Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Mahler, Symphony No. 7, movement 5

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

I used this movement the other day with my freshmen to explain one of the ways that musicians determine tempo–the tempo of the opening is determined by the ability of the timpanist to play clearly the first two measures.  Since the standard timpani technique doesn’t involve the double-bounce stroke, there is a fairly finite speed at which the timpani solo here can be played.

Less literally, I’ve been trying to determine if the title means “Rondo as Finale” or “Rondo, then Finale.”  There is a reasonably clear seven-part rondo structure that dissolves into a long coda.  The first version of the refrain begins in m. 7, with a theme in the brass which includes some daring trumpet writing–D6, approached by a slur of a sixth.  A tricky proposition, and this perhaps accounts for the doubling of this line by the clarinets and oboes.  This refrain appears in C major, in contrast to the E minor of the opening six bars.

The strings take over the texture in m. 27, with a dotted rhythm that will reappear later in the piece, and not just in the refrain.  Measure 31 is the final new material of this section, repeated half notes which will prove prominent later on as well.  The remainder of the refrain is devoted to restatement of material so far, and to a fanfare which leads to the tonic chord in m. 51.  There is then a direct modulation to a chromatic mediant–A-flat major, which is the key for the first episode.

The first episode begins with a rising eighth-note figure and a change in tempo.  The material here is reminiscent of Mahler’s more folk-influenced material.  Rather than a “round dance,” we have a much squarer dance that begins hesitantly in the woodwinds, and is answered with the melody in the cello (m. 56ff).  Unlike most classical rondos, this episode is not harmonically closed, and works its way back to the second refrain, visiting C major (m. 79), then to D major, in alternating sections of 3/2 and 2/2.  Beginning at m. 116 (Pesante), the music moves back toward C major by common chord modulation, to prepare the second refrain.

Beginning in m. 120, the second refrain continues until m. 152, making it a somewhat truncated version of this material.  The transition to the second episode is more or less monophonic, following a cadence on C major.  The second episode begins in m. 153 in A minor.  Oddly, it begins with melodic material from the first episode, in the violas in m. 154.  This material based on the earlier section continues until m. 186, when the strings enter with a unison figure reminiscent of some of the “Turkish” music of Mozart.  Three measures later (m. 189), the brass reenter with the chorale which signalled the retransition to the refrain.  Here, however, while much of the transitional material returns, it leads not to the refrain in C major, but to further music in a developmental mode (this is the appropriate place for a development section in a sonata-rondo).  Some lovely music for string quintet in A major follows at m. 220.  An interjection in Db major (m. 241), seems to move even further from a return to the refrain.  This is followed by another unison passage for the strings, alternating between 2/2 and 3/2.

Beginning in m. 268, a version of the refrain melody, reworked for 3/2, appears in the brass in the opening key.  From this point forward, there are several possible candidates for the refrain, but none is explicit.  Perhaps the most convincing is the chorale for the brasses beginning in m. 360.  This is followed by the unison string material from m. 241 (m. 368), only a half-step higher in the key of Bb.

The remainder of the movement is suggestive of coda material, and as usualy for Mahler, builds to the end.  Some interesting moments include a whole-tone passage leading to a cadence on Db major in m. 506.  A final appearance of the refrain chorale appears in m. 539, this time for the full brass section and accompanied by the timpani solo from the opening of the movement.  Measure 568 is a brilliant section for winds and percussion that is reminiscent of English change-ringing.  The last cadence of the piece occurs in m. 580, from which a run of sixteenth notes leads to the end of the piece.

On to the Eighth Symphony, then.  September will be for the sacred-themed first movement, and October will have the profane second movement.  See you there!

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Anyone remember the homegrown version of the 95 Theses from Garrison Keillor’s novel Lake Wobegon Days?  There aren’t quite 95 of them (yet) but here are some things I’ve been thinking about over the summer.

