a listener's dilemma
I love being able to peel away the layers of a piece of music, finding multiple meanings and new ways of listening. Most fascinating for me is discovering how the artist arrived at the final point. Where did she find that initial inspiration? What processes did she follow to get the results she wanted? What aspects of the music were important for her in its creation? What decisions did she make along the way? What meaning does it have for her?
Perhaps this is why I’m a huge fan of pre-concert talks. When I go to a performance, learning about the works is just as interesting as hearing the works performed… Besides, this way I can learn more about the works I'm hearing or possibly I’m just too lazy to do this research myself beforehand!
I got thinking about all this during a performance by the Modern Music Ensemble conducted by Carolyn Watson on 24 May. The program – an interesting mix of American contemporary music – included: Copland's Appalachian Spring, Harbison's Confinement and Druckman's Come Round.
Richard Toop gave the pre-concert talk and I was surprised to discover that while the concert hall was pretty healthily filled, only a handful of us attended Richard's talk. Why was this so? Were most people already familiar with these works? Did they not think they'd understand anything that was said? Or could they just not be bothered? Whatever the reason, they missed out! Richard's talks are always thoroughly enjoyable and insightful.
Aside from contextualising the works, one thing that Richard pointed out – for the latter works at least – was that while form was of particular importance for Harbison and Druckman during the compositional process, it isn't necessarily easily perceptible – the listener's perception is very different. He offered suggestions for possible threads throughout the pieces that might give us direction or points of reference on our first listening.
When chatting with friends after the concert about the role of program notes and pre-concert talks, the question arose about whether a work should be able to stand its ground without any supporting documentation. If a work needs a hefty program note alongside it so the audience can ‘get it’ is it actually successful? If it needs someone to rant about the work for half an hour before hand should the composer have even bothered? Interesting questions and not easily answered.
Putting any geeky obsessions aside, I think that notes or talks can be useful for giving listeners various points of reference during an otherwise potentially chaotic listening experience. I don’t think it is about telling the listener how they should be listening; it is more about assisting them to navigate through sounds they might hear. Emphasising that they are different ways of hearing, they might also give listeners confidence that what they are hearing is valid and empower them respond and react to what they are hearing – to give their opinions a voice...
