How embarrassing

We were at a dinner party not too long ago and one of the guests, a wonderful instrumentalist, said that he wanted to get back to composing. He had started a piece years earlier and had looked at it recently, but what was holding him back were the “embarrassing” parts. He thought that if he could get rid of those, he’d have something to work with.

I know what he means. Some of my older works (and some not so older) evoke winces from me. The problem bits embarrass for one of two reasons. Sometimes they’re only partially-realized ideas, not fully in focus. But sometimes the ideas are fine, and I was unfocused, simply piling other ideas on top of them. (Generating ideas, while good in its place, is not composing.)

But there’s another kind of embarrassment that I hope never to shed. It’s the embarrassment of an idea that’s so simple that the least bit of tinkering would destroy it. This kind of embarrassment interests me.

Here’s an example: the opening to the second section of Vespers, “Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern.” The shawm phrase, over the theorbo, is so simple as to be almost silly. As if that weren’t enough, I repeat it. It came to me like that and I wrote it down more as a placeholder, figuring I’d change it later. But then I couldn’t change it. It refused all my attempts to make it lofty, witty, or subtle. It was crude, loud, and inescapable. It was Martin Luther, it was the Reformation. The entrance of the chorale tune six bars later is that much smoother, in contrast, but frankly, I didn’t calculate that. That just happened, and I liked it, so it stayed.

02.Wie.ex


It’s embarrassing, though, because it’s the kind of idea that sounds as if it could have come to anyone, and we want to be special, don’t we? Special people—the artists and geniuses that we’d like to be—reject obviousness, reject simplicity, and certainly reject the common. Don’t they? We want to be nuanced. Mostly, we want to look smart, but really, that only means acting the way our crowd acts.

It’s particularly tempting to young composers, since it’s how we behaved as adolescents—it’s life and death to adolescents—and most of us began composing around then. Soon, most of us went to college, where the coin of the realm is analysis, theory, and technical jargon. We want to impress our professors (who will usually know better) and our friends (who usually won’t).

There comes a point, though, when that struggle ceases. It can happen all at once or in stages. We realize that our nuances are muddles and our dazzles are flat. Or we realize that the person we’re trying to impress doesn’t exist. Or we simply tire of acting. All our Howevers and all our On The Other Hands are just ways of hedging our bets.

If we’re fortunate—and we keep working, and we keep our ears open—at some point something simple offers itself to us, and we say, Oh Hang It All and we write it down as it is and stop fighting. And then we find that those ideas, those embarrassing, obvious ideas, are the ones we love the best. It’s the music that’s been there all along, behind our calculations. It’s the music that identifies us, the music we’ve been trying to sing since adolescence. It’s the music that says to us, Maybe you are peculiar or silly or clumsy, but this is you, like it or not. And we do like it. Finally. And we’re no longer embarrassed.

It’s our fault

Is orchestral music a style? My answer would have been a quick No, as neither is trumpet music a style, or vocal music. But I had to stop and wonder, since the issue came up on Kyle Gann’s illuminating blog PostClassic. He recounts the tale of a composer who had a new orchestral piece—a commission—performed, and who was fairly horrified that it received only one run-through at one rehearsal. That was all, followed by a very sub-par performance.

Not a fun experience for any composer. I would have thought no more of it, except that the blog comments coalesced around lack of rehearsal time as the primary culprit for why new music is not more successful with orchestras. That struck me as odd, since new music is more successful with orchestras now than in decades, and since throughout history composers have complained about lack of rehearsal time.

It seemed to me, then, that composers who write successful pieces for orchestras learn to work within that reality, no matter what style they write in. Since I’ve written well over 20 orchestral pieces (some of which I’ve kept), I’ve had a bit of experience with the huge amount of work that goes into getting a piece to “sound.” While I hope that I’m continuing to learn, I commented that we ought not blame rehearsal time for our troubles.

