Eliazer Kramer — CORE Interview

CORE Interview, 21 Oct 2019

Eliazer Kramer 

Unidentified Interviewer (UI): The ACTOR Project supposes that what is generally called timbre as what is created and structured by orchestration can have similar functions to the ones that harmonic and temporal structures have occupied historically. If you agree with that, would you have a creative answer, a creative response linked to that idea, which would apply to the instrumental context of the CORE quartet?

Eliazer Kramer (EK): Yeah, I guess it can have that function. One can structure a piece based on timbre, rather than harmony or melody. For instance, the first section of the piece could be harsher or rounder or more metallic; one could create an overall structure based on these descriptive words that we’ve been associating with timbre. As far as the CORE ensemble, I don’t know if it is much more different than that: one can structure the piece on the timbres available to the ensemble. I wouldn’t say that something strikes me for this particular ensemble.

UI: Alright. So, hence the diversity of the CORE quartet, as opposed to the homogeneity of a string quartet, for example, in terms of timbre and sounds. In what way would you be able to take advantage of the instrumentation, and how do you think you can use it efficiently in a creative context?

EK: I think that it gives the opportunity to really showcase the different layers and the different strata available to the ensemble. With a string quartet, one can certainly distinguish the different instruments, but there is also an inherent blend because they’re all string instruments. What’s interesting with this ensemble is that very diverse things can happen at the same time and be quite discernible, as each instrument has such an individual voice. Especially if the instruments are used in the registers in which they sound unique. The ensemble presents a lot of opportunities for variety, which may allow the listener to hear new elements during every listen. I think that counterpoint offers rich possibilities for this ensemble because of the discernability of the voices and unique sounds one can create.

(4:00)

UI: Well, you just kind of talked about opportunities, but what are, for you, the specific opportunities that this ensemble offers, given your role as a composer? If there are any.

EK: It’s not so much the ensemble. Most ensembles allow for rich counterpoint. This one specifically is interesting because the instruments are so different. All ensembles offer composers the framework to make a piece of music. I think that the opportunities of this ensemble have more to do with the ACTOR project itself, and that we’re, I think, expected to have this focus on timbre and on orchestration. Even though we were told that no specific style is enforced, there is a lot of emphasis put on timbre and texture. And that will be quite challenging for me because they are not things that I usually think about. It’s an interesting opportunity to turn my compositional process upside down, and try to compose a piece in a way that I haven’t before. So, I’m both excited and kind of worried about it.

UI: Uh-huh, I see. Well then, what would be to you the challenges, whether they may be technical or musical, that this…the question is about the ensemble, but you kind of answered that…

EK: Yeah, my answers are a bit mixed up.

UI: No, no, it’s totally fine. Would you see any specific challenges of this ensemble, as a composer? And would you have potential strategies to face these challenges with this specific instrumentation?

EK: The only challenges I see are due to my ignorance. I haven’t written much for vibraphone, so it will be challenging to get a good understanding of the instrument. I’ve written for the other ones. There are aspects about the bass clarinet that I might not be so knowledgeable on. I don’t think that the ensemble itself really presents a challenge. Some people mentioned that the “trombone’s so loud,” but you just have to use your ear. I don’t think it’s going to be much different than writing for another ensemble. It’s more about the kind of writing, it’s the focus on timbre, that unknown territory. I mean, there’s timbre and there’s timbre. We’re trying to push ourselves. I can’t say that I’m going to push timbre because too much has been done already. But as far as pushing myself, that’s the challenge. The ensemble itself is just four instruments.

(7:51)

UI: Okay. So what will be your approach to compose, knowing that there may be a possible imbalance in terms of sound power, presence and volume between the instruments? What would be your approach to make sure that, to compose with that in mind?

