Encore!

There was a time in history that, if the audience demanded it, a diva or divo would sing a stellar aria again, even if it were in the middle of an opera. In fact there are cases where they would repeat the piece three or possibly four times if desired.

This has fallen out of favor in most opera houses as they have been trying to be more conscientious about performance practice, and try to give an upper hand to stage craft and telling a story. Many opera houses have gone so far as to ban the practice, and it has gotten to the point that the audience would not even think to demand/expect an encore. In fact I rarely even hear "encore!" or "bis!" yelled after an aria. Some times a "bravo!" or "brava!" but never the former two.

However it is still done! Monday at the Met it was in fact planned for (which is necessary if you're going to pull it off). Again Juan Diego Florez has taken opera stardom and stepped it up to where it once was! I love it! (I'm also still bummed about not seeing him this year at the Lyric, so I can see what the fuss is about)

I'm excited to see a small return to the feeling that opera should be thrilling, because it should be! Scholarship is great, and makes us better musicians, and creates better performances, and respect of the work of a whole is noble. But we mustn't get too stuffy!

what!? I can't hear you!

check out this article from today's NYtimes.

It's strange to think about musician's in an orchestra having to worry about their hearing. It makes sense. I've stood behind the horn section in concerts and even that's loud, but as many of the musicians point out, ear plugs or screens make playing incredibly hard.

I guess this article brings up the same confusion in me that the idea that the delicious chocolate smells in Chicago are pollution. I mean it's delicious smelling, but I guess that if it were another less delicious smell as strong in the neighborhood, people would be up in arms about pollution.

Orchestra as a democratic process

I went to the Pub with a bunch of people after the orchestra concert on Monday. It was a pretty good time, mostly because I really like talking to all of the people who were there. It also turned out to be an informative evening because one gentleman there turned out to be a vocal coach, so he had interesting opinions to share. He was actually more than willing to share his opinions when I asked, which was nice for me, but sort of killed all other conversation, which I felt bad about.

However this is not what currently interests me. My buddy A. who was a music major here just like I was contended that conductors should be done away with and replaced with robots. (comment I'm sure to be taken with a grain of salt)

My response was, well for performances fine, but what about the rehearsal process, this is when the conductor gets to work on his musical interpretation with the orchestra. (also, what I just thought of now is rehearsal management. A sign of a good conductor is one who knows how to make the most of their time in rehearsal, such that the orchestra can succeed in their performance, and still enjoy the rehearsal process)

A. Said that he thought that even there that a conductor was not necessary. He said that he thought that orchestras ought to be run through a democratic process, like the English parliament. "I think you should be louder here, I think I should be louder there" etc.

Now A. is an excellent musician, and also does Jazz. So this format would be very similar to how some jazz X-tets are run. However the X is usually 3-8 where as an orchestra can be 20-80 or even larger numbers. Oh! just imagine the rehearsals! It would be absolute chaos.

A. is also making I believe an assumption that the other musicians are as good musicians as he is. This is not a comment upon technical prowess, their ability to play well, but upon their musicality. I don't mean necessarily, their ability to "feel" the music, something that people I think confound the term musicality with frequently. But are they a good musician? Do they understand how music is constructed, how it works, and how best to demonstrate these attributes.

I would contend that in most orchestras that not every individual is a great musician, and of such a nature that collaboration for musical decisions would result in anything good at all. I think that in any orchestra that you will find a range of musicians, and as soon as everyone is not on an equal playing field I think that musical interpretation as a democratic process would fail.

Anyhow: funny how a snipit of conversation can spark your thoughts.

creative musicians?

I was pondering a project for a class that I am taking and deciding whether to do an analytical project or a creative one, when I had some troubling thoughts:
What could I possibly do that is creative? I'm not particularly creative....but how could that be? I'm striving to be a musician! being creative is part of the whole allure...yes?

Well if you think about it a musician could get along without being creative at all. If you just do what everyone tells you to do you'll be fine.

of course of course there is more to music than notes that are put together.

but think about it. A musician learns a piece for notes. Then depending upon the piece you get another set of information from the composer, how is it to be played when? You go to a teacher, they explain what technically will make the piece wonderful. You go to a coach they tell you what specific emotions to place with the music...perhaps they ask you to come up with what you think the emotions should be. Finally it is the musician's job to take all of these directions and perform. Notes, language, history, emotion all of these things are wrapped up in a performance, but is creativity?

So is emoting on stage an art? Is creating a sublime integration of what you know about the piece for the performance creativity?

I once told someone that a singer can move you even if they don't know what the piece is about. That part of performing is knowing how to move people.

I'm not sure that I really believe this, but there certainly can be artists that simply are able to be vessels of other people's creativity.

I like to think that the best, and the greatest musicians are tremendously creative. The most moving performances must come from a deeper well than years of coaching. Look at Yo-yo Ma. He is one of the musicians whom I respect the most. He is truly a musician and an artist. He is not simply a fabulous cellist but an innovative thinker who is interested in exploring and creating new music. Take a look at his diskology, there is tremendous depth and variation. He is not afraid to go and explore a music that he has no familiarity with, he does not simply stick with "what has worked" but pushes at the boundaries.

