Category: Articles

A live concert, a radio broadcast, a recording, a musical score and a sampling from the Internet all offer possibilities with certain caveats for those who are unfamiliar with my music.

The concert hall experience is one that I heartily support because of its unique ambience. I regard my music as a part of a historical continuum. When a work is adequately rehearsed and placed properly in the context of the program, the listener should be able to grasp some aspect of its significance in relative terms. Moreover, this acoustical environment creates a presence that cannot be duplicated by any electronic format. The downside of this environment is obvious. One performance of a new composition, with the inevitable distractions that occur in a hall, can result in only a vague impression of its qualities.

Good recordings offer unlimited possibilities for discovering the subtleties and musical connections that have flitted by unnoticed in one exposure to the music. They can reveal details obscured in the concert performance that can heighten one’s sense of personal involvement in the music.

Certain works of mine, the Lyric for Strings, the Concerto for Trombone and Orchestra and the Piano Sonatas no. 1 and 2, that have become a part of the standard repertoire, do not require a special effort to be appreciated in any venue, if the performances are sufficiently professional. However, some of the works that have been recorded are unlikely to be programmed frequently.

Lilacs for Voice and Orchestra, which received the Pulitzer Prize in Music in 1996 and has just been released on Summit Records, unfortunately must be placed in this category. The artists whose talents are represented on this recording and other recordings from Albany Records, CRI, GM Records and BIS have brought a measure of accuracy, insight and intensity to the music that make their performances superb in most cases and close to being definitive in a few others. The musical content is realized without a suggestion of the whimsical or the idiosyncratic. A composer cannot ask for more than this- for which I am most grateful.

In her life and work, Pauline Oliveros practices a simple yet extremely difficult discipline: “Always listen.”

I admire Pauline’s discipline very much. But there are times when I choose to listen to no music at all. I feel this as a physical need. After intensive periods of performance, recording and teaching, my ears sometimes tell me they need a rest from music.

Although this might seem to be a retreat from listening, I savor these music fasts as a time for listening more carefully to other sounds, and – especially in winter – to silence. Most of us are continually inundated with music and sound, these days. I feel very fortunate to live in a place where silence endures as a pervasive, enveloping presence.

In my own music, I’m still involved in writing scores. But the most difficult thing is not knowing what to write down. It’s knowing what not to write down.

I want the music to sound and feel elemental and inevitable. And before beginning to write out notes, I want to hear as much as I can of the new piece as it begins to sound in my mind’s ear. This can be a slow, sometimes difficult process. But over the years, I’ve learned to trust it. I spend a lot of time thinking, reading, looking at art, walking, listening to birds, sketching, trying to understand the essence of the new piece and what it wants to be. This can sometimes go on for weeks before I start writing out the score.

When I’m not actively working on a new piece, I sometimes listen intensively to recordings. I’m especially drawn to music I haven’t heard before, to music that I think I don’t like, and to music that’s very different from my own. When I’m listening to a recording, I don’t do anything else. I want to give my full attention to the music.

When I’m listening to a “live” performance, if the music doesn’t hold my interest I shift my attention to the sounds of the instruments themselves and the complex and subtle ways they resonate in the unique acoustics of the space. This never fails to absorb me. I learned this from Pauline.

What about you?

How do you listen? What do you listen to? Where? When? And why?

Mark A. Fischer Photo courtesy Palmer & Dodge LLP

Ultimately, the answer is that dissemination of music on the Internet is not just good, it’s wonderful. But reaching this ultimate stage will take some time and there will be considerable pain getting there. Right now, the economics of so-called serious music, where numerous performers (and sometimes orchestras) are required for recording, are going to be even more challenged. This is because “record companies” (someday they’ll be called something else) who cannot sell enough CDs to justify the price of recording this music will, in the short term, provide even less financial support for recordings.

But the long term is very promising. As composers and performers learn to be more adept at using the new technologies, they will reach a wider audience. It’s important to note that these new technologies include not only the free distribution of music, but the free access to information about new music, and free access to sampling music on demand. The Internet represents a new way to easily distribute music to people who love it, but getting the creative, technological, and economic pieces to work together in a way that is viable in all senses will take some time.

