Samuel R. Hazo

Hey everyone!

I just got back from All-State, I had a blast. I've never been so into music like that before, rehearsing 3 time a day, 3 hours at a time, maybe more. Our director was Ankush Bahl, but when we went to the concert, after my performance the All-State concert band came out, their director was Samuel R. Hazo, we performed his song, "Ride," at our spring concert at my high school band.

Anyway, Mr. Hazo was speaking to the audience and told us that he was never professionally trained as a composer, he doesn't have a degree in composition, and he didn't actually start composing until he was 30. Yet, he is an amazing writer, and one of my favorite band composers.

Now, omitting the part about not starting until he's 30, is it really necessary to go and be professionally trained in composition, or is it enough just to study on your own, get a few books and read them?

I just want to see peoples opinions on this because I was amazed that a composer that good didn't start until he was 30 and was never trained, except a few lessons.

Education is guided individual learning.

Personally, I don't think Hazo's music is that good. He composes for a profit-group, high-school bands, and that's it.

IMO, if you don't know the ropes of classical training, you won't get into that market. Mr. Hazo didn't need that. All he needed was to be a band teacher and understand how kids react to their instruments. If one can do that really well, then it's good for the people playing it; it's irrelevant if the music itself is actually good.

lol tokke, it seems every person i like, you hate.. is there any composer you do like?

Mahler!

Edit:

Wait. Who else? Besides Whitacer...:glare:

Mahler!

Edit:

Wait. Who else? Besides Whitacer...:glare:

Well, i've only mentioned three people, and all three of those people you don't like. Whitacer, Williams, and Hazo.

Do you like Holst? Elgar? Elfman?

Well, i've only mentioned three people, and all three of those people you don't like. Whitacer, Williams, and Hazo.

Do you like Holst? Elgar? Elfman?

Excuse me, but who cares? It's not really germane to your discussion. Justin's opinion shouldn't diminish your enjoyment nor does his personal preference make his point any more relevant either.

That being said, I agree with him to a certain point. I think Hazo does certainly exploit his experience with the kind of ensembles he writes for. He did learn about composition through professional training, and a lot of that training was experience working with such a variety ensembles for an extended period of time.

Well, i've only mentioned three people, and all three of those people you don't like. Whitacer, Williams, and Hazo.

Do you like Holst? Elgar? Elfman?

Holst :thumbsup:

Elgar, indifferent

Elfman, so-so, i.e. some of his stuff is great, others not.

I like Hazo! I played his "Sky is Waiting" just last year. The director made a bunch of "one player" parts and I got all these incredibly beautiful flute passages.

Ride...gets kind of old. He keeps making spinoffs of it too, like Rush, and Ascend.

I'd have to say my favorite piece of his is "Rivers" though...it's so lush! His other stuff just sounds like what you'd expect from concert band music. For exceptional wind ensemble music, I recommend Cindy McTee, and Frank Ticheli. I LOVE Frank Ticheli.

Mr. Justin Tokke, anything to say to that? :)

Oh and I like Holst. Elfman, not so much.

And I hate Elgar. >< Sorry for the double post.

I like Hazo! I played his "Sky is Waiting" just last year. The director made a bunch of "one player" parts and I got all these incredibly beautiful flute passages.

Ride...gets kind of old. He keeps making spinoffs of it too, like Rush, and Ascend.

I'd have to say my favorite piece of his is "Rivers" though...it's so lush! His other stuff just sounds like what you'd expect from concert band music. For exceptional wind ensemble music, I recommend Cindy McTee, and Frank Ticheli. I LOVE Frank Ticheli.

Mr. Justin Tokke, anything to say to that? :)

yeah, the concert band played three of his songs that he hasn't yet published, they were REALLY cool, I can't wait for him to publish them and the rest of the world can hear them.

I think Justin is displaying Musical Snobbery at its finest, which is something that I do too.

[OPINION]

In my opinion, all of these high school "composers" write music that appeals to band kids. Sure, it has some appeal to other groups of people, but I (being a music snob) feel this music is tainted, not genuine, and, quite frankly, a waste of time to play.

I think that... to write music to truly appeal to self-considered "art music appreciators", you need some education.

But honestly, you don't *need* to be trained to write "good music". Since I'm a snobbish "art music appreciator/critic", I feel that Hazo and Tichelli are writing for limited ensembles and doing it to make money.

[/OPINION]

I think Justin is displaying Musical Snobbery at its finest, which is something that I do too.

