Report — Alexander Blank

Composer/Performer Orchestration Research Ensemble Report

Alexander Blank
5 April 2020 MUGS 675D2

ACTOR CORE-EROC Reflection

The past two semesters have provided an opportunity to try new techniques and methods for the creation of a timbrally-focused piece. Specifically, when writing Flow as my contribution to the CORE ensemble collaboration, I drew upon insights gained during the course’s introductory and investigative phases to create a piece that explores the spectrum of colors and textures available when prioritizing extremely quiet distonic and complex sound sources.

To summarize the actions and results of the investigative phase, I used the first rehearsal as a laboratory to create systems of progressively evolving timbre by asking the performers to interpret a collection of musical parameters that either changed or remained constant over a span of 40 sec- onds. Specifically, four unspecified “parts” were created as a table where each row dictated a pa- rameter and each column served as a timing markers in five second increments; furthermore, these parameters included general range, texture, volume, and timbral quality (“pure,” “distonic,” or “complex”). Most importantly, each part included direction to either blend or avoid blending with another specified part, which had been given intentionally contradictory directions. These direc- tions, when properly followed, created a situation where each performer functioned simultaneously as a causal and reactive agent within a constantly evolving texture of sound. The second short in- vestigative rehearsal expanded the exercise by exploring potential permutations of duos and trios, and each experiment provided a collection of sound material to use within the culminative piece, Flow. More importantly, these two exercises were designed to provide a sense of the range of tech- niques that each of the participating performers prefered or found comfortable when afforded the agency to do so.

For the longer block of rehearsal time during the investigation phase, I took a different route, instead opting to use the session to explore various mute and reed designs, as well as using a strip of tin foil threaded between the violin’s strings (near the bridge), in as many timbral combinations as time allowed. The compositional material presented in this session prioritized finding and broad- ening the range of orchestrational possibilities for very soft, subtle, and delicate textures. At its core, the unconventional mute and reed designs were intended to solve particular blending challenges endemic to the trombone and bass clarinet, respectively, which were further foregrounded by the size and heterogeny of the overall ensemble. (To wit, these designs attempted to minimize certain distinguishing features of each instrument in an attempt to bring their output more in line with the violin and bowed vibraphone.) Similarly, the foil preparation of the violin’s strings functioned as an attempt to add complexity to its sound. The experiment presented relative success regarding the trombone mutes and clarinet reeds, but I found the results of the foil preparation inconvenient, unconvincing, and unreliable, and felt that it was necessary to find an alternative means of achieving the desired timbral characteristics in the violin part.

I often find that each new project becomes a response to the projects which have preceded it. The reality of life imposes limitations that prevent one from fully investigating the ramifications of each available choice within the context of a single piece of music, and just as a chess player must carefully manage their time and commit to the strongest perceived choice available, so too must the composer when writing a piece while subject to a deadline. Often—like in chess—the unexplored alternatives offer entirely new combinations of logical possibilities, each replete with further vari- ations.

Flow is no different in this regard, further exploring formal design opportunities first pre- sented while writing my second string quartet (from 2017-2018). Additionally, Flow was a response to my work researching strategies for coupling harmonic, timbral, and orchestrational parame- ters—also explored in Memoriam (2019)—extended to each independent part while retaining a sense of inter-instrumental cohesion. When developing, writing, and rehearsing Flow, several in- triguing trees of formal decisions had to be left uninvestigated due to time constraints. As a result, these compositional choices will serve as the basis for additional independent research and will likely spawn additional projects in the coming months and years.

For example, the timbral challenges encountered while writing Flow have presented new questions and opportunities for further compositional research and exploitation. As specified in the proposal I submitted at the end of the first semester, Flow’s use of timbre in the violin part ad- heres to a relatively strict set of processes which also govern the formal architecture of the part itself. Though I often write music that incorporates one or more unknown variables (and further, would argue that it is necessary to do so to contribute to an artistic research practice, as well as to grow and develop one’s craft), I always approach each unknown variable with at least one known, ac- ceptable substitute as a contingency in the event that the original approach fails to meet expectation. During the first weeks developing Flow’s timbral roadmaps, the effectiveness and playability of sin- gle-string violin multiphonics was an unknown variable, despite having used the technique in sev- eral pieces for cello and double bass. Consequently, the initial precompositional structuring of the piece included the technique, but hedged this risk by cultivating and using a series of other sounds of varying degrees of similarity.

However, I found myself drawn to the options afforded by the use of single-string multi- phonics, especially after working with Jeanne Côté in advance of the first rehearsal in early January. Due to her diligent research and practice over the course of the winter break, the technique afforded a greater realm of timbral expression and musicality than I had anticipated. I am convinced that an entire solo piece could be constructed solely from the technique, and although I have not yet been able to draft a proposal to Jeanne, I plan to reach out to her in the coming weeks to suggest a possible collaboration in which I would write a piece for her based almost entirely upon delicate treatment of single-string multiphonics. Furthermore, while I do not plan to write another string quartet in the near-term, having written two within the last five years, I imagine that I might use the technique extensively the next time I do so, assuming the myriad circumstances surrounding the creation of such a piece are favorable.

