Where is popular music headed?

February 9th, 2011

An excerpt from Chapter 2 of my forthcoming book, Music: Notation and Practice in Past and Present.

What is the fate, then, of popular music in the twenty-first century?  This question will be examined in-depth later in this book, but a brief consideration is appropriate here.  The culture industry was predicated on the idea that most individuals could not afford to record and distribute their music.  As a result, the music that was recorded was calculated to appeal to large numbers so that the sale and broadcast of that music would pay the greatest possible dividends.  In the era of the Internet, with its cheap and easy distribution models, coupled with the ability of many musicians to afford their own home recording studios, the recording industry has gone into a precipitous decline, with annual album sales falling by more than 50% by 2009 from their all-time high of nearly 800 million units in 2000.[1]  While there will always be popular music, the consequences for the popular music industry would seem to be dire, and it is doubtful that the current model of mass-market popular music can survive.  Various authors have put forward theories of what 21st-century popular music will look like.  Here are some possibilities:

  • There will increasingly be no truly popular music, as it becomes less and less possible for musicians to make a living providing a service that can largely be had for free.
  • There will increasingly be no music that has a broad public appeal, as the variety of music available on the Internet allows listeners to consume only that music that fits their very specific tastes, and the eclecticism of, say, 1970s FM radio disappears.
  • Popular music will become folk music, as more and more musicians make music for their own entertainment, releasing it to the Internet for the enjoyment of friends, family and a few die-hard fans, who may be scattered throughout the world.
  • New music will involve fewer and fewer live musicians, as more and more relatively untrained (in the traditional sense) composers create “mashups” of historical styles using home recording technology.  The future will sound like the past in a blender.
  • As recorded popular music becomes more of a free commodity, musicians will return to live performance as their primary means of making a living, and have as their goal a contract with a national concert promoter rather than one with a large recording company. 
  • As the popular music of the past becomes ossified into a “canon” that resembles the world of classical music, it will be studied, dissected and, eventually, become a part of the human cultural heritage that will be treasured by educated adults and analyzed by intellectuals[2] while some new musical form captures the young hearts and minds of the world.

Perhaps the only certain outcome of the revolution currently underway in popular music is the last of these, as scholars who have been raised nearly exclusively on popular music begin to gain influence in academia, and turn their minds toward the music they love most.  This scholarly study will lend further legitimacy to discussions of popular music in elementary and high schools, and as the educational system, one of whose purposes is to impart culture to the young, presents, say, hip-hop as an acceptable, even admirable, means of music-making, the prejudices which have so far kept the public from comparing Beethoven and Mozart to 50 Cent and the Wu Tang Clan will begin to dissolve.  In this way, the popular music of today will become the folk and art music of tomorrow.


[1] Kenney, Caitlin.  “Album Sales Hit Record Lows.  Again.”  http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/08/25/129428450/album-sales-hit-record-lows, Accessed August 27, 2010.  The year 2010 appeared no better, with fewer than five million albums (including digital copies) sold by the industry during the first week of August, the lowest weekly return since 1991.  These figures reflect a trend that neatly parallels the developing abilities of consumers to buy, sell, record and share music via personal computers and the Internet.[2] This has already occurred for jazz, and is beginning to take place for later popular styles in the realms of music theory, musicology, ethnomusicology and popular culture studies.  The 2008 joint conference of the American Musicological Society and the Society for Music Theory, meeting in Nashville, featured at least one session dedicated to twentieth-century popular music in every portion of the four-day conference, including a plenary session entitled “Popular Music and the Canon.”  The number of papers and sessions on popular music was such that scheduling dictated that a scholar of popular music would not have been able to attend every session in his field.

What is a piece of music?

January 17th, 2011

A portion from the first chapter of my forthcoming book, Music:  Notation and Practice in Past and Present, published by National Social Science Press.

Before discussing the seven elements [of music] in detail, it is important to think about just what constitutes a piece of music.  We are all aware of the existence of songs that have been recorded multiple times by different artists, or even by the same artists.  These “covers” may hold very closely to the original or may be completely different, even falling into a separate style.  Are all these versions separate pieces, or species of the same piece?  With a painting or a sculpture, it is possible to point to a specific object—perhaps even to pick it up and consider its physical properties.  Similarly, a book or a poem has a specific text that is the work of literature, and while there may be variant editions, there is a core sense of being to a book that keeps even different versions of the same story somehow separated from each other.  No one would dare suggest that a novel, its abridgement and its translation into a foreign language are all the same book, although we may study the similarities and differences.

A piece of music, though, seems somehow more mutable.  Without the physical objects of the painting, the sculpture or the book, there is no art, but music can be completely without any sort of tangible representation.  Even musical notation, one of the great inventions of European civilization, is not, of itself, the actual music, but rather relates to the experience of music in the way that a recipe in a cookbook is representative of actual food.  Cookbooks, of course, are extremely useful, interesting and often inspiring, but they cannot sustain, cannot satisfy, cannot taste the way that even the plainest tofu or simplest piece of fruit can.  A musical score is much the same.  It instructs, it reminds, it inspires, it describes, and it communicates at far removes of time and space, but it is not the music itself.

The technology of sound recording, first developed in the late 19th century and advanced and marketed in ever more complexity and availability since then, also bears consideration.  When a consumer purchases a recording, whether in a physical or digital format, she tends to feel that she “owns” whatever music is in the recording.  But to what extent is this really the case?  Recordings may have very high fidelity, but does the experience of listening to a recording equate to the experience of listening to a live performance?  Listening to a recording lacks the human interaction of live performance—seeing the expressions on the faces of performers and the potential for performers to react to unique events in the audience that no recording, audio or video, can replicate.

The only conclusion, then, is that the actual existence of a piece of music lies not in written notation or in recorded performance.  Music somehow has an existence beyond all these things.  It is beyond notation and recording.  It exists first in the human mind, and perhaps most purely there, and like a map that inevitably has to overlook some details, music cannot be fully represented except in live performance, and perhaps not then.

