Minnesota Orchestra

Previous Posts

Archives

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]

Blog Policies

Sarah Hicks and Sam Bergman

Friday, October 17, 2008

Language Barrier

In yesterday's post, I talked a bit about conductors and arrangers who "speak the language" of orchestra musicians, and how important that can be to the success of a non-classical orchestra performance. And that got me thinking back to an uncomfortable experience I had several years ago, during one of the early years of our Composers' Institute.

The folks who run the Institute make a point of trying to select as widely varied a group of young composers as they can to participate in the week of seminars, rehearsals, and performances, which means that we in the orchestra get the chance to engage with a lot of different schools of musical thought in a single concert. Some of the composers we see are ultra-serious types, whose music reflects a deep commitment to academic rigor and complex multi-layered composition. Others are more outward looking, if no less serious about their craft, and it's not at all unusual to dive into a piece that looks technically daunting, only to find that you're playing a deconstructed riff from a '70s funk band, or some such. And a select few of our visiting composers come at the work using an entirely different musical vocabulary than the one we're used to.

It was one of this last group that I encountered several years ago, when I'd been asked, along with violinist Stephanie Arado, to lead a seminar for the institute composers on upper string writing. The idea was for us to go through each participant's composition line by line, ask them questions about why they chose to write certain passages in a certain way, and help (if we could) in making their music clearer and more idiomatic for the musicians who would be playing it.

The seminar was going fine - I'm always amazed by how open most composers are to constructive criticism, and how eager they are to engage with musicians, qualities which are not always reciprocated by performers - until we turned to a work that had baffled me when I first looked at it. This was a jazz composition, scored for orchestra, but written almost entirely in the musical language of jazz.

This was a problem. Classical musicians, string players in particular, are almost never conversant in jazz, partly because we usually don't need to be, but mostly because, unlike rock music or country or showtunes, all of which are fairly simple for an experienced musician of any kind to grasp and play, jazz is hugely complicated and difficult to play, just like classical music. Unless you've spent a serious amount of time studying it, you're just not going to be very good at playing it. (I studied jazz on the side for a couple of years in college, and I'd still be considered below beginner level in my understanding and ability.)

There are, of course, ways to work around this gulf if you really want to hear an orchestra play jazz. Duke Ellington did it very successfully, by writing out jazz scores in purely classical-style notation, and all but removing improvisation from the mix. And countless composers use elements of jazz in their orchestral music. But what never changes is that, in order for the orchestra to play it the way you want it, you pretty much have to write it out exactly as you want the sounds to come out of the instruments. When you have a combo of 3-5 jazz musicians playing a tune, improvisation and spontaneous creativity are a natural thing. When you have 16 first violins who all have to play in unison to avoid complete aural chaos, you just can't have folks wandering off on their own.

The composer in our seminar wasn't having any of this, though. When Stephanie and I queried him as to what he was actually after in writing his score in a manner that classical musicians would have great difficulty reading (some chunks, in which he had simply written in chord changes, were completely outside our ability to interpret,) he began an extended rant on the narrowness of the classical music education system, and said that it was the responsibility of orchestra musicians to diversify their knowledge.

I quickly agreed with him, and I believe Stephanie did, as well. Conservatories don't offer nearly enough diversity of instruction, and I've always thought that orchestras in general would have a far stronger sense of rhythm and ensemble if every music student was required to study jazz. But this was neither here nor there, we said to our apoplectic composer, when you've written a piece of music that you want to be performed by an existing orchestra, today, under today's conditions. You know for a fact that they can't really execute what you're asking them to with the notation you've chosen to use, so why not look for a way to say what you want to say, using the orchestra's language?

He was furious, insisting that it wasn't his job to limit himself as a creator of music simply because musicians were too lazy to look beyond their comfort zone. I tried to calm the situation by asking whether he meant for the orchestra to fail, whether the meta-statement he wanted to make with the music was, "I have given you a piece that you can't play because you lack context, and this should make you curious about what else might exist in the world that you don't know about." No, he insisted, that wasn't it at all. He wanted the piece played as written, and he saw no reason other than stubborn disinterest that it couldn't be done.

I wish I could say that we resolved this - Aaron Kernis, our new music advisor who runs much of the Institute, made some valiant attempts to bridge the gap and achieve some small changes in the scoring that would at least give the orchestra a toehold to cling to. But in the end, we were in a stalemate. It was as if I had walked into one of the better taquerias down on Lake Street and complained loudly that few of the employees there seemed to speak English. In the larger scheme of things, immigrants to America will probably be better off learning English, yes, but that's irrelevant to my immediate quest to order lunch, which even my non-Spanish speaking self would be perfectly capable of doing under the circumstances.

In the end, the orchestra read the piece (this was thankfully before the era in which we began holding a public performance at the end of the Institute) as written. And we more or less failed utterly to play it correctly, sabotaged as we were by our own limited knowledge, and the immovable ideology of the composer. Pity.

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The theatre world is considering the possibility that workshops/institutes are a dead end.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DC1E30F933A15755C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/02/entertainment/et-ctg2


Has the MN Orchestra played any music written by an Institute alum at a subscription concert? The website says that some alumni are asked to write a piece for the Young People's series. If after fifteen years the answer is "You aren't good enough for prime time", who or what is being served?

No knock against the MN Orchestra. At my place, only the Music Director or his cronies get their pieces on our subscription concerts or even the New Music series. Audiences are told that this is absolutely, without a doubt the best modern stuff that's out there. And that's what worries a lot of us.

October 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM  
Blogger Sam said...

To be blunt, if the theatre world thinks workshops and institutes are a dead end, it means they haven't been doing them correctly.

To date, by my count, we've played two pieces that originated at the Composers' Institute on our subscription concerts, and I know of at least one more that's scheduled for a future date. We've also played two more on Young People's Concerts, and one was featured on a summer concert.

The incident I recounted in this post took place quite a while ago, when our program was still in its infancy and, frankly, the average level of the participants wasn't nearly as high as it is now. (We still got some great submissions, just not as many as we do today.)

The idea behind the Institute is to give working composers with legitimate talent access to a working orchestra in the early stages of their careers (this is almost never something composers get to do in music school,) and to hear the participants tell it, it provides an educational experience that helps their careers in myriad ways. Not every composer is going to write orchestral music as a major portion of their output, but learning how to do it well is damned important.

October 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Sam. I had understood that another goal of the Composer Institute was to help composers be able to write clearly and idiomatically for a symphony orchestra, not only to have access to a professional one. Hence the seminars like the one you participated in. I guess my question would by why the people who choose the participants chose the jazz composer to begin with. Had they no idea how unyielding the guy would be? Or had they hoped to use him as an example of the need to learn how to write for a symphony orchestra? Do you think the jazz guy took anything away as a result of his encounter with the Institute?

I guess, looking at it as a writer, I think he could have fulfilled his goal of not limiting himself as a creator of music by writing his piece in both jazz notation and in standard classical music notation. Perhaps he wasn't up to that challenge, however?

I've known some extremely stubborn writers, too, who refuse to listen to any constructive criticism. It's sad really to limit oneself by not being open to learning and growing, which is what every creative artist needs to be no matter what the creative medium of expression is.

October 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home