Requisite Knowledge Level for Understanding (* being beginner, ***** being expert): *
There is a certain amount of vocabulary that comes with everything. An IT tech will likely use words like "network" or "password" on a daily basis on the job, while a grocer will use words like "turkey" and "apples" on their job. The same holds true for social events or free time activities. Someone who loves attending movies or watching TV might talk about the "actors/actresses" or the "director" while someone who loves to bowl might discuss the "pin action". As one goes further and further into any one topic, the vocabulary eventually arrives at a point where only the well initiated truly will be able to follow the conversation.
This is news to no one. In fact, this is often the case in sports, with on caveat: sports are incredibly popular. Here in the good old US of A, Football (American, that is) is the name of the game. The Superbowl is so popular that pretty much nothing happens during the game excepting Superbowl parties. Everyone can use fairly specific terminology like referring to the "tight end" or the "line of scrimmage" which you would only know if you have paid attention to this sport for at least a few games. I, personally, know very little about American Football and do not care for sports in general (the only sport I somewhat follow is Tennis), and as such, I often sound like an idiot when in social situations when things like Football or Basketball are discussed, not to mention the fact that most people can name the best couple of players on each of the major teams.
I mention this because of a stigma that Classical music has achieved over the years. Classical music has the stigma on it of being too "intelligent" or too "inaccessible" for the average person, and that people talking about it sound "pretentious". I do not like this application of this word, pretentious. Sure, when us classical aficionados discuss things like "sonata form" or the evolution of composition from Bach through Beethoven to Berg and the freeing of tonality in the Second Viennese School, if you do not know what those things mean or to what they are referring, it does sound confusing. But to say that is pretentious is, in my opinion, rude.
A lot of this, as it stands, has to do with how people feel who do NOT know much about Classical music. As I have stated above, I do not follow sports at all. Why then, can I not consider it pretentious when someone comes up to me and starts talking about what X player on Y team can be doing when running a "screen play" (I may or may not know what that means) when near the "end zone"? And it is not so much the fact that they ask me the questions, I am fine with that. They like this sport, and things are happening which are exciting enough that they would like to discuss, and so they turn to me. So I tell them that I know nothing about these sports and so they try to tell me enough about the situation that I may be able to follow the significance of their question. I feel fine with myself for not knowing sports, and learning about it in this manner, hodgepodge like in random situations.
But if the question goes the other way around and I turn to someone and ask what they think about Sibelius's 5th Symphony, for example, the reaction is different. Certainly I get the "I don't know much about Classical music" response. But from there, if I start trying to explain my question, the person with whom I am talking often gets defensive. As if they are thinking, "why should I have to know about this Classical music?" or "did I ASK you to teach me about this stuff?" while I am simply trying to have the same kind of conversation that they would be having with me about sports. I did not ask for their question or instruction there, but I did not complain but instead welcomed the information. Why should not the response be the same way? Instead, the stuff I wish to discuss is "pretentious" because it is "unimportant" because Classical music is not popular.
That statement above may have gone on longer than I intended it to, but that is intended as a preamble to this: what to call Classical music. We call each work of music a Piece. We do not, as a rule, call them songs or tunes or anything else like that. Jazz musicians will sometimes call their music tunes or heads or charts, but we classical musicians like to use the word Piece. No, we are NOT being pretentious. We are just calling it what it is called. We correct people who call a "piece" a "song" in the same way that my sister corrects me when I can say that the quarterback "threw" the ball that he instead "passed" the ball down field. There is no reason to get emotional or feel anything other than you are learning something new. I do not get upset when my sister tells me that I am using incorrect sports term, and yet people feel strongly about learning new music terms. (Just to be thorough, there ARE specific instances where a given "piece" might be ALSO a "song", but it is still a "piece of classical music" but these are not incredibly common, particularly if you are talking about an orchestra performance.)