Mahler, Symphony No. 9, 4th movment

January 9th, 2011

We all have those concerts that we wish we had the chance to hear, but didn’t.  In the Spring of 1996, I was talked out of going to hear the Cincinnati Symphony play Mahler’s Ninth, and as I’ve worked through the piece over the last two months, I’ve been regretting missing that experience.  Nonetheless, coming to it late is better than never, and I only wish I had more time to really dig in–I’m already ten days later than I had hoped!

That said, before I begin my comments, I’m pleased to have come to the end of my Mahler cycle.  I’d been considering spending 2011 with some great scores of the 194os, but I’m feeling the need to take some time away from this project–at least until May 1, which is the deadline for the textbook I’m working on for National Social Science Press.  The book, to be entitled Music: Notation and Practice in Past and Present is inspired by a book that I picked up in the early 90s, when I was just beginning to become serious about music.  That book, Introduction to Music by Roald Pen, was a reference and my first visit to many ideas in music and about music, and I hope to be creating a contemporary analogue to it.  My posts for the time being will be excerpts from my drafts, as I plow through music theary and music history.

But–one last time to Mahler.  This last movement–his final completed statement–unfolds and develops with a stateliness and slowness that I htink is most parallelled in the finale of the Third Symphony.  Ending with an Adagio is somewhat atypically of Mahler.  There are highly predictable, very tonal moments, and there are also very strange, very contrapuntal moments.  Above that, I hear this piece as a group of deferred climactic moments, each of which allows the movement to expand in scope and makes the ultimate climax all the more satisfying.

After an extended dominant tone, the first presentation of the chorale appears in mm. 3-10.  Mahler makes fascinating use of enharmonic equivalence–he can only be understanding these pitches as being equal-tempered, then, despite the ill-advisedness of playing them as such.  The movement is filled with root motions by descending third, by deceptive progressions and, most interestingly, by progressions which cut against the grain of traditional functional tonality.  Are they backward-looking, or simply intended to sound strange?

Following the chorale presentation, where there should be a confident, full-chorded cadence, there is, in m. 11, a single Db.  At m. 13, the strings enter, again full-throated, with a fuller, clearer cadence in m. 17, where the first independent wind voice is heard.  The horn has always been Mahler’s instrument.

The music changes from Db major to C# minor in m. 28, and the first violins have a quotation fro mthe last movement of the Second Symphony in m. 31.  Measure 34 sees the reappearance of the solo viola–the signature sound of this symphony.  The remainder of this minor-key section is a slower, transitional passage that ends with a return to Db major in m. 49,  coupled with a return of the solo horn and the chorale theme, in variation. 

Gradually, more and more instruments fill in the texture, as Mahler has held the winds largely in reserve.  Measure 63, a dominant chord on D major, seems to herald a climactic moment, only to diminuendo to a return of the chroal material, again in the strings,with only the bassoons doubling the basses.  This is perhaps the most string-dominated of Mahler’s work since the Fifth Symphony.

Over the next two pages, another climactic approach is developed, this time with the first entry of the trumpets, only to be deferred in m. 73.  After a cadence in m. 77, another transitional passage leads to C# minor in m. 88.  Of note, however, is the first passage in this movement for winds without strings, mm. 81ff.

The minor-key section at m. 88 has a degree of harmonic stasis unusual to this point in the movment, with an implication of the subdominant key in m. 97.  From this point, the texture builds to the actual climax of the movement, but not before the first entry of the percussion combined with the first point at which the brass is fully-voiced.

The climactic moment of the movement is in m. 126, with a cadence that begins a further variation of the chorale material.  Measure 138 features a fantastic pianissimo tutti color, with the flutes an octave above the violins and the horns doubling the celli.  An aftershock of the climax appears in m. 142, followed by a diminuendo to a long coda.  Measures 153-5 have an interesting coloristic moment in which the line moves up while the instruments involved move “down”–violin to viola to cello. 

The last page is masterful–it seems to fade into nothingness, just as the First Symphony began from nothing.  There is as much silence on this page as there is anywhere else in Mahler’s preceding work.  With a quiet Db major chord, Mahler’s work, and my comment on it, ends.

Mahler, Symphony No. 9, movement 3

December 17th, 2010

This “Rondo-Burleske” is yet another intriguing, tightly-wrought movement that reveals its secrets somewhat reluctantly but in fullness.  A six-measure introduction reveals most of the motivic material for the movement, beginning with a three-note figure announced by the trumpet.  This is answered by a five-note, arch-shaped cell played in octaves by the strings.  The three-note motive returns in the horns, with a three-note rising response in the low winds and woodwinds.  After a measure’s silence (m. 5), the introduction ends with a repetition of the final motive in the winds and brass.

What has really happened in the first six measures is a halting, hesitant version of the rondo theme for this movement.  The material presented appears again and again throughout the movement, beginning with the first presentation of the melodic idea for the movement in full, confident form.  The melody of the first six bars becomes a full-fledged Mahlerian rondo theme, rollicking and surging forward in two-measure segments until the end of the phrase in m. 22.  The initial three-note motive is the primary melodic material.  The next passage, mm. 23-43, is somewhat more conventional in nature, but Mahler’s scoring renders it a contrapuntal wonder, with the melody shared between first and second violins.  This segment is essentially developmental in function and leads to a return of the first phrase, now varied in rhythm and texture, in m. 44.

At m. 51ff, the melody is again divided between first and second violins, and I have to wonder at the implications for the seating of these sections–are the violins to be separated for a stereophonic effect, or placed together for a unified sound?   The overriding segmentation into two-bar ideas is maintained through this pertion of music as well.

A passage of fantastic string writing follows beginning in m. 66.  A sequential passage breaks the two-bar hypermeter, in preparation for an imitative passage between strings and horns.  The section breaks down to a notated key change (to D minor) preceded by conventional material presented in single-bar segments.  The material continues to be halting, lurching forward from statement to statement.  In m. 97, a fascinating coloration of the melody in the violins occurs as the flutes play off-beats.  This leads to a transition to the first episode of the rondo form.

