# Eric Whitacre



## RyanStaufferMusic

No Eric Whitacre thread yet? _Really?!?_

Definitely one of the leaders in the classical contemporary movement today. He's now a pop star in the classical community and for good reason. His distinct style, including his highly-dissonant "Whita-chords" has inspired many new composers (myself included).

Apart from his most popular choral pieces, "Sleep" and "Lux Aurumque," I enjoy "Nox Aurumque" (the sister song to Lux), "When David Heard", a 15-minute epic using 2 verses from the Bible, and "Five Hebrew Love Songs," written to Hebrew poems written by his wife.

His band pieces certainly have made an impact in the music world, as well, including "October," "Godzilla Eats Las Vegas," and "Ghost Train."


----------



## arpeggio

Our community band performed _Godzilla_ at a concert last Saturday.
See: http://www.talkclassical.com/22354-concert-band-thread-3.html#post429473

We have perfromed _Ghost Train_ a few times as well.

There have been discussions concerning his band music. Check out: http://www.talkclassical.com/22354-concert-band-thread-3.html#post404675


----------



## violadude

There's probably not a thread about him yet because he's not that significant (sorry).


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> There's probably not a thread about him yet because he's not that significant (sorry).


Because it is, rather like much pop music, formulaic, set to go down easy (I think nothing cynical on the composer's part, it is what and how he is) and has not made one ripple as to 'a new voice putting forth really new things about music.'

That is the antithesis of "... being one of the leaders in the classical contemporary movement today."

He is so predictable in making one kind of sound with one and a half types of harmonic tricks that there is now a common phrase floating about, "Whitachords."

I congratulate him on his resounding success, am overjoyed anyone can make a full-time living composing, and am not at all engaged, impressed, or interested in the sound he makes.

A good part of what counts for that resounding success is that he has geared the technical level of much of his music, knowing it is popular and goes down easy, to high school ensembles, where, if popular, choral or band music sells Many Many Copies.

It comes across to me as a sort of neon pink 'cotton-candy' modernism. And many people adore sweets. Tnis same quality find many people more annoyed with it than anything else -- 0 nutritional value.

"Pretty is not beautiful." ... and it does not at all necessarily make for greatness.


----------



## violadude

PetrB said:


> Because it is, rather like much pop music, formulaic, set to go down easy (I think nothing cynical on the composer's part, it is what and how he is) and has not made one ripple as to 'a new voice putting forth really new things about music.'
> 
> I congratulate him on his resounding success, am overjoyed anyone can make a full-time living composing, and am not at all engaged, impressed, or interested in the sound he makes.
> 
> A good part of what counts for that resounding success is that he has geared the technical level of much of his music, knowing it is popular and goes down easy, to high school ensembles, where, if popular, choral or band music sells Many Many Copies.
> 
> It comes across to me as a sort of neon pink 'cotton-candy' modernism. And many people adore sweets. Tnat same quality find many people more annoyed with it than anything else.
> 
> "Pretty is not beautiful." ... and it does not at all necessarily make for greatness.


I agree with this assessment. Is it just me though or does he kind of come across as a self-important ***-wipe on occasion? Oh well, plenty of composers were like that, but most had a good reason to be


----------



## Lunasong

My son last night commented "thank goodness for Eric Whitacre" as he is required to attend performances of a certain number of 20-21st century compositions, and Eric Whitacre is usually being performed SOMEWHERE...


----------



## userfume

#classicfm


----------



## Romantic Geek

violadude said:


> There's probably not a thread about him yet because he's not that significant (sorry).


Not significant is being ignorant. You don't have to like him, but this is akin to saying that someone like Pavaratti wasn't a significant singer.

Given that the children today will be defining what new classical music stays and goes, Eric Whitacre stands a damned good chance of being remembered. As formulaic as his music is, people love it.

(I don't particularly care for Whitacre, just to make it clear...but I do think he is an important 21st-century composer.)


----------



## violadude

Romantic Geek said:


> Not significant is being ignorant. You don't have to like him, but this is akin to saying that someone like Pavaratti wasn't a significant singer.
> 
> Given that the children today will be defining what new classical music stays and goes, Eric Whitacre stands a damned good chance of being remembered. As formulaic as his music is, people love it.
> 
> (I don't particularly care for Whitacre, just to make it clear...but I do think he is an important 21st-century composer.)


Important in what way?


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> Important in what way?


The punters like his stuff, I guess is what that amounts to....


----------



## ptr

I also find his music "bland" (for lack of a better word), but he is is immensely important because 8 out of 10 Choirs world wide sing his works, it is smart, accessible and pretty like the first flower in spring and just the sort of thing that Mrs Average can stand coming to contemporary music!

/ptr


----------



## PetrB

ptr said:


> I also find his music "bland" (for lack of a better word), but he is is immensely important because 8 out of 10 Choirs world wide sing his works, it is smart, accessible and pretty like the first flower in spring and just the sort of thing that Mrs Average can stand coming to contemporary music!
> 
> /ptr


I'll bypass the other contemporary orchestral / choral composers whose works quite fairly also fit that description, high school to college and amateur groups included, and just repeat the mention of Ludovico Eiunaudi, whose music also fits the above description to more than a fair parallel.

It may sound or actually be horribly elitist, but if the importance of a composer's work is more about its general 'popularity' than its real merits, that is not a good review


----------



## violadude

ptr said:


> I also find his music "bland" (for lack of a better word), but he is is immensely important because 8 out of 10 Choirs world wide sing his works, it is smart, accessible and pretty like the first flower in spring and just the sort of thing that Mrs Average can stand coming to contemporary music!
> 
> /ptr


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Adolph_Hasse

I find this person's music "bland" (for lack of a better word), but he was immensely important because 8 out of 10 opera companies all over Europe peformed his works, it is easy to follow, not too long and and nice like the first rainstorm after a drought and just the sort of thing that Mrs Average can stand as a newbie to opera music!

Ever heard of him? No? Must be because he was so important.  

(Maybe you have heard of him lol but you get my point haha).


----------



## ptr

violadude said:


> (Maybe you have heard of him lol but you get my point haha).


I absolutely get Your point; I wrote about Hasse in a different thread saying just this (might why You bring him up?), I have no urge to judge, but rather just to relate my experience.

I believe that diversity is all important but that it have no bearing on what I or anybody like or should like!

/ptr


----------



## violadude

ptr said:


> I absolutely get Your point; I wrote about Hasse in a different thread saying just this (might why You bring him up?), I have no urge to judge, but rather just to relate my experience.
> 
> I believe that diversity is all important but that it have no bearing on what I or anybody like or should like!
> 
> /ptr


Oh no, I didn't see that post. I just brought up Hasse because he's the first obscure composer that wrote a **** ton of popular classical music that came to my head.


----------



## Romantic Geek

violadude said:


> Important in what way?


He's one of the commercially most successful composers of the 21st-century, been important in promoting classical musical in schools, and arguably one of the most important choral composers of the last 100 years.

I don't particularly care for Whitacre's music, but to call him insignificant is just elitist and truly misguided IMHO.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Whitacre is insignificant. He composes 'cozy' and 'acceptable' music that has zero substance and that will never stand in the great pantheon of what has come before him.


----------



## arpeggio

*Band Music*

As a band junkie, I can state that he has made some significant contributions to the genre.

There is a lot more to band music that Sousa, Fennell and the Eastman Wind Ensemble.

Although it was a student work, his _Ghost Train Trilogy_ has become an established part of the band repertoire. I have performed it twice in the past few years and several of his other works.


----------



## Sid James

Romantic Geek said:


> He's one of the commercially most successful composers of the 21st-century, been important in promoting classical musical in schools, and arguably one of the most important choral composers of the last 100 years.


Yes he has done many good things for classical music, especially choral music. I read an article/interview on him and he comes across as positive and focused on doing things, making music, rather than on negative things.



> I don't particularly care for Whitacre's music, but to call him insignificant is just elitist and truly misguided IMHO.


