Thoughts on curating a performance

Back when I started this blog, one of the first posts I wrote about was in regards to my thoughts surrounding the programming of new music. You can fine those by following the links below.

What is in a performance Part 1
What is in a performance Part 2

So I went back and read these, one thing I have expressed in the past, and have impressed upon me heavily by one of mentors and a conductor I am fortunate to work with Michael Lewanski is this concept that as artists we form opinions, these are opinions we feel strong about and try to express them in our art. Those opinions should continue to change and evolve even if it means changing your mind. So in that spirit I am going to pull a few key points from the earlier posts and highlight them here, though if you have time, have a read and build an opinion, especially if it is contradictory, then we can talk about that.

1. I always strive to have some kind of internal consistency that help pull things together, OR helps progress the concert from work to work in a way that you can go from Gabrieli to Globokar.
2. The more radical a program becomes the more I am aware of this since people (me included) can only take so much.
3. I try to avoid programming works that are very similar, if I do I need to find a way to give the listener time to digest things
4. The Audience is the king, they buy tickets, they tell their friends, they literally feed us, both in food and in the ability to acquire more food. That being said, Everything starts from what WE want to present. We then find a way to balance things so that the audience walks away and remembers what they say.

We will stick to these four points.

It's funny remember when I said we can change our minds, wow do I ever feel that way. That is a big reason I decided to come back to this idea. So before we dig into past Mat's mind I want to start with a few key thoughts. These thoughts stretch beyond new music in my mind and are just things that I feel are important.

First and this is something I have really been thinking about these past few months is the difference between programming a concert, and curating a performance. I think these are very different processes that have a big impact on what we present and how an audience responds to them. First though let's set some terms straight here.  

Below are three definitions of curating from the Institute of Cultural Practices:

Definition 1“Curating is the process by which a physical or virtual space is designed and formulated to include a collated, selected, interpreted and intended concept, which can be articulated through a variety of media” 

Definition 2“The organisation, discussion and presentation of information including objects, facts and opinions, in order to create value and meaning to be understood by the public” 

Definition 3“Curating is examining, researching and documenting a collection with the aim of making it accessible to the public. This is done through careful interpretation of the objects, space and text to curate an informative exhibition”

So first of all we see that this idea of curating is more complex then Merriam-Webster would have one believe. 

Where does this leave us in regards to programming vs curating? Here is a scenario for you, our example performer really enjoys playing Strauss and has been waiting to tackle the Second horn Concerto. They also need an unaccompanied work so they stick with a well known work like the Malcolm Arnold fantasy. They also program the Mozart horn quintet and the Gliere Valse Triste as they are both really nice works they enjoy that they want to perform.

The above is how "programming" tends to happen, at least in my experience. For the sake of today we are talking solo recital. Curating a concert around Strauss' second Horn Concerto would be a very different process. For me it would begin with asking a series of questions to myself. 

1. What other pieces would I like to perform (this is the same as above except we are going deeper)

2. Do the pieces work together. The answer to this is not a simple yes or no, we have to consider many different variables.

3. Why do these pieces matter, and why would the audience care. Pieces may matter in other situations, but not when in a set.

4. If the pieces do in fact work together what is the element that connects them. There is a good chance that it is something you never considered. It could be a formal consistency, or formal inconsistency, how we listen, etc. There needs to be, in my opinion some kind of connection.

5. Start looking for new pieces, since your greatest hits won't work. So this step is here since the hard reality that a program comprised of our favourites is very much a mix-tape made for yourself. It can be cold, impersonal, and very disconnected as many recitals tend to be. Think about when you made a mix tape back in the 90s for someone, you slaved for hours to make it perfect, to let songs flow into one-another or clash in conflict. That is the kind of thing we are after, we understand that for there to be meaning to others it takes a complicated effort.

6. Keep repeating steps 2 - 5 until you have a program with a purpose, something unique we cant just stream online.

So that is my process now. It has evolved from where I was before. So let us go back to those 4 points and pull them apart for the present.

