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Igloo Bob
Date: 2004-10-12 23:55
A small thought on what Alex said - I remember that Charles Mingus, who was a wonderful jazz composer/bass player, said once that he never heard his music played the way he had it in his mind. Whether this was a product of an imperfect system for expressing musical thought or the inability of the musicians to convey it effectively, I don't know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-13 06:22
With all due respect (not too much, since Mr Mingus behaved very ignorant towards non-tonal forms of playing,to say nothing of improvisers), Mingus then should at least try to notate more concisely, or readjust his hearing.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