The episode, beginning in m. 109, begins in F major, and subsitutes 2/4 for cut time, with the instruction “L’istesso tempo.”  The mood is significantly more relaxed than the refrain, with the lurching  feel left behind.  This material has an emphasis on root motion by thirds, initially descending, but later ascending.  It is somewhat ironic, that in a harmonic system based on thirds, Mahler’s root motion by thirds seems to undermine the tonal system.  The hypermeter here seems to suggest four-bar measures rather than the two-bar measures of the refrain, although with less regularity than before, with some three-bar measures making their appearance.  This episode ends with no transition in m. 180 when the refrain again bursts forth.

This second appearance of the refrain is rhythmically modified, in that triplets are substituted for the eighth-note figures of the opening.  The overall melodic structure is similar, as the hypermetric structure with its two-bar cells.

At m. 209, a motive I will refer to as the “chorale” makes its first appearance (it will later be presented by the brass in chorale style, but for now, it is more or less a countersubject in a fugato treatment of the refrain melody).  The first downbeat of the refrain melody is also the first beat of the chorale, as in m. 209, where it appears in the trombones, which continue the refrain while the clarinets enter with the remainder of the chorale.

After this fugato version of the refrain, the first episode reappears in m. 262.  In a Classical seven-part rondo, the first episode wouldn’t reappear until the end of the movement, as the next-to-last part of the form.  Instead of the original F major, the episode is now in A major.

Another interesting aspect of this movement is Mahler’s extensive use of enharmonicism, particularly in this repeated episode.  This allows rapid changes of harmony between remote areas, of course, but also conflicts with the nature of the orchestral instruments, which do not treat enharmonic pitches equivalently in the way that the piano does.

The next statement of the refrain begins in m. 311 and lasts 35 measures, in a typical truncation of refrain material.  Less typical, however, is the manner in which the chorale melody begins to dominate this section, even in its determination of the medium-scale formal structure, which appears in nine-bar phrases.

In m. 347, a written key change to D major sets up the culminating presentation of the chorale, in the brass, which introduces a third episode.  This is based on new motivic material, resembling a simple turn.  This “slow” episode continues to build until m. 421.  Which leads to a transitional section with a very interesting alternation of material from the refrain and the “slow” episode.  The refrain returns in m. 522 with the melody appearing in the trombones.

In m. 617, at the marking “Piu stretto,” the first of two codas begins, in the Romantic tendency to extend after-the-ending material.  The first coda, and the second, which begins in m. 641, both are restatements of the refrain melody at faster tempi.  The movement lurches to its conclusion.

Mahler, Symphony No. 9, movement 2

December 5th, 2010

Im tempo eines gemachlichen Landlers… “in the tempo of a comfortable landler.”  I’m not certain what Mahler means by a “comfortable” landler.  That could be a reflection of my lifelong discomfort with social dance, but I also wonder if Mahler is being somewhat sarcastic, because the music seems anything but comfortable or comforting; more accurately, there is much that is distinctly uncomfortable in this movement–phrases of the “wrong” length, harmonic turns that leave as abrutply as they surface and even scoring that is somewhat atypical of Mahler.

To wit, the opening bars are somewhat confusing.  So many of Mahler’s dance movements revolve around a moto perpetuo sort of texture that what seems to be a straightforward approach using dance rhythms strikes me as odd.  The first two measures, a simple pentachord from do to sol, are answered with a characteristic suspension-like figure in the clarinets.  These two motives will form much of the basis for the music in this “comfortable” section and its reprise.  After eight measures of what seems to be “time”–the dance rhythms in exposition, merely waiting for the melody of the first strain, the second violins enter at the marking Schwerfallig (ponderous or heavy-footed) (I need to learn how to make umlauts!).  This is a fantastic description, and one that strikes close to home, because as much as I might try, I am a heavy-footed dancer, as any of my dance partners through the years will attest.  My heavy-footedness comes, I believe, from simply trying too hard and not yet being comfortable–there’s that word again–with the movement.

At any rate, the ponderousness here comes from repeated downbows, open fifths in the celli and the persisten doubling of violas and bassoons.  More on the role of the bassoon later.  The Schwerfallig indication also marks the confirmation of a metrical motive that is important throughout this piece–it appears in the first four measures, and again here.  Namely, it is the repetition of a measure followed by a new measure and its repetition, a four-bar cell that appears in various guises.  As stated, mm. 1-4 take this form, as do mm. 9-12.  The material often varies greatly (although it is sometimes recalled from earlier), but the metric pattern remains the same, a schema that catches the listener’s ear and grounds the piece with a set of musical expectations that Mahler consistently fails to meet.

I have long wanted to learn the steps to dances that are involved in the music I am passionate about.  I don’t know where one would go to learn the sarabande or the courante, but the minuet or the landler shouldn’t be more difficult.  I feel that knowing how to dance the sarabande would bring Bach’s music, for example, into a whole new light for me, and I think I would better understand the give and take of this movement if I were proficient in the landler, as no doubt many of Mahler’s listeners were.  To me, our widespread ignorance of social dance, beyond, as with much of American life, watching it on television, is a sign of cultural impoverishment.  I may pity my sometime partners in the dance, but I feel more of a person for at least attempting salsa once upon a time.

But I digress!  After the first eighteen bars, Mahler repeats the four-bar cell that appeared at mm. 9-12, following these now with an extension that leads to a subdominant chord over a tonic pedal.  In measure 40, a similar four-bar cell sees the low strings and flutes alternating between tonic and subdominant ideas–not exactly the 2+2 idea stated previously, but a similar plan.

In general, the music here is very diatonic–as is to be expected, I think, in a folk dance, but also perhaps so that Mahler can lull us into a sense that this movement will, in fact, be “comfortable.”  The harmonies have been long-lived, and the C-pedal nearly omnipresent through this section.

All that changes in m. 90, where key and tempo change to begin a new section.  This section is much more harmonically dynamic–more chromaticism and more frequent changes in harmony rather than being dominated by pedal points like the first section.

The melodic material is derived from the original material of the movement and is persistently scalar.   The first measures, mm. 90-92, outline a descending sol-do pentachord, the inversion of the opening motive, and the expression of stepwise motion seems to dominate this section in an important way.

This could be my Schenkerian training coming back out, but the structure of Mahler’s lines in this movement tends much more toward elaborated ascending or descending scales than has necessarily been the case.  An example of this can be found in the melody given to the violins in what seems like a developmental core following m. 130.  In m. 138, the melody has C6 on the downbeat, sequenced to C#6 in m. 140, D6 in m. 142 and Eb6 in m. 144, setting the stage for a cadence in C-minor, which quickly proves to be a pivot to Eb major by measure 154. 

