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.

 

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.

 

I am a student of juggling distractions (or activities, depending on your attitude), with life, people, projects, and different stages of school and employment.  Through all these things, and all my different directions, I have always been writing music.  However, I’ve found that my reasons for writing, and my attitudes toward my compositional output have changed more than I would have thought possible.  Of course, I never thought I would be writing music for this long, but that’s for another post.

When I first started writing, it was purely to see how different combinations of notes in a MIDI sequencer could sound.  Then it was to have things I could show off to friends and family.  Then it was to have for the ensembles I was playing with, because I had promised them I would.  Then it was for my professors in college, because I was interested in what they would think of my answers to their questions.  After undergrad, it was for fun, writing things to play with friends.  Now it is a mix of all these things, but mostly because I like it again, and want to push myself.  So, I wonder…

Do you make music to explore the world, or to explore your room?
To make friends?
To distinguish yourself from them?
To have something to listen to?
To have something to play?
Which do you like better:  the shapes on the paper, or the shapes in the air?
Are instruments as beautiful as the sounds they make?  As beautiful as the people playing them?
Where do you draw the line between a study and something that is not an academic product?
Where do you draw the line between a person and the music that they make?
What are the differences between making music and making furniture?

 

Education – the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.

Art – the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Aesthetics – the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.

(Definitions taken from dictionary.com)

It is difficult to assess value to something that doesn’t seem to have practical value in everyday life. However, when an object or activity is held dearly by those closest to us, we have no choice but to either accept or seek to understand its value. Many times we simply choose to accept that someone values something apparently useless, but when cost or time become an issue, practical value must be evaluated. If it can be spared for the sake of continuing the livelihood of an individual or an organization, then it is eliminated. But one must be very careful since some very important things have no obvious value.

In our educational institutions, music is one of those very expensive things with little obvious value. It’s a good thing to have around, but if it gets in the way of physical discipline, academic achievement, or recreational activities, it is dropped. The question that we must ask is, “How much value is there in art education, and does this value justify the neglect of funding sports, clubs, advanced sciences, or field trips?”

In order to begin to address this issue, I must pause to clarify the difference between art education and aesthetic education. It is the same difference as between the light bulb and our vision; construction and use. Art education teaches how to create a subject that can communicate to another person. Aesthetic is the cumulative effect on a person’s perception that is generated from every component of the art. Aesthetic education is the most important part of the arts because it is the part that carries over into all other facets of life since it teaches us how to observe and make new connections.

Creating art requires enormous amounts of time, effort, and–in the case of music–money. Art education can therefore seem like an expensive waste of time and effort since it has little obvious practical value. But many people love it dearly and they convince the people who don’t understand it to not let it die. But what happens when funding is not available? What happens when a person’s time is limited? Do we let it slip from the educational experience? If given a choice between science and music, what would we choose? Why are most of you jumping to the obvious choice? I suppose it is true that understanding the physical world is more important than putting on a Christmas concert isn’t it…

Can’t a compromise be reached? What about art appreciation classes that don’t require that expensive and time consuming creative act? Can we teach aesthetics without teaching art? The problem is that students must create art in order to learn how to observe it because the most basic way of learning how to observe anything is to create it. Taste is enhanced by cooking, watching sports by playing them, shuttle launches by playing with tube rockets. Observation is always more effective when you know a little about how it’s done. Therefore it is safe to conclude that the most effective form of aesthetic education is art education. It is ineffective to sit through a lecture about how to observe art when we have not produced it. Just as you can’t teach students to read without ever teaching them to write, so you can’t teach students to observe without teaching them to create. So then, the first step in aesthetic education is art education.

Why is education important? In high school, I supposed that it was because I needed to know about the Korean war and how to solve a quadratic equation. But I have since forgotten most of the details of both and have still been able to get jobs and continue on to graduate studies. Obviously that information has not been necessary for my contribution to society. Education is apparently not for filling our heads with facts that we will use throughout out lives, but rather to expose us to large concepts and realities that will help us to continue learning throughout our lives.

Now, why is aesthetic education important? Education is learning to learn, but we learn details we won’t remember simply because the only way to become an efficient learner is to practice learning various subjects. But how does one begin to practice learning when they haven’t leaned how to engage their minds in something that isn’t tangible until the mind brings it into the learner’s imagination? What is art education? Is it not making something intangible a reality? Is art not therefore in the center of learning to learn? Is not art/aesthetic education leaning to observe? Learning takes place through observing, so if we never learn to observe we can never learn. Art education teaches to observe. Art education is education.

For imaginative and intuitive students, aesthetic education is the key to a lifetime of learning. Omit this, and you not only omit a major purpose of the educational institutions, but you omit a vital part of many student’s education (maybe for all students). So then, science or art? Simply, yes.

