Whitacre's Latest

Nox Aurumque

Whitacre recently posted a link to the video of this World Premiere Performance on his blog. Nox Aurumque is a sort of "sequal" to one of his more well-know works, Lux Aurumque. It's like the dark version or something. I dunno, ot me it's a completely different piece, more along the lines of his "Stolen Child" than anything. It seems like Whitacre's writing these days is a lot more dramatic, dark, and his signature dissonant writing is evolving slowly into straight polytonality.

Knock Whitacre if you must but I think this piece is great, though it seems like it took a bit to grow on me. One of the interesting things I saw was that he used a type of dissonance in this piece that I've never been able to make sound "Whitacre-pretty" in my own endeavors: having a triad with the major and minor triads simultaneously (i.e. D, F, F#, and A). You can hear this at the end of the piece; the sopranos sustain the minor triad while the lower voices sing the major chord under it.

So What does everyone else think of this? Have former Whitacre haters been turned? Or is there still some fault in his writing? DISCUSS!

Have former Whitacre haters been turned? Or is there still some fault in his writing? DISCUSS!

Until he stops using the suspended 9th as his sole compositional device, no.

That doesn't even mean anything. Are you saying every chord has a suspended 9th? Or just most of them? Or that every deviation from "conventional" harmony involves a sus9? Or some other equally misguided blanket statement?

It seems like the Whitacre hate crowd always resorts to dumbing down his "style" into some quick one-liner that makes him seems incredibly unsophisticated. He only uses one chord? REALLY? Or is it that you hate everything in vogue? Be honest now.

That doesn't even mean anything. Are you saying every chord has a suspended 9th? Or just most of them? Or that every deviation from "conventional" harmony involves a sus9? Or some other equally misguided blanket statement?

Yes, I am saying that most of them do. It is a blanket statement but it's certainly not misguided.

It seems like the Whitacre hate crowd always resorts to dumbing down his "style" into some quick one-liner that makes him seems incredibly unsophisticated. He only uses one chord? REALLY? Or is it that you hate everything in vogue? Be honest now.

Eric Whitacre's music doesn't need dumbing down. He does that quite successfully himself.

I wouldn't say it's a dumbing down. Simplicity is usually deliberate. I love the sounds he creates, whether or not it's complex isn't really the point. A lot of his things do sound similar, which I'm not so keen on, but the little changes, the way he can manipulate sounds I think is wonderful. His style has changed slightly, but it's still distinctly him. This piece in particular reminded me of Lauridsen's Fire Songs in the way he used harmony, but at the same time I could hear his recent works and his earlier style. I can see what his detractors say about him, but I think they are missing the forest for the trees.

Okay,

My first two criticisms of this could apply to pretty much any Whitacre piece; firstly, it doesn't have much structure other than being a series of climaxes and relaxations. What is its form? There are no motifs in the work that are developed in any sense or that signify the architecture of the piece (ie a motif appears at the beginning of a section in a new key or tempo or similar) nor is there much that's unique to this particular piece - you could cut in a section from any of his other works without it affecting the tone or maybe even being noticed. It's like he just muddled along adding nice-sounding bits until he'd got to the end of the text.

Secondly, it's a slow piece for mixed choir in a sort of mystical, meditative, vaguely nostalgic tone, with a largely homophonic or 'slow melody over deep chords' texture. Very similar to everything else he's written, and, as rautavaara identifies, most of the main Whitacre-modern-choral clich

(addressing several posts at once - stay tuned)

Yes, I am saying that most of them do. It is a blanket statement but it's certainly not misguided.

Eric Whitacre's music doesn't need dumbing down. He does that quite successfully himself.

Ahhh, look at you with the zinger! Clever devil, you. But see, when I say "misguided," it's because you clearly ARE, as the claims you are making aren't debatable, they're simply wrong.

I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 Whitacre scores, for various ensembles, and I can say with utmost confidence that Whitacre's dissonant trademark sound consists of vastly more than sus9 (or even sus2, which is essentailly the same thing). And I could even list all the other types of chords he uses - like sus4, two chords together, entire scales at once, etc. - to disprove you but I imagine you wouldn't care because you're so locked into your own notion that your musicality is better than someone with phenomenal success that any attempt to disprove that will be met with, "yeah, well I guess he deviates from it THIS ONE TIME."

