AND KEVIN WALCZYK/67531/metadc... · Symphony in B-flat (1951), Morton Gould’s Symphony No. 4...

APPROVED: Eugene Migliaro Corporon, Major Professor Donna Emmanuel, Committee Member Dennis Fisher, Committee Member Nicholas Enrico Williams, Interim Chair of the

Division of Conducting and Ensembles Warren Henry, Interim Director of Graduate

Studies in the College of Music John W. Richmond, Dean of the College of

Music Victor Prybutok, Dean of the Toulouse

Graduate School

THE RENAISSANCE OF THE AMERICAN SYMPHONY FOR WIND BAND

AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE RECENT SYMPHONIES OF DONALD

GRANTHAM, DAVID DZUBAY, JAMES STEPHENSON,

AND KEVIN WALCZYK

Jacqueline Kathryn Townsend, B.M., M.M.

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

May 2018

Townsend, Jacqueline Kathryn. The Renaissance of the American Symphony for Wind

Band as Exemplified by the Recent Symphonies of Donald Grantham, David Dzubay, James

Stephenson, and Kevin Walczyk. Doctor of Musical Arts (Performance), May 2018, 65 pp., 1

table, 15 figures, bibliography, 43 titles.

Since the 18th century, composers have utilized the symphony to communicate thoughts

and ideas through the vehicle of a large ensemble composed of a variety of instrumental colors.

Though the structure of the symphony has understandably been subject to the varied

interpretations of composers over the past 300 years, several characteristics of the traditional

symphony do seem to have stood the test of time. In this document, the recent developments of

the American symphony for wind band is discussed, focusing on the ways in which recent works

both adhere to and divert from the traditional understanding of the classical symphonic form and

highlighting the resurgence of the form by wind band composers. For the purposes of this study,

David Dzubay's Symphony No. 2: Through a Glass Darkly, James Stephenson's Symphony No. 2:

Voices, Donald Grantham's Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz, and Kevin Walczyk's Symphony No. 4:

Unforsaken are used to demonstrate how each composer writes in their own unique style using

contemporary techniques, while still appearing to maintain traditional aspects of the symphonic

form, whether consciously or subconsciously. For each of the four works, a structural analysis is

conducted using a rubric of standard symphonic norms. Additionally, interviews were conducted

with each composer, providing insight on their compositional process, the commissioning

process, and their thoughts on the symphonic form for wind band. The responses each composer

gave during their interviews is incorporated into the analysis of each work, allowing the

composer's own voice to supplement the findings.

ii

Copyright 2018

by

Jacqueline Kathryn Townsend

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincerest gratitude goes to the composers whose works were the impetus for this

study – Donald Grantham, David Dzubay, James Stephenson, and Kevin Walczyk. I am forever

grateful and humbled by their encouraging words and their willingness to participate in this

project. I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with each of them and highlight their

incredible contributions to wind band literature.

I would also like to thank my amazing committee members and teachers from the

University of North Texas: Eugene Migliaro Corporon, for his unwavering support and guidance,

in addition to all of the stimulating conversations to and from Lone Star Wind Orchestra

rehearsals; Dennis Fisher, for all the faith he has had in me throughout my studies at UNT, as

well as his uncanny ability to “tell it like it is” (whether I wanted to hear it or not); and Donna

Emmanuel, for being the ultimate embodiment of strength through adversity, as well as teaching

me how to appreciate the little things and embrace my individuality. I would also like to thank

Nicholas Enrico Williams for his mentorship and many invaluable chats about music, teaching,

and life in general.

Thank you also to my fellow wind studies staff members – Vanessa, Kelly, Jack, and

Heather – for all of your support throughout this process. Thank you especially to my best

friend, Ben Blasko, who has helped me see the bright side of life every time. Thank you for the

endless phone calls, Sunday dinners, trips to Loco Café, and inside jokes, as well as teaching me

to not ever, for any reason do anything to anyone, for any reason, ever. No matter what, no

matter where, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you’ve been, ever. For any

reason, whatsoever. Finally, thank you to my wonderful and supportive friends and family for

always believing in me and helping me follow my dreams – I could not have done it without you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.............................................................................................. vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................................................................... 1

Significance and State of Research ..................................................................................... 4

Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 5

Method ................................................................................................................................ 6 CHAPTER 2. HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE SYMPHONY AND THE WIND BAND ........................................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 3. DONALD GRANTHAM – SYMPHONY NO. 2: AFTER HAFIZ ........................ 15

Donald Grantham Biography ............................................................................................ 15

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz............................................................ 18

First Movement ..................................................................................................... 19

Second Movement ................................................................................................ 20

Third Movement ................................................................................................... 21 CHAPTER 4. DAVID DZUBAY – SYMPHONY NO. 2: THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY ....... 24

David Dzubay Biography ................................................................................................. 24

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 2, Through a Glass, Darkly ..................................... 26

First Movement ..................................................................................................... 28

Second Movement ................................................................................................ 29

Third Movement ................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 5. JAMES STEPHENSON – SYMPHONY NO. 2: VOICES ..................................... 34

James Stephenson Biography ........................................................................................... 34

Program Notes: Symphony No. 2: Voices ......................................................................... 34

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 2: Voices................................................................... 35

First Movement ..................................................................................................... 37

Second Movement ................................................................................................ 39

Third Movement ................................................................................................... 41

v

CHAPTER 6. KEVIN WALCZYK – SYMPHONY NO. 4: UNFORSAKEN ............................... 44

Kevin Walczyk Biography ................................................................................................ 44

Program Notes: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken ................................................................. 45

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken........................................................... 46

Section 1................................................................................................................ 47

Section 3................................................................................................................ 48

Sections 2 and 4 .................................................................................................... 49

Section 5................................................................................................................ 50 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 54 APPENDIX: PERFORMANCE TIMES OF AMERICAN SYMPHONIES FOR WIND BAND SINCE 1949 .................................................................................................................................. 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 63

vi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Page

Table

Table 7.1: Comparison of each symphony against the rubric ....................................................... 55

Figures

Figure 3.1: Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz, Movement 1 Diagram................................................. 19



Figure 4.1: Symphony No. 2: Through a Glass, Darkly, Movement 1 Diagram .......................... 28



Figure 5.1: Symphony No. 2: Voices, Movement 1 Diagram........................................................ 38



Figure 6.1: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken, Section 1 Diagram ..................................................... 48





Figure 6.6: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken, Full Symphony Diagram ........................................... 52

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Since the 18th century, composers have utilized the symphony to communicate thoughts

and ideas through the vehicle of a large ensemble composed of a wide variety of instrumental

colors. The form has long been a staple in the concert music world, demonstrating the technical

prowess and creative innovation of only those that many consider to be the most skilled of

composers. Though the structure of the symphony has understandably been subject to the varied

interpretations of composers over the past 300 years, several characteristics of the traditional

symphony do seem to have stood the test of time; such as the use of multiple contrasting

movements, the size and scope of the performing ensemble, extensive development, and

thematic continuity.1 However, even these characteristics have been subjected to the artistic

liberties of composers, further blurring the definition of what a symphony actually has evolved

into in the context of contemporary society.

In addition to the expansive quality of the symphony (both in terms of length and depth

of the piece as well as the size and varied nature of the ensemble), LaRue notes in the Grove

Dictionary of Music that “the all-embracing tone of the symphony was understood to represent

the emotions or ideas not merely of the individual composer but of an entire community, be it a

city, a state, or the whole of humanity.”2 Cuyler adds that during the Classical period, the

symphony “signaled the full emergence of music as a public art.”3 Tom Service, in an article

1 Jan LaRue, et al. "Symphony." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed November 2, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/27254. 2 Ibid. 3 Louise Cuyler, The Symphony (Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1995), 3.