  • Fatherhood is awesome.  But probably not for everyone with a Y-chromosome.
  • You never finish developing your aural skills.
  • When did celebrities become experts?  I caught some (as much as I could take) of the History Channel’s “America: The Story of Us” series this summer, and it was terrible.  Broad generalizations, and celebrities trying to explain their takes on various events in US history.  I should have expected as much from the network that brought us “Ice Road Truckers.”  Best US history documentary is still Alaistair Cooke’s America.  All-time best documentary mini-series ever is still Carl Sagan’s Cosmos.
  • To the History Channel’s credit, they didn’t start the fire.  Among the many failings of Disney’s Fantasia 2000 was using people like Steve Martin and Bette Midler instead of a musicologist of the caliber of Deems Taylor, who narrated the original.  Don’t get me started.
  • It was really warm for four weeks in Oklahoma this summer.  Really warm.  I didn’t feel cooled-off for the entire month from mid-July to just a couple of weeks ago.  I don’t know how people made it (and still make it) without air conditioning.
  • On that note, I so badly want to be an environmentalist, and do my part, but I’m not doing a very good job at it.  I was most efficient when I lived with my parents, shared rides to school, participated in the community recycling program, didn’t fly anywhere and packed out my trash when I went camping with the Boy Scouts.  Now, I pretty much do nothing to be part of the solution.
  • I am so sick of cell-phone commercials.
  • Oh… and I heard on the radio that the Internet is now moving to the next big thing (or already has).  Great.

Again, not 95, but it’s a start.  There just needed to be more to my blog than Mahler today.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Mahler, Symphony No. 7, movement 1

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

I’ve done the listening and score study this time around, but I simply am short on time this morning, so here are my big ideas, and I will leave the close reading for another time.

How long can one go as a composer before beginning to sound like oneself?  I find the opening of this movement to be similar in mood and material to parts of the first movement of the Fifth Symphony.  Mahler has been Mahler from the beginning, of course.  There are always Mahlerisms, and I have been seeking them out through the course of this exercise, but self-quotation is another matter entirely.  And again, this is not the outright recycling that composers have frequently used when time or energy ran short.  In some ways, this is the third symphony in a row that has begun with music that seems to resemble a funeral march.

A harmonic analysis reveals many “wrong way” progressions–I teach my theory students to favor the falling fifth, falling third and rising second root motions, but Mahler frequently moves in the opposite direction.  From a harmonic standpoint, sequential patterns are important here.  There are many instances of slow harmonic rhythm (and pedal point) punctuated by sequences that change chords twice in each bar.  The pedal point tendency is not new, but this use of sequence happens to an extent that seems relatively unique to this movement.

Mahler’s melodic material is highly cohesive–as usual, there is a great deal of motivic development.  At the same time, Mahler very rarely uses “simple” melody-with-accompaniment textures in this movement, which is something of a contrast with the Sixth Symphony.  Even in expository passages, melody is almost always combined with another melody, and in developmental sections, it is difficult to know what the main melodic idea is at some points.

Scoring is drastically different from the two previous pieces.  Mahler had been tending to a mixed scoring, with blending of instrumental colors, and, especially in the Sixth Symphony, most of the orchestra playing a good deal of the time.  Here, instruments seem more likely to play as sections without reinforcement from other sections, although there is still a good deal of flutes-doubling-violins to add penetration to their high register.  Instead of the eight horns customary to Mahler, there are only four, plus a tenorhorn in Bb (my assumption is that this is something like the British bore baritone I remember from my brass band days).  Color has become more of a concern for Mahler.  If memory serves from some undergraduate research into Mahler’s compositional practices, it was around this time that he rejected the piano reduction as a first draft, worried that it made his music too pianistic.  Instead, he began to work with a short score of four to five staves.  I have found this technique to be extremely helpful in creating band and orchestra pieces.

In some ways there is also a variation technique at work here.  Material presented as a funeral march reappears as a strange, wobbly dance, and then again as a triumphal fanfare.  Mahler never explicitly wrote a “theme and variations,” but he certainly appears capable of employing that strategy.

Onward then–I refer myself to my copy of the score.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Mahler, Symphony No. 5, fifth movement

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

This movement has gone, over the last weeks, from being a piece that I’ve long admired to something of an analytic enigma.  Simply put, I am at odds to determine whether this “Rondo-Finale” is best considered as a rondo, a sonata-allegro or a fugue.

First, to the title, if that can be a clue for the analyst.  Does “Rondo-Finale” suggest “rondo-as-finale” or “rondo-then-finale?”  My hearing suggests that there is indeed a rondo here, and that it is followed by a lengthy coda, so that the second possibility seems stronger.  In this case, the coda could perhaps begin in m. 581, at a key change to A-flat major, far-removed from the home key of D major.  The melodic and motivic material is related to the rondo theme (mm. 24-55), but this late harmonic move away from the home key suggests a coda.