[OPINION]

In my opinion, all of these high school "composers" write music that appeals to band kids. Sure, it has some appeal to other groups of people, but I (being a music snob) feel this music is tainted, not genuine, and, quite frankly, a waste of time to play.

I think that... to write music to truly appeal to self-considered "art music appreciators", you need some education.

But honestly, you don't *need* to be trained to write "good music". Since I'm a snobbish "art music appreciator/critic", I feel that Hazo and Tichelli are writing for limited ensembles and doing it to make money.

[/OPINION]

Tichelli himself has said that he writes for band because that is where the money is.

at the risk of getting off topic, could someone explain what Art Music really is? I read the wikipedia article on it, but it didn't help at all.

I think it is when you listen to a son, like Glass' or Steve Reich's, and you don't listen to it to listen to it, you can't really, the music just.. is. I can't really explain it but I think I understand Philip Glass' music now because I was in deep thought and I sort of.. just got it, I can't explain it, I just did, and now I love all his music.

But anyway, could anyone explain to me the definition of Art Music?

Art music is, I believe, music written to fulfill an artistic desire or void as opposed to a commercial one.

I've never had a 'definition' explained to me persay, but that's what I've gathered.

Nothing is 'necessary' to be good at something, except diligence and dedication (and sometimes not even that) but definitely education can help.

Art music is music that you listen to for the sake of an artistic meaning or purpose. It contains within it (hopefully) what the composer intended to express and takes the form that the composer wants it to. Art music is differentiated from popular music in that it is not created in relation to public opinion of the music itself.

However, this term basically means (in layman's terms) classical music and some indie music. Not Classical music, mind you. The "c" is lower case, indicating the "genre" of music. This music includes Aldridge, Glass, Barber, Shostakovich, Boulez, Cage, Tchaikovsky, Bruch, Beethoven, Mendelssohn (:wub:), Schumann, Wieck, Mozart, Bach, Jadassohn, Rimksy-Korsakov, Glazunov, Brahms, Wienawaski, Sarasate, Sibelius, Hanson, Copland, Elgar, etc. etc... The list goes on and on for ever.

When I refer to art music, I refer to music that has an intrinsic "untainted" value. This "taint" is all my opinion and varies from music snob to music snob. Again, it is due to my "music snob" character. For example, I wouldn't consider Beethoven's "Fur Elise" art music, or His "Ode to Joy", or his "Moonlight Sonata, Movement 1". I wouldn't consider Tchaikovsky's "Nutcracker" art music either. I think I attribute this to the fact that these pieces have entered the public consciousness in the same manner as pop songs and that contributes to the "taint".

Hazo, Tichelli, Grainger, Meyer (on the orchestra side), and that Merle fellow represent the commercialization of music under the veil of "pure music", when really, I see it as tainted as "Fur Elise".

These are my highly biased views, but that's what I mean when I say "art music"

I think Justin is displaying Musical Snobbery at its finest, which is something that I do too.

[OPINION]

In my opinion, all of these high school "composers" write music that appeals to band kids. Sure, it has some appeal to other groups of people, but I (being a music snob) feel this music is tainted, not genuine, and, quite frankly, a waste of time to play.

I think that... to write music to truly appeal to self-considered "art music appreciators", you need some education.

But honestly, you don't *need* to be trained to write "good music". Since I'm a snobbish "art music appreciator/critic", I feel that Hazo and Tichelli are writing for limited ensembles and doing it to make money.

[/OPINION]

Hazo and Ticheli may be doing it for money, but at least their music is enjoyable to a wider audience...that is , the younger audience. ><

Personally, I believe Ticheli is a greater composer than Hazo because Ticheli shows much originality. Also, Ticheli writes orchestral music too! And has some chamber works that no one really pays attention to, which is a shame. I really liked his "Poltergeists."

I don't believe art music needs to be written by those who are educated...Debussy, for one, didn't believe in music theory, so never wrote with music theory, and always wrote by ear. And hence, we have some very beautiful "art music".

Isn't all music "art"? Music is an expression of the soul, if one can somehow express through sound what they want to express, so be it.

Art music is music that you listen to for the sake of an artistic meaning or purpose. It contains within it (hopefully) what the composer intended to express and takes the form that the composer wants it to. Art music is differentiated from popular music in that it is not created in relation to public opinion of the music itself.