2

written for British newspaper The Guardian, explained the role of the symphony as a

communicative medium for public consumption from the 18th century to modern day, stating:

If you accept the idea that instrumental music is capable of ‘saying’ anything at all, then it's in the symphony that that power is released most grandly, most extravagantly, and most directly. The symphony is the ultimate embodiment of the idealist notion of music being the ‘highest of the arts,’ a place beyond words or representative images in which transcendent feelings were given pure, unadulterated expression.4 The makeup of the performing ensemble could be seen as a symbolic representation of

this idea, with the relationship of individual players to the ensemble made comparable with the

relationship of the individual to society. The symphony could be viewed as a musical

representation of the democratic ideals of the Western world, where the voice of the individual in

the context of society is highly valued – making it an ideal form for American composers to

explore and develop their craft, while also contributing to the development of a distinctly

American style.5 Tawa comments on the symbolic and communicative nature of the symphony,

stating that “as for content, [composers] most often chose to adhere to an elevated subject – one

that symbolized their ideals and those of a free people.”6 Taking into account the fact that the

modern wind band includes a large number of instrumental timbres (thus allowing the composer

to explore the widest variety of musical colors), there is little doubt why the American symphony

for wind band became a popular and widely composed form in the 20th century, and has

continued to flourish in the 21st century.

Several significant works in wind band literature have been written in the symphonic

form. Beginning as early as 1815 in Europe with Anton Reicha’s Commemoration Symphony,

4 Tom Service, “The Symphony, and how it changed our world.” The Guardian, September 10, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2013/sep/10/50-greatest-symphonies-tom-service-series. 5 Neil Butterworth, The American Symphony (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1998), 1. 6 Nicholas Tawa, The Great American Symphony: Music, The Depression, and War (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2009), 20.

3

Joseph Küffner’s Musique Militaire, Sinfonie, Op. 163, followed by the Grande Symphonie

Funèbre et Triomphale (1840) of Hector Berlioz, and Paul Fauchet’s Symphony in B-flat (1926),

the symphony for band eventually made its way into the American wind band vernacular. Works

many consider notable include H. Owen Reed’s La Fiesta Mexicana (1949), Paul Hindemith’s

Symphony in B-flat (1951), Morton Gould’s Symphony No. 4 “West Point” (1952), and Vincent

Persichetti’s Symphony No. 6, Op. 69 (1956).7 Persichetti himself noted the power of this

marriage of form and medium, stating, “band music is virtually the only kind of music in

America today (outside the ‘pop’ field) which can be introduced, accepted, put to immediate and

wide use, and become a staple of the literature in a short time.”8 Even today, there is an ever-

expanding number works written for wind band under the title of ‘symphony,’ and Persichetti’s

implication that this genre in the wind band medium has the power to not only remain in the

repertoire, but also to influence subsequent works can be considered valid.

However, upon further investigation, there appears to be several American wind band

works written over the last century titled “symphony,” but without strict adherence to many of

the time-tested characteristics of the classical symphony. David Maslanka, for example, opted

for a more through-composed structure for his widely performed Symphony No. 4 (1993),

eliminating the compartmentalized nature of writing in the traditional multi-movement form.

Morton Gould’s Symphony No. 4 “West Point” also broke with tradition in a similar way,

writing for only two clearly defined movements rather than the traditional 3 or 4 movements.

There are numerous works written for younger, developing wind bands that contain the word

“symphony” in their title, and yet are made up of only one continuous movement with a

7 Andrew Pease, “The Wind Band Symphony Archive.” Accessed November 1, 2017, www.windsymphonies.org. 8 Vincent Persichetti, “Symphony No. 6 for Band,” Journal of Band Research 1, no. 1 (1964): 17.

4

performance length of just a few minutes.9 The definition of the symphony as it was understood

in the 18th century has clearly been subjected to a wide variety of interpretations.

As with any art form, trends are constantly evolving, and historical context becomes a

critical element to successful interpretation of a work. This appears to be the case for the

American symphony for band in recent years, as more prominent composers of the medium seem

to be insinuating a renaissance of the form. Composers whose output includes a significant

number of wind band works (if not the majority of their works) are turning to the form and

defining it in their own way, maintaining some traditional characteristics of the symphonic form

(such as the use of multiple sections or movements and the extent of thematic and motivic

development), while ignoring others (such as strict adherence to sonata-allegro form in the first

and last movements). This element of compositional output should be examined in order to gain

insight about the symphony as it relates to the wind band at this point in the 21st century.

Significance and State of Research

While numerous resources are available on the symphonic form, its relationship to the

wind band by American composers has been minimally addressed. Four authors have previously

catalogued symphonies for wind band: Bly (1973), Running (1991), Pieters (2013), and Pease

(2015). These catalogues span the entire gamut of literature available, from the Jadin and Gossec

symphonies of 1794 to symphonies of the present day. There are also two studies that

specifically compare and analyze American wind band symphonies: Mullins’ 1967 dissertation,

Three Symphonies for Band by American Composers, and Ferguson’s 1971 document, An

Analysis of Four American Symphonies for Band. As stated by Ferguson, “these multi-movement

9 Pease, “The Wind Band Symphony Archive.”

5

works for winds and percussion reveal a wide spectrum of approaches from traditional to avant-

garde.”10 Mullins chose a four-part approach to his research of the symphonies in his study,

presenting background information, providing analyses, summarizing stylistic characteristics,

and comparing each symphony in relation to the data obtained.11

Although these studies do tackle the approaches made by significant wind band

composers of the time in which they were written, there appears to be very little information

discussing the evolution of the symphonic form for wind bands since the mid-twentieth century,

and certainly the recent contributions of composers such as David Dzubay, Donald Grantham,

James Stephenson, and Kevin Walczyk have yet to be fully explored. It is the purpose of this

study to essentially model the process utilized by Mullins in 1967 and Ferguson in 1971 and

determine the trends and/or the significant changes that have taken place in the approach of

American composers writing symphonic repertoire for the wind band today, nearly fifty years

later.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study:

1. What traditional elements remain intact in the symphonies of these composers?

2. What elements diverge from tradition in the symphonies of these composers?

3. Are these choices purposeful? If so, what is the rationale?

4. Are there any common trends that can be identified in order to develop a common definition/interpretation of the symphony for wind band as it is practiced today?

10 Thomas Ferguson, “An Analysis of Four American Symphonies for Band” (Doctoral diss., Eastman School of Music, 1971), 360. 11 Joe B. Mullins, “Three Symphonies for Band by American Composers” (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1967), 8.

6

5. If there has been a renaissance of the symphonic form for wind band, what is the cause?

6. How do current wind band composers interpret the symphonic form?

Method

In this document, the recent developments of the American symphony for wind band will

be discussed, focusing on the ways in which recent works both adhere to and divert from the

traditional understanding of the classical symphonic form and highlighting the resurgence of the

form by wind band composers. It is worth noting that at the time of this writing, eight wind band

works with ‘symphony’ in their title have been premiered within the past two years alone, with

another scheduled to premiere in the summer of 2018. These include David Dzubay’s Symphony

No. 2: Through a Glass, Darkly, Donald Grantham’s Symphony No. 2, After Hafiz, James

Stephenson’s Symphony No. 2: Voices, Adam Schoenberg’s Symphony No. 2: Migration, Kevin

Walczyk’s Symphony No. 4 Unforsaken, Dan Welcher’s Symphony No. 6, Three Places in the

East, Brett Abigaña’s Symphony No. 3, The Rose, Timothy Mahr’s Symphony No. 1, and Julie

Giroux’s Symphony No. 5: Sun, Rain & Wind.

