Is it real or is it Memorex®

In the last couple of weeks, we have talked about the ease of recording a concert. But the question comes: “is one willing to accept the recording of a performance?” We are so used to listening to studio recording that are made up from selections from multiple recordings. I had the privilege to listen to a recording session of John Nelson’s orchestra. They played the movement twice completely plus several recordings of specific selections from the movement. This leads to precision that is unavailable in a live performance recording. In addition, if one is recording a live performance of a work, there is always the problem of an audience noises. A cough is almost unavoidable in the recording. While in a live performance, you take it as one of the “things how they are.” However, after second time you listen to a recording you start to expect it and finally, you almost focus on this noise – “is it time for the guy that coughed to get up and leave the audience?” About the fourth time one is about ready, to paraphrase the Mikado, “the coughers, none of them will be missed, no, none of them will be missed”.

A second characteristic of a live performance is the life that seems to be present that isn’t in the studio recording. – for a live recording, one emphasizes not being boring; for a studio recording one emphasizes not making mistakes. I did a CD of a soprano soloist in our church. She had thought to record a performance of a fundraiser, but I prevailed on her to record in advance. She was a very good amateur soloist and most selections I had at least 3 tries. The CD came out very well. I recorded the concert also, and when I gave her the CD, I commented that I was thankful I had the real multiple cuts. While at the time of the performance, I enjoyed it immensely; however, while listening to the recording of the performance; I could hear all sorts of pitch problems that the life of the live performance had concealed from me.

When we listen to a CD, we are less tolerant of extraneous noises and dynamic range problems. In many ways, it reminds me of the problems in photography. For example, you look out and see a beautiful landscape of gorgeous fall trees. The picture is taken, and when you look at, you realize that there are power lines that your eye was able to ignore and see the underlying beauty. Or you see a person under a tree outside and your eye will automatically cancel out the green from the reflected from the trees. Take a picture of someone under a tree and they will look green. Of course, this is far from new; this is what impressionists noticed and how they made light “real.” It seems the mind, will correct the sound and light in real life but not in reproductions.

So, in getting a recording of a live performance, one must look beyond the minor imperfections to the music that is being conveyed. So returning to where we stared about two weeks ago, when one listens to music, either real or recorded, one must go beyond what has been recording and go to what should have been heard.

Share This

Preparing for the afterlife

A few weeks ago, I was listening to Peter Bannister talk about his work Et iterum venturus est that Soli Deo Gloria has commissioned, which will be premiered in Paris in 2008. One of the other listeners asked, “When are we going to be able to hear it. Peter’s comment was that he was preparing an organ reduction so that the piece could be heard without the necessity of a chamber orchestra.

I previously talked about the question of music being heard – in particular new pieces and commissions. I quoted Daniel Gawthrop about the small number of chorus-orchestral compositions that receive a second playing. There are multiple reasons, not the least of which is that people haven’t heard many of these new pieces. A couple of years ago, the Naperville Chorus presented Robert Hanson’s Psalms of David, a piece that was very popular with the chorus and our audience. But it really isn’t recorded so it it is difficult for groups not knowing of Bob Hanson to realize that this is a piece that is worthy of performance.

Today, it is easy to make recordings, but it is difficult to release a recording that uses any professional musicians. The additional costs make it virtually impossible. The recent SDG commission of Requiem by Christopher Rouse is a case in point. The Los Angeles classical music radio station wanted to play it on their sacred music show, but as of the last time a friend in the area checked, they didn’t have the funds. Another of Christopher Rouse’s pieces, Karolju was just released as a recording about 17 years after its first performance; this is a piece by a Pulitzer-prize-winning composer, and the piece is very accessible. We in Naperville may do it; I gave a recording of it to our Music Director and he was very interested. It is a question of orchestra size/shifting.

A second section may come from the resources often required for a professional presentation of these pieces. At this point, I am leaving what I know about; I hope I am not in the class of the efficiency expert listening to a symphony (see for example
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~tfsmiles/humor/orchestra.html
which discusses these issues). I expect that most sacred choral music is done by amateur groups in this country. An orchestra, such as the Chicago Symphony may have only 4 or 5 concerts a year with choral music. I know that for our amateur chorus, one of the major considerations is the cost of an orchestra – we have to hire them – and the difficulty of the music; they have very limited rehearsal time for the amount we can afford to pay them. Certainly, the difficulty of the music is a consideration. While I suspect we could do something like the Bach B-Minor Mass, it would require more work than I think most of our members would be willing to put in. But Britten, Poulenc, Vaughan Williams, and Brahms we have done reasonably successfully.