Richard Danielpour Photo by Bill Bernstein, courtesy G. Schirmer/Associated Music Publishers

Right now we are at a point where the current structure of how classical music is recorded and disseminated in this country is radically changing. I doubt that we will recognize the same modus operandi seven years from now.

In pop music in the 1970s, there was a fairly dramatic shift in that a lot of executives who were making records had an interest not only in making money, but in producing an artistic product of lasting value. A number of these executives had friendships and relationships with their artists. It wasn’t just business. Then all of a sudden, it occurred to a number of executives that there was an enormous amount of money to be made that was astronomically higher than the average good selling recording had been. As a result of all this, the priorities began to shift and the bottom line no longer included a desire to create products of lasting value.

We see a commensurate equivalent in the classical music industry. The effect of “pop music greed” on the classical music industry was delayed in its effect. But eventually what happened was that a 15,000 unit sale (which had been considered very good for classical music) was no longer worth working for when one compared those sales with the sales of pop music’s flavor of the month. As a result, this gradual infusion of “a different priority” in the world of classical music had necessitated the need for changes both from the consumer’s end as well as from the artist’s point of view.

In my opinion, what we are seeing with Napster and the mp3 phenomenon is in some ways a reaction to these changes in the record industry. While I do not believe that a composer’s work should automatically be public property, I do clearly understand how in this age of big business with little or no aesthetic awareness dictating what people will listen to, that such a phenomenon can and will unfold.

I think that you have to deal with what causes the illness before you can find a cure. Today there are a number of small labels in the classical music industry whose CEOs have returned to a greater sense of artistic awareness and aesthetic concern. In the bigger companies, however, you often see executives who while being better than average businessmen have at best an adolescent understanding of the product that they’re putting out.

Without an awareness of the quality of the artistic product and what needs to be done to release a product of high artistic quality, you can’t expect inventive ways of dealing with the Napster problem. The problem lies in addressing the work first.

Classical music has never been a mass industry and never will be. Because of this, the way that Napster and mp3 will effect classical music will always be less dramatic that its effect on pop music. It is however an unavoidable reality that will have to be dealt with creatively.

Jeff Harrington Photo by Elsie Russell

What we have today on the Web music distribution scene is chaos. Nobody is making much money selling music on the Internet. A few of us are selling CDs and a few are getting paid by the download, but on whole there is no working music business in place. What we do have on the Web, though, is an audience and that is new music’s first big problem. Shrinking audiences. Dying audiences. How can we be worried about the economic impact of this or that technology when we don’t even have people’s ears?

Radio, of course was the first free distribution model. Most new music composers would love to have more radio broadcasts yet these same musicians have fears about uploading a few MP3s. How many of us have not “illegally” taped a radio broadcast and then shared it with friends? For that matter, how many new artists have you learned about from “home-taping pirates?” Free music is everywhere, not just on the Web. Free music distribution on the Web is really just another type of radio but now the listener is the DJ sampling “songs” for a few seconds until his or her ear is excited.

On MP3.COM there is little or no critical hierarchy. There is little order at all, in fact. This might present a problem to many people who don’t want their music lumped together with hobbyists and random genres of musicians who might call themselves “experimental classical” or whatever. But for those who want listens by any and all people and not just the “new music expert” audience, it presents an amazing opportunity to do new music outreach to new audiences – and this will benefit the entire community.

No one can know the long-term consequences of this anarchic style of listening but anybody who thinks it is unhealthy to the future of new music is naïve. We need new audiences. We need to engage them and get them to consider composing new music themselves. New music has to become ubiquitous to survive. It has to become as vital a listening option to young people as any corporate pop cultural candy.

When the systems are in place, we can look at them and decide how best to exploit them to our artistic needs. But today, I believe that there is great benefit to getting on board and getting your name recognized as an interesting figure on the web new music scene. Remember, early adoption ensures Web search engine placement and if a critical hierarchy does develop (which it most certainly will) it might provide some benefit in that regard also.

The ladder of careerism has lost all of its bottom rungs. Most new music composers, are in a state of deep fear that their music will never be heard, much less reap them economic benefit. We all got into new music to be heard and people on the Web are listening. Why not take the risk and upload an MP3?

Amy Knoles Photo by Richard Hines

I think of Napster as radio for the Zeros. It’s great advertisement. There is a new mp3 player that has just come out, it looks like a cassette player. The quality of mp3 files are actually worse. People who download music buy 5 to 1 the number of CDs of people who don’t. People who listen to new music are generally sensitive to the quality of the recording and would most likely buy the CD after auditioning it from a downloaded file. If someone heard my music and could not afford to buy my CDs, I would hope they could acquire it via a free download.

It would be wise to try to find a way sign a blanket licensing agreement (ASCAP/BMI) with Napster since I believe it is the most structured site out there. To destroy Napster would only mean giving more power to rouge un-tameable software distributors making it impossible to track.

Amy Scurria Photo by Phyllis Berger

mp3 – A Young Composer’s Perspective

Every young professional must at some point give more than they gain in return. Whether it be a beginning salary or a starting position, and all young professionals step out into the work force with the promise of growth and increased success. As a composer, I view mp3 as just another tool to be used for marketing and exposure. For the first time in history, we have the capability to provide sound bytes for listeners around the world. To me, it’s absolutely and undeniably exciting!!

I’ve had some fellow composers question my choice to upload my music to mp3 with the fears that somehow I am giving my music away for free. But, to some degree, you have to do some of that when you are first beginning. Would I be better off with my pieces sitting in my apartment with me gathering dust? Of course, I wouldn’t! Music is meant to be LISTENED TO and that is the very reason that I write. I believe that I have something worth saying and hope that somehow the sounds that I produce will be a gift. With a wonderful publisher (Theodore Presser), an active composing life, and an increased opportunity to be heard, there is certainly a hope for future return. If I were on a major label at this point, I would probably not see any more money from the CD sales as I do from mp3.com. What I would see would be increased exposure and opportunity, which is exactly what mp3.com provides for me. A composer makes money primarily from performances and commissions. So far, having my music on the web has lead to an increase in both of those areas. The music that I have on mp3.com is NOT the last music that the world will hear from me. In fact, it is only my beginning. Will I be on mp3.com forever? I hope not. I quite honestly prefer hearing my works in the concert hall. But for now, it’s a great tool to gain further exposure.

My passion, my love, my world, my everything has been to write music. Since my earliest memory at three years old, I have loved and lived for music. I have prayed and prayed and prayed my whole life for the chance to have people listen to what I create and what I will create in the future. Suddenly they are, and are able to listen! Why in heaven would I hinder that? Surviving in the world of music is difficult, yes, but it is an exciting journey!! I will always compose with my pen, paper, and piano: nothing new. But to ignore the possibilities that today’s technology can provide, I simply cannot!

A few years ago, my friend Ari Vahan asked me to compose two songs on poems she had written in her native Gwich’in (Northern Athabascan) dialect. Ari used these songs at a summer camp to teach young Athabascan children a little of the language of their ancestors.

The following winter Ari traveled out to Bethel, in Yup’ik (Bering Sea Inuit) country. While she was there, she sang one of the songs. A woman who heard her asked Ari for permission to translate the text into Yup’ik and to sing the song at the Naming Ceremony for her daughter. Not long after this, Ari was in Anaktuvuk Pass where someone asked for permission to sing the song in the local dialect of the Nunamiut, the Inuit people of the Brooks Range.

Since then, this little song has been shared with people in other villages throughout Alaska. This has been profoundly gratifying to me. One of a composer’s greatest aspirations is that someone else will make the music their own, that the song will have a life of its own.

In the Native cultures of Alaska, no individual owns land. The land belongs to everyone, and to no one. Songs, however, are somewhat different. Songs are made to be shared. They are gifts.

But the gift of a song can only be given by the person who made it, or by someone to whom the composer has explicitly “given” the song. No one from a traditional Native culture would dream of using a song without asking for and receiving permission. This is a practice of fundamental courtesy and respect, in recognition of the mutual rights and responsibilities of the composer and the community.

The world in which most Western composers live and work today is driven more by commerce than community.

In our mass-market capitalist society, what responsibilities do “consumers” have to the people who create the music that they use? In the new economy of the Internet, what rights should composers have to receive compensation for our work?

Is music a commodity? Is it a gift? Can it somehow be both?

How do we honor both the life of the song and the labor of the person who created it?