The symphonies of Dzubay, Stephenson, Grantham, and Walczyk are used in this study

to demonstrate how each composer writes in their own unique style using contemporary

techniques, while still appearing to maintain traditional aspects of the symphonic form, whether

consciously or subconsciously. The impetus behind this phenomenon is further investigated

through personal interviews with the composers themselves, gaining deeper insight from their

perspectives, as well as additional background information regarding inspiration and the

commissioning process as it relates to the development of the American wind band symphony.

Finally, this information is used to determine trends of the modern American symphony for the

7

wind band, possible causes for the resurgence of this form, as well as highlight areas needing

further study.

The four symphonies selected for this document have been chosen based on a number of

factors. First, these are among the most recent examples of symphonies written for the wind band

by American composers, having each been premiered in 2016 and thus demonstrating how

relevant the trends may be. Secondly, each of the four composers selected have established

themselves as key figures in the wind band world, having each written a significant amount of

repertoire for the medium and having been commissioned by some of the leading ensembles in

the country. These factors are consistent with justifications used by Mullins in his 1967 study,

who chose pieces that were “representative of the contemporary literature for American bands”

and were considered “serious, full-scale composition[s] for band,” “the product of an American

composer of reputation,” and “typical of that composer’s mature style.”12 The fact that each of

these composers have written symphonies in their own unique style while also maintaining a

strong sense of formal structure serves to strengthen the thesis that a renewed understanding and

embrace of the symphony has been made by composers of music for wind band. The aim is to

determine what characteristics of the traditional symphony are upheld in each of these works, as

well as to highlight the characteristics that purposefully divert away from the norm, resulting in a

new definition of the American symphony for wind band.

For each of the four works, a structural analysis is conducted using a rubric of standard

symphonic norms, focusing on the aspects of the traditional symphony that has been gleaned

from earlier research on the form. This rubric includes the following characteristics of the

traditional symphony:

12 Mullins, 8.

8

• Instrumentation that supports an expansive or large-scale ensemble

• Multiple contrasting movements or sections

• A fast-slow-fast pattern between the movements

• Sonata-allegro, rounded binary, or similar form in the first movement or section

• A slower ternary, rounded binary, or similar form in a related key in the second movement or section

• A minuet and trio, scherzo, or similar form in a related key in the third movement or section

• A faster sonata-allegro, theme and variations, rondo, or similar form in the fourth movement or section

• Thematic cohesion between movements

• Significant length of approximately 17-27 minutes

• Intent of the composer to communicate a broad message to the public

Each of these characteristics was assembled based on numerous references in research

devoted to the symphonic form, in addition to personal observations. The use of a full-sized

ensemble is directly mentioned by Ulrich, who states that symphonies are defined by “the full

textures presented by the ensemble, a serious purpose, high standards of craftsmanship, and the

presentation of abstract musical materials.”13 The “sonata” concept as mentioned by Stedman not

only refers to the fast-slow-fast tempo relationship between each movement or section, but also

describes the contrasting structural makeup of each individual movement or section expected in

the symphony. In other words, the symphony is a sonata for a large ensemble.14

Thematic cohesion (or cyclic unity) is mentioned in several sources as a component of

the traditional symphony, and as Noonan points out, this method of recalling musical ideas heard

13 Homer Ulrich. Symphonic Music: Its Evolution Since the Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 4-5. 14 Preston Stedman. The Symphony (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979), 18.

9

in previous movements became commonplace in the late 19th century.15 Additionally, the idea

that a symphony should be a work of significant length is mentioned by Tawa, who claims that a

symphony “signified music given a measure of heft” and that the work would not “be overly

brief or overly light and superficial. Weightiness was the rule.”16 However, in order to develop a

more focused performance time from which the symphonies could be compared in this

document, performance times specifically of the major American symphonies written since 1949

were collected (see the appendix). After taking the average performance time of these works, it

was determined that a majority of them fell between 17 and 27 minutes in length (although the

range spanned from as short as 9 minutes to as long as 75 minutes). This allowed the focus to

remain on a time that could be considered “typical” for a symphony for band, while still being

flexible enough to allow for outliers.

Finally, the communication of a broad idea to the public is another key characteristic

associated with the symphony in many sources. Tawa connects this need by American

composers to communicate using the symphony, stating: “several American musicians believed

that music, through the symphony, possessed the ability to achieve the highest and most

comprehensive form of human communication” and that “composers could offer insights into

major areas of human feeling and communicate these perceptions to listeners.”17 The ability to

express themselves and confirm their own American identity made the symphony a particularly

appealing form for American composers in the 20th and 21st centuries.

15 Timothy Noonan. “Luigi Boccherini.” In The Symphonic Repertoire, Vol. 1, edited by A. Peter Brown, Mary Sue Morrow, and Bathia Churgin (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2012), 174. 16 Tawa, 20. 17 Tawa, 21.

10

Having suggested a 10-point “rubric” of traditional or typical characteristics of the

symphony, an analysis of each of the aforementioned works by Dzubay, Grantham, Stephenson,

and Walczyk is conducted to determine how closely these works align with these characteristics,

while also highlighting each composer’s unique means of achieving their own interpretation of

the symphony. In addition to the analyses, basic information about each work is outlined,

including program notes, instrumentation, commissioning ensembles and/or individuals. A

demonstration is made of how each work fits within the framework of the traditional symphonic

form for the wind band or purposefully avoids that framework, creating a new representation of

how the symphony has been redefined by these recent wind band compositions. Interviews with

each composer provide insight on the compositional process, the commissioning process, and

their thoughts on the symphonic form for wind band. The responses each composer gave in their

interview is incorporated into the analysis of each work, allowing the composer’s own voice to

supplement the findings.

11

CHAPTER 2

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE SYMPHONY AND THE WIND BAND

The term ‘symphony’ has had various meanings throughout the course of music history.

According to Homer Ulrich, the earliest usage of the term came from the classic Greeks, for

whom ‘symphony’ was a musical interval (the term literally meaning an “agreement” or

“concord” of sounds). The term later referred to specific musical instruments (such as the hurdy-

gurdy) in the Middle Ages, and by the late 1500s it was finally used to title compositions.18

Because the symphony lacked the audience that the similarly extensive Mass had (the

congregations in the church), Cuyler notes that the symphony had to appeal to the audience of

the concert hall. As public concerts became more common in 18th century Europe, the demand

for the symphony grew, and thus the form represented a “response to the new, more democratic

musical taste.”19

Nowhere was this connection between democratic ideals and the communicative power

of music more prevalent in the 18th century than in France during the first revolution, where the

wind band not only experienced a significant amount of growth in terms of the number of

musicians in the ensemble and its popularity with the public as a vehicle for political and cultural

communication, but also with the introduction of the first symphonies written for the medium.

François Joseph Gossec’s Military Symphony in F (1793-1794) was written only a few years

after the onset of the French Revolution. Twenty-one years later, Anton Reicha bypassed the

limitations placed on the size of military bands during the Napoleonic wars by effectively writing

his Commemoration Symphony (1815) for three bands playing simultaneously, resulting in a 4-

18 Ulrich, 7-8. 19 Cuyler, 7.

12

movement work for 46 players. Reicha’s student, Hector Berlioz, provided his own addition to

the symphonic repertoire for wind band in 1840 with the premiere of his three-movement Grand

Symphonie Funébre et Triomphale, Op. 15, written to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the

July Revolution of 1830.20 After hearing the work, an impressed Richard Wagner was quoted as

saying:

I am inclined to rank this composition above all Berlioz' other ones; it is great from the first note to the last. It sustains a noble patriotic emotion which rises from lament to the topmost height of apotheosis. When I further take into account the service rendered by Berlioz in his altogether noble treatment of the military wind band...I must say with delight that I am convinced this "Symphonie" will last and exalt the hearts of men as long as there lives a nation called France.21 As the twentieth century commenced, symphonies continued to be written for the wind

bands of Europe and set the stage for the American embrace of the form. Among the most widely

recognized of these works from this time period are Symphony No. 4, Op. 34 (1925) by Ernst

Krenek (of Austria), Symphony in B-flat (1926) by Paul Fauchet (of France), and Symphony No.

