CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
The Preparation of Commissioned Works for the National Flute Association’s Young
Artist and High School Young Artist Competitions
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Music in Performance
By
Charlotte Betry
May 2016
The Thesis of Charlotte Betry is approved:
______
Professor Heather Clark Date
______
Dr. Ric Alviso Date
______
Dr. Lawrence Stoffel, Chair Date
California State University, Northridge
ii
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my mother and father for their endless love and support.
Without their guidance and encouragement this degree would not have been possible.
I would also like to thank Heather Clark, Sandy Kipp Iles, and Dr. Stoffel for their mentorship during my time at Cal State Northridge.
iii
Table of Contents
Signature Page ii
Dedication iii
Abstract v
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: The History of the National Flute Association’s Commissioned Works 3
Chapter 3: The Preparation of New Music Versus Standard Repertoire 6
Chapter 4: An Analysis of A Robot for a Friend 14
Chapter 5: Response to the Interviews 20
Chapter 6: Conclusion 22
Works Cited 24
Appendix A: List of Commissioned Works for NFA Young Artist 25
Appendix B: List of Commissioned Works for NFA High School Young Artist 26
Appendix C: Title Page of Interview and Participant Disclaimer 27
Appendix D: Performer Interview Questions 28
Appendix E: Composer Interview Questions 30
Appendix F: Interviews 32
Appendix G: Recital Program 52
iv
Abstract
The Preparation of Commissioned Works for the National Flute Association’s Young
Artist and High School Young Artist Competitions
By
Charlotte Betry
Master of Music in Performance
This thesis will explore the research and preparation needing to be done by a performer in order to successfully perform a newly commissioned work specifically through the National Flute Association’s Young Artist and High School Young Artist
Competitions. Through the analysis of the pieces, comparing and contrasting the evolution of the commissioned works, and through interviews with both past competitors and composers I will seek to establish a successful method towards preparing a piece that has yet been revealed to the world for critique and standardization.
v
The primary form of preparation throughout will focus on Liam Viney’s five-step process in properly preparing contemporary music for performance. The composition, A
Robot for a Friend, will be the primary source of analysis from the commissioned works of the National Flute Association. Interviews with a past performer of the composition and the composer are included as primary sources within the text.
Lastly, the success of using these steps will be discussed through the preparation and performance of Eric Ewazen’s Sonata No. 1 for Flute and Piano—a commission premiered at the National Flute Association’s 2010 convention in Charlotte, North
Carolina—for the purposes of my graduate flute recital at California State University,
Northridge.
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
The National Flute Association, founded in 1972, is an organization of both amateur and professional flutists throughout the world. With over 4,000 members from all fifty states as well as fifty countries, the National Flute Association (NFA) is the largest organization in the world centering around the performance, teaching, and continuation of the flute and its repertoire. The NFA offers many benefits to its members including a subscription to the The Flutist Quarterly (a quarterly magazine produced by the organization), full access to the largest lending library of flute music in the world, and the opportunity to attend an annual four-day convention consisting of masterclasses, seminars, competitions, concerts, and more.
The NFA’s mission to preserve the history of the flute and its repertoire, as well as propel the instrument into the modern world of music, is perhaps best seen by the number of commissioned works the association premieres at each annual convention. The first commissioned work in 1986 was for the Young Artist Competition and has since been expanded to be a part of the High School Soloist Competition (1989), Piccolo Artist
Competition (2004) and other special projects (1987).
The NFA continues to promote new music through the New Music Advisory
Committee and is continually seeking to find new ways to enhance the growing repertoire. While some of these commissions take on a more traditional role within the repertoire, many of the commissions within the last decade seek to expand the musician in as many ways as possible as will be seen through the research and observations of some of these commissioned works. The performer interview subjects consist of two past
Young Artist Competition winners, one of which was also a finalist in the High School
1
Young Artist Competition. The composer interview subjects consist of one Young Artist
Competition commission and two High School Competition commissions. The composition analyzed, A Robot for a Friend, was chosen based on the available interview subjects; the first interview with Ryan Carter (the composer of this commissioned composition) and the second with Ramakrishnan Kumaran (a participant in the 2014
High School Young Artist competition in which the commission was premiered).
2
Chapter 2: The History of the National Flute Association’s Commissioned Works
The National Flute Association’s New Music Committee was formed in 1985 with the vision of enhancing the flute repertoire through newly commissioned works on a regular basis. What begin in 1986 with the first annual commissioned work for the semi- final round of the Young Artist Competition has flourished into over 70 commissioned works to date. These works include not only music commissioned towards the Young
Artist Competition but also later to the High School Young Artist Competition (1989), the Piccolo Artist Competition (2004) and the Special Projects (1987) commissions.1
Following the organization’s desire to commission works that enhance the musical repertoire, the NFA has worked alongside three international woodwind associations to expand the woodwind quintet repertoire.
In keeping with the national trend in establishing partnerships for major commissions, the latest development in our commissioning process has been to take the lead in a new woodwind quintet project with our “sister” organizations, the International Horn Society, the International Double Reed Society, and the International Clarinet Association. In a vigorous process by representatives of all four organizations, composer Lansing McLoskey was selected, and his piece will be premiered at the 2012 conventions of each participating association.2
Through this collaboration the New Music Committee was able to expand its goal of enhancing the flute repertoire from simply solo works into the realm of chamber music.
The selection of composers for each Young Artist and High School Young Artist competition is through a nomination process by the chair of the New Music Committee and then a voting process by the remaining members of the board. The composers nominated often range in experience from emerging artists with few publications to winners of the Pulitzer Prize, the Prix de Rome, the Naumberg Competition, and the John
1 “The New Music Advisory Committee.” The National Flute Association. 2016. 2 Paul Taub, “Living History: The National Flute Association Commissioning Program,” The Flutist Quarterly XXXVII, No. 2 (Winter 2012): 66-67. 3
Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Music Composition Fellowship. Once a composer is chosen for each competition a point person is assigned to help them through the commissioning process.3 The NFA, however, stresses the importance of allowing a composer full reign in achieving musical ideas for each commission with little input from the committee themselves. Robert Dick, the first committee chair for the New Music
Committee recalls the concerns of Mario Davidovsky an early commissioned composer:
When I offered Davidovsky the commission, he was both pleased and leery. ‘I need to write music,’ he declared, concerned that an organization of performers would want a readily ‘accessible,’ conventionally tuneful piece. It took quite a bit of reassurance on my part to convince him that the commission was for the piece he chose to write, with no aesthetic controls or limits. Aside from instrumentation and length, the NFA has never attempted to tell any of our commissioned composers what to write-and that‘s how it should be.4
Dick continues that it is for this reason that the NFA has had a great deal of success “in having good music created for us.”5
With composers being given the ability to write at their discretion and with the competitive setting creating a platform that disregards difficulty, the commissioned compositions from both competitions have proven to be exceptionally challenging. The
NFA through its commissioning projects have not only worked to expand the modern day flute repertoire but have also in the process challenged the musicians and their abilities through the demanding nature of these commissioned works.
The National Flute Association uses the commissioned work for each of their competitions (Young Artist, High School Young Artist, and Piccolo Artist) during the semifinal round. Competitors submit a recording for the first round after which fifteen members are selected and invited to compete in the quarterfinal round at the annual
3 Ibid, 66-67. 4 Ibid, 67. 5 Ibid, 67. 4 convention held during the second week of August each year. Prior to even participating in the quarterfinal round, the applicants are sent the required music for the semifinal round the first week of June which includes the commissioned work for that year’s competition. At this point the applicants have a total of two months to prepare three different programs for the possibility of advancing to each stage of the competition.
