Creative work and production line (创与作)
A student recently drew my attention to Jeffrey Gershman's MBM Times article, "Skimming the Top", in which Gershman critiques the generic and formulaic nature of many recent band works. In a nutshell, his complaints following his six criteria are:
i. unimaginative texture (e.g. block scoring, little instrumental independence, unchanging textures)
ii. formulaic melodic writing (e.g. predictable melodic styles and phrase structures, chromatically-conservative melodies)
iii. overly-simple harmonies
iv. uninspired orchestration, lacking in creativity
v. unsophisticated formal structures (e.g. endless and straightforward use of ABA forms)
vi. lack of and even flawed compositional craftsmanship
In short, he characterizes such music as "ear candy", having "all style, no substance".
Whilst he understands the pressures from publishing companies on composers, he is concerned about the kinds of musical diet given to band students. I can't share this concern more: how much shortchanged our students will be if they are not shown the richness and depth of great music!
The plight of composers raised here brings to mind Adrian Pang's reason for leaving Mediacorp back in May (http://tnp.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,239057,00.html): he was basically dissatisfied with the "factory production line" approach, purportedly adopted by Mediacorp. I also recall reading Guo Jian Hong's (Guo Pao Kun's daughter) recent lament in the souvenir programme booklet for "Descendants of the Eunuch Admiral" about there being more 'zuo' (作) than 'chuang' (创) in the local theatre scene.
Labels: musical thoughts
posted by ec @ Wednesday, December 29, 2010
4 comments
4 Comments:
Jeff Gershman is associate director of bands at my school (Indiana University) and I know him as a most wonderful musician. Needless to say, I agree with the basic premise of where he comes from. That being said, the purpose of this posting is to suggest that the issues at hand are extremely complicated.
The debate has been around for decades. The crux of the matter is that band directors should not play formulaic commercial music, or “ear candy,” as Gershman calls it. Instead, band directors should, as Eddy and many college band directors say, play “great music” that have great “richness and depth.”
At a high level of generality, I agree. Exposure to great music is essential to music education. However, there are two questions that we have to deal with: (1) Why are “ear candies” alive and well in the band market despite years of official condemnation from noted band conductors? (2) Just what exactly qualifies as “ear candy” and what qualifies as “great music?” I will now proceed to unpack these two questions.
The common accusation against band directors is that directors are “lazy” and simply choose music that is easy to teach and produces quick results. In defense, I must emphasize that teaching a group of young students play 12 different types of instruments in different transpositions is no easy task. Whether you are Herbert von Karajan or Frederick Fennell, if the kids can’t play, they can’t play!
This is where the “ear candies” come in. They are written in a predictable fashion for a reason: so that the focus can be on teaching beginners in a context of heterogeneous instruments. Chromatics are limited so that the band director does not have to stop every other measure to teach a new fingering (and in a band context, you have many transpositions to deal with, not to mention the pitching difficulty in especially the brass, getting across the clarinet break, etc). Scoring is blocked and “tutti-ish” so that when a student cannot play, the rest of the band can go on! In a beginning band class, this is much more encouraging than having the whole band break down! There is “little instrumental independence” for good reasons. For example, having the horns double the saxophone lines makes it easier for horn students to pitch, so that the band director does not have to stop every other measure to correct the horns. The writing is deliberately made easy so that the students can “keep playing.” This is important for three reasons: (1) to develop the embouchures; (2) to develop confidence; and (3) to reduce chaos in a young band class!
In short, “ear candies” can be seen as band works that help to build skills so that young players can progress to other music. They are like grammar “exercises” so that students can write creatively later on. Without tools and skills, there is no creativity to talk about. Block scoring is CRUCIAL for young players because we DO want them to feel secure in a group context, so that they acquire the independence for solo playing LATER ON. “Ear candies” are crafted so that the whole sounds better than the sum of its parts, and band directors DO want their young bands to sound good in front of school administrators (who may cut budgets) and parents (who may take their kids out of band).
