Over time, my music has gradually taken on more and more aspects of my particular musical background. I grew up playing jazz and rock drums in addition to classical percussion, and this influence has become increasingly clear in my pieces, although not always in terms of direct appropriation. What is more common is an interest in the cultural elements of hearing: why we hear things in certain ways, what it is we listen for in particular genres, and so forth.
In addition, my recent pieces have taken a particularly critical slant on these questions. I tend not to trust statements or ideas that people take as axiomatic, so I have focused on writng music that deconstructs these “givens” in order to find out exactly how axiomatic they really are—challenge for the sake of challenge, in other words. Almost always I do find some grain of truth in the axioms, though this process of intense scrutiny serves as a sort of inspiration to explore something new, to push my music in different directions, and also to better internalize the musical or perceptual or cultural truths that I do happen to stumble across. And what’s more, I often find myself saying, “Well, I was right, there really is a lot about that idea that is totally superfluous.”
So there are these two facets: one the one hand, my interest in cultural elements of music, stemming from my background in jazz, rock, classical music, Cuban popular and folkloric musics, et cetera; and on the other, a kind of rebellious side that likes to question musical authorities for the fun of it.
On top of that, I also have some other more transient interests—flavours of the week that keep things fresh. For example, over the past few pieces, I have been interested in writing music that is fast-paced, rhythmic, and light in texture. I’ve definitely written a lot of slow dark music, but it seems to me that there is a preponderance of that kind of thing in the new music community and I want to see how far I can push the other direction. Composers like Jacob ter Veldhuis and Richard Ayres have been particular inspirations in that regard, though I am just as likely if not more to look at popular music for this. I don’t think my music resembles those two composers very much, but they are people whose music I have thought about a lot as I write my own. And again, I also often sit and think about the Beastie Boys or the Black Eyed Peas; Aphex Twin, Björk, Stereolab, or Metric; or whatever. There’s something to learn from any kind of music; the important thing is to actually sit down with it and do the thinking.
Another thing that’s come up a lot lately is a reversal of formal priorities. Actually, this might be starting to fall under the category of axioms I’ve challenged repeatedly instead of just a flavour of the week, but still… Many pieces by composers in the new music tradition have long, flowing forms with strong hierarchical interrelations between sections and seamless transitions, often built upon a single motive or series of terse musical ideas. That comes from the Beethoven tradition I suppose, which is as good a model as any to emulate. But I wanted to know if there was another way to do it. So a lot of my recent music deals with very simple long-term formal structures, based on a series of unrelated musical motives that change from section to section with very little transitional material. Coherence is created through the larger simple formal patterns instead of the long-term development of motives.
For example, Culture no.1 is in four discreet sections plus a coda. Each section is started by an audio sample that the musicians then imitate, and that’s all there is to the form. No interrelation between the sections, no material that comes back later to be developed. But on the local level, I have very tight interactions between material, clear development of motives, and this helps to carry the music through from one section to the next. The global character of the sections, however, and not the local development, is what strings together the piece as a whole.
As the saying goes, talking about music is like dancing about architecture, and probably this little blurb will seem completely inadequate tomorrow. But that’s always the way it is and I hope at least this serves as a snapshot of what’s going on in my music right now, which is always useful. Actually, I don’t like that quotation; talking about music is nothing like dancing about architecture. Metaphors like that over-simplify the issue and lead to the kinds of musical axioms I don’t like. Maybe it’s better not to say anything. So I’ll just leave it here and you can decide for yourself what my motives are, if you’re so inclined.