The reason for this is that each piece is something different. It is unique. As is each performance of each piece. With most pop songs, you have the same artist performing the song. Each time you hear "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", it is being performed by U2. It is a U2 song, they sing it, it is theirs (by the way, I am a big fan of U2). Even when it isn't being performed by U2, but instead by a cover band, usually their number one main goal is to make it sound as much exactly like it does when U2 sings it as their possibly can. This is NOT the case with classical music. Each and every performance is intended to sound like it sounds. Each conductor makes his/her very own statement of what Beethoven's 5th Symphony should sound like. What is more, that even changes with whichever orchestra they are conducting. An interpretation by one conductor in front of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra might vastly differ from their interpretation in front of the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra. Thus each piece is its own artistic statement in the same way that an artist who paints presents a piece and not just another painting, even if it is just of another landscape.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Recommended Listening: Respighi's "Pines of Rome"
Requisite Knowledge Level for Understanding (* being beginner, ***** being expert): **
Ottorino Respighi was born in Bologna, Italy and was taught to play the violin and the piano by his father, a piano teacher, from a young age. He went on to study the viola in addition to the violin and piano as well as composition from Giuseppe Martucci. He received his diploma in violin in 1899 and from there proceeded to play as concertmaster for the orchestra of the Russian Imperial Theatre in St. Petersburg. While there he studied with the Russian composer Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov. He then returned to Bologna and received a diploma in composition, while still performing on the violin. Starting around 1910, his compositions began to draw his attention, and those held his sway for the remainder of his life. Though he never truly gave up performing fully, by about 1920 it can be said that he was a composer only.
All of that above is to say that he got a thorough education in all kinds of music, past and present, performing and writing. I mention these things in particular because I think that a little knowledge of a person's past informs his/her writings (e.g. the knowledge of when someone like Thomas Mann lived helps to understand the themes in his writings). I also mention this because of one of the great things about this piece: its lush, gorgeous orchestration.
Orchestration is the instrumentation assigned for the performance of a given piece. Take, for example, the song "Row, Row, Row Your Boat". If you sing it by yourself, then it is for "solo voice". If later you sing it with three other people in a round in two octaves, two at the top octave with girls, and two at the bottom octave with boys, you are singing it for "multiple voices" which would imply that your "solo voice" arrangement left off some of the more interesting harmonies and rhythmic interactions within the song. Now let's say you switch up your "multiple voices" arrangement to be three girls and one boy. Technically these three would all be the same song or piece, but they would be three different Arrangements or Orchestrations.
Generally speaking, a composer writes their music at the piano, because it is accessible and yet comprehensive. With any number of grand operatic and symphonic works, the composer will compose all of the music at the piano, and then arrange it for orchestra, or larger ensemble. While these two skills often go hand in hand, they are not necessarily so, and the composer will from time to time, not often, but still not rarely, will not be the same person who arranges it for orchestra. This is EXTREMELY common in Hollywood for movie scores. The composer whose name you see at the end of the movie and have heard before like John Williams or Hans Zimmer probably (I'd say a good 98% chance that they) did not orchestrate it. The notes and rhythms go to the composer, but the person who put those melodies in the hands of the trumpets or violins was the arranger/orchestrator (whose name you don't see unless you carefully scan the credits).
In that first paragraph, you will notice that I mentioned that Respighi studied with Rimsky-Korsakov. Known as a first rate operatic and symphonic composer in his own right, Rimsky-Korsakov is probably one of the greatest orchestraters of all time. Arguments generally point to Maurice Ravel as the single greatest, and it might be nice to note that Ravel studied lengthily with Rimsky-Korsakov, and Ravel's orchestration of Modest Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition is one of the most famous examples of a different composer and arranger, as Mussorgsky wrote it as a piano solo and Ravel scored it for full orchestra. Rimsky-Korsakov's text on orchestration is still highly regarded today and is one of the most complete and easy to use instructive manuals on orchestration. Respighi certainly picked up something from him because his talent for orchestration can be found in all of his works, especially in the Roman Trilogy, of which the Pines of Rome is the second work (the other two are the Fountains of Rome and Roman Festivals).
The Pines of Rome (Pini di Roma) is a four movement Tone Poem. A Tone Poem is essentially what it sounds like. It attempts to evoke stories and images using music alone (i.e. no words). Sometimes they will be written after and/or accompanying an actual poem or story (such as with "The Sorcerer's Apprentice") but just as often they will be written as an original piece. This piece depicts the pine trees at different locations around Rome at different points of the day. Generally speaking, this is classified as a Romantic piece, though it does push to the end of that period and could be considered Modern
I. Pines of the Villa Borghese - describing children playing soldiers and marching among the trees
II. Pines Near a Catacomb - a majestic dirge, depicting the depths and solemnity of the catacombs
III. Pines of the Janiculum - a nocturne set on the Janiculum hill, featuring birds and forest life
IV. Pines of the Appian Way - misty dawn as a legion of troops marches along the way with the ground trembling under the weight of the army
I recommend the recording done by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. It is in my opinion one of the greatest recordings of this and any orchestral work in general. It can be found in many forms from LP to CD, to SACD, to digital download. Well worth a listen and absolutely gorgeous sound. The music itself is pretty popular as well, and it is very possible that you might have heard some or all of it previously. Other recordings are of course quite solid as well, this one just happens to be my favourite.