These programs include three pieces for the quarterfinal and semifinal round and a recital based program not to exceed twenty-five minutes for the possibility of being one of the three people advanced to the final round.6
While the amount of music required per round is overwhelming at best to achieve in such a short time span, the following chapters will evaluate the added difficulties of the commissioned work as a standalone performance let alone as being merely one of up to nine required works for performance. The addition of a contemporary commissioned work truly showcases the maturity and ability of the young musician. For many, this is the first commissioned work they have had to prepare and since it is for the competitive setting it leaves little room for error in their preparations. Being products of classical
Western music tests their ability to adjust quickly and efficiently to that which is unknown and to create knowledge of a new subject in a short amount of time. Their ability to do so, however, will make or break their advancements during the course of the competition. As the following chapter will explain, while it is possible for these preparations to occur, their ability to portray great knowledge and experience on a subject that has only recently been introduced to them will be the greatest single challenge of the competition.
6 “NFA Competition Information.” The National Flute Association. 2016. 5
Chapter 3: The Preparation of New Music Versus Standard Repertoire
The classical training style as known by many musicians consists of a highly structured upbringing. From the early stages of learning students are taught the importance of the fundamental aspects encompassing the command of the instrument and music as a whole. Warm-ups, scales, and etudes quickly become the vernacular of the growing musician and composers such as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart establish the foundation in the young musician’s day to day musical selections.
Inherently, music students are being raised to the influences of the world of
Western music. Despite other influences that may come and go through different compositions of music (listening to world music that is unfamiliar to the student, or studying the music of other cultures) the greatest factors that remain with a musician is everything that they have come to know over time through mainly Western musical training. Connecting with other forms of music, including Western music that is simply different to the listener or performer due to its contemporary style—and thus not following the traditional standards that the typical student has been brought up with—can cause for a difficult time in opening one’s mind to the possibility of new, unstandardized music. In a study involving two musicians of great accomplishment—preparing the same rigorous contemporary piece—it was found that their initial reaction upon merely seeing the score was one of uncertainty and despair for the task at hand: “Their uncertainty sprang from a sense that the work represented a new musical paradigm, outside their stored memory of aural experience.”7 Their initial response faultlessly illustrates the
7 Liam Viney, “Preparing Stylistically Challenging Contemporary Classical Repertoire for Performance: Interpreting Kumari,” International Journal of Music Education vol. 33 (2015): 71. doi: 10.1177/0255761414528435. 6 difficulties that musicians are in need of overcoming in order to keep up with the repertoire that is being produced in the present day. Liam Viney in his article, “Preparing
Stylistically Challenging Contemporary Classical Repertoire for Performance” from the
International Journal of Music Education, conveys his five-step strategy for the development of the tools necessary to learn a new piece of contemporary music that would fall outside of one’s standard training. While the steps seem similar to that of preparation towards standard repertoire, the ways in which they are achieved create an improved outcome for the performer leaving few questions, if any, unanswered. The five- steps are: (1) getting to know the composer; (2) reading the score; (3) engaging with musical parameters; (4) anchoring; (5) discussing the issues. By following these steps musicians are better equipped to tackle challenging contemporary repertoire that
“requires a preparation stage that establishes an interpretation platform before comprehensively informed and effective practice can occur.”8
The first step of “getting to know the composer” seems as though it is the obvious answer to understanding the composition, however, with contemporary music it ironically often becomes the most overlooked aspect. With standard repertoire it is likely that the musician will possess knowledge about the composer prior to learning the composition and oftentimes will have performed some of the composer’s other works from the solo, chamber, and large ensemble repertoires. There is a preconceived sense of understanding already associated with a composition that the students have yet to technically and stylistically master even prior to the first read through. With new music, however, the background of the composers are often over-looked if the name does not stand off the
8 Ibid, 70-71. 7 page from the student’s internal memory bank. By overlooking this great detail, the first step to successfully understanding a piece of music that seems foreign is already diminished. Instead, it becomes the responsibility of the performer to actively seek out information regarding the composer and their prior compositions. Specifically, in the competitive setting where a commissioned work may only have an electronic recording it can be difficult to fully grasp the concepts being portrayed by the composer. By researching the style and influences behind the composer, however—and through listening to other compositions by the composer—the performer will already have the advantage of exploring new concepts of sound that they were not previously familiar with but can become accustomed to through the influences of the composer’s other compositions.
Donald Shon explains why it is especially important to do research regarding a foreign piece prior to engaging in the activity itself:
When a practitioner recognizes a situation as unique, she cannot handle it solely by applying theories or techniques derived from her store of professional knowledge. And in situations of value conflict, there are no clear and self-consistent ends to guide the technical selection of means…those aesthetic aims [have] to be uncovered by the performers, as opposed to being drawn from a body of assumed general stylistic knowledge.9
While contemporary music presents itself as a mountain to the untrained eye, it also provides one of the greatest resources that standard repertoire will never be able to offer to its pupils—the ability to contact and collaborate with the composers themselves. While engaging in the research and studying other works by the composer is invaluable, the ability to directly communicate with the composer about the goals and intentions they possess for the composition moves the musician past the notes and rhythms within the context of the page and propels them into understanding what is supposed to be
9 Ibid, 71. 8 occurring, how to achieve that, and then finally how to interpret the composition in a way that maintains all of the compositional values while expressing an individual interpretation at the same time.
Once there is a firm understanding of the composer and the aspirations towards the piece, the musician must then look at the music itself. In many new solo works, there is an increase of extensive extended techniques—such as Robert Dick’s 2003 Young
Artist Competition commission Everyones@Universe Existence. Most are familiar with the more common extended techniques of flutter-tongue or pitch bending, however, composers have extended compositional musical liberties to include the necessity of performance notes to indicate to the performer how exactly to achieve on the instrument the sounds which are being asked for. Often times these techniques make the piece un- sight readable until the new language—established by the composer and the use of notating such techniques—is fluently learned by the musician. Thus, a two-step process of first committing the notations and concepts to memory and then learning and applying these techniques to the instrument itself must occur. These techniques often require the student to disable prior knowledge of classical upbringing and to allow themselves to fully commit to the new sounds and requirements of the composition through the instrument.
Another aspect of the music that needs to be considered by the musician is the lack of familiar terminology, if any is present at all. While standard repertoire would dictate familiarity with common musical Italian words and phrases, many contemporary composers choose to omit the use of these enduring terms. When given musical instruction through words on the music it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the
9 correct definition of the term is being understood often requiring the musician to trace back its origins when dealing with secondary languages. In the initial study mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 1 it quickly becomes clear to both musicians during this second
“reading the score” phase that understanding not only the words but the way in which the words hold meaning to the composer are what matters most.10 One of the musicians being studied, Diana Blom, “experienced minor frustration at the lack of explanation of the title in the score yet it was partly that lack of explanation that prompted her to research the piece further, ultimately leading to a more richly informed interpretation and understanding of the work.”11 Through reading the score and researching the loose ends within the text, Blom was able to reach an even more desirable level of musicianship than would have previously been possible.
As the music begins to take on a more familiar structure to the musician through the second step of “reading the score,” they are now able to delve into the finer details of step three which is “engaging the musical parameters.” As stated in the second step, oftentimes the composer gives few written guidelines. At times in contemporary music, however, the less information given by the composer, the easier it becomes to decipher what is needed from a technical standpoint. In the same study, the musicians find themselves at a loss during this stage feeling uncertain of what to do with the little information given to them aside from the notes and rhythms. However, upon further examination, both parties come to the conclusion that the composer has actually given more information about the piece by giving less ink on the page.12 Their prior knowledge
10 Ibid, 72. 11 Ibid, 72. 12 Ibid, 73-74. 10 of preparing standard repertoire dictates that there is a hidden message within the notes, rhythms, dynamics, and articulations of the composition expressed through the interpretation of the musician. But with further investigation, both musicians are able to come full circle to the understanding that simply achieving exactly what the composer wrote, in the way that it was written, speaks volumes over adding subtle nuances to
“enhance” the piece. While this is by no means the only way of approaching all contemporary music, it provides the musician with an abstract way of thinking about the subject being examined. In a musical mind that has been trained to follow a very specific set of steps, it is often most beneficial when dipping into a lesser known medium to turn off prior knowledge on areas surrounding the subject altogether so that a fresh approach can come through and create a better and more accurate overall concept.
