Whitacre, Eric (b 1970)

[Vox Humana]

Ronald Stevenson's notion of the former as sometimes being represented by "originality for its own sake" and the latter by "that's the way that I do it because that's how I think and so I can't do it any other way".

That's really what I meant. When the young critics I cited earlier complained about lack of originality they really meant the sort of originality that is as obvious as a whack on the back of the head with a golf club. For the more subtle kind of originality I should probably have used the word "personality". In other words, the distinctive features of style that enable one to name the composer on the first "blind" hearing a piece. One could argue that personality is irrelevant, but without it music would become terribly generic. I am afraid I wouldn't be able to identify a previously unheard piece of EW as his, but I'm glad that others here feel that they could. This sort of thing always boils down to how well attuned you are to a composer's style and I admit that, with the EW type scoundscape, I'm not.

[Richard Barrett]

the distinctive features of style that enable one to name the composer on the first "blind" hearing a piece.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that's true of any randomly-chosen divertimento by Haydn or Mozart? Their personalities must always have been there, but both wrote a great deal of pleasant enough but (to use your very useful term) generic music.

What is "originality for its own sake"? Does anyone really believe that composers think like that? An artist might also be motivated by a sense of discovery, of trying to imagine new ways of thinking about, imagining, performing and hearing (in this case) music and to communicate those discoveries. This might mean that each work strikes out in a different direction and there's little sense of a "distinctive style". I don't think this makes the music any less communicative or valuable. And an artist's work develops not by finding new sources to appropriate but by understanding, digesting and transmuting those sources into something newly coherent. I'm also not really sure what's meant by "the sort of originality that is as obvious as a whack on the back of the head with a golf club." Can you cite any examples? Isn't that the sort of originality Beethoven's fifth symphony has, for example?

[Richard Barrett]

To dismiss the Whitacre on the grounds that his motivation must have been no more than to alter a few things to an existing, very well known (and copyright protected) film score seems to me like a lot of mean-spirited spin.

It wasn't intended as such, and I wasn't talking about his motivation, which I wouldn't presume to pronounce on.

Perhaps I should reiterate my earlier quote from EW in expanded form: "You mean that [Pärt and others] are the real artists and I’m simply popularising their message? If I hear something and find it to be true, I have no hesitation in using it in my music. With all respect to Pärt, I think you’ll find I have also been influenced by Björk, Thomas Newman, Debussy, The Beatles and Britten. I’ll happily write in another style if it serves to communicate the text or the message. I guess you could call that derivative." So it isn't as if he doesn't admit to it.

And, later in the same interview, "[When I started] I flouted so many traditions without knowing they were there to be flouted. I’m happy I was untethered. There’s great power in being a dumb hick from Nevada. You’re too naive to know what you don’t know.” In other words, my ignorance was better than other people's knowledge. Music for the age of Trump!

(edit: that may seem harsh and I'm certainly not trying to assert that EW or his admirers must be supporters of that individual, but just that this anti-knowledge, anti-expert frame of mind seems to me a not very welcome characteristic of the present period of history)

[Vox Humana]

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that's true of any randomly-chosen divertimento by Haydn or Mozart? Their personalities must always have been there, but both wrote a great deal of pleasant enough but (to use your very useful term) generic music.

Most of the time I find it perfectly possible to distinguish between Mozart and Haydn if, say, I turn the radio on and hear something by one of them that I don't recognise. It did take me a long time (well into my twenties) before I learnt to recognise the tell-tale clues. I wouldn't be so rash as to claim infallibility though.

What is "originality for its own sake"? Does anyone really believe that composers think like that? An artist might also be motivated by a sense of discovery, of trying to imagine new ways of thinking about, imagining, performing and hearing (in this case) music and to communicate those discoveries. This might mean that each work strikes out in a different direction and there's little sense of a "distinctive style". I don't think this makes the music any less communicative or valuable. And an artist's work develops not by finding new sources to appropriate but by understanding, digesting and transmuting those sources into something newly coherent. I'm also not really sure what's meant by "the sort of originality that is as obvious as a whack on the back of the head with a golf club." Can you cite any examples? Isn't that the sort of originality Beethoven's fifth symphony has, for example?

