June 02, 2005
to gimmick or not to gimmick
I went to the final BMOP concert of the season last Friday. It was a Takemitsu tribute and included pieces by the man himself as well as ones influenced by him. The latter were a premiere from a local Boston composer, Ken Ueno, and Tan Dun's Water Concerto. As always, the concert was very well done and I enjoyed each of the pieces for different reasons, but the Water Concerto in particular got me to thinking.
I found the piece fascinating throughout, but let me explain a bit first. What on earth is a water concerto anyway? I wondered the same thing until I entered the hall and saw some of the equipment that was setup. I guess I should call them instruments, though they resembled equipment more in their non-traditionality. There were huge glass bowls of water lighted from underneath, long tubular devices, various gongs, wooden bowls, and a slew of un-nameable objects that proved to all make some sort of weird sound when hit or dunked. The coolest thing was that there were plastic tarps covering all the standard recording equipment. This does not happen often at a classical music performance. So this water concerto was exactly what it sounds like: a concerto for water. Truthfully, it is a concerto for percussion, which, in this case, consisted exclusively of percussion that involved water in one way or another. I think that percussion is somehow the default instrument classification for anything really weird - just make the percussionist play it!
I ended up liking the piece because of it's rhythmic inventiveness and for the amazing variety of sounds that were conjured up by Robert Schulz, the solo percussionist.
But what really got me thinking was that in certain ways, the piece was a total gimmick. I mean, how silly is it to write a full-on 30 minute piece of music for some dude splashing water all over the place and generally flailing around like a kid during his first swim of the season? So yes, this was a gimmick, and usually gimmicks annoy me because usually they do not have any depth to keep one's interest past the initial WOW factor. But this piece was different for me. I think I would have liked it even if traditional instruments were substituted for the water. In some ways, I had to get past the splashing to enjoy it. Tan Dun composed a lovely piece of music and it was performed well.
I often think that I have a music gimmick too. And it worries me sometimes. I'm the weirdo who sets up this crazy plywood booth and convinces people to go inside it and record themselves speaking and then turns the results into 'music'. This is a gimmick, for sure. But for me, it's all about the end result, not the process. I do enjoy the process tremendously, but if the music sucked and I wasn't proud of it, who the hell cares how I got there? I guess my point is that gimmicks aren't inherently good or bad. Sometimes they can attract positive attention to lots of solid creativity that might otherwise go unnoticed, and other times they can distract listeners from an unfortunate lack of creativity. There's nothing wrong with the former. Enough defending me and Mr. Dun.
Well, I've been on a boat for the past three days, and now I'm stuck in a parking lot highway due to some fugitive shootout that occurred half a mile ahead of me in southern Maine. It sucks to be stuck for hours, but it would be much worse to have been involved, so I am thankful.
Posted by halsey at June 2, 2005 10:54 PMHi,
I came upon your site as I was searching for reviews of the recent BMOP concert and read with great interest your comments about the Water Concerto by Tan Dun and gimmickery in general.
You may be aware that the Boston Globe's reviewer also described the piece as gimmicky, though without any further elaboration as you were able to provide. I took his use of the term as a put-down, but not yours, and would like to thank you for your thoughful insights. I actually went to my dictionary to look the term up and was interested to learn that its most appropriate definition here was "an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle". This would backup nicely your conclusion, that gimmicks aren't inherently good or bad. In fact, in light of this definition, the term can be more readily seen as a positive trait rather than the diminishing one I and most people might assume. A Concerto for Water Percussion and Orchestra (the work's original title) could hardly avoid such a description, since it is a uniquely new effort on the part of this (or any) composer to present what are going to be for most people, very new and inventive uses for water in music and indeed as music.
From my perspective as the soloist involved, I can say that the use of water to affect the tone and timbre of percussion instruments is hardly a new technique. I can readily name George Crumb, John Cage, Lucas Foss and Joseph Schwantner (not to mention numerous film composers and foley artists) as composers who have explored the use of water in their compositions. What is new, from my perspective, is Tan Dun's decision to present these sounds, concepts and instruments as primary and soloistic, in the form of a full length concerto.
And in the great tradition of concertos past, it's not earth-shattering music seeking to capture in music the essence of human experience. But it is entertaining and provides a vehicle for the soloist to "do their thing".
On a personal note, one thing I found satisfying in preparing this work was the knowledge that my sounds were going to truly be "my sounds". The score is fairly vague, simply asking for items like watertube, watershaker, waterdrum, and waterphone. The Boston Symphony has the piece programmed for next season, with Chris Lamb of the New York Philharmonic (for whom the piece was written) as soloist. While the piece will be basically the same (he does play it from an earlier edition) the actual sounds and instruments he uses will be uniquely his, as mine were mine. Add to this the fact that Tan Dun invites and requires the soloist to improvise extensively throughout the piece, most notably during the two extended cadenzas, which are simply given time durations of 3'10" and 3'30" respectively. This places a tremendous responsibilty on the soloist to do the research and development necessary to make the piece come to life, both in sound and content.
One final thought: it's been interesting to observe how the "splash factor" the piece provides is the dominant memory one seems to take from the solo part. In truth, the piece only gets splashy in a couple of opportune moments. The rest of it actually treats the water rather elegantly, or least that's my dominant memory.
Yours,
Robert Schulz, percussionist
p.s. glad to know you're a Club Cafe supporter as well! Please say hi next time we're there...
Posted by: Bob at June 4, 2005 05:00 PMHi Robert-
Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful comment. I had not read the Boston Globe review, but have since found it and discovered that it is pretty sparse and not all that informative. I agree that Mr. Lowenthal used 'gimmicky' in a negative sense, although at least he praised your performance.
I agree that defining a gimmick as "an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle" is perfect here. This is certainly what I strive for in my music, and in my humble opinion, Mr. Dun absolutely achieved this, and not only with the dominantly remembered splashing(!)
It is interesting how the common impression of a gimmick is derogatory. I doubt if any musician would ever (publicly) consider him or herself a person who strives for gimmickry, but I imagine most of us want nothing more than to create a 'new scheme or angle'.
I did not know that Mr. Levine has programmed this piece for next season, but I look forward to hearing how different Christopher Lamb's rendition is from yours. He's not so bad, himself!
I will certainly introduce myself next time I'm at a BMOP performance, though I suppose that will have to wait until next season.
-Halsey