The jist of some of the responses was that of course it’s no problem to write for orchestra, so long as you accommodate your style to orchestral limitations. But I can’t agree with that—it’s not easy to write for orchestra, and I wondered what those styles might be that orchestras just can’t play.

One person heard a Glass piece with the L.A. Phil, said it didn’t sound good, and so blamed the orchestra for not spending enough time on it. His logic eluded me.

In the back of my mind I was thinking: Rosenkavalier (is there anything more complex than one page of that?), Messiaen, Bartòk, Hiroshima, Mozart: if orchestras can play those, they can play anything, can’t they? And that music just doesn’t “play,” it leaps off the stage. Gann said that I must not know too many styles or I would never say that style doesn’t matter.

I sensed a confusion of “style” with “technique,” as when he mentioned rhythms the fabulous Ijsbreker Ensemble can play that an orchestra couldn’t (without a lot of rehearsal). I wondered what these non-orchestral rhythms might be, and if they were limited to a particular style? He also mentioned that the piece in the original story consisted only of the pitch A. Come now, there is no live ensemble in the world that can make unisons and octaves sound good without a huge expenditure of blood, sweat, and probably some tears. Perhaps it wasn’t about the orchestra after all, but about live performance.

My main point, though, was that the responsibility of making an orchestra “sound” rests, above all, on the composer. Whether the orchestra is professional or amateur, has lots of rehearsal or hardly any, the one person who has to make it work is the composer. For too long we’ve let ourselves off the hook. We are, many times, unprepared, sloppy, and even arrogant. Orchestral music is nothing but truckloads of little tiny things to get right or to mess up. If we can’t be bothered to sweat that small stuff, and orchestras have trouble with our music, it’s our fault.

And don’t even get me started on page turns.

Now I don’t know the piece in question and so have no opinion on it. Perhaps it was entirely the orchestra’s cavalier handling of it that was its downfall. There probably is less rehearsal time for some orchestras now. And there are some (few) players who bring ungenerous attitudes to anything new. But I wrote this:

I’ve heard way too many stories by orchestral players—professional, vital, fully engaged artists who can play and sight-read anything—who are incredulous at the poorly written stuff they have to slog through, by big names, huge names, no names, this style and that style. Music that they try to bring to life but that will never, ever sound good no matter how much it’s rehearsed. Music that buries them. Music where mistakes don’t matter. Music where the composer never hears what’s right, what’s wrong. Music that forces the player to wonder, “Why am I even here?”

A list of 14 composers by Gann—again, I suppose, to display the range of styles he must be assuming I didn’t know—stymied me. Not that I didn’t know them; I had heard the music of 12 of them, including one orchestral piece, which I thought was brilliant. No, what puzzled me was why he mentioned them. Was he saying that if only I had known them, then I’d have known that these were composers who obviously can’t write for orchestra? I thought that was odd, especially if he knew any of them personally. But I could imagine any of their music with orchestra.

Maybe some have chosen not to write for orchestra. Fine. And electronic music is, okay, electronic. But so what? Music for viols is different from music for violins. There are people (few, but there are people) who can’t stand the Ravel orchestration of Pictures, since it ruins (they think) a perfectly good piano piece. That’s fine, too. Orchestras don’t play electronics… well, pianos don’t play portamentos, big deal.

But this is not style. What (I continued to wonder) are the stylistic barriers?

I never have gotten an answer to that. Gann quipped that since it was all so easy, why doesn’t he tell all those composers to send me scores and I can distribute them to conductors. I wrote back to say that’s a great idea, please go ahead, since that’s one of the things I do at the Fleisher Collection. But his heart must not have been in it since he didn’t print that response, and then closed the comments.

You can read it here.

[Update: that “here” used to have a link, but a correspondent informed me that all my comments have now been removed. Looky there… sure enough. How delightful to be deemed so dangerous to an orthodoxy as to warrant obliteration in an Orwellian memory hole. Well, it feels good to be liberated. Such agita, figuring out whom to blame. Thanks for setting me free!]

