hornplayer.net Information archive

Some comments about "modern" composers or compositions & the conductors involved:

I know, that I will stir into a whasp nest now. But I might ask the composers, or the individuals who call themselves composers, why they make the things so complicated. Why do they expect, that we adopt a new notation system for a single piece. Some examples:

The celebrated" Aribert Reimann is a maniac with the number 5" & uses quintuplets & 5/4 rhythm as much as possible. No problem. We are used to this now. But is it necessary to notate single sixteenth strokes as a quintuplet with a sixteenth in front & four sixteenth rests after ? Isn't that only to make his scores look more interesting. Or, why asking for "stopped notes" below written middle c" (c1) in mf dynamics or p dynamics ? It is not audible any more. It makes no sense, as the "ploopp-ploop" is for no use.. But if you use the mute (sordino) instead of stopping, the conductor might have arguments with you - possible only in the section rehearsal - during the performance we will be able to "command". These conductors are beating their 5/4 or 4/4 for hours, giving a cue here & there for the singers or the orchestra as the whole or not, but nothing else. They are watchdogs only, to follow the score & controll if you enter together with the others or not. Most of them have never had any orchestra instrument in their hand. How can they be competent as orchestra leaders.

Even in section rehearsals they cannot distinguish, if you play the right notes as written. No, I'm not talking about the rapid passages, no, no, I'm talking about the long sustained notes in piano dynamics. They get lost completely. We would get lost also in the same situation.

Again to the composers: well, rhythmic difficulties are not new to us. We are capable to master the most complicated rhythm, but - but if it is notated correctly, if it is notated without artificially added stupidities, just to make the score to appear interesting looking - from the graphics ! Clusters, - old warmed up coffee, we did thirty years ago, - weird extremely rapid sixtole or septimole sixteenth passages, where every note has an accidental, but without any recognizeable system, - well, this is not new also. We know, that the composers want moving colors, which we can play.

But if certain conductors insist, that e.g. the 13th note in the fourth horn, which is an a-flat must not come too flat or too sharp, than they show arrogance deriving from their incompetence, just to show, that they are the "comanders".

What about hitting single very short high notes in sfz dynamic, but with some quartertone accidental ? What about this nonsense ? Dont they know, that quartertones need a certain amount of time to be tuned in to, specially for the brass instruments. They should try it on the piano ??? Is it possible there, without changing the whole intonation ? No ! We can use quartertones, if the composer will give us time to bend the tones. Up or down, no problem. But within a rapid scale or single hits, that's charlatanery, no more. I will not understand, why they do not listen to the musicians ? We can do much more, than they could even imagine, but there are the questions how, when, where & what for ??

Good composers had strong demands upon the musicians always, but they restricted themselves in the use of special effects & composed with substance. Our time is different, the lack of substance is camouflaged by the uncountable effects. What is more boring, than to listen to the noise of faulty changing the gear" (I hope you understand this term) for let's say 30 or so minutes, always in the dark side of the sound spectrum, while singers screem around.

"Yeah, the music is not bad, but the story is great literature". What a nonsense. We like to play good pieces, not "not bad pieces" or "not too bad pieces". The telephone directory also has a great personale "but not much for a story". Just a contrary example.

Another aspect again: Are these composers aware, that hitting high notes for an extreme short time in extreme strong dynamics, that this is destroying & killing the embouchure & the ears of the brassplayers ? Will they be responsible for ear damage, will they be responsible for the headaches after the rehearsals or performances ? Nobody can convince me, that they heard their elaborates" in advance, that they can imagine" the sound of their creations" with their inner ear". This would be arrogance again.

I'm very liberal & well trained in the interpretation of contemporanean music, but if I leave a rehearsal or a performance full of hatred, something must be wrong. Come on, you use the old Beethoven had difficulties to be understood" arguments again, or how demanding was Wagner". But dont you forget, that even in the loudest Wagner or Strauss passages there is a certain order, a certain relation of the chords, even in disharmonies is a certain order, which can be heard when they resolve. But I cannot hear or identify this in many of today's so called compositions. Less would be more in most cases. Some interesting passages will not make a piece worth to be performed.

Fortunately we have several high talented composers, real composers, even besides the movie sountrack composers, I mean real serious composers, who have imaginations, have tecjhnique, have something new to say to us, demand new things from us, demand, that we start learning again. But these few individuals know HOW to approach us with their demands. They distinguish themselves from the many charlatanes by THEIR QUALITY & KNOWLEDGE. Unfortunately these CHARLATANES often have the best connections. But I regret, that often they do not have famous names, that they do not have the right connections" (everybody will understand that, I have not to explain, how many of them, conductors & composers, get or got their connections !) . And there is another sort of composers" out there, those who have a broad knowledge of music theories, music history, instrumentsd etc., but have absolutely NO TALENT. They also should give up. Or dont they give up because of the SPONSORSHIP, which is given to them, if they once have received recommendation by an influential reviewer or so called musical pope". We have understood also, how this works - and for whom.

