Recently, I premiered a new piece for violin, trumpet, bass clarinet and piano at the Seattle Pianist Collective’s: Fine Pop concert. My preparations for it made me confront one of the reasons I started this blog. Does serious music have a responsibility to entertain? As I set out to write the piece I told myself that I would balance my desire to write a progressive piece with something that could be more or less accessible. I wanted to write a serious piece of music that entertained. So, I says to myself, what makes a piece of music accessible and entertaining? I distilled it down to 3 main reasons: Melody, Form/Mood, and Repetition. Melody: the more more vocal and of distinct rhythm, the more we are apt to be engaged by it. Form/Mood: I put these together because I feel they are very related. Form takes us on a journey, paints a picture, makes us experience the passage of time in a new or different way. In music we experience form in many ways. Through melody and it’s development, rhythm and it’s development, though texture change, through orchestration manipulation, etc, and all of the above. In a great piece I feel that most of us feel the form as evolution of emotion. How a mood is introduced and developed and how it is used to make us feel a story like in a movie or a play. Debussy’s Claire de Lune, Pink Floyd’s Shine On You Crazy Diamond, and Charles Mingus’ Moanin’ are some examples. Repetition: as simple a concept as any good pop tune… You gotta hear that hook a few times.
With these things in mind I came up with a piece that has a strong simple melody, pop-like supporting riffs and a couple subtle references to punk rock and hip-hop duo Luniz. But there are some twists and turns. Sometimes a few disparate simple things come together to make a weirder sounding whole. Sometimes two different harmonies clash. Check it out. This is one of my first conscious attempt at “serious” music being entertaining.
Chimpromtu
By M. Owcharuk. Performed by Paris Hurley-violin, Samantha Boshnack-trumpet, Beth Fleenor-bass clarinet, Michael Owcharuk-piano.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
We performed it at the Chapel Performance Space on 6/18/10. On the Seattle Pianist Collective bill was Peter Stevens performing his own music, Kelly Wyse performing the work of local composers Hanna Benn and Jeff Aaron Bryant, Stephen Fandrich performing his own work, and yours truly performing Chimpromptu (kudos to Sam Boshnack for that title) and a solo piano piece called Kimberly’s Waltz, which you can hear at the music page of this site. The night of the concert, first order of business was to breach the 4th wall. Performers connected to the audience from the stage. Peter spoke about his pieces and their development. This was parlayed in a very easy-going, personable manner. Stephen relayed some really charming anecdotes about his pieces. I spoke about how Sam Boshnack stumbled upon the title of my piece (originally named Impromptu). Finally, we four pianists closed with Four Play, an intentionally humorous piece composed by Roger Nelson. Basically it is 4 pianists fighting for position on 1 piano. A comedy that presented some interesting technical challenges. Very cute.
What this whole experience showed me is that serious art can be entertaining. If not a particular piece of music on the program, the presentation of the concert can give an overall sense of entertainment. Anecdotes, contextualizing the music, and the mood created by the performers’ stage presence, all have a huge impact on the entertainment value. Even when more esoteric music is being presented. Now, does serious music have a responsibility to entertain? Well, I don’t think I can judge what art can and cannot do. But I do think the serious music seriously benefits from being framed in an entertaining way. Either implicitly (as in a whole concert program) or explicitly (as in Roger Nelson’s piece) It is safe to say that the most entertaining things somehow appeal to our intellect. The most hysterical comedy is usually the most intellectually engaging (and drawn from reality). Taking serious musical concepts that might not be readily digestible and presenting them in an inviting way will greatly contribute to the piece’s success. At the very least, the audience will be far more likely to give it the attention it deserves. From that point there is only better and better kinds of reception. Everybody wins.
There are so many reasons we find things entertaining. That is a huge topic in an of itself. For me it really boils down to an ineffable humanity. Serious art can present bold, progressive, alien, disturbing, challenging, and /or controversial ideas and concepts. The successful ones have that thing that makes you say: “I relate to that and it makes me think about x,y,or z a different way.” I think all forms of entertainment share that basic quality.
It was a great experience. First we all met and the kids asked me questions about my influences and what I do. Then, they brainstormed different ideas for me to use in the composition. We got: write a 5 voice fugue (I got in a grand exposition!), distribute main melodic materials between the different instruments (violin, viola, violoncello, double bass, piano), use an odd meter, and include some indie rock/pop elements and sounds. Well, that was quite an inspirational happening. I immediately set to writing on the piece and finished the bulk of the work in about 2 weeks, managing to put all those elements in there.
