MySpace
myspace music


Nick Vasallo



Last Updated: 11/25/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Status: In a Relationship
City: Bay Area/Santa Cruz
State: California
Country: US
Signup Date: 11/14/2005

Who Gives Kudos:



My Subscriptions
Saturday, February 09, 2008 

Current mood:  determined
Category: Music

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive."

- Charles Peguy from "Notre Patrie" (1905)

I was introduced to this quote by my former teacher Frank La Rocca. Whose work I greatly admire, especially his choral stuff. I remember reading of his orchestral piece "Crossing the Rubicon" and the parallel of his change in style to Aaron Copland's in the late 1930's. For those of you that don't know Copland you will hear his influence upon almost every soundtrack involving the American countryside (and the 'ole West). He consciously wanted to reach out to the broadest possible audience and therefore wrote in a more accessible style. Who is to say that his new writing is of less merit than his former angular atonal language? In addition, who is to say that a struggling folk musician that made it big (eg. Kimya Dawson's music from the movie "Juno") is so much different than what Copland or many other contemporary composers that achieve some success have also done.

As in my essay "Dark Reflections..." I speak of classical musics' (aka Western Art Music) sometimes dogmatic and patriarchal view and its marginalized fanbase that tends to revel in its obscurity or exclusivity...admonishing others and dealing mainly with people into the same thing. It is also of note to recognize that "Classical" music is the poorest selling genre today. So for me and the other 99.7% of "Classical" composers out there...this is not for the money.

The criticism I receive mainly revolves around a "mainstream" voice that overshadows my modernist attitude (at least in my older works) . The thing is, I have many musical spheres I work within. If you have a good set of ears you would have noticed the strong return of tonality (in contemporary classical music), albeit not exactly functional as we are taught in school, but functional within itself. Yes, I write tonal music. Yes, I write film music. But I also write experimental, aleotoric, electronic, atonal, and even Death Metal music. Eclectic...yes. Most of the work on my page was written 2-4 years ago and to my great honor it has been received well. Just because it has been released by a label and I help promote it on my site does not mean I am attempting to sell my soul with shameless self-promotion. Why do you think there are so many musicians on MySpace - let alone the Internet (especially "Classical" composers)??? Furthermore...why do we even perform music live??? Because we want others to HEAR IT!!! To quote Bernard Herrmann: "What good is music if it's not heard!?"

Nowadays, I write in an ever changing style (The Vertigo Series was written 3 years ago), my newest works are not up here, I only have a single movement of a set of piano miniatures which is relatively new compared to all the other pieces. I am carving out my voice and honing in on things I wish to make my own. So, while creating a caricature of me may help alleviate your own insecurities as a composer and subdue deeper (musical) meanings; there is nontheless, a fundamental problem that will always haunt you. You must figure this out on your own... Throughout history, we have seen criticism to artists from their peers (or worse - from mere critics) - ridiculing other's work because of either its popularity and/or accessibility (eg. Metallica, Green Day, Steven Spielberg, John Williams, Aaron Copland, Arvo Part, Phillip Glass, Danny Elfman). I cannot speak for those artists but I can speak for myself. I write what I want to hear. No more...no less. I love and live to create...and if someone that hears my work is touched in any way, then that is a wonderful thing. I believe that there is beauty in simplicity and you can create a complex universe with simple undercurrents. I will continue to evolve and utilize everything in my musical spheres in order to harness the energy I wish to conduce to the listener.

If this monologue still perplexes your understanding of my artistic integrity - then know this. I will write what I want to write. Are we still at the crossroads? I'll walk my path.

Philip, hmm...
Philip Fitzpatrick

 
i agree... the art should reflect the artist... its what the artist feels... and what the artist likes...
that amazing..
 
Posted by Philip, hmm... on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 7:57 PM
[Reply to this
[chr|sm|x]

 
good stuff man. you just do what you like, and get it out there for people to hear and appreciate. whether they like it or not doesn't make you a sell out. even less if people do like it.

i applaud you.
 
Posted by [chr|sm|x] on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 8:14 PM
[Reply to this
Michael Plague [IHC]
Kill Yourself

 
that's it nick. stay true to yourself, but also allow yourself to be accessable to other spheres of influence. grats to you sir.
 
Posted by Michael Plague [IHC] on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 8:52 PM
[Reply to this
Ryan
Ryan Rey

 
Yes.
 
Posted by Ryan on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 8:55 PM
[Reply to this
Joseph

 
What you have written should be obvious to anyone who seriously loves music. If composers throughout history wrote according to others "rules" or "opinions" or "status quo" much of the best music we have today would be gone. If the classical music genre is unpopular, it is because we have not sold it to the world. Who can love classical music (or any kind of music) if the have not experienced it? Good for you for bringing this up. It needs to be discussed and acted upon. Write what you want. Promote it how you want.