Let's give the talents for the future of our art credit, support them & you will get great pieces. But this demands a clear brain from you & the courage to say YOUR opinion frankly & even to refuse or leave a job, even to say no sometimes. I might state again, that the personal taste or the personal preference should not have anything to do with these decisions. Fight against those who might call you a Philistine (narrow-minded), as this is another sort of discrimination, as it has become fashion now, to name all individuals, who will not follow the general trend, to be Philistine.

"Cave canem !" An old Latin proverb.

I totally agree here. I played horn in Al Fresco a few years ago, and at first reading, it was, well...shall we say interesting. I think we all just sort of sat there for a while and looked at each other. Our director told us the history of the piece and of Husa and played a professional recording for us. It began to mean a little more, knowing its basis (wasn't it war, I think...? It's been a while). By the time we worked it up and were playing at our concert, I was enthralled, and so was almost everyone else in our band. I'm glad our director stood his ground when we rolled our eyes and made faces at it. We certainly learned a lot, and it isn't atonal. (But boy, on the first run-through it sure sounded like it!) I must admit that probably most of our audience, especially non-musicians (my mother got it but my father was rather dumbfounded) didn't get it. But that's why we're here to play it. I doubt any of the audience members (and band members for that matter) would have ever been exposed to something like that. An example of atonal would be "Sweet Betsy from Pike," a comedic operetta, which is very entertaining and interesting, and Shoenberg has something for mixed choir that is written in Hebrew- I forgot the name. Both of these were performed by groups at my school. Keep an open mind- remember we're here to learn and explore.

Here in Milwaukee, Professor Thomas Dvorak is quite fond of his contemporary composers. As a high school junior in the GMYWEI, I hated this kind of music, and really didn't care for it too much my senior year either, when I played with both the youth ensemble and the college bands. However, this year, as a member of the Wind Ensemble, I have to say that I am starting to appreciate some modern composers. Their ideas are a little radical at times, but then again, so were Mahlers. I'm glad the world gave him a chance. Of course my appreciation might be from prolonged exposure to it. I've played some pieces by Joan Towers, Roberto Sierra (former composer in res. for the MSO), and of course Fischer Tull. While some pieces have been just noise to me, I've definately noticed a difference in the level of musicianship necessary to pull of this "noise." While it's fine and good to play Holst First Suite for Military Band, it takes more musicianship, at least for me, to be able to pull off some of these wierder harmonies. Oftentimes, these composers write some parts for instruments that seem impossible (GYMWE's Revenge!) baut when you learn them, it certainly helps you when going into the classical realm. Now I am certainly not suggeesting that John Cage is my savior, or anything else. Truth be told, I'd rather be playing classical romantic period music any day. But there needs to be a balance, and we need to give these composers a chance. Who knows? Maybe someday a few of them will be highly regarded classical composers!

I am a FORMER member of the MIT Concert Band. Our repertoire consisted entirely of 'original works for wind band', which because the majority have been composed in the last 80 or so years tended to dissproportionally represent modern styles. After three years of listening to players in what is really the second-class ensemble on campus struggle and fail to play difficult parts which most of us didn't seem to understand musically, I finally said enough was enough and quit. I'm still not in the orchestra, but I'm having a far better experience with a chamber group that is currently working on the Thuille sextet for winds and piano - now that is a GOOD horn part! 4 of the 6 members of that group are ex-members of the concert band, and in my brass quartet all 4 of us are ex-band members. Without question, we're learning more, playing better, and having more fun now than we were then.

I'm not saying you should necessarily quit wind ensemble, but I would strongly suggest that you try starting a chamber group on the side. Get some of the classic wind quintets by Danzi, Reicha, and others... or start a horn quartet or brass quintet. As someone attempting to finish a music minor, I had to stay in concert band a full term after I decided I wanted out - but it ultimately got to the point where I decided I was leaving even if it meant losing the minor. With a couple of friends, I started a wind quintet last spring, and played with that through the summer. Then this fall we auditioned as a pre-formed group for our schools 'Chamber Music Society' which asked us to join with a pianist and do the Thuille sextet, and provides us an hour a week of expert coaching and the option of academic credit. My guess is that other schools may have similar programs.

I am not against all modern and/or atonal music, but I dislike music which I cannot understand, either due to poor performance or my inexperience ears. Certainly composers need to experiment, and develop new trends, but as an amateur musician who plays the horn only because I love doing it, I have the right to say that I do not wish to have any part of a lot of the musical experiments going on today. Were I good enough to try to make a living as a musician, I wouldn't be able to afford that attitude - and perhaps I would develop a liking for some of the things I do not currently understand. But I am not a full-time musician, so I can take advantage of the fact that the other members of my chamber groups have tastes similar to mine.