The fourth step in developing this strategy, “anchoring,” requires the musician to now come back to the knowledge they possessed prior to the start of the piece. In doing so, the musician is tasked with trying to find similar instances throughout the musical, or perhaps even non-musical, world that can relate and convey what they now feel they have come to understand through the first three steps. While there is a significant emphasis on teaching one’s self to open up a new concept of learning and performing, these actions will not be conveyed in such a short amount of time. As is the case with standard repertoire, it is the vast knowledge accumulated over a larger period of time and immersing yourself into those methods and thought processes that make performing standard repertoire more of a response to the musical culture in which the musician is brought up. However, when little time is allotted to allow these new concepts and
11 thoughts to marinate, a secondary form of connecting with the music must step in to play the convincing role to the audience members during the performance.
This process highlights the non-linear character of practice-led research. Through creative experimentation after hitting a roadblock, various combinations of old knowledge and newly acquired knowledge can synthesize to form a new interpretive vision. Performers can benefit from drawing on their experiential ‘baggage’ when crafting an interpretation of less familiar work. Steve Feld said, ‘we rarely confront sounds that are totally new, unusual, and without experiential anchors. Hence, each experience in listening necessarily connotes prior, contemporary, and future listening’s.’ He continued by saying that as we listen, we work through the dialectics in a series of ‘interpretative moves,’ developing choices and juxtaposing background knowledge.13
Through combining the forces of the newly conceived and prior knowledge into one composition the performer is also able to bring forth personal interpretations in a much greater sense. Without the background knowledge being interjected into the new form of music there is little individual substance. All music can be related to this concept whether it be standard repertoire or contemporary music, the job of the musician is to convey the thoughts and ideas of the composer while portraying individual interpretations of the composition.
The final step to take into consideration prior to beginning actual work on the piece with the instrument is “discussing the issues.” This culminating step is one that the musician is probably familiar with from standardized training, however, even in that regard it is probably lacking to the extent to which it could be most successful. In this step the musician is encouraged to discuss the findings of steps one through four with anyone who can provide productive conversation on the topic—most likely a colleague or teacher.14 In this step the musician should welcome both amateur and professional opinions due to the reaping benefits of both counterparts. With the acclaimed scholar one will find these new limits of knowledge to be pressed further than they could have ever
13 Ibid, 75. 14 Ibid, 75. 12 been achieved alone. This sort of conversation will spark new ideas within the musician some of which may be useful towards the upcoming preparation and performance and some of which, while currently too advanced, will serve to enhance the musical toolbox for future compositions and performances. On the contrasting side, communicating with someone who has not yet taken the steps into unfamiliar territories with music will help the musician to explain reasoning and logic surrounding the subject matter and hopefully in doing so provide a greater sense of familiarity for what they have discovered. Viney further explains in his final step that:
Actively seeking discussion with peers, colleagues, or teachers can be a stimulating and fruitful endeavor for students of a new and unfamiliar work. It could be argued from this example that a more socially collaborative approach to developing an interpretive platform is beneficial even for established and experienced performers learning a solo work.15
As is stated in the closing remarks of the article, this form of learning is often overlooked but should instead be embraced by musicians of all calibers to strive for continual improvement and growth.
Once these five steps have been thoughtfully completed the musician is ready to engage in the hands on learning. At this point, the fundamentals that were taught at a young age do become more practical in the learning aspects of the notes and rhythms but only due to the newfound ability to comprehend the music itself. While the five-step process may seem tedious to some who are eager to jump straight into the performing of the music, perhaps one of the greatest practice techniques taught in the typical classical upbringing becomes most effective. Slow practice, or in this case slow preparation, will lead to not only faster results from a technical standpoint but also now from a conceptual and stylistic frame of mind.
15 Ibid, 75. 13
Chapter 4: An Analysis of A Robot for a Friend
A Robot for a Friend by Ryan Carter was the commissioned work for the 2014
NFA High School Young Artist Competition. This piece explores the use of extensive extended techniques as has become common with many contemporary pieces in the modern flute repertoire. The piece written for flute, with or without fixed media, is best performed with the added electronic accompaniment to fully display the interplay between the flute and the fixed media. Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects to overcome upon first analyzing this piece is the notation used specifically in relation to the special effects that are created by the flutist, however, through Viney’s five-step process the composition becomes much easier for the performer to comprehend.
Ryan Carter is a sought after composer throughout the United States. He has fulfilled commissions for Carnegie Hall, the Cleveland Chamber Symphony, and the
American Composer’s Forum to name a few. “In addition to composing acoustic music,
Ryan is an avid computer musician, programmer, and performer.”16 He has recently developed two electronic music applications both of which incorporate live instrumental music with electronic dance music. Carter received a Bachelor of Music from the Oberlin
Conservatory, a Master of Arts degree from Stony Brook University, and a PhD from
New York University. Aside from his formal studies, Ryan has sought private instruction from composer Louis Andriessen.17
Upon first glance at his biography, the stage has already been set for the piece at hand. The fixed media influences become quite clear to be a signature of Carter’s personal compositional style and lend insight to the type of sounds that are likely to be
16 Ryan Carter, “Composer” 2015. 17 Ibid. 14 produced by the flute: ones that represent electronic media. Upon further research, his website reveals that he has written multiple pieces for solo instruments and chamber groups with fixed media as the accompaniment.18 While a recording of A Robot for a
Friend is not easily acquired, the sound clips on his website featuring some of his other works with fixed media begin to put the musician into the correct conceptual mindset of the piece. Aside from extensively researching the composer and listening to some of his other related compositions, an interview with Ryan Carter (Appendix F) provides one of the greatest modern abilities in “getting to know the composer”—being in direct contact with the composer.
In the “reading the score” step there is little written instruction towards the flute line. In the fixed media portion, however, there are notes to the musician indicating what should be occurring at that moment in time. These indications include synchronizing of clicking keys to the click on the track and times of climatic emphasis through what the composer refers to as “percussive chords.”19
Preceding the music, the composer offers brief program notes to the performer. In his opening sentence he states, “My program notes rarely describe the piece to which they are attached; I hope that the sound of a composition sufficiently explains itself.”20
While the performer may see this and feel troubled by the statement due to the lack of experience with contemporary music—and thus not being able to recognize what is being explained—Carter actually offers a very valuable piece of information here. Through stating that the music itself is capable of portraying all that he has envisioned for the
18 Ibid. 19 Ryan Carter, A Robot for a Friend (Ryan Carter, 2014). 20 Ibid, Program Notes. 15 composition, it informs the performer that unlike many standard compositions, there is less room for individualized interpretation and a focus more towards strictly what is written in the music. Due to the extensive techniques required for the piece this is very helpful to the musician and allows them to focus on the execution more from a technical standpoint with the assurance that proper achievement from a technical aspect will also achieve the greater meanings within the composition.
The last significant piece of information Carter gives to the performer is the knowledge that the title is not intended to be taken in a literal fashion of metal robots. He describes the title as such:
In this score, the term “robot” does not refer to a human-shaped metal object that walks and talks. Instead, it refers to the algorithms that extract features from sound, select what information to display, and suggest what music we should listen to. I have a mostly friendly relationship with these robots, but sometimes they lie.21
Just as Blom found an entirely new meaning to the piece she was preparing through the translation of the title, so too does Carter reveal an entirely different meaning to the piece through the title that perhaps would not have come through had it not been explained in such a detailed way.