I like him but its based on a small number of things, mostly heard in choral concerts (he's very popular in that way). Of an older generation, Morten Lauridsen is in a similar vein. But I think in terms of his popularity (much like Andrew Lloyd Webber) he's going to be a kind of easy target, just because he's so popular. If he was a less popular or unknown composer, nobody would care. If his music is not that much liked but innovative, we don't care either. Basically I think that a lot of the negativity around composers like this is an example of what is called theTall Poppy syndrome.


----------



## PetrB

Romantic Geek said:


> He's one of the commercially most successful composers of the 21st-century, been important in promoting classical musical in schools, and *arguably one of the most important choral composers of the last 100 years.*


That last part in bold is just false. Important as a catalyst to "the business," perhaps, but important musically? Tosh.

So he gets a nice guy and populist success award(s) -- has written something so pop accessible that it has invigorated some kid's interest in classical music award... not at all a bad thing.

My somewhat concern is all that is invigorated is a taste for pretty cotton-candy pink chords via choral music, which may or may not lead people to the more truly invigorating and nutritious contemporary works.

A lot of times, the interest starts and stops with music exactly similar -- witness all those quests on other forums, "any more composers like Lludovico Einaudi? The only answer to that is more ludovico Einaudi, or Yann Tiersen, etc :-/


----------



## PetrB

arpeggio said:


> As a band junkie, I can state that he has made some significant contributions to the genre.
> 
> There is a lot more to band music that Sousa, Fennell and the Eastman Wind Ensemble.
> 
> Although it was a student work, his _Ghost Train Trilogy_ has become an established part of the band repertoire. I have performed it twice in the past few years and several of his other works.


None of which can hold a candle to Joseph Schwantner's ...and the Mountains Rising Nowhere


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> None of which can hold a candle to Joseph Schwantner's ...and the Mountains Rising Nowhere


or any of Part's, Shchedrin's, Schnittke's, or even Vasks' choral works.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> or any of Part's, Shchedrin's, Schnittke's, or even Vasks' choral works.


I'm sure many of us have found something amazing when we were kids, teenagers, later to have interest in that fade to nothing, and if you look back, often what was found amazing was not the trigger or gateway to bigger and better things discovered later.

Maybe Whitacre is like the J.K. Rowling of contemporary classical music, i.e. 'not bad' but nothing great, but that got kids reading, many in the digi-video age, really for the first time.


----------



## KenOC

Eric Whitacre certainly has a few strikes against him.

1: His music seems pretty popular.
2: For the most part, it's tonal or pan-diatonic.
3: Quite a few musically unsophisticated people like it.
4. One of his albums won a Grammy.

Understandable why some here might have a negative reaction!


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> I'm sure many of us have found something amazing when we were kids, teenagers, later to have interest in that fade to nothing, and if you look back, often what was found amazing was not the trigger or gateway to bigger and better things discovered later.
> 
> Maybe Whitacre is like the J.K. Rowling of contemporary classical music, i.e. 'not bad' but nothing great, but that got kids reading, many in the digi-video age, really for the first time.


Perhaps but thankfully this line of thinking never affected me. The first composer that struck a serious chord with me was Ives and then Bartok. What can I say other than I _knew_ they were great.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Eric Whitacre certainly has a few strikes against him.
> 
> 1: His music seems pretty popular.
> 2: For the most part, it's tonal or pan-diatonic.
> 3: Quite a few musically unsophisticated people like it.
> 4. One of his albums won a Grammy.
> 
> Understandable why some here might have a negative reaction!


What self-defensive twaddle... it is very well written shallow and cosmetically attractive music, ergo, it's popularity. Please don't even bother to try and make a parallel that because Beethoven, too, is "popular" that there is any parallel to the quality of Whitacre's music. Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon suite was popular in his day.

The snobbish reaction from the other half is sometimes far more overwhelming and odiferous than what sometimes wafts from the cognoscenti's quarters.


----------



## KenOC

In fact the Grand Canyon Suite is still popular (and I like it in fact). "Shallow and cosmetically attractive" is, of course, very much a value judgment. Please consider that views differing from your own may not be automatically invalid.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> In fact the Grand Canyon Suite is still popular (and I like it in fact). "Shallow and cosmetically attractive" is, of course, very much a value judgment. Please consider that views differing from your own may not be automatically invalid.


Will the popular Grand Canyon Suite ever "make the grade" as "great" in the books, or your own judgment, say, vs. "Beethoven is great?"

No denying Whitacre's music is wildly popular, nor that it is :"well-written" or "pretty."

Maybe I misunderstood you that you were making it out to equal Beethoven with that check list of things which you seem to think instantly disqualify a work as great to the cognoscenti, which is in itself an equally sweeping (and biased) value judgement.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Maybe I misunderstood you that you were making it out to equal Beethoven with that check list of things which you seem to think instantly disqualify a work as great to the cognoscenti...


Well, as I said, that "checklist" seems to disqualify a work (or a composer) in some quarters. Whether "cognoscenti" or not can be argued. 

I am more reminded of a famous phrase of Spiro Agnew's, or more probably William Saffire's...


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Well, as I said, that "checklist" seems to disqualify a work (or a composer) in some quarters. Whether "cognoscenti" or not can be argued.
> 
> I am more reminded of a famous phrase of Spiro Agnew's, or more probably William Saffire's...


Maybe you refer to the quote you have as a motto? Coyly arch as usual, methinks.

At any rate, that checklist is no set of criteria to measure anything but "popularity." And popularity is no measure of a work being either great or good, since popular encompasses the greatest to the worst: It just means it is popular, period.


----------



## arpeggio

*It sounded OK to me*



PetrB said:


> None of which can hold a candle to Joseph Schwantner's ...and the Mountains Rising Nowhere


One could easily come up with a large list of band works which are just as good as _Mountains_ if not better: _i. e._ Grainger, _Lincolnshire Posey_; Gould, _West Point Symphony_; Persichetti, _Symphony Number Six_ or Karel Husa, _Prague 1968_. _Mountains_ and its companion works, _From a Dark Millennium_ and _In evening's stillness..._, are still outstanding works.

Note: These works are not strictly speaking band works since they do not include saxophones or euphoniums. See:

For: _...and the Mountains Rising Nowhere_-http://www.windrep.org/And_the_mountains_rising_nowhere

For: _From a Dark Millennium_-_http://www.windrep.org/From_a_Dark_Millennium_

For: _In evening's stillness..._-http://www.windrep.org/In_evening%27s_stillness

I do not know if _Ghost Train_ is a great piece of music or not. To compare these two works is unfair. _Ghost Train_ was scored for a full concert band, including a major tenor saxophone solo in the middle movement. Schwanter's works were scored for the wind section of an orchestra and percussion. Also their sound worlds are completely different. As I stated our band has performed _Ghost Train_ twice and it sounded OK to us.

I will concede that _Ghost Train_ may not be as profound as Grainger, _Lincolnshire Posey_; Gould, _West Point Symphony_; Persichetti, _Symphony Number Six_ or Karel Husa, _Prague 1968_. It was his first band work and he was only 23 when he completed it.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Maybe you refer to the quote you have as a motto? Coyly arch as usual, methinks.


The motto in my posts is from Samuel Johnson, who lived quite a long time before Spiro Agnew (or so I'm told). Note my avatar.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> The motto in my posts is from Samuel Johnson, who lived quite a long time before Spiro Agnew (or so I'm told). Note my avatar.


If you expect me to read all of Samuel Johnson to get what you were driving at, you're out of your mind. If you set it in "hidden ninja (white) text," I take that as seriously as I would take a comeback from an 11 year-old tween.

I'm all for subtlety, but when someone is being downright opaque, it is really asking too much work from the other party.

The only Spiro Agnew quote which comes to mind was a comment he made to President Richard Nixon, "Never cross your legs like that! It ruins the crease of your pants."


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> If you expect me to read all of Samuel Johnson to get what you were driving at, you're out of your mind. If you set it in "hidden ninja (white) text," I take that as seriously as I would take a comeback from an 11 year-old tween.
> 
> I'm all for subtlety, but when someone is being downright opaque, it is really asking too much work from the other party.


Your reference to "white text" is mystifying.

