Chamber Symphony No. 1
If college composition programs could be condensed into a single phrase, it could easily be, “the weirder, the better.” A decent amount of what I wrote in college, and was encouraged to write, was dissonant, atonal, experimental, and as edgy as I could muster. I have nothing against experimental music, just as I have nothing against eating unusual foods, but I also wouldn’t recommend a steady diet of the stuff.
|
|
At one point, during what I believe was my freshman year, I was diligently working on a particularly atonal piece. My roommate, Phil Warner, came back to the room, heard what I was writing, and said, “Why don't you write more tonal music? I like tonal music.” My initial response was that I liked tonal music, too. The eventual response came some three years later, when Chamber Symphony No. 1 premiered at my senior recital.
At the time, I saw the piece to be at attempt at combining two different musical styles that I loved, minimalism and melodic romanticism. And in that respect, I think it does its job reasonably well. But over the years, my opinion of the piece has shifted slightly, particularly regarding the third movement; the minimalist elements seem a little bit too derivative of Steve Reich, and the big melody strikes me as being kind of soupy. But I still appreciate the piece, largely because it seems to hint to something that has only become more important the longer I’ve been writing music: I want to write music that I like. I still like tonal music, so I’ll write it. I like other kinds of music, as well — atonal, avante garde, minimalist, romantic, neo-baroque, jazz, rock, etc. — and I see no reason to keep any or all of them from influencing my music. If there was a time when I felt ashamed to write the music I like, that time has passed. And good riddance.
As far as the Chamber Symphony goes, I’ve kept it as it was when I wrote it years ago. I think it still holds up as what it is: a student piece, an experiment, and something like a labor of love.
And it’s still dedicated to Phil, who likes tonal music.
At the time, I saw the piece to be at attempt at combining two different musical styles that I loved, minimalism and melodic romanticism. And in that respect, I think it does its job reasonably well. But over the years, my opinion of the piece has shifted slightly, particularly regarding the third movement; the minimalist elements seem a little bit too derivative of Steve Reich, and the big melody strikes me as being kind of soupy. But I still appreciate the piece, largely because it seems to hint to something that has only become more important the longer I’ve been writing music: I want to write music that I like. I still like tonal music, so I’ll write it. I like other kinds of music, as well — atonal, avante garde, minimalist, romantic, neo-baroque, jazz, rock, etc. — and I see no reason to keep any or all of them from influencing my music. If there was a time when I felt ashamed to write the music I like, that time has passed. And good riddance.
As far as the Chamber Symphony goes, I’ve kept it as it was when I wrote it years ago. I think it still holds up as what it is: a student piece, an experiment, and something like a labor of love.
And it’s still dedicated to Phil, who likes tonal music.