Viewing entries in
Music

Let's Ramble About Stringed Instrument Bows

Comment

Let's Ramble About Stringed Instrument Bows

41686-e1373261944339.jpg

A string instrument bow is a wooden stick with horsehair on it. It actually resembles a bow [and arrow] when you look at it - there's a bendy wooden arch that stretches some string/hair. You hold it at the heavier bit (the "frog") and you pull it along the string. It's really hard to make a good sound like this (I've been trying for ages). However, once you get it, it projects and yields a sustained, beautiful tone. But that never happens. Here follows the fiddly (ha) mechanism at the root of your never ending frustration. To make sound, the grippy rosined horsehair first grabs the string and pulls it to one side, in the direction of the bow's travel (as if someone were pulling the string to pluck it with her finger). The string liked where it was before the bow started pulling it, so it resents this displacement. At some critical point, the string gets fed up and its tension causes it to break free from the hair (as if the finger that was holding the string before now releases it). The string then vibrates at its natural frequency - that of whatever note you're playing on the instrument. Simple enough. The bow displaces the tensed string and releases it, just like a finger plucks a string.

Except the bow's job isn't done. A bow grips, displaces, releases and re-grips a string hundreds, even thousands of times a second depending on the frequency at which the string is vibrating. This is why sound from a bowed stringed instrument can be loud and sustained, as compared with plucking.

However, bowing a stringed instrument is Really-with-a-capital-R hard. You have to apply the correct amount of pressure with the precise bowspeed to make the sound you want. Roll, pitch and yaw are also important - each one can change the sound you're getting as it varies the amount of hair in contact with the string. As you get farther away from the frog, the natural weight of your right hand combined with the heavy frog lessens and you have to compensate by applying a very specific amount of torque to the stick via your right pointer finger, pivoting against your thumb. It's actually a lot to think about and it takes years of practice to iron out all the nails-on-chalkboard squeakiness. I'll let you know if I ever get there.

Many string players underestimate the importance of a good bow - they spend all their money on a violin/viola/cello that fits them perfectly, and they settle for whatever is available when it comes to bows. A good violin (or whatever) can give you loud projection, good feedback and a lot of colors to play with. A bow, however, doesn't just change your sound - it changes you. A good cello might give you a tone made from honey but a good bow inspires you to shape every note as if it were a beautiful tree in a massive forest for which you are Chief Executive Landscaper. Good bows feel agile, responsive and predictable. Good bows are rare and they jump out at you from nowhere.

Rosin is important, too, and it all comes down to preference - how grippy it wants to be, how thick, how sticky it is when it inevitably gets on your left fingers and on your fingerboard, dagnabit. Applying a small amount of rosin frequently (2-3 swipes every hour of playing, depending) yields more consistent results as compared with gobbing it on infrequently.

There used to be this brand of rosin called Tartini Green. They made the best cello rosin in the world. Then they got shut down for some reason or other. I still have a sliver of Tartini Green left in a sealed box in my room, along with a few other precious trinkets. I figure maybe someday I'll get someone to chemically re-make it, if that's even possible. Or maybe I'll just keep it for myself. I'm sentimental like that sometimes.

Anyhow, after Tartini went belly-up, rumor had it that another company had taken their formula and was making the same stuff again. Of course I immediately found the stuff in question - Andrea "A Piacere" green solo rosin - and tried it out. I'm happy to say it's good - but I don't think it's Tartini Green. Then again, the last time I played with Tartini Green was at least six years ago, so my comparison might not be the ideal scientific measure.

Back to bows - since this blog is about me, me, me, I might as well give you a brief history of the all the bows I've had since my first full-sized one, which is about as far back as I remember.

My First Full-Sized Bow. Yeah, I remember absolutely nothing about this one, my parents bought it for me with my first full-sized cello. It worked fine, I guess.

That Dark One Over in the Corner. I put far more thought into my second full-sized bow. I tried every bow at every Houston luthier I could find, including a place called the Houston Bow Shop (they're hard to find online behind all the archery results, but they're there). Finally, at a place called Lisle Violin, I found the one for me - the bow that would take me so far in playing. It's a dark bow. Very light, reasonably rigid. It was ideal for the technical passages that I wanted to boss through. Lisle didn't seem to know what it was and frankly, I never followed the names of all the makers - this was in the days before the internet and I don't much care for name-following in the first place. To my indifference, I soon forgot the name etched into the side of the frog that would later give me quite the surprise.