Ottorino Respighi was born in Bologna, Italy and was taught to play the violin and the piano by his father, a piano teacher, from a young age. He went on to study the viola in addition to the violin and piano as well as composition from Giuseppe Martucci. He received his diploma in violin in 1899 and from there proceeded to play as concertmaster for the orchestra of the Russian Imperial Theatre in St. Petersburg. While there he studied with the Russian composer Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov. He then returned to Bologna and received a diploma in composition, while still performing on the violin. Starting around 1910, his compositions began to draw his attention, and those held his sway for the remainder of his life. Though he never truly gave up performing fully, by about 1920 it can be said that he was a composer only.
All of that above is to say that he got a thorough education in all kinds of music, past and present, performing and writing. I mention these things in particular because I think that a little knowledge of a person's past informs his/her writings (e.g. the knowledge of when someone like Thomas Mann lived helps to understand the themes in his writings). I also mention this because of one of the great things about this piece: its lush, gorgeous orchestration.
Orchestration is the instrumentation assigned for the performance of a given piece. Take, for example, the song "Row, Row, Row Your Boat". If you sing it by yourself, then it is for "solo voice". If later you sing it with three other people in a round in two octaves, two at the top octave with girls, and two at the bottom octave with boys, you are singing it for "multiple voices" which would imply that your "solo voice" arrangement left off some of the more interesting harmonies and rhythmic interactions within the song. Now let's say you switch up your "multiple voices" arrangement to be three girls and one boy. Technically these three would all be the same song or piece, but they would be three different Arrangements or Orchestrations.
Generally speaking, a composer writes their music at the piano, because it is accessible and yet comprehensive. With any number of grand operatic and symphonic works, the composer will compose all of the music at the piano, and then arrange it for orchestra, or larger ensemble. While these two skills often go hand in hand, they are not necessarily so, and the composer will from time to time, not often, but still not rarely, will not be the same person who arranges it for orchestra. This is EXTREMELY common in Hollywood for movie scores. The composer whose name you see at the end of the movie and have heard before like John Williams or Hans Zimmer probably (I'd say a good 98% chance that they) did not orchestrate it. The notes and rhythms go to the composer, but the person who put those melodies in the hands of the trumpets or violins was the arranger/orchestrator (whose name you don't see unless you carefully scan the credits).
In that first paragraph, you will notice that I mentioned that Respighi studied with Rimsky-Korsakov. Known as a first rate operatic and symphonic composer in his own right, Rimsky-Korsakov is probably one of the greatest orchestraters of all time. Arguments generally point to Maurice Ravel as the single greatest, and it might be nice to note that Ravel studied lengthily with Rimsky-Korsakov, and Ravel's orchestration of Modest Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition is one of the most famous examples of a different composer and arranger, as Mussorgsky wrote it as a piano solo and Ravel scored it for full orchestra. Rimsky-Korsakov's text on orchestration is still highly regarded today and is one of the most complete and easy to use instructive manuals on orchestration. Respighi certainly picked up something from him because his talent for orchestration can be found in all of his works, especially in the Roman Trilogy, of which the Pines of Rome is the second work (the other two are the Fountains of Rome and Roman Festivals).
The Pines of Rome (Pini di Roma) is a four movement Tone Poem. A Tone Poem is essentially what it sounds like. It attempts to evoke stories and images using music alone (i.e. no words). Sometimes they will be written after and/or accompanying an actual poem or story (such as with "The Sorcerer's Apprentice") but just as often they will be written as an original piece. This piece depicts the pine trees at different locations around Rome at different points of the day. Generally speaking, this is classified as a Romantic piece, though it does push to the end of that period and could be considered Modern
I. Pines of the Villa Borghese - describing children playing soldiers and marching among the trees
II. Pines Near a Catacomb - a majestic dirge, depicting the depths and solemnity of the catacombs
III. Pines of the Janiculum - a nocturne set on the Janiculum hill, featuring birds and forest life
IV. Pines of the Appian Way - misty dawn as a legion of troops marches along the way with the ground trembling under the weight of the army
I recommend the recording done by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. It is in my opinion one of the greatest recordings of this and any orchestral work in general. It can be found in many forms from LP to CD, to SACD, to digital download. Well worth a listen and absolutely gorgeous sound. The music itself is pretty popular as well, and it is very possible that you might have heard some or all of it previously. Other recordings are of course quite solid as well, this one just happens to be my favourite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)