The third step of “engaging with the musical parameters” becomes an exceptionally demanding task for the musician. Carter provides greatly detailed performance notes indicating the exact sounds that are to be produced and how the instrument is to go about making these sounds.
21 Ibid, Program Notes. 16
Figure 1. Performance Notes from A Robot for a Friend
Carter provides detailed performance notes necessary to be learned, and most likely memorized, by the performer before being capable of playing a somewhat accurate first read (see Fig. 1).22 Aside from the literal insight the performance notes provide— outlining exactly how to perform certain aspects of the piece—they also provide the knowledge to the performer that unlike the preparation in many standard works, the preparation for this piece will take a series of trial and error to accurately produce the exact desired sounds.
Similarly, to the feeling of uncertainty the two musicians felt from the study mentioned previously, the knowledge acquired from the first three steps may still be unsettling for the musician. While concepts are beginning to take shape and the musician has a greater understanding of what is to be achieved, and more importantly why it is to be achieved, the lack of familiarity still lingers through the feelings of doubt in being able to achieve so many different and new concepts all at one time within the parameters of
22 Ibid, Performance Notes. 17 the composition. It is for this reason that the “anchoring” phase plays such an important role in the overall preparation of the composition.
The fourth of the five steps requires the musician to now bring forth all prior musical knowledge—that which was previously needing to be forgotten—to establish a bridge between the two musical worlds of classical upbringing and contemporary music.
While this proves to be a very necessary step, it can also be one of the more challenging steps if the musician feels as though there is little in their musical background that can be related to the composition. Fortunately for A Robot for a Friend, there are two distinct relationships that can be found assuming the musician is at least somewhat familiar with some of the major works of the twentieth-century. A particular piece that comes to mind is George Crumb’s Black Angels. While this composition for string quartet does not use electronic music, there is a great emphasis in using the stringed instruments to reach new timbres and effects through extensive techniques similar to the techniques Carter is trying to employ though his performance notes. Aside from the instruments making up a seemingly traditional string quartet, other instruments such as a gong and a series of water glasses are used to enhance the uncommon timbres through pitch and percussive effects similar to the fixed media track in A Robot for a Friend. An additional point of reference that may be more familiar to a student whose training has been focused on earlier musical time periods would be the association from a more social level with that of electronic dance music. While the fixed media does not carry a melodic role the way in which dance music does, it at least serves as some form of a connection to the electronic sounds playing a role within the music.
18
The final step in this process serves to be especially useful for Ryan Carter’s composition. Through taking the time to explain even just the demands within the performance notes, the musician is using different methods to retain that information.
During this step it would be especially useful to discuss the different ways for approaching the techniques required to achieve the various sound effects called for in the composition. It may also be worth contacting members of the various groups from the recordings mentioned in the first step. Carter includes a link to each ensemble’s website alongside the performance clip on his recordings page.
19
Chapter 5: Response to the Interviews
The interview process provided an eclectic, yet fundamentally similar, approach to preparing a commissioned work from start to finish (composing to performing). Of the three composers that were interviewed—Daniel Kessner, Ryan Carter, and Michael
Fiday—there seemed to be little to no involvement with the performers of the competition, however, in some instances the composer did work closely with his “NFA advisor” for guidance. None of the composers offered any form of electronic recording for the performer to reference and Dr. Fiday was the only composer to provide any additional source of assistance. Fiday’s composition for the 2015 Young Artist
Competition was greatly influenced by recordings by Alan Lomax. To provide the performers with the correct interpretation of the “gritty” sounds he was looking for he provided YouTube clips of some of Lomax’s recordings that displayed this specific sound and style. Aside from the information given within the composition, Fiday summed it up well for composers when he stated that not working with the performers
“was a weird and wonderful thing; I just had to show up and hear them do it!”23
Despite the lack of audible references, both performers interviewed,
Ramakrishnan Kumaran and Heather Clark, agreed that this allowed for greater interpretive freedom. Kumaran’s preparation outlined many of the major points from
Viney’s article well. He stated that listening to available recordings, score study, and researching the composer are among the first steps taken when preparing a piece, specifically that of a new composition.24 For both performers, however, once they began
23 Michael Fiday, pers. comm. 24 Ramakrishnan Kumaran, pers. comm. 20 learning the piece itself it became similar to that of the ways in which they learn any repertoire regardless of time period.
Though none of the interview subjects followed the same form of preparation, whether it be through compositional techniques or preparation of a performance, all agreed that a new work within a competition is not restraining but in fact an opening for great musicality. Clark states that, “Everyone will have the notes and rhythms down, but it is the phrasing, emotions, and musicality that will set you apart from your contenders.”25
From these interviews it became more clear that Viney’s five steps really do set up the performer for the greatest success. The technical aspects within the piece, whether they be scales or very difficult effects, will come to fruition as the competitor develops the technical abilities and makes it to an advanced portion of the competition. The additional efforts that will ultimately set apart the musician, however, is largely through the preparation of all other aspects that surround the notes and rhythms of a piece including the composer’s intent, the composer’s influences, and the overall impression of the piece.
25 Heather Clark, pers. comm. 21
Chapter 6: Conclusion
The preparation of contemporary works requires a sequence that cannot be broken if the musician is striving for the greatest success possible. Particularly in a competitive setting where there is little time to achieve a great deal of work, it becomes especially important to establish a system that effectively combines all aspects of preparation. All three levels of preparation—researching the unknown, application on the instrument, and performance—culminate to achieve not only the technical demands of a contemporary composition but also that of the opportunity for individual interpretation at a greater level.
The five-step system—as described in Chapter 3 and applied to A Robot for a
Friend in Chapter 4—illustrates the significance in immersing one’s self into the fundamental core of a composition, and everything that surrounds it, prior to the start of physically preparing the composition. By approaching the second step of application with a very analyzed sense of thinking, the performer encompasses more about the work than could have be achieved through hours of repetitive technical preparation. With the analytical knowledge compiled through the five-step research system, the performer then has the ability to begin physical preparation of the composition with a rounded concept of what is to be achieved through the many hours of woodshedding and mastery of technique on the instrument.
Finally, by combining the new found knowledge on the composition and unfamiliar style, along with the physical preparation of the piece, the musician holds all of the tools necessary, old and new, to achieve a performance that will put forth the
22 message of the composer along with some individual interpretation to the audience whether for pleasure or competition.
This five-step method proved to be most successful for me during the preparation of Eric Ewazen’s Sonata No. 1 for Flute and Piano for the purposes of my graduate recital. While this composition is contemporary in age it felt more familiar in its compositional structures and styles than other compositions of its time. All five steps were applicable during the preparation of this composition—although some steps needed to be modified or adjusted. While communication with the composer was not accessible, the sole recording—performed by Marya Martin for whom the piece was commissioned—provided excellent insight as to what Ewazen was envisioning for the composition. Other aspects that enhanced the preparation process were Ewazen’s program notes preceding the composition detailing his thought process for each movement—including the reference to a song cycle he had previously composed that inspired the second movement.
Though the challenges of this composition were less technical and involved more musical interpretation, Viney’s five-step preparation process brought forth greater depth in the final performance than would have otherwise been achieved due to the culmination of the mental, physical, and finally emotional aspects that were required to achieve success with this composition for both the performer and audience members.
23
Works Cited
Carter, Ryan. A Robot for a Friend. Ryan Carter, 2014.
Carter, Ryan. “Composer.” 2015. www.ryancarter.org. Accessed April 16, 2016.
Carter, Ryan. Personal email communication. April 16, 2016.
Clark, Heather. Personal email communication. April 23, 2016.
Fiday, Michael. Personal email communication. May 4, 2016.
Kessner, Daniel. Personal email communication. April 17, 2016.
Kumaran, Ramakrishnan. Personal email communication. May 6, 2016.
“New Music Advisory Committee.” The National Flute Association. Last modified 2016. www.nfaonline.org/Committees/New-Music-Advisory-Committee/Index.aspx Accessed April 12, 2016.