The Guthrie. Fast forward a couple years to 2007 - I had moved to England and was passively shopping around for bows at a place in Wales called Cardiff Violins (they are fantastic, if you ever get the chance to visit them - great people and a great selection of instruments). I wasn't really sure what I was looking for but I felt confident that I would know it if I found it. I found it in the sheer rigid predictable perfection that is my Lee Guthrie bow. To this day, I've never played another bow that is so easy to use. I had never heard the Guthrie name before but when I took this bow to my teacher at Bowdoin the following summer (Peter Howard), his eyes lit up with recognition. Here I had been all the way to Wales and picked up this bow that, as it turns out, was made by a former civil engineer in the same place where I was made - St. Paul, Minnesota. Pretty cool.

Elias Guasti. Another couple years passed. I had bought a new cello from Reuning Violins in Boston (another wonderful shop) and while I was happy with my Guthrie bow, I really wanted to find one that matched particularly well with my new instrument. So I did the rounds - checked out every instrument shop I could - until I found a very special-sounding bow once again at Cardiff Violins in Wales (the same place where I had gotten the Guthrie a few years prior). This bow, a very late product of Elias Guasti, wasn't as predictably easy to play. It was a little lazier, a little more spontaneous when you put it to the string - but something about it pulled a special sound out of Mira that I could only vaguely imitate with other bows. What's more is it inspired me to think more about my tone, which (as I discussed earlier) is a very important trait for a bow to have. So I bought it. Snag: I only have room for two bows in my case. The Guthrie occupied the coveted right-side pocket and The Dark One was spare. I figured I'd have to leave one in my room so for the first time in years, I pulled the dusty old Dark One out of its pocket and had a look - what was the name of who made it again? To my astonishment, it also bore the (extremely feint) "E GUASTI" name on the side. On two separate continents separated by several years, I had somehow picked two brothers - one young, one old - out of a crowd of hundreds (if not thousands) - and for completely different reasons. The Dark Guasti I picked because it was light and easily flicked, fun and carefree. The later Guasti (also dark-ish, I guess) I picked because it made this subtle but important impact on my sound. Kinda spooky. To this day I usually play the Guthrie when I just want to play for myself but when I'm planning on doing a lot of extra work to make a performance truly exceptional in terms of tone quality, I'll break out the newer Guasti and practice it for a looong time until I get used to its quirks. My obsession with knowing my right-hand technique backwards and forwards as it applied with this particular bow may or may not have contributed to a small stress fracture in my right second metacarpal bone in summer of 2012 but we'll leave that adventure for another blog post.

The Impulse-Bought Carbon Fiber Bow from Amazon. I always half-wanted a carbon fiber bow. It'd be cool because I wouldn't have to lose my mind over humidity or worry if I'm taking care of it properly (the hair still expands and contracts with humidity a bit but fmeh meh feh fmeh). On the other hand, I'd heard from everyone that they're just not very good for playing and you get what you pay for. A bow for a reasonably serious college student might run $3,000 but the CF bows can be magicked to you from Amazon Prime for as little as $30 if you nab them on sale. I had this Amazon-must-be-used-for-everything mentality in my junior year of college so I decided what the heck, cheaper than a rehair (which my "proper" bows both needed), worst thing that could happen is it would be bad. Surprisingly enough, it's actually quite good! For all this talk of "good response" and "special tone" and predictability and whatnot, you can get a perfectly capable bow for less than a rehair. This particular CF bow is almost totally neutral in every way - not too bouncy, nor too lazy, reasonably predictable and just sort of average-feeling. It's consistent between playing sessions and it even sounds A-OK in the few performances in which I have dared to use it. The cool thing about a bow like this is because it's so neutral, it allows you to focus on your technique. Ricochets? Average. Sostenuto? Average average average. Legato? At the midpoint between every other bow I've ever played. If you're short on cash, buy a bow like this and go spend that other ~$2,950 on lessons or time off work to practice.