The music up to this point is highly suggestive of rondo technique, specifically of five-part rondo with its three statements of the rondo theme with interspersed refrains.  The second refrain (beginning in m. 167, the “C” of “ABACA”) is the longest, and is heavily reliant on developmental techniques, especially exploration of remote key areas and contrapuntal recombination of motivic material.

It is, however, the first refrain (beginning at m. 56, the “B” section) that is most striking.  It suggests a four-part fugal exposition, first with a running eighth-note subject, then with various countersubjects introduced over the eighty bars of this section before the return of the rondo theme.  The second refrain can then be cast as a continuation of the fugue.  At m. 273, the original fugue subject appears in counterpoint with one of the countersubjects.  This countersubject becomes the second subject of a double fugue that dominates much of the rest of the second refrain (development).  Contrapuntal technique abounds, with the inversion of the second subject appearing in the violins at m. 457.

The final entrance of the rondo theme appears in a highly modified form at m. 497, leading not back to the beginning, then, but toward the “finale” section of the movement.

There are also intimations here of sonata-allegro, or at least something along the lines of a hybrid sonata-rondo, as found in another wonderfully contrapuntal work, the finale of Robert Schumann’s Piano Quintet, Op. 44.  The first rondo and first refrain would correspond to a sonata exposition, the second rondo and second refrain to the development, and the last refrain and “finale” to the recapitulation and coda.

It is a fascinating feature of this movement that it not only is a highly compelling piece of music, but that it also embodies these three formal procedures .

A final issue with this symphony is its harmonic plan.  The home keys of the five movements are, in order, C-sharp minor, A minor, D major, F major and D major.  Mahler uses this narrative tonality in other places.  If Mahler had in mind a major-key finale to a minor-key symphony, in the manner of Beethoven’s Fifth and Ninth Symphonies, perhaps he felt that the technical challenges involved in C-sharp major might be too much for his orchestra, given the already stiff demands of the music.  At any rate, it is also simply possible that Mahler is moving away from the single-key concept of a symphony.  The five movements appear appear to be held together from a motivic standpoint, rather than from harmonic consistency, but in a traditional sense, they are no more related than a suite of pieces extracted from an opera or ballet.  It is a testament to Mahler’s compositional technique that the piece feels completely unified without sharing a common key center.

Now on to the Sixth–four large movements, so two weeks each.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Mahler, Symphony No. 5, third movement

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Here is another enormous movement–ironically, lying at the heart of this symphony, defying the traditional conception of the scherzo as a light-hearted respite.  Of course, there is nothing small, and very little that is light-hearted about Mahler’s music in general or this piece in particular.

Another puzzling aspect of this symphony is that only the first movement of this symphony conforms to the stated key of the piece–a riddle for a later post, perhaps.  The movement begins in D major with a horn call that introduces, as is Mahler’s way, some of the most important motivic material of the music that follows.  The first three measures emphasize beat two of the three-to-a-bar meter.  Clarinets and bassoons answer with continuing material that employs hemiola–a second important idea here.  At the beginning of the second phrase, in m. 16, the horn again takes the lead with a figure that emphasizes the second beat of the measure. 

The music moves to f-sharp minor in m. 40, with the first appearance of music that suggests a moto perpetuo approach.  These two ideas–the waltz-like material and the moto perpetuo alternate through the rest of the movement.  Imitation plays a role as well, with a motive introduced in the clarinets in mm. 43ff.  This imitative figure appears at times with entrances spaced by a single measure, but at other times with a displacement of two or three bars, as in m. 84, between trumpets and bassoons. 

The harmonic plan of this movement is highly complex, with key changes happening very frequently.  By measure 150, the music is in B-flat major, a highly remote key, with melodic material derived from the original motives and a more relaxed melodic idea centered around sol.  At m. 174, a direct modulation to D major is followed by a trio of trumpet, horn and trombone.  The material is the opening themes.  The moto perpetuo material returns, and leads quickly to F minor, and then to Ab major, keys as remote from D major as most composers would dare to go.

The relaxed sol-centered theme is combined with a motive derived from the opening notes in m. 252.  This leads to a fascinating moment in m. 270 in which harmonic motion pauses on D minor with an interesting orchestral effect–horns on F, entering at two beat intervals, creating timbral interest in an otherwise static moment.  This is followed by a low-voiced passage in the strings and woodwinds, interrupted by the solo horn, with the ultimate goal of D minor, which is reach in m. 308.