But to lower the opacity of things, the quote I had in mind was Spiro Agnew's reference to "an effete corps of impudent snobs." He was referring to those he considered anti-Nixon intellectuals. Chairman Mao, who had a very different ideological ax to grind, referred to intellectuals as the "stinking ninth," assuming they comprised a ninth of China's population.

Regardless, such people do exist and are sometimes found on Internet forums such as this one.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Your reference to "white text" is mystifying.
> 
> But to lower the opacity of things, the quote I had in mind was Spiro Agnew's reference to "an effete corps of impudent snobs." He was referring to those he considered anti-Nixon intellectuals. Chairman Mao, who had a very different ideological ax to grind, referred to intellectuals as the "stinking ninth," assuming they comprised a ninth of China's population.
> 
> Regardless, such people do exist and are sometimes found on Internet forums such as this one.


Very American, to disdain "intellectuals.' President George Bush Senior was one, spoke French so fluently that it is what he spoke when he met with Mitterand, who was more than extraordinarily surprised at the excellence and fluidity of George's usage. During his campaign, his PR people made sure he cloaked all such assets, knowing the American public distrust real intelligence a great deal.

Of course, after executing and imprisoning all the intellectuals, Mao developed a great and open, intelligent society, didn't he?

Guess those who disdain the intelligent like to think of themselves as the special corps of the bright and right ones and of course, the arbiters of all things great and good.

"Don't cross your legs like that, you'll ruin the crease in your pants." Effin Brilliant, no?


----------



## KenOC

I can only repeat: "Eric Whitacre certainly has a few strikes against him.

1: His music seems pretty popular.
2: For the most part, it's tonal or pan-diatonic.
3: Quite a few musically unsophisticated people like it.
4. One of his albums won a Grammy.

Understandable why some here might have a negative reaction!"

If this means that I "disdain the intelligent" and places me among those who "think of themselves as the special corps of the bright and right ones and of course, the arbiters of all things great and good," that's a cross I'll have to bear! G'nite...


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> I can only repeat: "Eric Whitacre certainly has a few strikes against him.
> 
> 1: His music seems pretty popular.
> 2: For the most part, it's tonal or pan-diatonic.
> 3: Quite a few musically unsophisticated people like it.
> 4. One of his albums won a Grammy.
> 
> Understandable why some here might have a negative reaction!"
> 
> If this means that I "disdain the intelligent" and places me among those who "think of themselves as the special corps of the bright and right ones and of course, the arbiters of all things great and good," that's a cross I'll have to bear! G'nite...


It did not improve upon repetition. The line after your fourth point makes no connective sense whatsoever.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Given the givens, I would never expect you to read all (or any) of Samuel Johnson.
> 
> But to lower the opacity of things, the quote I had in mind was Spiro Agnew's reference to "an effete corps of impudent snobs." He was referring to those he considered anti-Nixon intellectuals. Chairman Mao, who had a very different ideological ax to grind, referred to intellectuals as the "stinking ninth," assuming they comprised a ninth of China's population.
> 
> Regardless, such people do exist and are sometimes found on Internet forums such as this one.


You mean the Lumpens who go all paranoid about those "intellectuals" who do not agree with their opinions, those same Lumpens who then in an extremely reactionary move go out of their way to vituperously slam or eliminate those who disagree with them from the playing field?

You could not be more right on that one if you tried even harder... all fora are littered with that type.


----------



## Sid James

I thought I'd give some extracts from the article-interview I read about Eric Whitacre. I just dug it out.

The following are bits I found interesting from BBC Music Magazine (Christmas 2011 Issue, pp. 44-48) written by James Naughtie (green bits are quotes from the article, my own 'commentary' is in black).

Here, a bit about the rigors of study at university, a place which often negated and was at odds with his passion for popular music, and his belief that music should come from the heart:

…the Las Vegas undergraduate ended up at the Julliard School in New York and his first teacher spent a year, as he puts it, breaking him down. He'd spent his high school years writing songs for the school rock band, and the view was that he had to be cleansed of that habit. 'I was paralysed. I couldn't write a note.'

The trouble was that his teacher, David Diamond, wanted to give him a composing technique that would enable him to write on the days when inspiration just wouldn't come. 'There are days like that,' he told Eric, 'when you've got to write. What are you going to do then?' But the student couldn't adapt to this idea of the composer as steady craftsman. 'It has never worked for me. I've never learned to be a carpenter, with the skill of the trained workman. Let me put it like this - I really wish I could write a piece of functional music. I can't.' 

But Whitacre says he admires composers who could write with speed and compose masterpieces. Bach and Mozart are two of his favourite choral composers. He is also drawn, he says, to the English choral tradition, especially Byrd, Tallis and John Rutter.

About choral and vocal composition he says that he values the traditions of choral writing and also thinks the text is paramount:

'Getting to know the sound - the lineage of this music, the writing, the vocal technique - is about as exciting a thing I can imagine.' …One of the reasons for his absorption in that tradition is his reverence for the text…he is convinced by the power of the text. As when he's using his favourite poets as sources - e.e. cummings, Emily Dickinson and Robert Frost, for example - he says his connection with the text has to be absolute. If not? 'The music is crap.' 

The article says he lives in London, and he seems critical of aspects of life at home, in America:

'You fall asleep in L.A. There is no weather, no time, no season. People actively fight the passage of time. We all wear jeans and T-shirts to pretend that we're all 18. To be honest, I think it's a city - a culture - that's permanently in denial.' 

Then some mention in depth about Whitacre's passion for choral conducting and his brainchild which came out of that, and a phenomenon of sorts, the virtual choir on youtube. Here is a bit of the article on that:

Eric's enthusiasm for the project reveals his conviction about the power of music to produce - let's put it simply - a good feeling. To him, it's much more than the satisfaction of fine writing and a polished performance. 'I believe that there is a deep physiological response to music, and music-making especially. Everyone is in the same room breathing together - signing essential poetry or religious texts. You are physiologically helped by that experience. I know it.' 

Whitacre is pretty open and upfront in why he hasn't gone down the more experimental or atonal route with his music. It basically doesn't match his view of music bringing people together:

'I believe that there are certain kinds of music - particularly rigorously atonal music - that produces the opposite physiological response. It causes the listener to feel or experience angst or distress, and it does something else. It isolates the audience, and makes you as an individual feel apart.' 

But he also talks at length about his favourite composer, Benjamin Britten:

'There is no question who is the first and foremost for me - Benjamin Britten. Peter Grimes, The Turn of the Screw - they are magnificent. I can't believe how young he was when he wrote Grimes…Britten is everything to me - I hear all the loneliness and innocence in his music and it always moves me.' 

And the end of the article, Naughtie talks of Whitacre's aim to kind of bring these contradictory things together:

The surprise is that loneliness has such a pull on him, and that it is Britten's voice that he hears. Yet, perhaps not. His passion for the collective experience in music…is a response to precisely the same feeling: that music not only has the ability to describe isolation and loneliness, to feel the experience, but also to banish them. 

& my opinion on this is that I think Whitacre comes across as a positive and well spoken person. He's thought about what music means to him, and that's what he focused on conveying in this interview. & btw I read this interview after I'd heard his music, which on first impression I liked. So it didn't change what I thought anyway.

& re his critique of atonality, a good deal of composers I've read have said similar things in interviews. I mean the likes of Arvo Part and Thomas Ades. Not the same words but the same sentiments. I myself am not a composer but have little time for Modernist ideology, or a lot of it. While I like the music, a lot of Modernist ideology I don't like and I sense that there's a feeling out there that its failed. So in the early 21st century, composers like Whitacre are reassessing what they think of music and what they value in music. No big deal, composers have done that all the time throughout the ages. There's no longer this view that composers - or listeners for that matter - have to tow some ideological 'party line' about what new/newer music is 'better' or more valid than others (that one size fits all type of view, which got especially dogmatic after 1945). So things change, always, change is the only constant!


----------



## Neo Romanza

Now I know why I don't like Whitacre's music because of sweeping statements like this:

'I believe that there are certain kinds of music - particularly rigorously atonal music - that produces the opposite physiological response. It causes the listener to feel or experience angst or distress, and it does something else. It isolates the audience, and makes you as an individual feel apart.'

