Growing Appreciation

Throughout the creative process of Moss’s Trio No. 6 and to a large degree after the performance, my appreciation of the work grew. The following will provide an account of my observations and impressions since my first encounter with the score, through practice sessions, rehearsals and post-performance reflections.

On first examination of the score the horn part seemed to be fairly conservative in terms of technical requirements, range etc., although there were several slurred semiquaver patterns in the first movement, which caused some concern. The first two movements had a considerable number of rests in the horn part, giving it the impression of being “chunky”. This was particularly evident in the second movement, where extended sections went by without any horn input. Slow movements in chamber music works generally tend to make substantial use of the horn’s lyrical characteristics, but apart from two melodic lines at both ends of the movement (at that stage required to be played with brass mute) there did not appear to be any melodic significance in the horn writing. The horn did, however, seem to be given greater prominence in the third movement. In general the score appeared particularly “empty”. This observation was probably a result of my experiences with trios by Reinecke and Herzogenberg with their lush Romantic writing, busy piano parts and long melodic lines for the horn and oboe. Moss’s piano writing was exceptionally sparse and often contained only single lines or simple block chords. Together with the score, Moss also sent a MIDI file of the work. My experience with commissions has revealed that listening to a new work in MIDI format is not necessarily beneficial to the first impression of the work. This was certainly the case with Moss’s trio – the strange harmonic language and sparse scoring was not optimally reflected by the dull, mechanical sound of the MIDI playback and did not match my expectations musically.

97

At this stage, my impression of the work was that it had not been given sufficient thought by the composer, as I was aware that he had time constraints. I had also hoped, on the one hand, that the horn part would make more use of the horn’s traditional characteristics and, on the other hand, that it would be more challenging, at least in terms of range and agility as I have a fairly flexible technique and enjoy building on it. Nevertheless, when the horn part was taken into the practice room, some fresh and thought-provoking challenges arose.42

As Moss’s harmonic language became familiar to my ear, I started appreciating the choices he had made in the composition. The two-voice piano interludes, which bothered me initially as they sounded strange and dull, became interesting and pleasant to listen to as the pianist added greater expression and I gained more appreciation for the long melodic lines in the oboe. The second movement proved to be most evocative, particularly the effects produced by the prepared piano.

Although my appreciation of the work increased during the process of rehearsing, the interpretation of the work still remained somewhat mysterious to me, and I realised that our performance of the work needed to “mature.” Although much could be done with the music, many performances would be needed for the performers to grow into it and balance had to be reached between following the instructions on the page and adding musical expression.

Later, while listening to the recording of the performance, I noticed more intricacies to the piece which I had not picked up before and I realised that there was much potential for further improvement in the interpretation of the work. If addressed by the performers, these finer details would substantially enhance the performance of the piece. At this stage it was not clear whether the finer details I picked up while listening to the recording were intended by Moss, or whether they were simply coincidental – this question has yet to be answered.

6.4 Summary and Findings

The collaboration between Keith Moss and me was mainly long distance and there were only two opportunities for personal meetings. In our first meeting ideas for the proposed composition were discussed and the composer was advised on aspects of horn playing. Little consultation

42

In an email interview with Moss (2013b) he noted the following: “After consultation with you about writing for the horn it is conceivable that I became slightly nervous about the process and possibly could have experimented more in my own boundaries; however, the constraints on the instrument are largely due to artistic ones. The brief was also to compose a new work, and my harmonic and melodic approach sometimes forces me to express myself in a way that needs to be more direct. As a result, the horn part could pivot around a certain range for most of the work but really it is to express the music and not about limiting the abilities of the player. Quite frankly I imagined that the alternative harmonies and interval leaps alone would be a challenge for the player.”

98

occurred during the composition process with no need at that stage for further experimentation or detailed discussion. The first rehearsal revealed little complication with the piece, while the workshop with the composer, which soon followed, allowed for achieving greater validity in interpretation. A number of minor revisions to the work were implemented at the session and some at a later stage. The work posed several technical challenges for all three instruments and interpretation was uncertain initially because of unfamiliarity with the composer’s style, but this improved as the work grew on the performers. Relatively little time was devoted to the creative process concerning Moss’s work as a close collaboration with the composer was not essential and the work did not pose considerable challenges in performance preparation for the ensemble. I consider the workshop to be the focal point in this process as it proved significant in revealing the composer’s intentions with his work, which guided the interpretation of it from there on. Table 6.1 below provides an outline of the findings pertaining to this case study. This brings the case studies in this thesis to a close and the next chapter will present a discussion on the findings relevant to the research questions.

99

Table 6.1: Findings related to Case Study 3: Trio No. 6 by Keith Moss

Collaboration

 Advising the composer on limitations and possibilities of the horn can be challenging as the feasibility of any technique is context dependent.

 A performer’s expertise can prove beneficial in finding more appropriate techniques to convey a particular effect.

Performance

 Melodic patterns that are unfamiliar to the horn player can prove problematic depending on interval combinations, articulation and fingering.

 Unfamiliar harmonic progressions, dissonance and multiple tonalities can lead to difficulties in pitching.

 Unusual enharmonic spellings can cause confusion and result in prolonged preparation time on a part.

 Insufficient or ambiguous expression and articulation markings can result in an interpretation of a piece which is not true to the composer’s intentions.

 A new piece of music may have the potential to grow on a person and gain much appreciation as finer nuances may only become apparent through time and numerous performances.

100