Slowly, the music returns to the tempo and textures of the opening, leading to the moto perpetuo material.  In m. 402, there is an intriguing ensemble of flutes, clarinets and trombone.   The full momentum of the music is reached by m. 448, with its key of G-flat major.  The formal function of this section remains developmental, and the harmonic basis shifts quickly.  Measure 486 shows the moto perpetuo material turned into thematic material that in its registral and motivic characteristics resembles the material that characterized the second movement (see second movement, mm. 9-11 in the violins, for example).  The resemblance is more in character than otherwise, but the two themes play similar roles, and are somewhat spasmodic in nature–throwing listener expectations into sharp relief against the composer’s actual choices. 

The music breaks off after this material to return again–for the third time– to the material of the opening in m. 490.  This repetition is precise, not simply implied like the earlier return. 

The moto perpetuo material brings the music now by m. 614 to a minor, in a section that had been in the more remote key of F-minor previously.  This allows the music to return to the original tonic pitch, D, by m. 763, employing the same tightly-wrought construction of the two previous movements.  A bass-drum solo begins the drive to the end of the movement, a coda of sorts, but more the final statement.  D, only just established as the tonic, becomes the third of a diminished-seventh chord that opens up the moto perpetuo, combined with rhythmic motives from the more thematic ideas of the opening of the movement.  The high point of this section is reached at m. 799, with the full orchestra presenting no fewer than five of the motivic ideas of the movement in a swirling, relentless assualt that leads to a final horn melody in m. 813, which strangely, abruptly, ends in D major, as though Mahler is in some hurry to get back to where he started.

Why the title “Scherzo” for this movement?  The translation “joke” is not altogether accurate, as there seem to be few moments of outright humor.  Perhaps a better idea would be “tall tale,” or “riddle,” both of which do a better job of describing the sprawling, playful-but-not-humourous nature of the piece.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

SCI Region VI Conference, Kansas State University

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

I got back yesterday from a quick trip up to lovely Manhattan, Kansas for part of the SCI Region VI Conference at Kansas State, where the KSU Concert Band performed my piece “Ode.” If you haven’t been to Manhattan, it is a lovely little town, and the drive from Guymon and back wasn’t so bad–about seven hours, but it is always fascinating to see the “High Plains” dissolve into the much lusher and more rolling plains of central and eastern Kansas. The last bit of the drive was along Interstate 70, and featured Kansas’ lovely Flint Hills. Kansas isn’t all “flat as a pancake!” Dining was good in Manhattan for the few meals that I was there, and the Kansas State community was abuzz with their basketball team’s success in the NCAA Tournament.
I didn’t get to attend all of the conference, but the concerts I was able to attend, along with a Friday night jam session and a paper session on Saturday morning, were excellent, and generally performed by strong student musicians, ensembles and faculty artists.
My piece, “Ode,” received its second performance by the KSU Concert Band under the baton of master’s candidate Anna Eaverson. Ms. Eaverson led the ensemble in a fantastic performance. “Ode” is a tricky piece with eight percussion parts and a rambunctious flute solo. The All-Faiths Chapel was a lovely venue, in somewhat stereotypical land-grant architecture, but pleasant nonetheless. I will be very curious to see how the recording turns out, because there were some balance problems in the performance (during the aforementioned flute solo) that I didn’t detect during the rehearsal. Yes, I also got to attend a rehearsal, somewhat serendipitously.
I arrived on campus at about 12:30, during the lunch break. I treated myself to a self-guided tour of McCain Hall, the home of the Kansas State music department. As I wandered, I heard my own music coming from down the hall, and sure enough, I was able to sit in on the tail end of the final rehearsal of my piece. Ms. Eaverson asked a couple of questions, but for the most part, the piece was already going very well. I was particularly pleased with the group’s excellent intonation, which meant that the twelve-note chord at the end of the piece didn’t sound quite as dissonant as it really is. Just a fantastic rendition, and congrats to all.
Other interesting pieces I got to hear were by conference host Craig Weston, Mark D’Ambrosio, Allen Brings and Trent Hanna, as well as Jerry Hui, Joseph Koykkar and William Clay.
The next scheduled performance of my music is the premiere of the incidental music to “If Only It’d Rain” on April 10 here in the Oklahoma Panhandle as part of the Dust Bowl Symposium.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

The Contest Post

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Anyone who knows me very well knows that for years–probably since I was 9 or 10 and my piano teacher sent me to “Scale Olympics”– I’ve had reservations about musical competitions.  My attitudes have developed and simmered over the years, but I must admit that I remain somewhat wary, especially of the culture of large-ensemble contests that has, for better or worse, become the focus of secondary-level music education in this country.

