Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Quadrivium Novum: Unity with Autonomy

Quadrivium Novum
A    [filmic] image combined with a sound placed in a context--none of which matches expectations--creates a metaphor and invites an individual search for meaning at a physical, emotional and psychological level (in that order).”
  —  Paul Rudy, UMKC Conservatory.
T he performance last night at Unity Temple by the electroacoustic quartet Quadrivium Novum was the final event of the 2009-2010 season for the Kansas City Electronic Music & Arts Alliance, KCEMA.

Q uadrivium is comprised of Rebecca Ashe (flute), Kari Johnson (piano), Cheryl Melfi (clarinet), and Mark Stauffer (cello). [‘Quadrivium’ may not only allude to their quartetness but also to each member’s equal, autonomous role in bringing new, disruptive repertoire and techniques to the ensemble’s collaborations—much as though each member were a canonical ‘subject’ to be studied, learned, mastered?] Each of Quadrivium’s members is associated with the UMKC Conservatory’s Community Music & Dance Academy.

  • Daniel Eichenbaum: Orbit (flute, clarinet, live electronics; 20 min)
  • Jason Bolte: Scrap Metal (prepared piano solo, fixed media; 10 min)
  • Mara Gibson: E:Vespers (flute, clarinet, piano, digital audio; 8 min)
  • Andrew Seager Cole: A Slow Unraveling (flute, clarinet, cello, piano, electronics, video; 8 min)
  • William Lackey: The World Falls Asleep (cello, digital recording of cello; 10 min)
  • Christopher Biggs: Bioluminescence (flute, clarinet, piano, digital audio, video; 12 min)
E ach of the works was rewarding, and I should apologize for not commenting here on each of them. Let me at least offer a few impressions of the three pieces that were world premieres: ‘E:Vespers’, ‘Orbit’, and ‘A Slow Unraveling’.

M ara Gibson’s ‘E:Vespers’, a ‘fantasie’ or tone-poem composed on the occasion of observing an eclipse, was remarkable for the organic, natural way in which the digital audio functions as an equal to the three live performers. The partitioning of human assistants and digital tracks programs all the tasks into one application, run by a single assistant at the console workstation in the center of the performance space. This approach does not ‘reduce’ the interpretation to ‘assistant vs. trio’ duality, nor does it risk dichotomizing the technology and the performers at the front of the performance space. Rather, with the house lights dimmed, the effect is one of a thoroughly integrated ‘whole’ in which the individual parts reveal their character and ideas—beginning with the tolling of delicate, repeated notes by the piano.

T he technology actually helps to maintain the textural and timbral cohesion of the other parts (clarinet, flute, piano), whose acoustic spectra are otherwise diverse. Unlike some electroacoustic works in which the technology is intrusive or merely ornamental; unlike works where the digital tracks, having been laid down and sequenced in advance, are inflexible and impose too much determinism on the live executants. In the case of Gibson’s ‘E:Vespers’, the composer is still the creator, and the 3 performers and 1 assistant are the directors in charge of interpreting the musical elements of the work, whether they are for an acoustic instrument or combined with a computer sequencer. The performers are responsible to recreate the world the composer has envisioned: here, a contemplative, reverent, panoramic one—punctuated with worries but ultimately beneficent—captured in the twilight of the eclipse and return of the sun after 'totality'.

W    e orbit and float in our space gondola and watch the oceans and islands and green hills of the continent pass by at five miles per second. We move silently and effortlessly past the ground. I want to say ‘over the ground’ as I write this, but remember: in space, your sense of up or down is completely gone and my description must reflect this fact. In addition, the breathtaking speed of the ship is an odd and confusing contrast to the feel of perpetually floating within the spaceship. You do not sit before the window to view the passing scene, certainly not down upon it. Are you speeding past oceans and continents, or are you just hovering and watching them move beside you?”
  —  Joseph Allen, U.S. astronaut.
D aniel Eichembaum’s ‘Orbit’ is an antiphonal piece for flute, clarinet, and electronics. Rebecca Ashe and Cheryl Melfi are dressed in black, in near-total darkness, barefoot. They perform Orbit’s several movements as a duo, gliding anticlockwise between the four ‘stations’ that are set up on-stage. The stations are separated around the perimeter of a 10-meter circle whose perigee is closest to the audience and apogee farthest away.

