Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • dtoub 3:02 pm on Thursday, October 9, 2014, 3:02 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags: indiegogo,   

    we’re raising money for a new album! 


    A few days ago, an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign went live, with the aim of funding a recording of quartet for piano and for four, as performed by the remarkable pianist Stephane Ginsburgh. The album will come out on Maria de Alvear’s label World Edition in 2016. Before the CD has been released, contributors will be able to receive a digital download of the entire album, along with an audio file of the world premiere of quartet for piano from June, 2014, personalized scores of the works, etc.

    So if you’d like to help make this album a reality, please donate. It will really bring you good karma.

     
  • dtoub 11:42 pm on Sunday, September 7, 2014, 11:42 pm Permalink | Reply  

    air waves (2014) for brass quintet and synthesizer 


    Screen Shot 2014-09-05 at 12.01.58 AM

    Before I mention this piece, I have to say that I spent probably two hours today trying to make a simple addition to the “about the music” page on my music site, since snippets of earlier text kept appearing and additional columns and line breaks as well, even though none of these were in the actual page code and rendered well outside of WordPress. I’m convinced WordPress is possessed or else has something against new music, since it made that minor task horribly painful.

    Okay, now that that’s out of my system…I have a new work.

    I was interested in putting together a brass work with mostly static chords. But a few of the chords sounded best with a very low pedal tone, which unfortunately were a bit out of range of even a tuba. So my solution was to add a synthesizer that essentially doubled all the brass tones. Paul Bailey kindly looked it over and made some great suggestions (such as the addition of a French horn, which I was initially avoiding). The result is air waves, which lasts around 20′-25′.

    The score is here. The audio file (mp3) is here.

     
    • Paul H. Muller 6:49 pm on Thursday, September 11, 2014, 6:49 pm Permalink

      The synth was a good idea – adds some smoothness and evens out the blend. I esp liked the stretch after 17 min…

    • dtoub 7:06 pm on Thursday, September 11, 2014, 7:06 pm Permalink

      Thanks! Glad it worked!

  • dtoub 9:21 pm on Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 9:21 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags: for philip glass,   

    philip glass marathon concert 


    Several years ago, I wrote a really long string quartet called for philip glass. It’s never been performed, but one of my favorite sections occurs around 37 minutes from the end (the whole thing is around two hours, which is actually short by the standards of folks like Feldman or La Monte Young). I arranged that section for piano at the behest of pianist Nicolas Horvath, who often does these really long, marathon-like concerts of minimalist music and who last year premiered my piece for four in France.

    Well, Nicolas is premiering for philip glass in its piano version at a Glass marathon in Paris on Friday, April 11. That should be a really neat concert, with over 90 works in addition to the piano music of Philip Glass. Quite a superhuman feat!

    This will be the third time he has performed a work of mine (he’s already done one twice; that’s the first time I’ve had a piece performed more than once) and with Stephane Ginsburgh’s concert in Bruxelles in June, I’ll have had as many live performances in Europe as I’ve had here in the US. It’s getting there.

     
  • dtoub 11:54 pm on Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 11:54 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags: flute,   

    flute loops (trio for flute) (2014) 


    On the same day that I started the piece for ruth first, I came up with a short piano improvisation for future use. I had first thought to take at least part of it and develop it into a piano work, but my daughter Arielle asked me for a short solo flute work for her graduation recital. I thought about a solo flute work, but before even trying anything, I didn’t have a good sense that it would have worked out. But the idea of a multitracked solo flute work (flute with prerecorded parts) was appealing. A loop from that piano improvisation seemed to work best, rather than other portions, and I developed it into a work for solo flute against two looped measures (the two measures coming from the piano improvisation, with the bass line transposed three octaves higher). The work was originally titled solo for flutes, then trio for flute, but as it was a work that consisted entirely of loops, I thought flute loops (trio for flute) worked best.