Another important aspect of the melodic material in this section is its continual falling by thirds–in effect, having each measure cover two scale degrees instead of only one.  Beginning in m. 188, the melody outlines a ninth chord, beginning on E6 and falling successively to C6, A5, F#5 and D#5.  Mahler’s usual ambiguities between major and minor emerge in the following measures, as the section  comes to an end and the organization of the dance seems to come apart.

A third landler tempo appears in m. 218, and while the key is different (F major) the material is derived from the original landler melody, with the four-bar cell brought back to bring a semblance of cohesion to the music after the faster dance seems to have fallen apart.  Once again, the woodwinds echo the strings with a repetition of the opening material of this section beginning in m. 230.  In m. 233ff, the flute, an instrument somewhat neglected until now, is assigned the melody, which again descends by emphasizing successive scale-degrees on the downbeat of each measure.  After a ritard, the opening of this section reappears in mm. 252 with the four-bar cell.  This is then followed by a fascinating spot that features a bass line descending by fifths, covering half the circle of fifths in three measures to set up the new key of D major in m. 261.

From this point foward, the material of the three sections is partly developed and partly recapitulated, beginning with the second section and its quick tempo.  The key is “wrong,” of course, but this matters little, as the first statement of the melody is not diatonic at all, but highly suggestive of the whole-tone scale (WT 0) in mm. 261-268.  The metrical structure is somewhat more regular, with cadences happening in more-or-less eight-bar phrases and an ornamented repetition beginning in m. 291.  The glockenspiel part here is reminiscent of that in the Jupiter movement of Holst’s The Planets, highlighting as it does certain notes rather than playing the complete melody.

Beginning in m. 313, this second-section material, having modulated to C major, begins to pull apart, with a transition back to F major and the slowest of the three tempi in m. 333.  Only 30 bars later, the first tempo reappears with a rescored restatement of the opening material.  The descending fifths lead this time to C major instead of the D major that brought back the fastest tempo.  The movement, then, takes the following tempo plan:

I    II    III   II   III   I

Can the middle four sections be understood as a development?  Or perhaps more accurately as the B-section of a ternary form?  This second possibility strikes me as more likely, given the traditional forms for middle movements in Austro-German symphonic writing.

In the measures preceding m. 423, the tempo returns to the faster second tempo, which seems to me a sort of coda.  Finally, after 100 bars, the opening tempo and material return in the home key to be deconstructed in the same way as the second section twice gave way to the slow third-section tempo.  This final coda-to-the-coda has some of the most interesting scoring in the movement, namely in m. 566-68, with a moment of mystery, the extensive use of solo viola from m. 583 forward and a stunning bassoon ensemble passage–very rare in Mahler–beginning in m. 590.  The movement ends with a restatement of the opening motive, closing on C rather than G, in the piccolo and contrabassoon, a supremely uncomfortable combination for a “comfortable” landler.

Band Music You Should Know

December 2nd, 2010

This is a one-off post for my students who may be pondering what to do with their Concert Band-free weeks that are coming up after tonight’s concert.  Why not make a Winter Break resolution to seek out and listen to some of the best band music ever written.  Here are twenty-five pieces to get you started:

1.  British Classics:

  • Gustav Holst:  First Suite in Eb and Second Suite in F for military band
  • Gustav Holst:  Hammersmith
  • Ralph Vaughan Williams:  Toccata Marziale (we’re playing this one next semester)
  • Ralph Vaughan Williams: English Folk Song Suite
  • Gordon Jacob: William Byrd Suite

2.  Absolute Must-Hears:

  • Percy Aldridge Grainger:  Lincolnshire Posy
  • Karel Husa:  Music for Prague 1968
  • Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart:  Serenade No. 10, K. 361/370a, “Gran Partita”
  • Aaron Copland:  Emblems
  • Alfred Reed:  Russian Christmas Music

3.  Symphonies for Band

  • Paul Hindemith, Symphony in Bb
  • Vincent Persichetti, Symphony No. 6
  • Vittorio Giannini, Symphony No. 4
  • Alan Hovhaness, Symphony No. 4
  • Morton Gould, West Point Symphony

4.  The Last Thirty Years

  • Michael Colgrass, Winds of Nagual
  • David Maslanka, A Child’s Garden of Dreams
  • Ron Nelson, Passacaglia (Homage on BACH)
  • Mark Camphouse, Watchman Tell Us of the Night
  • Joseph Schwantner, …and the mountains rising nowhere

5.  Great Transcriptions

  • Dmitri Shostakovich (Hunsberger), Festive Overture
  • Leonard Bernstein (Grundman), Overture to Candide
  • Richard Wagner (Caillet), Elsa’s Procession to the Cathedral
  • Charles Ives (Thurston), “The Alcotts” from the Concord Sonata
  • Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov (Hindsley), Scheherezade

This will get you started, anyway.  Mahler this weekend.

Mahler, Symphony No. 9, first movement

November 17th, 2010

Of the nine Mahler symphonies, the Ninth is probably the one I come to with the least familiarity.  I’ve never seen it in concert, and I’ve never had reason before to really listen to it.  It is, I’m finding, a very different animal than what comes before, although in many ways, it is a culmination of some trends that really began with the Seventh symphony.

Like the Seventh, there is significantly less clarity of formal structure as motive becomes more and more important.  I’m reminded of Schoenberg’s assertion that motive is what composition really is about—creating a motive and then following its logical developments until a composition is worked out.  Only a few years after Mahler’s Ninth, we begin to encounter works like Schoenberg’s Pierrot, in which motive becomes the music, comprising melody, harmony and rhythm, or Erwartung, which takes a very different motivic approach, giving only exposition, never repetition over the course of a one-act opera.  Only fifteen years after Mahler’s death, Schoenberg devised dodecaphony, which was yet another effort to allow motive to determine all aspects of musical content.