Concerning the topic of reeds, I am deeply grateful to Elia Foster and to the ACTOR project for providing the space in which I could explore ways to expand the breadth of available colors to the bass clarinet via reed design. Obviously, this is the sort of work that is not immediately applicable to a broad swathe of future projects, especially as the research was narrowly aimed at solving or- chestrational challenges imposed by the particular instruments of this ensemble, their placement onstage, and the aesthetic preoccupations of the piece itself. Though the work in this area has ad- mittedly few potential avenues for further exploration in the near-term, I would still characterize it as worthwhile and necessary within the scope of Flow’s development; although the unfortunate circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic prevented further refinement and testing of how the reed designs functioned within the context of the full ensemble, individual rehearsals and testing with Elia as well as limited independent testing showed relative success. On this point, it is also worth noting that, should Flow be presented in concert in the future, either with McGill’s CORE ensemble or any other group of performers, this work will be able to continue. On a personal level, this exer- cise engaged with my previous training as a bassoonist and reed maker, satisfying a musical con- nection that had otherwise been partially neglected in the years after a performance-related injury.

The investigation of mute designs will undoubtedly be useful in future pieces. As is the case with the bass clarinet reed designs, the research into constructing trombone mutes within Flow doesn’t immediately suggest new pieces centered around their fabrication or use, but has been quite informative all the same; it is probable that, in the course of writing future pieces for ensembles, I may draw upon this experience to address orchestrational needs as they arise. Particularly, while the final designs both featured polystyrene construction, I also investigated several other construc- tion materials including clay and wood. While I was not able to fully pursue options using 3D- printing for the final piece due to time and financial constraints, the knowledge gained in this field should prove rewarding as the technology becomes more accessible.

It should also be noted that I found the creativity of the other composers, in addition to that of the performers, to be inspiring, despite being initially nervous about the challenges imposed by the instrumentation of the ensemble. The ways in which each composer approached those chal- lenges resulted in continually surprising responses, ultimately resulting in widely varying pieces.

Reflecting further upon other elements of the course across both semesters, I would like to take a moment to articulate a few small considerations in the event that this collaborative course is offered again. As I stated during the second video interview this past February, I feel as though the course could have easily been structured as a traditional three-hour seminar meeting every week for the same two terms rather than for only 90 minutes every week, and for six credit-hours rather than three. This would be beneficial to the composers and performers in several key areas: firstly, the introductory presentations on compositional, perceptual, notational, and performance issues, as well as the presentation on aural sonology, were good introductions to their respective topics but I felt as though they only scratched the surface and covered material with which I was already familiar. Additionally, I greatly appreciated the provided readings, which partially satisfied the con- cerns I felt regarding the brevity of each lecture, but again I felt as though there was room for ad- ditional depth. Specifically, I would have preferred more articles (or even a list of sources for further reading). More importantly, I believe that it would have been useful for all the student participants to have in-class discussions in which we could reflect upon the content of the articles, identify any potential flaws in their methodology or thesis, and discuss their ramifications from our varied per- spectives as composers and performers.

Extending the length of each seminar would equally benefit the rehearsal process, particu- larly in that it would provide composers more laboratory time with which to experiment and refine ideas for their pieces, as well as give the ensemble more time to understand their role within the context of each piece. The two approximately 90-minute rehearsals were beneficial and afforded quite a bit of feedback, but I found that the structure of the rehearsals discouraged addressing issues or questions that concerned only one member of the quartet; although I understand that it is often better to address these points in brief rehearsals and practice sessions outside of class, I was hesitant to request individual meetings with performers to test mute or reed prototypes, as I felt that doing so might be asking too much of their time. Additionally, when meeting outside of class, performers also expressed the desire for a longer seminar duration, noting that the ensemble collectively felt a need to meet and rehearse the day before each class in order to be able to maximize each composer’s time to workshop alternative ideas.1

1. I would like to take this opportunity to further commend the student performers for their dedication to the project and for their patience with the composers.

Finally, I felt as though there could be some alterations to the guidelines and requirements of the final project itself, should this opportunity be offered in future semesters. As discussed earlier, I believe that the students would benefit from an expanded introductory phase, but even with the current structure, the six-week creation phase felt quite rushed. I can only speak for myself, but even as a student taking no other courses this semester other than major-field lessons, the task of researching, planning, writing, notating, and revising an 8–10 minute piece in six weeks (or rather, in ten weeks, as I spent the majority of the winter break prototyping, doing the critical pre-com- positional plotting, and writing the first sketches which led to the 30 bars used in my first rehearsal in the second week of the semester) felt daunting.2 As an alternative, it may be worth considering altering the length requirements to allow for shorter pieces. For example, a range of 6–10 minutes could allow composers to write more material without feeling the need to include it, letting them explore possibilities more deeply and take calculated risks without the worry of squandering limited composition time. Furthermore, this change would reduce the potential for situations in which the delivery of parts and score might be delayed, as there would be more time for engraving, part-making, and proofreading, which are labor-intensive and time-intensive tasks, even after note entry has been completed.

Despite losing the last month of rehearsals and both planned performances due to the pan- demic, this course has notably affected the ways in which I conceptualize timbral elements. The course’s cyclical approach to composition and rehearsal fostered an environment in which I felt free to pursue experimental ideas, without the inherent risks of doing so under a more traditional compositional model. Furthermore, the combination of the ACTOR project’s guiding philosophy and the CORE ensemble’s idiosyncratic instrumentation presented challenges that required careful planning, flexibility, and creative solutions which directly shaped Flow’s outcome. Looking forward, insights gained during this course will undoubtedly impact my future artistic research.

2. Admittedly, this may have been exacerbated by the ambitious nature of Flow, which required considerable time to design, construct, and test mutes using various materials, as well as modifying and refining reeds for Elia.