"Does anyone believe that composers think like that?" Well, as I said, I used to hear it expressed. I never really understood it and I would hope that the world has moved on, but not being involved in the world of modern music I'm not in a position to say. I remember one not unknown, aleatoric composer criticising the continuing addiction of some to pedals in their compositions - it had been done; it was old hat. When these people used the word "original" I took them to mean new playing techniques, new soundscapes and, generally, distinctive things that had not been done before - the musical equivalent in a way, arguably, of conceptual art. I don't think I can explain it more precisely than that. I am sure it is possible for an imaginative composer to strike out in a new direction with each new piece. It is no doubt my primary empathy with more traditional forms and idioms that explains why I feel more comfortable when I can detect a composer's personality. It may not be essential, but it adds an extra dimension to one's appreciation when it's there. Beethoven was constantly striking out new directions, but his personality nevertheless shines through his music. Would we be able to perceive him as a "great" composer if his music were merely generic and without personality?

[MrGongGong]

"If I hear something and find it to be true, I have no hesitation in using it in my music".

I think this is maybe at the heart of what some folks find a bit iffy about EW.
I hear lots of music and probably also "find it to be true" (whatever that means) but try not to simply use it as it's not mine to use. There is an ocean of difference between being influenced by, inspired by or writing music based on other composers music and this kind of approach to other peoples work. At best it's disrespectful and unethical and at worst appears to be arrogant, self important and ugly.

[Lat-Literal]

I think this is maybe at the heart of what some folks find a bit iffy about EW.
I hear lots of music and probably also "find it to be true" (whatever that means) but try not to simply use it as it's not mine to use. There is an ocean of difference between being influenced by, inspired by or writing music based on other composers music and this kind of approach to other peoples work. At best it's disrespectful and unethical and at worst appears to be arrogant, self important and ugly.

Possibly - but who are Whitacre's obvious influences? I think the inference in the critique is that they are centuries old with all of the substance associated with that but all we can come up with as an influence is Lauridsen! I have another theory. Whitacre and those like him are regarded as substandard because their music has an unashamedly pretty sheen.

[Vox Humana]

If I hear something and find it to be true, I have no hesitation in using it in my music.

This brings to mind Bach's pupil Johann Ludwig Krebs. Krebs was a by no means inconsiderable composer, but he did have a tendency to borrow from his master, to the extent that one can often accuse him of copying ideas blatantly from specific BWV numbers (although he didn't do this as routinely as some organists seem to think). Krebs's music is well worth consideration and, personally, I think we ought to hear it more frequently, but it's hard to resist the temptation to wag one's index finger when one spots these cribs and one feels that it does detract a little from the music. Of course, Krebs didn't live in a world of mass media, so the copying might not have mattered so much then.

[Richard Barrett]

This idea

There is an ocean of difference between being influenced by, inspired by or writing music based on other composers music and this kind of approach to other peoples work

doesn't seem to be making much headway round here, does it?

who are Whitacre's obvious influences? I think the inference in the critique is that they are centuries old with all of the substance associated with that but all we can come up with as an influence is Lauridsen!

Not in the least. Arvo Pärt and John Tavener were mentioned almost at the beginning of the thread; the soundtrack music for American Beauty was mentioned subsequently; EW himself in the interview I quoted lists a few more.

distinctive things that had not been done before

Pretty much like Mozart or Haydn's mature work then.

the musical equivalent in a way, arguably, of conceptual art

Well, actually the musical equivalent of conceptual art is conceptual music. The term "new conceptualism" is rather in vogue at the moment to describe a certain group of mostly German composers in their forties.

Would we be able to perceive him as a "great" composer if his music were merely generic and without personality?

Why on earth does it matter whether we perceive him as a "great" composer? It's the music that's important, surely, not the presumed personality of its author. And as you said earlier in the same post, there can easily be a difference between "generic" and "without personality". Take the music of John Cage for instance. One of his stated aims was to remove his own personality from his work. Whether he really succeeded is another matter, and not particularly important anyway, but there's nothing generic about any of it.

One last thing (sorry to go on so much, but I find these matters quite important):

I remember one not unknown, aleatoric composer criticising the continuing addiction of some to pedals in their compositions - it had been done; it was old hat.

The key word there is "addiction". If a composer is addicted to something, that surely means he/she is using it uncritically and thoughtlessly, just fulfilling some vague need that's never questioned, whatever that something is, whether it's pedals, or squiggly lines, or anything else. Since I don't know exactly who you're talking about I wouldn't presume further to assess whether he/she might have been exaggerating or misunderstood or both.

[Richard Barrett]

Krebs's music is well worth consideration

I would agree with that. Here's another way of looking at Krebs and Bach: the former's music is more a symptom of its cultural environment - it does what's expected of it, fulfilling a function efficiently enough, and with maybe an occasional spark of fascination - while the latter's music is a response to that environment - it doesn't just do what's expected of it but implicitly questions the musical milieu in which it's embedded in such a way as to retain its significance through many generations, styles of interpretation, historical developments etc. One of them, to take a literary metaphor (but not too far!) is more like documentary evidence, the other more like profound explanation.

