www.martiandances.com
Orchestral Music

Five Rhythmic Etudes for orchestra (18 minutes)
Movements 1 & 5 premiered June 2007 by the Ohio State University Symphony Orchestra, Marshall
Haddock, conducting (movements 1 & 5), Columbus, Ohio
Is it perhaps a rite of passage for a
composer to spend a great deal of time in graduate school crafting and honing a
piece for orchestra, getting it ready for the school ensemble, hearing the
premiere and then perennially sending out recordings of the premiere for
follow-up performances that never come?
This is exactly why I have written but one original composition for
orchestra (I have done some arranging, off and on, for the Macon Symphony
Orchestra in central
The piece itself is an examination of
rhythm as it applies to the orchestral texture. That makes it all sound very boring,
though. The truth is that when I
began the piece, I had was coming off the high of both Martian Dances and Auguries
of the Soul (see Chamber Music), two pieces that have their basis in
scientific theories and science-fiction dreams. I decided to base my next work on
science, and chose Richard Feynmann’s book Six Easy Pieces, taken from a set of
lectures given at CalTech by one of the great scientific
personalities of the twentieth century.
My intent was to have one movement based on each of Feynmann’s
chapters, a sort of musical tour through basic physics. The first movement originally held the
title “Atoms in Motion,” for example, which is poetic enough and,
once you hear the movement I wrote, very apt for the resulting music.
As always, it didn’t go that
way. Six pieces became five, and
the correlation with the book was lost.
I seem to prefer odd numbers to evens anyway. I often ask my students when they are
designing a new piece to tell me which is more symmetrical—three of the
same object or two? Many of my multi-movement forms and
quite often my single-movement forms hold to this tripartite plan, often
creating two balanced fast sections with a slower section in the middle.
Rehearsals for this piece were a little
bit scary—I wanted to be there every moment, but I also didn’t want
to be the hovering composer. I am
still intimidated by string players—I don’t know why, except that
they seem to have this shadow over me, as though all the real music were written for their instruments. As you can tell, the real musicians at
that performance were the brass and woodwind sections, and I knew that going
in—just the structure of the only orchestra at
The performance was also a strange
night. The entire concert was
devoted to concerto competition winners, except for my piece and Dan Perttu’s Light
and Shadow in
The five movements rely on very
different rhythmic approaches:
“Hobnob” uses mixed meter, “Serenade” emphasizes
a vocal approach to meter, “Scherzo” employs hemiola
to a great extent, “Fugue” is a minor tribute to Morton Feldman (in
spirit, not technique) and flows directly into “Finale,” which
experiments with metric modulation.
The title is a reflection of my
unwillingness to draw unwarranted and unwanted comparison to two of my
compositional heroes, Arnold Schoenberg and Bela
Bartok. For this reason, I rejected
the titles Five Orchestral Pieces and
Concerto for Orchestra, despite the
great importance of these works to my design and process. Schoenberg’s Five Orchestral Pieces in particular is a piece that I have long
loved, ever since I discovered a metric and rhythmic plan among the various
movements while analyzing the piece as an undergraduate.
Listen to the first movement,
“Hobnob”
