Catherine Leonard plays Ian Wilson's 'Eigenschatten'

dod

On Sunday last at noon, the spectacularly gifted violinist Catherine Leonard performed solo (after a fashion) in the Hugh Lane Gallery. Her programme was a Partita by Bach and the debut live performance of ‘Eigenschatten’, a piece written especially for her by composer Ian Wilson.

The Bach piece, Partita No.3 in E major, is typical of the sort of work that plays unambiguously to Ms. Leonard’s strengths- her interpretation was dynamic yet sensitive, her presentation of the piece enlightening through understatement. She affectionately played through the six-part work and the audience received her performance enthusiastically.

Then came the Ian Wilson piece, ‘Eigenschatten’, which the composer himself stood up to introduce. The 25-minute piece, whose title means ‘Self-Shadow’, comprised two main parts and a short connecting piece between the two: as the first part is played, it is electronically recorded. A short linking piece is played. Then the recorded piece is replayed through speakers, and the violinist plays the second part, effectively accompanying herself. This, the second part, develops the theme presented in the first part.

I believe that it is important to be receptive to new experiences in music, so I went to this performance trying not to have any preconceptions about how it might work. In general though, I do find the intrusion of technological enhancement to live performances to be unnecessarily contrived and to detract from the essence of what a live performance should be. Take this ‘live’ electronic reproduction to its’ limit, and drawing a distinction between ‘live’ and ‘recorded’ becomes very difficult.

Eigenschatten Part one was a sparse and musically disinteresting fidgeting with arpeggios on the violin which, for the purposes of this piece has its’ lowest two strings retuned a tone down. It was clear that this particular ‘piece’ was intended as an accompaniment, but I struggled to understand it in solo.

The transition to the link-piece and from the link-piece to Part two was seamless: you just became aware that the soloist was now accompanied (through the speakers) by another violin. Part two completed Part one, but did not logically act as a conclusion to Part one- it was not so much complementary, as a necessary accompaniment.

The piece itself (with some exception) was essentially cacophonous. Listening to it, I was reminded of the background music to a suspense movie- the jarring strokes across the violin created the impression of some vicious violence about to be perpetrated, and the interspersing silences referred to the waiting victim, living in unsuspecting suburbia before being visited by some carnage that will change their lives forever.

I can see why there would be interest in the artistic interpretation of the piece- that the second part completes the piece, but provides no resolution; that the first part does not stand on it’s own, but requires the complement of the second part to work as a whole; that the deconstruction of the piece is methodically presented rather requiring calculated analysis. However, I believe this rationalisation to be somewhat artificial, and wantonly contrived.

There seems to be a trend in contemporary classical music toward musical minimalism- that ornamentation is avoided in order to not unnecessarily corrupt the basic message of the underlying music. The thinking seems to be to avoid gratuitous virtuosity for its’ own sake and present the music unencumbered by bombastic overkill. In principle, I do not take exception to music that seeks to explore this avenue; however there is a point at which so much is stripped away that the question has to be asked: Where is the music? Structure alone is just that- naked structure - but structure alone does not make music.

The generous applause that Eigenschatten received owed more to the charisma which Catherine Leonard’s performance lent it than to any innate musical excellence in the score. If you should like to draw your own conclusions, the Contemporary Music Centre in Fishamble Street, Dublin recorded this debut performance for posterity, where it is freely available to visitors who would like to hear it. Hearing it once, though, was enough for me.

catho_monster

however there is a point at which so much is stripped away that the question has to be asked: Where is the music? Structure alone is just that- naked structure - but structure alone does not make music.

does that mean that you disregard music that is conceptually derived? it has to have "music" or melody as you would see it to be?

that asks the questions...

in question to your question "where is the music"... what is "the music"?

In principle, I do not take exception to music that seeks to explore this avenue

i do note this point, however i'm curious as to your opinion on this infamous and ne'er ending debate...:D

dod

I wanted to give due to consideration to my reply to your post in order to do justice to your question and to try to explain further the point that I was trying to make in my initial post.

My assertion, in the context of the Eigenschatten piece, is that naked structure does not make music.

I would make the comparison with a building: sometimes the building will have been designed to accentuate the structure, as in the case of the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, the Lloyds Building in London, the Swiss Re building in the City of London, or indeed the Pyramids at Giza. The building obviously does not exist independent of the structure, but is the structure the building? No. The structure underpins the building, and in these extreme examples the structure has been intrinsically incorporated into a substantial component of the overall aesthetic of the building; the success of the building (functionally, architecturally, fitness for purpose etc.) requires the sympathetic incorporation of areas of expertise, but only in the context of the overall objectives that the building sets out to achieve.

I don’t want to labour the comparison, but I wanted to stand back from music and try to illustrate the point that I was trying to make.

In the same way as melody alone is not music, and harmony alone is not music, my contention is that structure alone is not music. Equally rhythm, texture, dynamics, timbre, form and so forth- a piece that is conceptually presented, whose purpose is to illustrate any of the aspects of the music has an academic interest, and may occasionally have musical value; but a piece that labours the structure to the expense of other aspects would have to be extremely clever to stand on it’s own merit as music.

In principle, I like the idea of stripping down music and exposing it’s bare bones for our consideration; sometimes we take accomplished pieces for granted, and giving consideration to it’s component parts can give us a greater appreciation of the whole. I do, however, have an issue with taking this dismembering too far, and then presenting the result as music. In my opinion, the Eigenschatten piece sacrificed too much in emphasising a contrived structure, and the result did not work for me musically. For the sake of debate, though, I would be interested- if sometime you have the opportunity to hear the recording in the Contemporary Music Centre- to hear your take on the piece.

fitz

Originally posted by dod

In the same way as melody alone is not music, and harmony alone is not music, my contention is that structure alone is not music. Equally rhythm, texture, dynamics, timbre, form and so forth- a piece that is conceptually presented, whose purpose is to illustrate any of the aspects of the music has an academic interest, and may occasionally have musical value; but a piece that labours the structure to the expense of other aspects would have to be extremely clever to stand on it’s own merit as music.

While you may not like it, it will still be considered music by some people.
You're entitled to how you define music, but to say someone elses definition of music is wrong, well, I don't think you can do that.

"Carrots are orange"
"No they're not"

Obviously pants.

"Carrots in garlic butter are yummy"
"No they're not"

Both people are right here from their own perspective
Neither can be said to be wrong.

catho_monster

a piece that is conceptually presented, whose purpose is to illustrate any of the aspects of the music has an academic interest, and may occasionally have musical value

on this note (excuse the pun) i have to say that a piece that is conceptually presented may have any purpose apart from the one that you are stating. for you to state such a purpose betrays that you assume to know what the composer intended and therefore what was going on in his mind at the time of composition, which i can only assume you dont. (unless, he did specify during the introduction that he gave to the piece on the day).

to say that it 'may occassionally have musical value' opens another minefield, as does your statement that it

would have to be extremely clever

.

'value'

'clever'

eeek!

dod

Some day, when we all find some concert to go to... it seems there will be plenty to discuss over the drinks beforehand!

fitz

Drinks! Aye!

catho_monster

lol.

beware.

and be afraid.

be very afraid.

i tend to get very worked up over this 'conceptualism' malarky.

enter into discussion at your own risk.

remember, here you can log off.
in person, you have to physically run away.:D