“NFA Competition Information.” The National Flute Association. Last modified 2016. www.nfaonline.org/Annual-Convention/Competitions/ Accessed April 12, 2016.
Taub, Paul. “Living History: The National Flute Association Commissioning Program.” The Flutist Quarterly XXXVII, No. 2 (Winter 2012): 66-77.
Viney, Liam. “Preparing Stylistically Challenging Contemporary Classical Repertoire for Performance: Interpreting Kumari.” International Journal of Music Education vol. 33, (2015): 66-79. doi: 10.1177/0255761414528435.
24
Appendix A: List of Commissioned Works for the NFA Young Artist Competition
Year Composer Title
2015 Michael Fiday Jim & John 2014 Marcos Balter Batiment/debris 2013 Raminta Serksnyte Glimpses 2012 Gergely Ittzes Totem 2011 George Tsontakis Imagine 2010 Kristin P. Kuster Perpetual Afternoon 2009 Lisa Bielawa Gargoyles 2008 Wayne Horvitz Inside Morning 2007 Toshio Hosokawa Lied 2006 Paul Dresher Waterfall 2005 Bun-Ching Lam Lion D’Ici 2004 Harold Meltzer Giraffes 2003 Robert Dick [email protected] 2002 Dan Welcher Florestan’s Falcon 2001 Oliver Schneller Soleil 2000 Sebastian Currier Variations on “Time and Time Again” 1999 Rand Steiger bb 1998 Dean Drummond Precious Metals 1997 Arthur V. Kreiger Close Encounters 1996 Stephen Michael Gryc Shadowdance 1995 Donald Grantham Solitaire 1994 Laura Clayton Standing in a Field of Stars 1993 Paul Koonce On the Bias 1992 Lenny Pickett Blue Rondo 1991 Kathryn Alexander As Once the Winged Energy of Delight 1990 Robert Morris Traces 1989 Harry T. Bulow Inventions 1988 Shulamit Ran East Wind 1987 Chester Biscardi Traverso 1986 John Anthony Lennon Echolalia
25
Appendix B: List of Commissioned Works for the NFA High School Young Artist Competition
Year Composer Title
2015 Daniel Kessner Aria Adrift 2014 Ryan Carter A Robot for a Friend 2013 Berglind Tomasdottir Bambalo 2012 Leanna Primiani The Black Swan 2011 Greg Pattillo Three Beats for Beatbox Flute 2010 Jane Rigler InterPresence 2009 John C. Savage Impromptu 2008 Derek Charke WARNING! Gustnados Ahead 2007 Marco Granados Two Venezuelan Etudes 2006 Lydia Ayers Time’s Graffiti: Lucky Calligraphy 2005 Matthias Ziegler Morceau de Concours 2004 Maggi Payne Reflections 2003 Janice Misuerll-Mitchell Sometimes the City is Silent 2002 Geoffrey Kidde Night Flight 2001 Robert Cronin Off the Wall 2000 Elizabeth Brown Trillium 1999 Gary Schocker Short Stories 1998 Alejandro Escuer Jade Nocturno 1997 Cynthia Folio Arca Sacra 1996 John Fonville Venus Noodles 1995 Jennifer Higdon Song 1994 John Heiss Fantasia Appassionata, Episode IV 1993 Michael Colquhoun Charanga 1992 Anna La Berge Revamper 1991 Janice Misurell-Mitchell Uncommon Time 1990 Charles DeLaney …and the strange unknown flowers 1989 Robert Dick Lookout
26
Appendix C: Title Page of Interview and Participant Disclaimer
I, Charlotte Betry, am researching and collecting information for my graduate thesis entitled, “The Preparation of Commissioned Works for the National Flute Association’s Young Artist and High School Young Artist Competitions.”
My thesis will explore the different processes used to prepare a newly commissioned piece in contrast with preparing pieces that have already been standardized. Through interviews conducted with performers and composers of The National Flute Association’s Young Artist and High School Young Artist competitions, along with research of proper musical preparation, this thesis will explore the tools necessary to not only learn a new piece of music but to achieve greater understanding of the piece in a way that will make it successful in the competitive setting. My thesis is in partial fulfillment of the Master of Music degree in Flute Performance at California State University, Northridge. I greatly appreciate your participation in this portion of my research as it will help to combine first hand experiences with additional research and hopefully establish a successful way to compete with new works.
Charlotte Betry
Name: Commissioned Work: Please attach a biography.
By completing this questionnaire, you are authorizing the use of your answers in my graduate thesis. The final copy of the thesis will be available to the public on the California State University, Northridge Oviatt Library online database.
Signature: Date:
27
Appendix D: Performer Interview Questions
1. How many competitions have you participated in that have required you to learn a
commissioned piece? What competitions?
2. What has the timeframe typically been to learn the piece?
3. What resources have been given to you from the competitions to assist in learning
the piece(s)? How were these resources helpful in determining your success with
the piece?
4. What process do you follow when learning newly commissioned music?
5. Has the above process adapted over time through trial and error when competing
with these works? If yes, how so?
6. If you have performed commissioned works outside of the competitive setting
how has this preparation and performance been different than when it was for
competition?
7. How has the experience of preparing a commissioned work versus preparing
standard repertoire been different for you?
8. During the process of preparing these commissioned works have you had the
opportunity to work closely with the composer? If so, how do you feel this has
affected the final product of your performance?
9. In these competitions, have you been aware of who the adjudicators would be
prior to learning the piece? If so, how has this effected your preparation strategies
if at all.
10. Do you feel that there is a predetermined “correct” way for all competitors to
perform a commissioned work for competition or that rather the commissioned
28
work portion is the musician’s greatest opportunity to display their individual
interpretation of a piece that has yet to have one?
11. When extensive extended techniques have been involved in the piece(s), what has
been your strategy for learning and incorporating these techniques? Are they
learned as separate tools outside of the piece first or learned strictly within the
piece itself?
12. Do you prefer preparing pieces that hold less of a standardized way of
learning/performing as oppose to standard repertoire?
13. What have these new works, and often less traditional works, contributed to your
classical training? Have the two worlds of “old” and “new” music created an
interplay or are they strictly separate from each other in both preparation and
performance?
14. What has been your favorite commissioned works to prepare and perform? Why?
29
Appendix E: Composer Interview Questions
1. How many commissioned works have you composed for a competitive setting?
2. How were you chosen to compose the commissioned work for the National Flute
Association?
3. What guidelines were given to you upon receiving the commission? Were there
limitations or did you have the freedom to do as you wished?
4. What do you find to be most different when composing a commissioned work
(specifically for the competitive setting) versus composing a non-commissioned
work?
5. Does the fact that you are composing for a competition effect what you are likely
to compose? If yes, how so?
6. Are extended techniques a tool that you regularly use when composing a solo
piece?
7. Are extended techniques typically requested/required when commissioned by a
competition for their added difficulty to the piece?
8. Did you work closely with any of the musicians participating in the competition?
9. If you did work with the flutists preparing the piece, what insight were you able to
give the performers to assist in their preparations?
10. Did you provide the performers with an electronic recording of the piece? If so,
did the recording provide the performer with an accurate representation of what
was to be achieved or did it serve more as a guideline in the beginning stages of
preparation?
30
11. In what direction do you see flute repertoire moving towards? Are the seemingly
foreign extensive extended techniques used in many new pieces a movement
towards a new era that will also become a part of the standard repertoire in due
time? Or are they merely an effective tool for competitive nature?
12. As a composer, how would you direct a performer in their preparations of new
music that does not provide the same learning approach as much of the standard
repertoire in which they have become accustomed?
31
Appendix F: Interviews
Ramakrishnan Kumaran, Performer (May 6, 2016 – Email)
1. How many competitions have you participated in that have required you to learn a
commissioned piece? What competitions?
NFA Young Artist Competition, NFA High School Soloist Competition
2. What has the timeframe typically been to learn the piece?
4 months
3. What resources have been given to you from the competitions to assist in learning
the piece(s)? How were these resources helpful in determining your success with
the piece?
Computer-generated recordings and fixed-media tracks, reference recordings to
original-source compositional influences (Michael Fiday selected an Alan Lomax
field recording as the primary influence for his composition “Jim and John”.)
4. What process do you follow when learning newly commissioned music?
I listen to available recordings, briefly study the score and research the composer
to understand compositional and performance aesthetics. I then read the piece a
few times top-to-bottom, maintaining the chronology to establish a general sound
in my ear. I begin working difficult passages, training for requisite technique
along the way. I then reassemble the piece and exhaustively read it through in its
entirety, to memorize the sound I wish to reproduce in performance.
Reviving a work typically involves a higher level of theoretical score study and a
focus on memory and improvisation.
32
5. Has the above process adapted over time through trial and error when competing
with these works? If yes, how so?
I’m constantly assessing the effectiveness of my strategies during the rehearsal
process. I find that I’m a much more effective musician once I have a decided
vision for the piece (rather than planning to develop that vision through technical
work), so much more of my time, of late, has been spent understanding the driving
aesthetics and philosophy behind the compositions I play, and how those
foundations influence compositional and performative decisions.
6. If you have performed commissioned works outside of the competitive setting
how has this preparation and performance been different than when it was for
competition?
N/A
7. How has the experience of preparing a commissioned work versus preparing
standard repertoire been different for you?
No difference at all! I’m currently working on “Slow Fires of Autumn” by
George Rochberg, a piece written in 1980 but requiring as much work as any
more recent work I’ve played.
8. During the process of preparing these commissioned works have you had the
opportunity to work closely with the composer? If so, how do you feel this has
affected the final product of your performance?
Working with the composer means a heightened awareness with the emotional
and aesthetic circumstances that the piece is associated with. In the past, such a
33
collaboration hasn’t usually resulted in huge changes to my interpretation,
though I make it a point to open that door to any composer I work with.
9. In these competitions, have you been aware of who the adjudicators would be
prior to learning the piece? If so, how has this effected your preparation strategies
if at all.
N/A
10. Do you feel that there is a predetermined “correct” way for all competitors to
perform a commissioned work for competition or that rather the commissioned
work portion is the musician’s greatest opportunity to display their individual
interpretation of a piece that has yet to have one?
A healthy balance of both, though outside the competitive setting, my instincts
drive me toward the individual interpretation.
11. When extensive extended techniques have been involved in the piece(s), what has
been your strategy for learning and incorporating these techniques? Are they
learned as separate tools outside of the piece first or learned strictly within the
piece itself?
Percussive flutter-tonguing, tongue rams, key clicks, pitched singing while
playing. The techniques are learned in the context of the piece, but during the
rehearsal process I often devise flexibility exercises for myself.
12. Do you prefer preparing pieces that hold less of a standardized way of
learning/performing as oppose to standard repertoire?
Because my approach to performance itself is developing constantly, every piece
I’ve played has required a unique approach. The rehearsal process is one of
34
constant, exhaustive improvisation to find the strategies that work--the search is
everything! Standard rep or not, I hold that this attitude makes for a joyous
rehearsal process.
13. What have these new works, and often less traditional works, contributed to your
classical training? Have the two worlds of “old” and “new” music created an
interplay or are they strictly separate from each other in both preparation and
performance?
I apply technique across these (somewhat arbitrary) “genres” all the
time! Learning 18th-century aesthetics is as much an adventure as learning 21st-
century aesthetics, and each is a beautifully interdependent study.
14. What has been your favorite commissioned works to prepare and perform? Why?
Within a competition, Michael Fiday’s “Jim and John” allowed me the license to
play with abandon and still stay true to the spirit of the piece. With this piece in
particular, I was prepared to give an accurate AND effective performance.
Outside the competitive setting, I particularly enjoyed Michael Slayton’s London
Series, an indeterminate work that pushed my sensibilities for collaborative
composition.
Heather Clark, Performer (April 23, 2016 – Email)
1. How many competitions have you participated in that have required you to learn a
commissioned piece? What competitions?
I’ve only competed once when there was a commissioned piece required. This
was for the NFA Young Artist competition in 1994. I have played about 10
35
commissioned pieces in a professional setting, which includes a Woodwind
Quintet Concerto by David Newman and various chamber music pieces for new
music festivals.
2. What has the timeframe typically been to learn the piece?
The time frame can vary from a couple months to a couple weeks.
3. What resources have been given to you from the competitions to assist in learning
the piece(s)? How were these resources helpful in determining your success with
the piece?
With the NFA competition we were just given the music. No other resources were
offered. Sometimes in the professional setting we are given the contact info for
the composer.
4. What process do you follow when learning newly commissioned music?
I follow a similar process that I do with standard repertoire. I first play through
the piece to gage how difficult it is going to be to learn, and to single out the
problem spots. I also check all metronome markings to get an idea of the flow
and any other descriptive words the composer might have written in. If there are
a lot of extended techniques I will look over the composer’s notes to make sure I
am doing what is asked. After my initial run through, I get into the practice of the
piece, which along with right notes and rhythms includes woodshedding, marking
breaths, getting passages to tempo, and knowing the emotions that are in the
different sections. Then I like to start putting sections together and solidifying my
phrasing and what I want to say, or what I think the composer is trying to say
musically.
36
5. Has the above process adapted over time through trial and error when competing
with these works? If yes, how so?
My process adapted over time as I developed as a flutist, and certainly when I did
the competition I honed in on my skills. When I have limited time to learn a piece
you have to be efficient and productive.
6. If you have performed commissioned works outside of the competitive setting
how has this preparation and performance been different than when it was for
competition?
In my experience, my preparation and performance between competition and non-
competition works has been the same. The only difference may be the amount of
time I am given to prepare a piece but my process is the same.
7. How has the experience of preparing a commissioned work versus preparing
standard repertoire been different for you?
In some ways, learning new commissioned pieces can be much more creative
because you get to put your own emotional stamp on the piece. I won’t have any
preconceived ideas of how the piece is supposed to go. Often, you fully learn the
piece before the composer listens to you. Then he/she will comment on what you
are playing but for the most part it is your interpretation of what this person
wrote and they are hearing it for the first time. There is a lot more freedom.
8. During the process of preparing these commissioned works have you had the
opportunity to work closely with the composer? If so, how do you feel this has
affected the final product of your performance?
37
I have worked closely with some of the composers. It’s very helpful because you
can ask straight out, “Is this how you want it to sound?” The composer can give
you more description too of passages and I can give feedback if something could
be written in a better way to get the effect the composer wants.
9. In these competitions, have you been aware of who the adjudicators would be
prior to learning the piece? If so, how has this effected your preparation strategies
if at all.
In the NFA competition I did not know who the adjudicators were and it would
not have mattered to me. It always has to be about the music and how I want to
interpret the composer’s notes.
10. Do you feel that there is a predetermined “correct” way for all competitors to
perform a commissioned work for competition or that rather the commissioned
work portion is the musician’s greatest opportunity to display their individual
interpretation of a piece that has yet to have one?
I think the commissioned work is a great opportunity in a competition
setting. You are being compared back to back on the same piece and it is all
about interpretation. Everyone will have the notes and rhythms down, but it is the
phrasing, emotions and musicality that will set you apart from your
contenders. The judges are listening with fresh ears because they don’t even
know the piece yet.
11. When extensive extended techniques have been involved in the piece(s), what has
been your strategy for learning and incorporating these techniques? Are they
38
learned as separate tools outside of the piece first or learned strictly within the
piece itself?
I have done a few pieces with extended techniques and I learn them for the
specific piece. I’ve never spent a lot of time on my own practicing them.
