Whitacre, Eric (b 1970)

[jean]

What I'm saying is that you could also (possibly more precisely) make out those discrete strands if the entries had different words. Especially in a fugue, where imitation between voices is going to emphasise their interrelatedness rather strongly.

Yes - Idon't think the presence of words makes things clearer at all. Besides, in medieval and early renaissance vocal music, a single vowel can be so prolonged that by the end you've lost all idea of the word you're singing.

An extreme example of discrete voices might be the polytextual motets of the middle ages, whose voices often sound almost as if they belong to different pieces that just happened to land together in this interwoven state.

I was thinking of those, though the second text is often to a cantus firmus rather than a strand of imitative counterpoint.

But my point (or Penderecki's, rather) was to do with polyphony being idiomatic to vocal-ensemble music - where, indeed, it seems to have its European historical origins.

And yet, in the Renaissance,complsers sometimes didn't seem to mind much whether their pieces wre performed by vocal ensembles or as a single vocal line accompanied by an instrumental consort.

I'd usually rather have the vocal ensemble option, but here is one piece which to me is very obviously a consort song, though Byrd himself seems to have envisaged the vocal ensemble version, the second of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eshvXkr7E-A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2B2s5bx_UM

[Richard Barrett]

the second text is often to a cantus firmus rather than a strand of imitative counterpoint

Or sometimes that's the third text; and then you have pieces like Machaut's influential "Quant Theseus/Ne quier veoir" where two of the four voices have different and equally important texts, accompanied by two untexted voices which may or may not be intended as instrumental parts. Returning to Penderecki, I don't think he was intending to make some strict pronouncement but rather to explain why his own choral music is principally linear in focus. This applies to his later, more conservative work of course; his earlier choral music used a wide variety of more or less experimental techniques - some of which have been lifted by Eric Whitacre.

[light_calibre_baritone]

.., his earlier choral music used a wide variety of more or less experimental techniques - some of which have been lifted by Eric Whitacre.

Such as?

As someone who sings a lot of new choral music in all sorts of contexts (liturgical, concert, recording, etc) most if not all seem to have elements that are "lifted" from many composers that have gone before, or who are influential now. Too many are written by (mainly) orchestral or instrumental composers who seem to have little or no idea of how voices work or the idea of line... Or linear movement as you previously mentioned. And back to counterpoint...

[MrGongGong]

Such as?

As someone who sings a lot of new choral music in all sorts of contexts (liturgical, concert, recording, etc) most if not all seem to have elements that are "lifted" from many composers that have gone before, or who are influential now. Too many are written by (mainly) orchestral or instrumental composers who seem to have little or no idea of how voices work or the idea of line... Or linear movement as you previously mentioned. And back to counterpoint...

This is an interesting question.
There are some techniques that are so tied to a particular composer (some of Alvin Lucier's music for example) that when other composers use the same technique it IS more than just using a shared compositional language. I think what some folks (and i've not heard enough of it to be definite about this) find in EW's music is unattributed "borrowing" from other composers techniques with a sense of entitlement that is at best a bit rude.

[Richard Barrett]

Such as?

Various whispering/spoken effects combined with singing, numerous examples of desynchronised textures (different voices singing a sequence of syllables in their own time, free use of specified pitch sequences etc.) and so on, which can in most cases be traced back to scores by the aforementioned Penderecki, plus Stockhausen (especially Momente of which I would suggest EW has a well-thumbed copy!). Obviously I'm not so interested in EW's work as to point out everything in it that derives from something else - these are observations based on a very fleeting acquaintance with his scores and recordings.

most if not all seem to have elements that are "lifted" from many composers that have gone before, or who are influential now

- and that's a shame, don't you think?

Too many are written by (mainly) orchestral or instrumental composers who seem to have little or no idea of how voices work or the idea of line

That's the kind of thing people used to write about JS Bach of course. One person's "idea of line" might be very different from another's. I do agree though that writing choral music is a specialised skill which many composers don't have; but then so is writing for orchestra, or piano, or electric lap steel guitar. I do find it a little strange, on the other hand, that composers often write awkwardly for the voice (bearing in mind again that "awkwardness" is a subjective rather than objective quality) - everyone has a voice, after all, and when composing for voice one ought to be able to feel how it would be to sing the material, even if one's own rendition wouldn't bear listening to by anyone else!