T he ephemeral, ambient quality of electroacoustic elements is abundant, at times dominant. But it is important to note that the digital tracks are derived entirely from recordings of Rebecca’s and Cheryl’s own playing, breathing, moving—not from Eichenbaum’s digital waveform library or independent geek artistry in a vacuum. Extensive digital signal-processing (DSP) and editing have been done to produce what are now rendered by the sequencer in performance as, say, massive, rocket-like, spine-shaking ‘rumbles’ [from the multiple studio monitor speakers that are arrayed around the performance space, controlled from the assistant’s digital audio workstation console] or celestial chirps or high-energy quantum particle ‘tweets’. We had no idea of this in advance. But when Rebecca and Cheryl remarked after the performance that all of the electroacoustic effects we had just heard during this piece had begun from sounds that they themselves had made, and that Eichenbaum had recorded and processed and sequenced them as the three of them sat together at the DAW console in the studio, it was heartwarming evidence of a deeper sort of collaboration between performers and composer. Composer/DAW-artist/engineer as performer; performers as engineers/editors/co-composers. There is something profoundly ‘right’ about this.

W hat I mean is, composers, performers, computer musicians/DAW-artists have accepted, for the most part, the progressive abstractions from older analog and now-obsolete digital hardware into software modules and sequencer patches... not just ‘miniaturization’ per se but now total automation and virtuality, including software to manage the multiple applications and equipments and software to insert random aleatorics and emulate human-like variability effects. These abstractions are motivated by reliability, by productivity for the composer, by aesthetic considerations—all valid and admirable. But the abstractions have incrementally impoverished the electroacoustic performance experience, I think—compared to, say, my first experience of a Moog Synthesizer as a child of 10 at the Minneapolis Symphony (now Minnesota Orchestra) in 1963, teeming with patch-cables and wires and mad-scientist musician (I regret I cannot remember who, or which composers’ works were performed) at the keyboard, clearly *not* in complete control.

Moog synthesizer, ca. 1964

B ut in Eichenbaum’s ‘Orbit’ we have a focused assimilation of the digital and acoustic environments, in which the digital realization is a cohesive part--‘gluey’ elements that hold the entire composition together. The live performers are not ‘bystanders’. They are confronted, yes, by their own DSP-processed previously-recorded sounds. They are reacting to the aleatoric expressions of the DAW assistant who is reincarnating the sequences at one remove, so to say. And they know this, even though we in the audience did not, until the remarks following the performance.

H aving heard Rebecca’s and Cheryl’s post-performance commentary on ‘Orbit’, though, we now comprehend aspects of the performer-electronics interactions that we hadn’t grasped at first hearing: the intimacy of the part that you are now playing, live; the musical subtleties of rediscovering the state-of-mind you were in when you made the sounds that you are now hearing emanate from these electronics; the expressive stimulation of being re-reminded now, of how that sequencer patch was co-edited by you and Daniel not so long ago. This can be a truly productive process—and a provocative montage of active, creative roles and meta-roles for performers in their interpretations of electroacoustic music, as it was with the Quadrivium performance last night!

W hat else? The noise gradations range from total silence (a bus is heard faintly, passing by outside Unity Temple on 47th Street) to 100 dB butt-shaking. ‘Really Noisy’ (what Stockhausen would call ‘sehr geräuschaft’)–filtered ‘pink’ noise and rumbling ‘red’ noise, convolved with other signals on the track to the point where it pervades the space and progressively washes out and obscures Rebecca’s flute and Cheryl’s clarinet. ‘Sort of Noisy’ (‘etwas geräuschaft’) – square and sawtooth waves convolved with the rest, but with enough high-frequency spectral content to meld with and preserve the listener’s attentiveness to upper-register activity in the flute and clarinet parts... A dense polyphony, reminiscent of György Ligeti’s writing for the score of the film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’: a choir of myriad voices; the mixing and intermingling and asynchronous entries and departures of thousands of voices; microtonal voices, sounding notes a quarter-tone higher or lower than their neighbors; cosmic cacophony tending toward pantheism.

A ndrew Seager Cole’s ‘A Slow Unraveling’ applies combinatoric permutations to tiny musical elements to generate large [fractal?] structures. The fast-tempo elements that begin the piece devolve into slower ‘child’ elements that enclose and subsume the ‘parents’ until the music completely unravels, finally coming to a rest. The music was genuinely interesting and admirably executed, regardless of its formal compositional methods and inspiration. Kari Johnson’s piano and Mark Stauffer’s cello were especially compelling, as regards imbuing the piece with vivid kinesthetic impressions of velocity and depth/space. The piece has narrative; a story unfolding among the performers. It is intimate ‘chamber music’, yes. But it is the paradoxical ‘intimacy’ of space itself, on an astronomical scale.