The Baroque Bow. The Music Department was gracious to loan me a snakewood Baroque-style cello bow for me to use in their Baroque Cantata class, for which I would be playing mostly continuo cello parts. If you've never tried it, it's really cool to see what that kind of bow nudges you into doing. It can be played like a modern bow, but it's very easily flustered in faster off-string passages. It feels kind of like trying to put the family truckster around a technical racecourse - lots of rolling, lots of bouncing around and not a whole lot of control (entertaining, though). There's more of a definite bias toward the lower half of the bow and the sound feels denser overall - I've heard that's because the snakewood is physically much denser than pernambuco wood, if that makes any sense. It loans itself nicely to continuo playing - emphasis at the starts of notes, plenty of time to plan out the perfect distribution and bowing patterns to match vocalists' consonants, etc. I wouldn't play a concerto on it but playing old continuo parts can be challenges unto themselves. Thanks to the aforementioned traits, the Baroque bow also complements certain interpretations of the Bach solo cello suites if you plan it out right.

These are my assorted ramblings and I'm afraid I haven't got much of a conclusion from all my experiences with bows. Play every bow you can get your hands on, pick the one you like most - the price won't tell you if it's good or not. Buy one that will inspire you to play it and somewhere in those hours in the practice room when you're feeling beat up, maybe you'll look down at that stick in your right hand and figure "at least this ol' thing hasn't given up on me yet."

Comment

On Dealing With Musicians: Some Notes for the Aspiring Composer

1 Comment

On Dealing With Musicians: Some Notes for the Aspiring Composer

brahms.jpg

Composers: I'm a big fan. You're courageous, diligent, intelligent, and we love playing your stuff. When I agree to play your piece, I'm honored to have been chosen by you and I hope never to let you down (my reputation as a performer is also on the line!). Whenever I sit down in front of a brand new score, I want it to succeed.

The following points should not be viewed as limiting your creativity; on the contrary, these should expand your artistic scope by helping you connect with the performer (and the audience) more effectively. These are not directed at any of you in particular (you all have your particular weirdnesses - it's what I love about you). These just cover some of the recurring but easily avoidable shenanigans that I encounter in the world of hot-off-the-press music. If you want musicians to enjoy playing your stuff (and let's be frank - that's a big part of whether a performance flops or flies), you'll think about these before you show us your new masterpiece.

In no semblance of order:

  • Given the choice, pick players who will appreciate your music. Don't just grapple onto last year's concerto competition winner. Choose someone who you think will understand your music - someone really into modern music, or even a specific area that you're exploring (atonality, jazz, fusion...). A mediocre player who loves your music is probably going to give a far better performance than an outstanding player who doesn't like modern anything. If your music is leagues beyond the intellectual capacity of any musician you know, well...your audience might be the same way.
  • Make really nice parts. I've been handed wrinkly, half-composed, hand-written, torn-up manuscripts that featured what appeared to be coffee stains and some other stains that I didn't think too hard about. In most cases, you can plug your beauteous bounteous creativity into Sibelius (or the free MuseScore) far faster than I can decipher your ancient scrawl. Sibelius can also help you spot things like missing bars, forgotten time/key signatures and other little niggly mistakes. Obviously there are exceptions (sometimes notation software is limited in versatility or frustrating beyond belief, and I understand that) but this is just a general notion: The more effort you appear to have put into the part, the more closely we will adhere to it.
  • Consult musicians BEFORE you finalize your composition. The rules they taught you in composer camp - stuff like pitch range, etc. - are just a few of the many constraints to which different instruments are subject. (try playing the lowest+highest notes on a piano together with middle C and you'll...C what I mean haaahaaa. I've met a guy who nose a trick for accomplishing this. haaaaaahaaaaa I need to sleep) OKAY some things are awkward and instrumentalists can't even explain why. Sometimes musicians will have useful suggestions as to how you can write the part without all the awks. For example: artificial harmonics are cute, but an instrumentalist can often closely replicate that distant, wispy sound normale without all the extra left-hand technical humdingery, especially if it's for a whole movement.
  • Use the conventional range of dynamics. This is anything from ppp to fff, in more increments than most instruments can lay claim to, along with diminuendos and crescendos, attacks and articulations, etc. Do not write fffffff in your part. I do not play any louder after the third or fourth f. Consider writing subito if that's what you mean, or fp, or even sfpp or similar if that's what fits the bill. This should be obvious to most of you, but there is no such thing as mff.
  • Mark tempos and expression clearly. If you like using edgy, new-age tempo markings ("the hurried pace of high heels running late on an Italian train platform"), feel free to also include a metronomic BPM marking as well. Not all of us have been high-heeling European train platforms recently, and in the resulting confusion we might wildly misunderguestimate your tempo.
  • Some things could use explaining. I think it's a marvelous idea to include 1-2 paragraphs of "performer's instructions" on the back of your cover page. Keep it clear and concise. Give us all the spoilers and we'll make sure the audience gets them when the time comes.
  • Show up. No matter how much fun we're having with your work, we're probably being charitable when we volunteer to play it. That or we've been "volunteered" by a third party. Either way, we're not usually getting paid for this and we have busy, busy schedules. Try to optimize rehearsal time as best as you can - sort out issues before the musicians see the parts and be present at the rehearsals if possible. You might be useless, you might be essential; you might just conduct the group as we struggle through the complex rhythms (that's actually incredibly useful) - all of these are OK! Your sacrificial presence helps demonstrate that you take our time seriously.
  • Be friendly. I realize that many great composers of history are famed crabbycakes. You are not (yet) a great composer of history, so consider your crabbycake license suspended. If the piece doesn't sound like it did in your head, don't take it out on the musicians - we're just playing what we see. Keep up the encouragement and positive attitude. Even if players aren't technically perfect, if they manage to convey the feel of your work, the judges in the audience will probably fill in the gaps. It's worth noting that procrastinating musicians often put the most effort into technical runs minutes before a big performance. We'll pull through, as long as we know what we need to fix.
  • Be honest and keep musicians updated on changing circumstances. If you ask musicians to work up your challenging piece on the premise that they'll perform it, take their time commitment seriously before you cancel the performance or substitute a different composition. Don't hype up a fictional concert just to hear the work getting poured into your piece. If you just want your piece played, I'm sure you'll be able to find musicians who are willing to give it a whirl, even without the promise of a performance, as long as you're upfront with them about it from the get-go.
  • Consider small tokens of gratitudeEspecially if the musicians don't get paid and you appreciate their effort. You can get a basically unlimited supply of chocolate for the cost of hiring a professional orchestra. Thank-you notes are  always appreciated. Maybe you can even come up with something personalized for your musicians. (If you're wondering, I prefer turbocharged models with a sunroof so the cello can stick out the top.)

If you do most of the above, you maximize the probability that the musicians will be on your side when they walk onstage. They'll also likely play your works in the future, as well as tell their friends about, oh, I don't know, your totally hip but currently completely underground self-titled website.

1 Comment

An experiment

Comment

An experiment

in-rainbows-radiohead-27519259-1280-1024.jpg

I want you to try something. Do this. For real. Don't go "I just want to see where he's going with this" and not do it. Open up iTunes, Spotify, Windows Media Player, YouTube, a record player - whatever you have. Find a track that you always liked. Maybe a Top 40. Maybe a symphony. Something you haven't heard too much. (if you can't think of anything, this quartet is OK) Now, close all the other windows (including this one). Close your eyes and listen. JUST listen and let your mind wander to memories, hopes, hypothetical images, cadential I64 chords, whatever you want. Come back here when you're done.

----------------------------------

I'm waiting. You better have actually listened to this thing, I'm counting on you.

----------------------------------

Now we can get to it.

Did your other senses feel neglected? Your ears sure felt special.

I feel like we take so many experiences for granted and we miss out on a lot. I'm not talking about swimming with dolphins - I'm talking about the most rudimentary sensory inputs. We hear, taste, smell and touch so many things but so much of our behavior is automated. Maybe this is why we over-eat. We think about so many other things while we're eating, we don't even realize it's happening. Consciously eating one lone raisin is a more potent experience than scarfing down whole can of Pringles while focusing on something else.

If you're the typical internerd, you turn on some track in your iTunes and then you open up a web browser. If the music stops, it might be ten or twenty minutes before you even acknowledge the silence. Your focus is somewhere else and your brain is trained to ignore the sound.

This is why good music has become obsolete in some sense. In the classical heyday, people used to trek miles (either on foot or by horse) to hear a performance. That was your evening gone, right there, to hear a new Schubert quartet. That might've been your only hearing of that quartet. Better remember it.