    The piece is fairly free in that it may be taken as fast or as slow as one wants, within the constraint of quarter = 78-96 bpm. Originally I took it at the upper limit, but that seemed almost too fast, so I gave some leeway. The average duration is around 10′, but depends upon how many repetitions each measure gets (after the usual one measure of silence, each measure is repeated at least four times, until the final measure of silence).

    The score is here. The audio file is here.

     
  • dtoub 12:31 pm on Saturday, February 15, 2014, 12:31 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    on the same program as cage, feldman, glass, pärt, eastman, curran, jl adams, denis johnson, riley, la monte young and gann. wow. 


    The pianist Nicolas Horvath is doing another maximalist program (nine hours!) of minimalist piano music starting today, this time in Kyiv, Ukraine. I’m really honored and humbled. He’s giving the second performance, ever, of for four and will be soon be premiering the piano transcription of an excerpt from my two-hour string quartet for philip glass in Paris. And I’ve had two folks friend me recently on Facebook simply because they heard my music on disc or via WPRB-FM in Princeton and for whatever reason liked my music. I’m not sure to what I can attribute all this interest in my music lately, but it’s kinda nice given the long and unusually severe winter here in the northeast.

    Sleepless night of music :: All-Kyiv – city touristic portal.

     
  • dtoub 12:36 am on Saturday, January 11, 2014, 12:36 am Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , two pianos   

    for ruth first (2014) 


    815px-Ruth_First

     

    for ruth first is a work for two pianos written from 1/6-1/9/14 over four evenings in palo alto. The title refers to the South African antiapartheid activist and journalist who was assassinated with a bomb in Maputo, Mozambique by South African intelligence agents.

    The entire work consists of six tones, which was not originally planned that way, and there are occasional canonical passages between the two pianos. It is entirely pianissimo in terms of dynamic level. I also realized after completing it that it is actually in the key of E Major, which is not typical for me as I don’t write tonal music. So I think of it as accidentally tonal.

    The score is here. The audio file is here.

     
  • dtoub 2:19 pm on Saturday, January 4, 2014, 2:19 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , maria de alvear, , , stephane ginsbergh   

    stuff for 2014 


    Some projects for the new year:

    • I will be in Palo Alto next week with four nights to compose. Thinking about a work for two pianos.
    • I’ll be starting an Indiegogo crowd funding campaign soon to support a recording session by the amazing Belgian pianist Stephane Ginsburgh to release quartet for piano and for four on Maria de Alvear’s World Edition label. I’m really excited by this; Stephane is one of the best contemporary pianists out there who has recorded and performed Feldman, Rzewski and others, and he was one of the three dedicatees of quartet for piano.
    • Nicolas Horvath will be premiering this work at the Palais de Tokyo in Paris on April 11th
    • There may be a live performance or two of quartet for piano in NYC and/or SF this spring…

    This is either all great news or really ominous, depending on one’s musical taste.

     
  • dtoub 2:01 pm on Saturday, January 4, 2014, 2:01 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , MOC, nonsense   

    does maintenance of certification (board recertification) really have any value? 


    I was originally board-certified in ob/gyn in 1996. It was tough; besides a written exam, I had to compile a list of every patient I saw in the office, operated upon in the OR, etc. for an entire year. Back then, software for this was pretty horrible and painful to use, and everything had to be done to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s strict specifications in terms of page layout, printing, etc. But I did it, and then had to fly to Chicago and sit in a room in the Westin Hotel while three pairs of examiners came in and grilled me for an hour each on gynecology, obstetrics and office practice. I had to defend why I treated specific patients the way I did, and left absolutely convinced that I had failed miserably. Everyone was made to feel that way. But I did pass and had a 10-year certification. While grueling and akin to mental torture, I felt that it was an accomplishment, especially given that many people were failed by the examiners that year.

