Jump to content

Does a show need a slow movement?


Recommended Posts

Yes, if you listen to what is classified as "BAND" music. But when you get into the realms of Whitacre, Ticheli and so forth, it gets amazing.

 

Just wondering, ever heard of a guy named Gustav Mahler? Yeah, his stuff tends to be kind of slow. And it tends to be some of the most genious stuff ever written.

 

And just a little "side-idea", if you will, here: The majority of "fast and loud" shows are over-climactic, which is even worse than anti-climactic.

You see, that's where you and I are fundamentally different. (We are playing a piece by Ticheli for our mid-winter concert and it is zzzzzzzzz)

 

You see, while you consider over-climatic to be worse than anti-climatic, but I think that inane music is just that; inane. It is, simply put, pointless. Would you read a book that was merely a collection of words? Sure, some slow pieces have a few interesting chord progressions, but that's about the equivalent of writing a unusual, yet meanigless sentence. What's the point? I would much rather a piece of music (or literature, or anything) make a robust, even offfensive statement than none at all, even if it uses more simple patterns. However, ideally, the piece will be just as eloquent as the slow one, yet have some sort of purpose besides serveing as background music for an elevator. This is what I strive to achieve; and in many cases, do.

Oh, and if you're gonna talk about anyone named Gustav, it better be Holst. Ever heard his 1st Suite in Eb for Military Band? Have a listen to the Chacone; that is a slow piece I can respect and enjoy, because it makes a statement, it has a climax, it has passion. That is much more than can be said for the vast majority of such pieces.

And if you want to listen to music written for purely music's sake, just because it's "genius", I suggest you have a listen to a little series called "Art of Fugue" by JS Bach. It's a series of fugues and canons designed to showcase the very best of polyphonic music styles, and it is written from a purely musical standpoint, but it won't put you to sleep either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, you're comparing Holst to Mahler?

 

Anywho, of course I know what Bach wrote, and of course I know that it is genious. Its almost insulting that you suggest Bach, but we move on.

 

And I agree, inane music is just that. However, the music I refer to is not inane. Are you familiar with Mr. Eric Whitacre? Mr. Samuel Barber? What about a guy named Vaughan Williams? Claude Debussy maybe? I could go on, but I shall not, but, the point being, you can make a statement without moving quickly to it.

 

For starters, I suggest you listen to Pr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not comparing really.

 

That's fine, you can react however you want, but I am glad you agree on this point.

 

I am fairly familiar with them, yes, but I had such a lack of intrest in their music that I simply choose not to listen to much of their works.

 

I did decide to entertain your suggestion, and listen to it, and while there are maybe 2 points where the work becomes vaguely interesting, that is not much out of over 9 minutes worth of music. Maybe it's because of modern movie scoring styles, but much of the piece sounds like old movie score cliche`s. This was just my impression though. I appreciate your inclusion of the score, but while it may look outlandish, I think he under-utilized the various oddities he employed (such as the patterns with many accidentals). I must admit, I am impressed at the adeptivety he showed in creating a nice flowing work while incorporating such things, but I must reiterate that he did so in a way that arises little interest. In addition, the song just ends. Once, again, I see no point to the song. It just sort of slides along; it seems to lack structure and meaning. Ther is plenty of musicianship involved, but there is quite a lack of emotion. There were a few sections that were mildly entertaining, being the short build around square 2, and the section preceding square 6, and then a little bit later at square 7, the short period of a bit darker feel added some contrast to the drall of the rest of the piece. Unfortunately, these parts were fairly short-lived, and left much to be desired. I must concede that there is some musical genius involved, but once again, there is no real point.

 

Oh, and Shoskatovich kicks ****. That's all there is to it. I particularaly like his Opus 110a; it is very nice... very, very nice. He was a genius, but not only that, he wrote music with passion that communicates into his audience. That is what sets him apart from many of these others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, that is what it sounded like; in that case, what a worthless piece to write then. I got the message (or lack thereof); it's just that it means basically nothing. I had figured maybe there was something at least minutely important or dramatic in there, but I guess not. I have no problem understanding subtlety, I just have trouble understanding why someone would write something so pointless as "the afternoon of a faun". I mean come on! Take op110a into consideration, for example; Shostakovich wrote this Opus as a suicde note to the world (although he didn't go through with it) and as a condemnation of the Communist party in Russia. This inner burning passion communicates itself through the music and conveys a theme so poignant it can not be ignored. But some animal sitting around and doing next to nothing all afternoon is not noteworthy enough to write much more than a few sentences about, let alon such a long piece of music. That's probably why it is so boring; because the subject matter is inherently boring; thus, it is unescapable.

 

So what's the moral of the story? Don't write a piece of music unless it is about, or fueled by, something that actually matters.

 

To make this as clear as possible, I will quote a book you may h ave heard of; it is entitled Brave New World:

"Othello's good, Othello's better than those feelies."

"Of course it is," the controller agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have seen our show, grant us peace, our slow movement was what our theme was based on. We had a tradgic loss in sep. We used expressed that emotion in our slow peace it was really beautiful. the CHS 2001 show was amazing and I connected to the slow the best. It can be a big crowd pleaser if its written right, otherwise its a waisted 2 min in your show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly feel that for a band to have a spectacular performance, they must have a slow movement. Does that mean that they have to march slow, of course not. It just simply means that they can be playing at 80 BPM but march in double time at 160 BPM.

 

For example, look at the top 3 placements at the 5A State Finals last year. Duncanville with October, Cedar Park with the ballad in Jupiter (one of my all time favorites), and L.D. Bell with Blue Cathedral (i think).

 

For any band to truly move and inspire the audience and judges, you have to have a part of your show devoted to the emotional side of music playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a show HAS to have a "slow movement" or "ballad" or whatever you want to call it, but I agree when people say it adds so much more to the show. When I think about all the truly amazing shows I've seen I remember the "moments" from the impacts in the ballad. Those are the emotional moments that are portrayed through the music that gives the audience goosebumps. And as a marcher it's really nice to have time to slow down your feet and breathing for a little while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Wow, I'm glad you don't have any say over what our band does, lmao. That would probably be, in my opinion, the most homosexual show ever. I mean, a completely slow marching show? That's just weak. If you wanna do something like that, go play concert band music. Bad concert music at that.

Lol, actually there is some good slow concert pieces like Sleep, but not very many. Most are boring and anticlimatic.

Jupiter is a great piece, and far from anti-climactic. And i'd name more, but it's off to heck for me =) *ack* sorry, I meant to say school =p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jupiter is a great piece, and far from anti-climactic.  And i'd name more, but it's off to heck for me =)  *ack* sorry, I meant to say school =p

That's true; of course, that can probably be attributed to the composer. There are good ones; however, unfortunately, there is also an astonishing amount of poor ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I couldn't keep quiet for any longer.

 

OF COURSE their are bad composers out there. Many of them write for band.

 

But you are in NO place to dictate what is worthy of our listening. Just because you don't like the music of Debussy or Whitacre or whomever because it doesn't have some "underlying deep driving emotion", which many of them do anyway, but you're too busy complaining to hear, doesn't mean you shove your meticulously developed theories down everyone's throat. For Christ's sake, stop it! Just be content with what you listen to and quit telling me that "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun" isn't well written and that your "The Tragic Ostinato" or whatever its name may be is.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, that is what it sounded like; in that case, what a worthless piece to write then. I got the message (or lack thereof); it's just that it means basically nothing. I had figured maybe there was something at least minutely important or dramatic in there, but I guess not. I have no problem understanding subtlety, I just have trouble understanding why someone would write something so pointless as "the afternoon of a faun". I mean come on! Take op110a into consideration, for example; Shostakovich wrote this Opus as a suicde note to the world (although he didn't go through with it) and as a condemnation of the Communist party in Russia. This inner burning passion communicates itself through the music and conveys a theme so poignant it can not be ignored. But some animal sitting around and doing next to nothing all afternoon is not noteworthy enough to write much more than a few sentences about, let alon such a long piece of music. That's probably why it is so boring; because the subject matter is inherently boring; thus, it is unescapable.