All of us, at some point, will die. How do we want to be remembered? What will we leave behind?
 
Posted by Joseph on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 9:14 PM
[Reply to this
Sarah

 
Great blog and so true. You must compose what you feel and be who you are. I admire you and your artistic abilities.
 
Posted by Sarah on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 10:52 PM
[Reply to this


 
I totally agree with this...and speaking of the one certain passage pertaining to Metallica...before they were "mainstream" they did what they wanted to...not doing videos to their music...they did it their way at the time......when one makes music...that's the person or people(in referring to a single artist or band) way of communicating......everyone has their way...musicians have music.....my music has been my way of saying how I feel....don't care if it fits "what's in"...this is me this is how I feel....make the music let people hear it and let them decide....people will relate to it...let your heart speak...walk your path dude...you won't be alone
 
Posted by on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 11:58 PM
[Reply to this
Mike

 
I couldn't have said it better...
 
Posted by Mike on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 1:34 AM
[Reply to this
Eric D. Malloy

 
wow. Very well written. The biggest problem with music and society today is that the average person is not educated on music. Recently, I polled my employees at work (the job that pays the bills not my musical jobs.) and asked which employees had been taught music in school. Amazingly, few under the age of 25 had been taught any sort of music in school. The classes were all elective. I find it sad and disturbing that music in schools has been lost.
Another thing, I believe there is another plane of being or consciousness that musicians pull from and the most moving music comes from there. While great for studying and learning the past, classifying <myspace>style</myspace>s of music has no further purpose. Looking back on the most successful and innovative composers, those we study now as musicians, most all of them were rebels, rebelled against their teachers and wrote what they wanted. What they felt and heard in their heads.
Never let anyone put you in a box.
 
Posted by Eric D. Malloy on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 4:21 PM
[Reply to this
Denise

 
People are just jealous. If people hate on you it's only because notice that you are doing better then they are. Honestly people will try to put you down to make themselves feel better. They do this to see if they can break your focus, and they want to see you fail. It's like they have nothing better to do with there time but put you down. Instead of working on there own self improvement they rather attempt to be destructive to others self improvement. Haters have such sad lives.

I agree with Bernard Herrmann. As a musician I think you should promote yourself, and myspace is a great place for sharing with others. Who else will promote you the way you want??? I know I can't because I am not you.
 
Posted by Denise on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 7:26 PM
[Reply to this
Bill
Bill Composer

 
Copland, if i remember correctly, never completely left the angular, atonal world. He did, however, keep a discrete distance between both <myspace>style</myspace>s, and one of my professors who studied with Copland told me that he knew exactly what he was doing.

i believe, however, that the aesthetic bifurcation is best seen a little differently. Composers, today, are viewed by whether or not they maintain a certain amount of complexity, sometimes interpreted as profundity, in their music. Contrasting this with, say, Schubert, will hopefully elucidate my point. Schubert could write long and complex string quartets and symphonies and then turn around and write the simplest sixteen-measure song with four or five verses.

This, i hold, is what is missing from today's musical environment. The most sophisticated of composers take themselves too seriously all the time, while the softest and loveliest of folk artists don't explore composition enough to expand their ideas to, say, an oratorio or a song cycle. In addition, artists capable of bridging both worlds are denigrated when they step out of the box in which they were first caught.

In any event, i believe our aesthetic world is all the emptier for this. Wouldn't you have loved to have heard Ligeti or Stockhausen write a funk bass line underneath all of their massive sonorities and scream, "Maceo"?
 
Posted by Bill on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 7:27 PM
[Reply to this
Nick Vasallo

 
Good points Bill...I agree with you on the new complexity aesthetics...too monolithic at times. I think the main point of my Copland spiel is that he was very conscious of his stylistic change and as you said "knew exactly what he was doing." He was criticized heavily for it - great music nonetheless and no less meaningful because of its popularity or accessibility. And the comparison to folk and classical is just questioning of ideals - how can we say which music is better? Of course we can just pick one but it would be strictly subjective...and furthermore how do we judge them differently based upon their relationship to success and artistic integrity. I use Kimya Dawson as an example because she still is an independent artist but simultaneously hugely successful because all her songs were used for the feature film "Juno." Should she be shunned because she promotes her music heavily in a mainstream movie but her background (was) heavily underground?
 
Posted by Nick Vasallo on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 8:16 PM
[Reply to this
Bill
Bill Composer

 
Well, i used folk and classical simply as examples. However, if we cut through the notion of "artist" and use the concept of craftsman, instead, we can level serious criticisms that arent' necessarily subjective. Take two authors with the same capabilities. If one author knows more words than the other, he is better simply because he has a bigger vocabulary. Let's bring that back to the folk artist and the classical composer. If the folk artist who has the capability to aquire a greater vocabulary refuses, i tend to view them as lazy. However, if the classical composer refuses to drop the clauses and write, "Peter owns a dog," i tend to view them as too arrogant.

