Dear Critic,

I am glad you are interested in creating problems for the Composer.  The last thing we want is for him to have something to offer to the world.  There are many ways to prevent the Composer from writing and this is what you must learn to do.  In this letter I would like to discuss an important way to become a stumbling block to the Composer.

The goal is to make it impossible for the Composer to enjoy his work.  There are two approaches you can take in order to achieve this goal. First, make the Composer crave achievements and recognition. It is often easy to do this with musicians. We would hate for him to stop thinking about himself and focus on how his music can actually be a blessing to others.  It is also possible that he becomes so addicted to success that it drives him to break rules and standards he once honored. He may even hold so tight to his reputation that he ends up losing it.  These are all good things.

The second way to kill his joy is to make him feel as though he is not good enough.  Every morning whisper in his ear that he is not capable of writing good music and remind him of all his past failures. Remind him of anything that makes him feel insecure. Fear has a great way of helping him make poor decisions.  Sometimes it will drive him to not write at all. Sometimes it will cause what he calls “writer’s block”.  Other times this fear will make the process of writing so miserable that he ends up writing music he hates. Any of these scenarios are victories. Remember, you must prevent him from writing music that comes from his true self.

Lastly, make sure you hide carefully so you are never known. If the Composer realizes you exist, you may lose all your power.

Sincerely,

Stumbling Block

—–

The above letter is written from an enemy who is encouraging your inner critic. This inner critic is the part of yourself that is in bondage. The part that will not let you be free to do well. I do believe there is a way to break free from this person, but sometimes just knowing he exists is helpful. Learning how to handle fear can be a liberating experience.

It is important to leave room for doubts and criticism.  These are good and necessary for growth to occur.  However, if doubts tend to overwhelm you then realizing that you have an inner critic might be the first step to freedom.

 

Recently, I have been doing a bit of research into the great Greek/French composer Iannis Xenakis (1922-2001) and have fallen in love with the sounds and methods he used in the mid 20th century. One of the most useful inventions of Xenakis’ that I have found is the UPIC (Unité Polyagogique Informatique du CEMAMu) created in Paris in 1977.

The original device was a large board of light sensors connected to a computer system. This board was used to directly input graphics into the computer so that they could be synthesized into sound. Using a light pen, the composer draws anything from the level of an individual waveform to a whole musical composition and can even set the machine up for immediate playback.

One of the more wonderful things about this type of composition is its accessibility. I don’t know if any of you have attempted to read Xenakis’ “Formalized Music,” but it gets pretty involved in the math that he used (Xenakis was also an accomplished architect). UPIC brings the sounds of Xenakis to a level that anyone can work with. In fact, the UPIC was used to reach out to young children and get them interested in musical creativity. Anyone that can draw can get a meaningful result from this graphic system. Even the simplest pictures can be translated into interesting sounds.

While the large scale UPIC table is not readily available to most of us, there have been several attempts to create software that accomplishes the same tasks. What I have been using, and has been working very well for me so far, is the program HighC created by Dr. Thomas Baudel. Dr. Baudel has done the leg work in creating software that includes many of the synthesis ideas of Xenakis while giving us a friendly user interface that is as easy for a kindergartener to use as it is for a college student.

The interface for HighC is a lot like the Paint accessory that comes on a PC, and waveforms can be chosen from a menu and color coded according to the composer’s preference. Time is a variable that can be a little confusing to get right with this program, since it is set to conventional meters and beats per minute. I did, however, find it fairly easy to set the timescale to seconds, which makes more sense when working with free sounds over larger timescales. The samples on the website offer some good examples of what the software can do, but are not very involved as far as compositional ideas or structure. Of course, the deeper you get into the sounds and software, the more intellectually gratifying the results can become.

A cool effect of working with graphics to create sound is the possible acquisition of slight synesthesia. When you can draw a picture of a mountain, tree, or river and have it translated into sound, it can be possible to “hear” the sounds of the objects you see every day. Not that everyone will necessarily hear what they see, but it is pretty cool that people can be trained to connect sight and sound in such a different way.

The original piece created graphically with UPIC was Xenakis’ “Mycenae Alpha” (1978). I have posted the link for your listening/viewing pleasure. Enjoy!

Mycenae Alpha on YouTube

 

 

Hi everyone.

I want to ask you something.
Are you a composer? Then how do you compose?
Are you not a composer? Then how do you think all the composers in the world compose?