He's free to not like any music he chooses but don't ever make assumptions about an 'audience'. That's something he knows nothing about nor does he know what they _feel_ or how they _feel_ about the music.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> Now I know why I don't like Whitacre's music because of sweeping statements like this:
> 
> 'I believe that there are certain kinds of music - particularly rigorously atonal music - that produces the opposite physiological response. It causes the listener to feel or experience angst or distress, and it does something else. It isolates the audience, and makes you as an individual feel apart.'
> 
> He's free to not like any music he chooses but don't ever make assumptions about an 'audience'. That's something he knows nothing about nor does he know what they _feel_ or how they _feel_ about the music.


Just more of that *"Now that you're successful, you must do interviews, and / or write that squib for the recording of your work"* composer runs off at mouth stuff, really. Earnestly off-putting, like when Jennifer Higden put both feet so firmly in her mouth about American music being so far 'ahead' of European music (LOL), and we get the like from countless others, some whose music we like and / or don't.

*Benjamin Britten said it best, he believed that artists should not talk - meaning very much especially about their own work.*

When the work is done, performed, no words are going to shore it up... it has to stand on its own.


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> Just more of that *"Now that you're successful, you must do interviews, and / or write that squib for the recording of your work"* composer runs off at mouth stuff, really. Earnestly off-putting, like when Jennifer Higden put both feet so firmly in her mouth about American music being so far 'ahead' of European music (LOL), and we get the like from countless others, some whose music we like and / or don't.
> 
> *Benjamin Britten said it best, he believed that artists should not talk - meaning very much especially about their own work.*
> 
> When the work is done, performed, no words are going to shore it up... it has to stand on its own.


Well said and so very true.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> Just more of that *"Now that you're successful, you must do interviews, and / or write that squib for the recording of your work"* composer runs off at mouth stuff, really.


Well I for one enjoy reading interviews like that, and you know its not only popular or successful composers or musicians who do interviews.



> ...
> *Benjamin Britten said it best, he believed that artists should not talk - meaning very much especially about their own work.*
> 
> When the work is done, performed, no words are going to shore it up... it has to stand on its own.


What did Britten say that about? I know he was reticent about discussing his music in too much depth. This interview with Colin Matthews, who worked with Britten, confirms that. Matthews was pretty close professionally speaking to Britten, but he says he had next to no clue about Mahler's influence on him.

http://goodmorningbritten.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/britten-through-the-eyes-of-colin-matthews/

Another thing Matthews says might explain why Whitacre says he enjoys Britten which to some may contradict his dislike of atonal music:

I'm not sure about direct influence. Today's composers have avoided the somewhat polemical atmosphere I grew up in where there was pressure to be on one side or the other, and they welcome Britten as much of a part of their musical world as Boulez, who probably still regards Britten as hardly a composer at all. (I'm glad to be able to admire both!).

But if composers or other musicians don't say anything, or anything much, how do we know about what they think about music. Both theirs and others? If its their area of expertise, I think its better them talking about that than say the weather or the latest fashions. I can get that out of a gossip mag, seriously (which is why I don't read them).

Didn't either of you get something positive or insightful out of the article I quoted at lenght about Whitacre. Maybe I just wasted my time. But that's how it is, I tried to contribute something of use here!


----------



## PetrB

The huge difference between thee and me, here, Sid, is that I very much don't need or want what I consider extraneous information beyond the piece itself. This is not a matter of personality differences, I think, but the fact that since I was very young, music to me has always seemed like a very full communication which needs no supplemental explanation. (I suppose that should be tempered by dint of my very long and complete training coupled with a natural tendency to read beyond what was assigned. I am, de facto, well aware of a lot of history and music history.)

You are quite the opposite as to how you think and feel about these matters, feeling the more you know about the composer's biography, etc. the better you can understand the work(s). 

The Britten quote: I heard the composer utter it – in a somewhat startlingly impassioned tone -- in an interview broadcast via radio decades ago -- other than that, my source is gone. That made quite an impression on me, and it is a statement with which I wholly agree. (I did not at all think to connect that to Whitacre or his admiration for Britten.)

I read the Whitacre article in full, and it told me... nothing which I considered in any way influential, let alone necessary, as to regarding the man's work itself. That is how I tick, or if you will, don't.

Too, you are more than keen on pointing out when anyone feels intimidated by or bullied by academia, and any trends pushed there. Clearly, the pressure did this composer absolutely no harm, perhaps even strengthened his position, having to think it through and become more resolute in his personal conviction. That too, is part and parcel of the function of academe – it is not a system set up to mollycoddle the delicate, who are then supposed to go out and successfully compete in a profession more stiffly competitive than professional sports.

Whitacre plainly has a natural leaning to tonality, no big deal, but then quite typically, like so many who advocate either tonal or atonal, he proceeds in a very average and disappointing way in then bashing or deconstructing the other side, as if he needs to rationalize or defend his proclivity for tonality – sigh. If that frailty or flaw makes him more human to some, I really don’t get it or care. To me, it does not make of him either hero or anti-hero, but a whiner (discredit might go to the journalist who may have pulled that history out of the composer in an interview, since these sort of barely hardship stories are wildly popular.)

When you’re at the top, whining about the hardships of having gotten there is very far from becoming.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> ...
> 
> You are quite the opposite as to how you think and feel about these matters, feeling the more you know about the composer's biography, etc. the better you can understand the work(s).


Well thats fine, everyone has a different way. But I don't think I'm alone in enjoying things like that interview. If it wasn't in some way popular, BBC music magazine wouldn't be published. It has to have some viability (basically sell copies) to survive. So I think there are listeners like me out there, a lot. Maybe not on this forum, or not that many comparatively, but we do exist.



> ...
> The Britten quote: I heard the composer utter it - in a somewhat startlingly impassioned tone -- in an interview broadcast via radio decades ago -- other than that, my source is gone. That made quite an impression on me, and it is a statement with which I wholly agree. (I did not at all think to connect that to Whitacre or his admiration for Britten.)
> ...


Well sounds like it was a point in time for him, like any interview. I think though, that the online interview with Britten's assistant Colin Matthews shows that its good to have whatever documents we have about a composer, other than his music. Like Tchaikovsky's letter for example, many of which have survived. Again, it depends what every particular listener is interested in.



> ...
> Too, you are more than keen on pointing out when anyone feels intimidated by or bullied by academia, and any trends pushed there. Clearly, the pressure did this composer absolutely no harm, perhaps even strengthened his position, having to think it through and become more resolute in his personal conviction. That too, is part and parcel of the function of academe - it is not a system set up to mollycoddle the delicate, who are then supposed to go out and successfully compete in a profession more stiffly competitive than professional sports.
> 
> Whitacre plainly has a natural leaning to tonality, no big deal, but then quite typically, like so many who advocate either tonal or atonal, he proceeds in a very average and disappointing way in then bashing or deconstructing the other side, as if he needs to rationalize or defend his proclivity for tonality - sigh. If that frailty or flaw makes him more human to some, I really don't get it or care. To me, it does not make of him either hero or anti-hero, but a whiner (discredit might go to the journalist who may have pulled that history out of the composer in an interview, since these sort of barely hardship stories are wildly popular.)
> 
> When you're at the top, whining about the hardships of having gotten there is very far from becoming.


Well look, I read quite a few of these things. & more often than not, as in the Colin Matthews interview, Boulez's name is mentioned in a bad light with regards to bullying and dogmatism. Some of it survives still in academia, but I'd like to think its kind of dying out, like his generation. Terrible thing to say, I know, but I'd bet once Boulez dies there will be many people biting their lips. No good to speak ill of the dead, so many people will give him the credit that is due to him as a musician but maybe skip over the less than stellar bits of his career early on when he was like the worst ideologue since Hanslick. But that's the past.

In terms of Whitacre, I agree that the interview I gave bits of, well its short. A few pages. I'm sure though if you want to find some article pitched at an academic audience about why people like Whitacre dislike atonality - or certain types of it, since his favourite composer is Britten, and I know he went into serialism late in his life - you would find such things. But he's free to make reflections and give his opinions, and you must note he didn't name names or discredit people in that interview (eg. David Diamond was just mentioned as his teacher, he was not pulled down or tarnished in any way).