[MrGongGong]

One hardly needs to seek out personality as it can never be avoided.

John Cage

[Lat-Literal]

Not in the least. Arvo Pärt and John Tavener were mentioned almost at the beginning of the thread; the soundtrack music for American Beauty was mentioned subsequently; EW himself in the interview I quoted lists a few more.

Thank you for replying, Richard.

The thread starts a little oddly as it was moved, I think, from elsewhere. I am coming at this from an angle. Part of that angle is to find an alternative title for it. Would that title be "What is wrong with the music of Eric Whitacre?" Someone said that it was a slagging off exercise or words to that effect. I don't think it is so and am genuinely trying to be fairly constructive. I think it is a thread in which we are all trying to find an answer to an as yet unclear question or set of questions. What I am suggesting is that we try a little harder.

When I have heard any criticism of Whitacre in the past, I am not sure that it has quite been on the lines that he is too similar in places to Part or Tavener or Newman. Arguably, Newman's "American Beauty" is a stripped out version of Nyman's "The Heart Asks Pleasure First" from "The Piano" six years earlier. It has that same sort of vibe about it and there is possibly something there about "is this really new age?". See also Lauridsen, Einaudi etc. Part seems more distinct to me. Regarded as more substantial perhaps and in terms of past critique to be placed in the same box as Gorecki - flavour of the month, the sort of thing that gets to number one in the Classic FM - or even the R3 - charts etc.

Tavener - well, he is often mentioned in the same sentence as the more substantial Taverner. There I feel is the nub of it. The main questions have generally been more or less about "what is proper classical music?" and "can the work of these non groundbreaking 20th/21st C composers be regarded as such?" I accept that now we might be saying they are all a bit alike but that could be levelled at umpteen contemporary groups. Some but not all of this music is choral. Can I ask again for contemporary choral recommendations?

(Also isn't it possible to trace Newman and Nyman back to Glassworks and Glassworks to parts of Harris* and so on? - my apologies in advance if I am missing the key points)

* The start of this for example (along with its clangs of the Beatles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dr_jg-hl0g

[Richard Barrett]

This thread is beginning to sprawl... but I remember thinking Nyman's music for The Piano was really individual and inventive and not derivative of Glass in particular. I haven't heard it since the film came out though.

Speaking personally I'm not interested in "what is proper classical music?" I think the problems I and others have with music like Whitacre's can give rise to an interesting and fruitful discussion, which doesn't have to be (and hasn't been) people trying to persuade each other that they should/shouldn't like it. It's an opportunity to look a bit more deeply at the reasons why people react in certain ways to certain musics and the extent to which those reasons might be tied up with prejudices that might be better discarded, and so on. In the course of this discussion I've found out more about EW's work than I knew before (as a result of which it's gone down somewhat in my estimation! ).

[Lat-Literal]

This thread is beginning to sprawl... but I remember thinking Nyman's music for The Piano was really individual and inventive and not derivative of Glass in particular. I haven't heard it since the film came out though.

Speaking personally I'm not interested in "what is proper classical music?" I think the problems I and others have with music like Whitacre's can give rise to an interesting and fruitful discussion, which doesn't have to be (and hasn't been) people trying to persuade each other that they should/shouldn't like it. It's an opportunity to look a bit more deeply at the reasons why people react in certain ways to certain musics and the extent to which those reasons might be tied up with prejudices that might be better discarded, and so on. In the course of this discussion I've found out more about EW's work than I knew before (as a result of which it's gone down somewhat in my estimation! ).

Ah well, I will have to consider it purely on the basis of the first post then which is that the problem with Whitacre's music could be that it is, quote, everywhere (taking Williamson's comment about Lloyd Webber as a reference point). That's an easy one to answer in two words. It isn't.

[Richard Barrett]

It isn't.

Quite. And to be fair it's better than Ed Sheeran.

[Vox Humana]

[EW:] "[When I started] I flouted so many traditions without knowing they were there to be flouted. I’m happy I was untethered. There’s great power in being a dumb hick from Nevada. You’re too naive to know what you don’t know.” In other words, my ignorance was better than other people's knowledge. Music for the age of Trump!

That reminds me of something he posted on his Facebook page a few months ago, which I happened to see courtesy of a friend who "liked" it. I have been unable to locate it and can't recall his exact words, but the gist of it was: "Don't bother reading the theory books: just write what you feel." I think he was exhorting composers to give free rein to their imaginations, which I'm sure any composer would endorse, but I'm not convinced that an ignorance of the rules of traditional harmony and counterpoint, which amongst other things assist in developing a critical ear, confers an advantage in this respect.