What to do with all these new compositions on my desk?

It seems that once you become director of a chamber choir, you are immediately added to a list of conductors to whom composers from all over the world send PDF's and post mail samples of their works. In the last five years, I have accumulated about one hundred new compositions, and admittedly most of them are still in their envelopes, having never been looked at, and only one of those (after much persistence from the composer) I have programmed, and even that piece had been performed before by another choir before.

It's made me think a bit recently of what is it that attracts choral conductors to new works, and why it is that of the many compositions we receive each year, it is unlikely that any of them will actually be programmed ... ever.

Here are my thoughts. When a composer "gives" a work to a solo performer, the chances that the work will be performed seems somewhat higher (although I have no idea how much higher). Quite often, the solo performer IS the composer. However, when it comes to choirs and orchestras, you are dealing with a large number of people, a board of directors, and a fairly consistent audience base. The risk of performing an unsuccessful work has implications that affect a great number of people.

So how do artistic directors choose "new" music? Often music that is premiered at conferences such as Podium, or ACDA conferences will have an effect on a large number of conductors. Reading sessions at these conferences as well are a great way to see a host of new works, and sing them through with other conductors. Recordings and live broadcasts of new works will likely get a second glance. After that, once a composer has a reputation of being a fine choral composer, they open up doors for commissions - which in my experience is where the highest number of "world premiere" performances come from. Since I've been with Da Camera, we have performed two commissions, and have another coming this year. The main reason for this is they look great on grant applications. Plus there is also nothing quite like the incentive of putting money into to something that will see a project through to its completion.

How many compositions have you performed of works that you have received by email or post mail? What percentage of new works that you perform are commissions? What is the best outlet for you to find "new" music?

To vibrate, or not to vibrate - that is the question.

It's been debated on many different levels, and by musicologists and conductors who have much more authority on the subject than I do, but the question of "should we use vibrato" and other performance practice issues, particularly in the singing and playing of Bach always seems to come up in conversation, and everyone has an opinion on it.

Kenneth Woods over at "A view from the podium" delivers this interesting insight in the music of Edward Elgar - which to me can be easily transfered into the ranks of the playing of Bach through Mozart and the like.

I commented on that post already, but felt that a post of my own was warranted.

For a while now, the recordings of Bach which claim to be "Historically Accurate" have bothered me for some reason. I'm always left asking myself if it was worth it. To go through all that trouble to try to recreate a sound which no one can claim to be 100% accurate. In some cases the recordings to me come out calculated, and bland. There are some exceptions, but I won't go naming these recordings as that isn't the point of this exercise, but instead offer the following argument.

Is there a difference between "Historically Accurate" and "Historically Informed"? for example, can a choir of two hundred singers and an equally mammoth orchestra perform Handel's Messiah and call it "Historically Informed" considering they've taken the time to prepare the score with a sense of Baroque style, articulation, and nuance even though the performing forces are too large, and the instruments too "new"?

The question of vibrato, I think, is answered so well in Kenneth Woods' post:

I can’t help but feel that in all music the “non-vibrato sempre” method is a weak-minded cop-out, an easy way to avoid thinking about whether, when, why and how to vibrate, a process which demands an awareness of harmony, instrumentation, color and taste. It stops the process of thinking, listening, responding and contemplating sound dead in its tracks.

How can we expect modern players to remove vibrato without removing the soul of their performance? I'm not saying we should be adding "Bel Canto" vibrato or rubato into the music of Bach, but we should not be afraid to let the instruments sing.

There is also evidence that early keyboard players did not use their thumbs! Why don't we ask our organists and harpsichordists to do the same? Because it would probably take away from the musical ability of the performer - which to me is like removing the left-hand vibrato motion of the string player.

Carpentry Interlude

While the stereo played Handel's "Solomon", I spent my holiday Monday building a 96 bottle wine rack for our newly established wine cellar.

Note - there are no IKEA manuals to be seen - just wood, tools and screws.

And they say musicians aren't handy ...