Now we put our earbuds in our ears, hit the play button and go do something else. A lot of music produced today is perfectly adequate for this purpose. Background music has its uses. But let's not forget the value of music that stands on its own two feet.

Comment

Why Orchestras Should Care About Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity

Comment

Why Orchestras Should Care About Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity

264818_10150226696331846_4173301_n-e1349326685434.jpg

It’s no secret that the great orchestras - Chicago, Minnesota, Atlanta, among others - have been struggling lately, particularly over the last few weeks as contracts get renewed. We have narrowly avoided a nationwide collapse of numerous symphonic titans, with thousands of jobs and outstanding concerts in the balance. The latest financial crisis hit them later - and harder - than it hit most other firms. Why is that? And how can we insulate our arts industry from such economic turbulence in the future? To find out, let’s take a look at an orchestra’s business model as compared with that of a paper company (I’m an old The Office fan). There are two parties in the paper market - buyers and sellers. In a recession, people tighten their belts and try to consume as little paper as possible. Now the firm can’t sell as much paper. The firm calls up the manufacturer and tells them to produce 85% as much paper this year as they did last year, or they’ll end up with unsold stock since people are demanding so much less paper. The manufacturer says OK, and then a relatively small number of people in the paper factory take wage cuts, work fewer hours or get laid off. Everyone survives the recession.

In the market for live symphonic performance, there are still two parties, audience (dropping serious dough to hear some Mahler) and musicians (easily identified by the suspicious boxes they’re carrying around). Suddenly, the audience gets word that the Great Recession’s a’comin’, and many decide they can’t pay $140 to hear Mahler - some of them have lost jobs, some aren’t getting the raises they expect, and they now get plenty of misery and despair in their lives anyway (sorry, Mahler). So far, this is just like when the paper market shrinks. But here’s where the two examples diverge.

Remember the paper supplier could pretty easily shrink its manufacturing when demand for paper tanked. In an orchestra, you can’t just fire the section with the fewest notes when fewer people are going to concerts (if you could, we would have gotten rid of the brass ages ago). Nor can you just price the tickets higher - even fewer people will pay for the concert and you’ll end up with a lower revenue. What to do?

Okay, I promised myself I’d never put charts in this blog but I feel like I might not have any choice here.

Skip this if you remember intro econ: If you’re an economics major, this little graph probably flashes in front of your eyes every night when you go to sleep. Ugly as it is, it’s a pretty useful tool. We have the blue line, which represents how many tickets the orchestra is willing to sell for a given price (its slope makes sense; the higher the price, the more the orchestra is willing to overwork itself to get that extra money). Then we have the red line, which shows how much people are willing to pay for a ticket (if you price the ticket higher, fewer people are going to be able to afford the ticket). The ticket is priced at the intersection of these two lines - that’s the point at which people are willing to pay for the ticket, while the orchestra is willing to sell it. Now, when the recession hits, people aren’t as willing to part with their cash for an orchestra concert, so the red line shifts into the purple line and the equilibrium price and quantity of tickets sold shifts down. This is a basic model of how prices in markets work.

The Economics 101 answer to the orchestra’s problem - simple! Reduce the wages of the orchestra musicians and administrators until the recession is over. This doesn’t work in real life though - remember, these wages are written out in contracts, so they can’t shift during a recession. Even between contract signings (such as these last few weeks), people are very, very averse to taking cuts in their wage (or even reductions in raises), exogenous macroeconomic circumstances be darned. Employers know that wage cuts are major morale-killers, so they’d honestly rather fire a worker or two than reduce everyone’s paycheck by 5% - even if this results in lower combined income. This effect - a cultural resistance to wage cuts from both the employer and employee - is known to economists as Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity  and it means deadweight loss (lost utility overall) and mass unemployment when we could otherwise just be taking relatively small docks to our paychecks (think 1-2%). In an orchestra, the problem is aggravated because we can’t just fire a few people - if there’s any firing going on, we have to fire everyone (unless you like Mahler with no brass). But the orchestra can’t keep on operating if the ticket revenues are less than the orchestra’s combined wages and other operating costs. Something’s gotta give. And that’s when they decide to take a season off, or shut down completely.

