Whitacre, Eric (b 1970)

[Lat-Literal]

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

I have never heard a record by Ed Sheeran but am still inclined to agree.

As a footnote:

Nyman appears to have been one of the people who may have invented the term "minimalism". The point is often disputed. That was in 1974, before Glassworks and before his own ventures in that field but not before everything by Glass. I was intrigued to see that Nyman's short film "Love, Love, Love" - produced around the time of his collaboration with Birtwistle - was based on "All You Need Is Love" and is the same length as it. The earlier Harris work - a social commentary of sorts - has a clear reference to "Ticket To Ride".

[MrGongGong]

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,.

That is a debatable assertion
NOT that there is anything wrong with harmony and/or counterpoint but in my experience doing "the rules" meant that I became able to harmonise and write counterpoint that fitted "the rules" while listening to other music.

[Lat-Literal]

This may be of interest:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Stylistic_Traits_in_the_Choral_Works_of.html?id=2G7oPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

I have been reading a few sections of it.

It doesn't argue that there is an absence of technique.

[Vox Humana]

That is a debatable assertion
NOT that there is anything wrong with harmony and/or counterpoint but in my experience doing "the rules" meant that I became able to harmonise and write counterpoint that fitted "the rules" while listening to other music.

Please pardon me for suggesting this, but, if I am interpreting your comment correctly, I think your tuition was either poorly given or poorly received. The rules of traditional textbook harmony are intended to ensure that one's harmony is stylish and elegant. The idea is to train one's aural faculties to appreciate why e.g. consecutive fifths are (usually) inelegant. The rules are not there simply to enable one to pass exams (which seems to be a deplorably common misconception), but to hone one's critical faculties. As one of my teachers once said to me, "You have to learn the rules before you can learn how to break them". I don't know whether Messrs Barrett and Hinton would regard that as particularly relevant to their music, but, having regularly seen the less avant garde efforts of people who haven't trained their ears adequately, I regard it as very sound advice.

[MrGongGong]

The idea is to train one's aural faculties to appreciate why e.g. consecutive fifths are (usually) inelegant.

But they aren't

"You have to learn the rules before you can learn how to break them".

A very common, if often overstated, belief which is also questionable.
Which "rules" are included ? Which musics ? Do they include Smalley's writings on Spectral Morphology, for example?

Patrick Gowers used to have a huge collection of examples of Bach and other "great" composers which broke all "the rules"

Also, the "traditional approach" doesn't really develop critical listening to sound outside the narrow range of tonal musics.

[Vox Humana]

But they aren't



A very common, if often overstated, belief which is also questionable.
Which "rules" are included ? Which musics ? Do they include Smalley's writings on Spectral Morphology, for example?

Patrick Gowers used to have a huge collection of examples of Bach and other "great" composers which broke all "the rules"

Also, the "traditional approach" doesn't really develop critical listening to sound outside the narrow range of tonal musics.

Again with respect, you have entirely failed to grasp my point. I specifically mentioned "traditional textbook harmony". In this style consecutive fifths nearly always do sound inelegant. That is why the rule has been upheld ever since the Middle Ages. Why else would it be? At this point it is usual to trot out Vaughan Williams's name in defence of them. But the point here is that VW's style was going beyond what we used to call "O level" harmony and he got away with them because he used them with consistency and the effect they produced was consistent with his overall harmonic style. As for the great composers, Homer can nod, and being a great composer doesn't necessarily mean that their solecisms automatically sound OK. The fifths in Goss's "See amid the winter's snow" certainly aren't to my ears. That said, it's true that occasionally a pair of consecutive fifths can be so blameless as to pass unnoticed. That's why I used the caveat "usually".

[Vox Humana]

Also, the "traditional approach" doesn't really develop critical listening to sound outside the narrow range of tonal musics.

Well, I think actually it develops the ability to listen critically to a rather wide range of tonal musics, albeit exclusively western ones. In non-western tonal musics I think there are many other factors that are far more crucial to appreciation than knowledge or ignorance of textbook harmony - but this isn't the place to start that discussion (even if I were equipped to conduct it).