19 in E-flat, Op. 46 (1939) by Nikolai Myaskovsky (of Russia). Mullins offers a rationale for the

emphatic connection between the symphonic form and the wind band medium, stating that “large

complex works are not only considered practical for bands, but entirely appropriate to their

technical and musical resources.”22

The early 20th century saw the emergence of the first American symphonies for wind

band, which included James Robert Gillette’s Symphony in C “Pagan” (1932) and Ernst

Williams’s First Symphony in C minor (1938). Since that period of time, many American

20 Stephen L. Rhodes. “A History of the Wind Band: Dr. Stephen L. Rhodes.” Lipscomb University. Accessed December 29, 2017. http://www.lipscomb.edu/windbandhistory/. 21 Ibid. 22 Mullins, 3.

13

composers have fully adopted the form. Butterworth offers a rationale for this phenomenon,

stating:

Compared to that of the Old World, the musical tradition of the United States is not only relatively brief in time but also ineluctably heterogeneous. In terms of orchestral music, an identifiable ‘American’ style is less than a century old. Thus, the strong desire to establish a national musical heritage to emulate that of Europe has been a powerful stimulus to many composers.23 By the mid-20th century, several American composers embraced the symphony for wind

band, resulting in important works which are still held in high regard. Among these are La Fiesta

Mexicana (1949) by H. Owen Reed, Symphony in B-flat (1951) by Paul Hindemith (an

American citizen by the time he wrote the work), Symphony No. 4 “West Point” (1952) by

Morton Gould, Symphony No. 6, Op. 69 (1956) by Vincent Persichetti, Symphony No. 4, Op.

165 (1958) by Alan Hovhaness, and Symphony No. 3 (1958) by Vittorio Giannini. The late 20th

century saw the number of symphonies written for band rise, with additions to the repertoire such

as Gunther Schuller’s Symphony No. 3: In Praise of Winds (1981), Ira Hearshen’s Symphony on

Themes by John Philip Sousa (1993), and three symphonies by David Maslanka: Symphony No.

2 (1986), Symphony No. 3 (1991), and Symphony No. 4 (1993).24

At the turn of the 21st century, the addition of symphonies written by composers who had

already well-established themselves as significant figures specializing in music for the wind band

became a key characteristic in the development of the genre. These additions include works by

Frank Ticheli (Symphony No. 2 in 2004), David Maslanka (Symphony No. 5 in 2000, Symphony

No. 7 in 2005, Symphony No. 8 in 2008, and Symphony No. 9 in 2011), Julie Giroux (Symphony

No. 4: Bookmarks from Japan in 2013), and John Mackey (Wine-Dark Sea: Symphony for Band

23 Butterworth, 1. 24 Pease, “The Wind Band Symphony Archive.”

14

in 2014). It is worth noting that several of these works were commissioned by major ensembles

or consortiums, demonstrating the importance of the performing entities and their conductors to

the development and continuation of the form. Although the late 20th and early 21st centuries

have shown an increase in the number of symphonies for wind band written by key composers

for the wind band, the compositional output of 2016 has shown a particularly noticeable surge or

“renaissance” of the form, with additions to the literature by Brett Abigaña, David Dzubay, Julie

Giroux, Donald Grantham, Timothy Mahr, Adam Schoenberg, James Stephenson, Kevin

Walczyk, and Dan Welcher all taking place during this time.25

25 Ibid.

15

CHAPTER 3

DONALD GRANTHAM – SYMPHONY NO. 2: AFTER HAFIZ

Donald Grantham Biography

Donald Grantham was born and raised in Duncan, Oklahoma as the eldest of three

brothers. His first composition was written when he was just 13 years old, and composing has

remained the primary focus of his life ever since, stating that he “can’t remember any period of

time longer than a few weeks during the past 30 years when I didn’t have a piece in progress.”26

He earned his bachelor’s degree in music from the University of Oklahoma (1970) and master’s

degree in music and Doctor of Musical Arts in composition from the University of Southern

California (in 1974 and 1980, respectively).27 In the summers of 1973-1974, Grantham studied at

the American Conservatory at Fontainebleau with renowned composition pedagogue Nadia

Boulanger. His other primary composition teachers include Halsey Stevens, Robert Linn, and

Ramiro Cortez. Grantham’s current position, held since 1975, has been as the Frank C. Edwin Jr.

Centennial Professor of Composition at the University of Texas at Austin.28

Grantham’s compositions have won numerous awards, including the Prix Lili Boulanger,

Nissim/ASCAP Orchestral Composition Prize, a citation from the American Academy and

Institute for Arts and Letters, First Prize in the Concordia Chamber Symphony’s Awards to

American Composers, a Guggenheim Fellowship, three grants from the National Endowment for

the Arts, three First Prizes in the NBA/William Revelli Competition (for Bum’s Rush, Fantasy

Variations, and Southern Harmony), two First Prizes in the ABA/Ostwald Competition (for

26 Donald Grantham, “Donald Grantham,” in Composers on Composing for Band: Volume Two, ed. Mark Camphouse (Chicago: GIA Publications, 2002), 98. 27 Ibid. 28 Wendy Zander McCallum. “Symphony No. 2, After Hafiz.” In Teaching Music Through Performance in Band, Volume 11, edited by Richard Miles (Chicago: GIA Publications, 2018), 1026.

16

Fantasy Variations and Southern Harmony), and First Prize in the National Opera Association’s

Biennial Composition Competition. His works are published by Piquant Press, Peer-Southern,

E.C. Schirmer, G. Schirmer, Warner Brothers, and Mark Foster.29 Commercial recordings can be

heard on the CRI, Klavier, Gasparo, Centaur, and Summit labels.30

Program Notes: Symphony No. 2, ‘After Hafiz’

Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz was commissioned by the Midwest Clinic in celebration of

the clinic’s seventieth anniversary, in addition to honoring its president, Richard Crain. Adapted

from an earlier choral work, entitled The Contemplations of Hafiz, Grantham offers the following

on the symphony:

The three movements of my symphony, After Hafiz, are inspired by three of the poet’s poems. Daniel Ladinsky, the translator whose renderings of Hafiz were my point of reference, provides the following brief introduction to the life and work of Hafiz: Hafiz (1320-1389)...is the most beloved poet of Persians. He was born and lived in Shiraz, a beautiful garden city, where he became a famous spiritual teacher. His Divan (collected poems) is a classic in the literature of Sufism and mystical verse. The work of Hafiz became known to the West largely through the passion of Goethe. His enthusiasm deeply affected Ralph Waldo Emerson, who then translated Hafiz in the nineteenth century. Emerson said of Hafiz, “Hafiz is a poet for poets,” and Goethe remarked, “Hafiz has no peer.” Hafiz’s poems were also admired by such diverse notables as Nietzsche and Arthur Conan Doyle, whose wonderful character Sherlock Holmes quotes Hafiz; Garcia Lorca praised him, the famous composer Johannes Brahms was so touched by his verse he put several lines into compositions, and even Queen Victoria was said to have consulted the works of Hafiz in times of need. The range of Hafiz’s verse is indeed stunning. He says, “I am a hole in a flute that the Christ’s breath moves through - listen to this music.” And the music of Hafiz’s poetry is indeed very wide-ranging. Frequent themes are both spiritual and carnal love, song, dance, stunted religiosity, and an all-embracing mystical pantheism. 31

29 Ibid. 30 Grantham, “Donald Grantham,” 98. 31 Donald Grantham, program notes from Symphony No. 2 After Hafiz (Austin, TX: Piquant Press, 2016).

