Henning's Headquarters

[Saul]

Karl,

When are we going to see a video of yourself performing?

[karlhenning]

Soon.

[Saul]

Soon is good.

[karlhenning]

This is not of my own performing, but it is this past Sunday's performance of the Alleluia in D.

[PaulR]

This is not of my own performing, but it is this past Sunday's performance of the Alleluia in D.

Hey Karl,

wonderful piece!  I noticed on the description, that this was op. 48b, and I was wondering, besides the personnel (I saw the opus listings on your website and configurations and stuff) what kind of differences there were in between the different versions.  Do you by chance have a video of op. 48a or just plain op. 48?

[karlhenning]

Thanks!

No,  no video of any of the other versions.  Audio recordings of a few performances of the SATB version.  I don't believe I have any document of the original two-part choir version.

[Saul]

Hey Karl,

wonderful piece!  I noticed on the description, that this was op. 48b, and I was wondering, besides the personnel (I saw the opus listings on your website and configurations and stuff) what kind of differences there were in between the different versions.  Do you by chance have a video of op. 48a or just plain op. 48?

Thanks Karl.

While the original theme is interesting and delightful, it kind of gets repetitious in my opinion. I would like to see more modulation and an introduction of a new idea and a voice within the music.  I heard basically the same theme repeated many times, perhaps you were aiming for this kind of feeling, but the ear gets bored and searches for something new to hear.


You don't have to take my criticism if you don't want to, but this is what I feel about it.


Cheers,

Saul

[karlhenning]

Thanks Karl.

While the original theme is interesting and delightful, it kind of gets repetitious in my opinion. I would like to see more modulation and an introduction of a new idea and a voice within the music.  I heard basically the same theme repeated many times, perhaps you were aiming for this kind of feeling, but the ear gets bored and searches for something new to hear.

You don't have to take my criticism if you don't want to, but this is what I feel about it.

I appreciate that you are explaining how your ear is bored with the piece, Saul.  I will only point out that the piece has been sung now by about ten different choirs, and none of them have suffered boredom with the piece.  In fact, they have found the purposeful concentration on the single motive engaging and satisfying (the conductor on this occasion called the piece "An instant classic."  Possible overstatement, of course, but at the least it denotes sincere professional admiration.).  The afternoon which followed this very performance, one of the sopranos wrote to me: "I heart your tunes!"  Those are not the words of a bored performer.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Saul]

I appreciate that you are explaining how your ear is bored with the piece, Saul.  I will only point out that the piece has been sung now by about ten different choirs, and none of them have suffered boredom with the piece.  In fact, they have found the purposeful concentration on the single motive engaging and satisfying (the conductor on this occasion called the piece "An instant classic."  Possible overstatement, of course, but at the least it denotes sincere professional admiration.).  The afternoon which followed this very performance, one of the sopranos wrote to me: "I heart your tunes!"  Those are not the words of a bored performer.

Cheers,
~Karl

You're right, music is subjective, and thanks for understanding that I didn't criticize the 'professionalism' of the piece. We know that you know what you're doing, Karl.
But my feeling is that it can become from been ' a good composition' into a 'great one', and you can do it if you wanted to. You just need to add  the element of variation and modulation that will capture the imagination and the attention of the listener and will add depth an charm to your work.

Imagine how the piece will be if after a minute and a half into the piece you will have a voice entering, totally unexpectedly, with a soothing phrase to join in harmony to the piece, it will add color and excitement.

I know you're not going to like it, but the only example that I could think of that might demonstrate to you what I mean is this section of Mendelssohn's Elijah: Lift Thine Eyes.

In this piece, there is one basic theme that spreads around and reveals and hides itself very interestingly, a simple melody, so clear and fine yet my ear never gets tired of listening to it.

http://www.youtube.com/v/YA0MiEkxVWg&feature=related

[Bogey]

[Saul]

Haha!

[karlhenning]

Imagine how the piece will be if after a minute and a half into the piece you will have a voice entering, totally unexpectedly, with a soothing phrase to join in harmony to the piece, it will add color and excitement.

Saul, the piece is four minutes long, and it is written for a choir divided into three voices.  If I leave one of those three voices out for the first 90 seconds of the piece, I should be writing poorly for a 3-part choir.

And if the great "problem" with my piece is that it doesn't sound the same as Mendelssohn would have written it, I am well content.  I write my own music, and not Mendelssohn's.

I perceive what Saul is at, Bill.  Consider this advice he gave Greg recently:

Like everything of value, one needs an audience.
The composers of  the past , had people who appreciated and loved their work, there was real interest.
So the composers found within them the strength to compose to satisfy the demand, and give back to the people.
But today, you will have one of two:
Either an ignorant audience who just doesn't understand classical music, and therefore wont be interested in your work.
Or an audience of Critics. Those who know something about classical music,  right away look for gaps, flaws and 'weak points' in your work, instead of actually enjoying the piece, they carefully examine it, that takes out the entire fun of the whole experience.
Case in point, look at my own thread of compositions and performances.
Does somebody care?
Absolutely nothing.

To which I responded:

This does not hold true at all, in my experience.  I play/sing (or others play/sing my music) to audiences several times through the course of the year.  In the first place, the audience is a composite of people with greatly varying musical experience & sophistication.  In the second, a solid majority of the audience have always responded positively — even when (in many instances) the response includes the phrase "I'm not sure I understood all of your music."  In the third, the critical component of the response is, far more frequently than not, respectful and interactive — never dismissive.

Saul probably felt that I wasn't getting a sufficiently broad pool of response, so he agreed (with tongue-in-cheek, I am sure) to serve as one of the Critics he mentions, who right away look for gaps, flaws and 'weak points' in your work, instead of actually enjoying the piece.

