the power of music

Music is a powerful thing. Knowing myself, and many of my colleagues, musicians are emotional people. Put the two together and it can be dangerous. I could be watching some stupid commercial about a refrigerators, and because the music in the background is some nostalgic song, I'll suddenly be sad. I know that this effect isn't exclusive to just musicians, but I would bet it affects them more easily. Its just something built into the system.

Music on its own is powerful, but combine it with a visual aid of some sort, whether it be a movie, pictures, a commercial, TV show, or maybe even just a plain old music video, it becomes extremely powerful. Were you ever in some assembly as a kid, maybe at the end of the year in middle school or high school, and they showed a slide show of pictures from the past year? More than likely they played some sort of music...and it probably made all the difference. It probably made you feel sad, nostalgic, maybe even angry, powerful, whatever. Take away the music, and its just a bunch of stupid pictures that people are going to make fun of. Come to think of it, the music probably kept people quiet. Take for instance a movie or TV show. Have you ever re-watched a powerful scene with the sound muted? It loses almost all impact. Or have you ever watched a scene, whether it was some love scene, heart breaking moment, or action packed footage, and for some reason it seemed like it lacked some sort of punch? Was it missing music? Maybe it was just that the music didn't fit the scene? Music is powerful and can make a huge difference. I've noticed the music selections for television series seem to be more and more "thought out." They're more comprehensive. They seem to fit the mood as well, rather than sometimes just fitting the lyrics. A lot of them are using copyrighted music, which means they're probably paying royalties...meaning, they think its worth paying money to use the song. In the past, gaps or scenes might be filled in with some C rate show ditty written by some composer in five minutes who needed a few bucks.

It works on the flip side as well. You may have heard some song or piece a million times, but it never really made much impact on you. Then you heard that song while watching some video, movie, commercial, whatever. Suddenly that song has new meaning, especially when you listen to it by itself. You hear that song in a new light because its now attached to some visual, scene, or scenario and its impact is multiplied.

People link songs to things. Its like smell, but maybe not as powerful. When people hear a song, they think of a time, place, situation, scenario, feeling, and it brings them back. This is probably why movie music is often liked by people...its attached to something. I think it would behoove the classical world to start looking into commissioning new works (or maybe old works) with some sort of visual aid, whether they be mini movies, pictures, art, animations, etc. After all, who didn't like Fantasia? I would say the only caveat is that you might end up associated something that perhaps wasn't necessarily intended to be linked to the music, i.e. whales with Pines of Rome in Fantasia 2000. Pines of Rome is somewhat of a programmatic piece, with a mild storyline behind it...so maybe they're Roman whales, I don't know. Regardless, there's no harm done, its still a great idea, and its pretty cool and powerful either way. It certainly adds another dimension.

interesting thought no. 4

In this month’s International Musician, where orchestral position openings are posted this appeared. The Detroit Symphony also posted something similar, although a bit different. Keep in mind this is a paid position:


The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra and
the National Repertory Orchestra
announce the following program:
ORCHESTRA TRAINING PROGRAM FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSICIANS
(1 POSITION)

They proceed to state other details such as the date of the audition, the salary amount, an address to send your resume, etc. At the bottom of the ad reads this:

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Really? Hm, interesting...

degrees...