There is, then, a tautness to Mahler’s Ninth that was missing from the Eighth.  The Eighth was motivically conceived, of course, but also had such a sprawling nature, such a blend of instruments, voices and text that it was probably impossible for Mahler to focus on the motivic aspects of the composition.  A text that expresses what the last scene of Faust tries to express cannot be contained in just a few motivic ideas, as Mahler correctly divined.  Both are great works, and thrilling in their way, but I remain skeptical as to whether the Eighth is really a Symphony in more than name.

If I might dwell, then, before entering into specifics, upon what actually makes a symphony.  Chuck Berry sang:

I got no kicks against modern jazz, /Unless they try to play it too darn fast, /And change the rhythm of the melody, /Until it sounds just like a symphony.

 Of course, Berry didn’t mean an actual symphony, but rather the technically driven, studied approach that jazz was coming to acquire in his era—the era of Miles Davis and other practitioners of “Cool Jazz”—in juxtaposition to the raw, often deliberately unschooled approach to rock’n’roll of his day.  But what does it mean to sound “just like a symphony?” 

When I first encountered Robert Schumann’s Overture, Scherzo and Finale, I found myself wondering why he didn’t just write a slow movement and have a “complete” symphony, since I was by that time aware that a symphony had four movements in a certain order.  But then composers such as Schumann, Sibelius and Barber also felt able to compose single-movement symphonies, and history turns out to be replete with examples of symphonies that lack a fourth movement or have “extra” movements.  In the end, what is the symphonic concept?  What makes a composition for orchestra (or for band, as the ever-insistent voice of Rodney Winther reminds me) into a symphony?   Some aspects I think are important:

  • Instrumental.  This is probably a basic requirement, and it doesn’t omit all non-symphonies, although it does omit, or threaten to omit, many pieces with the title “Symphony.”  Is Beethoven’s Ninth, with its choral finale a symphony by this definition?  There is great music in its first three movements, but these act as prelude, really, to the cantata that is the last movement.  I’m not certain that a piece with voices can truly be a symphony, but I know that they aren’t required.  In fact, they sometimes undermine the symphonic ideal, at least to my thinking.  The fact remains that as much as we are musical beings, we are also verbal beings, and the marriage of text to music is always an uneven match.  Text, if we understand the language, wears the pants, so to speak, and will almost always compete successfully for the attention of most listeners.  Even the most vapid lyrics seem to win this contest.  Thus, to me, the symphonic concept is inherently instrumental.
  • Relative equality of parts.  As a trombonist, I have rested through much more symphonic music than I have played, of course, but Brahms’ First would not be complete without the trombone chorale in the fourth movement.  In that sense, the trombones are equal in importance to the other instruments, and no part can be disposed with.  That chorale could have been played by horns or bassoons, but not without a change in color and thus in character.  The appearance of a color that has been held in reserve through the first three movements is a profound and noble moment, and as the saying goes, there are no small parts, only small actors.  However, in a concerto, one part is inherently more important than all the others, and in works titled Concerto for Orchestra, or similar names, it is again the virtuosity of the players that is on display rather than the composer’s ability to make a profound statement.  Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra is not a symphony because, although I think there are messages about life in it, it is mostly about the ability of players to perform music written idiomatically for their instruments.
  • Plumbing the depths.  As Libby Larsen said, composition is about telling someone else through music what it is like to be alive.  Just as large-scale formats in other arts—mural, novel, film—put on display the understanding of the auteur of the human condition, the symphony tells us about human experience from the point of view of the composer, and, in the best moments, from the point of view of the musicians who perform the piece.  Is this present in the earliest pieces called “symphony?”  Perhaps, but it is difficult to know at 200 years’ remove.  Certainly in Mozart’s later symphonies and Haydn’s later symphonies, we get a glimpse of this, and of course it is Beethoven who forced composers to rethink the symphonic concept.  The Soviet Nicholas Miaskovsky composed over a thousand numbered symphonies—he was less writing about his life than writing for it, though, and one must wonder whether such pieces should be considered “symphonic” in their conception.  Again, it is not a difficult thing to write four movements in a symphonic pattern, particularly in a Common Practice style, but to pour one’s heart and soul and communicate to all who can play or listen on a meaningful level is a much greater challenge.  We mustn’t discount happiness and cheerfulness, though.  While there is pain and struggle and anguish in the world, a great symphony can also be filled with light—Sibelius’ Fifth, perhaps, or Dvorak’s Eighth, or much of Mendelssohn.  If one actually is happy, and filled with joy, it is probably one’s artistic duty to compose music that recognizes the value of this, an idea almost forgotten in our world of desires and causes and political statements.
  • Internal unity.  Simply writing four pieces on a related concept or program does not a symphony make.  No one would confuse Holst’s Suites for Military Band for symphonies despite their musical worthiness.  In the Symphonie Fantastique, Berlioz wisely fuses the five movements through internal self-reference—the idée fixe.   With no knowledge of the program, these five pieces would seem to hang together, as do the movements in Mahler’s symphonies, because in the best symphonic writing, the number of movements is, in the end, less crucial than the way those movements are connected.  Schumann recognized this and did not try to claim the Overture, Scherzo and Finale as a symphony.  The movements of a symphony must follow one another without apology and without explanation.  They must be inevitable.  They must be as different speakers making the same point, “good-cop, bad-cop,” as it were.  Composers use harmony, melody, motive, scoring—all the tools at their disposal—to achieve this.  The sonic world of Brahms’ Second Symphony cannot be confused with that of the Third, and Mahler’s world in the Seventh Symphony is a distinctly different one from the Ninth.
  • Commitment to purpose and purposeful excellence.  A true symphony is a serious, heartfelt gesture intended to be the best work of a mature composer, written without constraints of mediocre performers and looking to the future.  It is likely to be experimental in some regard, although the experimentation is less likely to be in the realm of compositional or instrumental technique than in the realm of expressive capacity.  Just as a good pianist will test and probe the potential of an unfamiliar instrument, a true symphonic composer attempts to determine just how her ideas about existence can best be communicated through sound.  A symphony is not a one-off, but rather the core of an artist’s musical expression.  Yes, at the age of 34, I have still not written a symphony, for many reasons, but I feel that I must first master certain aspects of compositional technique, some of which are approached through this study.  A symphony should lie at the core of my oeuvre in retrospect, and given my social milieu, the opportunities that have and may come my way and my personal style, I may not be a symphonist, or there may be in the end only one symphony in me—perhaps a better situation, as how can one write such a summative piece twice?!