What, me struggle?

In the Broad Street Review, Beeri Moalem wrote about “one struggling young composer’s attempt to make some sense of” where the sweep of music history has brought us, and how a composer can offer anything meaningful in view of the plethora of styles. Dan Coren, one of BSR’s regular reviewers, took issue with, well, just about everything, Moalem wrote back, then Coren did, and there was a good bit of energy such as is often the case in this online publication, edited by Dan Rottenberg.

Knowing what it’s like to be a composer, or at least one composer, and holding onto the belief that I remember what it’s like to be young, I thought I’d jump in. Here’s some of what I wrote:

[Beeri Moalem writes:] “The struggle of the composer today is to create something original when so many things have been tried and documented—to find a voice without falling into one of the clichéd categories that I outlined. It’s the struggle to create something pleasing for audiences, university professors and musicians simultaneously. Something beautiful, interesting and meaningful yet also unique.”

[I write]: Yes, all creative artists have had a taste of this struggle, but I think that to grow, the composer has to treat every word in that paragraph as utterly false. … If I were to ask how to drive to the Shore from Philadelphia, and was directed to the Walt Whitman Bridge, and I responded that the Delaware River is deep, I would be stating a fact, but not a helpful one.

The struggle of the creative artist is not to be original …  The struggle is not to be unique … The struggle is not to avoid cliché (cliché is simply laziness: either the composer’s, which is easily fixed, or the listener’s, which cannot be).

The struggle is to tell the truth.

Even beauty is secondary. Beauty grows from truth. Seek originality and you will never find it. But tell the truth, and you’ll get originality and beauty and everything else thrown in.

There are many bridges (it may be quicker, or more interesting, and there are more gas stations if you take the Tacony), but the depth of the Delaware is of no consequence. There are as many ways of telling the truth as there are composers. If one is fortunate to grow as an artist, new struggles will replace the ones left behind. But far from discouraging, they reveal new ways of telling the truth.

Rottenberg edited most of my verbosity, but cut out the Delaware River metaphor, which was my favorite part. Gas stations, I thought, made me sound less pontifical. Well, he was probably right, as the loss of it didn’t weaken my argument. Moalem responded and then so did I, and Coren added more, and you can read it all here. We also had a few emailed exchanges sub rosa, which didn’t add substantially to the arguments, but which, I think, helped in our appreciation of each other. Moalem’s quite an inventive composer; check him out here.

I did say in my last email to him that if anything I wrote took his mind off of university professors, then my job was done. Don’t get me wrong, my professors were nothing but supportive. But you can only tell what you know. Nobody may want to hear it, true, but there’s nothing else to say.

Top 100 Hot New Releases, Classical

With now a keen interest in the state of the recording industry, I was happy to read Joseph Dalton’s optimistic view of it in the current NewMusicBox. Many independent labels are staying the course and some are even increasing their output of CDs. New startups appear every year to fill a perceived need in the market, including Navona, the label Vespers is on. While no one seems to be making a killing, a lot of labels are plugging away.

New voices and new sounds appear every month. I’ve enjoyed getting to know some of them while preparing my weekly contemporary American radio show on WRTI, Now is the Time.

I’m also shamelessly interested in how Vespers is doing on Amazon.com, and I check all the time. Lame, yes, I know. Doubly so, because I really have no idea what the numbers mean. They don’t tell you how many CDs are sold, only the sales ranking, “updated hourly.” Vespers broke through at 100,000 plus (meaning 100,000 were selling more than me), jumped in one day to 27,000, then bounced all over. As far as I know it’s been as high as 3,000, as low as 90,000, and hovered between 7,000 and 20,000 for the longest time. As I write we’re at 47,008—pretty good, I think, as I look up and down at rankings for other CDs. The price moves with the ranking, too—very interesting—I wonder what algorithm drives that, and where the ratchet notches are.