• I always strive to have some kind of internal consistency that help pull things together, OR helps progress the concert from work to work in a way that you can go from Gabrieli to Globokar.

On the surface this is something I still believe in. I would probably never write the sentance that way now, but that is another thing. This idea really relates back to my curating process, but it was still in it's infancy and lacked complexity and depth.

• The more radical a program becomes the more I am aware of this since people (me included) can only take so much.

Well I can put this one out to pasture as I don't really believe in it anymore. In some way I think this idea existed because of a lack of the third point in my curating process. Which is to say I was still making a mix-tape for myself. The next two points are in ways byproducts of this idea, so I will save the big finish until the end.

• I try to avoid programming works that are very similar, if I do I need to find a way to give the listener time to digest things

If an audience needs time to "digest things" you, or me, as a curator have not done your job. It i one thing to feel overwhelmed as a listener but to require time is the byproduct of our good old fashioned mix-tape. There obviously are exceptions, if you have never heard an electronic piece before and the first thing you hear is something incredibly dense and complex you may blow your mental CPU, but that is the listeners job to address. We, as serious performers have no job pandering to the listener, or to underestimate the intelligence of them.

• The Audience is the king, they buy tickets, they tell their friends, they literally feed us, both in food and in the ability to acquire more food. That being said, Everything starts from what WE want to present. We then find a way to balance things so that the audience walks away and remembers what they say.

The audience is NOT in charge. End of story, it is the performer, the composer, the conflict between the live performer interpreting ink that is important and relationships that exist. I programmed a recital this year I was REALLY worried may have been "too far" for the circumstances. It turns out the time spent painstakingly curating the program paid off. I performed 5 works, and in the process explored the possibilities of 14 total works, some are on a list to be played later, some I moved on from. What I have learned, which Tom Varner express in a great way is that:

Your audience is usually happy to go on a ride that they 

have not been on before. 

In the end I believe we owe it to our audience to treat them intelligently, yes they are there to support us, or music, but they can also be looking for something new, something they never thought of.

Just a thought.

Dealing with BIG scores and parts

So anyone who has been active in new music has probably dealt with this one time or another, that of the

GIANT SCORE!!!

So there are obvious challenges with this, including things such as transport, needing several stands to rehearse, arts and crafts to make it work for performances, having a copy for study, and more!

So before we go blasting people for this, big scores are useful when there is a great deal of information present. When you are doing a work for a complex audio track, two or more instruments, and timer you really do need to have all of that information on hand to execute a great performance. There are some exceptions with publishers. I won't name them here but with some you end up with what is a standard size printing on a score with GIANT margins. I did a piece like this recently I ended up taking a paper cutter to it (I own the part, librarians calm down) and turned it into a very usable size score (with the original binding).

Though the last thing we want to do is mutilate parts to make them easier for us. So I have a method that I have used in the past, and have used to help colleges out that I will share with you all. (Hold applause)

A year ago I built a book scanner to help me digitize my library so I could have it with me on my tablet at all times. The benefit of this was I had access to all of my resources at all times, so when I wanted a single page from Arbans I could just pull it up and use it. No copying, or carrying around that tome or the back problems that will come with it. So why is that pertinent to this? Well with a book scanning set up you can turn HUGE pieces of paper into whatever size you want very easily. I won't get into full book scanning workflow or anything as there is tons out there on the subject already. I will just help cover one sample case here, the problems I found and solved etc.

Here is that part we all saw coming. Don't start acquiring music this way that you do not own. Support publishers and colleagues that work hard making this available to us. If you make performance copies destroy them after etc etc we all know the drill here. If not, consult your local librarian and they will let you know how it works.

So Step 1:

Supplies:

• Camera (that can have a wired/wireless trigger)
• Tripod
• Camera trigger
• Conversion program. I recommend ScanTailor
• Suggested: A way to convert images to PDF.
• Piece of glass (recommended) or a way to keep the page totally flat (books/scores) if they are not it will warp the output.