 

Dr. Lorenz visited to talk about the premiere (last week) of his new viola concerto, Canciones de Jara, performed by Roberto Diáz and the MSU Symphony Orchestra. He discussed the complicated relationship between the U.S. and Latin America.

He shared a short film called 9-11/9-11 by Mel Chin, who he met at the MacDowell Colony. The film tells parallel stories about the military coup d’etat in Chile in the twentieth century and the World Trade Center attack in the twenty-first. It links them in a long cycle of cultural violence.

At MacDowell, Lorenz found many of the artists creating works that were critical of the culture, contemporary politics, and social issues. They seemed unaware of and uninterested in “classical” music. “There’s room to make statements and connect to individuals in classical music…It is grounded on very powerful events that affected me when I was growing up and still affect me.”

Lorenz has observed a growing number of students interested in studying film music. He thinks this could be because film music is more present in our society. He is still confident however, that the kinds of specific artistic principles that can be conveyed in film can still be effectively presented in art music that does not include images or text.

composer Ricardo Lorenz and violist Roberto Diáz

“I was playing a double game,” Lorenz says. Canciones de Jara is a statement (about violence, terrorism, and politics) while remaining a concerto. Audiences who know nothing of the Victor Jara’s songs, the source of the musical materials in the piece, can still experience Canciones de Jara as a viola concerto.

After Dr. Lorenz’s remarks, we had a class discussion about music’s ability to convey empathy. Specifically, we talked about some of the specific sounds Lorenz used in the concerto: a siren, a person talking through a megaphone, and a guitar, itself amplified by a megaphone. To conclude, we listened to excerpts from the recorded premiere.

 

We talked in studio last week about domain-specific creativity and the possibility of extracting general ideas from those specific activities, ultimately translating the ideas to divergent disciplines through networking. Incidentally, I’ve been watching a few dance films lately, specifically studying how the addition of the camera revolutionizes the relationship between audience and performer. Traditionally in a live setting, a dance might be seen only from certain angles, with some distance necessarily present between audience and performers. In the dance film genre, the camera allows for any and all spatial relationships, which (with some editing) may shift constantly or employ special effects like slow motion or time lapse. In the dance film Amelia, performed by Canadian company La La La Human Steps, the camera not only zooms in for close-ups on eye movements and facial expressions, it also swirls around the dancers as if it were a dancer too. These moments of close-up action are contrasted with distant camera shots from far above or from the opposite side of the room. The audience is in and around the dance in a way that would be impossible live. The Amelia score is composed by David Lang, adjunct composition professor at Yale and 2008 Pulitzer Prize winner. Something I enjoy about the music is how Lang pairs minimalism a la Arvo Pärt and Steve Reich with lyrics from some of Lou Reed’s songs written for Velvet Underground. Although Phillip Scott of Fanfare magazine sums up the work as “abstract,” I think the cinematography and musical score of Amelia together succeed in being both profound and accessible.

What do dance films have to do with new music? I’m not sure yet. The camera allows the audience to be close—even uncomfortably close—to the performers and move around them, almost joining the performance. I equate that to a music performance situation in which traditional boundaries between performer and audience are blurred. Perhaps it means creating a situation where the audience is free to join in the performance, or maybe it means moving the performance out of the traditional context of the concert hall. I’m not assuming anyone is particularly interested in hearing a live performance of my music at the bus stop, but I would be interested to see how people respond. The “audience” in this setting has no obligation to stay and listen or even pay attention; they are free to encounter the art in any way they please. The Dresden Semperoper Ballet has taken works to the public at Potsdamer Platz in Berlin; here they are performing Johan Inger’s Empty House. Semperoper dancers made interesting use of the performance space too; in No Thumbs, they used the nearby escalators as a creative way to enter and exit. Actually, it was a multi-level-plus-escalators performance, since they continued dancing even as they reached the second level. Imagine if Hubbard Street Dance Chicago showed up at Water Tower Place and started dancing Jiří Kylián choreography. I’d like to be there if that happens.

One goal of this type of performance is to create an audience… by ambush. Along these lines, the group Improv Everywhere is pretty good at making a scene. Joshua Bell played in Union Station once, dressed like a typical guy, and didn’t get much notice. In contrast, when percussionist Evelyn Glennie played at Grand Central Station she drew a crowd. Maybe the difference is Bell had his violin case open for donations, and people felt uncomfortable giving money so they didn’t hang around. Or maybe it was the time of day and location. There are probably numerous factors affecting audience interest and involvement in this situation. In any case, the situation might be worth exploration. My point in all this is not to belittle traditional performance settings, but to consider what other performance situations might be possible. The dance film genre offers me a fresh perspective. I feel like the idea is there, but for now I’m lost in translation.