[Bogey]

I perceive what Saul is at, Bill.  Consider this advice he gave Greg recently:
 

Nothing of the sort, Karl.  Smiley intended for choral music that accompanies landscape shots.  Said smiley   indicates:

A. Confusion
B. Bewilderment
C. An oncoming migraine caused by choral accompiament
D. All of the above

[Saul]

Saul, the piece is four minutes long, and it is written for a choir divided into three voices.  If I leave one of those three voices out for the first 90 seconds of the piece, I should be writing poorly for a 3-part choir.

And if the great "problem" with my piece is that it doesn't sound the same as Mendelssohn would have written it, I am well content.  I write my own music, and not Mendelssohn's.

I perceive what Saul is at, Bill.  Consider this advice he gave Greg recently:
 
To which I responded:
 
Saul probably felt that I wasn't getting a sufficiently broad pool of response, so he agreed (with tongue-in-cheek, I am sure) to serve as one of the Critics he mentions, who right away look for gaps, flaws and 'weak points' in your work, instead of actually enjoying the piece.

Well an opinion of another composer is not the same as of an audience.

Anyways,  all I'm saying is that I would have done things a little different.
I just imagine what the entrance of an unexpected voice and theme can do to this piece, I believe it can make it much better then it is now. If you are happy and pleased with the way it is now, that's absolutely fine, after all its your composition, not mine.

There is no fault in learning from the greats, and how they might have done things with similar motifs in music. I didn't ask you to compose like Mendelssohn or Bach, but perhaps to see how they handled similar material in music.

I gave your piece another listen, and I must say that in most compositions there is a sense of beginning lets call it A and then there is a sense of Arriving,  lets call it B. In your work, it sounds as thought the theme of A just revolves within itself and there is no sense of going somewhere.

In my opinion, if you want to achieve a feeling 'arriving' you need to use modulation, and fugal development. That adds a certain complexity and generates interest.

But maybe  its entirely possible that you didn't want to achieve this, and wanted to sort of revolve around this theme, that's your choice, but to me personally its sounds boring. I need to hear something else going on within the piece to find interest to want to continue listening time after time.


Here's an example of what I mean from some modern music.


Howard shore wrote a work called Lothlorien for the film 'The Lord of the Rings', this is basically a chant. Look how cleverly he used modulation to generate interest in the piece. Every time I hear this work its like listening for the first time.

If you listen carefully, the main theme (or introductory theme) ends 1: 15 and a second later at 1:16 a totally unexpected voice enters that gives enormous contrast and beauty to the main opening theme.
No one ever had expected this new theme to come almost out of nowhere, but it did. The ear is so curious and wants to stay along, because who knows what other new surprises are waiting to reveal themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/v/x2Y5EzvaybY

I promise you, that if the same theme would have repeated itself on 1:16 then the piece would have been just like another piece, boring, and uninteresting, I wouldn't even bother listening to it so many times.

I believe that even within simplicity, a certain sense of complexity must exist in order to generate interest.
Look at Bach's first Keyboard Prelude In C major. The motif and the melody is very simple, but he goes through and adventure of keys and modulations, its really amazing, how he was able to achieve complexity within simplify, and I believe that this is the key that separates 'Good compositions' from' Great Compositions'.

Regards,

Saul

[karlhenning]

Nothing of the sort, Karl.  Smiley intended for choral music that accompanies landscape shots.  Said smiley   indicates:

A. Confusion
B. Bewilderment
C. An oncoming migraine caused by choral accompiament
D. All of the above

Ah! ; )

[karlhenning]

Well an opinion of another composer is not the same as of an audience.

Anyways,  all I'm saying is that I would have done things a little different.

Very well.

[Franco]

My, my.

[Elgarian]

this past Sunday's performance of the Alleluia in D.

I'm an audience, not a critic - albeit an audience of one, who is often frustratingly slow on the uptake. But by 2 minutes in, I found I was getting the hang of what was going on, so the rest became more intelligibly enjoyable. So then I listened to the whole piece again, and found it lovelier than the first time. I expect there'll be a lot more going on than I've yet picked up on, but even so, that smoothly running, even quality that it has seems to be part of the story it's telling, to me. The lack of 'startling' or 'dramatic' developments strikes me as a key aspect of its character.

Obviously one could introduce elements to interrupt the smooth running, but then it would be a different piece, and some distance removed from what seems to be the composer's intention.

[karlhenning]

Behind the scenes.

[Scarpia]

this past Sunday's performance of the Alleluia in D.

I'm an audience, not a critic - albeit an audience of one, who is often frustratingly slow on the uptake. But by 2 minutes in, I found I was getting the hang of what was going on, so the rest became more intelligibly enjoyable. So then I listened to the whole piece again, and found it lovelier than the first time. I expect there'll be a lot more going on than I've yet picked up on, but even so, that smoothly running, even quality that it has seems to be part of the story it's telling, to me. The lack of 'startling' or 'dramatic' developments strikes me as a key aspect of its character.

Obviously one could introduce elements to interrupt the smooth running, but then it would be a different piece, and some distance removed from what seems to be the composer's intention.

Reminds me of a perhaps apocryphal story.   Toscanini conducted Ravel's Bolero and, unknown to him, Ravel himself was in the audience.   After the concert Toscanini is discussing the piece with another person, with Ravel within earshot.  Toscanini remarks, "yes, I conduct the piece somewhat faster, if you follow the metronome mark it is simply insufferable."  Ravel is fuming,  "That Idiot!  It is supposed to be insufferable!"