In the last few weeks, I’ve watched the Music Department here at OPSU get ready to host Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) vocal contest, then traveled to Alva, Oklahoma to judge regional band and solo & ensemble contest at Northwestern Oklahoma State University (NWOSU) and then host our own band and solo & ensemble contest here.  Shortly thereafter, two of the adjunct instructors in our department who have full-time jobs as high school band directors took their bands to Texas’ UIL regional contest (and did well, so congratulations to Kevin and Sandy!).

So what, you may ask, is someone with an avowed skepticism of the contest culture doing hosting and judging them?  Simply put, I feel that, at this time, my participation helps to ensure that at least some students feel the benefits that I believe are available from contest and try to see that at least some of the excesses are avoided.  At this time, I think I can do good from the inside.

I waited a couple of weeks before writing this post, partly because I didn’t have time to sit down and write it, and partly becuase I wanted to reflect on my experiences with contest season (I’m not judging any other contests this year, so my part is finished).  I’m going to start with what, admittedly, is the less-natural stance for me:  what is good about music contests?

First, in my list of pros, I need to say that solo & ensemble contest is a great invention.  It gets students to discover the joys of small-group music-making, requires them to be independent musicians, gives them projects to be acheived (usually) on their own, makes them interact with adults who aren’t their teachers (such as accompanists or judges), helps them build leadership skills and in general makes them think about many of the things that their music teacher thinks about for them in a large-ensemble setting.  As a student, I looked forward to solo & ensemble contest every year, and as a teacher, I have frequently required my students to participate.  As a high school band director, I was able to assign all my students to an ensemble and provide them with time to rehearse, while I floated from group to group.  We had a recital just before the deadline for solo & ensemble contest that was their goal for the purposes of the class, and I then left to each group the decision of whether or not to participate in the contest.  This gave students many of the benefits without some of the drawbacks.

Solo & ensemble contest is an important counterpoint to the large-group contests because if it weren’t there, an entire set of skills might not get taught while teachers were busy preparing their bands, choirs and orchestras.  I am an unabashed fan and promoter of solo & ensemble contest, and if the rest of the contest establishment were to disappear I would argue to save this portion.

So what’s good about large-group contest?  I have always been wary of students getting everything they know about any subject from only one person–people are human, and they forget the things they learned in college or simply focus on one pet peeve to the exclusion of other things.  Preparing a program as well as it can be prepared by the students and teacher in question, and then having three experts make comments is a really great check on what the teacher is doing, and may remind a teacher of things he or she had not emphasized.

In a way, large-group contest is like an annual physical for a music program.  If all the components–teacher, administration, students–are in place, a group will probably do well.  If one of those is dysfunctional in some way, it will show in the contest ratings.

Large-group contest gives teachers and students a goal, and a way to gauge their progress.  It provides a life for the ensemble outside of the school, and just as athletic teams have home and away games, contest allows band, choir and orchestra students to test themselves.

In the states where I have been involved with contest, Ohio, Georgia and Oklahoma, as in many others, the music played at contest is to be chosen from a prescribed list, compiled by highly experienced experts in the field.  Having to prepare at least one program’s worth of music deemed to be worthy by experts is good for students in that it gives teachers a strong incentive to not pander to students and audiences by choosing only light, popular music and to explore more artful styles.

The sight-reading component of large-group contest is perhaps the strongest litmus test for whether a music teacher is really teaching music.  I don’t know what the point of having band, choir or orchestra in a school is if all students are able to do at the end is remember the great times they had and (hopefully) how good some of that music was.  As my undergraduate advisor, Gerald Doan, used to say, we don’t give students their music at graduation.  They only take with them the skills, physical and mental, that we’ve taught them.  Sight-reading components check to see if these skills are being taught in some way.

So, what are the drawbacks to contest, then?  For the most part, I will try to present what I feel these are in answer to each of the above points.

