 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-23 01:39
If you were commissioning a new work for clarinet (with or without accompaniment of some kind), and you had the option to specify that the work be either "traditional" or "contemporary" in style (see definitions below), which would you choose to have written, and why?
By "Traditional" I'm referring to music imbued with harmonic sensibilities that would be 'accessible' to those who enjoy traditional pre 20th-century classical music, or the programmatic music of, say, Copeland, but wouldn't enjoy more contemporary works by the serialists, Corigliano, Crumb, or Carter (just examples, not meaning to exclude them specifically). No extended techniques involved on the part of the clarinetist.
By "Contemporary" I mean a work of more abstract form and overall sound, and would include extended techniques.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-23 02:43
I would specify neither (either by not marking a preference or by actually using the word "neither"), and see what happens.
If you specify "traditional" you'll probably get wannabe Brahms. If you specify "contemporary" you'll probably get wannabe Cage or Boulez.
There's a lot of very accessible "contemporary" music. However, by asking for a "contemporary" piece, to lots of people you're asking for something vaguely yet noncommittally atonal that schlocks about semi-aimlessly, making the grey-hairs sleep and the not-as-grey-hairs nod in pensive approval.
So, frankly, I think that if I requested something that was one or the other of those, I wouldn't be as happy about the result as if I didn't. I'd probably request something along the lines of "WTF??"
Something contemporary, but without all the mind-numbing tedium that so often (but not always) accompanies abstract form and sound.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2007-08-23 03:40
Whatever you ask,he or she will write in his/her own style anyway.
You should know how he/she writes before work is commissioned.
Post Edited (2007-08-23 03:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-23 04:40
Alex, thanks for your reply. I loved it!
For Koo: I'm a composer, but I'm not limited to writing in one particular style. If I was commissioned to write a piece without any guidelines, who knows what it would sound like! This is part of the reason that I've set guidelines for my hypothetical question. I hope some of the answers will enlighten me as to why a clarinetist might prefer to play either a new "traditional" or new "contemporary" piece (per my definitions).
(BTW, if someone answers outside of the guidelines, as did Alex, that's fine. I'm not looking to confine or guide the answers; just setting some groundwork to elicit some responses.)
Post Edited (2007-08-23 05:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-08-23 05:52
If I were to pay for a piece to be written for me I would say, 'Here is a recording of the things I can do very well. Here is a list of techniques I don't yet feel I've mastered. Please write something that makes me sound great!'
:)
I might be inclined to ask for 'traditional'- I sometimes wonder what kind of music would have been written if the clarinet of 1800 was as evolved, mechanically, as today.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-08-23 07:23
> I might be inclined to ask for 'traditional'- I sometimes
> wonder what kind of music would have been written if the
> clarinet of 1800 was as evolved, mechanically, as today.
Funny, that's exactly what formed in my mind when I read this thread. (I think we're running out of traditionals anyway...![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) )
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-08-23 11:28
I grew up playing chamber music with the Crumb's.
We played the Brahms and Beethoven Trios.
Personally I detest abstract music, and like Corigliano a lot. It's really what you prefer that counts and what you would like to have to learn.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-08-23 12:06
I think that there might be a possibility of bridging the gap somewhat. Corigliano, for example can sound downright romantic at times, yet also can push the limits of writing incorporating modern elements. He seems to have a great sense for balancing these elements to create excitement and challenge our ears, without going too far. I find his music very accessible.
There is a great piece by Yoshimatsu- 4 Pieces in Bird Shape that uses some extended techniques (multiphonics, fluttertonguing) to great effect. I think that this piece could be at home on any traditional recital, as those elements are woven into the piece in such a way as to provide drama and color. Much of the piece uses almost impressionistic washes of sound.
The right composer could provide a balance where the music does not sound new or old, but instead a blend incorporating some contemporary language.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-08-23 15:33
I recall Leila's caution that Sturgeon's Law tells us that 90% of everything is crap! Tempered by the filtering effect of time, we find less surviving "crap" from the classical and romantic periods than we encounter with more recent crap that has not yet been expunged. There is a reason why Saliere is hard to find compared to Mozart.
Personally, I find the abandonment of (useful) convention in the formation of "contemporary" music leaves me ungrounded --I don't dig it.
I guess, I'd be inclined to ask for adherence to conventions --say, a sonata form, or a them + variations.
As far as "extended" techniques for clarinet, I am relieved to find them unattractive for the most part. They do not demand that I interrupt or dilute my work on traditional playing skills. I have no need to blow bubbles through my clarinet into a tub of water.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-08-23 20:28
Personally, I would never ask for a composer to recreate a particular style. If I wanted to program something romantic, I would play Brahms or Schumann and save my money.
With that said, there are some wonderful contemporary pieces that are accessible to a very wide audience. Lindberg's concerto and quintet come to my mind. I would much rather have a piece such as this commissioned (if I had several hundred-thousand dollars laying around) than a poor recreation of Brahms.
I know that I have disliked more than a few modern pieces on first hearing only to listen to a second performance and completely change my mind. I think that with contemporary music, a lot of the success of a piece lies with the performer. Maybe this is one of the reasons a lot of people run for the exit sign when they see a contemporary piece on the program.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2007-08-23 20:40
As someone who does a lot of commissioning, I've found that I usually get into trouble when requesting a specific style. It forces the composer into a box and creativity is stifled. Just as we, as clarinet players, would not want composers telling us how to play the clarinet, I don't think we should tell composers how to write.
That said, I think some general guidelines can be a good thing, i.e. please don't write above a high C, or please don't write sustained tongued passages beyond quarter = 144. These guidelines and many others can let the composer know your limitations, or the limitations of a particular group of commissioners, without shoving the composer into a creative jail cell.
Regarding styles... I think there are a huge number of composers out there writing in just about every style you can imagine. So, for me, the key is to find a composer whose work I like from the hearings of a few pieces and then ask to sit down with him and see if he has any ideas off the top of his head or can explain his style and how he likes to go about the creative process.
Doing things like this really begins a dialog between you and the composer and you're much more likely to get something that suits you if you pursue things in this manner. In the past, I've also asked for some sketches to see what he/she can come up with. It's sort of like having a proposal presented by the composer to see if it's something you'd like to spend your energy on, both creatively and financially.
I hope this helps and we're still looking for participants in my group commissioning project listed on the announcements section of the board! Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-23 20:53
Brycon wrote: ...if I had several hundred-thousand dollars laying around... Well, I'd happily compose a new work for you for considerably less than that! ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
I want to thank everyone for their replies thusfar far. I'm grateful to get all of your collective perspectives, and I look forward to any more replies that may be offered here.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTS
Date: 2007-08-23 20:56
David:
What do you mean by "abstract music"? I have heard the term in question used synonymously with "absolute music" in which case Brahms chamber music is as abstract as the most difficult works of high modernism. While I strongly believe that music has meaning (in the sense that Copland describes it) I would say all music is abstract by nature, although music with words and "program music" will certainly complicate the discussion.
JTS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-23 21:38
To be very general about it, "abstract" music would describe compositions where such attributes as form, key center, or even the emotions it evokes (or the composer's intention) aren't obvious to the listener on first hearing; music where those same attributes (amongst others) are deliberately or otherwise obscured. I would generally consider the music of Ligeti, Stockhausen, Carter, and Crumb "abstract" as compared to, say, Palestrina, Rachmaninoff, and Schubert.
BTW, I love Crumb's music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