EK: Well, because we will work closely with the performers, the cautious thing to do, at least at first, is to experiment with the different registers and the combinations of instruments. For example, when is an instrument overpowered in a certain register? I think that we’re going to have enough time with the performers to see if there are any issues, and then we’ll work through them. A similar problem is figuring out whether an instrument is actually adding something to a passage even if you can’t quite make it out. If I can’t hear someone, I’ll ask them to stop playing, and then see what the result is. It’s kind of like, in some jazz ensembles, when one only notices that the double bass has been playing once it stops. Or at the beginning of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, one can’t always hear the clarinets, but they do add something to it. I think those situations are going to be a bit more challenging.

UI: So we’re gonna talk about blend, like sonic blend and timbral blend. If you keep in mind the goal of obtaining sonic blend or timbral blend, would you have examples or ideas of sounds that could be produced by the instruments of the ensemble that you think can combine to produce new emerging sounds?

EK: When you say new emerging sounds, do you mean just sounds that we haven’t heard before? Or the combination of sounds that create another sound? I wouldn’t say that I can do anything that hasn’t been heard before. That would be great, but I’m not cocky enough to say that. But yeah, there’s a lot of combinations, I gave some examples in the classes. A lot of them had to do with extending resonance. I think I mentioned that if you have a vibraphone, or if you play on the vibraphone with a bow, and then you support that with harmonics on the violin, and even a multiphonic on the clarinet, then you can create a thin-sounding blend, or even just air noise on the trombone, you get a thin kind of sound. In my mind, those are all thin sounds. So, what are thicker sounds? I think an interesting way to figure that out is just to categorize different sounds. I know that wasn’t really the question, but I think that’s going to be my process of figuring it out. Another idea is to deconstruct attacks. A note struck on the vibraphone with a hard mallet will produce a bit of a percussive sound followed by resonance. One could blend or reinforce that with percussive sounds in the clarinet and by extending the resonance with sustained notes in the trombone. None of this is innovative, but it’s sort of off the top of my head. There are also simple things, like using complementing articulations. Something like flutter tongue on the trombone can be reinforced by a heavy tremolo on the violin or flutter tongue on the clarinet or tremolos on the vibraphone because they are all kind of related. If you find sounds that are related then they’ll probably blend, if they are in complementing registers.

(13:04)

UI: I see. Well now on the contrary of blending, if we talk about sound separation, if you try to avoid blending, do you have examples of sounds that can be produced by the instruments of the ensemble that in your opinion, could ensure that there is the perception of sounds that are really separate? Like, what would be the timbral territories that would distinguish instruments from others?

EK: So is it that you have simultaneous timbres or that one can distinguish the instruments or both? Because if the instruments just play in different registers, well then one will be able to distinguish them, but I don’t imagine that that’s really what…

UI: I think the question here is more like, in your position, if you want to make sure that the audience is able to separate each instrument very specifically, what kind of sounds or what kind of…where would you go to make it happen?

EK: I think it’s tough to answer because it depends so much on the context of the passage, because all the things I just said that might achieve a blend can also be used to achieve this kind of separation, it depends on the dynamic. It seems to me that harsher sounds will be more discernable because the qualities of the instruments become a little bit more defined or limited. If all four instruments play different kinds of techniques then they probably won’t blend. It could simply be a question of how fast the instrument is playing. One will probably be able to distinguish the instruments if they play contrasting rhythms and melodic patterns. Obviously, if every instrument’s playing the same rhythm, it’s going to be harder, but it really depends on the context. You can create blend by choosing specific dynamics, by choosing a specific speed, and you can make that same thing not blend by changing the dynamics or the speed. I’m not exactly sure if I know how to answer the question, other than that there are a lot of possibilities.

UI: There’s a lot to experiment. Well the next question is kind of a mix of the two questions I just asked, where, how would you think it would be possible to go from a texture where there’s a clear separation of instrumental sound that is perceived to another combination where individual sounds gather and blend into specific textures, and vice versa, how would you evolve between the two situation?

