Podcast Panel #11

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Richard Emsley - '...from swerve of shore to bend of bay'

Today's MP3 came without blurb or explanation from its shy submitter: it can be downloaded in full on that direct link or streamed at http://freakytrigger.co.uk

[Poll #1140876]

POLLS STILL OPEN: Keke Palmer! Natalia y la Forquentina! Avenged Sevenfold! and ending tomorrow Fleet Foxes!

POLL CLOSED: Trina ended up with a score of 6.44 with (I think) the highest NUMBER of votes so far (a still quite low 18).

HALL OF FAME: Lancelot Link's score of 7.2 is the highest (though it dipped after polls closed when dubdobdee voted.)

BUMF: To submit a track to the Podcast Panel send an MP3 to leagueofpop@gmail.com

Comments

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Here's what my composer friend had to say about the track.

"First Listen:

The piece is written for an instrumentation called "pierrot ensemble", flute, clarinet, violin, cello, percussion, piano. [...] Well upon visiting the guy's website I see it's written for viola instead of violin, and alto flute and bass clarinet instead of the regulars. But the idea is the same. It's based off of the ensemble Schoenberg used in the piece "Pierrot Lunaire", except he used a soprano instead of percussion. People like it because it leads to some interesting combinations... not that woodwinds and strings don't mix well, but it's a nice standard combination ensemble that isn't has homogeneous as string quartet, woodwind quintet, etc.

One thing I'm noticing is that it seems to start off with more ambiguity than it ends with. The notes kind of strain to get started before going into a more flowing counterpointy texture; the piano has that solo that is very straightforward and then there is the glissando section between the viola and cello... this glissando section is the only section of the piece that REALLY embraces any idea of ambiguity, I feel, and ambiguity is my favorite thing. Again, take from that what you will. There follows sections of flute solo and ends with clarinet solo, both of which are basically the same material, the clarinet simply being slower to wind down the piece. This is a very conventional piece; conventional in form, material and orchestration, especially for being written in 1985 by a guy that is 34. The form is conventional in that sections very easily flow into each other and it's easy to tell when you're in a new section, plus the energy transfer never seems to falter (good or bad, depending on your POV). Material in that his melodic lines are very post-WWIIish, see Hindemith et. al, or even Webern although Webern was much more progressive. Orchestration in that there are very few "impure" tones, no irregular combinations of register or sonority, and even the percussion part is very straightforward. It really serves only to highlight the other parts.

Second Listening:

The piano's presence is constantly with that idea of playing notes very evenly rhythmically but disjunctly melodically. What does that mean? What role is the piano playing when it plays that motive fast or slow?

The sections are so defined... notes... pizzicato... piano solo... flowing whole ensemble...

When the strings are glissing they seem to be attempting to upset the structure, but the flute and piano aren't listening.... this is a very pivotal moment, the only time when the ensemble really has material that is at odds with itself, and it says a lot about the piece that what was happening before this moment "won out" and continues to the end.

Well...okay... now there's this section with a lot of long string notes and percussion building while the notey stuff is going on, but it seems to affect the notey stuff less and the notey stuff STILL PERSISTS as the dominant figure. Now the strings are pizzing in a similar manner to the notey stuff...

Other forces react against the piano very briefly and there is a long pause... after this the rest of the ensemble continues their material with no piano accompaniment... what is happening here?

It's almost as if the strings are attempting to convince the winds to join their side.

Now brief iterations where all instruments attempt notey stuff... now long stuff... winds and strings on their own again.

Now here's the final clarinet solo. Accompanied by string pizzing.... slowly fading out but still using the notey material. Strangely, I feel as though a reconciliation has taken place... while the piano never blinked and maintained the same material throughout the whole piece, the other material did have its chance to be heard, and the material at the end is not nearly as dogmatic as the piano's. Things did work together nicely... too nicely for my taste but that's that."

See, I can actually understand "notey stuff"!!!

[http://users.livejournal.com/xyzzzz__/]

I kind of detect a slight change on what yr friend is saying there from first to second listen - at first it seems to be 'conventional' but then questions crop up: what's the piano up to? 'what is happening here'?

Or maybe I'm a bit like 'don't call Emsley 'conventional' you should hear some of his other pieces first! His earlier had almost too many notes, an over-abundance of expression, which makes me admire this stuff even more.

Might post an mp3 of 'Juniper Tree' on sukrat sometime.

I never feel there is a reconciliation going on at the end, which follows from my prev (v confused n' all) post on this.