BCM International ~ View topic

Joined: 07 Oct 2003 Posts: 34

First, let me start off that I really admire your work. You write wonderful music and have done wonderful things for especially choral music. I've also been told that one always grows more from the "negative" criticism.
I'm by no means a professional composer, or even a good composer, or even an experienced composer. But I would caution you not to start putting yourself in a box. Don't build such a fortress of the "Eric Whitacre Sound' that you run the risk of sounding cliche. While I am fully aware that every composer has their own style and what not, there can be a risk of sounding too 'similar' to one's self. I admire your efforts to quote your other works, but if Handel wrote the Hallelujah chorus 12 different, but similar ways, would it be as well-known as it is today? (sorry for the crappy analogy, but hopefully you get my point).
Three works I really admire of yours are When David Heard, Go Lovely Rose, and Noisy Wheels of Joy. Why you ask? I think that they really demonstrate your three strengths as a composer. Go Lovely Rose shows expanding and elaborating a theme and structure, one of composition's fundamental arts. When David Heard for the sheer emotionality of a truly immense work, and Noisy Wheels of Joy just because it's diverse. Diverse? Signatures and styles are inherent, but can a composer make music outside of what is his "sound" and still be effective musically? I think so.
I think that you are capable of music that is too powerful to risk sounding cliche. (Of course I realize that something like Paradise Lost is music that no one's ever heard before, so I'm speaking mainly in reference to choral works.) I feel, and I think you may agree with me by what I've seen on the board, that to create something truly beautiful, it must transcend yourself. I would encourage you to push your music to an even higher level. Don't allow yourself to be boxed in, so that you can further grasp some tangible magic of this thing we call music. You've really been blessed with a gift, and I know that you'll continue blessing us with your music.

Site Admin Joined: 15 Apr 2003 Posts: 1168

phil_side,

Your opinion is your opinion, and you are most certainly entitled to it. This forum was designed for all voices to be heard, regardless of background, and so I appreciate your honesty.

You say that I am 'putting myself in a box,' 'building a fortress around 'that Eric Whitacre sound'. Do you think that I CHOSE this sound? Do you think that I sit and 'plan' my style, craft a persona that will make me a 'recognizable composer.' I don't. That sound is ME, just me. When I am most honest with myself, when I dig to the deepest part of me, the sound that comes out is that 'Whitacre sound.'

I am not a film composer, and so I do not feel that my style has to dramatically change with each new work. But it may interest you to know that to me, each piece is VERY different. I can see the evolution of my style from work to work, and I pride myself on pushing myself in new directions with each new piece. That 'Eric Whitacre' sound of which you speak is vastly different to me with each new piece, and I often hear my older works and realize that there are thing that I wrote 10 years ago that I would never write now. To your ears, perhaps, there are the same gestures: clusters, scales smeared up or down, juicy homophonic chords. But to me, each new piece is a new world, entirely different from the last.

I also wonder how much of my music you actually know: the a cappella music and a couple of band works? If you listen to the BYU a cappella CD, of course it will all start to sound the same. Same choir, same space, same conductor, same medium ... all mastered on the same CD to create a seamless blend of recorded style. How many of the pieces have you heard live? You can't imagine how different they sound when performed in an open space, with different groups. And to my ears -- being as objective as possible -- the music for winds is MUCH different than the choral works. If I didn't know better, I would never believe that Water Night had been written by the same composer who wrote Godzilla Eats Las Vegas. And you are right about Paradise Lost ... it's much different, as is the new show I am writing, as are my pop songs, as are my choral works with accompaniment, as are my chamber works.

But the big issue here is 'diversity.' Please help me to understand why each new piece needs to be in it's own style to be good. You mentioned Handel. I LOVE Handel, but to my ears, the stylistic 'box' that he is in is as small as it gets. It all 'sounds the same', more or less. Same thing with Mozart, or Bach. The beauty is in the small differences, the tiny variations from piece to piece.

I appreciate you trying to save me from myself, helping me to open my eyes and expand my horizons and fight cliche. But with all due respect, why don't you focus all of that energy on your own composing? Let's have this same conversation 15 years from now, after you've written dozens of pieces and had the chance to let the public pick them apart with blunt fingers and clumsy minds. I think that at that point you will agree with me that you know more about yourself, and your music, than any critic ever will. And that it simply is your job to just be honest with yourself and to just create.

e

Joined: 23 Feb 2004 Posts: 74 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

I second all of that!
And when did "good" composition become solely about saying something different and new and innovative? Why can't it just be about finding the right thing to say?
Josh

Joined: 07 Oct 2003 Posts: 34

Ah, the start of some juicy discussion. I was not trying to say that your music is cliche, my post was merely me saying that there may be the danger up ahead. I have had the opportunity to hear your works performed by different choirs in different settings, but rarely live. I realize that this does put at a great disadvantage, because I would much rather see Led Zeppelin live then to listen to a record. So I guess I have to use my limited experience to draw my conclusions. It would be optimal to hear all your music live in different setting by different choirs, but realistically for me, that's not really a possibility.
It wasn't really my intention to give that impression that I expected every new work to be a venture into uncharted territory. Eric, you make a good point about your sound being you. I guess my opinion was stated from more of the listener's perspective and yours from the composers perspective, rightfully so. You're truly putting yourself out there for people to listen to regardless of what that they about it, and that's a great and far too uncommon quality of composers.
As far as all the energy going into my own composing instead of trying to "save you from yourself", as you can see I've posted 29 times since I became a member on this board more then a year ago. Talking to composers and music fans can help you along on your journey, but I guess I'm of the opinion that the only real way to learn about composing is to compose.
Josh, good music doesn't have to be innovative and new, and it should say something that's right. But I guess my emphasis was more on the converse side of things, where everyone has their own style and approach, but each piece has a sense of something new and unexplored. I guess where Eric and I differed was who exactly it felt new for, him or me. His view was probably the more nobler since it is his music.
This is probably hyperbole, but maybe this will help illustrate what I'm trying to say. (hopefully better then my dumb Handel analogy). You had great sucess with your piece Musica Animam Tangens. But say you wrote another piece and took the music from Music Animam Tangens and kept it all pretty much the same, but changed the text slighty and called the piece Vita Animam Tangens. Would it really have the same effect, even though you had something good to say?
That was probably an extreme example, but discussions like this always go better in person then in writing on a message board where people can take what you say 30 different ways.

Joined: 14 Sep 2003 Posts: 448 Location: Northglenn, CO

Ooh, this one's gonna be fun, I can just tell.

First, phil_side, let me just echo Eric by saying that your opinions are yours and I congratulate you for putting them out here for debate. That's what I love about this place -- every opinion is respected. So, please don't feel discouraged in sharing your opinions, because I'll warn you right now, Eric is going to get a lot of defense on this (that's just the nature of the place). Smile

From what I can decipher, I believe you are referring to Eric's "quotes" in several of his pieces. From that standpoint, maybe his music does sound the same, if that's what you're listening for. But if you are only listening to hear how a piece sounds like another, then you are missing the point entirely. You can do that for any composer. In fact, his music does acheive the variety you warn him against. Have you studied any of his choral scores? Or just listened? If you have not looked at many scores, you should pick up a few and take a look. That takes you to a whole new level. Especially, take a look at Little Tree and She Weeps Over Rahoon. You'd be suprised.

Joined: 07 Oct 2003 Posts: 34

Hah, well, that makes it official. No more analogies for this board. The whole josh shank thing could've been interchanged with Bach, Neil Diamond, or Pantera (rest in peace Dimebag). I was trying to make a general point instead of being literal.

Joined: 14 Sep 2003 Posts: 448 Location: Northglenn, CO

Joined: 23 Feb 2004 Posts: 74 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

In my short time as a composer/music student/teacher/singer I have found what I would call "2 different worlds" in concert music...but in choral music especially. One comes from our "formal" training in the analysis of music. Theory will show only what's on the page and, for a lot of composers (myself included), this can sometimes come out to be the same thing. Do works by Whitacre, Clausen or Lauridsen (for example) show a lot of clusters? You bet!
But then comes that "other world": the psychological one. This is the aspect where we look at what isn't on the page. Because there is a text involved with choral music you can't approach a choral work from solely the theoretical side. You absolutely cannot write into the work the emotion that it portrays and it would be absurd to discount it in any way (for the most part). In Eric's work (and I can't speak for him), I have always felt that he was writing a completely new work based on a text that moved him deeply enough to set it to music. I think this is part of the reason that audiences/singers/conductors love it so much...because he is one of those rare composers that is able to convey a powerful part of the human experience in a way that gets it through to a lot of people.
I think it's interesting that this type of criticism has never been leveled on a wider basis to a composer like Stephen Paulus. I wonder what it is about Eric's music that makes people say this sort of thing. Is it that it's easier to "understand" from a theoretical level? If this is the case then it's a total misread of what it was intended for in the first place.
In the end, I think that honesty is the best policy. By this standard, Eric's music flies over the bar with room to spare and audiences/singers/conductors know it.

p.s. "Vita Animam Tangens" was the next text I was going to set. It was also going to be a complete re-structuring of my other work. How did you know?

p.p.s. That was said in total sarcasm. Thank you for using me as an example in your previous post. I'm flattered.

p.p.p.s. Just kidding. I'm totally offended by what you said.

p.p.p.p.s. I actually was kidding and this last tidbit is because I've never had a post-post-post-post-script in anything I've ever written.

Joined: 23 Feb 2004 Posts: 74 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

p.p.p.p.p.s. Check out Mr. Bonney's blog for a great take on the subject at hand.

p.p.p.p.p.p.s. For those of you who have read Jim's blog entry: the David Lee Roth years were, indeed, the very best of Van Halen.

Joined: 07 Oct 2003 Posts: 34

I think this discussion has been lifted to more of a universal scale then I originally intended, which is awesome. I don't feel this idea of "stagnation" applies to Eric's music to an extreme degree, but perhaps a relatively minor one, but it was enough to pull me to express my opinions.
Kevin, I think what your teacher said really gets to the heart of what I'm thinking. I totally understand having your own unique voice. You can't write what you are not. The progression aspect of the process is really what my focus was. I think an inherent part of being human is the aspect of progression through life. Trying to get to a higher level. Bruce Lee once said, "There are plateaus, but you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. If it kills you, it kills you. A man must constantly exceed his level." I guess my experiences have made me sensitive to this and that carries over into my concept of music. People are constantly changing, as is music, as is life, and that for me is something I like being reflected in music. And yes, I will extend this type of criticism (if you could even call it criticism, probably more of an expression of a personal ideal) to Lauridsen and Paulus, or even issue it as a challenge to all composers everywhere to make sure that that they not only examine themselves and pull out music from the deepest, darkest inner reaches of their souls, but they also try and progress it to a new level.
p.s. Yeah dude, Sammy sucks.

I agree that comfort zones are things we shouldn't spend too much time in. I sometimes find myself writing in the same style, form, feeling... grooves! I just have to slap myself and tell my brain to go in a different direction.

When I listen to the Whitacre Acapella Cd, it defintalely all "sounds the same," but for the reasons Eric wrote. I would say that he has his "sound," and it's great.
_________________
Daniel Montoya Jr.
www.danielmontoyajr.com

I wasn't planning to get involved, and I think Josh started to point to this in his post -- but I think many of you are offering a miopic, antiseptic view of Eric's work, and I'd like to mention that you're choosing a strange place to do it.

If I was to oversimplify my appreciation of Eric's work, and name one aspect that I consistently find true genius in, it is his consistent ability to develop greater depth of meaning in the text through the addition of music, than I can find by simply reading the text myself. Eric's settings are never two-dimensional -- the depths he goes to within the text are resonant with the music he creates. The painting with tone and texture. The dynamic choices he boldly makes. The melodic lines that can cut you to the core. The moments in time he develops from his sensitivity to a collective conciousness. I find this all absolutely awe-inspiring, and like all great works of art, I find that I can approach his work again and again and again and peel back new layers of appreciation for what he's done, simply by being aware of the text he's so clearly and thoroughly appreciated. And if that was all I got from his work, I would still wait, quite impatiently, for the next opportunity to bear witness to what he's created.

But hey, I'm an artist. I've chosen to create rather than critique. The positive that I can take from a work of art, or another being, or simply day-to-day life, informs and inspires me, and that is good enough for me. It's only in my weaker moments that I feel I must tear something down in order to build myself up.

Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 1

Be careful not to view the original post in a similarly miopic way. We are to take everything in the best possible way, and if you want to take the original criticism as the author 'tearing down someone else's work' the fault is yours. IOnly in my weakest moments as a composer do I take offense to and scathingly oppose constructive criticism. If your blinders are on so tightly that you justify everything you do as perfect just because it is your music, you are depriving yourself and your listeners. Props to those who write honestly, strive to communicate with their listeners, and can effectively listen to positive and negative response.

Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 1955 Location: Oklahoma City

I see where you're coming from Phil, but the problem is, is most of his music that he has for the rest of the world to see, is choral or it has words involved. Once you add in the words, you HAVE to look from the other dimension that is automatically added. Now the question is begged, Does Eric, or any other person, ignore the words to write formulaic music that catches the attention of the audience. Someone said about ABandAG when Eric first posted it on BCM that they could have no better painting of "Like waves(clouds) exchanging foam". If someone can sincerely hear that he's tried to match his own soul to the soul that was in the poetry from the poet himself, then you've lost any chance of his music being a recopy.

To address any perception that his music sounds the same, because he uses similar progressions, similar harmonies, and some similar melodies here and there, at least from a choral aspect, It's imperative to remember that common themes run through all writing. As we have learned, HFLL is pretty much a quote sheet of eric's music. Why is that? it would seem to me that he did that (although I'm not 100% positive) because those specific quotes are what appear to him to be "Hope" "Faith" etc. Therefore, when you hear similarities between any of his works, it's necessary to go back to both texts, and see what common themes they have in them. If he were to sound the same, and the texts were completely opposite, then maybe we would run into a problem...but that fact is, Is he probably finds similar themes in the text he chooses to set, therfore, you hear similar sounds

I think the only place you'll ever have a chance to apply this to eric is in his instrumental only music, if he rockets off 6 band pieces in a year like steve did, maybe he will fall into a more valid sense of "it sounds too much the same"...but until he writes band/orchestral music on a much more often, I don't think we can even begin to say that He's falling into his own Trap. Because if you look at Ghost Train, Equus, October, and GELV; they are the only places where Eric doesn't really have a text to read into, so it's his only chance to show how much he can differ an artist, and with those 4 pieces (and noisy wheels of joy) Eric shows just how much he can change up his style.
_________________
-Trevor

Joined: 31 Mar 2004 Posts: 661 Location: Michigan

I originally wasn't going to post anything on this topic, because it appears to have been exhausted already. However, I really couldn't help myself...

Composers, like any artists, always walk a very thin line between familiar and unfamiliar, expectation and realization. From the artist's perspective, a certain sound is not necessarily an issue if it is used for the right reasons. A bad reason to copy one's own style would be because it worked really well on this one piece, so the publisher wants another. That is commercial duping, not art. That is preying on unsuspecting music directors that do not know any better. And, yes, there are directors that do not know any better. For every good director, there is an equally bad one. It's not pretty, but it's true. Therefore, rather than pandering to the ignorant (not stupid, but ignorant), it becomes the job of the artist (and, ideally, the publisher) to ensure that this does not happen. Dollar signs vs. integrity is a completely different discussion, though, so I won't go into that right now.

As is often the case, though, a succesful experiment will warrant advances in the same vein. I knowingly and readily admit that I use certain progressions, certain voicings, certain whatever in my own music. However, it is not necessarily simply using what works because it works. In point of fact, it is examining why what works does work, and then using those principles to best suit the needs of future music I may write.

Ultimately, it is a question of what will best serve the music. And that decision has to be made by the composer, and no one else. And the composer's decision will ultimately be shaped by previous experience and sonic experimentation. Certain musical gestures speak to individual composers in certain ways that, in the end, will color what the composer sees as what is best for the music.

That being said, there are artistic traps at either end of the spectrum. Music that is too familiar may be immediately catchy, but may also be shallow. Music that is created for the sole purpose of defying tradition to become completely original will often be too unfamiliar and inaccessible for most people. Should an artist worry about that? Ideally, no. But often the best solution for making the music do what it should do, to make it as effective as possible, involves that fine line between the familiar and the unfamiliar. Familiar enough to catch a listener's attention, but unfamiliar enough to warrant subsequent listenings.

And yes, that is a VERY tough thing to do. I used to worry about walking that line, and it drove me nuts. Instead, I began asking myself, "What do I want to hear? What do I want to listen to? What music do I find most effective? Why? How can I best shape my own music so that it would be something *I* would want to listen to?"

If an artist can satisfy him/herself, then half the battle is already won. If you, the artist, really believe that your work is worthy of your own attention, then it is probably worthy of the attention of others, too. Is it worthy of the attention of everyone? Well...maybe not. But if you cannot make yourself artistically happy, then you are probably not doing it for anyone else, either. Correct me if I'm wrong, Eric, but I think this is the same thing you're talking about when you say to be true to yourself.

Matt
_________________
*ZOOP!*