17

The first movement is entitled Listen to This Music: My Songs are about Our Glorious

Journey, and was originally conceived with the following accompanied poetry:

I am a hole in a flute that the Christ’s breath moves through - listen to this music. I am the concert from the movement of every creature singing in myriad chords. And every dancer, their foot I know and lift. And every brush and hand, well, that is me also who caresses any canvas or cheek. How did I become all these things, and beyond all things? It was my destiny, as it is yours. My songs are about our glorious journey. We are a hole in a flute, a moment in space, that the Christ’s body can move through and sway all forms - in an exquisite dance - as the wind in a forest. The second movement is entitled Greeting God, and was meant to emulate the poem with

the same title:

I hear The nightingale greeting God. I hear The rain speaking to the roof Of my heart. Like a winter blanket of snow gently Tucking in the earth I let a great yearning within my ken Lay down next To Him I hear A sorrowful lover being true No matter what, even if the Beloved seems Cruel Tonight There is a jeweled falcon singing in a Blessed pain using the tongue Of Hafiz.

18

I Hold the Lion’s Paw, the title of the third movement, is based on the poem of the same

name:

I hold the Lion’s Paw Whenever I dance. I know the ecstasy of the falcon’s wings When they make love against the sky. And the sun and moon Sometimes argue over Who will tuck me in at night. If you think I am having more fun Than anyone on this planet You are absolutely correct. But Hafiz Is willing to share all his secrets About how to befriend God. Indeed, dear ones, Hafiz is so very willing To share all his secrets About how to know the Beautiful One. I hold the Lion’s Paw whenever I dance.32

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz

Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz is a 17-minute work in three movements. Its length falls

within the range offered in this study as a common length of a symphony for wind band. The

work includes the following instrumentation:

• Piccolo

• 2 Flutes

• 2 Oboes

• English Horn

• E-flat Clarinet

• 3 Bb Clarinets

• Bass Clarinet

32 Donald Grantham, program notes from Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz (Austin, TX: Piquant Press, 2016).

• Contrabass Clarinet

• 2 Bassoons

• Contrabassoon

• Soprano Sax

• Alto Sax

• Tenor Sax

• Baritone Sax

• 3 Trumpets

• 4 French Horns

• 2 Trombones

• Bass Trombone

• Euphonium

• Tuba

• Double Bass

• Harp

• Piano

• Timpani

• Percussion

19

The three movements in this symphony do provide contrast in terms of overall tempi,

orchestration, and treatment of thematic material. When examined in order, the movements

present the common tempo pattern of fast-slow-fast. Movement 1 maintains an overall fast

tempo of quarter note = 138, while Movement 2 presents the much slower tempo range of dotted

quarter note = 36-52, and Movement 3 presents tempi ranging from half note = 66 to quarter =

128.

First Movement

The individual movements of Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz contain a number of elements

associated with the traditional 4-movement form.

Figure 3.1: Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz, Movement 1 Diagram

20

The first movement resembles the expected sonata-allegro form, with two themes introduced in

the exposition (the “A” theme at measure 5 and the “B” theme at measure 17), followed by a

development from measure 66-136, a recapitulation from measure 136-233, and a coda at

measure 233. Rather than bringing the original two themes back verbatim, Grantham instead

brings the B theme back first in canonic treatment, followed by the A theme at measure 195.

Harmonically, these themes also function in the way one would expect in a typical sonata-allegro

form, with the A theme presented in the tonic of F major and the B theme presented in the

dominant of C major. The movement itself also ends in the expected F major tonic.

Second Movement

The second movement, by contrast, begins in the key of E minor. Interestingly, Grantham

chose this key based on the comfort of the mezzo soprano soloist in the original choral work, yet

the harmonic relationship between the first and second movements does function in a manner

that is expected in the typical symphonic form.33 E minor, when viewed as its relative key of G

major, serves as a secondary dominant to the opening key in of F major in the first movement – a

closely related key, as expected in the second movement of a symphony. Additionally, the

second movement is written in a much slower tempo and has an overall form similar to a binary

form of AAB (also known as bar form or song form). The first two sections (measures 4-35 and

measures 36-68 respectively) each contain two alternating themes, and a third theme closes out

the movement at measure 69. The orchestration of the second movement provides additional

contrast to the outer two movements, as it written solely for woodwinds, double bass, harp, and

minimal percussion. Grantham offered commentary on this, stating, “I was just looking at that

33 Donald Grantham, interview, January 18, 2018.

21

second movement as just providing a stark contrast to the other two. Something slow, something

lyrical, something thin and transparent.”34


Third Movement

Although Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz is made up of just three movements, the third

movement contains elements traditionally associated with both the typical third and the typical

fourth movement, fulfilling a dual role. Generally, the movement is structured in a sonata-allegro

form, with two distinct thematic areas introduced in the exposition. The second of these thematic

areas (from measure 48-86) has a dance-like quality in mixed and asymmetric meter. When

asked about this quality mimicking the associations with a third movement of a symphony,

Grantham referred to the meaning of the poem, stating “I did have a kind of ‘scherzo’ in mind. It

was suggested by the poem.” 35This is also suggested by the movement’s title, I Hold the Lion’s

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.

22

Paw…whenever I dance!”

The exposition of the two main thematic areas is followed by a complex and lengthy

development, in which fragments of both themes are interspersed throughout the ensemble. At

measure 262, a simultaneous recapitulation occurs, in which the themes presented in Movement

1 return (a prime example of Grantham’s ability to integrate thematic cohesion) and bring the

work to a final energetic close on the original tonic of F major.


With the inclusion of the dance-like element, Grantham’s own description of the

movement as a scherzo, the sonata-allegro form, and the culminating thematic and harmonic

elements, this movement does fulfill many of the qualities expected of both a third and fourth

movement of a conventional symphony. Grantham also commented on the cyclic thematic

23

content: “I think that this piece is kind of unusual in that it’s derived from a larger work…and

there is a thread of continuity that runs through the whole thing.”36

Grantham has stated that many of his works are inspired by literature that he has “found

compelling,” and this is certainly the case for his Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz. This work,

originally a choral work of nine movements titled The Contemplations of Hafiz (2016), is based

on the poetry of 14th century Persian writer Hafiz, whose works center on mysticism, love, and

religion. In an interview quoted in the Statesman out of Austin, Texas, Grantham elaborates on

his decision to use the poetry as inspiration for his work, stating, “one of the most interesting

things I found in this poetry was the blending of the spiritual and physical, the sacred and

profane. For Hafiz, they seem to flow together seamlessly and to complement and reinforce each

other.”37 Bearing this in mind, it can be said that with his Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz, Grantham

is musically communicating and emulating his admiration and inspiration of the ideas of the 14th

century poet. Finally, because the symphony was derived from the earlier choral work, the text

was instrumental in the resulting form, and thus bears a literal relationship with the rhythmic

pattern and overall structure of the original poetry. As stated by Grantham, “all three of these

movements…were dictated by the text. That’s the skeleton that the whole thing came from, and

that’s the reason I chose these three particular movements, because even though they were based

on a text, I think they come across without the text being present.”38

36 Ibid. 37 Drew Carr, “Chorus Austin Wraps 50th Anniversary with Past, Present, and Future.” Statesman, May 17, 2016. http://www.statesman.com/marketing/chorus-austin-wraps-50th-anniversary-celebration-with-past-present-and-future/XbZgNCt3Ulev98N9bSiKrO/. 38 Donald Grantham, interview, January 18, 2018.