Step 2:

Set up.

This is mine, I made the stand out of cardboard, you can find blueprints for this in tons of places. Not a necessity, but makes life easy, I have used a music stand in the past as well. What is important is that the angle between the lens is and the item being captured is the same or else you will warp the page.

Check out here for ideas.

Step 3: Take some pictures.

Now you get to process the photos!!

Here is a guide that is just better than what I would type up... so.... CLICK

"Faking" it

So the title of this post is misleading, sorry, but that is just what it is. This post will be back about my learning process and Nebadon, and what I am doing with this work. Though it is worth noting that this is one of my big concept things I feel strongly about, especially towards new music. For now, let's jump back on starship Stockhausen and depart for Nebadon (nerd alert).

One thing I truly respect about Stockhausen's music is by and large it is rather quite playable, that is not saying it is easy, it is actually rather difficult. It is full of little things that at first look simple but turn out to be either complex or downright ludicrous, be it in it's coordination, execution, or simply playing it with a beautiful sound. I will put two examples of this on here.

So above are those two examples. There is nothing really complicated about the patterns, they present some challenges, but again, nothing to lose that much sleep over. (Ignore my markings since that is some analysis and such that I have talked in brief about before). So back to the challenges that exist in these examples. With the first example, the challenge is can you make a nice clean shift between open and stopped, maintain pitch, while entering delicately on a higher pitch. BUT, the priority here should be can you do it with the singing sound that you would use in Brahms, or Schubert.

Example number two, the challenge is facility in the low range, clarity, a good trill, and a resonant sound. This is good enough for a sub par version of this lick (which appears in various permutations throughout the entire work (over 20 minutes!!) It is a tricky little lick, but executing it has to be a guarantee, not a good enough.), what I am truly striving for is can I make a "majestic" or "interesting" musical line out of the material, in such a way that nobody notices this slightly unidiomatic horn lick.

Since Stockhausen writes music that is very playable I am going to pull an example from another work I am preparing that is more towards the... "are you kidding me? I'm not a bass clarinet" kind of lick." Which will help me make my bigger picture point.

As you can see, this is a little further away idiomatically from something horn players are used to seeing. (The work is full of this, and it grows in complexity, and each permutation you get LESS variance in what pitches you need to draw attention towards.) So this is the kind of lick my title was referring to, Faking it. Anyone who knows me knows that when I hear someone say "I can just fake that" is akin to nails on a chalkboard. So I think I will take  moment to explain that, and as well relate it back to Stockhausen, and Sirus (dork) in general. 

If you have ever been to a new music concert, you have heard (and probably in great supply) faking. Otherwise known as, kind of making the gesture. Now, some of you have probably made it to see a concert of new music that seemed to be so insanely good there must have been some witchcraft going on. Well, there was no witchcraft, you probably heard someone(s) who had spent countless hours getting it AS CLOSE to the ink as possible (while keeping a wonderful, intune, captivating sound, that is full of musical gesture). If you imagine playing Beethoven and the player beside you is "faking" it, you would know they were not up to par, and that person would most likely not be in that chair next concert. Could you imagine a concert of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra with a string section full of faking it (you probably can...). When you compare those to performances where they "nailed it" why would you ever buy the other product.

As a performer I feel obligated to make sure I can play the music as well as I can. If that means I have to woodshed a lick up until the day of the concert that is what I will do, I can't personally accept "faking" it as an answer for any kind of music. So back to Nebadon, I am focusing on always having this wonderful sound that is full of colour and intrigue. My sound model is the same that I would use playing Cello Suites (in C) on horn. If someone froze time on a single note, I wouldn't want them to think that I was playing some strange modern music (or isn't good...). I would want them to be able to say what a great resonate note, he must be playing some Schubert. (Then when time resumes they would be in for a treat)

 This isn't a problem unique to new music but it seems to be a slightly more accepted practice for one reason or another.

