Composition Matters

I haven’t seen any serious disagreement with the idea that what orchestra musicians think about new music matters less than what conductors, or artistic administrators, or audiences think, Nonetheless it does matter. So it’s worth exploring what about the music itself affects orchestra musicians’ perceptions. What distinguishes new music that musicians like to play from music that musicians don’t like to play?

In no particular order:

Are the parts easy to decipher?

This covers a lot of territory, from legibility to the degree of “normalness” of the notation. For a model of legibility, go to an orchestra’s library and borrow any parts to a Mozart symphony from Barenreiter. The farther your parts diverge from the clarity of that layout, the harder they’ll be for the orchestra to read. (For an example of what not to do, check out anything written by a 19th century French composer published in France; French music publishers are charter members of the Axis of Evil.)

This might seem like an argument for computer-printed parts, but music notation programs do not (at least in my experience) automatically produce parts that help the musicians, especially in terms of how much space is given to beats. Ideally the physical spacing of the notes on the page bears a relationship to the rhythmic value of the notes. It also seems that music notation programs are prone to counterintuitive “spellings.”

I understand that sometimes composers need to depart from conventional notation. But I find that, the more time I have to spend deciphering what a composer wants from text directions, the more annoyed I get. I spent years learning how to read music (and more time figuring out how to read alto clef); I don’t want to have to re-learn all that just to play one piece that may or may not be worth the effort.

Is there a balance between hard stuff and easy stuff?

Musicians expect to be challenged by what they play. But a part that contains nothing but complex material requiring hours of practice will either discourage musicians right off the bat or make them assume that most of it can be faked (“what is this; a f*ucking viola concerto?”). Contrariwise, a part that is only rests and goose eggs will cause musicians to assume that the composer doesn’t have a clue about how to write for their instrument; also not a recipe for musician involvement.

Is there physical pain involved?

The first thing I look for in our season schedule are concerts of Strauss waltzes and performances of Italian opera (Puccini excepted), so I can be first in line to request that period of time off. I love Strauss waltzes, but playing them is, quite literally, torture for violists. Verdi also assumed that all violists and second violinists are good for are off-beats. If you decide, like Ives in “The Unanswered Question,” that string players make great Druids, fit for nothing more than continuous droning, don’t be surprised when they put a curse on you.

Does stuff come together in rehearsal?

Musicians, like everyone else, like problems that are solvable. It’s OK if the first read-through sounds like garbage. It’s not OK if it’s not possible to make progress during the course of rehearsals. It’s definitely not OK if most of the rehearsal is spent, not rehearsing, but having to have the conductor explain the notation, or how he/she is having to subdivide every bar differently. Musicians became musicians in order to make music, not to listen to conductors explain things.

Does the piece make the orchestra sound good to the musicians?

This is really the bottom line. It’s hard to feel good about a piece if it feels to the musicians as if the ensemble and pitch problems were unsolvable. (This is a good argument against reliance on aleatoric devices, which almost by definition sound lousy to the orchestra in light of how they define “lousy” – i.e., not together and/or in tune.)

These criteria apply equally well to non-new music, of course. They are also not descriptions of musical quality. Orchestra musicians are a little like infantry; what they care about is what’s happening in their foxhole, not how the battle is going. There is great music that is no fun to play. If that’s what you write, don’t expect us to pretend otherwise.

The best example of putting this all together that I’ve seen comes from the pops world. Every single chart we’ve done by Tommy Newsom, Doc Severinsen’s long-time arranger, has sounded great, been gratifying to play, and comes together quickly. I look forward to playing Newsom charts a lot more than I do Strauss waltzes, and I don’t think I’m alone.