That is what I mean when I say misguided. If your summation of a composer's entire body of work results in the use of one chord, then you haven't been exposed to enough of his literature to make ANY statement. What have you heard? Sleep? Oh yeah, his "pop" piece, good detective work there super sleuth. I'm sure that's a good demonstration of all the tricks up his sleeve.

It just sounds too sweet and well-behaved for my personal taste. The harmony seems to be the only thing where he actually tries out stuff a little bit, and even there he tends to stay on the safe side with chords that he knows "will work fine". Every other element besides the harmony seems to be a minor matter and just follows practices that are established for centuries pretty much straight on.

That being said, he does know what he's doing. All the sounds sound quite fine, and he certainly achieves the effects he's going for. But that's not enough for me, and frankly, often I prefer if a composer does stuff where he isn't perfectly sure how it will work out.

(addressing several posts at once - stay tuned)

Ahhh, look at you with the zinger! Clever devil, you. But see, when I say "misguided," it's because you clearly ARE, as the claims you are making aren't debatable, they're simply wrong.

I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 Whitacre scores, for various ensembles, and I can say with utmost confidence that Whitacre's dissonant trademark sound consists of vastly more than sus9 (or even sus2, which is essentailly the same thing). And I could even list all the other types of chords he uses - like sus4, two chords together, entire scales at once, etc. - to disprove you but I imagine you wouldn't care because you're so locked into your own notion that your musicality is better than someone with phenomenal success that any attempt to disprove that will be met with, "yeah, well I guess he deviates from it THIS ONE TIME."

That is what I mean when I say misguided. If your summation of a composer's entire body of work results in the use of one chord, then you haven't been exposed to enough of his literature to make ANY statement. What have you heard? Sleep? Oh yeah, his "pop" piece, good detective work there super sleuth. I'm sure that's a good demonstration of all the tricks up his sleeve.

Why so serious?

For the record, I don't like this piece. I find the textures and harmonies boring.

For the record, I don't like this piece. I find the textures and harmonies boring.

See, that's fine with me. Maybe it's not your cup o tea. Whatever. But out and out saying, "this music is bad because the composer uses, exclusively, a single chord throughout the entirety of his works" is fundamentally WRONG.

See, that's fine with me. Maybe it's not your cup o tea. Whatever. But out and out saying, "this music is bad because the composer uses, exclusively, a single chord throughout the entirety of his works" is fundamentally WRONG.

Well I just tend to assume that people are giving their own personal opinion rather than trying to dominate with a fact.

Dev, we go to school in the South. This is dainty for us, for sure.

I'm fairly new to the music of Eric Whitacre. I can see exactly where his detractors are coming from in their issues with his music, and I can see that he likes to recycle a lot of compositional devices. That said, however, I really do like this piece!

See, that's fine with me. Maybe it's not your cup o tea. Whatever. But out and out saying, "this music is bad because the composer uses, exclusively, a single chord throughout the entirety of his works" is fundamentally WRONG.

Quotation marks shouldn't be used unless someone actually said what's within them. I can find nothing of the sort used in this thread.

You initial question was whether 'Whitacre-haters' had been 'turned'. I simply explained why I hadn't been.

I think people here are being harsh and a bit irrational when it comes to judging this piece. Why not judge it on its own merits instead of going, "Well it doesn't do X, Y, and Z, therefore it is not good." I mean Whitacre is fairly good at constructing works and generally a lot of what he does works. I can't say I'm a huge fan of Whitacre or anything, but I think a lot of the judgments being made in this thread are a bit hasty. The one guy who asks, "Can he even write fast music?" Whitacre's Ghost Train is a relatively decent piece and showcases idiomatic writing for winds. Anyway, my point is that some of you are being kind of ridiculous.

I think people here are being harsh and a bit irrational when it comes to judging this piece. Why not judge it on its own merits instead of going, "Well it doesn't do X, Y, and Z, therefore it is not good." I mean Whitacre is fairly good at constructing works and generally a lot of what he does works. I can't say I'm a huge fan of Whitacre or anything, but I think a lot of the judgments being made in this thread are a bit hasty. The one guy who asks, "Can he even write fast music?" Whitacre's Ghost Train is a relatively decent piece and showcases idiomatic writing for winds. Anyway, my point is that some of you are being kind of ridiculous.

Maybe, I just plain don't get much from the piece. Not a case of searching for criteria, just a case of not particularly liking it very much.

I like this more than some of his other stuff. Whitacre is usually pretty, either way, but I really dig the dissonances in this one, I feel it's a step in the right direction for him.

If I'd never heard a Whitacre piece before, I would be profoundly impressed with this piece.

Isn't that how we should judge each piece?

My first two criticisms of this could apply to pretty much any Whitacre piece; firstly, it doesn't have much structure other than being a series of climaxes and relaxations. What is its form? There are no motifs in the work that are developed in any sense or that signify the architecture of the piece (ie a motif appears at the beginning of a section in a new key or tempo or similar) nor is there much that's unique to this particular piece - you could cut in a section from any of his other works without it affecting the tone or maybe even being noticed. It's like he just muddled along adding nice-sounding bits until he'd got to the end of the text.

I'm sorry, but does every single piece by every single composer have to slot right into some predefined template? Maybe he wants to WRITE music and not just plug notes into forms and developments. Good music can be anything, you know. There's nothing wrong with how he wrote it - he did his own thing. Your expectations of form and development aren't for all music. Deviation is what breaks up the monotony in music nowadays - no matter how boring you personally perceive these deviating ideas.

Can this guy actually write fast music? Does he know about polyphony?

He seems to be doing fine at being successful so far, not everybody needs to write everything.

Okay,

My first two criticisms of this could apply to pretty much any Whitacre piece; firstly, it doesn't have much structure other than being a series of climaxes and relaxations. What is its form? There are no motifs in the work that are developed in any sense or that signify the architecture of the piece (ie a motif appears at the beginning of a section in a new key or tempo or similar) nor is there much that's unique to this particular piece - you could cut in a section from any of his other works without it affecting the tone or maybe even being noticed. It's like he just muddled along adding nice-sounding bits until he'd got to the end of the text.

Secondly, it's a slow piece for mixed choir in a sort of mystical, meditative, vaguely nostalgic tone, with a largely homophonic or 'slow melody over deep chords' texture. Very similar to everything else he's written, and, as rautavaara identifies, most of the main Whitacre-modern-choral clich

He seems to be doing fine at being successful so far, not everybody needs to write everything.

True! Plus you can't listen to crazy symphonic pieces all day, day in day out. I think you need a break once in a while! This seems like good music to 'wind down' with.

True! Plus you can't listen to crazy symphonic pieces all day, day in day out. I think you need a break once in a while! This seems like good music to 'wind down' with.

Interestingly enough, when I first read that... I saw that as WIND (as in the blowing wind...)...

BUT, then I realized... you were speaking of WINDing down after a hard day of listenening to challenging symphonic works and atonal distress.

The reason I read it this way is because I would like people to know that Whitacre is also famous for his WIND stuff. You pun allows me to interject that the previously stated "Ghost Train" and "Equus" are both fast, wind symphonic movements... if you are looking for fast music, that is where to go...

OH and "Godzilla Eats Las Vegas" is also hot!

Heh, interesting. I was introduced to Lux Aurumque last week and was BLOWN AWAY. Then I did a score study of it and I was extremely disappointed. There's nothing genius about what he does. He puts M2s in every triad and P4s in every seventh. And he "blurs" two chords together, like retaining the chord tones of A major even as he proceeds to B major. And then a fricking awesome choir like Polyphony sings it and it sounds amazing... like, "Angels in heaven must sing songs like this" amazing.

But... It's like putting one extra stick of butter in a cake, yes it makes it sweeter, does that mean you can succeed in the world of chefs by always being one butter stick ahead of your competitors? ;)

I think "Cloudburst" and "Leonardo Dreams" are better COMPOSITIONS than Lux Aurumque because they at least include motives, counterpoint, thematic structure, etc, but as a composer he's no great shakes honestly. As a "builder of amazing vocal chords" he's unbeatable.

I would like to see him write a big piece for orchestra (wind band doesn't count!). It would be interesting to see what he would do.

And I could even list all the other types of chords he uses [besides 1) add2] - like

2) sus4,

3) two chords together,

4) entire scales at once, etc.

Well, hey, if I had remembered "When David Heard" and its massive d minor panscale chord, I'd have had the complete list above this quote... add2s, add4s, chord blurring, panscales. What does it say about Whitacre that you can reel off his stylistic devices that fast?