A major problem with solo & ensemble is that teachers frequently are unable to allot sufficient time to help their students prepare.  Of course, in well-off schools, or schools where music is taken seriously, this is less of a problem, because students have access to private instruction.  The result is that many students arrive at solo & ensemble contest unprepared or with little musical understanding beyond notes and rhythms.  In Ohio, where scales and rudiments are required at solo & ensemble contest, every year one could hear students in the warm-up room cramming their required scales at the last moment, which was certainly not the intent of that requirement.

Scheduling of solo & ensemble contest is critical–to have it the same day as large-group contest is less than desireable, but in areas like Western Oklahoma this is the norm.  Here at OPSU, we are one of two logical places to host such a contest in our area, and on the instrumental side, neither contest is large enough on its own to justify paying for judges.  Together, the two contests are economically efficient, and so we had them both on the same day.  The result is that most schools, wanting to disrupt their school day as little as possible and save on transportation costs, bring their students to both contests on the same day at the same location.  The large-group contest inevitably overshadows solo & ensemble in the experience of many teachers and students.

If it is good for a program and a teacher to get comments from outside sources, are there other, less stressful, more reaslistic ways to get these?  In the 21st-century, there are.  It would be a simple thing to send high-quality audio and video to a judge, who can then watch or listen multiple times.  At many schools, it would even be possible to do this in real-time with immediate feedback through VOIP or videoconferencing.  It would be a simple thing for a judge to come to various schools for a residency of a few days (maybe even every other year) to not only hear the ensemble perform but also to work with the group in a rehearsal setting and bring the sight-reading music along.  This would be a far more robust educational experience than being herded onto a stage in a strange building, playing to a mostly empty hall and then being herded off.  If we’re going to solicit comments, it should be done in a meaningful way.

And then there is the rating:  the number (because everyone is most worried about the composite score, not its components) that will determine many a teacher’s self-esteem for the next year, until they have a chance to get a new number.  The number that may determine whether that teacher is asked to continue in his or her position for another year. 

If large-group contest is like a physical for a program, does it make sense to only look in the program’s left ear and take its rectal temperature?  And then average those two results?  The form of rating used in most states for large-group contests was once referred to as the “Olympic” rating, because the highest and lowest scores are dropped to determine the overall score for the concert program.  There is a major difference between most school music contests and the Olympics, though.  Namely, in the Olympics, judges are comparing athletes to one another to determine a ranking.  In school music contests, each performance is allegedly judged on its own merit, and first-place, second-place, etc. are not awarded (with the exception of some marching band contests, which are not my particular area of expertise).  Why are we rating musical groups using a system that has its origins in ranking athletes, with their much more objectively qualified performances?

If one were to compare professional orchestras, the merits of each could be argued endlessly–how does Chicago’s brass compare to Cleveland’s strings or Los Angeles’ innovative programming?  No two ensembles will ever be alike, and this is even more true in the secondary school world, where every teaching situation and every social situation is a little bit different.  To attempt to listen to a 35-piece middle school band playing John Edmondson and an 80-piece high school band playing Percy Grainger and make the same sorts of musical evaluations in both cases is nearly absurd.

Ratings as I know them in the states where I have taught and judged seem completely unreliable, and worse, not at all helpful to the educational experience.  I would argue for one of two ratings systems.  The first would to simply adopt the system used in Alaska in the mid-1990s:  ensembles could receive a rating of “1” or a rating of “comments only.”  This allowed truly excellent work to be recognized while emphasizing the underlying instructional aim of the experience.  A more preferable alternative would be to bring the “captioning” system widely used in marching band contest into the concert hall, and make scores more statistically reliable by making each component a mathematical part of the final rating.  In this way, teachers and administrators could better evaluate the success of a program by comparing results from year to year, and identify specific areas for improvement.  An administrator would be able to see, for example, whether problems in an underperforming band are instructional (e.g., students aren’t playing rhythms correctly, a possible teacher shortcoming) or systemic (e.g., tone quality is poor, possibly because sufficient budget hasn’t been allotted to maintain and replace instruments).

As a composer, I am generally appalled by the repertoire choices made for contest.  The contest format encourages teachers to choose safe, unimaginative, formulaic repertoire that generally lies at the lower end of their students’ technical and musical abilities.  This type of music does not inspire, does not educate beyond the realm of motor skills, and does not truly represent any recognizable historical or contemporary style beyond “contest music.”