If you have a few minutes to spare, I would like to ask you to leave your response in the comment section below.
I am very interested in knowing how you compose (or how you think composers compose) because every composer has her/his own way and each can be unique.

To be fair, I will share my composing method first.

First of all, I know that many of my composer and musician friends probably think that all I do, in order to compose, is to drink beer while watching Star Trek episodes on TV, and by end of the week I have a piece of music composed.

I am sorry to break the news, but that is not how it is done. Not even close (although this method helps when I am trying to come up with a title for a piece).

The following is the typical compositional process I go through:

First, I think about a musical idea. I mean I really think about it—melodic idea, rhythmic idea, instrumentation, chord progression, harmony, whatever.

It usually happens when I am driving, walking, and reading textbooks (therefore I usually do not remember what I read). I think about what to write whenever I have a chance to.

I have heard people (composers of course) saying, “we should compose everyday,” and I agree.

But I do not think we should spend hours pounding the keys on a piano, or wasting ink on staff paper everyday. “Thinking” itself is a very important part of composing. In fact, I would say that 1/3 of my composing time is used for just “thinking,” (and 2/3 for actual writing, editing, maybe rehearsing, and then fixing). I often have a stream of ideas bouncing around in my head. Sometimes it is easy, but some other times it is very difficult to isolate and construct the “good idea(s).” Once I think I have a good idea (or ideas), I let it sink in or float around my mind, and see if it sticks with me. If I, the composer, cannot remember what it was, it probably lacks character or power to stay with (or even reach) the audience. If people leave the concert without remembering even a part of the piece, it is not a good piece of music, in my opinion (although sometimes the ones that stick with you are not necessarily good ones). Therefore, I try to gage the “character” and “power” of the idea before I write it down. A Sort of screening, I guess.

Once I think I have a good (“strong” enough to pass the screening) idea or two to begin with, I start the actual writing part. I would say I use paper and the computer (Finale) equally for sketching to visualize what I have been hearing in my head, and, of course, to hear what it really sounds like. Even if it seemed (sounded) like a good idea in my head, I cannot know for sure if it really is good until I get to hear it out loud. I either try it on my guitar or Finale depending on my mood, and the nature of the piece I am going to write. I will play around with the idea for a while until I shape it in the way I really like, or as close as I can get to what I heard in my head originally. If the idea turns out not as good as I thought it would be, or I cannot develop anything out of it, I try to go back to the very beginning of the process, “The Thinking,” and try to come up with something better.

I suppose some of you may have been shocked to see the word guitar instead of piano.

I am aware that the most common belief, or stereotype, is that, “a real composer write with a piano (on staff paper), and the ones who do not should change their ways.” I often see that some of those who write using a piano push the idea on the ones who do not.

I respectfully disagree. Moreover, honestly, I would say, “who cares how it is done as long as it works.”

To me, the piano is, as a compositional tool, just a huge wooden box with a bunch of keys that make too much noise, and as a result I forget what it was I originally had in my mind. My lacking of piano skills does not help, but truthfully, I can visualize my music through guitar so much better, or should I say it comes out naturally like it is an extension of my body and mind. Melody, harmony, rhythm, and so on, I can grasp whatever musical idea I have so much better on guitar. Perhaps, it is the only way I can actually materialize my idea to its full potential as a form of music. It is most likely because I was a guitarist first and then became a composer.

Anyways, all I am saying is that the choice of instrument (as a compositional device) should be up to the composer. Marimba, harp, vibraphone, banjo, etc. – as long as it is a multiphonic instrument, one should be allowed to pick whatever s/he feels most natural with.  One may argue that the piano can cover a wider range than guitar. Yes, that is true, but (1) I have a bass guitar that can cover the low range that guitar cannot, and (2) I do not like writing music that goes too high anymore because it hurts my ears. If you only know how to play the instruments that can play a note a time (without using an extended technique) such as flute, trumpet, saxophone, and so on, don’t worry, there are such things called notation programs like Finale, as I mentioned before. The program will play as many notes as you want at the same time.

There is so much more I can say about “compositional devices” but it would take up another blog or two, so I will leave it there and let’s have someone else tackle that subject.

