BY STEPHANIE ESLAKE
Only the dedicated listener is able to draw comparisons between two seemingly unrelated works – and then spin the resulting interpretation into a new composition. This is composer Scott McIntyre’s approach in his newest Concerto for Piano and Chamber Orchestra, which draws on structural similarities between works by Lutoslawski’s 1967 Second Symphony, and Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4 composed more than a century earlier.
So how does Scott do it? He talks us through how he began his work, the importance of structure, and what it means to be a ‘conservative modernist’.
Scott has a PhD from the University of Tasmania Conservatorium of Music and his works have been performed as far as South Korea to Tel Aviv. His new concerto will be premiered by Michael Kieran Harvey this November 12 in Hobart.
Your newest piece is inspired in equal parts by Lutoslawski’s Second Symphony, and Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4. Why were you so drawn to both of these works – together – that you started to hear subtle comparisons between them?
The Beethoven 4 has always been a favourite piece of mine, I remember hearing it as a child. Not only is this concerto for its time so unusual, Beethoven having dispensed with the Mozartian model of beginning a concerto with an orchestral tutti, but the odd harmonic language of the work. The opening on the piano in G suddenly jumps to B in the orchestral response – a chord change that has been dulled to our modern ears but to an early 19th Century audience, quite radical. So radical, in fact, the concerto received one performance and was shelved for three decades. Easy to forget that in his day, Beethoven’s most well-known works were anything but. Lutoslawski’s Symphony No. 2 is an architectural wonder, building orchestral textures from odd and disparate ‘aleatoric’ cells of matter. I wanted to present the Beethovian model as something fresh as it would have been in Beethoven’s day, the use of Lutoslawskian models of aleatory and a serial language seemed to be a way to turn Beethoven on its head.
You have structured your concerto almost identically to Beethoven’s, limiting yours in duration to 20 minutes (compared to 40), and employing other similar features. How important do you find structure, method, and goal-setting in your composition?
Not almost, but exactly identical. I didn’t want to write a 40 minute work so I cut it down the middle to half all the lengths. I found on YouTube some work someone had done by colour coding and breaking down the entire structure of the 4th. It presented all the themes of the exposition (all three of them), the odd development (in this case of the 4th, a 32-bar circle of fifths), the extended recapitulation. I structured it all exactly. I love structure and I love new music. I like to put them both together. Sonata form is almost perfect in its symmetry and can still contain fresh and exciting ideas. I spend a long time on my music in the planning stages, the nature of the architectural model and where it will get to and when. I like to think that if I can get it right then the natural dramatic flow of the musical narrative will be entirely inevitable to the listener, albeit unconsciously.
How do you – does a composer – draw on influences from works like these, but to create a new and original piece of music?
I used to be obsessed by originality when I was younger but now I only think about what I want to hear. I like older forms of music but like to fill them with new ideas. The art of music is a cumulative art form; the way we learn music is built on this. We need to learn the basics of pitch so we can form chords, we need to understand chordal inversions before we learn to write in four parts, and so on.
New music is just the same; sure, throw out old conventions and try to forge ahead by ignoring what has come before you! I tried this as have many others, and it just taught me that I could know more about writing music if I took notice of my musical heritage. I often hear pieces that are just a string of extended techniques and while some of these techniques are interesting, the resultant music I find boring. I prefer to use such techniques to colour the music. I also like ‘music’ as well; that is to say, structures and ideas formed by the context of melodic or harmonic movement no mater how odd the material is I’m using. I don’t think I’m doing anything original, just that I like to write music and will try to write what I hear in my head with the help of method and structure. I think of myself as a ‘conservative modernist’.
Now that we have an understanding of the technical sides to your composition, how would you like audiences to interpret the performance? What do you hope we’ll take away?
I’ve long since given up on trying to explain to audiences how to interpret my work. It’s why I find programmatic associations so hard to write – or write about. This piece is an anomaly for me as it has a richer backstory than most of my pieces. I will, in the narrative of the piece, try to draw audiences along through the dramatic flow of ideas, ie. introductory, transitory, static and conclusionary passages. I try to nourish my own expectations as a listener first – after all, I have to be happy with the result. If an audience likes the piece, that’s a bonus! I know the musicians are enjoying the piece; you can tell by the way they give unto themselves during rehearsals and their dedication to help launch new music. It’s the reason I write for Michael Kieran Harvey. His dedication, commitment and generosity towards presenting my and others’ new music to the world is humbling. I’m just hoping the audience takes away something exciting from the work!
See Scott McIntyre’s new Concerto for Piano and Chamber Orchestra, and his Piano Sonata No. 3, premiered by Michael Kieran Harvey at the Hobart Town Hall, 5pm November 12. More info on Facebook.
Would you like to learn composition or music theory with Scott McIntyre? Check out our Skype Mentoring service.
Image supplied.