B ravo!





Saturday, November 14, 2009

Berliner Philharmoniker: Schoenberg’s ‘Accompaniment’, Op. 34

Schoenberg discursively playing chamber pingpong in 1930

Schoenberg discursively plays ‘chamber pingpong’ in 1930


H    ow words are understood is not told by words alone. How music is understood is not told by music alone. [How films are understood is not told by film alone.]”
  —  Arnold Schoenberg quote.
T    hough originality is inseparable from personality, there exists also a kind of originality which does not derive from profound personality. Products of such artists are often distinguished by uniqueness that resembles true originality… Certainly there was inventiveness at work when the striking changes of some subordinate elements were accomplished for the first time. Subsequently, they achieved an aspect of novelty not derived profoundly from basic ideas. This is ‘mannerism’, not originality. The difference is that mannerism is ‘originality in subordinate matters’. There are many, and even respectable, artists whose success and reputation are based on this minor kind of originality… The moral air of such products is rather for success and publicity than for enriching mankind’s thoughts.”
  —  Arnold Schoenberg, Criteria For the Evaluation of Music (1946), quoted by Tom Myron.
T  onight the Berliner Philharmoniker, under conductor Sir Simon Rattle, performed Schoenberg’s 1929 ‘Begleitungsmusik zu einer Lichtspielscene (Drohende Gefahr, Angst, Katastrophe) ‘ [Accompaniment to a Cinematographic Scene], Op. 34, at Carnegie Hall. What, if anything does Op. 34 have to do with ‘chamber music’, you ask?

W  ell, if ‘intimacy’ is the defining quality of ‘chamber’ music idioms, then Op. 34 has considerable to do with ‘chamber’ collaborative motivations and expressive qualities. Hive-like sectional playing so ‘tight’ and in-tune that a whole section sounds like one person… ‘Open’ orchestration that accentuates individualism of parts… Parts covered by one musician (e.g., timpani; flute flutter-tonguing; heavily muted/smothered trumpet; clarinet near the end of the piece)… A spirit of ‘mutual discovery’ among the ensemble’s parts, instead of orchestral ‘exposition’…

A  gainst those ‘chamber’ features you have the fact that the ensemble has a conductor, has 100+ members, and is playing in this large unchamber-like hall. So, go ahead and throw out my fascination with chamber-ness if you want.

J  ust the same, maybe the writing does manifest chamber music idioms. Does any modest-size chamber orchestra ever perform this Op. 34, I wonder?

I  n 1929 Schönberg was commissioned by the Heinrichshofen Verlag in Magdeburg to write music for films. The autocratic Schoenberg was not about to relinquish his artistic control, contract or no contract, and so he focused on the eponymous ‘threatening danger, fear, catastrophe.’

A  s a result, Op. 34 is only loosely an instance of ‘program music’. It does not specifically address any particular film’s scenes or characters. The film was hypothetical, imaginary, never produced. The sections that comprise the work (Introduction; 12-tone theme; Song form; Ostinato; Four Contrasting Episodes; Subdivision into Tetrachords; Climax; Reflection on the Beginning of the Work) are fragments. They are idealizations of features that might occur in music intended to be coupled with a film—it’s a kind of meta-film score, a score about future film scores.

A  ctually, Schönberg constructs the climax of ‘Begleitungsmusik’ by colliding a succession of tiny components without predetermining a ‘victor’. The 8-min piece is a series of ideas that enter and enter and enter, intruding upon other ideas that are still being articulated by other parts. New material that unexpectedly eclipses other material—that is a gesture that in 1930 was revolutionary but that we today recognize as a frequent element of film music: overlapping and occluding parts is a way to convey/reinforce that the ‘action’ is changing.

M  ore than this even, Op. 34 has an amorphous pattern of rapidly altering meter. The tempo is ‘elastic’, changing on a timescale that is very short—several seconds only—in a manner that palpably means action. This piece feels decades ahead of its time, introducing gesture after gesture that we today recognize as ‘cinematic’.

A  ccompaniment’/‘Begleitungsmusik’ is a term that evidently bothered Schoenberg. It’s such a politically ‘loaded’ term, connoting subjection of musicians and abandonment to some larger fate that is beyond their control...