----------



## PetrB

Sid James said:


> I don't think I'm alone in enjoying things like that interview. If it wasn't in some way popular, BBC music magazine wouldn't be published. It has to have some viability (basically sell copies) to survive. So I think there are listeners like me out there, a lot. Maybe not on this forum, or not that many comparatively, but we do exist.


You are less than alone: the vast majority want to know how it is done, feel 'closer to the work if they know something about the artist.' Its more than average, that desire.



Sid James said:


> Well sounds like it was a point in time for him, like any interview. I think though, that the online interview with Britten's assistant Colin Matthews shows that its good to have whatever documents we have about a composer, other than his music. Like Tchaikovsky's letter for example, many of which have survived. Again, it depends what every particular listener is interested in.


I remember it exactly as the horse's mouth said it. Beats hell out of any assistant, no matter the integrity, who consciously or not is basking in the attention of having been associated with the great one of which the interview is the focus.



Sid James said:


> I read quite a few of these things. & more often than not, as in the Colin Matthews interview, Boulez's name is mentioned in a bad light with regards to bullying and dogmatism. Some of it survives still in academia, but I'd like to think its kind of dying out, like his generation. Terrible thing to say, I know, but I'd bet once Boulez dies there will be many people biting their lips. No good to speak ill of the dead, so many people will give him the credit that is due to him as a musician but maybe skip over the less than stellar bits of his career early on when he was like *the worst ideologue since Hanslick.*


Your call, I'm asking for documentation on that one, thinking you just made it up 



Sid James said:


> In terms of Whitacre, I agree that the interview I gave bits of, well its short. A few pages. *I'm sure though if you want to find some article pitched at an academic audience about why people like Whitacre dislike atonality* - or certain types of it, since his favourite composer is Britten, and I know he went into serialism late in his life - you would find such things. But he's free to make reflections and give his opinions, and you must note he didn't name names or discredit people in that interview (eg. David Diamond was just mentioned as his teacher, he was not pulled down or tarnished in any way).


I have no interest in why a composer likes or dislikes anything, again, that tells me nothing about their actual music. It actually neither informs their music or informs me of anything, except an interest in this some have because they actually believe it is somehow very telling -- it ain't. None of that has any bearing on _the quality_ of the man's music.

Every student is "bullied" to write, draw, paint, in the contemporary mode _Because That Is What Is Going On Around Them and Universities are not bastions of currently teaching how to write baroque music, for example._. Ever since there have been conservatories this has been so. The more the student learns to write in the most modern of idioms, the better control they will have if they choose to go or be a bit retro against the current trend. You make it out that all these ssssssensitive artsissssts have to be treated like hot-house flowers. The trade is not for the weak or resolute: it is ruthless, maybe Darwinian, if you can't survive academia, your chances outside are near nothing.

If you have never had a teacher be blunt toward you, and at the time recall it seemed more than harsh, and in retrospect then did not realize they had said just the right thing to you at the time, I actually feel you missed out on a very necessary and valuable part of being educated. I hasten to say that interaction is anything but 'bullying.'


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I've heard of this composer, but I've never really seen his music associated with any modern music programs or organisations. One of my friends who has actually performed music in an orchestra of this rather esoteric composer says that many of his works have a tendency of sounding very similar to one another. At least he has a very distinct style then.


----------



## Jobis

just listened to sleep and it almost put me into one! 

I think i'll give this guy a miss.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've heard of this composer, but I've never really seen his music associated with any modern music programs or organisations. One of my friends who has actually performed music in an orchestra of this rather esoteric composer says that many of his works have a tendency of sounding very similar to one another. At least he has a very distinct style then.


That is a roundabout way of saying what has already been said -- by many -- about Whitacre's output to date: _A one-trick pony._


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Eric Whitacre certainly has a few strikes against him.
> 
> 1: His music seems pretty popular.
> 2: For the most part, it's tonal or pan-diatonic.
> 3: Quite a few musically unsophisticated people like it.
> 4. One of his albums won a Grammy.
> 
> Understandable why some here might have a negative reaction!


Really?

The people who said disparaging things about Whitacre before this post were:
Violadude
Neo Romanza
PetrB
ptr

2 on this list certainly isn't a factor for any of them. It comes immediately to my mind that Violadude is a fan of Japanese Neoromantic Yoshimatsu, PetrB of John Adams, and Neo Romanza and ptr love Shostakovich. Ditto the same for No. 1.

3 is ridiculous, because musically sophisticated and unsophisticated people enjoy many of the same things within Classical music. Even given the chance that it was a factor in this particular instance, you should acknowledge that it is an exception rather than a rule.

As for No. 4, lots of things have won Grammy awards. Hilary Hahn's Schoenberg/Sibelius concertos album won a Grammy award. Who cares about the Classical Grammys anyway?

If it is "understandable why some here might have a negative reaction", then prove it. Give a reason that actually applies to one or more of the above posters in particular, none of whom have a stated aversion to popularity, tonality, the appreciation of the multitude, or Grammy award-winners as such.

Or you can stop posting such inane and ridiculous things.

Edit: Stop the presses! Pierre Boulez has won a Grammy award for Best Classical Composition (which Whitacre has _not_ won, incidentally), for that eternally audience-beloved Répons!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I listened to Whitacre for the first time, some choral work and a thing about horses. I felt very disconnected to that kind of music and it was overly predictable and didn't go anywhere. Basically what PetrB said.


----------



## Sid James

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've heard of this composer, but I've never really seen his music associated with any modern music programs or organisations. One of my friends who has actually performed music in an orchestra of this rather esoteric composer says that many of his works have a tendency of sounding very similar to one another. At least he has a very distinct style then.


The concert I heard Whitacre's music at was actually done at a university here. He's also been done by many other choirs, big and small, semi professional to professional. The concert I attended also had music by others like Poulenc, Barber, Morten Lauridsen, and Whitacre's pieces actually stood out for me as quite different from anything else I'd heard. I think many composers have a 'sameness' factor, but that might be just as much a strength as a weakness. Depends how we see it. In terms of a strength, means they have some sort of unique musical voice. I just listened to my cd of Morten Lauridsen, and thought the pieces aren't exactly the same, there is a strong connection stylistically betwen them. From the few pieces I heard by him, Whitacre is similar, but of course differrent listeners will react differently. That's how it is with many things.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Since Whitacre admires Britten above all others, it's a shame that the composer didn't rub off on him. He might have been a fraction of a good composer Britten was.


----------



## PetrB

Neo Romanza said:


> Since Whitacre admires Britten above all others, it's a shame that the composer didn't rub off on him. He might have been a fraction of a good composer Britten was.


Hey, I hero worship Guillaume de Machaut, Rameau, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Debussy, Stravinsky, Berio, and a bunch of others, trained a lot, and don't come close. S___ happens


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> Hey, I hero worship Guillaume de Machaut, Rameau, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Stravinsky, Berio, and a bunch of others, trained a lot, and don't come close. S___ happens


But what I'm implying is that if Whitacre actually had some of Britten's aesthetic, he would be a better composer. At least the music would be more interesting than the commercial pap he's churning out right now.


----------



## Sid James

He knows exactly what he's doing, guys. I remember those Whitacre works at the concert, they where Lux Aurumque and Nox Aurumque. The conductor actually explained how Whitacre used these dense clusters to highlight certain words in the text. I remember that, which the guidance of what the conductor said, I was able to hear what Whitacre was doing with the text. I thought it was unique, even among the composers I mentioned on the same program. As he said in that BBC music mag interview, the job of any choral composer is to really look at what he's doing with the text. In those two works, he achieved that, and then some. Just went on youtube to hear them again. I think they're great pieces of choral music. But let's agree to disagree on this, shall we? I didn't go on the Wagner anniversary threads a month or so ago and say I hate him etc. I stayed away, dunno why its necessary to come back here again and again to rubbish Whitacre???


