thirteen ways

Very often during university residencies we try to give an idea of what goes on in our dealings with composers that we have commissioned. I have written little on the blog about this interesting topic, so I thought our recent work with Stephen Harke on his new work Meanwhile could serve as an interesting case-study.

In a previous blog entry I mentioned The Duv’s extensive communications with Stephen Hartke regarding percussion instrument choice and notation for the new work. Apart from this short but intense process, which occurred months before the piece was finished, we had little or no contact with Hartke until the finished parts and score arrived in our email inboxes late in September. This is not unusual, as composers tend to be pretty solitary in their work habits. Hartke works best in a room without any windows, and told me that when he discovered the expansive, well-appointed, sun-lit music room provided for a year-long residency in Berlin, he was shocked and disappointed.

It is usual for there to be some brief communication with a composer after this point, mostly to clarify markings and correct small errors. We make lists, often during rehearsals, of inconsistencies between parts and score, then collate and send through to the composer. Actually, Hartke’s score was so fastidiously put together that this was almost totally unnecessary for Meanwhile.

One of my favorite parts of this job is working one-on-one with composers. The glowing , grateful smile of a satisfied creator is a beautiful thing to witness.

Because of the lateness of Meanwhile’s delivery and the subsequently shortened rehearsal time, we felt under-prepared. We hadn’t completed an uninterrupted run-through of the whole piece, and there were still many rough edges. Hartke himself, in an email sent shortly before we met, communicated his own nervousness about the quality and effectiveness of the new piece, which was a departure for the composer, particularly given the work’s unusual sound-world.

The end product: everyone was a touch jittery that Monday morning, despite the gorgeous colors surrounding us in beautiful late-fall Richmond.

Composers treat pre-premiere rehearsals in a myriad of different ways. At the radically interventionist end of the spectrum, composers treat these last days like miniature editing sessions, making extensive changes to the fabric of the work, altering notes and rhythms. This can be very unwise at such a last-minute juncture, especially if we are to premiere the work from memory. It is particularly frustrating when changes result from composer’s own notational errors.

Further down the scale are composers who attempt to adjust, refine, or alter 8bb’s interpretation. This happens most frequently. Given the generally large amount of rehearsal time and passionate advocacy a new piece receives from us, the ensemble’s goal is to develop a convincing and personal interpretation of a new piece.

We first attempt to play everything on the page: metronome, dynamic, articulation, expression markings. Then (and this is what differs from my experiences with new music ensembles), the group discusses whether certain sections are “working”. This may lead to small changes in the score. The aim is to give a performance of confidence and conviction, one that best communicate the composer’s intentions to an audience.

All composers appreciate this sort of commitment, but some feel uncomfortable about letting us take control of their artistic baby. Often passionately so. And given the strong personalities in 8bb, such situations sometimes end in tears. Literally.

Stephen Hartke’s rehearsal approach is much rarer. He mostly stayed in the shadows. In my chit-chat with Hartke the composer says he only writes for performers in whom he has absolute faith, so that he can trust them to find their own way to a convincing performance of his music.

We misread this during the first rehearsal, taking his silence as an indictment of our rehearsal, which was shaky and often tense. It seemed to us that he thought we were dismembering his beautiful piece. On the contrary, what soon became obvious to us was that Hartke trusted our abilities totally, and didn’t want to get between us an a good premiere. The end product? We gave a relaxed and confident premiere that left everyone satisfied.

This same hands-free attitude also came across when the composer assisted the performers of Tituli, another work on the Hartke-extravaganza program. The piece, for 5 solo voices, violin and two percussionists, was composed for England’s phenomenal Hilliard Ensemble, a group that Hartke says is so good that they occasionally sight-read works in concert. The piece is very difficult, the rehearsal period was very, very short, and time was at a premium. Despite these challenging circumstances, Hartke didn’t get frustrated or throw any wobblies (um, Aussie for “tantrum”), but gave just enough assistance to make the performance the best that it could be.

Below, the Duv and the Hartke talk water gongs: