|
Q & A with the Music Director
 
ABOUT
MUSICA NOVA
I am not a
blogger. I have never been someome who has felt the need to let people
know my opinion about things, nor do I feel any need to express myself
except through music. But over the course of the last 4 seasons,
certain questions have come up repeatedly, and I thought that it would
be useful for those people who wanted to know more about
MusicaNova to have a place where the
basic questions that seem to come up are answered. So I have revised the
“About MusicaNova” section of the
website to address these questions. I think in this way people will
understand more about us than through the usual generic piece about the
group or a vague mission statement.
-
How is
MusicaNova
different from other orchestras?
-
How did you get
the idea for MusicaNova?
-
How do you
choose the music that MusicaNova
will perform?
-
Hints for the aspiring composer when you send
me your music (or agent acting on the composer's behalf)
-
Why do you
divide the orchestra with 1st and 2nd violins across the front of the
stage?
-
What is your
philosophy of String Seating?
-
What is the
role of the
Fine Arts
String Orchestra
and
Scottsdale
Baroque Orchestra
in the fabric of MusicaNova
as a whole?
-
How is performing
unfamiliar music different from performing familiar music?
-
Who do you admire as a conductor?
-
Why should people listen to music they
do not know?
How is
MusicaNova
different from other orchestras?
There are two
types of Symphony Orchestras; those that form their identity from the
place where they are located- the “Phoenix Symphony”- and those that
form their identity from their mission, like the “Orchestre
Revolutionnaire et Romantique” formed by John Eliot Gardiner. Obviously,
although the MusicaNova Orchestra is
based in Scottsdale and serves that community it is defined not by
geography but mission. And the mission is unique; it is to search out
and play neglected music of the highest caliber.
The mission of
the MusicaNova Orchestra--to play
wonderful less-familiar music--has been taken up to some degree by other
orchestras, but I know of none in which it is the defining mission of
the group.
How did you get
the idea for
MusicaNova?
All my life I
have felt that my greatest thrill is hearing something that is
wonderful, new and unique. I remember as a child hearing Raymond
Lewenthal's recording of the Alkan Symphonie for Solo Piano. Here was
great music that sounded like nothing I had ever heard before.
Since then I
have been on a quixotic quest for great neglected music. It helps that I
am a musical omnivore who loves to hear as much different music as I can
(although I have no interest in or knowledge of popular music or jazz).
I began as a pianist, and I did a lot of new and neglected music then.
I loved sitting at the piano and reading through unfamiliar music.
When I started conducting (it was pretty much an accident; I never had
any ambition to be a conductor) it seemed natural to learn neglected
scores; besides, by learning scores that had never been played, I forced
myself to learn how to score read properly. With recordings around, it
would have been too easy to learn things by listening to records, which
is of limited usefulness in learning your craft.
When I hear
something new and wonderful I want to share it with everyone so they can
get the same thrill of discovery that I experience. It is not that I
don't want to do familiar repertoire; I would love to do Tchaikovsky 5
with the players of MNO, and it makes me sad to think we probably will
not get to do it together given the mission of the orchestra; but on the
other hand, we got to do Atterberg 3, and that is a thrill you won't
get anywhere except with MNO!
So it made
sense to me that when I became the Music Director of an orchestra, I
would do great neglected music for the public, because I had so much
fun doing it for myself.
How do you
choose the music that
MusicaNova
will perform?
Some time ago,
one of my orchestra members said to me “So, what do you do? Do you burn
the midnight oil looking through obscure scores to find ones for us to
play?”
He seemed
surprised that I immediately answered “yes”! In fact, that is what I do,
along with reading through and listening to the many scores sent to me
by hopeful composers and publishers. I also use the ridiculous amount of
time I spend in a car listening to CDs of music I do not know. Sometimes
I “multi-task” while doing something trivial around the house to hear
music that is new to me. I listen to literally hundreds of new pieces of
music every year.
Of these, the
vast majority are disappointing; I dismiss about 80% of the music in the
first five minutes of listening. Among scores, if there are obvious
amateurisms in the scoring or presentation, I will tend to not bother
looking further. (sometimes to my detriment. I think I have missed some
interesting music this way). Of the remaining 20%, probably 10% get a
thorough listen and then a pretty immediate thumbs down. The remaining
10% are ones that had something that intrigued me.
