Monday, January 10, 2005
Does Music Need an Explanation?
Jerry asked, “Should a composer talk about the music one writes?” I think there are two camps.
My teacher at North Texas, Martin Mailman (1932-2000), steadfastly refused to comment on his own works. He claimed that if the music didn’t stand on it’s own, no amount of explanation would help. Further, he didn’t like the idea that he should impose an “interpretation” on a listener, and took it as high praise when a listener came to comment, whether “wrong” or “right.” As I recall, he would limit his comments, when pressed, to a few remarks about the reasons he wrote a particular work.
From a performer’s standpoint, this strict line may not serve so well, especially if one is about to introduce a new work that doesn’t have a “hook,” such as melodic beauty, rhythmic drive, or something else to immediately engage a listener. As a co-artistic director of a new music ensemble, I can attest to the fact that a brief introduction can help humanize a piece that might, on the surface, seem at first impenetrable. (Aesthetics are set aside here, as this could be the topic for another article—or a book.)
This begs the question of whether the composer is necessarily the appropriate person to comment. If a composer takes money to speak, then one should feel obligated to speak clearly and well. I’ve been fortunate to hear George Crumb offer some of the most enlightening (and entertaining) comments on his work. The same goes for John Corigliano, an articulate speaker on his own perspective and techniques.
Since I don’t inhabit the rarified realms of a sought-after speaker, and I also prefer that people make their own judgments, I try to split the difference. I usually type up a few brief notes of background on a new piece: goals, influences, maybe a note or two on the sound world--and without getting too technical unless it’s an audience of composers. This is usually helpful for the conductor as well as whoever puts together the programs.
It’s also been interesting to sit on panels with other composers, for example at a performance by the Dale Warland Singers a couple years ago, I was surprised to see that many audience members were actually interested in the creative process. Many attended the panel before the performance, simply to hear what we thought would be a session of interest primarily to composers and musicians.
This demonstrated that listeners are eager to “listen in” on the creative mind at work. A discussion of process can be helpful in understanding what goes into a piece. But I don’t think composers should make value judgments on our own works, pro or con, at least not publicly. We’re too close to the trees to hear the forest, and any such comments that we make come off as imprudent at best, and we might inadvertently criticize a listener for hearing something we didn’t know was there.
Occasionally, a listener will say, “This is what I heard and how I felt about it.” I think the proper response is “Thanks so much for coming and telling me what you think.”
posted by Cary Boyce
4:05 PM
|