    Beginning in 2006, I had to undergo recertification. One had the option of taking a live written exam that gave you recertification for a few years, or completing 120 open-book, multiple-guess questions about various papers in the clinical literature; taking the clinical questions route (“ABC” for “annual board certification”) gave one recertification that lasted one year. Nearly all of us diplomates opted for the ABC route. It was easy, albeit pricey, but we all knew it was somewhat ludicrous. The hardest part wasn’t answering the questions, but obtaining the articles. It spawned a small industry of companies that would help provide the abstracts of the various papers needed, which I hope didn’t dupe too many gynecologists out there since the abstracts can be had for free online very easily. We all realized that one really didn’t learn much from reading the articles and answering the questions, and it was also clear that people didn’t remember any of what they had read afterwards; ask any gynecologist if he or she remembers any of the papers used for the ABC exam even a year ago and you’ll likely get blank stares.

    Things got worse around 7-8 years ago, when under pressure from other professional boards to get tougher, ABOG opted into what has been termed “Maintenance of Certification” or MOC. In addition to the usual list of multiple-guess questions about various clinical papers, one had to complete other requirements, including annual case-base testing (which didn’t officially cause one to fail, and I was nevertheless exempt as I am no longer in full-time clinical practice), and a written exam every six years. I took the written exam (really a computerized exam) last year and passed, although I was surprised I never received the questions with answers as was promised at the end of my taking the exam. Without such feedback, how can someone truly learn and know what he or she answered incorrectly and why?

    I recently registered again for the 2014 MOC process, dutifully paid my annual fee, and submitted my active medical license. All routine. But today I received an email from ABOG telling me that my application is incomplete because I never submitted a signed form from another ABOG diplomate to attest to my character. That was something that we all used to do every year, but for the past two years was not apparently required, so I was a bit surprised to see it return. Does ABOG think I became an axe murderer in the past year? Given that I’ve been board-certified (technically, a “diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology”) since 1996, has my “moral character” somehow drastically declined now that I’m in my 50’s? No worries; I already have a friend who is happy to attest that I have “demonstrated good moral and ethical character, and have voluntarily elected to have limited or no OB/GYN Admitting Privileges,” but the Board has received the same attestation over a number of years, and I’d be curious if they’ve ever had anyone who couldn’t produce at least one other gynecologist who would sign such a form for him or her. Honestly, it’s silly.

    So every year, all of us board-certified gynecologists must pay several hundred dollars for the privilege of taking an open-book multiple-choice test about articles that are largely forgettable and that probably teach little or nothing. Asking questions like “What was the sample size in the study by Yifnif and colleagues?” has no lasting value whatsoever. Most of us can, and should, be able to read basic clinical papers and understand how to find the information when asked for it. My kids could do the same thing. None of this means anything.

    Maintenance of Certification programs in several specialties have never, ever, been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes. Not one bit. People aren’t practicing better medicine because of MOC. Patients are not doing better because of MOC. All it appears to amount to is a way for medical specialty boards to feel like they’re doing something to make sure that their board-certified physicians are still up to par, and generate some revenue while doing it. It’s quality monitoring theater.

    Why do I still maintain my board certification status? Two reasons; in my specialty, I could no longer be a Fellow of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists without it, as it is required for continued membership in what is the main professional society for ob/gyns. Second, I worked really hard to become board-certified in the first place, and that board certification itself does mean something, at least to me. So I don’t have any interest in giving it up.

    There was a good paper on MOC not too long ago in NEJM. It makes many good points about the problems with MOC as currently implemented. In fact, i can’t really find many physicians who truly like MOC. We all think it’s silly and don’t like taking the time and money to deal with it. The only people who I can find to really defend MOC are associated with professional medical societies.

    So yes, i’ll go through the same motions again this year. I paid my fee, I’ll answer the questions (which, incidentally, can be re-answered online if incorrect until one gets it right) and print out the automatically-generated certificate attesting to my board certification status for this year. But I won’t have any delusions that it made me a better clinician. Even continuing medical education doesn’t usually produce improved clinical outcomes, so why would making physicians read through a few dozen clinical papers in an open-book format work any better?