I feel that the 20th century is probably the greatest time for a musician to be alive. Scary and bewildering at times, and sometimes next-to-impossible (to find a job, etc.), but in terms of the music that's being written, never before has the Western musical tradition had such incredible diversity.

Part of the reality of *any* musical era is that (was it Bernstein who said this?) 95% of the musical output of any era is either pointless, ephemeral, or both. The trick is, what is and what isn't? We have no way of knowing. In the late 20th century, yeah, everyone knew that Mahler was composing, but most thought that he should have stuck to conducting, and that after he died, no one else would perform his symphonies, and that would be the end of Mahler. Obviously, that was not the case, but they had no way of knowing that.

Just like in the tonal system, there is good tonal music and bad tonal music. Similarly, there is good (very good) atonal music, and bad atonal music. The difference is, when you're going into a tonal piece of music, hey, at least you know what you're getting into, what to expect -- triads and seventh chords, harmonic progression, a diatonic scale, a tonic, and all that comes with those things. Atonal music, which is in itself an outgrowth of tonal music, is still in its infancy. Listen sometime to *very* early tonal music from the Renaissance, madrigals esp. by Gesualdo. First of all, major & minor thirds were just being accepted as "not dissonant" -- can you believe that? So composers were just trying to figure out how to deal with these new sounds. The door was flung wide open, and there was comparatively a whole lot of experimentation going on before rules of progression, adherence to a single tonic or key-note, and other things that are now taken for granted in the tonal tradition came into being and were recognized as a "framework" for music.

Coming back to the "good" and "bad" atonal music thread, these are rather simplistic words to describe a complex thing ("good and bad", that is), but (here's where my opinion comes in) I will put forth hesitantly that the majority of modern music for band *is* pretty crappy.

But here's the bottom line. Composers, in most cases, do not deliberately write music to annoy, grate against the ear, or in general sound bad. Composers typically want to say something musically using the tools that they feel most at home with. Often today that is the atonal, serial, twelve-tone, total serial, or whatever, system. Thus a little faith is necessary, and also a little humility, in order to think that "If I don't understand this, perhaps it's me with the problem and not the composer." Much good music demands that *you* come to *it*, especially some of the most introverted or private music. Thus if it doesn't move you, you feel you don't understand it, as a musician who ideally would like to understand as much music as possible, I feel almost "duty-bound" to keep trying, keep working at it, until I start to see what the composer is trying to get across. My "first" piece of atonal music that I heard (not absolutely atonal, but very much so) was Shostakovich's Fourteenth Symphony. I was bewildered and lost. I must have listened to that thing at least ten to fifteen times before the expressive power of this piece finally "sunk in". Other atonal works have been even harder for me, Xenakis and Babbit, for example, but the rewards are unending. You open the door to new worlds of expression and music-making when you do this. That is why I think that musically, it is a great time to be alive. I hope this helps.

if you find yourself not understanding the music you are being asked to perform, try to find a recording of it....often times with contemporary music, its hard to get an objective view because you can't hear the composer's intentions from inside of the ensemble as well as you can from the outside....

Also....if you haven't done this already, ask your professor what is going on in the music...what it is the composer had in mind....if you are sincerely interested, and not just trying to be confrontational, I'm sure your professor will take the time to help you understand it....

Finally....all contemporary music isn't atonal.....in fact, I know of very little atonal music that gets performed regularily.....usually, the tonal structure isn't the triadic based harmony that we are used to, but if you open your ears, you'll probably hear what is going on in the music and enjoy playing it much more than you do now. I once played a string of "Wozzeck" performances and by the end of that run, I found myself really understanding the harmonic structure of twelve-tone music, and, mysteriously enough, my accuracy as a horn player improved dramatically. The better your ears, the better a horn player you will be.

If you want to hear some contemporary *melodic* music, check out the music of Arvo Part or Taverner....and maybe if you can stomach that, try listening to Charles Wuornin, Alfred Schnittke, or maybe Ligeti...to name but a few contemporary composers that will most likely be performed and listened to 50 years hence...I welcome others to add to this list...

And you are correct about Beethoven.....often his music (as well as the music of many other composers who have stood the test of time) was not understood by his contemporaries....Particulaily, his Third Symphony was considered ugly and bombastic and of ungainly preportions...et.cetera...modern composers are often misunderstood, not only by the general public, but also by the musicians who perform the music....so please, give contemporary music a chance.