However, this term basically means (in layman's terms) classical music and some indie music. Not Classical music, mind you. The "c" is lower case, indicating the "genre" of music. This music includes Aldridge, Glass, Barber, Shostakovich, Boulez, Cage, Tchaikovsky, Bruch, Beethoven, Mendelssohn (:wub:), Schumann, Wieck, Mozart, Bach, Jadassohn, Rimksy-Korsakov, Glazunov, Brahms, Wienawaski, Sarasate, Sibelius, Hanson, Copland, Elgar, etc. etc... The list goes on and on for ever.

When I refer to art music, I refer to music that has an intrinsic "untainted" value. This "taint" is all my opinion and varies from music snob to music snob. Again, it is due to my "music snob" character. For example, I wouldn't consider Beethoven's "Fur Elise" art music, or His "Ode to Joy", or his "Moonlight Sonata, Movement 1". I wouldn't consider Tchaikovsky's "Nutcracker" art music either. I think I attribute this to the fact that these pieces have entered the public consciousness in the same manner as pop songs and that contributes to the "taint".

Hazo, Tichelli, Grainger, Meyer (on the orchestra side), and that Merle fellow represent the commercialization of music under the veil of "pure music", when really, I see it as tainted as "Fur Elise".

These are my highly biased views, but that's what I mean when I say "art music"

So, basically you're saying that if the general public likes it, it's not art music? So if, let's say, Copland's "Appalachian Spring" became the next "Ode to Joy" would you not call it art music anymore?

I feel the same way about indie music, actually. Could you be a little more specific as to what the "taint" really is?

I consider Ticheli to be art music. Grainger too, actually. Meyer, not so much. His "Millenium" for full orchestra was pretty nice though.

Art music is music that you listen to for the sake of an artistic meaning or purpose. It contains within it (hopefully) what the composer intended to express and takes the form that the composer wants it to. Art music is differentiated from popular music in that it is not created in relation to public opinion of the music itself.

I'm going to be silly for a moment just to cut through the snobbery :)

I like Dream Theater, and there are some particularly fascinating rhythmic and melodic passages in some of their 'popular' songs that seems to hold musically intrinsic value. But Dream Theater is not 'classical' music in any way. In terms of mainstream media, it's not a particularly 'popular' group either. The music exists because talented performers and artists came together, jammed, developed very creative popular songs, and got picked up by a label (or started their own, it doesn't really matter).

In fact, a lot of the music I seem to like fits in neither category depending on who you ask. So, it seems a bit petty to even go into this dichotomy of 'serious' and 'popular'. It's an academic argument that continues to remove itself from reality the more you challenge it.

However, this term basically means (in layman's terms) classical music and some indie music. Not Classical music, mind you. The "c" is lower case, indicating the "genre" of music. This music includes Aldridge, Glass, Barber, Shostakovich, Boulez, Cage, Tchaikovsky, Bruch, Beethoven, Mendelssohn (:wub:), Schumann, Wieck, Mozart, Bach, Jadassohn, Rimksy-Korsakov, Glazunov, Brahms, Wienawaski, Sarasate, Sibelius, Hanson, Copland, Elgar, etc. etc... The list goes on and on for ever.

When I refer to art music, I refer to music that has an intrinsic "untainted" value. This "taint" is all my opinion and varies from music snob to music snob. Again, it is due to my "music snob" character. For example, I wouldn't consider Beethoven's "Fur Elise" art music, or His "Ode to Joy", or his "Moonlight Sonata, Movement 1". I wouldn't consider Tchaikovsky's "Nutcracker" art music either. I think I attribute this to the fact that these pieces have entered the public consciousness in the same manner as pop songs and that contributes to the "taint".

What's the point but to justify, for yourself, why the music you listen to is superior, in your view, to any other? Look, band music may not be your cup of tea, but there are some very creative elements that work cohesively within various band works that you cannot simply 'ignore' as you do. If what you say is true, if this 'taint' applies to popular music and not to serious music, then how do you account for the presence of 'standardized' or 'more performed' band literature? Is it a popularity contest, is it that these works are written to make performance easier, or is it simply that the artistic level of the works surpasses the sole purpose of music for music's sake?

I tend to believe the latter. The artistic level of many works of band literature are artistic in ways that focus on multiple aspects of the transmission of the work to the audience. Many are not only written well, they are written with the performer in mind, and most don't even cater to the whims of the audience. A really artistic band piece, poorly written, without the performer in mind, will likely yield an unpleasant experience for everyone. There is more to music than the music itself - if the performance would be better by paying attention to aspects beyond the musical combination of pitches and rhythms, then I'm inclined to believe there is a higher level of art at work in that process.