And now, 1500 words into this post, I have not even made a single specific reference to the piece at hand—if this were an assignment in one of my classes, I would fail myself!  But the assignment I’ve given myself is to figure out how to grow as a composer:   I hope to one day be a symphonist, or at least write large-scale music, which I have determined are not necessarily the same thing.  I am learning what I need to learn from Mahler, and my listening and score-study project is yielding fruit, if in unexpected ways.  My score is filled with notes on Mahler’s work, and I refer myself to it for future reference, but why shouldn’t this summative work, written by a man at the peak of his personal powers of musical technique and expression, elicit from me a summative sort of response, albeit slightly early?  If you’re dying for specifics, check out the strange interlude of regular formal rhythm—four-bar phrases—that begin in m. 148 and precede and follow an otherwise nearly complete lack of regularity in this regard.  Also, Mahler’s layering approach to this movement reminds me of some of Sibelius’ music—I don’t know whether there was cross-fertilization there.

Onward!  Keep fighting mediocrity!

Mahler, Symphony No. 8, second part

November 3rd, 2010

I spoke too soon about the first movement of this piece, which I still feel is somewhat overblown and lacks the subtlety I’ve grown to love in Mahler’s music.  The truth is that the second movement, the final scene from Faust more than makes up for what I was missing.  Clocking in at about an hour in the recording I use as my reference, the sad truth is that in the month of October, I didn’t get as much listening done as I want to, but I do have some observations.

The piece opens with a wonderful unfolding of a theme introduced pizzicato in the low strings.  In a choral symphony, the first voices don’t enter until for over 160 slow bars, but that isn’t at all strange here–I felt that development was shorted in the first movement, but  here in the second movement, Mahler seems to be trying to make up for it.  This pizzicato theme of the first bars is really put through its paces, and ends up being a major idea of the piece, which, I think, after all, is the point of the symphonic tradition–doing less with more, making a lot out of a little.  Mahler, as is often stated, wanted to create worlds with his symphonies, and he certainly does.  The scene seems very effectively set without staging and without saying a single word.  A lesser composer may have required a narrator here.

An interesting orchestrational moment occurs at m. 214 (rehearsal 32) in the woodwinds–even for Mahler, this is unusual, but the addition of an oboe in m. 215, which then diminuendos as the flutes and clarinets crescendo is an orchestral feat that I might expect of a much younger composer.  Stunning means of highlighting the subtle harmonic changes, as each chord has its own tone color.

In m. 219, then after much setting the scene, the first soloist enters.   I’m uncertain as to whether this is symphony, cantata or opera.  The text, of course, is in its way larger than mere drama, or even opera, and Mahler’s music makes it even more so–it is difficult to imagine a simple dramatic performance after hearing this piece. 

At m. 261, the brass enter with a version of the opening motive, which we now hear to be related to material from the first movement.  Once again, Mahler is being self-referential, or perhaps just unifying the entire piece with a common motive, as with the major-minor motive of the Sixth Symphony.

I doubt that it is possible to unify a 90-minute orchestral piece solely with motive, and there is much music–page after page, really–that does not refer back to earlier events.  Mahler uses the same technique as many composers, i.e., a reliance on conventional material, as William Caplin puts it in his book Classical Form.  The simple truth is that not everything can be characteristic in a large piece like this, and there must be variety as well as unity.  Ironically, the appearance of motives in an otherwise conventional texture is, in the end, what holds this (and all of Mahler’s music) together.  In much the same way, if every face in a crowd were familiar, we wouldn’t know who to talk to first, but every face has a certain familiarity because we know what a human face basically looks like.  We know–whether from hearing his earlier work, or from listening to contemporary works by other composers, or just from hearing the titanic first movement–the basic ideas behind a Mahler symphony.  If Mahler wrote something that was not of himself and not stylistically “correct,” we would prick our ears, dig more deeply into the score and try to understand what that note was doing there.  If he had gone too far beyond some standard of “Mahlerness,” we would accuse him of being stylistically vague.

I want to pursue this line of thinking, because it applies directly to me as a composer, and that is the point of this series of blog posts:  what can I learn from Mahler that will inform my own composition?  At what point do I stop trying to form my compositional style and begin trying to write pieces that stay in my style?  Does a twenty-first century composer have to manage his or her style in the way that, say, Mozart did?  Where are the other composers who write music in styles similar to mine, and am I near the core of their style or somewhere on the edge?

I have written in styles that are not completely mine, I confess.  I have discovered that I have the ability to write fairly good music that relies on more-or-less traditional tonal harmony, and from time to time, I find it necessary to trot out a piece that is a style copy or simply an original tonal composition.  A part of me recognizes that these aren’t, in a full sense, “Matthew Saunders” pieces, but in another very real sense, they are.  I certainly am not the first composer to have two different approaches to the craft, but I’m almost ashamed of writing these ditties that are not me, that are compromises with the music that is more popular, more familiar, more expected.

There is an iconic moment in the film Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, in which a young aspiring composer (living with his mother) plays some of his music, which sounds exactly like Beethoven or Chopin.  It is eminently clear–and was clear in the 1960s even to filmmakers–that no composer can really write this way and be treated seriously (although he might make some money).  Style, then, is what separates me, as a composer, from the crowd, for better or for worse, just as it separated Mahler from all the would-be Romantic symphonists of his day (Max Bruch wrote wonderful symphonies that sound just like Brahms did twenty-five years earlier). 

There is so much more to discuss about the Eighth Symphony, but I think that, more than anything else, this is what I’ve learned–more about myself than about Mahler: if the music is true to my style, then it is the music that I should be writing and promoting; music that is true to any other style can be written by someone else.  Only I can write pieces by Matthew Saunders.

The Ninth will divide halfway through the months of November and December–fifteen days for each movement, more or less.