In recent years, some composers have tried to write more “imaginatively” for very young bands. For example, Michael Colgrass wrote “Old Churches” which is an extremely creative piece. But in searching for a variety of textures, students end up not playing much. Yes, the music is good and creative, but it’s the composer that’s creative, not the students. I am not saying that Old Churches shouldn’t be played; in fact I think it’s a great piece for students. But we shouldn’t swing to the opposite extreme, repudiate all “ear candies,” and program only the so-called “creative works” that have somewhat of a different purpose.
(This is part 2 of my response)
Thus, “ear candies” are alive and well in the band market. Band directors will keep purchasing them because they work in young band contexts. If a band lacks technical skills, it is far more damaging to try to play “great works” that are technically difficult. Doing so will simply put off young students. Of course, it will be best to play “great works” that are easy, but realistically, few exist in the market. And it’s not hard to understand why. When one writes for young bands, there are so many restrictions. It’s like a painter with less colors to work with, a cook with less ingredients at his disposal, and a dance choreographer who has to choreograph for a dancer who, well, can’t really dance (yet)…
Regarding the second question, “just what exactly qualifies as “ear candy” and what qualifies as “great music?” I think this is a very hard question. Played expressively, some "ear candies" with their predictable, pretty melodic construction can be very good aesthetic experience. As Karajan once noted, “music is not banal unless one makes it so.” I think it is overly simplistic to place music into black and white categories. Bach’s Minuet in G does not have any more chromatic notes than “ear candies,” and the melodic construction is not necessarily more complicated. Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 in G minor is full of tutti writing too, and the viola parts are not much more exciting than second clarinet parts found in "ear candies." Do we then call Mozart a “ear candy” composer? In short, I think we run into difficulties when we try to put music into simple categories.
Having defended the raison d'etre of “ear candies,” and questioned the assumption that music can be simplistically separated into two categories, I have to warn that too much of anything is bad. What we need in instrumental music education is balance. I think that we should avoid “either-or” extremes: playing only so-called “ear candies” is obviously limiting for students, while getting overly hung up with so-called “classics” is equally damaging. I have seen many young bands try to play “classics” when they are not technically ready; this is frustrating for students, directors, and the audience. I would rather hear “ear candies” played well than “classics” played badly. At the very least, when “ear candies” are played well, I know that the students have been trained to a certain level of fundamental competence in tone production, articulation, balance, and ensemble musicianship. If “classics” are played badly, how can this be a satisfying experience for students?
(This is part 3 of my response)
Instead of avoiding “ear candies” altogether, why don’t we use them SPARINGLY as tools, so that students can advance to other literature later on? I must emphasize, however, that no single approach works for everyone. Every teaching situation is different, and every teacher is different. Through constant self-reflection, band directors can find the optimal approaches for their own teaching situations. Teaching bands, like raising children, is extremely complex!
In conclusion, I agree that students should have a rich and satisfying musical experience through band. However, I think that the issues at hand are far more complicated than simply saying that one should avoid “ear candies” altogether, if one can really define what “ear candies” are in the first place. Instead, band directors should critically look at the unique teaching situations they are in and creatively utilize the resources that are available in the best interests of the young musicians under their charge. How does one tell if one is on the right track? When students enjoy coming for band rehearsals, there are few drop-outs, the band sounds good, and students love music.
Leonard Tan
Thanks, Leonard, for providing a critical response, offering a counter-balance to the argument from a ground-level perspective. Indeed, I would agree that candies have their benefits too as long as we know how to use/consume them judiciously -- or, shall we say, 'strategically' in the case of training young bands.
Your fundamental questioning of the distinction between great music and 'ear candies' is well raised. I think you would agree with me that complexity does not automatically equate with greatness, or even with being creative. I remember being fascinated with Schubert's handling of binary forms in his Ländlers when I was examining them a couple of years ago -- great creativity with very simple forms! I therefore think that one can be creative even with otherwise mundane ABA forms without necessarily involving demanding instrumental playing techniques.
Coincidentally, I've just come across mainland Chinese composer 王建民's classification of musical compositions in ascending order of merit:
i. simple compositional techniques, poor musical effects
ii. complex/sophisticated compositional techniques, but poor musical effects
iii. sophisticated techniques, good musical effects
iv. 'simple' techniques yet great musical effects
He regards the 4th category the best, but by 'simple', he means a kind of simplicity distilled from mastery. I guess Gershman would welcome such music.
Post a Comment
<< Home