B  ut the accurate word for the film composer’s relationship to a director/producer is ‘abandonment’. It must surely be the rare film scoring gig where the director/producer is open to deep collaboration—open to the film’s aesthetic’s being seriously modulated or diverted by what the composer comes up with on her/his own recognizance, like what iconoclast Schoenberg was doing. In a highly competitive world where composers are required to deliver commercial results on tight deadlines, producers and directors do everything that they can to de-risk their projects, with carefully constructed contracts and scene-lists and storyboards. They restrict the budgets and the support in such a way as to preempt novel spiritual discernments and mental awakenings to deep creativity that might extraneously occur. They usurp the composerly role, as Moorefield puts it (link below), and the composer takes a subordinate one... For most film composers, their intimate, chamber Truths lie undiscovered and, if detected, unexamined or edited-away. Exceptions to this exist, of course; but still…

S  o here, in the Berlin Philharmoniker’s beautiful, inspired account of Schoenberg’s Op. 34, we heard a singular, intimate Truth that refused to be subdued by film contracts, producers, commissions. It was a performance so dramatic and unusual that I wanted to put these few thoughts about it down here, even though it’s a bit OT for CMT…

A  ccompaniment’ is difficult, isn’t it? Tough, in part, because it must sound ‘easy’ and not ‘ask too much’. The listener is to be shielded from the difficulties that arise from constraints that require the composer to shorten or prolong each phrase to match the film’s action, at whatever pace that action unfolds. The music suffuses us generously with deliberation and control that originate in the film but only tenuously so. The film’s action can ‘lean’ on the music if it wishes, like a cushion. The film can fall back onto the music if it needs to, like a trapeze artist’s safety-net. These are the cognitive assurances that the music suffusing us makes. Conventional ‘score-as-accompaniment’ is the epitome of supportiveness and of the absence of surprise and obtrusiveness/iconoclasm.

A  nd yet, in Op. 34, sudden viola warmth floods the music—inviting but untrustworthy. There are bassoonistic surprises. Seeping drohende Gefahr, existential Angst.

T  remulous cellos, holding the first two pitches in the 12-tone row, are joined by the bassoon and bass who are preoccupied with pitches 3, 4, 5, and 6. Pitches 6 through 12 enter precipitously in staccato fusillades. The score progressively explores violence and estrangement, via col legno bow-ballistics and brass and flute flutter-tonguing.

O  kay, so maybe Schoenberg’s temperament was not well-suited to composing to commission ‘spec’ on short deadlines. But the duress illuminates so much about the composer as individual, and about small-ensemble perspectives! Originality is, after all, not necessarily something deeply ‘new’ but often the result of looking askance—an averted gaze that looks at the familiar in a fresh, detached way.

R  ainer Seegers (timpani) was particularly skillful in animating Schoenberg’s averted-gaze existential feeling in Op. 34. Large-ensemble orchestration, yes; but still chamber-like sensibility.

I  f you're a software programmer or a mathematical linguist, you might like to read Gorbman (link below) on what today we would call refactoring and code hierarchies... film music as cognitive refactoring of codes contained in the film's action/imagery, simplifying complex relationships between object classes and subclasses and/or confirming or refuting provisional concept bindings that the viewer has made based on the film's imagery.

Wake book, refactoring in Ruby



Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Mannes College Beethoven Institute: Amity via Cello-Piano Sonatas

 Colin Carr, Thomas Sauer
T  hese sonatas are] a representation of one of Beethoven’s deepest yearnings: to fashion order and harmony from the chaos of life.”
  —  Thomas Sauer, Program Notes, Mannes Beethoven Institute, New York, 02-JUN-2008.
Colin Carr (cello) and Thomas Sauer (piano) take on super-human powers when they make music together. Their recital last night—a two-and-a-half-hour program consisting of all five Beethoven cello-piano sonatas (Op. 5 [Nos. 1 & 2], Op. 69, Op. 102 [Nos. 1 & 2]; in chronological order)—one of the events in this week’s Beethoven Institute at Mannes College of Music The New School in New York—was a tour de force.

These sonatas hail from each of the three major ‘periods’ in Beethoven’s career: Op. 5 (1796), Op. 69 (1807), Op. 102 (1815). Their textures and compositional styles are dramatically different from each other, reflecting Beethoven’s stages of development and changing motivations: early demos and self-promotion, to Friedrich Wilhelm II, and others; mid-career self-reinvention and discovery; late-career envelope-pushing iconoclasm. As Thomas Sauer says in the program notes, these cello-piano sonatas offer a quicker tour of Beethoven’s compositional styles and major creative periods than do works of his in any other genre: “An evening suffices.”

And what an evening it was!