24

CHAPTER 4

DAVID DZUBAY – SYMPHONY NO. 2: THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY

David Dzubay Biography

David Dzubay was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1964 and was raised in Portland,

Oregon by his parents Dale and Edith Dzubay. As a trumpet player in the Jefferson High School

music program, he was exposed to both jazz and wind band music, and his membership in the

Portland Youth Philharmonic also influenced his interest in orchestral repertoire. It was also

while in attendance at Jefferson High School that Dzubay began composing. He briefly attended

the University of Puget Sound as a computer science major before transferring to Indiana

University as a double major in computer science and music, graduating in 1986.39 He then went

on to earn his master’s (1988) and doctoral (1991) degrees in composition from Indiana

University. His principal composition teachers included Donald Erb, Frederick Fox, Eugene

O’Brien, Lukas Foss, Oliver Knussen, Allan Dean, and Bernard Adelstein.40 After spending one

year on the faculty at the University of North Texas, Dr. Dzubay accepted a position at his alma

mater Indiana University, where he is now Professor of Music, Chair of the Composition

Department, and Director of the New Music Ensemble at the Jacobs School of Music.41

Dr. Dzubay has won many awards for his compositional output, including the 2015

Sackler Prize; the 2015 Fromm Commission; the 2011 Arts and Letters Award from the

American Academy of Arts and Letters; the 2010 Heckscher Foundation-Ithaca College

Composition Prize; the 2007 Guggenheim Fellowship; two MacDowell Colony Fellowships

39 Timothy Salzman, A Composer’s Insight, Vol. 5: Thoughts Analysis and Commentary on Contemporary Masterpieces for Wind Band (Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications, 2012), 75-76. 40 David Dzubay. “Bio.” Accessed November 13, 2017. http://pronovamusic.com/bio.html. 41 Salzman, 76.

25

(2006, 2007); the 2004 NBA William Revelli Composition Contest; and the 2001 Walter Beeler

Prize. Additionally, he has received commissions from top organizations all over the world,

including Meet the Composer, the Musashino Academy of Music, the Fromm Music Foundation

at Harvard, and the Minnesota Orchestra. His works are published by Pro Nova Music and are

recorded on Sony, Bridge, Centaur, Innova, Naxos, Crystal, Klavier, GIA, and First Edition

labels.42

Program Notes: Symphony No. 2: Through a Glass, Darkly

Symphony No. 2: Through a Glass, Darkly was commissioned by a consortium of

universities and led by Dr. Scott Weiss of the University of South Carolina. Additional schools

involved in the consortium include Bowling Green State University, Illinois State University,

Indiana University, Troy University, the University of Arizona, the University of Arkansas, the

University of Illinois, the University of Kansas, the University of North Carolina – Greensboro,

and the University of Southern California. In the score notes for Symphony No. 2: Through a

Glass, Darkly, Dzubay offers the following:

From 1 Corinthians Chapter 13: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Mirrors are an integral part of the structure and experience of music. To my ears, most effective music has a high degree of coherence, with myriad internal connections and relationships, both obvious and subtle, heard and not-heard though perhaps subconsciously sensed. Though true for short pieces, where simplicity and concise elegance can be so meaningful and convincing, this is at least as important in large scale compositions; indeed, coherence is at the heart of what makes a symphony a symphony. Motives, themes and even long passages may recur in varied contexts, reflecting their

42 Dzubay, “Bio.”

26

core identities yet becoming transformed, as though seen “through a glass, darkly,” “glass” referring to an ancient mirror, likely of polished metal - a mirror that does not reflect a perfect image but rather through which one sees “darkly.” Musical mirrors appear in everything from melody and harmony to rhythm and form, at both small scale and large. Composers have long been fond of using mirroring techniques, including repetition, palindromes, retrogrades and inversions; sculpting forms that recall ideas in a new light; or creating tonal plans with balanced architecture. Further, a performance by a conducted ensemble might be thought of as the functioning of a series of mirrors, reflecting musical ideas from composer to score to conductor to musicians to audience. But like a game of telephone, the music is altered and shaped in subtle ways along the journey from composer to listener, with a multitude of interpretations factoring into the resultant sound. While my first symphony was programmatic in nature, being dedicated to three influential teachers all of whom died early, this symphony is more in the tradition of absolute music, that is, without programmatic narrative. However, having stated that, I will also suggest that the music is expressive, and a listener is of course free to conjure their own interpretive narrative. Like many symphonies, there is a degree of struggle and resolution, which might lead to associations with the quoted text from Corinthians. Cast in a three movement fast-slow-fast structure, the symphony focuses on a few central musical ideas - motives, melodies, chords, rhythms - and for some reason the number five, all of which are used throughout the work, transforming into ever new reflections of the initial musical impulses. Mirrors, small and large, abound.43

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 2, Through a Glass, Darkly

Symphony No. 2, Through a Glass, Darkly is written in three movements, each growing

progressively shorter in length and totaling 25 minutes in performance time. This places it within

the scope of a “typical” length of a symphony for wind band based on the parameters of this

study. Through the use of the ideas related to “mirrors,” Dzubay is able to develop an abundance

of variations on seemingly simple motives, creating a complex set of structures within the

symphony and resulting in the contrast of tempi, orchestration, and treatment of material that

would be anticipated in a symphonic work.

43 David Dzubay, program notes from Symphony No. 2: Through a Glass, Darkly, (Bloomington, IN: Pro Nova Music, 2016).

27

The symphony includes the following instrumentation:

• Piccolo

• 2 Flutes

• 2 Oboes

• E-flat Clarinet

• 3 Bb Clarinets

• Bass Clarinet

• Contralto/Contrabass CL

• 2 Bassoons

• 2 Alto Saxophones

• Tenor Saxophone

• Baritone Saxophone

• 4 Trumpets

• 4 French Horns

• 2 Trombones

• Bass Trombone

• Euphonium

• Tuba

• Timpani

• 4 Percussion

• Harp

• Piano

• Double Bass

The tempo structure between each movement follows the expected fast-slow-fast pattern,

although Dzubay bridges these shifts in a manner that is less conventional. The first movement

begins with a very slow introduction at half note = 60 before a gradual increase in speed

eventually reaching a tempo as fast as half note = 144. Interestingly, Dzubay maintains this

tempo of 144 in the quarter note at the beginning of the second movement, but this merely acts

as a bridge toward the more expected slower tempo of the second movement, which manifests in

measure 27 with a tempo of quarter note = 72. This helps to enforce the mirroring concept,

which Dzubay commented on in an interview, stating, “the fast beginning to the slow movement

is kind of ironic, but it’s one of these mirrors. It’s the ending of the first movement backwards,

and then a similar kind of intro is at the start of the third movement as well.”44 The primary

tempo range of the second movement is quarter note = 60 to 80, therefore the movement does

follow the conventional slower tempo expected. Finally, the third movement, acting as a

“mirror” in tempo structure to the first movement, begins at a brisk tempo of quarter = 152 and

remains at that tempo until the end of the work, in which Dzubay effectively writes in a

44 David Dzubay, interview, January 18, 2018.

28

ritardando in tempo markings gradually decreasing from quarter note = 132 to the ending tempo

of quarter note = 60 (the same tempo as the beginning of the symphony).

First Movement

The first movement, called “Objects in Mirror are Closer than they Appear,” resembles a

form similar to the expected sonata-allegro form, in that it presents three themes (one more than

typical), develops them, and presents them again in a form of recapitulation at the end of the

movement. The harmonic relationships between the themes also bear a resemblance to those

typical in a symphony.