Hazo, Tichelli, Grainger, Meyer (on the orchestra side), and that Merle fellow represent the commercialization of music under the veil of "pure music", when really, I see it as tainted as "Fur Elise".

These are my highly biased views, but that's what I mean when I say "art music"

Bah, commercialization. The funny thing is, trying to make the case for commercialization in music has, for the longest time, been an argument of money and artistic intrusion because of it. But you commercialize the music you love by advocating the standard that you do. It's all about this authoritative stance of superiority, and instead of simply accepting that all music holds various levels of intrinsic value in various ways, you would advocate 'snobbery'.

Your choice I guess, but you're missing out on a lot of musical enjoyment.

As the girl in Donnie Darko would say....

CHUT-UP!

anyways, care to link any of his music? I'm interested now :thumbsup:

Ladies and Gentleman. A public service announcement:

Only Mahler is good. Everything else is bad!

This ends the public service announcement.

I actually don't really like Mahler's music, honestly :P

i'm just kidding..

*scrambles through vast amount of classical music*

*finds Mahler*

*listens*

Yeah, I like Mahler :D

So, 'not liking Mahler' is tantamount to blasphemy, eh?

Uhm... not a huge fan, sorry to say.

His Symphony No. 8 is gold (I love large orchestras), but the Wunderhorn song settings and the cross-fertilization of the theme from his most famous ones get really old for me. The use of dotted eighth-sixteenth note figures is tiresome, too reminiscent of the Classical style and less interesting for me. His harmonies really don't do enough for me, either. To each their own, I suppose.

I'm going to be silly for a moment just to cut through the snobbery :)

I like Dream Theater, and there are some particularly fascinating rhythmic and melodic passages in some of their 'popular' songs that seems to hold musically intrinsic value. But Dream Theater is not 'classical' music in any way. In terms of mainstream media, it's not a particularly 'popular' group either. The music exists because talented performers and artists came together, jammed, developed very creative popular songs, and got picked up by a label (or started their own, it doesn't really matter).

In fact, a lot of the music I seem to like fits in neither category depending on who you ask. So, it seems a bit petty to even go into this dichotomy of 'serious' and 'popular'. It's an academic argument that continues to remove itself from reality the more you challenge it.

Wait... WHAT are you talking about? If you read it in the way that I intended it to read, I said that pop music is music that the general public as a whole likes to listen to. ... What is this rant about Dream Theater? I never said it wasn't art music! If they wrote music because they felt an artistic need to, then SURE it's art music.

You can't just say that ALL composers do that, though. Britney Spears is in the collective consciousness of American society, therefore she produces pop music. The only room for interpretation you have is whether or not a certain band or genre of music actually IS in the collective public conscience.

What's the point but to justify, for yourself, why the music you listen to is superior, in your view, to any other? Look, band music may not be your cup of tea, but there are some very creative elements that work cohesively within various band works that you cannot simply 'ignore' as you do. If what you say is true,

Aha, and that's where you're wrong. That spot on the money. You see, none of what I said is "true". It's my opinion. I understand that certain well-trained composers have written music of worth, but I sincerely do not see ANY worth in the machinated works of such "composers". I'm not ignoring anything.. I'm analyzing it.

if this 'taint' applies to popular music and not to serious music, then how do you account for the presence of 'standardized' or 'more performed' band literature? Is it a popularity contest, is it that these works are written to make performance easier, or is it simply that the artistic level of the works surpasses the sole purpose of music for music's sake?

I tend to believe the latter. The artistic level of many works of band literature are artistic in ways that focus on multiple aspects of the transmission of the work to the audience. Many are not only written well, they are written with the performer in mind, and most don't even cater to the whims of the audience.

You should realize that I am NOT in ANY way discrediting band works. I'm discrediting the works of these "standardized" composers because I do not see the same artistic value in them as I see with "serious" music. Serious is a term that you yourself have coined earlier. Therefore, you too subconsciously divide the two. Tell me, honestly, can you listen to Tichelli's "Blue Shades" and Prokofiev's 2nd piano concerto side by side and tell me that they are of equal artistic insight and value? There will be people who say that "Yes, Tichelli's is of a GREATER value than Prokofiev", and that's fine. You can't tell people that their opinions are wrong (incidentally, you are doing so to me right now). But, most musically educated individuals, I'd bet, would say that Prokofiev's 2nd piano concerto is of a higher artistic value than "Blue Shades"

A really artistic band piece, poorly written, without the performer in mind, will likely yield an unpleasant experience for everyone. There is more to music than the music itself - if the performance would be better by paying attention to aspects beyond the musical combination of pitches and rhythms, then I'm inclined to believe there is a higher level of art at work in that process.