[JimD]

...composers often write awkwardly for the voice (bearing in mind again that "awkwardness" is a subjective rather than objective quality)...

Odd combination of statements I feel.

[Richard Barrett]

Odd combination of statements I feel.

Let me try to unpack it then. Composers often write for the voice in a way that many vocalists would find awkward and which might go against traditional norms of what constitutes "good vocal writing", although (a) some singers might not find that same thing awkward and (b) the awkwardness might be the product of ignorance or lack of skill, but it might also be an informed attempt to expand the musical-expressive range of the voice(s), and some might find it difficult to tell the difference.

[Pianoman]

I'm no expert (or composer) and maybe it's already been said, but when I first heard EW it struck me as influenced by his older compatriot Lauridsen (or maybe even back to Randall Thompson) at least in his use of those soft, easy-on-the-ear diatonic clusters that seem to have become a trademark. He is definitely repeating the formula, but I still cherish that early Stephen Layton/ Polyphony disc when it all seemed quite fresh - his Emily Dickinson setting is quite memorable to me...

[vinteuil]

... his use of those soft, easy-on-the-ear diatonic clusters that seem to have become a trademark. He is definitely repeating the formula...

... do you remember when record shops had a specific section labelled "easy listening"?

I still remember a colleague, a serious fan of Darmstadt and beyond, in one such shop asking the staff "... can you help? I'm looking for the 'difficult listening' section."

[Vox Humana]

There are some techniques that are so tied to a particular composer (some of Alvin Lucier's music for example) that when other composers use the same technique it IS more than just using a shared compositional language.

Various whispering/spoken effects combined with singing, numerous examples of desynchronised textures (different voices singing a sequence of syllables in their own time, free use of specified pitch sequences etc.) and so on, which can in most cases be traced back to scores by the aforementioned Penderecki, plus Stockhausen (especially Momente of which I would suggest EW has a well-thumbed copy!).

I can't say that I'm particularly worried by this per se. Mozart and Haydn share a lot of techniques that they borrowed from other composers, to the extent that it takes an experienced ear to tell them apart, yet they do have individual voices and I don't think anyone would now suggest that either deserves censure because of their similarity. The techniques they use are what constitute their style. Building on what others did before is a well-known phenomenon in musical history. The obsession with originality seems to be a modern trait. I have always felt that, if a composer has anything of moment to say, his voice shine through in any case. This is what, to me, seems the problem with the Lux aurumque type of soundscape so popular today. The various composers using it don't seem to have individual voices. At least not my ears. It all sounds much of a muchness. I fully accept that this might be due to cloth ears on my part though. As I said before, I was quite excited when I first heard Lux aurumque. When I was lent a CD of Lauridsen my initial reaction was that it was very nice, but a bit too similar to LA, and by about the fourth piece I was thoroughly bored. Since then my invariable reaction to this style has been, "Here we go again".

[vinteuil]

... by about the fourth piece I was thoroughly bored. Since then my invariable reaction to this style has been, "Here we go again".

... about sums up my feelings about this schmaltz.

[Richard Barrett]

Building on what others did before is a well-known phenomenon in musical history.

Of course it is. The clue is in the word "building on", rather than "taking off the shelf".

[Pianoman]

Come on Richard - instead of writing 'Tract' you should write in the style of Einaudi - you'd be a millionaire by now

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... do you remember when record shops had a specific section labelled "easy listening"?
I still remember a colleague, a serious fan of Darmstadt and beyond, in one such shop asking the staff "... can you help? I'm looking for the 'difficult listening' section."

It's not just "serious fans of Darmstadt":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YKcVWVuq4Q

[vinteuil]

.

... you can always win me with Laurie Anderson - one of my first meetings with the future Mme v was at a Laurie Anderson concert at the Hammersmith Apollo - May 1986 I think