12. Do you prefer preparing pieces that hold less of a standardized way of
learning/performing as oppose to standard repertoire?
I still really enjoy the standard repertoire. I guess you can’t teach an old dog
new tricks. Sometimes I feel that I spend so many hours on a new piece with little
pay off. That happens when I don’t connect with it emotionally.
13. What have these new works, and often less traditional works, contributed to your
classical training? Have the two worlds of “old” and “new” music created an
interplay or are they strictly separate from each other in both preparation and
performance?
I think the new works have helped me mostly with my studio work. It’s about
creating new sounds and new techniques and sometimes that is required on the
spot in a session. A composer may have a sound he wants but doesn’t know how
to write it. I can pull out of my arsenal something more contemporary sounding
to get the result he wants.
14. What has been your favorite commissioned works to prepare and perform? Why?
I really enjoyed learning the NFA commissioned work, Dancing in a Field of
Stars by Laura Clayton. In fact, I recorded it but never put it on my CD, because
I could not get ahold of her to get her approval. I think it’s a great piece. Also, I
enjoyed preparing and performing David Newman’s Wind Quintet Concerto. He
39
was great to work with and he’s an incredible musician. It was a collaborative,
creative and inspiring experience.
Daniel Kessner, Composer (April 17, 2016 – Email)
1. How many commissioned works have you composed for a competitive setting?
Only one: the new piece for the 2015 NFA High School Soloist Competition
2. How were you chosen to compose the commissioned work for the National Flute
Association?
I was apparently the top choice of the NFA New Music Committee, the group that
decides who receives the various commissions each year.
3. What guidelines were given to you upon receiving the commission? Were there
limitations or did you have the freedom to do as you wished?
I was told that the absolute limit on the duration of the piece was to be 5 minutes.
Other than that, I was free to write what I wanted. After I was offered the
commission, I consulted with Carla Rees, a member of the New Music Committee,
and she encouraged me NOT to write just another technical piece, of which there
are already hundreds. She thought it would be more important to give the young
players a different experience, something involving a more contemporary
language, and possibly incorporating some extended techniques. This definitely
helped me find the direction of the new piece.
4. What do you find to be most different when composing a commissioned work
(specifically for the competitive setting) versus composing a non-commissioned
work?
40
Whenever I compose, commissioned or not, I always picture the piece in
performance before I begin writing it. However, it can be any performance, with
any players, in any hall; my imagination can choose the setting freely. I believe
that picturing an eventual performance of the piece helps to get ideas flowing. In
the case of this particular commission, I forced myself to picture the competition
setting: a young flutist in front of a panel of judges, trying to do his or her very
best for them, and trying to bring something of their own to the interpretation of
the piece. Really, this was only a minor difference.
5. Does the fact that you are composing for a competition effect what you are likely
to compose? If yes, how so?
I don’t think I was affected by the competition aspect. I’m always trying to write
the most beautiful music I can. As a listener, I appreciate hearing good music in a
competition as much as in a concert, so I think the final goal is really the same.
6. Are extended techniques a tool that you regularly use when composing a solo
piece?
Actually, I didn’t really know the answer to this one immediately, so I did a little
survey. I have written a little more than 40 solo pieces (either unaccompanied or
with piano or electronic sounds), and it’s about half in which I have used
extended techniques of any kind.
7. Are extended techniques typically requested/required when commissioned by a
competition for their added difficulty to the piece?
In the case of my NFA commission, there was no such requirement; I used them
only to the extent that they seemed appropriate for the character of the piece.
41
8. Did you work closely with any of the musicians participating in the competition?
No, this would have been prohibited by the terms of the competition. The idea was
that each contestant would see the piece only a certain amount of time before the
competition, which would then become an aspect of the competition: learning the
piece in a specified time period.
9. If you did work with the flutists preparing the piece, what insight were you able to
give the performers to assist in their preparations?
(not applicable)
10. Did you provide the performers with an electronic recording of the piece? If so,
did the recording provide the performer with an accurate representation of what
was to be achieved or did it serve more as a guideline in the beginning stages of
preparation?
Again, no, as this would have worked against that aspect of the competition.
11. In what direction do you see flute repertoire moving towards? Are the seemingly
foreign extensive extended techniques used in many new pieces a movement
towards a new era that will also become a part of the standard repertoire in due
time? Or are they merely an effective tool for competitive nature?
I don’t see any larger trends in force. There are always new techniques being
added to the repertoire of every instrument. Some of them catch on and become
part of the standard technique. An example is flutter-tongue, which was quite
radical a hundred years ago, but which is standard nowadays. At any given
moment, there are traditional performers, and then there are those who push the
42
boundaries and discover new ways to make music on any given instrument. This
will likely continue.
12. As a composer, how would you direct a performer in their preparations of new
music that does not provide the same learning approach as much of the standard
repertoire in which they have become accustomed?
Actually, I’m a believer that preparing any music is about the same, whether it’s a
Bach flute sonata or a newly composed piece. First of all, the player needs to
learn how to produce the sounds called for in the score, whether it involves
learning notes and rhythms, learning how to produce a particular multiphonic, a
special harmonic tremolo, or whatever else may appear in the score. After that,
again, it’s the same process: making it all sound musical and beautiful.
Ryan Carter, Composer (April 16, 2016 – Email)
1. How many commissioned works have you composed for a competitive setting?
This is my only work composed specifically to be performed in a competition.
2. How were you chosen to compose the commissioned work for the National Flute
Association?
I don’t know how the NFA heard of me. As is often the case, I just got an email
asking if I would be interested in composing the work.
3. What guidelines were given to you upon receiving the commission? Were there
limitations or did you have the freedom to do as you wished?
43
The piece needed to be for either solo flute, flute and piano, or flute and
electronics. The duration was limited to (if I remember correctly) 5 minutes or so.
There were no further limitations.
4. What do you find to be most different when composing a commissioned work
(specifically for the competitive setting) versus composing a non-commissioned
work?
I’m not sure here whether you’re using the strictest definition of “commissioned”
(meaning that the project has funding secured at the time that the commission is
offered) or the frequently used, looser definition (i.e., that a performer, ensemble,
or presenter requests a piece and has no guaranteed funding, but will apply for
grants, etc.). Paid work tends to take priority in my composing schedule, but
otherwise I make no distinction between these. It’s rare that I work on projects
that don’t fall into one of these categories.
5. Does the fact that you are composing for a competition effect what you are likely
to compose? If yes, how so?
I did consider that this would be performed by very skillful high school students in
a competitive setting, and I included some showy, virtuosic material as well as
more lyrical material.
6. Are extended techniques a tool that you regularly use when composing a solo
piece?
I think of anything that an instrument and a person playing it can do as just a
“technique.” Instrumental practice continues to evolve, as it always has. I don’t
limit myself to instrumental techniques of, say, the 18th-century or to those
44
instrumental techniques that are most frequently encountered, so in that sense I
use “extended techniques.”
7. Are extended techniques typically requested/required when commissioned by a
competition for their added difficulty to the piece?
No, there is usually no mention of them in a commissioning contract.
8. Did you work closely with any of the musicians participating in the competition?
No, I didn’t work closely with any of the musicians because I didn’t want to give
an unfair advantage to any competitor. I did make myself available to answer
questions that the musicians had, and a few emailed me.
9. If you did work with the flutists preparing the piece, what insight were you able to
give the performers to assist in their preparations?
A couple competitors sent audio recordings of different ways to interpret a
passage, and I shared my reactions.
10. Did you provide the performers with an electronic recording of the piece? If so,
did the recording provide the performer with an accurate representation of what
was to be achieved or did it serve more as a guideline in the beginning stages of
preparation?
No.
11. In what direction do you see flute repertoire moving towards? Are the seemingly
foreign extensive extended techniques used in many new pieces a movement
towards a new era that will also become a part of the standard repertoire in due
time? Or are they merely an effective tool for competitive nature?