So, after I am done with trying and sketching, I start notating the music on my computer by using Finale. At this point, I may or may not have a clear idea how every part of the piece sounds like, but if I succeeded this far, it is just a matter of time. I may change or add things as I go. If I am not sure about the change or new ideas, I try them on my guitar or play around with them on Finale; again it depends on my mood or the nature of the piece. This part of the process usually goes very fast. And I spend extended amounts of time for editing—notation, dynamics, articulations, margins, spaces, etc. One thing all the composers can agree is that this is a “never ending story.” You can fix one thing, then you find another. You can adjust something, then something else looks funny. You can bring the music into rehearsal, then you realize that the transposition was wrong or the notes are unplayable for the particular instrument. These are some examples of this never-ending editing process. At some point (usually it is called THE DEAD LINE) we have to call it quits and hope for the best. You can always revise your music later if you want to.

This is pretty much how I compose.

Whether it was something you expected to see or something completely off, I hope you enjoyed reading about my daily activities. And I also hope that you will be more accepting toward non-piano-using composers, especially the ones who use guitar, and the ones from Japan.

 

 

 

 

V.S.

 

 

Relating to the previous post about music notation, one must write music based on the chosen notation by hand or by computer. Writing by hand and writing by music notation software has been a debate for quite some time.

Writing music by hand has been used since perhaps before the Renaissance period, and many great composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, and many more have written by hand. Throughout most of the history of music, composing by hand was the norm for composers. Then during the post World War II era, many composers experimented with electronic music. Although electronic music was made through splices, loops, and other techniques, the outlines that were used by composer s were written by hand.

30 years ago, there was a new method for writing music, music notation software such as Sibelius and Finale. The purpose for both of these programs were to facilitate the process of composing much faster as well as making professional-looking scores than by hand.

Last year, David Maslanka, who judged last year’s Honors Competition, suggested in one of his comments that everyone should get away from their computer and try to write by hand. At the time, I was not sure how to approach writing music by hand since I started composing using Finale 2006 during my high school years. So I did some research: (before I go any further, this blog is not intended to show any favoritism towards a specific method of composing but rather it is intended to give you an idea of the benefits and cons of both methods).

Composing by hand

There are many benefits to composing by hand. One of them is flexibility. Although you can not control how your staves look, you can add any marking just the way you want it, such as adding aleatoric boxes, customizing time signatures, omitting barlines…anything really! In addition, Sibelius/Finale contain a lot of tools that you can use to write music that can attempt to make the same markings as the ones done by hand.

One benefit, in my opinion, to composing by hand is the lack of distractions to writing. Sibelius and Finale are amazing in so many levels, but there are too many options for the composer to choose, and sometimes they make composing much more complicated than it should. By hand, the composer can focus a lot more on only the ACTUAL composing part of the process. As far as how to hear your music, you can either play your music on a piano, play it on your instrument (if possible), or you can give it to a musician who would be willing to check your music out.

One of the cons for this method is the editing process. Since you are writing in pencil, you will be erasing literally all the time. In fact, time is a big problem when writing by hand. When comparing Sibelius/Finale to hand, it could take about 10 minutes or less to write 10 measures on finale where it could take about 20 minutes, or more to write 10 measures by hand.

Composing using Sibelius/Finale

One of the benefits of using music notation software is the large assessment of tools that a composer can use. They are quite accessible and easy to use. In addition, they are a great way to make music scores look professional (as long as you know what you are doing). You can also change the size of the paper, score, everything in the music with a couple clicks. In addition, you can erase and edit in a short amount of time (even though it still takes forever to edit).

The main problem with music notation software is the playback. I can imagine that many of you reading this are thinking “But that’s the best part of Finale! I do not need to play any instruments. I don’t need to listen to a band. I don’t even need to think! I just sit back and enjoy the sweet sounds of video game music right in my ears.” I can not emphasis this fact any more: the playback will disorient the natural sounds and capabilities of the instrument, therefore the composer will assume that if the particular motive sounds good on the computer, then it will sound amazing in person. In other words, it’s not real!

In addition, every composer here at Michigan State University will agree with me when I say that MIDI playback does not sound good at all. MIDI, along with other sound libraries, can deceive your ears by making music sound either disturbing, or somewhat decent. The point is that these sound libraries, such as GPO4 and COMB2, try to recreate the actual sounds of a live ensemble to help the user hear how his/her music will sound in person, yet even if they sound exactly like an authentic Saxophone, it will never match a live instrument.

Another problem are the tools used in these programs. I might be contradicting myself here, but the available tools on Finale/Sibelius are amazing: convenient and easy, but it is very easy for someone to get distracted by these tools and not pay attention to the realistic results to the real musicians. That is why so many young composers’ sound so fragmented. You have so many options to work with, along with playback, that when you hear a motive that sounds so epic, there is a chance that you will use that motive regardless of what else is going on in the piece.

To sum up, both methods are great for different purposes. I recommend composers to start writing by hand, and then when you are about 2/3s or finished with the piece, add your music onto a music notation program in order to make your composition look like a professional product.

 

Once upon a time, standard music notation looked like this:

…I can’t really read that.  Can you?  I think I see Es, a G, a C…but I have no idea how fast they are meant to be.  How loud they should be.  I’m assuming this is for voices?  And don’t even get me started on the stuff around the notes.  No clue.

In the same way that English once didn’t have the letter “i” and dancers hadn’t yet invented the Fouetté en tournant, music was communicated in a form that we as college musicians would be unable to decipher today. The non-translatable language of music has developed over the centuries into what we recognize in Finale and Sibelius files. But just as many English scholars shudder at the word “bling” now flaunting itself in the dictionary, there are composers who cringe at the limits of Western music notation.  My question is: Are we on the right track in our linguistic evolution of musical communication?  Is there a better way to communicate our thoughts?

Notation is a representation —not music.  I think we can all agree that no music exists in those little black and white scratches on our beloved scores until it is heard, just as no story exists in merely printed words until it is read. However, those representative directions are often misleading.  We’ve all had the experience of carefully notating a score, taking it to a performer, listening to it read, then saying, “Actually, can you play it like this?”  While the performer responds, “Sure, but that’s not what’s notated.”

So where is the disconnect?

If I were to start a story with—Little Sally bounced down the sidewalk toward the bright yellow school bus, her little pink backpack flopping around on her bony shoulders—you would have a relatively good picture in your mind of what I’m trying to say.  What if, instead, I said this:

If you are blessed with perfect pitch, you hear the notes.  But that’s about it.  Can you hear the way it came to me from my muse?  Can you hear the sway and dip and heart and emotion in it?  Do you know its character from looking at this?  Nope.

Set aside that this little ditty has no dynamic markings, no tempo marking, no articulations—we don’t even know what instrument or voice it’s for. But even if we had access to all those elements —what would it tell us? How do we communicate to the performer about its musicality? Something as simple as adding an accent—how accented is it meant to be? Why was that accent put there? How loud is forte? How legato is this slur over here? None of us can answer these questions without specific verbal instruction, and we are the ones notating!

The question of communicative disassociation in Western notation has bothered composers for far longer than I’ve been alive, and many have sought ways out of the straightjacket of modern notation. Most of you are probably familiar with this score by George Crumb:


Again, I can’t read it, but I can come to some conclusions just looking at it. Knowing nothing about this score, I see circular motion. Maybe the harmonic evolution moves around the circle of 5ths until it returns to the original key (though knowing Crumb, I doubt it). Maybe the piece is meant to be a journey around the circle with little deviations into the inner material. It sort of looks like a Peace sign, doesn’t it? Ah! Here we land on the correct answer. Even if I could not read music, even if I did not know the title, I would have some idea as to the composer’s inspiration. You and I know the movement is called Agnus Dei—Capricorn, and that there is religious significance. Had Crumb notated this in traditional Western notation, would its character be altered in the mind of the performer? I don’t know. I know I look at it differently. Should we be going in this direction?

It all boils down to the act of music-making itself, which is usually not completed by one lone musician. As composers, we hear this elusive phantasm in our minds that we try so desperately to capture from its birthplace of illusion. We then twist, flatten, and puncture it into a language our tiny human minds can comprehend, but only just. Don’t misunderstand me—it’s good that we seek out ways to communicate music. It’s good that notation evolves and changes and sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. It’s good to go to performers and have them correct our representations of percussion rim shots and string harmonics.

We are the composers. We hear music. We have an insatiable urge to write it down in whatever limited symbolism we can. But we should never stop trying ways to do it better.

There has been a light buzzing above me as I write that I’ve been trying to figure out how to notate. Let’s go figure it out.

 

One last thing before I go…

These videos are from a concert presented by the composition area on 19 April 2011 called Music + Theater. It included four works, three by graduate student composers, one by a faculty composer, that all dealt in some way with the intersection between music and theater. Enjoy!
 

 

 

Sam Merciers presented a film on the program as well, but I thought it would be a bit silly to show the video from the camera pointed at the screen. Sam, if you read this, feel free to embed your video in this post.