     
    • kempen 10:12 pm on Saturday, January 4, 2014, 10:12 pm Permalink

      No, there is no value to MOC or CMOC as it is called now. Board certification (BC) is only an “entry requirement” to MOC having little if any intrinsic value. Only those in the BC-MOC confidence /pyramid Scheme designed to profit the ABMS corporation only. The whole BC thing has been clearly degraded to an extortion scheme of the ABMS who continues to state that it is voluntary, while lobbying congress, insurance companies and non-physicians in the healthcare industry to demand MOC or fire all doctors. This is a purchasing/advertisement scheme now very similar to :

      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/top-doctor-awards-deserved-abc-news-investigation/story?id=16771628

      ABC News Investigates Top Doctor Awards: Are They Always Well Deserved?
      July 14, 2012

      Take time to read and think.

  • dtoub 7:51 am on Friday, November 1, 2013, 7:51 am Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    12 (2013) for open instrumentation 


    12

     
    • Paul H. Muller 1:48 pm on Friday, November 1, 2013, 1:48 pm Permalink

      Well just a comment for the benefit of those players who might try this… The key signature shows no meter, but a glance at the measures confirms 3/8. The tempo given in the notes is marked as a quarter note. Looks interesting…

    • dtoub 2:08 pm on Friday, November 1, 2013, 2:08 pm Permalink

      Someone might try this????

      Problem with meter is that it’s misleading. Some parts are in three, others are really in two. Some beats occur on the second and fifth sixteenth in the measure.

    • Paul H. Muller 12:02 am on Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 12:02 am Permalink

      Given the informed nature of your work, is this formulation something from, say Terry Riley or maybe Tom Johnson? Original? I’ve adapted this for a couple of pieces in the past two weeks and want to give the proper credit…

    • dtoub 7:44 am on Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 7:44 am Permalink

      Thanks Paul. I came up with it while playing with loops in Reason 7. No predetermined formulation per sė. It just happened.

      There are many works that give performers freedom in terms of repeating measures and moving through a sequence of notes. Drumming, In C and much of th music of Julius Eastman come to mind. But those all involve playing the same notes. This doesn’t; each loop is separate but appears within a specific order (player 1 then player 2 joins in etc, and they go out in descending order).

      Curious what you did with this raw material. Thanks.

    • Paul H. Muller 10:56 pm on Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 10:56 pm Permalink

      I’ve used a somewhat modified version of your structure: I like the meter in 3 so I’m using a moderately fast 3/4. I’ve used only 8 measures/voices instead of 12, but they enter additively in sequence, 16 or 24 bars between. They are withdrawn, however, in a completely different sequence and I’m not rigorous about when they completely disappear. I’ve found the structure helpful in keeping my impatience in check, yet it gives some scope for shaping on the back end. Here are my Sound In pieces for last week and this coming Friday:

      ‘Summing’ is here: . http://paulhmuller.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/summing.mp3
      ‘Summing’ score: http://paulhmuller.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/summing.pdf

      ‘Disassembly for Four Pianos’ is here: http://paulhmuller.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/disassemblyforfourpianos.mp3

      Score is here: http://paulhmuller.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/disassemblyforfourpianos.pdf

    • dtoub 11:31 pm on Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 11:31 pm Permalink

      Thanks Paul. Both sound pretty interesting. Glad 12 is having some productive use.

  • dtoub 9:05 pm on Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 9:05 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    because you can’t have too many works for electronic organ and bongo drums 


    20131023-210508.jpg

     
    • perkustooth 10:33 pm on Friday, October 25, 2013, 10:33 pm Permalink

      Too much music for organ and bongos??? I don’t think this unique pairing has ever occurred in music history. Cool piece though. And the other pieces are among my favorites of your pieces written thus far.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 463 other followers