Amazon listThen there are the lists, broken down by category, and while I guess the numbers are correct, the categories are simply fiction. I have dipped into the Top 100 of Hot New Releases in Classical (#59 on July 6th!), and that category makes sense, but usually to find Vespers in a list you have to look in more tightly defined ones. Just don’t expect the lists to make sense. I usually turn up in Hot New Releases / Classical / Historical Periods / Classical (c.1770–1830). Yes. I don’t know, either.

That “circa” slays me, by the way. I mean, relating it to a composer who’s still alive (that would be me, as of this writing), it’s only 200 years off—does the “circa” really matter? Yes, I know that Beethoven was born in 1770. Then why make it c.1770? And if c.1770, why not make the end of the period c.1827, when he died? Who died in 1830? If the question of my mortal existence is irrelevant, I should think that one would err, if err one must, by placing Vespers in the Renaissance category, c.1450–1600. Oh, I see, all the periods begin with “circa,” and none end in “circa.” Okay, that makes even less sense.

But really, it’s hilarious, especially when I see that Phil Kline, David Lang, and Steve Reich are in the same boat with me; so’s Bach. Some artists thrive in the c.1770-1830 period no matter what they perform, such as Yo-Yo Ma, Il Divo, Andre Rieu playing Strauss Jr., and Stile Antico singing Lassus. (I did write Amazon about it, and also asked them to add Piffaro, The Crossing, and Donald Nally as Performers; while they did add the names, they remained unmoved, apparently, by the appeal to my contemporaneity.)

But again, I don’t know what these numbers mean. If Amazon sells 50 copies of Vespers, how much does the ranking move? 100 points? 20,000? For a few days, every time I’d check the HNR/C/HP/C list, I was either #24 or #48. Hm. Oh, look, right now it’s #31, and hey, 14,093, glad I checked.

Well, I did admit to shamelessness. (Does admitting to shame mitigate it? I didn’t think so.) And there are so many other places it’s for sale, some of which I’ve listed here. I just really shouldn’t look anymore. It’s unseemly, isn’t it. Wait, has an hour gone by yet?

Where flames a word, Philadelphia Inquirer

InquirerLogo

The Crossing sings final concert of Month of Moderns festival

David Patrick Stearns, 8 Jun 2009

an important world premiereWhere Flames a Word took on Paul Celan poems that seem to be about soul recognition through sex – in words too fearlessly personal to be uttered in real life and that can perhaps exist only in a poem. The depth of expression easily surpasses his much-discussed Vespers. Some of the word settings are plainspoken as can be; others sail in through alien key signatures, racing in from some side door. Resolutions got sidetracked by bass notes that rise from under cover. Most of it makes little literal sense but, poetically speaking, feels completely right in spellbinding ways I never imagined.

Where Flames a Word will be reprised at the Crossing’s free opening concert of Chorus America’s National Conference, 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, 313 Pine St.

Now it’s me writing: You can look at the words here and see what you think they’re about. The parallel I draw from Celan’s poetry in general is to James Joyce, although everybody notices that. The parallel to these texts in particular is, for me, John Donne, and how the sensual is a portal to the eternal. The so-called metaphysical poets did not shy away from descriptions of physical intimacy in trying to fathom the reality of the spiritual experience. This is nothing new, and goes back, at least, to the Song of Solomon.

(The idea that religious people are prudes is a myth invented, let’s be frank, by irreligious people for whom intimacy has evaporated into mere pleasure. If you have a metaphysical appreciation, you understand perfectly well not only the power of both worlds, but the interleaving. The secular world invented this dichotomy, not religion. That some religious people have bought into it merely demonstrates how tightly they have become entangled in the world. Tsk, tsk.)