 

There is more music being written today than ever before. Anyone that owns a computer has access to sound manipulating technology and an outlet for their work. In this expanding creative world, it is a mistake to say that music is reaching or will reach its maximum potential value without it being heard by the public. Value is measured less by the ingenuity or challenging nature of a work than by whom the music influences and how it lives past the premier performance. This should not be taken to mean that music composed in an “ivory tower” institution has no merit or value. On the contrary, music composed using new and cutting edge techniques is extremely important and has influence throughout the musical field.

Unfortunately, public perception of new music coming out of universities and conservatories is generally negative, in large part due to the argument that an audience is not necessary for performances of new pieces. The modern audience has been alienated by an attitude of superiority or elitism from within institutions and attendance at new music performances has plummeted in recent decades. New music in any genre should be able to connect with an audience outside of the group that created it in order to create and maintain a healthy, viable musical atmosphere. It is possible to create an appreciative audience without sacrificing musical integrity and it is beneficial to the composer for a wider audience to hear his or her work.

Proponents of an isolated approach to new music cite the autonomy of each new work as a virtue and claim that the unique sound of each piece is indicative of a developing specificity in musical vocabulary. Some argue that the ability to hear and appreciate this type of music is gained only through study and an ability to immediately recognize continuities not based on obvious or assumable generalities resulting from the form. Music, however, is always produced in relation to the continuum of already created pieces. A work will always relate, in some way, to processes, techniques, and sounds that have come before it. The relationship can include anything from stylistic similarities, harmonic or melodic conventions, and/or the use of form but can also arise from a willful departure from established practices. Nothing can be called different, similar, new, or old unless it is compared directly with what came before it.

There is a large audience that is familiar in many ways with aspects of music historical progression. A basic knowledge is usually present or can be easily provided to the public in order to give new music context. Instead of an audience member feeling that he or she cannot understand the ideas being presented in modern music, it would be better to provide a basic understanding of the underlying principles or the overall ideas that tie a work together through a brief explanation or program notes. Giving the audience an idea of what to listen for in a piece of music often allows them to appreciate the work and can deter them from joining the ranks of fastidious opponents to new musical expression. Sometimes a brief word about the techniques used or the original inspiration for a piece is enough to give a listener grounding from which to appreciate what he or she is hearing. Modern composers should be able to create an appreciative audience by providing a context for their works, just as Romantic and later composers created programatic titles and stories to guide the listener’s perceptions. It is at least this minimal context that will allow the public to build a deeper understanding of what the composer is trying to say through his or her music.

The modern composer should not accept that his or her work is destined to be heard only in closed academic circles. This existence is death for new music and results in many isolated pockets of innovation that go nowhere. It is far more meaningful and valuable for composers to work toward a wider audience that will become receptive to new sounds. The modern composer must learn to think of himself/herself as an educator in service of the public in order to foster a community of creative discourse that will reverse what many see today as the death of the classically trained composer. There is no cause to lose compositional integrity or complexity in order to gain an audience. Audience members are capable of learning to appreciate new music if the composer is willing to provide the necessary context in which they can listen to the work. Nothing exists outside of the continuum of musical experience and it is the job of the contemporary composer to ground the contemporary listener in the time-line. Once a person has context for new sounds, he or she can begin to understand what is being heard and appreciate the art and language being used.

This was adapted from a paper written for a class. Sorry if it sounds a little stuffy.

 

If you like the idea of writing/listening to new music for world percussion, you should check out the Mid-Michigan percussion duo to hit. The duo reflect the globalized culture they live in, performing on instruments typical in western music (like the marimba) along with world percussion instruments such as tabla, mbira, kalimba, riq, and frame drum. They have some great resources on their website for composers interested in writing for those instruments, and are actively seeking new music and promoting new works.