I’ve been thinking recently about degrees and such. At least in music, it seems somewhat easy to complete a degree (once you've been accepted into a program, that is, which isn't always so easy)…and so pointless. As a performer, a music degree is, essentially, useless…especially the higher the degree. There is no need for it. Anyone auditioning you for a legitimate performance job, could really care less what degree you've earned. Where you studied and who you studied with is a bit more relevant, as it often gives a pedigree of sorts, perhaps shedding a little more light on where you’re coming from, what you might know, and what your experiences have been. Even then, its still somewhat irrelevant. It comes down to how you play, and more importantly, how you play in that moment, or how you potentially could play. Musicians who wish to be performance majors obviously go through schooling to get experience, learn from their teachers, colleagues, make contacts, or for a number of other legitimate reasons. Pursuing further education is often done for the same reasons, or if anything, to avoid being thrown into the real world just yet. The doctoral degree, then, for a performance-geared musician is for all intents and purpose a completely useless degree. Sure, you’ll get more experience during your extended time in school, but the degree will do nothing for you. The only reason one would pursue this degree (other than reasons previously stated) would be if you wanted to teach music. And by this, I mean typically teach those at a university or such institution where students for the most part aren’t studying to be performers, but rather to be music teachers. Its funny to me that at a performance geared institution, students are typically studying with teachers who are actually performers, who never studied to be educators. Yet they are the ones who are most desirable as teachers. Why? Because they’re out in the real world performing professionally, which is what they studied to do, and thus are teaching what they are able to do. Even if they are not currently performing, they more than likely did professionally at one point. After all, every conservatory I can think of employs teachers of each instrument who are currently, or previously were high level performers…some may have accumulated a higher degree or such along the way, but didn't go the education route. No matter what the case, they weren’t employed because of a degree, but rather because of their performing abilities. So don’t you think its funny that many of those teaching music (other than at conservatories and select institutions or universities known for their music programs) aren’t full-time professional performers? Its possible that a lot of them may have never done, or are even able to do what they're teaching. More than likely they're also teaching students who don’t plan on being performers either, but rather teachers, yet who will in turn go out in the world and become “teaching authorities on performance” at some other institution. Almost all of the desired teachers I know of for performance on my instrument never studied to be teachers. They studied to be great musicians and masters of their instruments, and because of that, became great teachers. There are exceptions to ever rule, and I have studied with and known teachers who have PhD’s, were teachers at universities, institutions, even high schools and such, who are fantastic teachers. But they're usually teachers to produce and train other teachers, not necessarily to teach a performer, although they're in a position to do so. Isn’t that funny? Now the flip side is also true, in that great performers aren't always good teachers. This isn't my point, though, as I'm not trying to making a distinction between good and bad teachers, but rather who is teaching who what. Is a firefighter teaching someone to be a police officer? Its close, and I'm sure they could somewhat teach the job, or learn something even new, but its not the same. Perhaps this is often the disconnect between professors in academia and those who teach what they do professionally in the real world.

Lots of people work hard for their degrees, study a great deal, and know a lot about the field in which they’ve earned their degree. However…lets look at the large number of people who don’t, and cruise right through. So I then I thought, getting back to my original point on degrees…since it seems in some cases, or at least at some schools, fairly easy to achieve a doctorate in music and not necessarily have to do all that much for it (or even necessarily know that much), I started thinking...in how many other fields is it just as easy to achieve a degree, or at least breeze through one? And in those fields, its more than likely a bigger deal to have that degree, probably coupled with more influence and responsibilities. After all, a musician with a doctorate isn't necessarily making decisions affecting peoples' lives. And so, assuming this PhD means more in another field, what kind of numb-nuts are being handed high level degrees? Should they really have them? What sort of decisions are they making, or opinions are we getting, and trusting, from people whose only justification for voicing it was the degree they never deserved to get? Isn’t it funny? Or is it just plain scary?

inappropriate applause?

As in any work environment, there are certain rules and etiquette in classical music which most people adhere to. Some of them, I believe, are what makes going to a classical concert sometimes so unattractive to people these days. There are many which apply to the orchestra, but the one I'll be referring to in this post is specific to the audience, and that is applause. Some of the generally accepted rules and etiquette are common for any public event, like not blurting out profanities in the middle of a piece, or slugging the guy next to you. But applause is another thing. As we all know, "classical" concerts are among the few, if not the only musical events where applause is generally unacceptable during the music, and certainly between movements of a multi-movement piece. And as a little disclaimer: this isn't a bad thing, its how this type of music is performed and set around. Anyway...so recently I played a concert that had both exciting and tame repertoire. During the first half (the tamer half) of the first performance, perhaps there were some "inexperienced" concert goers or maybe young audience members who were unaware of the "don't applaud between movements" rule. Perhaps they were personally excited by the music and felt desire to applaud after the first movement, or more than likely, they just didn't know you "weren't supposed to." As the little pocket of audience members were the only ones who applauded, you might have thought they wouldn't have continued to applaud between the following couple of movements, but they did. And I'm glad they did. In fact, what made me even more glad, was to see the conductor graciously give a half turn and a little bow/nod to acknowledge their applause and appreciation. During the second half, where we played a more lively symphony, Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, the same thing happened. If you know the 6th Symphony, you'll know that the third movement ends like most symphonies end, quite excitingly and thrilling. The last movement ends in a quite unusual fashion, very somber and depressing, but quite beautiful at the same time. Regardless, even to an audience member who is aware of the "don't applaud" rule, and maybe not so much Tchaikovsky's 6th, one might be easily mistaken that it is the end of the piece and applaud, perhaps assuming two movements were meshed into one, and that the third movement was indeed the end. Even if one was aware of both the "rule" and the piece, one would hopefully still feel an excitement at the end of the movement, which might prompt one to want to applaud. Regardless, the same pocket applauded between movements of the Tchaikovsky, and a few more added to the mix after the third movement. During the concert the next night, perhaps a more "educated" audience, or maybe just a prude one was in the house, and no one applauded between movements. I have to admit, whether it was the "type" of people who don't applaud, or maybe just their seeming temperament, I liked the first audience better.

The last performance we played in the series was a sort of educational concert where every movement of the Tchaikovsky was explained before being played. Well, obviously this sort of setting allows for applause after every movement, but even then, the audience wasn't sure, and their were random claps amongst the audience until the "narrator" of the concert said, "Yes, its okay to applaud." That to me is depressing: the fact that an audience had to be told that it was okay to clap. If you're up on your music history, you'll know that during the Cleveland Orchestra's premier performance of the piece, the audience applauded so enthusiastically after the third movement, the conductor proceeded to replay the 3rd movement before even moving on to the fourth! What happened to that kind of enthusiasm, or audience?! Again, I was especially glad to hear the conductor go out of his way to address the subject, and specifically point out that he wasn't offended, didn't mind, and even welcomed it when people felt led to applaud after something they liked. Its as if people don't want to make a mistake at a concert by applauding in the wrong spot. Does that even make sense?? And whats so much worse are the people who look down at other people with belittlement and disdain as if they're so much more educated and "know better" than to applaud between movements. I don't like that conceited attitude you often find around classical music...another problem I believe plagues the business. Did you ever notice on a classical radio stations how the "DJs" often have, what I find to be awfully put on, fake ambiguous accents? Maybe they're real, who knows. That's another subject anyway.

It was so perfect too that just a week or two later I played a gig with a group and at the performance, between two of the movements, the audience for whatever reason started to applaud slightly until the conductor shot out his arms very abruptly to silence the audience's applause, as if they were some stupid kids who "should've known better!" I was disgusted, embarrassed, but mostly glad to remember there were conductors like the last one I played under (who by the way, has a more prestigious position, perhaps because he knows better).

So what is this about applause?? Do you have to be told that its okay to applaud before you do, as if you were still in 2nd grade and needed to ask permission to pee? Come on. Seriously, and whats this haughty taughty crap about looking down on people who applaud between movements? If you like it, show your appreciation. From a performer's viewpoint, we like to know you're enjoying what we're doing. Now don't leave this post thinking I'm saying you should applaud between movements. I'm just saying, you shouldn't feel bad if you do, and certainly don't feel like you can't, and definitely don't look down on someone who does. So this brings me to the point to agree with those opposing me and say, okay, so there are exceptions. Maybe for a really soft, moving, tender moment, you're not going to burst out in some raucous applause. There are moments that shouldn't be "disturbed" and would be better left to enjoy the moment and the silence that follows. And you probably aren't going to want to start cheering in the middle of a piece either like a jazz or rock concert, but then again, who knows, why not? But for those of you who don't like exceptions, and say, NO! This is the symphony orchestra, and it must be upheld and respected in its most holiest sacredness of whatever whatever-ness...just shut up and applaud.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 12

Ok, wow, so its been a while since my last post. But I'm still here, so have no fear. I'd like to suggest listening to Peter Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 4. Its a very popular work that is perfomed quite often, and is one of those symphonies that's harmonically pleasing, brassy, and really exciting. Tchaikovsky wrote the piece for a patron of his, Madame von Meck, to whom he dedicated the piece writing, "Dedicated To My Best Friend." A very wealthy, and seemingly moody and excentric woman, Tchaikovsky and von Meck held extensive correspondence with each other for some 13 years, writing over 1200 letters, and yet never met. The opening statement heard in the brass represents "Fate," and is what Tchaikovsky believed kept one from happiness. As stated in a letter to Madame von Meck, the second movement has a more melancholy, sad, nostalgic feeling, based on wearyness, and the sad and sweet memories of life. "The Third movement," Tchaikovsky says, "expresses no definite feeling. It is made up from capricious arabesques, of elusive images which can rush past in the imagination after drinking a little wine and feeling the first phases of intoxication. The spirit is neither cheerful, nor yet sad. Thinking about nothing, giving free rein to the imagination, which somehow begins to paint strange pictures. Amid these memories there suddenly comes a picture of drunken peasants and a street song ... Then, somewhere in the distance, a military procession passes. These are completely disparate images which rush past in the head during sleep. They have nothing in common with reality; they are strange, wild, and disjointed." Interesting. The fourth movement depicts a picture of a folk holiday, and as Tchiakovsky says, "If within yourself you find no reasons for joy, look at others. Go among the people. Observe how they can enjoy themselves, surrendering themselves wholeheartedly to joyful feelings. A picture of festive merriment of the people." The symphony was written between 1877 and 1878, is made up of four movements, lasting about 45 minutes.