The two-movement Op. 5 sonatas have 18-min first movements, followed by 7- to 9-min second movements. The long first movements are expansive—emblematic of symphonic writing; unusual for chamber works. The second movements are discursive—the No. 1 carrying on in a light-hearted rondo-like manner, in F major; the No. 2 evoking 18th-Century literary notions of tragedy, in G minor.

The Op. 69 admixes minor-key motifs in predominantly major-key settings. The recurrent uncertainty and eventual triumph of major over minor are routinely regarded as characteristic of Beethoven. Anxiety and sorrow displaced by fortissimo joy and affirmation: yes, that’s there. But Carr and Sauer find far more depth and complexity in Op. 69 than that. The plot-line, according Carr and Sauer, to has more to do with temporality as a feature of the human condition: an essay on how patience and the interplay between personal ‘will’ and opportunity and cooperation [between the characters represented by the cello and the piano] can lead to the affirmative result.

The Op. 102 sonatas, especially the No. 2: these are my favorites. The sheer energy that propels them; the emotional range that they cover, from deep despair, to euphoria, and back again; the improvisatory quality of the dissonances and transitions; the drama of the fugal finale—there is so much to love in here. And Carr and Sauer do animate these sonatas as a labor of love. Breathtaking exuberance! From warm-and-tender, to fierce and defiant. The expressive range is quite a ride.

One of the remarkable things about the collaboration between Carr and Sauer, each of whom is a superb soloist, is an extraordinary ‘filial’, ‘fraternal’, brotherly quality that they impart to their playing together. These cello-piano sonatas present ample temptations for each voice—to display soloist-style ‘ego’, rubescent embellishments, flamboyant figurations, fioritura. But Carr and Sauer do not indulge in any such thing.

It is not as though either of them renounces his ego totally; far from it. The acoustic image they each project is simply a strong, genuine ‘brotherliness’. The allegiance between the two is evidenced by the extraordinary balance and responsiveness, one to the other, in a thorough-going, egalitarian way. (Much as with rock climbing/mountaineering, each one, Carr or Sauer, when it is his turn to take the lead, places an ‘anchor’ or ‘protection’ as he goes—to protect the other, enabling him to ascend/descend with expressive assurance, agility, and safety. The trading of ‘call-and-answer’ figures between the cello and piano parts throughout these sonatas is like a ‘running-belay’, to use the moutaineering term. No heroics; just continual looking-out-for-the-other-guy. The pleasures in doing this in climbing are a similar species of pleasure as we see in the beaming faces of Sauer and Carr: these are the pleasures, not of mere collegiality, but of true brotherhood.)

In other words, their conceptions of ‘self’ and of ‘other’ and of ‘family’ are not formal or rule-based; the realizations of the concepts are extemporized, improvisational. Both voices—cello and piano—are continually active, never passive or subordinate; the piano is never ‘accompaniment’. The net effect of this is to impress us listeners with a vision of collaboration and solidarity and mindfulness to which each of us can and should aspire. If they can do it, we should too!

We thank Colin and Thomas for the wonderful evening—for their gift of vitality and warmth. Nominally a faculty recital with a musicological rationale and didactic, pedagogical program notes, the performance showed its true colors as a compelling concept of aesthetic and filial unity: a shining Beethovenian example for all of us, a noble thing to emulate, not just in music but in everything we do.

Colin Carr is the winner of many international awards, including First Prize in the Naumburg Competition, the Gregor Piatigorsky Memorial Award, and Second Prize in the Rostropovich International Cello Competition. Carr was on the faculty of the New England Conservatory in Boston for 16 years. He became professor at the Royal Academy of Music in 1998. Also in 1998 St. John’s College, Oxford, created the post of ‘Musician in Residence’ for him. Since 2002 he has been professor at Stony Brook University in New York. Mr. Carr plays on a Matteo Gofriller cello made in Venice in 1730.

Pianist Thomas Sauer, founder and director of the Beethoven Institute at Mannes College, received his Bachelors of Music from The Curtis Institute, his Masters of Music from Mannes College of Music, and his DMA from the City University of New York. Among others, he studied with Jorge Bolet, Edward Aldwell, and Carl Schachter. He has performed regularly at Carnegie Hall and with the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center and the Philadelphia Chamber Music Society. His CD of five Haydn piano sonatas is available on MSR Classics. His recording of music of Britten and Schnittke with cellist Wilhelmina Smith is available on Arabesque.

 Colin Carr, Thomas Sauer

 mountaineering / rock-climbing, as behavioral/psychological analogue of musicianship in ensemble