What is in a performance Part 1

As I mentioned in my post last week I was preparing to talk about certain elements of a performance that in my mind help make a complete and memorable performance... Then I was sidetracked. But, we are back to our regular programming and will go on from here.

So in part 1 I plan to address the main areas that help create complete products both in the micro and macro picture as well as briefly touch on a few things. (Remember this is my opinion, and as always is very much me figuring these things out with the hope for dialogue to happen)

Starting on the macro sides of things I always consider a few things when programming a piece.

1) Do I have a theme or if not, can I derive one from the work that is causing me to program a concert.

• Most if not all of my recitals etc, have come from the desire to perform a singular work.
• I always strive to have some kind of internal consistency that help pull things together, OR helps progress the concert from work to work in a way that you can go from Gabrieli to Globokar.(You can do it... if you plan it out and make it make sense.)

2) What is the desired effect/affect of the recital as a whole. (I also address this on the micro side)

• This will directly effect what I program around the major work. If I am trying to create a recital full of radical aesthetics I will not be programming Strauss, sorry old chap it just isn't in the books.

3) Finally... is it possible.

• Anyone who has been with me as I program recitals knows in the initial stages I have no feeling for the actual demands of the recital (Nor should I).This has led me to reprogram things many many times. On the plus, each work that I omit can easily become the basis for the next concert. 
• I should note, there are times when a work fits the bill so perfectly that you simply have to suck up you mortality and make it happen (for me that was Speigel im Spiegel).

4) Time.. since well, we have to be sensitive to that. 

• The more radical a program becomes the more I am aware of this since people (me included) can only take so much.

On the micro side, the list is basically the same so I don't need to explain it further. The only thing I will mention is that I try to avoid programming works that are very similar, if I do I need to find a way to give the listener time to digest things (intermissions, lighter works, etc).

I think a great number of times when we talk about making a great show we look at what we have in front of us, instead of what we could have. Stubbornness has led to some recitals that are intolerable... long, redundant (as much as I love Bach I don't need 2.5 hours of keyboard Sonatas.), and inaccessible.

Here is my big point that I have come to personal terms with, you may agree, or not... As the performer we are the least important person in the process. The Audience is the king, they buy tickets, they tell their friends, they literally feed us, both in food and in the ability to acquire more food. That being said, Everything starts from what WE want to present. We then find a way to balance things so that the audience walks away and remembers what they say. Though we are the least important, we do hold all the cards it just helps to know what game we are playing. (Trust me if you try to play blackjack in a poker game you won't fare that well)

In regards to the Stockhausen I think I have nailed down the program (for the time being, I am sure it will change) for now it will be including Messiaen, Reynolds, and Stockhausen. Will be fun.

Until next time.

Memorizing, and a thought

I will be the first to tell you I do not memorize my music all that often. In the past I always memorized my unaccompanied works, which is something that I have let slip. This has been in part due to how complicated some of the works have been, as well dealing with time scales, graphic notation and other… well let’s call it what it is, excuses. Though now, as I continue down the Stockhausen road I am reaching the part that I have left the most time for, memorizing the work, the time scale, etc.

Now, the reason I am doing this is that in the performance notes, they very first note is that the work is required to be performed from memory all the time. With Stockhausen this should be taken very seriously as his works (as Nebadon does) contains staging elements, lighting elements, and so forth. The piece demands it from the performer. That being said a 25 minute electronic work that is full of complexities not only in the horn part, but in the relationship between time and sound, as well as the interaction with the tape. (Later on that in a later post)

On the plus, I started memorizing right away, as well taking the time to analyze the work will always aid you, since understanding the internal consistencies in a work will help it make sense and give location in your mind to the material. This I think is an often overlooked element when people play new music, they either write it off as strange and don’t show it the respect it deserves, or go at it haphazardly. All this music is full of internal consistencies and as the performer you need to understand them so you can deliver it intelligently to the listener. As well, much like memorizing a work by Beethoven understanding the harmonic framework will permit the memorization to happen faster and more securely.

Tiny post, and tiny rant complete.