 

Attention! Studio class has moved to room 135, Music Building. Still at 2:30 on Fridays.

Notes:

The third Premieres concert of the semester will be December 7. We would like to work on doing something special with this particular concert to bring in a larger and more diverse audience. Some suggestions:

  • Use special media, collaborating with artists from Art, Theater, or Comm. Arts departments.
  • “24-hour concert” of pieces created in only 24 hours.
  • Writing for a specific ensemble or instrumental studio.
  • Repeating the concert at another venue:
    • RCAH Auditorium
    • SCENE Metrospace
    • Basement 414 in Lansing
  • Use a particular theme. Poetry and music? Dance?
  • Poetry
    • several pieces inspired by the same poem
    • performances of poems with music
    • improvised poems with improvised music

The most popular idea at the moment seems to be the poetry theme. We need to start planning some more specific pieces and collaborations. Let’s do that for the Dec. 7 concert. Phillip will be getting in contact with some slam poets to collaborate with on this concert. Perhaps we can do the film project in the spring?

Going around the room, introducing ourselves and discussing what we’re working on. (I’m not going to take all this down.)

The rest of this semester, we will, among other things, be inviting each member of the composition faculty back to discuss a particular work or current project of theirs. Dr. Lorenz has a premiere of a new work coming up soon for viola and orchestra based on the music of Victor Jara.

Composer Ricky Ian Gordon may be here sometime this semester or next. His visit will be sponsored and organized by the voice/opera department. There will be opportunities for private meetings/lessons. composer/songwriter Heather Maxwell will also be here at some point this semester.

We each signed up for a Monday this semester to post to the blog. Here it is:

Sept:

  • 20: Phillip Sink
  • 27: Jacob Halmich

Oct:

  • 4: Patrick Gullo
  • 11: Kendra Kestner
  • 18: Victor Marquez
  • 25: Matthew Karram

Nov:

  • 1: Seth Burk
  • 8: Tim Patterson
  • 15: Caleb Hugo
  • 22: Brittany Booth
  • 29: Nate Bliton

Dec:

  • 6: David MacDonald
  • 13: Sam Merciers
 

Welcome back! First studio class of the 2010-2011 academic year.

Dr. Sullivan just got back from a few weeks in Porto, Portugal, where he spent time at Casa da Música. Click that link and visit the site. The architecture of the hall is beautiful. They have several resident ensembles and conductors, as well as three resident composers. One of the three residencies is reserved for a composer under the age of 30. They don’t distinguish between “classical” and “experimental” music, and they are equally interested in jazz and popular music. The new music ensemble is called Remix.

The audience is large and diverse (in precisely the same way such audiences in the US aren’t). There are electronic music games for kids to use and play creatively. As Dr. Sullivan describes it, Casa da Música seems a lot like a community center that has a particularly creative focus. “It really is a center of cultural activity.” People of all ages and interests come together to see, hear, and create.

One of the discussion topics for studio classes this semester will be audience engagement and outreach in new music. New music concert attendance is “pathetic.” Fifteen years ago, Dr. Sullivan claims, he had as many as 80 people coming to new music concerts and participating in subsequent discussions. In contrast to this, participants in Porto were open to experimental creative projects.

How can we be more proactive about growing attendance and participation (and more importantly, engagement) in new music at MSU and in the Lansing area?

Victor Marquez-Barrios is this year’s composition area graduate assistant. Victor would like to find ways to improve the Premiers concerts this year. Not only improving the performances and presentation, but also improving the audience and the audiences general experience. Dates for the semester’s concerts are on the calendar (undergrad composers: Oct. 19, grad: Nov. 9, last concert: Dec. 7, all are at 7:30). Five weeks before the concert, let Victor know you’re interested. One week before, give the complete program info here. We have a third date in the book for December that we can talk about later.

Sam would like people to “Like” the MSU Composition Facebook fan page and for composers to invite their friends to “like” it as well. Dr. Sullivan wants people to feel more comfortable plugging their music and performances thereof. We all agree that advertising for performances must be as creative as the performances themselves.

SCENE&heard continues at (SCENE) Metrospace on Friday, 8 October at 7:30pm. The concert is about rhythm, and will feature music by Steve Reich and Louis Andriessen, as well as traditional music from Africa and the Middle East.

This semester we will create a blogging schedule to encourage traffic to this blog. We will also share research about music of the last ten years.

New show opening tonight at SCENE that includes a piece by Nate. Saturday night is an interesting concert/CD release at SCENE (doors at 7:00, music by 8:00, admission $5). Another cool concert at Mac’s Bar on Michigan Ave. starts around 9ish on Monday night.

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