For a professional orchestra, again cost is a consideration. They already need to pay a chorus; do they want to/can they afford to pay for a large orchestra with extra players? In the article cited above, which discusses the Schubert symphony, comments that the four oboes are not often needed so they could be eliminated and the their jobs spread among the other players. The thought of a tuba player playing the piccolo part comes immediately to mind. But it may be worth asking could a different balance of instruments give a similar effect? Would two oboes and a couple of other woodwinds give a pleasing substitute? Clearly, if the answer is no, then it won’t be done; this however may mean limiting the number of times a piece is played.

New music can be difficult to understand. When someone says, “you need to hear the music several times before you really understand it”, the question becomes, “where does one get the opportunity to hear new music multiple times?” Of course one can help this somewhat with program notes. The piece that comes immediately to my mind is Honeggar’s Cantate de Noel where at the beginning, the music attempts to depict the formlessness before the birth of Jesus and progressing to chant and finally carols weaving throughout. If the reason for the apparent formlessness is explained to the audience in advance, the whole structure of the piece is much more powerful and understandable. They are no longer trying to find form in music that is intended to be formless. To expect the average concert goer to figure it out on his/her own and in one listening is unreasonable.

Finally, a totally Quixote comment; if the Musicians Union could be prevailed upon to not need so much for the release of a recording of a premiere performance, it would make it possible for more people learn about new music. I will discuss the possible problems next week in a blog post that I am tentatively calling “Is it real or is it Memorex.”

As I see from the Soli Deo Gloria goals for the future, one of these goals is to make sure that every commission is recorded so it can be released on a CD. Clearly it is a question of money. Should one try to commission more music or to us funding to make sure that the music can be heard?

While something can be music even if it isn’t heard, if it is to make an impact on people’s lives, it must be heard.

Share This

Preparing for the second dance

I am certain we all know the question

If a tree falls in the wilderness, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

or the comparable

If a man says something and his wife doesn’t hear it, is he still wrong?

but one can also ask

If no one hears a composition, is it still music?

The reason I pose this question at all comes from the fate of much commissioned music. Is it music if the music does not make it into the repertoire? On Daniel Gawthrop’s website, he describes Behold this Mystery in the following way: “Further performances followed, and the piece has now earned a place in the small but distinguished category called Twentieth Century Extended Works for Chorus and Orchestra Which Have Received More Than One Performance. ”

I suppose it is cheating to answer my 3rd question above so quickly, but I have to say yes (the answer to the first, — I don’t care to return to that interminable debate, the answer to the second one is “of course” – (note, I have been married nearly 40 years). I have a friend that has to this point composed something like 600 pieces of music. Until recently most of them have never been heard and now, after I recorded two CD’s worth, more people have heard them. But even if that hadn’t happened, he still heard them in his mind and on his piano. As we all know, the Mass in B minor was not performed during Bach’s lifetime and possibly the first performance was more than 100 years after Bach’s death.

We are in a time in classical music much like the opening words of The Tale of Two Cities “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” For example, with recordings we can hear a wider variety of music than we have ever been able to hear. There are many composers. But today, composers in general don’t have musical groups to play their compositions and expose it to the public. All new music must compete with music from previous ages for an opportunity to be heard. With modern electronics, we can make satisfactory recordings of a live performance easily so that anyone can hear the music. But with the heavily processed modern studio recordings, the listener has come to expect perfection in recordings that just isn’t possible in a live performance. (I will return to this subject in two weeks time in a post entitled Is it real or is it Memorex) Musicians’ Unions have made it possible for classical musicians in the best orchestras to make a (good) living but have made it difficult to record new compositions.

I know that reading long posts on the Internet is not fun so I plan to continue this discussion next week in a post that I am tentatively calling Preparing for the afterlife.

Share This

Names and Words– an end, for a while

It is not easy to characterize people by one criterion. I spoke at the funeral of my friend Bill earlier this year and talking with the kids afterwards provoked the same thought in all of us. Bill had bought one of the first Apple ][+ computers in the late ‘70’s and one would have said he was technologically advanced. However, to my amuse/amaze-ment and his children’s consternation/horror, he stuck with dial-up until his death.

Why do I bring this up here? My last two posts have had opposite views on modern hymnody – gender neutrality in hymns is not an absolute for me – “give me that old-time hymn” expresses my view if the substitution upsets the textual flow. However, I am willing to consider God both as masculine and feminine – far from that “old-time religion”.

Continuing in that line, in general I am not wild about (or to be more correct, I dislike, but not rabidly) the substitution of “you” for “thou” – the latter is archaic but still easily understood and expresses to me a feeling that God is different than the ordinary people we know and consider. As Brian Wren so nicely puts it (see previous post) “Great, living God, never fully known”. This of course is contrary to the German usage, which uses the 2nd person pronoun “du”, which is normally only used for family, little children, animals, and close personal friends.

To me, a formality in worship helps separate worship from everyday life, in a way I suspect like some Catholics feel about the Tridentine Mass. Worship is both part of and separated from everyday life. As Moses was told to remove his sandals because he was on sacred ground, I like to think that going to worship requires some preparation and some focus.

A final thought to toss into this stewpot of ideas. Bishop Muskens has said:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah?” he said.

“What does God care what we call him? It is our problem.”

I agree, it is our problem. However because it is a problem to some of us, it will affect our worship experience and our response to God. But, from the hymnody point of view, we could have more mellifluous hymns.

So what am I – conservative, liberal or what? As a friend at our high school reunion commented; he would get together with two other friends from high school and one was very liberal and the other was very conservative. My comment was “does that make you just right?” Of course there is no just right – we all grow and develop in life in different ways. Hopefully my way is best for me (but possibly/probably not for you).

Share This

Bring Many Names

I thought I knew where I was going when I went wandering out on the internet looking for material for this week’s blog. Well, I ended up off track and will write about this side journey before getting back on track.

I started by looking up the words for the hymn “Bring Many Names” by Brian Wren (see text for the words) and I ran into some commentaries on the hymn that made me reconsider my thoughts on the hymn.

To quote from
a commentary on the new Canadian hymnbook

These types of changes and new texts represent precisely what is most troubling about the new hymn book. This hymn “Bring many names” by Brian Wren is a helpful sample of the theology behind the new hymn book. For this kind of religion, we name God, as it pleases, or suits, or helps us.For classical Christianity, God is simply beyond our naming, but indeed he has revealed and named himself, supremely by and in Jesus Christ. One of the early church writers and teachers, Justin Martyr provides us with a helpful correction and warning in this regard:

“For no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” (Apology in Defence of Christians).

So the new hymn book would have us ‘bring many names’, and sing and name God as:

Womb of life, and source of being,… Mother, Brother, holy Partner; Father, Spirit, Only Son: we would praise your name forever.

and from another commentary there are questions about this hymn; how can one refer to God as a Mother; the Bible (almost) always refers to God as a father?

The beginning lines of the 2nd through 5th stanzas are:

Strong mother God,
Warm father God,
Old, aching God,
Young, growing God,

But they are not names for God; they are descriptors for God. They help us understand the nature of God by letting us relate to what we know. This certainly is not new – think the 23rd Psalm; does anyone really see God as a Shepherd guiding sheep? No, we see this as a metaphor to help us understand God’s nature. To most of us in modern society, a shepherd is someone we know only intellectually – but a mother, a father, a God that takes on the worlds problems and a God that leads us into new ways is something we can understand.

Finally, I want to quote the entire last stanza – isn’t this something we all agree on?

Great, living God, never fully known,
joyful darkness far beyond our seeing,
closer yet than breathing, everlasting home:
Hail and hosanna, great, living God!

This is clearly well outside my competence – it isn’t chemistry or physics, it isn’t even choral music directly. But it is hymns, a song of praise to God in some of his many natures. Note, I am not fond of this hymn for singing; while it perfectly diatonic, the meter is strange and often the notes are what I refer to as “yes, I guess one could use that pitch there”.

Share This