So this time around I felt like talking a bit more in detail
about the nature of programming this style of music.
I wrote this awhile back and never published it anywhere,
but I think it will find its home in this series of posts I am working on. (So
if the voice is a little strange I was writing for a less casual posting.. so I
had my serious pants on that day)
As someone who is active in new music I am always facing
certain challenges that are not as present when programming from the
conventional cannon. These challenges can be seen as opportunity for an
immersive experience for the audience, if thoughtfully planned.
One challenge is that of the perceived expectation of new music. Robert Blumen talked about at
great length in his article “Why do we hate modern classical music”, I won’t get
into this article since I don’t think I could keep it brief, at all (though if
you want to raise your blood pressure, go give it a read, and try to be
polite. This article also highlights how the terminology we use can be harmful. I hate using the phrase "modern classical music, or anything close. This music has it's own genre, there is no need to try to borrow from another. Rant over). What he does bring to the front though, is that people expect modern
music to sound like “car crash” music. I assume those reading this are well
aware this is not the case, nor is this an opinion that I share in the least.
There is a tremendous amount of great music out there and some of that “car
crash” music he speaks about is some of the greatest in the cannon. This
creates a unique for us, especially as performers that is: how on earth will we
get this music out in a way that is going to be meaningful.
One of the most used (read: abused) tactics I have seen is referred to as “The hostage program”. This is where you program a monumental, popular, and a largely accepted work at the end of a program, or have it share the first half of the bill. This is done largely so people don’t have the chance to show up at intermission to hear only their favorites. While we are going down that road while you are at it scrap the intermission, now people are there to stay (I have seen this done, and it usually ends with a very fidgety upset audience). This hostage method works to some degree as you do create exposure for the audience this is largely due to the “rules” of concert halls related to seating. If you want to hear Brahms, you have to hear Mason Bates, or R Murray Schaffer.
One of the most used (read: abused) tactics I have seen is referred to as “The hostage program”. This is where you program a monumental, popular, and a largely accepted work at the end of a program, or have it share the first half of the bill. This is done largely so people don’t have the chance to show up at intermission to hear only their favorites. While we are going down that road while you are at it scrap the intermission, now people are there to stay (I have seen this done, and it usually ends with a very fidgety upset audience). This hostage method works to some degree as you do create exposure for the audience this is largely due to the “rules” of concert halls related to seating. If you want to hear Brahms, you have to hear Mason Bates, or R Murray Schaffer.
Last year I programmed a recital with Turnarounds for
amplified horn and tape, Spiegel im
Spiegel, Deanimator for horn and
electronics, and finishing with The Reinecke B-flat trio for horn, clarinet, and piano. Though, while
programming this I fell a new way that I could approach programing. The
intermission in the afore mentioned program came AFTER Deanimator which left me to figure out how do I program the first
half, and to do so in a way that people leave with a great experience. A major
problem/opportunity with electronic music (in programming in my opinion) is how
quickly it can cause tension, emotional highs and lows, angst, relief, etc.
When the recital was in its infancy there were two works that were going to be
there no matter what, Turnarounds,
and Deanimator. Two things these
works do (both fantastic works) is taking the audience through highs and lows at
a rapid pace in ways that can be overwhelming the listener. When I realized
this I figured I needed to find a piece that would bring the listener back to a
calm, and relaxed state. As well they needed to be ready and receptive to the
experience the next work.
The answer came to me in Arvo Pärt’s Spiegel im Spiegel, now as a horn player, attempting the Pärt was,
perhaps, the most challenging undertaking I could think of at the time. Which
was daunting, and more than once I considered my mortality, and thought to
myself there had to be another way. Though, I could never seem to find one that
would work as well as the Pärt. So as a performer I faced the challenge. In the
end the response from the programming of the first half from the audience was
great, they didn’t care there was a “masterpiece of the repertoire” coming
after the intermission. The first half was so successful as a whole it simply
worked and didn’t need the “treat for the audience” of the Reinecke.
From all this I learned a major lesson in programming new
music, if we want the music to become more popular, appreciated, and accepted
it has to come from the performer and programming. As well as through very meaningful
execution of the music since we have something that the standard cannon doesn’t
have as much of, the importance of the live performance. New music is such an
immersive experience which simply can’t be replicated at home in a pair of
headphones. Seize the power of that and go forth and program.
No comments:
Post a Comment