In general, I
am looking for music that makes an impression the first time I hear it.
I figure that the people who will be hearing it in the audience will be
hearing it for the first time, so if it does not make an immediate
impact on me, why should I think that the audience will feel
differently?
Another thing I
am looking for is originality. Sometimes I will hear the work of a
composer who writes well, but sounds so much like a certain major figure
that I tend to feel no compulsion to do their music. As an example,
there are several good Shostakovich imitators, of whom the best is
probably Weinberg (his name is sometimes spelled Vainberg). But
Shostakovich does it better, so why bother?
A third thing I
am looking for is that they “deliver the goods” Many composers have
really good material, but their music lacks that “killer instinct” to
make a really strong complete piece. I don't know how often I have been
really excited by the early stages of a work, only to feel
disappointment at what the composer did with the material.
All the great
composers have this killer instinct, and it is one of their
distinguishing features. In fact the difference between the good and the
great is not about the material itself but what you do with the
material. The great ones know how to use the material to get maximum
impact from it.
This “killer
instinct” quality is so rare that I will sometimes program material that
I think is wonderful but lacks this quality. The Hans Gál Symphony we
just did was such a piece. But the material itself has to be exceptional
for me to consider putting this concern aside.
Another thing I am looking for is that I would prefer to champion
composers who are outside of the corridors of power of classical music.
Among contemporary American composers, I feel little need to champion
Lowell Liebermann, Jennifer Higdon, Augusta Read Thomas, John Adams or
the like because they are getting plenty of performances and they went
to all the right schools and they know how to promote their stuff. I
would rather promote Patrick Jonathan, who writes wonderful music but is
not well connected. (and he is just as good a composer as the ones
mentioned above. He has some nice excerpts of
MusicaNova doing his Second Symphony on his website
www.patrickjonathan.com)
Related to
that, I will also look to the local scene and try to do music that other
orchestras in Arizona have not done. I will even consider doing music
by famous composers that has been neglected locally, just to help give
greater depth to the local music scene.
Obviously,
there are times where, for various reasons, I do pieces that do not hold
to these standards, But I certainly aim to do the best neglected music I
can find, whenever possible.
Some of you
might be surprised to learn that I think that, in general, the verdict
of history on the quality of music is correct. That said, great music
does slip through the cracks. And once it does, it takes work to revive
it, because you need to overcome prejudices, bad performances, and the
like. I think that someday we will recognize that Richard Arnell's 3rd
Symphony is one of the greatest Symphonies of the 20th
century, but it will take time and a series of committed performances
and recordings before that happens.
The truth is
that I very rarely find something that makes me go “wow!” But when I do,
it makes all the time spent searching through mediocre and derivative
drivel worth it.
The “wow” for
the 07/08 season is Boris Tchaikovsky, This is a truly original voice,
and his late music absolutely blew me away. I heard it and said, without
hesitation, “we have to do this!”
But there were a number of “almosts” as well. I might get to these
eventually, and if we had a bigger concert season I certainly would.
I
would recommend that everyone who reads this give these works a listen:
they include the 4th and 5th Symphonies of William
Alwyn, the 4th and 6th Symphonies of Erkki
Melartin and the Japanese Spring by Ludwig Irgens-Jensen. Terrific
stuff, all of it, but lacking that killer instinct I mentioned.
Hints for the aspiring composer when you send
me your music (or agent acting on the composer's behalf)
Have a
nice-looking score that is in either Finale or Sibelius format.
Detailed dynamics and articulations are a sign of care and make it much
easier for me to figure out what the piece should sound like. I really
appreciate those things.
If your piece
is difficult, make sure you know what you are doing. Most of the things
I see from composers that are difficult to play-even things from famous
composers- are difficult because the composers did not know what they
were doing. Most of the time, these things can be fixed simply if the
composer is willing to be reasonable. If an orchestra like
MusicaNova
-or any professional orchestra- has trouble playing your
piece, it is probably your fault. The musicians in my experience, will
do anything to sound good. If they are complaining, it is not because
they are lazy but because the composer wrote something unreasonable.
Glazunov said “it should be easy to play and it should sound beautiful
the first time”, and he was absolutely right. Follow that advice!
A midi or
sampled computer recording of the work is fine to use as a wrong note
checker, but if you send it to me I probably won't listen to it. I find
them distracting and misleading.
A real
performance of your work is nice to hear, but not essential. I will
listen to a recording without a score, but I will never make a final
judgment about a piece based on a recording. I should tell you that
most of the time the recording is a hindrance to my appreciation of the
score, because most performances are not going to be as good as the
ideal performance I can create in my head from looking at a score.
I really don't
care about your background, who you studied with, your honors etc. So
you don't have to send me any of that information. If you do send a
CV, I will not read it until I have already listened to and formed an
opinion about your piece anyway.
If the piece is
descriptive, I do want to know what it is about. And I do enjoy hearing
what your musical inspirations were. It gives me a context into which to
put your piece. But don't bother telling me that it is “accessible”.
Everyone says that , it doesn't mean anything, and it certainly is not a
goal worth aspiring to.
Why do you
divide the orchestra with 1st and 2nd violins across the front of the
stage?
Basically,
because it sounds better. Until about1950, this was the division
expected by composers, and there are countless passages in the
literature that only make sense if the firsts and seconds are divided
like this. Players are not fond of this arrangement; they prefer to have
the cellos or violas on the other side, because it is easier for
ensemble purposes. But the difference in sound is so pronounced that I
feel no guilt in doing the slightly more difficult set-up. I also am a
very firm believer that first and second violins should be made up of
players of equal strength, and in a set-up like this it is imperative
that they are.
What is your
philosophy of String Seating?
I think it is
essential to a good string sound to spread your best players through the
section. As we all know, it is harder to play at the back of the
section that in the front, so why do orchestras put their worst players
in the back? Your weaker players should be sitting next to a stronger
player and they should be hidden somewhere in the middle, not at the
back. Spreading good players out makes the whole section sound better.
I must admit there is so much resistance to this from players that I
have been less firm in following it than I should be, but insofar as I
have done so, I have felt it was the right thing to do musically.
What is the
role of the
Fine Arts
String Orchestra
and
Scottsdale
Baroque Orchestra
in the fabric of
MusicaNova
as a whole?
A bit of
history; MusicaNova
has been around since 2003, but the Fine Arts
String Orchestra was started in 1979, and every Thursday morning between
September and May since then they have been rehearsing. I became their
Music Director in 2001. When I started MusicaNova in 2003, I thought
that for publicity and financial reasons it made sense to form a loose
alliance of sorts between the groups that I was conducting. I could
consolidate some administrative functions and could use the two groups
in a mutually beneficial way. There is limited crossover of personnel
between the groups and although there are professional players in FASO,
the group also takes on community players. The goals of a group like
this are different than the goals of a professional orchestra like the
MusicaNova Orchestra. In simple
terms, a community group's main responsibility is to the players, while
a professional group's main responsibility is to the public (within the
context of the mission of the group). As such, I try to make the music
that FASO plays entertaining for the audience, but the main thing is
that it be fun for and worthwhile to the players. Although it is fun to
do some new and neglected music with FASO, it is not its raison d'etre,
as it is with MNO.
The Baroque
Orchestra was formed in 2004 along the same model as FASO, with perhaps
a stronger educational component as we study aspects of Baroque and
Classical style. It was a chance to look at some repertoire that I
could not do with MNO, and a opportunity to rehearse for community
players who could not meet in the morning.
I think we need to treat our community players with respect, and I
really admire those professional players we have who are willing to
share the stage with the community players. The community players are
the backbone of our classical music audience, and the opportunity to
play in a good community group allows folks who love music and love to
play a chance to continue to make music throughout their lives. I am
proud that MusicaNova supports both professional and community music
making. I think all major orchestras should do so as well.
It is a shame
that there is so much support- on a corporate and government grant
level- for “youth music” programs, but so little for adult community
players. As a result we have all these kids who take lessons, learn to
play and then drop it as adults. I think it is a community's-and an
orchestras-responsibility to make sure that “life-long” learning and
performing opportunities are available for all people who love to play
good music.
How is performing unfamiliar
music different from performing familiar music?
In a
way there is no difference at all. You prepare the music by analyzing it
in terms of phrase length and harmonic rhythm, you figure out what
balances you want, what type of articulations will produce intended
effects, how you underline structure- all the same things you do for any
other piece.
What
you have to be aware of is that most people in the audience have never
heard the music before; this is both a curse and a blessing. A curse
because they will not have the familiarity with the music that makes it
easy to like something. A blessing because they are not going to
compare your performance with the one they already know.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that little known music that has been
recorded is frequently played superficially and poorly. Now, a poorly
played Brahms 1 is not going to change anyone's opinion of Brahms or of
his first Symphony. But a poorly played performance of an unknown
Symphony can reinforce the idea that the music of this composer is
unworthy. Dedicated advocacy is essential, which is why I try to play
only music I believe in passionately. (I do not always live up to this
ideal, though).
It
is more important in obscure music than in familiar music to avoid
eccentricities in the performance. In particular, you must avoid
fussiness. Fussiness is pretty much de rigueur in certain musical
circles. Whole generations of musicians have subjected us to
underlining every line of text in a Mozart opera or every detail of a
Beethoven Symphony. (for my part, this type of approach to music making
drives me crazy).
If
you start picking apart music that people do not know, your audience
will be overwhelmed with too much information. Such fussiness only works
(insofar as it works) against the background of familiar music. I read
an intriguing analysis of this problem in a diary note that Sviatoslav
Richter made about his recording of the relatively unfamiliar Piano
Concerto by Dvorak with Carlos Kleiber. The recording is a bit of a
disappointment, which Richter acknowledges, and Richter seemed to
instinctively know that the problems was that both he and Kleiber were
trying too hard, for the sake of music-but as a result they lost the
forest for the trees, and in music people do not know, the forest
matters far more!
So
that's it: know your score as well as you know familiar music, believe
in it passionately, bring out its best qualities, play it with a very
strong sense of the overall architecture of the work, and do not
nit-pick it to death.
Who do you admire as a conductor?
I
always find this an interesting question because I admire different
conductors for different things. As an example, I admire Stokowski for
his musically adventurous spirit-he is the only conductor of his stature
who ever has taken up the mantle of all types of new and obscure music
and performed it with relish and dedication. (Pierre Boulez has also
done a lot of new music, but I have always been disturbed by the litmus
test of serious modernity that he applies to modern music before he
will do it.)
For
conducting technique, I look to Adrian Boult, whose physical gestures
are the most perfect I have ever seen.
But Boult and Stokowski were both English conductors of a certain
generation-and there are certainly more recent conductors who I admire.
Of my own generation, perhaps the one whose work means the most to me is
Osmo Vänskä, both because he made such gorgeous music with what should
have been a provincial orchestra in Lahti, and because he has been able
to bring that same sensitivity to a great orchestra in his work in
Minnesota. I have heard beautiful music making in the recordings of
Geoffrey Simon, who also has an ear for interesting unusual repertoire.
That
whole generation of conductors who came out of the Fascist
mind-set-which some people call a “golden age” of conductors- are not
really ones we as modern conductors can or should relate to. Whatever
their political persuasion, they were all “dictators of the baton” (as a
popular book by David Ewen was called)and not only musicians but music
and music making suffered because of it. At the time this sort of abuse
by authority was not only tolerated but admired. For my part, I think
Szell Reiner, Toscanini and the rest of that crew would have achieved
better results if they had been nicer to their players. Ironically the
one conductor of that group who could transcend the repressive effect of
running an orchestral rehearsal like a torture session was Furtwangler,
whose searing intensity and spontaneity comes through in many of his
recordings! (by all accounts he was less of a jerk than some of the
others anyway).
Why should people listen to music they do not know?
Because it is fun to hear something different! Recently, several
musicologists in Germany have been talking about how the concert hall in
the 19th century became a kind of substitute for the
Church-as a result, certain music became enshrined as a type of holy
writ-the anointed included Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. You still find
people who think anything outside of the Austro-German classical and
Romantic repertoire is “trash”. By any objective standard of musical
analysis that is nonsense. But for certain people the concert hall
experience is meant to be like church-a recitation of things comfortable
and familiar, among people who think and feel like you do. And there is
an almost moral imperative to enjoying this repertoire. For that
quasi-ecclesiastical experience, you have lots of options locally, and
in fact everywhere. For a thrill of discovery, for a little musical
adventure, for a chance to get in on a great little secret world of
beautiful music-come to us!
Do you have additional questions
for our music director? You can email
and he'll be
happy to answer your questions.
Copyright 2007, MusicaNova, Inc., all rights reserved
|