(16:50)

EK: I think the first one. If one exploits the registers of the instruments where, it sounds stupid to say, but the instruments sound like themselves, or if one assigns each to a different register, the bass clarinet is low, the trombone is in the middle, the violin is high, and the vibraphone’s wherever it is because it sounds like a vibraphone. If they all do something contrapuntal that collapses on itself by moving to register in which they blend, let’s just say, closer and closer to middle C. So, you’re basically going outward to inward, and within that, you could have something very active, and, again, this is where, you know, speed and dynamic plays a role. So it is loud while active, and then it gets softer while the ensemble moves closer and closer together, until you just have sustained notes. That can be an idea. I don’t want to say, “for the opposite, just do the opposite.” I’d like to think of a way that the opposite would work. I’m not sure, I think that if you start playing with the rate at which the notes change, or the wavering of a note. The rate of vibrato could increase in the violin, the movement in the trombone and clarinet could increase gradually. That’s probably going to blend because they’re all doing the same thing. Let’s just say you can do the opposite: from sustained notes in the same register to increased movement with more space between them.

(19:21)

UI: Yeah, this is something that could be tried.

EK: I think, absolutely.

UI: See if it works.

EK: I think it’s like finding that sweet spot where all the instruments meet and have some common territory? And it’s difficult because, like, on the violin, the lowest note’s the G and it has a very unique sound. I think as you approach middle C, you arrive at this sort of sweet spot. And notationally, it’s challenging because it’s like composing for an orchestra. A lot of people do, but if you just write forte for the whole orchestra, well then maybe your brass will overpower the rest. Writing the dynamics is going to be such a meticulous task, especially when the instruments are in the same register. The difference between mezzo piano in the violin and piano in the trombone might make a huge difference. I feel like I went on a rant.

UI: No, no, absolutely not. This question is kind of the same, it’s in the same range as the one before, but more from one instrument to the other instead of the whole ensemble, but, in your opinion, which sounds would allow transitions between the sound of a specific instrument and another one, in order to create a timbral sequence, which would be either homogeneous or fragmented?

EK: Which sounds from one instrument to another could create a kind of blend?

UI: Blend or separation.

EK: At the risk of repeating myself, I’ll say that anything that plays off the resonance of another instrument. I’ll give my stupid example of bowing—use a rubber ball on a gong or something, and then from that decaying sound, at a certain point, the clarinet can enter from nothing and pick up the sound and pass it off to the violin, or something like that. You could also use harmonics to extend the overtones that you hear from those extended techniques. And then the other part was how it could be fragmented? Well, I think that if you just interrupt—I don’t have a good answer for that.

(22:47)

UI: That’s fine.

EK: I probably don’t have a good answer for the other things, but I don’t have a good answer for that.

UI: It’s alright! Anyway, sometimes some of the things that I’ve been saying before kind of answer the question somehow. I feel sometimes that some of the questions are kind of repeating what other people said, but it’s how it’s made. So if we talk more about the voicing of the instruments, in which way do you think different voicing dispositions of one same vertical sound would affect the musical tension in the way it’s perceived?

EK: If you have a specific chord, like a four-note chord, the trombone playing a C above middle C has different expressive possibilities than a violin playing there. It may sound louder or tenser. It depends on the range of the instruments. There is a register in each instrument that sounds warmer and other areas that sound colder or harsher. You could give the chord a colder voicing by assigning the notes in the icy part of a given instrument’s range. If you were to voice a C major chord, let’s say, with the trombone on top, followed by the clarinet, followed by the vibraphone and the violin, it would sound much more tense and harsh or cold than if you voiced it from top to bottom with the violin, vibraphone, clarinet, trombone. I guess there won’t be many C major chords.

UI: Who knows? So today Julie talked about this DSR curve, and this question is about attack and sustain. So let’s say, if all of the instruments start playing at the same time, and one of the instruments produces a short length sound, while the others continue further than the first one, which sound of the three instruments producing the longer tones could be used as timbral extensions or resonances of the shorter instrumental sound?