In conclusion I love Yo-Yo Ma

musicians and their labor

“Of course filmmaking takes energy, but at least I’m not doing alienated labor.” R.W. Fassbinder


For a couple of weeks I've been mulling over a question that my friends father asked me. This was do musicians think of themselves as regular laborers. My initial response was well no, because they are creating art.

But this wasn't really satisfactory, I mean certainly it seemed to be true, yet one could imagine a situation in which an individual played an instrument...let's say the oboe, showed up everyday, played the notes in front of them and then went home. In fact I imagine that this actually is the case in some circumstances.

What defines a musician for me is someone who always strive to make music, who are actively engaged with their work, as Fassbinder alludes to not alienated from their work. Here in lies the difference between an artisan....and well a brickaleur (I think a brickaleur might be an artisan as well, I really just wanted to write brickaleur) more aptly put someone working on a manufacturing line straightening wire for pins....if we lived say 300 years ago, or you know when Adam Smith lived, whenever that was... whatever my point still stands.

So can a musician be alienated from their work? I would argue yes, but if they are they were not approaching the situation as a artisan or true musician would. What creates the difference is the effort and care that is put into an item. One does not look at a pin and say, I sharpened the point of that pin, however one does look at a performance with a personal investment. Despite how much we musicians try to avoid it, and say that we create music for ourselves, and the music making process is mostly outside of performance and therein lies the most important part of music, the judgement of a performance weighs on a performer.

anyhow, perhaps I'll rehash this when I have a better head on my shoulders.

performance practice

There is in recent scholarship a great concern with authenticity in performance practice.
Some of the most changes have been made to the way in which we perform Bach’s works. The performance ensembles have been trimmed down from the over-grown Romantic orchestras that were performing this music in the early part of the twentieth century to a smaller, more authentic, lithe ensemble.
There is quite a bit of contention over Bach’s greater works, we will specifically look at his B minor mass. First we have analysis of Bach’s original intentions based upon the number of parts copied for the first performance. This concludes that the pieces were performed with one vocalist using each score, and we can from this determine the number of performers singing at the original performance.
Bach drew his choirs from his pupils at St. Thomas, in his Entwurff , or ‘draft’ he lists all his students and their abilities. He concludes that he has only 17 students suitable for his Cantatas, (Rifkin 750) two of whom would have conducting responsibilities as prefects, there were always a number of boys who had to play instruments to fill out the orchestra, and of course someone was always sick or out of town. This would leave they choir with about two boys for each part. This was not unusual as the term choir at this point was frequently used to refer to a group of soloists. From the number of copies of the B minor Mass and the manner in which the parts split off for soloists, Rifkin concludes that there were probably meant to be sung by soloists “When pitted against an ensemble of the proper size and proper instruments”, not by 12 voices as others had concluded as this would create “a grotesque imbalance between the upper and lower voices.” (Rifkin 754).
A different conclusion was drawn by another as to the original number of performers. His conclusions are based not on the number of original performance scores, rather from the Entwurff. He says that there are normally two or three to a part, but “it would be better if there were four singers to a part.” (Marshall 21). We have here a distinct discrepancy between the number of singers available, and the number of singers desirable. The argument continues that it is preposterous to think that only one performer sang from each part written out. There was barely time to copy the desired articulation into the score, let alone more complete copies than absolutely necessary. We must conclude that more than one performer used each score.
When one steps back from these articles for a moment, one realizes that the difference between two people on each part, versus three or four makes what appears to be quite a small difference in the overall texture of the piece. If the B minor mass was indeed performed with soloists all the way through however, there would be a noticeable difference. The question is of course how should we take this into account for performances today.
I ultimately enjoy both perfomances by large choirs and soloists equally. I think that both can be masterfully done, and give good musical interpretation to the piece. This is what matters the most in performance, good musicality. This good musicality is derived from the decisions of the directors, and one condition that should come into consideration is the authenticity. One should not perform a piece in a certain fashion merely because this is how it has been performed as long as we have had recordings to allow us to document how past performances were done. We frequently make the mistake of assuming that the way in which our earliest recordings were executed are the culmination of years of ‘good’ and unchanged performance practice. This of course can in no way be the case. As such it is important to research and consider what were the composer’s original intentions when creating a piece.
The danger that this research leads to is the idea of infallibility in the composer’s intentions, and of course, misunderstanding the composer’s circumstances for his intentions. It is important to take into consideration the original circumstances of the performance, but one must make good musical decisions from this and other factors. While I enjoy listening to the solo recording, as a performer I feel that I would prefer to be part of a larger performance. The B minor mass is a tremendous work with instrument-like vocal lines that pose trouble for individual phrasing, not to mention the danger of fatigue. Therefore the decision to use soloists must be based upon the performers that one has. One must also take into consideration the type of sound they desire for the performance: perhaps one wants the lithe sound of soloists and a small orchestra, or perhaps one wants the grand sound of a larger choir and orchestra. Ultimately this is all research that ought to be done, as it leads to better informed performances, but authenticity does not guarantee a good performance, careful consideration and musicality does.

Adorno

I'm not allowed to agree with him...but man, what a badass...
I mean who else can get away with stating that Jazz is a static uninteresing form of music who's players are compared to castrati?
eunich like sound?
and watch out success (like in indie rock) is emasculating...

um more on this later?