The argument does have holes. Your talking about poetics and aesthetic goals and i'm talking about artists. i also pray that i haven't come across as dogmatic. However, i hope i have shown that artistic judgments can be made on grounds that aren't subjective. Still, i could have failed so i still need to think about this some more.

Thanks for telling me about "Juno." i'll have to watch that and listen to Dawson.
 
Posted by Bill on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 9:41 PM
[Reply to this
Nick Vasallo

 
Well, actually...artistry is strictly what I am speaking of - which is why I am leaving pure craft out of the equation. Not to go off on too far a tangent but I believe Art and Craft need to be reevaluated. Art is made not something born. The realization of an idea is the craft. While a craftman "can" and "is" able do certain things, an Artist "must" do these things.

Now, I think your original idea "This, i hold, is what is missing from today's musical environment. The most sophisticated of composers take themselves too seriously all the time, while the softest and loveliest of folk artists don't explore composition enough to expand their ideas to, say, an oratorio or a song cycle. In addition, artists capable of bridging both worlds are denigrated when they step out of the box in which they were first caught."

- Is something I totally agree with, as far as my folk and "classical" comparison, I am merely touching upon the fact that in these 2 distant genres, there exists a marginalized following which may deride the artists within each genre that happen to step out of the expected box (this box which is surrounded by the walls of exclusivity and conformity. Now each genre has its own ideas of conformity and exclusivity. Western Art Music today (still haunted by the Avant Garde movements of the 20th) are silently encouraging the conformity of non-conformity, this dichotomy obviously does not stop here, because while we are in search of new sounds from around the globe, in a dillettantish nature, we admonish and disregard powerful (and popular) music right in front of our faces.

I have received much criticism from musicians that do not agree with my choice of musical blendings. Some go as far as saying that composing for the Western Art tradition is just what the name implies - a tradition and needs to be handled with a certain apprehensiveness. So, rather than conform, which I will never do, I am simply articulating the fact by using what these 2 very talented composers (Copland and Dawson) are doing (or did) what they wanted and even if they are criticized for it their art has no less (but maybe more) meaning than if they conformed to what people expected them to do.
 
Posted by Nick Vasallo on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 7:39 AM
[Reply to this
Bill
Bill Composer

 
For the most part, i agree. However, i approach the bifurcation between "mainstream" and "modernist" from a different angle.

Schubert could write complex quartets and symphonies and then turn around and write the sweetest sixteen-measure song you could ever hear. This, i believe, is what is missing in our poetics, today. Now, one group takes care of the heavy aesthetic material while the other handles smaller forms and lighter emotions.

In the end, both types of artists atrophy. The serious composer never learns how to charm his audience, and the folk artist never learns enough composition to expand his ideas to a larger format that allows a broader set of expressions. And if ever an artist learns to do both, he is panned by those who believe he should never have left the box in which he was first discovered.

Well, that's as far as i'll take my observations. If you haven't already, find George Rochberg's The Aesthetics of Survival, which contains some excellent articles on Modernism. i've purposely avoided a set of ideas concerning the term, ideas too often associated with dissonance and complexity and contrasted with simplicity and popularity. Modernism is really a philosophical approach, one not inherently musical, that poses grave consequences for musical perception. You can also read Schoenberg's Error, by William Thompson.

In general, however, i take the Bachian approach. He was perfectly primed, during his day, to take to the journals, defend his use of counterpoint, and whip his critics. Rather than argue, however, he chose to continue writing his music. They've provided, even to today, the best argument--and we're all the better, for it.
 
Posted by Bill on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 9:23 PM
[Reply to this
Bill
Bill Composer

 
Hey, i'm sorry i posted twice. The computer was giving me trouble the first time, and i never realized the post went through. You can delete, if you like.
 
Posted by Bill on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 9:25 PM
[Reply to this
3DT Productions

 
"I write what I want to hear. No more...no less. I love and live to create...and if someone that hears my work is touched in any way, then that is a wonderful thing. I believe that there is beauty in simplicity and you can create a complex universe with simple undercurrents."

Amen bro!!! I don't have a way with words I just write music, but I totally felt and agree with your monologue! I'm very glad someone has said these things! Your music is great! I'm the same way when it comes to music, I'm not stuck in a certain <myspace>style</myspace> just whatever is needed for film or comes through me!!

tim stover
of
3DT Productions
 
Posted by 3DT Productions on Friday, March 14, 2008 - 8:34 AM
[Reply to this
Ronnie Cato

 
Hey Nick if you haven't read this yet, this article touces on some of your points as well, being a singer songwriter vs. composer. Enjoy!

read it:

http://artsaha.org/?page_id=536
 
Posted by Ronnie Cato on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 5:22 PM
[Reply to this