[MrGongGong]

Again with respect, you have entirely failed to grasp my point. I specifically mentioned "traditional textbook harmony". In this style consecutive fifths nearly always do sound inelegant. That is why the rule has been upheld ever since the Middle Ages. Why else would it be? At this point it is usual to trot out Vaughan Williams's name in defence of them. But the point here is that VW's style was going beyond what we used to call "O level" harmony and he got away with them because he used them with consistency and the effect they produced was consistent with his overall harmonic style. As for the great composers, Homer can nod, and being a great composer doesn't necessarily mean that their solecisms automatically sound OK. The fifths in Goss's "See amid the winter's snow" certainly aren't to my ears. That said, it's true that occasionally a pair of consecutive fifths can be so blameless as to pass unnoticed. That's why I used the caveat "usually".

Also with respect
your "usual" only refers to a very narrow range of musics
I'm not dissing learning about music (that would make me very poor indeed) but rather suggesting that the traditional methods (I was taught theory in the 1970's by a well known city organist who is probably spinning in his grave if he is able to hear some of the things I make these days !) don't encourage really critical listening in a deep sense. When I studied Indian Music I learnt to listen in a far more critical and analytical way than any of my previous experiences in Western Music.

[MrGongGong]

But back to Wreckless Eric

[Vox Humana]

I'm not dissing learning about music ... but rather suggesting that the traditional methods ... don't encourage really critical listening in a deep sense.

I'm wondering whether we are using the term "critical listening" in the same way. The rules of traditional four-part harmony are intended to equip one to write with a consistent eloquence. The concept of consistency is very important. None other than Howells once impressed on me that is was important that, whatever harmonic idiom I wanted to write in, it must be consistent. He wasn't the only composer to tell me that either. You can't intersperse a couple of Mendelssohnian bars into a piece in the style of Duruflé and expect the piece to hang together. The traditional grounding I received has most certainly taught me to listen forensically to the harmony I produce. So I have to take issue with your claim that it doesn't "encourage really critical listening in a deep sense" - at least in the way I meant it. To return to Whitacre, at least Lux arumque does have stylistic consistency, which is why I think it works, and so do most of the other works by him that I have heard. Stylistic consistency should, however, not be confused with lack of variety.

[Serial_Apologist]

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?

But was he perceived thus in his own time? One has the impression that first performances were often received with bafflement. Perhaps it is only with the benefit of hindsight and several centuries of digesting his music that we can proclaim Beethoven's personality as "consistent".

[Serial_Apologist]

None other than Howells once impressed on me that is was important that, whatever harmonic idiom I wanted to write in, it must be consistent. He wasn't the only composer to tell me that either. You can't intersperse a couple of Mendelssohnian bars into a piece in the style of Duruflé and expect the piece to hang together.

Poulenc was able to do such things without raising aesthetic concerns; hardly an avant-gardist: indeed his ability to switch styles, even within a musical paragraph, was part of his wit and charm.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But was he perceived thus in his own time? One has the impression that first performances were often received with bafflement. Perhaps it is only with the benefit of hindsight and several centuries of digesting his music that we can proclaim Beethoven's personality as "consistent".

And the same is true of Mozart - we take his innovations (which his father deplored, berating him for not reigning in his insistence on pursuing his own harmonic language, and telling him he ought to write in accordance with established popular tastes, so that he could make more money) as epitomizing The Classical Style. Most of his contemporary audiences would have been astonished to have been told this.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not dissing learning about music (that would make me very poor indeed) but rather suggesting that the traditional methods (I was taught theory in the 1970's by a well known city organist who is probably spinning in his grave if he is able to hear some of the things I make these days !) don't encourage really critical listening in a deep sense. When I studied Indian Music I learnt to listen in a far more critical and analytical way than any of my previous experiences in Western Music.

Yes - "the Traditional methods" of teaching "Bachian" Four-part Chorale Harmonization, or "Palestrinian" Species Counterpoint (that is, as primarily a set of paper exercises, following "rules") doesn't - and cannot - encourage genuine critical listening. But taught properly such study should essentially be listening-strengthening study, concentrating on how "voices" work with each other - how melodic lines can suggest different harmonic possibilities - and what helps "define" the "appropriateness" of these different possibilities. It should be precisely a way of listening to a repertoire from the Western Classical Traditions in analytical and critical ways.

Sadly, Music Teachers have a half-hour every week for a maximum of eighteen months - so it's reduced to "these are the rules, don't break them; here's the melody and a pencil"

[DracoM]

Hope you don't see this is patronising, but this is arguably one of the best and most informative and carefully argued threads on The Choir for many a long month. Thank you to all.