I have the deepest, most sincere respect for the members of these orchestras. Some are my old teachers, colleagues and friends. They are exceptionally talented, absurdly well-trained and steadfastly dedicated. The CSO has been home to many of the individuals who inspired me to become what I am now, like Fritz Reiner and János Starker. I believe that orchestras, to this day, forge and harbor many of the most incredible people who walk the earth. I love many branches of music but there are some moments of profound artistic greatness that seem exclusive to the symphony. Every time I hear that an orchestra is shutting down for any period of time, I really cannot come up with a truer word than heartbreak.

Beyond sentimentality, shutting down the orchestra is not an economic solution. It’s not utility or profit-maximizing. But it seems like the only alternative to a nominal wage cut. Or is it? The orchestra might just be saved by...inflation. Yep, inflation. That thing your dad talks about when he remembers gas being 17 cents per gallon. How could this work?

You know how year to year, everything gets a little more expensive? But then you get a pay raise, so it all kinda evens out? You’ve probably heard this phenomenon referred to as inflation. The value of dollars - measured in terms of real goods - is going down. On the face of it, you might feel like you got ripped off - the price of some bread went up from $2.19 to $2.23. Where’s that extra money going to come from? Well, it turns out, you see those extra dollars in your paycheck as well (plus a tiny bit more on average, since the world’s real standard of living is improving). The moral of the story is unless you’re holding a lot of money in the bank (think millions), annual inflation under 4% won’t hurt you very much. Not only that, it turns out that inflation discourages people from stuffing large sums of money uselessly in their mattresses, since the value of that money is slowly being eroded. This incentivizes them to spend the money on things like market investments, real estate...concert tickets. (this boost of aggregate demand is another benefit of the monetary stimulus that would trigger inflation, but not the focus today - we’re focusing on the direct psychological way by which inflation can solve our problem)

Anyway, what has inflation got to do with orchestras shutting down...or staying on? Remember earlier we showed that our culturally-valued downward nominal wage rigidity is responsible for the freeze-up of an orchestra that would really rather keep playing, if it weren’t for this cultural aversion to small wage cuts. Well, consider this - the contracts (and morale) are indexed nominally. That is, they’re valued in dollars. If we reduce the value of a dollar ever so slightly, we can temporarily reduce the real value of wages by a practically unnoticeable amount - without triggering the morale-killer that is nominal wage cuts. We do this by increasing our nation’s target inflation rate by a very small amount via monetary policy (long story short, the Fed can do that - that’s a whole other topic). Since the Fed has increased the opportunity cost of hoarding money and shifted aggregate demand out, we’ve reduced the real price of our concert tickets (even if they’re still the same nominally). More people come to our concerts. The musicians still get paid according to their contracts and expectations. Morale stays up and everyone's happy.

Maybe this sounds too small - how much could this cold number (4% annual inflation) really boost ticket sales? Well, you’d be surprised. If it leads to a 4% boost in nominal revenue (which practically defines inflation), all else being equal, the musicians will probably take home a 4% annual nominal pay raise.

As an aside: For comparison, the recent strike of CSO musicians led to an agreed-upon 1.5% annual increase (approximate baseline) in salary in their new three-year contract (this corresponds with our current inflation rate that is typically estimated to be around 2%).

I’m not sure why people reference Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic (examples of inflation gone crazy) to attack the idea of 4% inflation. Those countries had thousands, even million-percent annual inflation rates. We’re talking about 4%. The infamous “stagflation” (stagnation+inflation, get it?) was not inflation alone, but also wild changes in the prices of certain goods, resulting from supply shocks (OPEC in the Middle East). So it’s not really an applicable example if you’re arguing that the USA should keep inflation low.

I’ve heard defeatists talking about the “end of the American orchestra” and how this shutdown was inevitable - predictable, even. I disagree. I argue that the world needs this music, now more than ever. This art is NOT a luxury reserved for the ultra-rich and the classically educated, even if that’s the impression that orchestras must fight from here on out. Music has been there for us at the ends of the earth, from concert halls to concentration camps, when people had to decide between a concert and some of life’s most fundamental amenities. There is no reason, economic or otherwise, why this art can’t flourish in the coming decades more than it ever has.

Me, I’m optimistic. As long as someone up top has the economic know-how and political force of will, the symphony has many magnificent years ahead of it.

Comment