Whether this piece is deeper in expression than Vespers is something I can’t calculate. Maybe it is. I’m happy for the wonderful feedback I’ve received about both works. I am moved by the Psalms more than any other literature and think I invested that into the music, but that’s for others to decide. It may be true that I play Vespers close to the vest harmonically (that is, I think it’s very expressive, but within a smaller circle). One reason is that Renaissance instruments do not sit well with extreme harmonic shifts. Another is that Vespers is closely related to liturgical music, which should not be a vehicle for self-expression. (Art shouldn’t be concerned with self-expression anyway, but that’s another discussion.)

For instance, the reading of Scripture in worship should be accomplished simply and clearly, with no room for dramatic recitation. Chant, which is artful declamation, comes directly out of that. Sacred polyphony comes out of chant, and the same principles apply, I believe. But in a concert piece, one can loosen up one’s expression, since the purpose changes.

Come out Wednesday and see what you think. Did I mention the concert’s free?

Where flames a word

Celan_Order here…

For unaccompanied mixed chorus, commissioned by The Crossing, Donald Nally, Music Director. Premiere, the Presbyterian Church of Chestnut Hill, 5 Jun 2009, 8 pm. The Crossing will also perform this at the Chorus America 2009 Conference Opening Concert, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, 313 Pine St., Philadelphia, 10 Jun 2009, 7:30 pm.

1. Before your late face
Before your late face,
a loner
wandering between
nights that change me too,
something came to stand,
which was with us once already, un-
touched by thoughts.

2. Conversation in the Mountains
And it was quiet in the mountains where they walked, one and the other.

“You’ve come a long way, have come all the way here…”

“I have. I’ve come, like you.”

“I know.”

“You know. You know and see: The earth folded up here, folded once and twice and three times, and opened up in the middle, and in the middle there is water, and the water is green, and the green is white, and the white comes from even farther up, from the glaciers, and one could say, but one shouldn’t, that this is the language that counts here, the green with the white in it, a language not for you and not for me—because, I ask you, for whom is it meant, the earth, not for you, I say, is it meant, and not for me—a language, well, without I and without You nothing but He, nothing but It, you understand, and She, nothing but that.”

“I understand, I do. After all, I’ve come a long way, I’ve come like you.”

“I know.”

3. I know you, you are the deeply bowed
(I know you, you are the deeply bowed,
I the transpierced, am subject to you.
Where flames a word, would testify for us both?
You—all, all real. I—all delusion.)


1. and 3. from Paul Celan, Breathturn, translation from the German by Pierre Joris, Sun & Moon Press, Los Angeles. Translation © 1995 by Pierre Joris. Used by permission.

2. from Paul Celan, Collected Prose, translation from the German by Rosmarie Waldrop, The Sheep Meadow Press, Riverdale-on-Hudson, N.Y. Translation © 1986 by Rosmarie Waldrop. Used by permission.

Where flames a word p.1

Where flames a word (Paul Celan)

SATB div. 13′. Reviews

Before your late face, page 5. View excerpt


Conversation in the Mountains, page 13. View excerpt


I know you, you are the deeply bowed, page 23. View excerpt


Radio Times

Donald Nally was on the radio Friday, May 15th, on Marty Moss-Coane’s Radio Times on WHYY, talking about The Crossing’s Month of Moderns series. That project includes settings of Paul Celan texts by me and others. Here’s the podcast; Donald’s on Hour 2 and Vespers comes in at about 37 minutes in or so. From it they play part of Psalms 70 and 113 (at about 47 minutes), and the show signs off with some of the Magnificat. It sounds like it’s from the premiere, not from the CD? Not sure; hard for me to tell from the podcast and I don’t have it turned up very loud. A wonderful interview with a fully engaged artist, and very enlightening about what makes The Crossing what they are. Which is very…very…good. They’re singing my new piece, Where flames a word, on June 5th. Joby Talbot’s Path of Miracles last night (wow), then Kirsten Broberg and Bo Holten et al. this Friday May 22nd, Bo Holten again on the June 5th concert, more later…