Whitacre, Eric (b 1970)

[ahinton]

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

Probably he'd be able to do it so well (however much against the grain it would obviously and rightly go to do so) that both he and Ludwig van ein Audi would each be half-millionaires.

The probable difference here, however (for what it may or may not be worth to mention it, still less to speculate upon it) is that the Whitacre lineman (pace earlier references to line), if asked to write a work for piano solo after the manner of Tract, would almost certainly struggle to come up with the goods...

[light_calibre_baritone]

Probably he'd be able to do it so well (however much against the grain it would obviously and rightly go to do so) that both he and Ludwig van ein Audi would each be half-millionaires.

The probable difference here, however (for what it may or may not be worth to mention it, still less to speculate upon it) is that the Whitacre lineman (pace earlier references to line), if asked to write a work for piano solo after the manner of Tract, would almost certainly struggle to come up with the goods...

But really? That's kinda insulting and very easy to say on an internet message board.

So if you write something AFTER a certain work/style/composer, and preface it as such, that's ok? If you just write a piece that's similar to another but don't mention the inspiration it's a knock-off with no merit?

[ahinton]

But really? That's kinda insulting and very easy to say on an internet message board.

It is not, nor was it intended to be, "insulting", "kinda" or otherwise and, in any case, I would have thought that the first paragraph would come across as the joke that it was intended to be rather than taken literally.

So if you write something AFTER a certain work/style/composer, and preface it as such, that's ok? If you just write a piece that's similar to another but don't mention the inspiration it's a knock-off with no merit?

For the record, I claimed neither of those things per se.

[light_calibre_baritone]

It is not, nor was it intended to be, "insulting", "kinda" or otherwise and, in any case, I would have thought that the first paragraph would come across as the joke that it was intended to be rather than taken literally.


For the record, I claimed neither of those things per se.

Not your best joke, and please don't mock my use of English (contraction or otherwise); it's very unbecoming and makes you look like you're, well, just a bit pompous. Remember, I like Whitacre so am down with all the right lingo.

And... No, I was merely trying to interpret your comment.

[ahinton]

Not your best joke

I did not claim it to be so.

and please don't mock my use of English (contraction or otherwise); it's very unbecoming and makes you look like you're, well, just a bit pompous

Quoting a word and mocking something are not synonymous

Remember, I like Whitacre so am down with all the right lingo

And your point is?...

And... No, I was merely trying to interpret your comment.

If I could be bothered - and were "interpretation" even necessary - I might just have responded "could try harder"...

[Richard Barrett]

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

How do you know I'm not?

[ahinton]

How do you know I'm not?

I suppose that, in reality, none of us can actually know that for certain but, if you are indeed doing so with a view to acquiring the millionaire status that Pianoman assumes would thereby fall to you (although surely you're well on the way to that with what you have written and do write?), I suspect that we might have known something about it by now!

Anyway - ein Audi; vorsprung durch technik an' all that! (and you need ample technik to play Tract)...

[Pianoman]

Haha - yes it's slightly off topic (well maybe not...) but I can just see the composer of what I read somewhere was 'the most difficult solo piano composition ever..(or words to that effect - don't ask me for a footnote) sat around playing with arpeggios for half an hour. Last time Einaudi played at Bridgewater, he sold out - and needed FOUR Steinways all tuned to perfection to play the gig...

[MrGongGong]

Last time Einaudi played at Bridgewater, he sold out

Was he entertaining the camels ?

(Berio is still spinning in his grave)

[Lat-Literal]

I have the "Light and Gold" CD. Wasn't it Whitacre himself who said that he owed a lot to Lauridsen? One thing in particular troubles me. The title of the thread is "Eric Whitacre" but arguably it could have the title "Whitacre, Lauridsen, Pinkham, Part, Gorecki, Tavener and Todd". The broad sentiment would be similar which is fine but does that mean that contemporary choral music is essentially to be dismissed? If so, why? Is it like the modern hymn syndrome? And if not so, who is recommended instead of these composers?

[Richard Barrett]

Mozart and Haydn share a lot of techniques that they borrowed from other composers (...) The obsession with originality seems to be a modern trait.

The difference is that Mozart and Haydn lived in a time and place characterised by an only gradually evolving "common practice" of techniques and forms. In the meantime this has changed, partly through a growing awareness (through broadcasts, commercial recordings and so on) of a greater multiplicity of traditions and a deeper view of history than was available previously. While the resulting explosion of musical possibilities is in my opinion something fruitful and exciting, it also brings with it a tendency for some to make music by picking and mixing between some selection of all those myriad things that are already there. I don't think it's a question of an "obsession with originality" as opposed to supposedly more traditional outlooks, but of taking a tradition and making it new (as indeed Mozart and Haydn did: both were highly original musical thinkers!) as opposed to treating musical ideas and techniques like so many products in a supermarket.

[Barbirollians]

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".

I have always thought that the Eroica was quite original . As is K271 and plenty of Haydn .

Mr Whitacre's music is easy on the ear and I am sure lots of people enjoy it but what i have heard sounds like choral musak to me - my loss no doubt

[ahinton]

The difference is that Mozart and Haydn lived in a time and place characterised by an only gradually evolving "common practice" of techniques and forms. In the meantime this has changed, partly through a growing awareness (through broadcasts, commercial recordings and so on) of a greater multiplicity of traditions and a deeper view of history than was available previously. While the resulting explosion of musical possibilities is in my opinion something fruitful and exciting, it also brings with it a tendency for some to make music by picking and mixing between some selection of all those myriad things that are already there. I don't think it's a question of an "obsession with originality" as opposed to supposedly more traditional outlooks, but of taking a tradition and making it new (as indeed Mozart and Haydn did: both were highly original musical thinkers!) as opposed to treating musical ideas and techniques like so many products in a supermarket.

Many thanks; excellent good sense!

[Vox Humana]

I don't think it's a question of an "obsession with originality" as opposed to supposedly more traditional outlooks, but of taking a tradition and making it new (as indeed Mozart and Haydn did: both were highly original musical thinkers!) as opposed to treating musical ideas and techniques like so many products in a supermarket.

Well, maybe it's not an obsession as such and, thinking about it, it's possible that I'm out of date, but when I was a music student I certainly used to come across devotees of modern music whose main criteria for judging a piece of music to be "good" was the originality of sounds/timbres that it displayed. I'm afraid I always thought that if that was all there was to it, the music must be missing some depth somewhere. I'm certainly not knocking originality, but I'm not sure that new music that isn't innovatory is automatically worthless. As I said, I'm rather of the view that if a composer has anything of value to say (and, of course, the technique to say it), his personality should lend him a distinctive voice that will set him above the humdrum. Maybe I'm being naive, I don't know.

[Richard Barrett]

I'm rather of the view that if a composer has anything of value to say (and, of course, the technique to say it), his personality should lend him a distinctive voice that will set him above the humdrum. Maybe I'm being naive, I don't know.

Personally I'm not keen on describing composers as having/not having "something (of value) to say". It's a formulation that doesn't bear close scrutiny. To give one example among many: is it possible to speak of having "something to say" when everything one says has been said before? Surely not. Therefore having "something (of value) to say" really means having "something new to say", and we are back at a concept of originality. But really, the implication that what's going on in a musical experience is being "told" something by a composer is a very limiting way to look at what is (or perhaps ought to be) an active, two-way process of communication rather than a passive process of reception.