----------



## Neo Romanza

Sid, if Whitacre has a right to smear a whole audience, I have a right to come here and say what I want about his music. I mean it's not like I'm going to the Prokofiev thread talking about Whitacre. At least I have the decency to go the man's thread to give my opinion of the music. After all, isn't this what a composer thread is for? By the way, you're free to like his music just as I'm free to dislike it. If you don't want to read the criticism regarding the composer then don't read it. I've read the positive and negative things about this composer and I've come to the conclusion that he's not a serious composer and he's certainly not within the realm of any of the composers who have had similar success. I think he makes his money off of cheap and compositional cliches that may appear on the surface to be something of depth but deeper down are as hollow and empty as a Hallmark Christmas card.


----------



## PetrB

Sid James said:


> He knows exactly what he's doing, guys. I remember those Whitacre works at the concert, they where Lux Aurumque and Nox Aurumque. The conductor actually explained how Whitacre *used these dense clusters to highlight certain words in the text.* I remember that, which the guidance of what the conductor said, I was able to hear what Whitacre was doing with the text. I thought it was unique, even among the composers I mentioned on the same program. As he said in that BBC music mag interview, the job of any choral composer is to really look at what he's doing with the text. In those two works, he achieved that, and then some. Just went on youtube to hear them again. I think they're great pieces of choral music. But let's agree to disagree on this, shall we? I didn't go on the Wagner anniversary threads a month or so ago and say I hate him etc. I stayed away, dunno why its necessary to come back here again and again to rubbish Whitacre???


Its called word painting, and though tone clusters were not around at the time, the device of coloring the text with specific musical devices has been around since the renaissance and motets.

I too, get more than miffed when some TC member, known to be more actually into music, or an actual musician, gives an opinion and leaves it at that, only to find it seems the non-musicians, or pardon me, those few plebes or those from the hoi polloii who seem to have appointed themselves as spokesmen for the entire plebe / hoi-polloi sectors have long ago decided it is open season on musicians in general and anyone they perceive as "the cognoscenti or elite" -- especially when those musicians have an opinion on a piece or composer contrary to that held by the non-musician.

The sort seem to think if they like something, and give all sorts of critical justification for the music, that others then shouldn't say anything else about it... especially if those others are musicians or considered part of this imagined "elite or cognoscenti."

I'll leave it as hypothetical question as to what those critics think that dynamic is psychologically all about.

Personally, I find it the height of a kind of arrogant snobbery, a very real form of bullying, and without any reasonable justification. The most common phrase for the dynamic? "Will not brook another opinion."

And have you EVER heard a pre-concert lecturer 'dis' a piece about to be heard on the scheduled program? Wonder why that is.

P.s. with just a little nosing around, you can find many a similar negative opinion of Whitacre in "official" reviews by professionals and other articles.


----------



## PetrB

No one in this thread said anything near that this composer did not know exactly what he was doing...


----------



## SottoVoce

Sid James said:


> Well thats fine, everyone has a different way. But I don't think I'm alone in enjoying things like that interview. If it wasn't in some way popular, BBC music magazine wouldn't be published. It has to have some viability (basically sell copies) to survive. So I think there are listeners like me out there, a lot. Maybe not on this forum, or not that many comparatively, but we do exist.


It's funny to see the composers in the past who were seen as popular, and the survival factor of their works. Not only were there popular composers in the past who are completely in obscurity now, but those great ones who were seen as "popular and accessible" now, almost never are played as often as those considered difficult; I'm thinking of Haydn and Handel, which are almost considered connessieur's composers, rather than Mozart and Beethoven, who were both seen as the apex of difficulty of their time. I'm not saying that this translates to our situation, but I would like to repeat PetrB's maxim; "Popularity is popularity is nothing else". Richard Strauss is a still a great composer even though he is immensely popular, but that does not make Berio or Dallapiccola or - gasp! - Boulez any worse. I'm sure none of them thought they were going to get as big of hits as the more accessible composers. Why some tonal composers choose then to deride them for that is beyond me.



> Well look, I read quite a few of these things. & more often than not, as in the Colin Matthews interview, Boulez's name is mentioned in a bad light with regards to bullying and dogmatism. Some of it survives still in academia, but I'd like to think its kind of dying out, like his generation. Terrible thing to say, I know, but I'd bet once Boulez dies there will be many people biting their lips. No good to speak ill of the dead, so many people will give him the credit that is due to him as a musician but maybe skip over the less than stellar bits of his career early on when he was like the worst ideologue since Hanslick. But that's the past.


It's funny you bring up Boulez. I wasn't alive when he made those very stupid comments, but, to me, this video:






taught me much more about the composer's music and seemed much more respectful than what I read on Whitcare. If I didn't know anything about either of them, I would assume just by their interviews that Boulez was the calm, respectful one and Whitacre was one of the many composers who feel that look down on composers who don't share their populist aesthetic.

I don't think I have anything to owe to Whitacre. I think it's bad music. If people think it's good music, I'm not going to say that it is good music. I think Boulez, whether he is unpopular or not, is a far greater composer then him, and I think that if things were just he would survive rather than Whitacre. The idea that, regardless of a composers talent, that if a lot of people listen to him he deserves to survive is a bit disconcerting to me. But, alas, for the past 40 years, it has been relatively accepted, and I think it's an idea that's is a huge danger to any culture.

As a side note, his looking down on David Diamond seems to be a little confusing; when looking at Mozart, who wrote nothing but "functional music" - he wrote almost all of his music, save the Mass in C Minor, to a ulterior purpose - Mozart comes out to be the composer; while looking at Whitacre's work, it seems to be him that seems to be the craftsman. Writing "Functional music" is nothing to look down upon, and to look down upon it is some pseudo-Romantic remnant; I say pseudo-Romantic because Brahms, in his maxims on composition, said "You must learn to write a lot every day, not thinking that everything you do is significant". This does shows a lot about Whitacre's character, it seems to be that everything he thinks he does is significant.


----------



## aleazk

Independently of his opinions, Boulez is a genius composer... I don't think there's any minimal doubt about this. The comparison of Boulez with Whitacre... well... sure, some people prefer Mcdonalds and others the exquisite and sofisticated _french_ () cuisine...


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Independently of his opinions, Boulez is a genius composer... I don't think there's any minimal doubt about this. The comparison of Boulez with Whitacre... well... sure, some people prefer Mcdonalds and others the exquisite and sofisticated _french_ () cuisine...


*"The comparison of Boulez with Whitacre"*: _is a stretch beyond which the meaning of_ comparison _goes._

Oddly enough, to counter all those "he's very popular, and it sells a lot," Arguments, I'd thought to say that I'm sure the owners of Maxim's, Paris don't even give one thought to MacDonalds, let alone "They're doing really well, they must be great."

The other fail / flail is listing effective technical usage, in lists, as if that is enough to determine quality. Haven't thought of an apt enough analogy for that one. Be my guest, that sort of argument / defense comes up all the time, as in, "Hovhaness, master of counterpoint," etc. (It remains -- Hovhaness


----------



## Sid James

SottoVoce said:


> ...
> taught me much more about the composer's music and seemed much more respectful than what I read on Whitcare. If I didn't know anything about either of them, I would assume just by their interviews that Boulez was the calm, respectful one and Whitacre was one of the many composers who feel that look down on composers who don't share their populist aesthetic.
> 
> I don't think I have anything to owe to Whitacre. I think it's bad music. If people think it's good music, I'm not going to say that it is good music. I think Boulez, whether he is unpopular or not, is a far greater composer then him, and I think that if things were just he would survive rather than Whitacre. The idea that, regardless of a composers talent, that if a lot of people listen to him he deserves to survive is a bit disconcerting to me. But, alas, for the past 40 years, it has been relatively accepted, and I think it's an idea that's is a huge danger to any culture.
> 
> As a side note, his looking down on David Diamond seems to be a little confusing; when looking at Mozart, who wrote nothing but "functional music" - he wrote almost all of his music, save the Mass in C Minor, to a ulterior purpose - Mozart comes out to be the composer; while looking at Whitacre's work, it seems to be him that seems to be the craftsman. Writing "Functional music" is nothing to look down upon, and to look down upon it is some pseudo-Romantic remnant; I say pseudo-Romantic because Brahms, in his maxims on composition, said "You must learn to write a lot every day, not thinking that everything you do is significant". This does shows a lot about Whitacre's character, it seems to be that everything he thinks he does is significant.


Well I kind of regret bringing Boulez into this, as I feel I just made it an easy segue into the dichotomy building which I've tried hard not to do: http://www.talkclassical.com/21077-idealization-denigration-dynamic.html

Having said that, and not commenting on his music (some of which I like), Boulez did make many comments about other composers that make that sentence or two by Whitacre critiquing atonality pale in comparison. In his younger years, Boulez dissed many prominent composers who unlike him where not fans of various new trends in music. But as I said, thats history now, and he's basically establishment now.

However Whitacre's critiques of atonality have been echoed by others, including the likes of Thomas Ades, John Adams, Arvo Part to name a few big names. In terms of Adams, Boulez didn't hesitate to snap back. Fact is though that every composer has a unique vision, and for some, certain techniques may not be of the same relevance as to Boulez or others like him.

But I see Whitacre by implication (reading between the lines of that interview, the whole thing, I only gave extracts I saw as important) as being quite balanced. For example he is critical of atonality but says Britten is his favourite composer. So he by implication accepts some forms or takes on atonality, serialism, etc. Listen to Whitacre's music and it does have elements of atonality or dissonance.

Same as with his opinions on David Diamond. As I noted before, Whitacre doesn't diss Diamond. He is just reflecting openly on his period as a student at Julliard. What I take from the interview is that his love for Mozart and Bach may have been strengthened in some ways due to the rigors of study under Diamond and others. Whitacre certainly knows choral music going way back.

Another thing is that Diamond was part of the neo-romantic trend in music, a trend that Boulez had little time for. I respect Boulez to some extent as a composer and conductor, but it must be said he is not very prolific in terms of actual output. There was a decade when he hardly wrote anything. Yet he has been the most prolific musician in the 20th century, or one of them, in terms of interviews, writings, (propagandising?) about music. He's akin to Le Corbusier in architecture, who wrote more about architecture than the amount of buildings he designed and where actually built. But in terms of Boulez, I have an issue with a guy who disses composers who actually make a living out of the profession, while he made the vast majority of his money from conducting, not composing. Easy to do that isn't it? But he's mellowed now, and why wouldn't he? Conducting in opera houses which he said should be burnt. From young firebrand to establishment. He's got a legacy like anyone else, with good and bad bits. I'll let individual people to decide what is good and bad about him. He did have a generous side despite that mean streak, but only towards those on his side of the ideological fence, so to speak.

But I am not attempting to demolish him, in any case his reputation is secure, just saying he's more than a composer, or a condcutor or proseletyzer for Modernism, he's kind of a god and guru for Modernism as a whole. Not my god or guru mind you, but many still swear by him and what he says. I for one don't, I think Modernism as an ideology has failed or at least has many flaws but that's another issue. So that's it for me on this thread.

I respect people's opinions and passion about this topic, but I have different opinions. In many ways, I'm a loner on this forum and I accept it!


----------



## science

KenOC said:


> Eric Whitacre certainly has a few strikes against him.
> 
> 1: His music seems pretty popular.
> 2: For the most part, it's tonal or pan-diatonic.
> 3: Quite a few musically unsophisticated people like it.
> 4. One of his albums won a Grammy.
> 
> Understandable why some here might have a negative reaction!


Between this and the "tall poppy syndrome" remark - well, barring the establishment of some objective, empirically demonstrable aesthetic values - the discussion here has been thoroughly but succinctly summarized.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> my very long and complete training coupled with a natural tendency to read beyond what was assigned. I am, de facto, well aware of a lot of history and music history


By virtue of which the rest of us are of course expected to renounce all our own judgment, thought, feeling, whatever, overwhelmed by your great expertise. We may not even be able - no, not even worthy - to understand your opinions.

Let us bow, fellow peasants, before this dude's awesome intellect and sublime sensitivity.

Sheesh. Get over yourself. You want to sell something, show me the goods, not the advertisements. Tell us something informative about Whitacre's music, something that perhaps only someone like you would know - I will appreciate that to no end. But mostly you're just arguing from authority, trying to shout people down. That's helpful, in its way, since we can find out what The Self-Appointed Establishment Officially Declares. But some actual analysis or information would be about a billion times more helpful, besides interesting.


----------



## PetrB

When you get over yourself, I suppose after I've got a certificate I've gotten over myself, then we can talk.

Meanwhile, keep up the very high profile and LOUD proletariat campaign. Cheap Drama sells. Support this composer as much as you can afford to and can stomach.

Word to the wise: formal analysis has yet to disclose any quality of music re: good, bad, great, terrible, etc. Because Music, and its analysis, will never be or fully parallel Science.

Second word to the wise: never analyze the mediocre - there's nothing to be gained from it.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> When you get over yourself, I suppose after I've got a certificate I've gotten over myself, then we can talk.
> 
> Meanwhile, keep up the very high profile and LOUD proletariat campaign. Cheap Drama sells. Support this composer as much as you can afford to and can stomach.
> 
> Word to the wise: formal analysis has yet to disclose any quality of music re: good, bad, great, terrible, etc. Because Music, and its analysis, will never be or fully parallel Science.
> 
> Second word to the wise: never analyze the mediocre - there's nothing to be gained from it.


Not supporting Whitacre. I can't say I enjoy his music very much, at least what I've heard so far. I enjoy Boulez more.


----------



## ArtMusic

I like Eric Whitacre's pieces that I have listened. It is accessible and I think it will succeed in outreach to anyone willing to listen to contemporary composed music without the extremities of other genres. I enjoyed this choral piece,


----------



## Bulldog

I listened to the above piece provided by ArtMusic. Would be great for a movie, but I didn't find it had any staying power on its own. But I can't deny that it's pretty music and well constructed for its type. That the man is doing very well for himself is an understatement. Current choral composers who are lucky to get any recognition might be green with envy.


----------



## Guest

I'm just revisiting this thread because of recent comments made by Science elsewhere about how posters were treated on it by a supposèd clique of modernist tyrants. I know ViolaDude has already reported back, and I thought I'd do the same. So I'm going to read through it and get back to you shortly. 
Just to prepare myself, I gave a listen to the extract posted by ArtMusic (see #68 above). I agree fully with Bulldog's comment, it's very appealing, pretty and made me think it would make great film music.
And now, I'm off to hunt me down some big game! Watch this space ...


----------



## Guest

Well, that was mildly entertaining. The first two pages quickly dispensed with the OP's assertion with firmly stated, no-nonsense comments about the perceived musical qualities ("classicfm", "bland", "commercial", etc., somewhat spiced up by more colorful critiques along the lines of "neon pink cotton-candy"). I did notice that some early supporters quickly got shirty and defensive, but I really did _not_ pick up on any "this music is crap and therefore if you like it your are dumb" dynamic. Rather, I very quickly saw that "popularity" became the issue, and not the music itself. 
At page 3, the temperature setting goes up slightly to "gently simmering", with some tiresome ping-pong between two vintage posters that clearly has to do with some previous bad-blood, which need not concern us. The ping-pong derails the thread for pages 3-4.
At page 5, the last page, another vintage poster enters the fray, and the whole tone becomes a lot more personal and 'vindictive' and veers completely off topic.

In conclusion, I can see that the OP may have been dismayed by a majority negative critique of their favored composer, but nothing to suggest bad treatment or calling into question their intelligence, academic ability or right to membership of the human race, nor any evidence of any modernist clique out to dismiss out of any hand any music not conforming to some imagined ideological agenda.


----------



## science

TalkingHead said:


> Well, that was mildly entertaining. The first two pages quickly dispensed with the OP's assertion with firmly stated, no-nonsense comments about the perceived musical qualities ("classicfm", "bland", "commercial", etc., somewhat spiced up by more colorful critiques along the lines of "neon pink cotton-candy"). I did notice that some early supporters quickly got shirty and defensive, but I really did _not_ pick up on any "this music is crap and therefore if you like it your are dumb" dynamic. Rather, I very quickly saw that "popularity" became the issue, and not the music itself.
> At page 3, the temperature setting goes up slightly to "gently simmering", with some tiresome ping-pong between two vintage posters that clearly has to do with some previous bad-blood, which need not concern us. The ping-pong derails the thread for pages 3-4.
> At page 5, the last page, another vintage poster enters the fray, and the whole tone becomes a lot more personal and 'vindictive' and veers completely off topic.
> 
> In conclusion, I can see that the OP may have been dismayed by a majority negative critique of their favored composer, but nothing to suggest bad treatment or calling into question their intelligence, academic ability or right to membership of the human race, nor any evidence of any modernist clique out to dismiss out of any hand any music not conforming to some imagined ideological agenda.


Well, you found what you wanted to find. That was something, at least.

What matters most of all is that the OP, and anyone else ever since then who showed up on talkclassical because they were enthusiastic about Whitacre, has been shown very decisively that this is not a place where they're welcome.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Well, you found what you wanted to find. That was something, at least.
> 
> What matters most of all is that the OP, and anyone else ever since then who showed up on talkclassical because they were enthusiastic about Whitacre, has been shown very decisively that this is not a place where they're welcome.


Hello Science. No, I found what I saw, most of it more about a handful of posters spreading their bad feelings for each other over multiple threads rather than concentrating on the music. A big problem is ego, and finding the right tone to express disagreement. 
As to putting off Whitacre fans and so on, I don't know how to answer that; I didn't originally participate in this thread when it first was launched because it didn't interest me. Maybe that would be the best way to express negative response to such things. But the OP did come to TC, and asked for a response. It turned out negative, surely that's the name of the game? What isn't good is the almost seething hatred between many of you - that's what is unwelcoming.


----------



## science

TalkingHead said:


> Hello Science. No, I found what I saw, most of it more about a handful of posters spreading their bad feelings for each other over multiple threads rather than concentrating on the music. A big problem is ego, and finding the right tone to express disagreement.
> As to putting off Whitacre fans and so on, I don't know how to answer that; I didn't originally participate in this thread when it first was launched because it didn't interest me. Maybe that would be the best way to express negative response to such things. But the OP did come to TC, and asked for a response. It turned out negative, surely that's the name of the game? What isn't good is the almost seething hatred between many of you - that's what is unwelcoming.


That last part is definitely true.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Seems to be the composer many like to ridicule, even triggering an abnormal amount of asterisks from an Atterberg fan. This apparently has as much to do with both the composer's music as of what the composer himself and its fan base proclaim.

I tend to expect a certain level of melodic interest in choral composition, that is, considering the tradition of modal writing. Modal music was doing perfectly crafted pandiatonicism before the changes that lead to tonality took place. What we have in this composer is more of a simple formulaic chordal porn with some melodic curves sticking out of the texture, hoping to reach some degree of expressivity. In the same genera I think Lauridsen is vastly superior.

The music of these composers often strikes me as if written with not enough care, the content itself rather trivial and the whole effect akin to pop music. There is a sort of explicit 'fakeness' to it. Nevertheless, the sonority is pretty and some of the purely vertical constructions may be worth stealing if needed. Richard Strauss, for example, l think lacks in content but balances in technique, his polychords influenced a whole generatiom.

Anyway, more or less formulaic chordal porn has been done by many great and not so great composers, special mention to Beethoven, perhaps reaching it's climax in Messiaen and the 12-tone-chords period of Lutoslawsky.


----------



## Guest

Now we're 'talkin' ! The one post that was lacking on this thread, I'd say. _Chapeau_, RW !


----------



## Polyphemus

Seething hatred.. surely you jest. While there is often much barbed repartee in attack or defence of a point. I do agree that certain posters do have a tendancy to bore me to tears but I try to avoid them, but I don't hate them. 
I am equally sure that my posts do not meet with universal acceptance and that they are ignored in equal measure.
So forget the hatred and lighten up its all just fun.


----------



## Guest

Polyphemus said:


> *Seething hatred.. surely you jest*. While there is often much barbed repartee in attack or defence of a point. I do agree that certain posters do have a tendancy to bore me to tears but I try to avoid them, but I don't hate them.
> I am equally sure that my posts do not meet with universal acceptance and that they are ignored in equal measure.
> *So forget the hatred and lighten up its all just fun*.


Yes, hatred is too strong a word, I stand corrected. Top marks for your last comment, too.
Let's get back to Whitacre. I really don't think his music is for me (Bulldog, RW and others above give more convincing reasons), but it sells (so I'm told) and people are OK with it, so, there you go.


----------



## Guest

The only issue I take with the piece ArtMusic posted is the same issue most of us take with these "ultra-conservative" composers. It wasn't bad or unpleasant, per se, but I feel like it was simply a stripped down version of a lot of ancient music. And by stripped down, I mean stripped of the elements that most of us find interesting. And considering nothing new is being brought to the table, that could be deemed a problem.


----------



## PetrB

TalkingHead said:


> Now we're 'talkin' ! The one post that was lacking on this thread, I'd say. _Chapeau_, RW !


Mine too, RW :tiphat: Chordal porn. (_That_ term has entered my vocabulary for the rest of my life!)

Hmmmm. Has that harmony been airbrushed before it was presented to us?


----------



## Sid James

I was recently listening to Rachmaninov on youtube, and some music by *Whitacre* came up as recommendations. I enjoyed listening to them a couple of times, so I thought I'd contribute here.

I hadn't heard his orchestral works before, and I particularly liked *Deep Field*. This piece required patience because it unfolded gradually. It is initially quite subtle and somewhat chamber like, including some section solos. A shattering climactic buildup at the 15 minute mark is followed by the entry of the choir. I liked the theatricality of its presentation, and how the audience where invited to participate by turning on their mobile phones.

*The River Cam* for cello and strings had a sense of quiet power and subdued passion. I think it would be a good pairing to Tavener's _The Protecting Veil_.

In terms of atmosphere, I think that _Deep Field_ reminded me of parts of Richard Mills' _Symphony of Nocturnes_ and _The River Cam_ of Christopher Ball's _Cello Concerto No. 1_.











Brief interview with Whitacre about Deep Field:





Deep Field with visuals from Hubble Space telescope:





I reread what Whitacre said in a 2011 interview I gave extracts from (quote below), and it made sense. These orchestral pieces show that while he's not an experimental composer, he still carries on aspects of the modern sensibility. There is a sense of darkness in this music, but not so much loneliness. Perhaps darkness illuminated by the presence of something else - other souls, nature, the universe, even God - is a way to describe it. So, there is some of the romantic zeitgeist there too.



Sid James said:


> The following are bits I found interesting from BBC Music Magazine (Christmas 2011 Issue, pp. 44-48) written by James Naughtie (green bits are quotes from the article, my own 'commentary' is in black).
> 
> ........
> 
> Whitacre is pretty open and upfront in why he hasn't gone down the more experimental or atonal route with his music. It basically doesn't match his view of music bringing people together:
> 
> 'I believe that there are certain kinds of music - particularly rigorously atonal music - that produces the opposite physiological response. It causes the listener to feel or experience angst or distress, and it does something else. It isolates the audience, and makes you as an individual feel apart.'
> 
> But he also talks at length about his favourite composer, Benjamin Britten:
> 
> 'There is no question who is the first and foremost for me - Benjamin Britten. Peter Grimes, The Turn of the Screw - they are magnificent. I can't believe how young he was when he wrote Grimes…Britten is everything to me - I hear all the loneliness and innocence in his music and it always moves me.'
> 
> And the end of the article, Naughtie talks of Whitacre's aim to kind of bring these contradictory things together:
> 
> The surprise is that loneliness has such a pull on him, and that it is Britten's voice that he hears. Yet, perhaps not. His passion for the collective experience in music…is a response to precisely the same feeling: that music not only has the ability to describe isolation and loneliness, to feel the experience, but also to banish them.


I plan to listen to more Whitacre and report back here.


----------