And now for a shameless plug: they’ll be premiering second drift, for marimba and amplified mbira, in my composition recital next Thursday, April 21, 6 PM, at the RCAH Theatre in Snyder/Phillips. The challenges of writing for mbira (tuning, key layout) pushed me to approach the compositional process in different ways, which was a good thing. If you’re interested, I wrote a little more on that in my blog. I find the instrumental combination of marimba and mbira highly satisfying with a wide expressive range and many timbrel possibilities. I’m surprised there aren’t a lot of pieces out there for this combination. I asked a question about notation in rehearsal that went something like, “Is mbira typically notated like this?” They chuckled. Turns out mbira typically isn’t notated, in a Western sense. That’s exciting to me. That tells me there’s a lot of room to compose for instruments in ways that haven’t been done before, blending traditions and sounds to reflect who we are and where we live. World fusion bands have been doing that for a while now, even here in East Lansing

Along those lines, I’ve been wondering if the demise of the orchestra — a popular topic of late – is due to the cultural disconnect between performers and audience. When the orchestra ceases to reflect who we are, do we cease to care to sustain it? If the orchestra acknowledged a more global culture (with sincere artistic expression, not as a gimmic), would they rediscover their audience? Nate Bliton recently demonstrated the success of invented world/folk music, and when the guy in the audience next to me admitted to really enjoying it even though he was “not musically trained,” I got even more interested. Some MSU composers are already working with ideas like this; off the top of my head I know Dave MacDonald recently wrote a concerto for steel pan and wind ensemble, and Alex Kreger has a band called Moyindau that explores “the relationship of Central Asian music to jazz, contemporary classical, rock and improvised music.” MSU also has a really fun salsa band that appeared recently on Jon Weber’s recital, and students showed up to my lab the next day still excited and talking about how great it was. Maybe it’s stuff like this that can help bring back energy to the orchestra scene.

 

The Saavy Musician has some interesting ideas for orchestras in this post.

 

When asked, “Why is the audience for classical music dwindling?” I can think of a plethora of reasons ranging from the longevity of performances to the uncool-ness factor (a notion I frequently regard as bunk). There seems to be plenty of blame to go around and, whether it’s bad PR or simple disinterest, it is a problem in need of serious tackling if the culture of art music is to evolve and flourish. In response to this, I’ve come up with a simple equation that puts this disconnect in perspective:

Orchestra + Tuxedo = Novelty

The orchestra has become a relic that few appreciate and even fewer understand. To be honest, I can sympathize with people who find it a bore. There is nothing more intimately detaching than watching the conductor and players of an ensemble perform in encumbering cummerbunds and dresses handed down from the Shaker community. These tuxedos and evening gowns quash individuality in a time when we’ve never seen so many soloistic elements in pieces written for large ensembles. I couldn’t care less if a violinist in the third row is wearing a different shirt than his/her stand partner. For all of their new marketing approaches and community outreach programs, orchestras are still clinging to a tradition that has outlived its appeal and usefulness.

This, of course, isn’t without exception. Many, if not most, new music ensembles and chamber groups have adopted a dress code that conveys a touch of class with a more relaxed and inviting aura. Ensembles such as Eighth Blackbird and Alarm Will Sound have taken the smart approach and adopted the “concert casual” style to great fanfare. Everything about the stage presence of these kinds of groups screams, “Talk to us! Get to know us!” The innovative ensembles of today have managed to shed the traditional ideas of class and have taken a hard look at art music and its public perception. Image is a big player in determining how successful an organization is and if the professional orchestras are hoping to draw a younger crowd they would be wise to get on board (Gustavo Dudamel’s hair will only dazzle me for a maximum of 10 minutes). Speaking of which, youth orchestras in Venezuela are capitalizing on the idea of concert casual. Now, I’m not necessarily a fan of the Hugo Chávez tracksuit, but Dudamel and these kids know how to engage a crowd. Why not apply this idea to a broader range of professional large ensembles? Even though formal concert black is a staple of the orchestra world, the virtue of its tradition is highly overrated.

Anyone who has played in a large ensemble will tell you how tense and uncomfortable it can be to perform in formal dress. Being a trombone player, I can, without hesitation, confirm that the range of motion for my right arm is noticeably diminished when wearing a tuxedo jacket. Even the bow tie comes across as restrictive to the air column for wind players. In addition, the bright lights piercing down on the stage combined with a lot of black wool makes those humid Florida “vacations” look like a 6-month residency in an Antarctic research station. There may still be a few concertgoers out there saying, “But I like the atmosphere as it is now. There’s something about it that makes me feel like I’m seeing something fantastic.” Perhaps you are seeing something fantastic, however, that “something” is causing what you love to crumble bit by bit, year by year. It would serve us well to sex-up the orchestra a little and make it more appealing to people who might possibly be swayed into becoming fans of classical music (potentially, everyone). Even for those of us who already are connoisseurs, it would show us how the art music world can adapt and, dare I say, thrive.

© 2012 Michigan State University Music Composition Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha