Thursday, March 26, 2009
Whitacre as a "neo-Impressioist"
So, in the previous class, Dr. Brunner posed the question of whether or not Eric Whitacre is a Neo-Impressionist. I don't know much of Whitacre's music, but I am pretty sure that I wouldn't want to piegeon-hole him into just one category. I think that he is way more versatile than that. I only know a couple of his band pieces, and then the pieces that were presented to us in class. (Beautiful choral music, by the way.) If all that he wrote was the choral music, I guess that I would think that he has strong ties to an Impressionistic style. The slow moving chords, and chords that are packed full of notes that can go anywhere harmonically resemble that kind of style. It was beautiful music and the text painting added an extra amount of aural interest to his music. I however, am more familiar with "Godzilla eats Las Vegas," since I have played in wind ensembles most of my life. If that was all that I knew, I would probably think you were insane to classify his music as being impressionistic. Also, the opera, "Paradise Lost" didn't seem very impressionistic either. I would have to see a performance, but I wouldn't associate what I heard with Debussy or Ravel. I think that is why you might not want to place whitacre into a label like we so often tend to do. What's wrong with just being original? He seems to have his own voice and is able to successfully and convincingly navigate in and out of a variety of styles. I think what I like about his music is that he does have a strong since of melody, and a fairly tonal outlook considering a lot of music that is composed today. I really like that he is able to be accessible and interesting at the same time. Maybe that is why he is an great innovator. I think that it is hard to be relevant in this day and time. I have played some new pieces for clarinet and have forgotten about them after the performance is over. What I like about Whitacre, is his music can be fun, interesting, and highly beautiful time after time. In a culture where we tend to linger on what Romantic Germans and Italians wrote, it's nice to know that some composers from today have such success writing in their own point of view. Maybe I am way off here, but that is what I like about Whitacre's music.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are absolutely right that pigeon-holing a composer like Eric Whitacre is a mistake. His music sounds like Eric Whitacre's music, while still maintaining a certain amount of eclecticism (assuming "maintained eclecticism" isn't an oxymoron).
ReplyDeleteWhile I, too, do not necessarily think that Whitacre sounds like Debussy, I don't necessarily think that was the intent of the description. Schubert and Chopin are both Romantic Era composers, but they do not sound alike. The operative part of the label is NEO-impressionistic. It should not be confused with the Impressionism that has come and gone. The originator of the description (and I wish so badly that I could remember where I read that) was, I think, trying to relate Whitacre's music (which continues to elude description) to something one is more familiar with. All that to say, I think the description is apt in as far as there are elements in Whitacres music (particularly the choral works) that are Impressionistic, but not Debussian.
Does anyone else find it unusual that he hasn't written much chamber music? I suppose the choral works could be considered chamber music, but nothing for small ensembles of instruments. No piano works. No art songs. I was just thinking about that as I wrote about how eclectic Whitacre is. And yet, there are numerous ensemble combinations he has yet to tap. Perhaps that's something to look forward to.
I agree wholeheartedly, as I find his music both stimulating and unique. A few thoughts on the matter thus far:
ReplyDelete1) He's labeled Neo Impressionist or Neo Minimalist or whatever because the critic machine has to label him as Something, you can't just go around being unique, otherwise people won't be able to figure out if they like you so they can listen to hear if they were right or wrong. Even John Cage gets a label, usually something like Experimentalist or something to that effect. Anyone too far out of the box like Partch or whoever just gets lumped in with the Eccentrics and we move on...
2) Impressionism. yes. Minimalism. Absolutely. We didn't listen to it in class, but off that same BYU Singers CD is a piece called Leonardo Dreams of His Flying Machine, which has a section in which the flying machine takes flight, which sounds like a choral transcription of....you guessed it: Short Ride in a Fast Machine by John Adams.
There are also elements of some of the European Minimalists there. Listen to the opening 2 minutes (of about 15) of When David Heard (same CD, maybe you should just go get it...). It builds up a typical Whitacre diatonic cluster one note at a time from bottom to top, reitterating the words "my son" (I think the Bible verse is from Daniel...), over and over, louder and louder, then at the point when you can't stand it anymore: Unison octaves. hell yeah. Just like Gorecki's Three Pieces in Olden Style.
As for chamber music and other stuff, there are several reasons the pieces might not have come. 1) no one has asked him, 2) he's been asked and declines as he doesn't feel that he hears in those forces, or, 3) being the consummate businessperson, he doesn't accept offers to write due to the limited market. His band pieces are guaranteed to sell 100s of copies each, that's score and parts. Bukoo bucks. and his choral pieces...I read somewhere that Water Nights is the fastest selling and highest grossing choral piece ever written. so there ya have it, maybe.