I think you're right on target when you say you're young & don't hear everything yet. I know, because I was there once myself. (In fact, in a way, we're all "there" in some way, all our lives - it's just a matter of pushing back the boundaries of where "there" is.)

But I wrote my master's thesis [at U Wis] on another of Husa's works (Apotheosis of this Earth) - far more complex harmonically than Al Fresco, but far from atonal, and, in my humble, but studied opinion, an eminently listenable piece, with incredible structural and aesthetic integrity.

There are many works that I don't care for on first acquaintance - but my policy is to assume that I don't understand the work enough to pass judgement. Quite often, I find that greater familiarity leads to greater understanding and appreciation (sort of like people!). Complex ideas and complex personalities take longer to understand (and incidentally, this could mean Haydn as easily as Husa) - but is mostly worth the effort.

Music will only exist as long as there is a paying audience for it? I do hope you mean symphonic music, since we silly humans have had music in some form as long as we've had civilization :)

It is not true that there is no audience for atonal music. Here at good old Southern Utah University, I have many friends with little or no music background that really like music from composers like Schoernberg. One of my best friends favorite pieces is Black Angels by George Crumb. He finds beauty in this kind of music, and so do I. I don't think that just because there isn't a large audience for this type of music, that the composers that wrote the music should stop writing it. And personally I think that the music does have a lot of emotion in it, but it is being portrayed in a totally different way. take some time and really listen to it. Sure it may be depressing, but a lot of the time, these composeres lived in times that weren't so bright and cheery, think of all of the death and destruction that has happened in the last fifty years and maybe you can sort of see why it is written with that type of emotion.

In your experimentation with your dormmates, have you tried playing for them pieces by Bartok? Stravinsky? Shostakovitch? In the 50's, this music was considered to be quite bewildering by your average joe, but in this day and age, I'm pretty certain your college dormmates would find some amount of pleasure and understanding in listening to this more modern music.

Part of the "average" person's conception of music has to do with the way new sounds created by composers eventually seep into popular culture....

You mentioned that film music makes people emote. Film music is actually derivative of the art music writen before it. For instance (and I know that I am generalizing), film music for sci-fi type movies derives from the late romantics, whereas film music for horror/slasher movies derives from the modernist era (early part of this centure up until WW I...Edgar Varese type stuff)....I do not mean to imply that film music is bad because it is derivative, what I'm saying is that film music lacks the quality of being innovative, which is a quality generally associated with western art music. Where would we be if John Dunstable hadn't decided that he really wanted to end his pieces with a magor third stuck in the middle of that perfect interval? This is a perfect example of an innovation that was certainly jarring to some at the time, but changed completely the face of western music.

When average non-musician people spend their lives hearing a certain kind of harmony....triadic based harmonies in commercial jingles and pop music, for instance...they learn to understand that type of musical logic, in much the same way that toddlers learn to speak a language. They do not necessarily have the analytic ability to articulate what it is they are hearing: dominant to tonic progressions, etc....yet, when confronted with a piece of romantic or classical music, they already posses the necessary tools to grasp what is being conveyed by the classical or romantic composer. What I'm saying is that a particular sound or style of music isn't absolute in its meaning...by definition (music being an aspect of human culture) music has cultural context.

Consider, for a moment, that if you played Rachmaninoff for your average Indonesian joe (a person who hasn't been innundated by western culture) they would probably think that your Rachmaninoff was a bunch of chaotic noise....and they might hate it. Whearas if you sat and listened to a concert of Indonesian Gamelan music, you might be overwhelmed because you don't speak that musical language...

I challenge you to go and listen to the UW Gamelan ensemble and consider those aspects about music and culture that you are currently taking for granted ...like the alleged universalism of the major triad...and consider that this assumption seems to be hindering you from opening your ears to contemporary music.

Contemporary composers that seem to be offending your musical sensibilities are being innovative....experimental...they write the music they write because it occurs to them to do so. Innovation in musical composition is a part of our western cultural music tradition. I would encourage you not to approach a piece of contemporary music assuming that you are going to hate it if it doesn't conform to your expectations of what music is.

Here you are making an assumtion that Music is somehow exclusively linked with capitalist based socio-economic cultures. May I remind you of the existence of African tribal music...the afore-mentioned Indonesian Gamelan music....music in these cultures is not a saleable commodity. An ethnomusicologist could fill out this list....all I'm trying to say is that music is a part of human culture and it isn't necessarily a thing that people *buy*....it is just one way in which human beings express themselves to each other....have communal experiences.....pass on their culture and history to following generations....Music is, in fact, more universal to human culture than money.

Seeing as you're a student, why don't you take the opportunity to take a course in Culteral Anthropology.....and maybe a course in Art Aesthetics...these might help you to develop a better understanding of Contemporary music and your role in modern culture as a musician.