Whitacre's Latest

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.

Well, fair enough - people who like Whitacre are going to keep liking him, and those who don't aren't. He has his own idiom, and postmodernist music does not have to adhere to the romantic Gesumkunstwerk idea, the heroic struggle, the whole-world-contained-within-a-piece, etc. I view the remit of composers like Whitacre to be akin to 'easy-listening', to provide gentle sounds for the mind rather than lead the revolution or wrestle with philosophical questions. However, as a listener I find that the works I enjoy most are those that do not reveal everything on a first hearing - you have to keep coming back to them to become aware of more detail every time. I just wish that Whitacre could sound pretty whilst also working on an intellectual as well as an aesthetic level, so that I don't feel I've heard everything in a single hearing. It can be done.

I don't understand why he gets so much criticism for having a developed style that is all his own. I don't think there is more merit in seeking great variety in your musical output as a whole in detriment to developing a style that is yours and using your own preferred compositional techniques. Why does he need to try every compositional technique under the sun for everyone to be happy? Also not all audiences want to be treated to overly intellectual music. Maybe he doesn't want to write that. I'd rather have people enjoy my music for it's beauty than for complexity or ability to stimulate someone intellectually.

What is this stuff about concert band doesn't count? Is a symphonic or concert band inferior to an orchestra? If so please inform me to why it is.

What is this stuff about concert band doesn't count? Is a symphonic or concert band inferior to an orchestra? If so please inform me to why it is.

Only to the close-minded or puerile. Stuck up little orchestral purists will be in for a rude awakening when they finally realize that Orchestras (with very few exceptions) don't want to play new music - they want to play the same crap they've been playing for 300 years. Bands, on the other hand, love to play new music and embrace it wholeheartedly.

If you want to live as a non-media composer (i.e., live by selling your music for play, not to be recorded once and forgotten), it's fairly obvious where it's more advantageous to be...

Only to the close-minded or puerile. Stuck up little orchestral purists will be in for a rude awakening when they finally realize that Orchestras (with very few exceptions) don't want to play new music - they want to play the same crap they've been playing for 300 years. Bands, on the other hand, love to play new music and embrace it wholeheartedly.

If you want to live as a non-media composer (i.e., live by selling your music for play, not to be recorded once and forgotten), it's fairly obvious where it's more advantageous to be...

Bands are just as closed minded, not to mention lacking in the talent department. I can delve into this at a later date as the perversion of culture perpetuated by bands is something I'm very passionate about. Anyway, this pro-band argument is tired and I will shoot it down within the next few hours.

Ok. Why are bands lacking in talent? Are you saying that they attract less talented players than the ones in orchestras? I'm not saying band is better than orchestra but I certainly think it is on par. Don't give reasons like that nothing in the band can match the strings. There are plenty of people in the world who prefer a rock band over an orchestra because nothing can match the power of an electric guitar.

Bands are just as closed minded, not to mention lacking in the talent department.

I don't know about the former, but the latter is just offensive.

Thanks for posting the video; I am not familiar with most of his work but I quite like this one. :)

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!

I must add that what I find to be Whitacre's best work is October, another concert band piece. It's by no means fast like parts of Ghost Train or Equus, but it brings out a different style in Whitacre that you don't usually get in his choral works.

I must add that what I find to be Whitacre's best work is October, another concert band piece. It's by no means fast like parts of Ghost Train or Equus, but it brings out a different style in Whitacre that you don't usually get in his choral works.

The opening also sounds remarkably similar to Thomas Newman's music for American Beauty.

Only to the close-minded or puerile. Stuck up little orchestral purists will be in for a rude awakening when they finally realize that Orchestras (with very few exceptions) don't want to play new music - they want to play the same crap they've been playing for 300 years. Bands, on the other hand, love to play new music and embrace it wholeheartedly.

If you want to live as a non-media composer (i.e., live by selling your music for play, not to be recorded once and forgotten), it's fairly obvious where it's more advantageous to be...

Wow. Where did that come from flint? :)

I'm not an "orchestra purist." Strings use a different mode of tone production than winds and brass. That means it takes different techniques to write for them! Whitacre writes for band more or less using his voice techniques (e.g. his band transcription of Lux Aurumque). I thought it'd be interesting to see what he does with strings.

If he doesn't want to write for strings that's fine! Plenty of composers have made it big writing for choir and never writing for ANY other instrument.

I do think an orchestra is better than a band, only because there are more instruments! An orchestra with 12 extra horns and a celesta and saxophones and all kinds of crazy percussion - even better!

I don't disagree that bands are playing more music by living composers. They win that contest easily. On the other hand, orchestras play more commercial scores than bands do. Those scores may be "recorded once" but they certainly aren't "forgotten" otherwise you wouldn't pass someone on the street humming the theme to Gladiator or Batman.

Sorry, I wasn't discussing the topic at hand; my post has nothing to do with Whitacre.

I do think an orchestra is better than a band, only because there are more instruments! An orchestra with 12 extra horns and a celesta and saxophones and all kinds of crazy percussion - even better!

Huh? Bands have more instruments on average than any orchestra.

Orchestra has... Violin, viola, 'cello, bass. That's 4. Then they have flutes, oboe/cor anglais, bassoon and contra, clarinets, horn, trumpet, trombone tuba. That's 10 or 12 or so depending on the score. Some scores only call for a pair of horns, trumpet, and maybe some woodwinds.