Why My Son Will Never Play Football

October 23rd, 2010

This is an elaboration of a statement I have made to a few people now and again, and a few more since Noah was born.  I hope it doesn’t amount to heresy in too many people’s minds, but since becoming a father, I feel all the more strongly about it.  My son, Noah, will not be playing football, at least not in any sort of organized way.  Please don’t think him a coward or less of a man–it simply isn’t his choice.  If Becky and I have more children, they won’t be playing football, either.

As a band member, and later as a high school and college band director, I have seen more football games than I might otherwise have chosen to see.   I’ve been told that you never really understand the game until you’ve played it, and while I’ve played in pickup games, mostly touch or flag, I can’t really say that I’ve played football.  Not in the way that some men mean when they talk about their football experiences.

I’ve watched, though.  And I watch Ohio State play football, not out of a great love of the game, or out of genuine affection for Ohio State, but because it’s a link to my hometown, and sometimes they show places that I’ve been during the coverage, and it was the Ohio State marching band that first inspired me to be a trombonist in any serious way.  I haven’t been to an Ohio State football game since 1987, and I’ve never paid for a ticket–I was an usher with the Boy Scouts back then.  Ohio State football reminds me of home, and I live a long way from there.

I don’t know what my parents woudl have said if my brother and I wanted to play.  We certainly weren’t encouraged to play or to try out, and until that season ushering at Ohio State, my parents only ever took us to a few games, always Homecoming at Wittenberg University, my father’s alma mater.  When I was in first grade, I remember Wittenberg beating Marietta 65-3.  I don’t know what the response to a yearning desire to play football would have been; my brother and I both had other interests, and we were pushed toward Boy Scouts  by my father, who was the best scoutmaster I ever saw.

Noah will not play football because of the almost certain chance that he will be injured either in practice or in the game.  In particular, the chance of brain injury–almost too certain to call it a chance–is what really damns the sport in my book.  One person I’ve discussed this with recently objected that helmets keep getting better and better.  However, a helmet may protect the skull from direct trauma, but it does little for the brain, floating serenely in the cranium until subjected to the sudden acceleration that can cause concussion, or worse.

Just what does a concussion mean to a young man of football age?  The teens are a time when the brain is developing rapidly, but in an odd way–the unused synapses are being closed down, and trauma to the brain at that age accelerates this process.  All humans undergo this pruning of neural pathways, but if too few remain, it can become difficult if not impossible to learn later in life.  The results of repeated concussions are rapidly becoming clear–greater risk of depression, suicide, and propensity for substance abuse, violent behavior, along with diminished capacity to adapt to a changing and challenging world.

While none of these prospects is good, this last is probably the most concerning.  In the 1940s, perhaps it was the case that a young man who suffered a concussion or two would be just fine.  The economy was based on manufacturing and agriculture to a far greater extent than today.  A person of less-than-perfect mental ability could still find a job that would allow him to support a family in a middle-class lifestyle and possibly even retire comfortably courtesy of strong unions, Social Security and a booming American economy.  The work was relatively simple, repetitive and unchanging.  A high school diploma was enough.

Today, though, a college degree is the new high school diploma.  By the time Noah graduates high school in 2028, it is difficult to imagine that a master’s degree will not be necessary for most desirable jobs.  The repetitive, simple job that provides a middle-class existence has been gone for decades, of course, and the truth is that Noah will need every brain cell he can muster to be competitive in a world in which competition is global, intense and technologically driven.  To allow him to participate in an activity, namely football, that is predicated on deliberately striking another human being as hard as physically possible, and being so struck oneself, is, to my thinking, the epitome of child abuse.

Here in Oklahoma, and in much of the rest of the country, high school football is a religion, and what I’m saying is heresy.  Many of my colleagues, neighbors and students regard their time playing high school football as golden, and eagerly anticipate the day that their sons can put on helmet and shoulder pads.  Around here, community leagues begin in elementary school, as was true in my hometown.  Even if I had wanted to play football in middle school, I would have been outclassed by my peers who had played years of UA Grid Kid football.  What I’m about to say next will anger football lovers even more:

Football must to be banned if the United States is to compete in the 21st century world.

It is no secret that the growing economies, especially China and India, will soon surpass America in nearly every category, at least those in which they have not bested us already.  Like Noah, we will need every brain cell we can lay our hands on to be creative, intelligent and tenacious rather than lethargic, beaten-down or worse.  We simply cannot sacrifice a generation of our young men in the name of a game.

Maybe an outright ban isn’t necessary.  Government can apply a variety of tools to influence behavior.  Perhaps denying federal funding to schools who continue to sponsor football teams is the answer.  Perhaps a punitive tax on football equipment that would fund the social services required by the victims of concussions and their families.  Perhaps a switch to flag football is the answer–an option suggested derisively by one commentator not long ago on national television in response to what he perceived as an overly “safe” call.

Why do we as a society continue to promote this sort of institutionalized violence?  As a male, I understand the occasional desire to “knock heads”–I have as much testosterone as the next man.  However, if our society isn’t based on the need to subvert those urges, then upon what is it founded?  Are we really in need of this kind of ritualized warfare?  Are there not more civilized forms of competition just as intense?

Football undoubtedly has benefits for some young men.  As with all opportunities for young men to interact with wiser, older men, football allows lives to be changed for the better when a boy who hasn’t had a fair shake encounters men of character.  At the same time, though, does the number of injuries and deaths in high school football really justify this?  Are there not other chances for young men to encouter the men who will become their mentors and shape them?  Wouldn’t a few less traumatically-brain-damaged men be better able to provide this for some boys who don’t currently get it, whether their sons or someone else’s?

Similarly, the argument that football teaches persistence and otherwise “builds character” is technically true, at least for the young men who don’t get cut from the team or have to quit because of injury.  But any endeavor worth pursuing and well-persued can teach persistence.  I learned it from music, while my brother learned it working on the school newspaper.  We also both had a serious dose of it from Scouting and from running our newspaper delivery route (a small business, really).  Any activity worth pursuing can teach character and persistence, and possibly without brain-damage an indoctrination of violence.