That is what I mean when I say misguided. If your summation of a composer's entire body of work results in the use of one chord, then you haven't been exposed to enough of his literature to make ANY statement. What have you heard? Sleep? Oh yeah, his "pop" piece, good detective work there super sleuth. I'm sure that's a good demonstration of all the tricks up his sleeve.

I have enormous respect and awe for Eric as a listener. I just have much less respect and awe about him, as a composer. I can "grok" his scores.... easily. By contrast there are parts of John Williams' "pop piece" ET the Extraterrestrial that I still don't understand after poring over the score. ;)

I'm not a Whitacre-hater, I'll listen to a new song of his any day. I just am not awed by his skill.

I'm sorry, but does every single piece by every single composer have to slot right into some predefined template? Maybe he wants to WRITE music and not just plug notes into forms and developments. Good music can be anything, you know. There's nothing wrong with how he wrote it - he did his own thing. Your expectations of form and development aren't for all music. Deviation is what breaks up the monotony in music nowadays - no matter how boring you personally perceive these deviating ideas.[/i]

How does advocating structure equate to making a composer 'slot into some predefined template'? 'Form' is a highly misunderstood word - there is, for example, no such thing as 'sonata form'. There are sonata forms, which come in an almost infinite variety - one could hardly assert that a Haydn and a late Sibelius symphony both correspond to the same 'predefined template'. Form refers to a very broad template. Structure, on the other hand, refers to how the parts of the whole are arranged within that template, and again there is an almost infinity wide palate here. Most importantly, musical form and structure are intrinsically linked to musical expression. It is a great mistake to think that music which is 'academic' or 'structural' or similar is somehow lacking in human emotion or is merely an intellectual exercise. Part of how we as listeners perceive the 'journey' of the music is due to its structure; how the music is paced, the positioning of focal points, surprise and familiarity, continuity and stasis. This applies to absolutely all music (except chance and aleatoric music which is, by its nature, based on random events). I'm not really sure what you mean by 'deviation', but there's nothing really very deviating in any of Whitacre's music. I would love to see something like the whole choir suddenly scream gibberish in the middle of a piece before going back to slow pretty music as if nothing had happened. In fact I regard Whitacre to be pretty monotonous precisely because there is little deviation from a formula. I'm afraid that what you seem to be saying is that Whitacre can be excused for being repetitive, conservative, reliant on cliches and writing vertical instead of horizontal lines (to the detriment of voice-leading in alto and tenor parts) because it's nice and pretty and he doesn't have to follow rules for something to be good. Argumentum ad postmodernism - Mozart and Bach follow 'rules' (so that they can break them when neccessary), and I'm sure you'll agree they don't sound like music written from a textbook, they are wonderfully inventive and interesting even within a fairly strict framework.

He seems to be doing fine at being successful so far, not everybody needs to write everything.

But why neglect compositional techniques which would add far greater innovation and interest to his music? Is he afraid his music will become unpalatable to audiences if he writes something unexpected, something daring or shocking or complex? Audiences deserve more than aural baths, they should be treated with intelligence and be able to experience music which is new, detailed, challenging, stimulating, even offensive to them. As you said, good music can be anything.

But why neglect compositional techniques which would add far greater innovation and interest to his music? Is he afraid his music will become unpalatable to audiences if he writes something unexpected, something daring or shocking or complex? Audiences deserve more than aural baths, they should be treated with intelligence and be able to experience music which is new, detailed, challenging, stimulating, even offensive to them. As you said, good music can be anything.

I think his whole point was that Whitacre's music should be judged on its own merits. It doesn't need to adhere to these compositional techniques that would "add far greater innovation and interest". I've never liked anything I've heard by Whitacre nor am I defending him in any way. I just think you misunderstood Engimus' point.

Must we bicker over measly definitions? When I say "form" I'm not trying to be a scientist for heaven's sakes. Apply it my words more generally and you'll get what I meant then.

I would like to see him write a big piece for orchestra (wind band doesn't count!). It would be interesting to see what he would do.

I wouldn't be surprised if he treated the strings (as homogenous as they are) just as he treats a choir. I can imagine him indicating bowing over the fingerboard or bridge just as indications for syllables in voice. Hell, he'd probably have the strings sing while playing too. When I played one of his band pieces, he had some of the band singing with the other portion playing. It's great when you get the best highschool players together, because many of them are also chorus members and can actually carry a tune.