 

So what's the moral of the story? Don't write a piece of music unless it is about, or fueled by, something that actually matters.

 

To make this as clear as possible, I will quote a book you may h ave heard of; it is entitled Brave New World:

Ok, it seems as if there is a great battle going on between you two, and I would like to step in. First of all, I think it greatly depends on how you interpret it. For example, Fortissimo, it seems as if you only consider passion if its stirring and perhaps a tad belligerent (from what I have seen thus far - perhaps I am wrong). However, it all depends on the context, and how you interpret it. For example, when The Planets was written, Holst used a great amount of imagination in sketching out the feelings behind each one (keep in mind this was in 1914, before highly-detailed pictures of the planets, in all their beauty and glory, even existed). But, in your point of view, someone could have just as easily derided the work saying, "What's the point? All he wrote about was some stupid dot in the night sky!"

 

To compare Debussy with a movie score would be a bit glib, I feel, and, perhaps even insulting. Perhaps his orchestral music isn't THAT great in your opinion, but, I have a few pianist friends who won't shut up about his piano music, which is quite superb. Yet, I digress. Debussy wrote the work in 1894, and, so, to compare it to a movie score would be, if anything, praising Debussy's impact on 20th Century composers, instead of insulting his unoriginal work. And, regarding the title of the work, it was not so much based on that image in itself, as it was on a poem of the same name. Here's a link with an English translation, or, if you have the ability to read it, the original French as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afternoon_of_a_Faun_%28poem%29

 

And, so, I would say that its all a matter of interpretation as to what is important and what is not. I think some would see the beauty of a mythical creature covorting around in an enchanting forest in the music. Some would just see it as you saw it, Fortissimo, which is some "animal sitting around and doing next to nothing all afternoon." Conversely, I'm sure one could see Shostakovich's op. 110 as the last gasps of a coward who was too afraid to commit suicide, and submitted to the will of the Communist Party by living instead of protesting through death(this is a VERY extreme point of view, and NOT my own - just a fictional perspective). Its all a matter of opinion and perspective; I will agree that a piece of music should not be written without some type of noteworthy, poignant inspiration, but what constitutes that inspiration is open to interpretation, and is subject to opinion.

 

- mm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, it seems as if there is a great battle going on between you two, and I would like to step in. First of all, I think it greatly depends on how you interpret it. For example, Fortissimo, it seems as if you only consider passion if its stirring and perhaps a tad belligerent (from what I have seen thus far - perhaps I am wrong). However, it all depends on the context, and how you interpret it. For example, when The Planets was written, Holst used a great amount of imagination in sketching out the feelings behind each one (keep in mind this was in 1914, before highly-detailed pictures of the planets, in all their beauty and glory, even existed). But, in your point of view, someone could have just as easily derided the work saying, "What's the point? All he wrote about was some stupid dot in the night sky!"

 

To compare Debussy with a movie score would be a bit glib, I feel, and, perhaps even insulting. Perhaps his orchestral music isn't THAT great in your opinion, but, I have a few pianist friends who won't shut up about his piano music, which is quite superb. Yet, I digress. Debussy wrote the work in 1894, and, so, to compare it to a movie score would be, if anything, praising Debussy's impact on 20th Century composers, instead of insulting his unoriginal work. And, regarding the title of the work, it was not so much based on that image in itself, as it was on a poem of the same name. Here's a link with an English translation, or, if you have the ability to read it, the original French as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afternoon_of_a_Faun_%28poem%29

 

And, so, I would say that its all a matter of interpretation as to what is important and what is not. I think some would see the beauty of a mythical creature covorting around in an enchanting forest in the music. Some would just see it as you saw it, Fortissimo, which is some "animal sitting around and doing next to nothing all afternoon." Conversely, I'm sure one could see Shostakovich's op. 110 as the last gasps of a coward who was too afraid to commit suicide, and submitted to the will of the Communist Party by living instead of protesting through death(this is a VERY extreme point of view, and NOT my own - just a fictional perspective). Its all a matter of opinion and perspective; I will agree that a piece of music should not be written without some type of noteworthy, poignant inspiration, but what constitutes that inspiration is open to interpretation, and is subject to opinion.

 

- mm

 

Excellent point.

 

Allow me to step in also and state that THESE ARE ALL OPINIONS. You don't have to react to every single one. Some people won't like certain pieces of music, that's just the way it goes. Just because someone doesn't (or does) like a certain piece of music doesn't make them wrong. People have different tastes, get over it.

 

Ok I couldn't keep quiet for any longer.

 

OF COURSE their are bad composers out there. Many of them write for band.

 

But you are in NO place to dictate what is worthy of our listening. Just because you don't like the music of Debussy or Whitacre or whomever because it doesn't have some "underlying deep driving emotion", which many of them do anyway, but you're too busy complaining to hear, doesn't mean you shove your meticulously developed theories down everyone's throat. For Christ's sake, stop it! Just be content with what you listen to and quit telling me that "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun" isn't well written and that your "The Tragic Ostinato" or whatever its name may be is.

 

Thanks.

 

Calm down there. Nowhere in Fortissimo's comments were there dictations of what is worthy of listening to, just his opinions. And as for the "meticulously developed theories" that are shoved "down everyone's throats, Guess what? YOU CAN IGNORE THEM. It's not like he's there in person yelling it to you. If you don't want to have it shoved down your throat, don't read it, it's that simple.

 

Honestly this is getting ridiculous. Keep it civil people, and be the better person and not feel the need to respond to every opinion you think is wrong that is posted on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, when The Planets was written, Holst used a great amount of imagination in sketching out the feelings behind each one (keep in mind this was in 1914, before highly-detailed pictures of the planets, in all their beauty and glory, even existed).

Completely unrelated note, but I think it must have taken Holst some amazing amount of though to write it so well. Mercury EXACTLY corresponds to my thought of what the planet Mercury should be like.

 

Not a slow song... Or a slow movement... but still cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can think what you will, and I as well. I can also explain to you the logic behind my reasoning, and I can even set forward basic principles for what my tastes follow.

 

Mindful musician, you make good points, and you reacted ina calm logical way. I understand your stance, and I don't feel a need to challenge it because you are a nutral player.

 

Martinhorn, the same is true with you.

 

DavidPowell, like I said, you can think what you think, and I will continue to think what I will. Your extremely emotive responses trouble me; I cannot begin to imagine why you place so much value on my opnion against your own. While I cannot see why in God's name you would like listening to such things as "The afternoon of a Fawn", I accept that you do. I'm afraid though, that you have missed the aims of marching shows in general; that is, to please and excite an audience of many different types of people, most of which will probably not be the type of people who visit the local philharmonic commonly. The type of music I am interested in is the kind that strikes people in a very, as mindful said, belligerent way, perhaps even driving them (in the case of The Rite of Spring) to throw things at the stage and walk right out of the theater. Such music grabs the attntion of its audience and makes them listen, and evokes a deep emotional response.

On the other hand, your music, while satisfying perhaps the prim and proper philharmonic audience, simply does nothing for the likes of a football game crowd or marching contest spectators. It simply doesn't have the level of energy needed for this modern medium of corps marching. Why do you think we sacrificed traditional marches, such as those by Sousa? Because they too lacked the energy and passion needed to make a marching show great. To grab the audience by the soul and manipulate their emotions to where they simply cannot look away or stop paying attention; to the point where their own individauls lives lose all meaning, and they are only alive right then, and right there experiencing this work that you have forged from your own ideas, from your own mind, perhaps even from your own soul. This, in my interpretation is the purpose of what we now call marching band.

 

You can take it or leave it. That's just what I say.

 

 

 

Oh, and a side note, the Planets all kick ****. That's all there is too it. Of course, the vast majority of Holst's music does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so this is all about the marching arts? That makes more sense.

 

But still. If somebody would have the balls to do a whole show of slow(er) music, I would freaking throw my body onto the field. Just because I'm tired of Hazo's music on the field. Nothing against him, but common' originality. EVERYTHING is big and loud and bunches of impacts, it gets old for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...