Wind band has almost always piccolo, flute, oboe, sometimes cor anglais, bassoon, sometimes contra, often independent Eb clarinet, Bb clarinets, alto clarinet, bass clarinet, contra clarinets, an absolute horde of saxophones, plus trumpets, horns, trombones, euphoniums, and tubas. That's... 17 to 20 different instruments that you can mix timbres with. and the clarinet family takes over for the versatility of the missing string section.

While the orchestra has strings, the band makes up for it in sheer diversity of instruments. I think it all pretty much evens out in the end.

While the orchestra has strings, the band makes up for it in sheer diversity of instruments. I think it all pretty much evens out in the end.

I find that a lot of composers use the strings as a crutch for bad technique, like a pianist who relies too much on the damper pedal.

off-topic post>

I decided to bump this thread instead of making a new topic. Whitacre's just posted two new pieces to his blog, and they're in a vastly different style than anything he's written before. Also, one of them is very fast and very aggressive, another thing you don't really see in his music.

the moon is hiding in her hair

i walked the boulevard

I Totally performed in those!! But, it sounds 700x cooler live.

My only beef with Eric Whitacre is that sometimes his songs become this watery mess and lose their sense of direction. I'd say most notably Cloudburst, Leonardo, When David Heard, and this song.

They all sound beautiful, but each song just dissolves into an aimless rotation of pretty cluster chords or random sets of phrases, and ends up losing that sense of beginning and end. It's not as polished, well defined, or memorable as what I would consider his best songs to be (Sleep, a boy and a girl, i will wade out, Go Lovely Rose).

I'd still say he's a good composer though, since even his weakest songs are below average at worst, and he has several works to make up for them. Every artist out there has written a few duds before, so I don't see why Whitacre should be an exception.

Also, after reading through more of the thread, what on earth is with all these heavy handed generalizations? How "complex" or "talented" the medium you write for doesn't matter if your music sounds like crap.

There's a reason people write for different mediums. It all depends on the sound the composer is looking for, that enough should be obvious. God forbid people start making generalizations like guitar being inferior to piano because you play more notes simultaneously on a piano, holy cow.

Honestly these latest pieces aren't my cup of tea; I've never been a fan of accompanied choir and especially with Whitacre I think any fantasmic cluster chords he designs will be downed out by the piano. It's got something to do with killing the overtones, I don't really know.

little tree is the exception.

@matchboxmatt: You'd probably like The Stolen Child and Lux Aurumque pretty well too, then. They're both on his blog.

When David Heard seems to me to have a pretty definite form and structure. He doesn't throw in new material left and right like he does in other pieces. I do see what you mean with the other two, especially Leonardo (though Ghost Train is even worse in this respect). The only two reused themes I can think of are in "And as he’s dreaming the heavens call him" and "And as he dreams, again the calling," and the two chants of "Leonardo volare" at the end. I think I read somewhere (I'm not sure) that the frenzied introduction of themes is supposed to represent Leonardo's brilliant, crazed, and tormented mind as he builds his machine, with inspiration flooding in so fast that he can't quite control it.

It's funny that you should mention the two pieces Whitacre says he's most proud of (Leonardo, When David Heard) as some of his weakest works. You obviously value different things in his music than he does (and in no way am I saying that this is a bad thing).

@Dev: I never really noticed that. I'll have to pay more attention in the future. I do agree, however, that little tree is awesome.

*pokes head out*

I love Whitacre. A lot.

If it's variation you're looking for try listening to "With A Lily In Your Hand", sections of "Five Hebrew Love Songs", "Her Sacred Spirit Soars", and "I Thank You God For Most This Amazing Day", plus some of his wind pieces.

I can agree that some of his pieces become redundant... I can't even listen to "Lux Aurumque" all the way through anymore. But, nonetheless, I think that much of the beauty in his music is drawn from the poetry. It's not so much about form or tempo or how complex he can make chords. But it is about the interaction between the singers, the text and the music that is made.

Furthermore, why should he strive to make music that's drastically different from what he enjoys? He's clearly comfortable with his techniques and experiments with different methods of harmonization when he deems it appropriate. Besides, from my experience, I think that a lot of orchestral pieces, and especially the romantic "whole-world-in-a-song" stuff strays too far from what the song is really supposed to be about... The different sections just get on my nerves. However, I'm certainly not saying that all orchestral pieces are like that. I've heard many that I really enjoyed and there are tons left that I've never even heard of.

Honestly these latest pieces aren't my cup of tea; I've never been a fan of accompanied choir and especially with Whitacre I think any fantasmic cluster chords he designs will be downed out by the piano. It's got something to do with killing the overtones, I don't really know.

little tree is the exception.

lolz... don't beat up on those pieces, I was IN that video. They are SOOO much better live, and there AREN'T any cluster chords in either of those pieces. I have the sheet music if you want to see what I mean... the vocals are VERY straightforward and there might be 3 completely built chords in the choir itself in the entire piece...

The chords come from the Piano, which is ALLL hand palming business of just notes... lolz.

Yeah go ahead and give us the sheet music

I'll have to get it scanned in the next couple of days. I don't have one, and I only have hard copies.

Yeah go ahead and give us the sheet music

Here's a link to two pages: Click

Everyone's seen this, right?

EWVC - Sleep

Everyone's seen this, right?

YES!!! I have. It's pretty cool what he did.