Figure 4.1: Symphony No. 2: Through a Glass, Darkly, Movement 1 Diagram

29

The A theme, presented in the flutes at measure 25 is based on B-flat minor, while the B

theme presented in the trombones at measure 64 is based on G Dorian with a drone on D

underneath. Because G Dorian has a relative key signature to F major (as well as the relative key

of D minor hinted by the drone), the B theme can be said to be written in the dominant key of the

initial A theme – a typical characteristic of the traditional sonata-allegro form. The C theme is

introduced at measure 174 as a scalar pattern in the clarinets based on C Phrygian and

harmonized in B-flat minor.

Interestingly, this thematic area has ties with both of the previous themes, with the same

harmonization as the A theme (B-flat minor), but a similar relationship to the dominant function

of the B theme (C Phrygian acting as both a substitute dominant of B-flat, as well as its relative

key signature of A-flat major referring to the relative F minor). The development can be said to

take place at measure 216, as the B theme is presented in variations of rhythm and orchestration,

the C theme is presented in canon (measure 345), and the A theme is presented in inversion

(measure 381), in addition to the many key areas that are explored. Because the return to B-flat

minor takes place at measure 427, this can be seen as a form of recapitulation, coinciding with

the original A theme presented in augmentation. Though the themes are certainly not restated

verbatim, when examined through the lens of “distortion” as referenced in the program notes

(“through a glass, darkly”), the section can be viewed as a recapitulation – distorted.

Second Movement

The clearly defined themes of the first movement are in stark contrast to the second

movement (titled “Reflections in Mirror may be distorted –”), in which Dzubay explores gestural

concepts in a more improvisatory way. This is manifested through four main “themes” or

30

gestural motives which are interwoven throughout, without following a traditional structure.

After a fast introduction, the tempo quickly dissipates to the expected slow tempo of a second

movement at measure 27, and the A theme or “wedge” is introduced. This motive is particularly

pertinent to the subject matter of the symphony, as it creates a symmetric “reflection” of pitches

that build up to create a wedge-like shape.


This section is based around the focal pitch of E, and the following B section is based on

B Major, giving a sense of a tonic-dominant relationship between these two themes. The B

theme is described by Dzubay simply as “flutters,” referring to the improvisatorial and wave-like

shape of the piccolo, flute, vibraphone, and piano. At measure 51, chromatic motion brings the

harmony back to the original tonic of B-flat minor and the C theme (titled “lyric theme” by

Dzubay) is presented. A fourth and final D theme, “oscillations” is introduced at measure 74, and

all themes are referred to again between measures 88 – 117.45 The original A theme from

45 David Dzubay. “Symphony No. 2 – Through a Glass, Darkly.” Accessed November 14, 2017, http://pronovamusic.com/notes/symphony2.html.

31

Movement 1 returns in full force at measure 117, and the coda brings the movement from A

minor to the final key of C Major. Though this movement experiences a great deal of harmonic

activity, the C Major key at the end serves a functional role as the secondary dominant to the

opening key of B-flat minor.

Third Movement

Like the second movement, the third movement continues to develop gestural ideas rather

than clear themes. Even the harmonic language becomes obscure, and the sections of this

movement are based more on focal pitches than clear key areas. Despite this, there are well-

defined sections created throughout the work, and there are even elements expected of a third

and fourth movements that are present.


32

Titled “by socially constructed ideas of beauty,” there are two clear sections based on the blues

(according to Dzubay), the first at measure 32 in F and the second at measure 129 in B-flat.46

These two sections represent a dance-like quality – a common characteristic of the third

movement in a symphony. Additionally, the fast pacing, culmination of ideas from prior

movements, and return to the tonic of B-flat minor also bear a resemblance to the typical fourth

movement of a symphony.

Though Dzubay’s symphony is less clear in terms of identification of themes, harmonic

language, and form, the element of thematic cohesion is still prevalent in the work. Even the

titles of the movements suggest the cyclical element expected of a symphony, as together they

form the entire phrase “Objects in Mirror are closer than they appear; Reflections in Mirror may

be distorted by socially constructed ideas of beauty.” The initial A theme presented in the first

movement is brought back in both movement two (measures 58 and 117) and movement three

(measures 71 and 163). A derivation of the “lyric theme” from Movement 2 is heard in

Movement 3 at measure 82. Several ideas related to mirrors (i.e. reflection, symmetry) are seen

throughout the symphony, such as the “wedge” idea.

As previously mentioned, the titles of the movements in this work form a statement,

which may also be construed as a broad message Dzubay is communicating via the symphonic

form: the ideas of reflection, distortion, and obscured views. The fact that the first movement

offers the clearest “image” of separate themes gives Dzubay the opportunity to then distort those

themes in the subsequent movements. Dzubay commented on this aspect of the first movement

in an interview, stating, “I’m not sure I’ve ever written something with so clearly a first theme, a

second theme, a third theme, but I just kind of ran with it after it seemed to be working. And then

46 Ibid.

33

I try to stick to those ideas in the development.”47 Although abstract in subject matter, Symphony

No. 2: Though a Glass, Darkly offers all listeners the opportunity to experience the expression of

a simple idea or concept via the complex structure of the symphonic form. Dzubay offered

additional insight on this, stating, “I tend to (and probably more increasingly so in recent years)

get a little bit more practical, with my ideas and program notes and expectations. I would like my

music to be communicative and be understood by listeners of all musical training… Probably I

thought that [this] was an idea that people could relate to and find interesting.”48

47 David Dzubay, interview, January 18, 2018. 48 Ibid.

34

CHAPTER 5

JAMES STEPHENSON – SYMPHONY NO. 2: VOICES

James Stephenson Biography

Born in Joliet, Illinois in 1969, James Stephenson first began his musical studies playing

the piano before he became a trumpet player. As an adolescent he attended the Interlochen Arts

Camp and the Tanglewood Boston University Tanglewood Institute. He earned a Bachelor of

Music degree in trumpet performance from the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston,

where he studied with Charles Schlueter. From 1990-2007, Stephenson performed with the

Naples Philharmonic in Florida.49 He is largely self-taught as a composer, having been

encouraged by friends and colleagues to pursue that career path, and has since garnered

numerous accolades, commissions, and awards (most recently the 2017 National Band

Association William D. Revelli Composition Contest for Symphony No. 2: Voices).

Stephenson is in high demand as a commissioned composer, having written for the

United States Marine Band, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Boston Pops, the Minnesota

Orchestra, the Detroit Symphony, the Cincinnati Symphony, the L.A. Philharmonic, the

Philadelphia Orchestra, and the Toronto Symphony, among others.

Program Notes: Symphony No. 2: Voices

In the score notes to Symphony No. 2: Voices, Stephenson elaborates on the inspiration

for this work, stating:

Recently, I was awaiting an international flight, when I heard the distinct sound of laughter coming from behind me. Because I could not see the people laughing, it occurred to me that it was a universal language of happiness; one which cannot evoke

49 Kyle M. Norris. “Twenty-First Century Trumpet Music of James M. Stephenson III.” Doctoral diss., (North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, 2012) 1-3.