In my experience  judging and managing, a look at the scores of the “marches” that teachers choose for concert band contest is a case in point.  Historically, most marches (of which Sousa, Alford and King are all outstanding examples) are written to a very specific form, and have certain rhythmic, metric and harmonic expectations.  It is possible to make the argument that a part of a student’s education in band should be to learn to deal with this style of composition.  The “marches” chosen for contest, though, are often marches in name and tempo only, simply being compositions in duple time and at a fast walking tempo.  The chosen meter is usually 2/4 or 4/4, despite most historical marches being written in “cut time” or 6/8.  Absent are the characteristic form, the expected key change to the subdominant (or any key change), and, more importantly, the rhythmic vitality combined with genuine melodic appeal that make pieces like Sousa’s “The Stars and Stripes Forever” an intergal part of our American heritage.  Not every band can play Sousa’s work, truthfully, but the chosen pieces are not even way-stations on the road to that level of performance.  They are all too often instead souless, styleless, pointless exercises in quarter-notes and eighth-notes, which then proceed to be played as such.

While the prescribed “list” of compositions for contest can help to ensure that a basic standard of musical quality is in place (or not), it also encourages composers to continue to write and publishers to publish the sort of formulaic drivel described above.  There is good music for young bands, but precious little of it seems to appear at contest.  It is in this arena that a switch to evaluation by clinician, as suggested above, might have a meaningful impact.  Students must learn to make music, not just to play the contest selections (or the selections for their concert at school, for that matter).  My experience over the last two decades is that students are more likely to remember playing good music as well as they are able than to remember playing bad music perfectly.  And some of the music is so bad that it will never sound good.

This post has gone far too long, but a few words about sight-reading.  After solo & ensemble, this is the next most important type of contest, because it caters also to what should be the underlying goal of music contest, and music education generally:  to create adults who are able to pursue music on their own terms after graduation, either professionally or on an amateur basis.  Students who can sight-read and play in small groups will be able to do this.  The fact that a sight-reading contest exists is a crucial accomplishment, and I haven’t quite determined how the experience could be improved–possibly by having a full panel of judges for sight-reading instead of one, as is usually the case.  Possibly by having the same judges hear sight-reading and concert performances.

Music contests, then, to me, are a two-edged sword with great possible benefits, but the potential to harm the field of music education as well.  My advice to music teachers and adminstrators is to have an open and honest conversation about the goals of their music programs, and then decide whether or not music contests, especially large-group contests, really and truly further those goals.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Seattle/Tacoma, SCI Region VIII Conference

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Becky and I were in the Pacific Northwest last weekend, a trip we’ve always wanted to take.  The official reason was that my Ophelia Songs was performed on Saturday morning at the University of Puget Sound, so details about the performance first.

Dawn Padula, mezzo-soprano, and Keith Ward, piano, gave an absolutely stunning rendition of my song cycle.  Truthfully, since the piece is a few years old, I hadn’t given it much thought lately, but these two performers gave it a reading that made me realize that my compositional decisions were the right ones–it reaffirmed my faith in the piece and in myself as a composer.  Dr. Padula’s luminous tone and flawless diction, combined with a wonderfully dramatic approach to the piece were stunning, and I can’t believe that such a reading of my piece was possible.  In the fourth movement, “Giving of Flowers,” I was on the edge of my seat.

The rest of the weekend, Becky and I experienced Tacoma and Seattle, with wonderful food, great sight-seeing and wonderful companionship.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Playing my own music

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

Over the last eight days, I’ve played my own music in three different venues in three cities here in Oklahoma.  I played my trombone-with-electronics piece Let Everything That Has Breath Praise the Lord here in Guymon at a concert at my church.  Then on Friday, I premiered part of my unaccompanied trombone piece Twenty Views of the Trombone on a faculty recital at Oklahoma Panhandle State University.  Then, last night, Becky and I went to Norman, Oklahoma so that I could play both pieces as a featured composer at a Salon Concert of the Oklahoma Composers Association.  All the performances went well, and they bring me to a topic I’ve, understandably, been thinking about lately, and that is the need for a composer to write music for him- or herself to perform, and to perform it.

A Beethoven or a Gershwin could, of course, at the drop of a hat, find a piano and regale those assembled with any number of their original works; Schubert wrote for himself, and composers like Bach and Haydn had jobs that required them to compose, rehearse and lead their newest pieces in quick succession. 

No one can be as passionate a performer of a new piece than its composer, and there’s no better way to show how a new piece should be played.   If my ideal is to write with a performer in mind, then writing for myself is the closest relationship I can have with a performer. 

From a practical standpoint, playing my own music means that I can “take the show on the road” very easily–in my case, with only my trombone and perhaps a mute or the CD of the accompaniment.

While I avoided writing for the trombone for a while–I didn’t just want to be a trombone composer, and there were other media to explore–it will always be the instrument I understand best.  I love to play the trombone, and it will, hopefully, always be my primary instrument, even if I don’t get nearly the amount of practice I would like.   It only seems natural that I would combine my compositional and performing personae.

I would urge all composers to consider this avenue–and I intend to keep exploring it myself.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Kevin Wale’s Senior Guitar Recital

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

I wish that every music student I have ever had could have been in the audience at Centennial Theatre at OPSU tonight. Kevin Wale, a senior music major in guitar performance, gave a recital that, at least for our school, raises the bar.

My college girlfriend and I gave our senior recitals about a week apart in 1998, and my parents made it down for both. My mother, who has no formal musical training, hit the nail on the head when she said, “M. had to do a recital, but you got to do a recital.” She was right–I enjoyed every minute of it (although I’m not sure that my audience can say the same thing).

Tonight’s performance, though, is a model that all musicians can aspire to in one way or another. Kevin “got to” give a recital, and from start to finish, it was amazing.

To my current students: this is what happens when you work as hard as you should be working. I’m talking about the technique, the confidence, the joy and passion with which Kevin played, the variety of styles he tackled and the facility of execution. Kevin told me later he was nervous, but it didn’t come off that way, and I wouldn’t have expected it to. As my colleague Matt Howell was fond of saying, “Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.” The battle is not to the swift or to the strong, but to the well-prepared and the well-trained.

Again, to my students–you can do this. It won’t be easy, and it won’t always be fun. In fact, it mostly will not be fun. But like any discipline, practice becomes a habit, and soon you feel uncomfortable without it. You need to make practice familiar, until your instrument becomes as much under your control as a part of your body (or singers, bring your body so fully under your control that you no longer have to consciously control it).

Tonight, I saw a rock guitarist play twenty minutes of classical guitar. It wasn’t Segovia–only Segovia was Segovia–but it was well-practiced, conscientiously prepared, and played in a stylistically aware fashion. To my students–some music will take you out of your comfort zone. Indeed, you may never be comfortable with some music. A rock guitarist playing classical is like a sex change! But Kevin pulled it off, again, with confidence and aplomb, and he is now a better, more complete musician for it. College is about pushing boundaries and expanding ourselves to new and different areas of endeavor. Whether it is within music or not, you need to try things you might not otherwise try, meet people you might not otherwise meet and dare to see what’s out there. You will either reaffirm your understanding of the world or be forced to revise it, and either way, you will be a better, fuller human being for it.

Kevin could not have done tonight’s recital alone. He had a slate of collaborators of all types, but what they had in common was that they could support his work with their own. To my students–choose your coworkers wisely, and treat them with respect. You may think you are more talented than they are, or think you are giving them more than they are giving you, but in the end, we are not in this alone. “No man is an island,” in any sense of the word. But, too, don’t tolerate collaborators who are unreliable or uncommitted any more than absolutely necessary. You can’t build whatever it is you are trying to build when the people you work with are holding you down.

Something that has always impressed me about Kevin, and which was in evidence tonight, is his ability to step back and think about things in context and ponder deeply. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” and the same is true about music. Not a single piece of music was out of place, and each piece fit into a 90-minute tour of the guitar with Kevin Wale as tour guide. I instruct recitalists in our department to choose music of merit, whether it be for its significance in the repertoire of the instrument, or its degree of difficulty or its ability to showcase the performer’s talent. Kevin very much took this to heart for this recital, and added on top a layer of thoughtfulness in programming that made the audience a part of the recital as well.

So, to address my students one more time–don’t just practice to learn music, but to dig deeply enough into the music to learn how to live. These are the real virtues of an education, whether musical or otherwise, and be grateful that you have been granted the time and the opporunity to pursue them. Congratulations again, Kevin.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »