Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in such detail. While I'm sure we're going to lose everybody on our back and forth, I'm happy to respond to your post with my perspective. If nothing else, we'll each have a better understanding of how we think about and approach music, both as creators and listeners. My comments will be bolded below yours:
@Paul McGraw said:
Hi Dave,
I agree with almost everything you wrote. 😊 And I am impressed that you remember so much about my aesthetic preferences, or at least partly. Let us leave aside the difficulty of writing for the string quartet for the moment, as that is such a big topic and involves special issues.
For sure, the string quartet is a unique beast. My personal interest in writing for strings has emerged in recent years, as I enjoy the ability to write contrapuntally, and the nimble responsiveness of a small string ensemble allows me to go from long, lyrical espressivo writing to virtuosic, "hair-raising" (yes, bad pun) passages and everything in between.
If you want more detailed feedback I am delighted to provide it, as you are one of the most active members of this community and I deeply respect your ability as a serious composer.
Thank you.
First let me point out that I am just one retired amateur composer, so my opinion isn't worth much. Your music is not atonal or random or offensive in any way. I like many of your compositions. In fact, lots of music being written today is very pleasing to me. For me, it is not a matter of when the music was written, but the quality of the music itself.
First, retired amateur composer or not, your opinion as with everyone else's is worth plenty. Musicians, especially those with formal/academic backgrounds are often quick to dismiss anything but the most intellectual arguments rooted in a deep understanding of theoretical principles and musicology. However, absent the ability to describe why a person does or doesn't enjoy a piece/style of music, everyone is able to determine for themselves what resonates and what doesn't. To that end, they're entitled to share their views from their own perspective, recognizing that others may have a completely different perspective.
I sort of wish I hadn't started this since as I get older I find it harder and harder to engage in discussions that could turn into debates. OK, about your piece. Perhaps a comparison is in order.
What could turn in to a debate doesn't have to turn ugly. A spirited conversation is far more enjoyable than a vicious back and forth (goes without saying) but is also preferred to no discussion at all. Many of us share our music here to crickets, so at the very least, you've stimulated a discussion that will give us all a chance to reflect on our own views/interests.
Your piece "The Exorcism" is, in my opinion, one of the best things you have ever posted. The piece is filled with emotion and pathos. The use of each instrument is superb. Lots of variety of colors and textures, but always contributing to the emotional context of the piece. Having some instruments resting frequently adds to their impact when they enter. Harmonic choices are excellent, particularly in the creative use of pedal tones. I am not saying it is "perfect" nor is it something I would have written, but it is a piece that I would give a standing ovation.
Thanks for this. To tackle the end first, how does one describe a "perfect" piece? Is there such a thing? What are the criteria for musical perfection? Anyway, as to the other points, The Exorcism speaks to you precisely because the criteria you value were met. I was apologetic in posting it because I was aware that many that favour a strong melodic focus, with more conventional harmony and form might be disinterested. There are those that I know would prefer to sit in a concert featuring the Fantasy for Flute and Piano over The Exorcism. There are also musicians that would probably enjoy the challenges of performing The Exorcism, even if the audience was less excited by the piece.
"Fantasy for Flute and Piano" contains some wonderful, rich romantic harmonies and the flute part is mostly very idiomatic. I realize that you named it a Fantasy, so you are not obliged to provide form, but in the absence of form, something else is needed to propel the piece forward. It is obviously not a show-stopping bravura showcase for the flute. Nor does the piece offer a melody that captures our hearts like "The Lark Ascending" by Vaughn Williams, which sounds just as delicious performed by a flute as it does on the violin. The piece does not "to me" convey a clear emotional appeal like "The Exorcism." There is nothing wrong with the piece. It is very workmanlike. My concern is not with what it contains but what it lacks. You can do better. You have done better in the past, so I know you can.
To be succinct, you mentioned your concern is not with what it contains but what it lacks. I suppose if we used this criteria in evaluating every piece of music, we could easily find that Bach lacks Mahler's powerful orchestration, Mozart's piano music lacks the depth and emotional impact of Beethoven's, etc. When we look at a piece in reference to any others, there will always be elements that appear in one piece and not another; there will always be a purpose behind the piece, why it was written, and why certain decisions were made as to the style/aesthetic/technical qualities of the piece.
I write very quickly, and on a whim, almost always. I put "pen to paper" within 60 seconds of sitting down at the keyboard. Once that initial measure of music is written, I develop it whether I want to or not, without revising, re-thinking, re-vamping anything. Why do I do this? Because if I were to put so much thought in to what I was doing prior to starting, I would never write anything. As modern composers, we're inevitably going to bear the burden of being compared to centuries of greats. We're also going to have to find meaning in what we write for ourselves as well as hopefully, for others to enjoy. All those forces make it virtually impossible for any individual to confidently sit down and believe that the next thing they write, will be satisfactory to all.
Fantasy was written on a whim, as I mentioned, in a brief discussion with my wife. Two days earlier, I had written a woodwind quintet, that's the complete antithesis of Fantasy and in a different universe than The Exorcism. At the same time, I'm still working on an orchestral suite that's again, different. As a composer, for me, the fun/challenge is trying to push myself to do different things, with very little outside inspiration/purpose other than my own artistic development and hopefully, the enjoyment of a small audience that "gets it."
Each piece will inevitably fall somewhere on a spectrum...some technically challenging, some with a heart-wrenching melody, some with a completely identifiable sonata-allegro form, others with insane 5 part counterpoint, still others with complex poly-rhythmic elements, or extended instrument techniques, etc. etc. etc. What your detailed reply served to do, is to put in to words why you appreciated a certain piece more than another, and I can totally respect and understand that, so thank you :)
Music is so personal, and our reasons for liking things may be justified by "defending our arguments", but they can just as easily be silly/irrational/nonsensical. I won't apologize for liking a bubble gum pop song, just because I'm aware of Mahler (who incidentally I have very little interest in listening to compared to Bach, Mozart, or Faure, for example...let the attacks begin!) The one thing I'm grateful for is that I have the ability to explore my own voice free from any outside influences, or the urgency of doing music to make money (not that I wouldn't like to, mind you!)
Thanks again, Paul for sharing your thoughts. I hope we can all continue to celebrate the talents of the many brilliant people on this forum, many of whom are quiet sources of inspiration to me.
Cheers!
Dave
Best wishes,
Paul