Perhaps football teaches strategy and tactics.  Again, this may be true.  It was said that Wellington’s victory at Waterloo was born on the ball fields of Eton and Cambridge.  I am not such an idealist to believe that our country will not one day need to again demonstrate military prowess in the fundamental sort of way that football would seem to simulate on a weekly basis.  However, I would submit that the boon Wellington and his officers actually got from playing together was not strategic in nature, but rather more to do with command and control, as a 19th-century officer could not immediately know his commander’s wishes in the heat of battle.  It was through their personal knowledge of Wellington’s style that his former classmates were able to intuit his intentions.  We have the equivalent in the United States, namely in the cadres of officers graduated each year from West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy.  Football has little to do with it.  The best way to study strategy and tactics is to actually study strategy and tactics, then engage in the most realistic simulations of warfare as possible, not to participate in a game requiring you to knock helmets deliberately with the very people who you will one day depend on as you fight alongside them.

People who know me consider me to be serious (although people who really know me know that I have a lighter side, too).  I see nothing wrong with throwing the flag, as it were, on a dangerous activity, and I can only hope that people will read this and understand when Noah doesn’t suit up sometime around 2022 or so.  I hope to do as my parents did and present him with other opportunities to build his character, first and foremost providing him with an example, as did my father.  I will understand if people my age (and younger, as I’m a little old to be a first-tiem father) continue to let their sons play, but please respect my decision, and don’t try to convince Noah that he needs to play football.

Mahler, Symphony No. 8, movement 1

October 4th, 2010

I was afraid that I would arrive at this piece and it would be absolutely overwhelming, but that hasn’t been the case.  Not in the slightest.  The problem I’m having is that I just don’t like what I’m hearing very much.

I don’t think this is Mahler’s best effort.  Perhaps in writing a “Symphony of a Thousand,” he had to paint with broad brushstrokes:  too broad, if you ask me.  I hadn’t listened to this piece seriously in a very long time–at least fifteen years, and I knew much less about how to listen then than I do now.  Plus, I think every college-aged brass player has to get excited about Mahler–any Mahler–just because it’s orchestral music that doesn’t involve counting quite as many rests.  Let’s face it–Mahler was good to the brass section in a way that some other composers weren’t (although plenty were).  So in my testosterone-fueled, late-teenage years, this piece may have seemed like a little bit of heaven.  I have to admit, though, that there is a little bit of hell here, too.

One of the very exciting parts about studying Mahler has been getting to know his unique orchestration.  He may call for quadruple woodwinds, but it isn’t so that they can all play as loud as possible at the same time.  Rather, he mixes, blends and balances in a manner that could only be honed by a familiarity with the orchestra that I can only envy.  As a conductor, he must have been literally analyzing scores as he was on the podium during rehearsal, committing every effect to memory. 

Usually, this expertise shows through in the scores, but not here.  There are quadruple woodwinds, and a large brass section, but they almost continuously used en masse, and usually in the sort of mixed scoring that band directors often derisively call “safe scoring.”  Perhaps the simple truth is that the enormous choruses of the premiere required this, but it is disappointing in comparison to the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh symphonies.

This first movement is not without its merits, though.  Mahler may have ignored his genius for orchestration (or perhaps not, as the music does succeed in overwhelming the listener with sound, just not the analyst).  I can’t deny that, as art and as craft, this is an effective composition, just as is Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture.  Like 1812, though, it is unrellenting in a way that is somewhat off-putting.  Both these pieces are great music, but they are great in the way that the Grand Canyon is great–their beauty and their appeal lies more in magnitude and sheer forcefulness than in greatness.

Just what is symphonic about this movement?  Is it possible for a piece that is virtually sung throughout to be a symphony?  Up to this time, Mahler had incorporated voices at the end of his symphonies–almost as though he had exhausted what instruments might have to say, just as Beethoven did in his Ninth, but here they appear from the beginning–from the second measure.  The singing is nearly unrellenting for over one hundred measures–the first major instrumental interlude comes at m. 122.  The material here–still fairly broadly scored–is related to the thematic material presented so far, and it is only 18 bars before the voices enter again.

I don’t understand the almost constant doubling of the voice parts–even the soloists–throughout this movement.  This was not Mahler’s approach in the Second Symphony, at least not to the extent we see it here.   I think perhaps that knowing the circumstances of the premiere–a festival setting with an enormous chorus–may have influenced his decision, and perhaps overly so.  Is it possible that, if Mahler had lived longer, he would have revised this work, as he did so many of his others?  Perhaps 1915 or 1916 would have seen a version scored with more reasonable forces in mind. 

There does seem to be a basic sonata principle at work here.  The instrumental interlude seems to suggest the beginning of a development section, and the harmonic pace of the movement quickens after m. 122.  At m. 169, following a deceptive cadence, a second instrumental interlude begins, this one lasting until m. 217 (significantly longer).  When the voices reenter, the music is in C# minor, and both key and text (which is recycled) continue to suggest the development of a sonata-allegro.

Beginning in m. 231, Mahler dwells on an important text:  Lumen accende sensibus–Kindle a light in our senses.  The Romantic yearning for a full feeling of existence is summed up in this line, and Mahler repeats the text several times, where he has mostly set the text much more plainly up until now.  It reappears in a massive climax in m. 262.

At the pickup to m. 275, the children’s chorus enters for the first time, and at a moment where it seems as though nothing else could make this music bigger, grander, this entrance makes it clear that there can be more.  The music now moves from C-sharp minor to E minor, and then to E-flat major, the home key.  This is not the final return, though, and the key changes again, by sequence, to A major in m. 355, and then to Db major just a few bars later.

A return of the accende lumen text leads back to the true return to the home key in measure 385.  Over the next twenty-eight bars the music builds to a truly titanic climax that is the recapitulation.  It appears over a dominant pedal that leads to a long frustration of the tonic chord–we have recaputulated melodically, but not harmonically, and there is no clear tonic chord in E-flat until m. 525.  At some point, there is a transition to coda material–the plagal-function harmonies in m. 564 confirm this–and a final push to an enormous last page.

On, then, to the second movement, the final scene of Faust.  And then to the piece in this set that I know the least, the Ninth.  After that, I have decided to send myself into some of the best works of the 1940s by several different composers.  I’m not certain yet precisely which pieces these will be, but I know that 2011 will see me in Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring, Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra and Elliott Carter’s Piano Sonata.