Last week, I decided to listen to a work by a composer who is often thought of as a “one hit wonder,” so I chose an orchestral suite by Johann Pachelbel. My comments for that piece are HERE, and since that post focused on a work from the 17th century, I thought that I would select something contemporary this week. To land on some work, I first ran a Google-search on “best contemporary composers.” At that point, these photos popped up (below), and I was not surprised that most of them were men. As a matter of fact, I was a bit surprised that there were two women pictured.
Still, I ended up choosing a work highlighted in this article, “The best classical music works of the 21st century,” published by TheGuardian.com, HERE, and I decided upon Jonathan Harvey’s String Quarter No. 4. I landed on this work for two reasons. First, it was as instrumental work, and since I had recently listened to and commented on Leonard Bernstein’s Symphony No. 3, “Kaddish” (HERE) -- a work for orchestra, full choir, a boys’ choir, a soprano soloist, and a narrator -- I wasn’t quite ready for another large-scale work for voice. Second, the description of Harvey’s work stated that the it was for “live electronics and string quartet,” and since I have yet to comment on any electronic music on this blog, I chose this string quartet for this week. When I searched for a video of Harvey’s string quartet on YouTube, I experienced a little bit of befuddlement at first. Two recordings of the quartet popped up, but the first was just over 30 minutes, and the second was well over an hour. Were the quartets in these videos playing the same work? It took me a second to figure it out. At first I thought “Quatuor Diotime - Philippe Manoury Tensio” was the name of group performing. LOL -- it turns out that Philippe Manoury is yet another contemporary composer with whom I am unfamiliar, and “Tensio” is yet another classical piece I’ve never heard.
Then, when I first started listening to Harvey’s work, I experienced a bit more confusion because when I clicked “play,” nothing happened. Did I have my volume turned off? No, it was on. I even turned it up higher. Still nothing -- and yes, the video was playing and not on pause. I stopped the video, turned my sound up to 100%, and started the video again. Eventually I did hear something -- but just barely -- at 15 seconds in and again at 22 seconds and then again at 39 seconds. Were these the sounds of a restless audience waiting for the quartet to begin -- akin to “the absence of intended sounds” in John Cage’s provocative piece 4’33”? Or were these sounds actually part of the piece? I didn’t have a score for the quartet to inspect to see what was going on, so I just kept listening. At about one minute in I heard the blue, uncertain stumbling buzz of a violin. It literally sounded like a mosquito. And then.... Oh my. I’m a supporter of contemporary art and music, for contemporary artists and musicians are the very ones who push the boundaries to challenge the status quo and explore the concepts and practices from the past as the fields expand and evolve. They challenge and rebel against tradition (see my discussion re: E. E. Cummings’ poem “old age sticks,” HERE). They advance and expand our perspectives as their new methodologies and ideas emerge and unfold. And while all of this is true with Harvey’s string quartet -- and while I do appreciate the endeavor here to push boundaries and experiment with sound -- this work as a stand-alone piece is a bit too weird (inscrutable? cryptic?) for me. Some of the work begs the debate about what is sound vs. what is music. Other parts of the piece would make a terrific soundtrack for a sci-fi thriller. Coincidentally, though, I recently listened to Episode 45 of “Settling the Score,” a podcast that discusses great film scores of our day, and the hosts discussed Brad Fiedel’s score for “The Terminator” and “Terminator 2.” Listen to their discussion and to some of the electronic music from “The Terminator,” HERE -- from 7:50 to about 9:36 -- and tell me that that work isn’t gripping. It makes you want to hear more (pair that with a string quartet, and WOW -- what a piece that could be)! That was not the case with Harvey’s work (in wanting to hear more). It was jumbled and incoherent. It was a mixed bag of noise and discord, layered with frenetic runs by the strings. And then there was the blue, uncertain stumbling buzz. While Harvey’s work does push the boundaries and experiments with sound, I’m not sure that as time passes -- and as new norms, styles, and forms emerge and as some works of art and sound rise (and perhaps become iconic?) and others fade -- I tend to think that Harvey’s work will be one of the ones that fades. Only time will tell.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
A New Hope:As the header above says, each week I will listen to a piece of classical music that I've never heard before, and then I will report out what I thought about it. Archives
September 2023
Categories
All
|