So you ARE saying that the music depends on the audience then? Are you YOURSELF saying that the music of these high-school composers is "pop" music? That's what I'm getting from it. I'm getting that while trying to disprove me, you have only strengthened my argument. As I said earlier, Art Music is music that has very little dependence on how the public perceives it. Atonal music would fit the bill of art music, for example. I don't think that the vast majority of people would particularly like listening to such music, but they do because they realize the artistic vision.

Bah, commercialization. The funny thing is, trying to make the case for commercialization in music has, for the longest time, been an argument of money and artistic intrusion because of it. But you commercialize the music you love by advocating the standard that you do. It's all about this authoritative stance of superiority, and instead of simply accepting that all music holds various levels of intrinsic value in various ways, you would advocate 'snobbery'.

Your choice I guess, but you're missing out on a lot of musical enjoyment.

Errr.. no I don't commercialize it by advocating that standard. These composers are already dead; the music has already been written. The vast majority of their compositions (I'd like to think) have been out of personal vision rather than the clamoring of the public. There are plenty of pieces of earlier eras that were meant to be popular music, sure, but there have been some Art music/non-commercialized pieces too. I don't "advocate" snobbery. I'm simply explaining why certain people believe the way they do, and really, there's nothing you can or should do to change it. Right, it IS my choice. And you yourself (by disliking music that doesn't cater to the audience) are missing out on musical enjoyment as well.

Don't quote me on definitions of Art music. That's just the way that I've always seen it. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here, because I could create a wall of text in reaction to this and get QCC angry with me, I could respond with some cynical, sarcastic comment that would, again, anger QCC, or I could just respond with a single paragraph that tells you my opinion on the matter - rather insufficiently, I might add. Decisions, decisions.

Okay, how about narrowing it all down to this?

So you ARE saying that the music depends on the audience then? Are you YOURSELF saying that the music of these high-school composers is "pop" music?

No, actually. I'm not saying anything of the sort. Please read this again:

Is it a popularity contest' date=' is it that these works are written to make performance easier, or is it simply that the artistic level of the works surpasses the sole purpose of music for music's sake?

I tend to believe the latter.[/quote']

This more than clearly explains that the 'art' of music has virtually surpassed the boundaries of sound alone in my opinion... further, it is MY opinion that music written with performance-enhancing concepts in mind (i.e. good instrumental conception in a work) carries its own level of intrinsic value in a work of music.

That's what I'm getting from it. I'm getting that while trying to disprove me, you have only strengthened my argument. As I said earlier, Art Music is music that has very little dependence on how the public perceives it. Atonal music would fit the bill of art music, for example. I don't think that the vast majority of people would particularly like listening to such music, but they do because they realize the artistic vision.

I don't think you're getting anything I'm saying, honestly. This whole discussion about serious vs popular music that you (and most academics I've had the displeasure of carrying on this discussion with) implies a negative connotation to one type of music to favor another. The purpose of writing music is, in and of itself, an artistic pursuit, and it doesn't matter whether the intention is popularity or art.

Somewhere you ask me to stack up two different works and measure them for their own intrinsic musical value. There may very well be someone who sees higher value in one or the other, depending on what the criteria for that valuation may be. Generally, I hold criteria like performance-friendly as just as important as the music itself, and many others might have certain 'artistic' criteria for things such as style consideration (consistency within a style), historical or contemporary relevance (hot topic on here on the boards), and a variety of other considerations that are nothing more than subjective valuations with a broadly objective foundation for them.

Warning: Sweeping Generalization ahead

Most Jazz Musicians are going to tell you there is a very loose criteria (if any at all) they use to evaluate the level of art in jazz music. Some of the bigger considerations aren't even related to the actual 'composition' of the work (I'm speaking of improvisation), and such valuations also take into consideration the specific performers of the work, weighing this against other performances.

I mean, come on, you're going to argue that, in your opinion, you can stack up one style of music and measure it as 'better' than another style of music with completely different criterion to measure intrinsic value? I can understand weighing that value within the style, but you're comparing apples to bananas with your example of Tichelli vs Prokofiev.