45
I see the flute repertoire (and music in general) continuing to move in many
directions at once. Some work will continue to use a traditional palette of
instrumental techniques and colors, while other work will continue to expand the
resources available to composers.
12. As a composer, how would you direct a performer in their preparations of new
music that does not provide the same learning approach as much of the standard
repertoire in which they have become accustomed?
For the flute, specifically, there’s a great book (that you probably know) by
Robert Dick: The Other Flute: A Performance Manual of Contemporary
Techniques and I would recommend this to any flutist who encounters an
unfamiliar technique or form of notation. There are similar resources for other
instruments.
Michael Fiday, Composer (May 4, 2016 – Email)
1. How many commissioned works have you composed for a competitive setting?
Only one. The NFA commission was my first for a competitive setting.
2. How were you chosen to compose the commissioned work for the National Flute
Association?
Through nomination. I’ve written several other works for flute previously (9
Haiku for flute/piano, 5 Haiku for flute/guitar, 5 Monochromatic Dances for flute
quartet) and as a result had the opportunity to work with a lot of flutists,
including Bart Feller, John McMurtery, Virginia Broffit, and Molly Barth. I
suppose this put me a bit on the “flute world radar,” which led to me being a
46
runner up several years before for the Young Artist Competition, then being
nominated and chosen last year. Molly Barth in particular is a close confidant,
and I believe she was on the panel that nominated me.
3. What guidelines were given to you upon receiving the commission? Were there
limitations or did you have the freedom to do as you wished?
The guidelines were fairly simple: the work could be for either solo flute or with
piano, the duration had to be no more than 6 or 7 minutes long, and it had to be
challenging for the performer. Beyond that I was free to do as I pleased.
4. What do you find to be most different when composing a commissioned work
(specifically for the competitive setting) versus composing a non-commissioned
work?
With non-commissioned you chose what kind of instrumentation you want to work
with, who you want to write for, and exactly what you want the piece to be. There
are limitations, of course, but you choose what those are going to be. With a
commissioned work the limitations are provided by the commissioner in terms of
instrumentation, duration, and sometimes concept. The motivation is also
different for each: with a non-commissioned work you’re writing for what you
want to write for, but the instrumentation for a commissioned work may not
initially strike you as ideal, so you have to create ways of getting yourself excited
in the project. When I was asked to write for flute and piano, for example, I
wasn’t exactly excited about the tradition of “solo instrument + piano
accompaniment,” so I had to think hard about different ways in which I could
reinterpret this tradition that I found fresh and exciting. Composing for a
47
competitive setting adds another layer of challenges on top of that: I was
informed that the participants would all be young, cream of the crop players from
the flute world, and so I had to be sure to write something that was challenging
enough for them, but do so in a way that was conceptually and compositionally
satisfying for me (i.e., not just another performer-jock show-off piece).
5. Does the fact that you are composing for a competition effect what you are likely
to compose? If yes, how so?
Yes. See above. At first I had thought “why not just write a nice slow movement,”
but then was informed that the work should really give the players something to
sink their teeth into, difficulty-wise. This led to a series of decisions. First, I
decided it should be a fast, propulsive, moto-perpetuo work (an important feature
of my style). Second, I returned to an idea and sketches from several years ago,
centering around writing a piece that had to do with an Alan Lomax recording I’d
heard of Southern blues musicians playing music on cane flute and drums. The
idea of collapsing both the melodic (cane flute) and percussive (field and bass
drums) elements into a single instrument excited me, and seemed like a good
solution to writing something that would be both challenging for the performer
and meaningful to me.
6. Are extended techniques a tool that you regularly use when composing a solo
piece?
Based on the few solo pieces I’ve written, I’d say yes. I work predominantly with
smaller to large ensembles, and so instrumental color is important to me, so I
always feel the need to expand the color palette of what an individual instrument
48
can do. Of course this comes with a qualifier: the use of the extended techniques
has to be closely integrated into the musical, conceptual and expressive fabric of
the work, not merely a showcase for “effects.” (I have a big distaste for what I
call “catalog” pieces, i.e. pieces whose main function is to show off the many
extended techniques possible on a given instrument.)
7. Are extended techniques typically requested/required when commissioned by a
competition for their added difficulty to the piece?
This is the only time I’ve been commissioned for a competition, so I wouldn’t be
able to say what’s “typical,” but my guess is that extended techniques are not
typically requested or required in such cases. The NFA certainly didn’t do so and,
beyond the initial simple guidelines mentioned earlier, basically left me to my
own devices.
8. Did you work closely with any of the musicians participating in the competition?
Yes. Molly Barth was my assigned “advisor” for the commission, given her
expertise with new music and experience performing other music of mine. I would
send her drafts of work in progress, and we had a few Skype sessions as well. I
also worked a little with Lisa Bost, who was the coordinator for the Young Artist
Competition. Input from both, especially from Molly, was tremendously valuable.
9. If you did work with the flutists preparing the piece, what insight were you able to
give the performers to assist in their preparations?
Though I did work a little with Lisa Bost in advance of her official premiere
performance of the piece at the NFA convention, I did not work with the
participants prior to the competition. This was a weird and wonderful thing: I just
49
had to show up and hear them do it! With Lisa we worked on things like getting
the right percussive sound for some of the extended techniques, and some
phrasing and tempo considerations. She was already very well prepared when I
first heard her, so there wasn’t really that much to say. For her, and other
performers afterwards, I’ve found it’s very helpful to tell them what the piece is
about, and send them YouTube clips of the Alan Lomax recording on which the
piece is based. That always gives them a sense of the “gritty” sound I’m looking
for in the piece.
10. Did you provide the performers with an electronic recording of the piece? If so,
did the recording provide the performer with an accurate representation of what
was to be achieved or did it serve more as a guideline in the beginning stages of
preparation?
No electronic recording was provided.
11. In what direction do you see flute repertoire moving towards? Are the seemingly
foreign extensive extended techniques used in many new pieces a movement
towards a new era that will also become a part of the standard repertoire in due
time? Or are they merely an effective tool for competitive nature?
I definitely see flute repertoire moving towards an era where extend techniques
are increasingly embraced as a means of exploding the sonic and expressive
capabilities of the instrument. All of these techniques have been in existence for
some time now, both in works by composers working in the 1960’s and 70’s
(Berio, Crumb, etc.), and through the work of performers working across various
diverse stylistic boundaries such as Robert Dick, Rahsaan Roland Kirk and Ian
50
Anderson. But the prominence of “beatbox” flute performance has become more
and more mainstream (I witnessed one of our freshman undergraduate
performers here at Cincinnati Conservatory demonstrating this technique in one
of my classes years ago), injecting an integral percussive element into solo flute
playing. In general I notice an encouraging trend, which is to steer away from
using these techniques merely as a vehicle for special effects, instead integrating
them inextricably into the musical whole.
12. As a composer, how would you direct a performer in their preparations of new
music that does not provide the same learning approach as much of the standard
repertoire in which they have become accustomed?
It’s important to give the performer an idea of what sound you’re looking for,
which may be altogether different from standard repertoire – not only do the
extended techniques sound right, but do you want a polished sound, a raw sound,
vibrato, non-vibrato, etc. Even outside of extended techniques there is such a rich
palette of different sounds available. I also think accurate rhythm and pulse are
more important (at least in my music) than they are in more standard works
where a more “elastic” approach to tempo is exercised. Most important, though,
is to first give the performer an idea of what the musical, expressive and
conceptual aims of the piece are, i.e. what the piece is “about.” This gives them
the big picture and prevents them from viewing such music as a mere exercise in
novelty. If the performer is as emotionally committed to playing your piece as you
were in writing it, it’s just way more fun for all involved.
51
Appendix G: Recital Program
52
53