(26:05)

EK: Well, that depends on what the short sound is and it depends on the register. I can imagine if you pizz a low G, the clarinet would be the best choice to take over its resonance. I can sort of hear the clarinet a bit on the open G string. If the vibraphone plays a high note, it might be better to have a violin take it over. Not entirely sure, because so much depends on the sound, you know, if it’s a short sound, what is a short sound? If it’s a percussive sound, I’m not exactly sure how you extend that, maybe you’d need to use a sound without a defined pitch. So, just stupidly, I’ll say that with a percussive sound, one can use air noise, but I don’t know. I’m not sure because it’s so case-specific. But I think that it could definitely be done. If you think of deconstructing attacks…this isn’t going to blend at all—if the trombone produces a short attack, then the clarinet could serve as its extension by using air noise. No, I’m not entirely sure.

UI: Okay, it’s alright…Sorry, I’m getting a bit tired, also. So how would the sound combinations created by these instruments could be used to obtain different types of musical segmentation, so that they could sustain the structure of themes, phrases, sections, or any other musical unit?

EK: To be honest, I read this question and I’m not completely sure I understood it. Would you mind just saying it a different way?

UI: For me, it’s also difficult because I try to understand it, and it’s a tricky one.

EK: I feel like it’s related to the question on timbre and structure. What’s the question again?

UI: Sorry, I translated it from French, but it’s like, in which way sound combinations created by these instruments could be used to obtain different types of musical segments, so that you could sustain the structure of phrases, motives, sections, or any other musical unit?

(29:42)

Yuval Adler (YA): That’s a bit dense. It’s like, is this about timbre as a form-bearing thing, or is this about maintaining continuity between timbral blends, I’m not sure.

EK: I’m going to read the question once more because I felt at one point, I had sort of an answer…

YA: You can choose to interpret that question however you want.

UI: Yeah, it’s open.

EK: I think that might be one part of the answer is that one can structure the piece based on timbre. One section can go from maybe harsh, icy kinds of sounds to rounder and warmer ones, and then maybe one can develop the thematic or motivic material based on what that texture is. Motifs could be associated with the harsher stuff, which is something I guess one would normally do, and phrases that lend themselves better to a warmer or rounder texture. My issue is that, when I’m answering this question, I feel like I’m overthinking the basic concept of composing music. I generally want the accompaniment to blend with a theme or a motif. I don’t understand the question. And even if I did, I probably wouldn’t have a very good answer.

UI: It’s alright. So the next one is kind of in the same vein. How would sound combinations created by these instruments could transform or evolve in time, contributing in a way to shape the formal structure of the piece on a larger scale?

(32:26)

EK: Well I think that, again, if you base the form of your piece off of changes in timbre, then you would think of the different gradients between them, between harsh and round, how much do we have in the middle, and then introduce slowly and not necessarily stay with them but find a way to interweave them, so you could achieve a progressive change in timbre that way, by really thinking it’s not black and white, there’s a whole range of colours between two timbres. So I think one has to understand what all of these things in the middle are and then introduce them to create the form. I feel like that’s a kind of basic answer but that’s all I got.

UI: It’s totally fine. So this one’s the last question, which is much more subjective as to your perception, but how do you conceive the nature of interactions between composers and performers?

EK: The composers will need to go to these rehearsals very prepared with material to experiment with. I think what feeds the performers to suggest and to try new things is suggestions from the composers. Just asking them to “do a harsh sound” will probably confuse them. It’s going to be tough unless the composers are prepared, have specific requests, and then ask the performers for their feedback or how they think they could improve things. I hope to be prepared enough to ask them to contribute to or to lay bricks on the ideas that I have so that we can build something together. They know their instruments better than we do, but we’re the ones who have to have this idea of what we want, and unless we bring that, then the whole thing’s going to collapse, it’ll just be an improv session, which I think is important, but you have to bring your leadsheet. I expect the interactions will be fruitful, and I expect that I’ll learn a lot of things from the performers. It’s a pretty obvious thing that I’m saying, but for it to be as beneficial as possible, it’s extremely important for the composer to come with notated ideas or maybe ideas of soundscapes and then figure it out with them. I guess that’s it.

UI: That’s it! Thank you.