gandet@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Tom Gandet) (10/28/89)
(Jeff A. Bowles) writes: >> >>"This sounds like a regional phenomenon. Why was this posted >>nationally?" In fact, it was posted worldwide. SGLC has several members outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, and some of these have had their music performed at SGLC concerts. Ranging between 15-30 members the last four years, SGLC has members in New York City, Kansas, Chicago, New Mexico, and LA, to name a few (this is all from memory - I don't have membership rosters with me at the moment). >>"I think that struck me as offensive in the posting was the >>'membership fee' for something of dubious value to someone on the >>east cost." SGLC members outside San Francisco don't seem to find membership to be of "dubious value". Some of them have had their music heard at SGLC concerts. To these composers, at least, it is important to have their music performed widely, and the SGLC concerts accomplish that at relatively low cost to them. SGLC membership is also open - and encouraged - to persons who would like to support the goals of the Society. Thanks be to people everywhere who support groups regardless of the group's geographical area. >>"More useful to someone writing choral music is GALA..." >> [...omitted text...] >>"Is this SGLC business any different?" I'm not sure what you mean by "different"; and SGLC is by no means a business. But if you are comparing GALA to SGLC, then I think that's unfair to both groups. GALA is a performance-related group and its concerns and interests are fundamentally different from a composers' org like SGLC. Moreover, not all composers write only (or mostly) choral music. There is a great deal of room in the world for both types of groups (performance & composer), and they compliment/supplement each other. Copies of the SGLC second catalog were distributed to musical groups all over the country, including GALA. >>"But isn't it more productive to point them at particular groups >> local to them to get their pieces performed?" If by "productive", you mean "easier", then yes. It is far easier, all else being equal, to arrange for local performances simply because of the personal contacts with performers that are possible. As a composer who values commissions and performances, it is important to me to have my music performed as widely as possible; I think most composers would basically agree. SGLC has the performance contacts in SF to maximize the possibility of performances. It don't see how it is in any sense "productive" to limit performances of one's music to one geographical area. The more exposure one's music has, the greater the potential for commissions and more performances. I personally would like to see SGLC grow large enough to begin sponsoring concerts in other cities and states, somewhat along the lines of the National Association of Composers/USA concerts in NY and LA; but we are still too small to begin addressing that issue. A purely personal viewpoint: SGLC provides an opportunity for music that speaks to/from the gay & lesbian culture to be heard; we come at life from a unique set of experiences and viewpoints, which set defines our culture. At the minimum, the performance opportunity is a marvelous incentive - at least to this composer who happens to be gay - to deal with unique and potentially powerful artistic issues that perhaps could not be heard in other, more main-stream settings. ----------------------------- In article <47356@bbn.COM>> rrizzo@bbn.com (Ron Rizzo) writes: >> >>Why not? I'm glad Tom posted it nationally, since I found it >>really interesting that L&G composers anywhere have formed an >>organization, and since I'd guess that any organizing by composers >>is of interest to all composers, given the difficulties of the >>profession. Mille grazi, Ron. You hit the bullseye. Thanks for saying what you did. >>The Boston Gay Men's Chorus also commissions composers; I think >>this quickly acquired habit of gay choruses is really nice since >>there are few or no money-making or even unpaid performance >>opportunities for most works of most composers. Indeed. GMCLA also does a bit of commissioning. If I'm not mistaken, Gay/Lesbian choruses as a rule are quite receptive to new music and do a fair amount of commissioning; it gives me pause to realize that these choruses are entirely funded (or nearly so?) by their members and interested friends. In a world decreasingly interested in such things, they deserve all the encouragement and support they can find. >>I don't think commissions by gay choruses are exactly ideal. >>Musically the gay choruses leave quite a bit to be desired, and, >>like occasional verse, such commissions have their disadvantages. I'm not sure I follow you re "ideal" commissions, Ron; personally, I'd be jazzed to get a commission from one of the gay choruses. I don't agree that "gay choruses" leave a lot to be desired musically; there's good and bad. Here in LA, GMCLA is, on occasion, every bit as good as, for example, the LA Master Chorale or the Wlm Hall Chorale at their best; GMCLA has given stunning performances of serious music in the past, and Wlm Hall has been known to wreck a piece or two in the past. The few gay choruses I've heard have been energetic, committed, and on-pitch in the repertory that's at the center of their strength. Not all choruses sing the Poulenc Stabat Mater, for example, nor should they, necessarily; their interests and strengths are elsewhere. The current aesthetics of choral singing style is another matter; to my ears, it is mostly unmusical and cold. The English are still the masters of warm, musical, and technically flawless choral singing, IMHO. I don't think a strong work is ultimately harmed by a poor performance; unless the idiom of the music is completely unfamiliar, it is pretty easy to recognize an inadequate performance, and music directors know it. Some orchestral works of Brahms, for example, were received very coldly at their first performances, but enthusiastically at subsequent hearings - the culprit in each case seems to have been inadequate rehearsal and/or performance. Tom Gandet Telos/Jet Propulsion Lab - NASA gandet@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Work: (818) 351-2341 x239