the freight train theory of history

the results of the my latest compositions are starting to take shape. one of these new pieces (fearless leader) represents a new direction for my music. ligeti's death got me thinking about his famous quote:

Now there is no taboo; everything is allowed. But one cannot simply go back to tonality, itÂ’s not the way. We must find a way of neither going back nor continuing the avant-garde. I am in a prison: one wall is the avant-garde, the other wall is the past, and I want to escape.

i think his point isn't really about the rejection of tonality or the acceptance of the avant guard, but the idea that once you choose to follow freight train theory of history, to progress you must reject something else to move forward (ernest krenek in the ockeghem bio).

i think there is a third way. innovation for the sake of something new can lead empty art. my new works are influenced by performance considerations than by artistic innovation. not anything i'm doing is new or cutting edge, but the combinations of these ideas are a practical matter and a response to the limitations of performance and rehearsal i have faced for the past three years.

the pieces are written in c score, to be played by an indeterminate size ensemble so that we are able to adjust the orchestration for each group that gets together to play.

these pieces also have an indeterminacy of parts, form and orchestration. they can be realized in a performance in a precomposed fashion in which all the parts are assigned and the piece unfolds in a specific manner.

yet we also can create a version so that in some sections the musicians can choose which lines to play and even change the form and internal repetition structure from show to show.

somehow the idea of opening up the score for future "customization" makes more sense to me these days. i can think of many examples of similar ideas (duke ellington, charles mingus, terry riley, cornelius cardew...) but this is more an solution to a specific problem.

in rehearsal the early realizations of this have been powerful. it changes the power structure of an ensemble; for us to make music you have to go beyond just playing what is on the page. decisions are made and agreed upon with the ensemble that really matter in performance. how do we want this to unfold? what is the best way to get to the center of this music? where is this piece going? so far many of the "happy accidents" have made the music much stronger. there is such a difference when everybody is when they are given freedom to choose and interact than when they are assigned a specific role.

three years ago i created this ensemble with an idea of an specific instrumentation that i was interested in working with. now i have turned around 180 degrees. its all about having a group a people that want to get together and make music on a consistent basis because we have to express ourselves through the communal nature of rehearsal and performance. the size of the ensemble can expand and contract based on our busy schedules, a only moderately balanced quorum is needed to put on a show. in a very early review, i hope these "adjustments" to my process have freed my ensemble to create music in a more creative and collaborative way and perform in far more often in the future. fto!