35

any judgment based on racial, religious, gender, social, or any other type of prejudice. I decided to not turn around, but rather to enjoy the laughter for what it was. It was this decidedly delightful sound of the human voice that inspired my 2nd symphony for wind ensemble. Voices. They come in so many forms. Some high, some low. Extremely loud, or extremely soft. Some are menacing, or angelic. A voice is completely unique to each individual, and instantly recognizable to a close friend or relative. As a verb, it is used to express or vocalize an opinion. Used together, voices can express opposition, or unification. It occurred to me that all of these and more can be represented within the scope of a wind ensemble. The symphony No. 2 is an exploration of as many voices as I could formalize, resulting in a kind of concerto for wind ensemble. The culmination of the symphony is one of a unified voice, bringing together all of the different “cultures” and “individual voices” of the wind ensemble to express an amassed vision of hope and love; a vision I believe to be shared throughout all the world, yet disrupted continually by misguided and empowered individuals. I could think of no better messenger for such a work than the US “President’s Own” Marine Band - the commissioners of the work - who not only stand among the best musicians of the world, but also represent a country based on the principles of all-inclusiveness and celebrated diversity. It is because of this that no text is used for the mezzo-soprano voice used in this symphony. Instead, the singing voice is another instrument in the ensemble, joining in, or emerging from, the surrounding textures. I would like to personally thank Lieutenant Colonel Jason K. Fettig for his invitation to compose such a significant work, and also the members of the band, many of whom I’m honored to call friends, for their remarkable musical gifts and dedication to our country.50

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 2: Voices

Symphony No. 2: Voices is a three-movement work in which Stephenson defies several

conventions of the symphonic form, while clearly abiding by others. The work’s 20-minute

performance time (a stipulation given to Stephenson by the Marine Band as the commissioning

ensemble) allows it to fall neatly within the ranges as stipulated by this study. The symphony

includes the following instrumentation:

• Mezzo-soprano

• Piccolo / 3 Flutes (+alto)

50 James Stephenson, program notes from Symphony No. 2: Voices (Chicago: Stephenson Music, Inc., 2016).

• 2 Oboes

• English Horn

• E-flat Clarinet

• 3 Clarinets

• Alto Clarinet

• Bass Clarinet

• 2 Bassoons

• Contrabassoon

• Soprano Sax

36

• Alto Sax

• Tenor Sax

• Bari Sax

• 4 French Horns

• 3 Cornets

• 2 Trumpets

• 3 Trombones

• Bass Trombone

• Euphonium

• Tuba

• Double Bass

• Piano/Celesta

• Harp

• Timpani

• 6 Percussion

In addition to the full ensemble, the work also includes a mezzo soprano vocalist, which

serves a symbolic purpose in addition to providing an interesting timbre within the context of the

wind band. The vocalist is intended to sit within the ensemble, as another member of the band

and representative of the theme of “voices.” Referencing his approach to writing for the wind

band, Stephenson offers the following quote on his website:

Writing for any ensemble that contains a set boundary (no strings, for example) actually creates freedom. A sound comes into my head, and then the musical forces given to me then shape where that sound goes. This then in turn inspires a new twist and direction, and pretty soon the music is carried forth by the vehicle, rather than being hampered by it. If you are driving down a road, and you want to turn left, but a sign says ‘road closed,’ you then take a new direction, and oftentimes are surprised by the scenery you might have otherwise not discovered. Writing for band provides some beautiful scenery.51 The tempo relationship between each of the three movements is decidedly opposite from

the conventional fast-slow-fast pattern, although the contrast desired between movements is still

present. The first movement has a tempo range of quarter note = 52 to 72, the second movement

is much faster at quarter note = 152 to 160 (though there is a brief portion that is written as slow

as quarter note = 66), and the third movement returns to the slow tempo range of quarter = 52 to

66. When asked about this, Stephenson said:

One could argue that [the second movement] should have been my last movement. But I really wanted to do the whole apotheosis kind of ending. That was something I wanted to challenge myself with, and so I do try to do something that’s a little bit different than what might be expected, and so ending it with this apotheosis was kind of a challenge to me both technically and formally… So, the reason I did slow-fast-slow was to give myself sort of creative freedom – because it’s not that common. I’m not the only one who

51 James Stephenson, “Composer.” Accessed November 13, 2017. https://composerjim.com/composer/.

37

has done that, but for me it was a challenge to say “alright how am I going to figure this out?” Which inspired me, rather than intimidated me.52

First Movement

Stephenson acknowledges that the first movement was conceived as more of a prelude to

the second movement than as a typical sonata-allegro form. It is interesting to note that

Stephenson wrote the movements out of order, starting with the second movement, followed by

the third movement, and ending with the first movement. This did put a time constraint on

Stephenson, who commented:

By the time I got to the first movement I actually thought I’d kind of bottled myself in. Because I did nine minutes [for the second movement], six minutes [for the third movement], and I thought, ‘oh man, I’ve got to get a first movement that’s only five minutes, roughly.’ So that’s why my first movement is sort of a prelude movement, which kind of leads to the other two. But it all worked out. Even Jason, when I kind of had finished the piece was like, ‘you wanted to say more in that first movement, didn’t you?’ Yes! I couldn’t. I just had to sort of box myself in.53

The first movement is clearly not in a sonata-allegro form and does not appear to resemble any

of the typical first-movement forms. It generally aligns more closely with a theme and variation

structure, where the main theme is constantly returning in new orchestration, fragmentation, and

augmentation.

The dramatic introduction begins with a unison E-flat – a critically important element

which has significant harmonic and structural implications towards the end of the work. The

primary melodic material is introduced by the mezzo-soprano in measure 20. This material

manifests itself several times throughout the movement, and is written in G Phrygian,

foreshadowing the eventual move to G major at the end of the movement.

52 James Stephenson, interview, January 19, 2018. 53 Ibid.

38

At measure 48, harmonic motion to B major signals the beginning of the “psychotic

waltz” section. B major serves as a substitute dominant to the eventual final key of the

movement (G major), in that its parallel key of B minor, which is seen only four measures later,

has a relative key of D major, the dominant of G. This is important to note, because although the

movement is not written in a structure within conventional expectations, the harmonic transition

towards a dominant key for a significant portion of the middle of the movement and final return

to tonic is expected. Interestingly, in this case, the final key of the first movement is not in tonic

(E-flat), however the intervallic relationship between G and E-flat is the exact relationship

established in the introduction and the primary melodic material (minor sixth). A case could be

made that Stephenson, rather than relying on the harmonic memories of his listeners, was instead

relying on their melodic or intervallic memories.

Figure 5.1: Symphony No. 2: Voices, Movement 1 Diagram

39

Second Movement

The second movement, titled “Shouts and Murmurs,” was the first full movement written

by Stephenson, and is also the most substantial in terms of length and treatment of materials. The

harmonic relationship between the first and second movement can be interpreted as conventional

based on the fact that the opening theme performed by the clarinet section is written in F minor.

Since the relative major of F minor is A-flat, the second movement can then be determined to be

written in the subdominant of the original tonic key of E-flat. The sprightly 7/8 metered section

has a dance-like quality resembling the character of a scherzo third movement in a symphony. It

also pays homage to one of Stephenson’s idols, Leonard Bernstein, to whom Stephenson

attributes this language. In discussion of the dance characteristics of this movement, Stephenson

stated, “I think that’s just a human condition. We just love to dance. And if we can make music

that makes people feel like dancing, that’s a pretty cool thing to do. I always think about

Bernstein when I think about that - because all of his music makes you want to dance. Every

single thing he writes. So, I try to not steal, but certainly borrow that overarching [idea].”54

The B theme, heard in Trumpet 1 in measure 36 is presented in B-flat Dorian and is

harmonized in D-flat major. This is significant because it allows Stephenson to effectively

modulate to the subdominant in multiple ways: first, through the pitch center of the melodies

(from F to B-flat) and second, through the relative major of the initial F minor key (A-flat major)

to the new key of D-flat major. Development of these themes takes place at measure 106, as

evidenced by the many key changes and orchestration changes that take place as Stephenson

continues to quote both themes.

54 Ibid.

40

At measure 177, the “Chorale” theme is introduced by the mezzo soprano and bears an

intervallic relationship with the A theme from Movement 1. Finally, at measure 204 a

recapitulation is heard, this time with the A theme played by the Piccolo and then handed to

Oboe 1 in measure 212. All three themes are interspersed until a caesura at measure 297,

signaling the beginning of the coda. Fragments of the A theme are heard until the culmination of

the movement in A-flat minor. Based on this structural formatting, a form similar to sonata-

allegro can be attributed to this movement, making it function more like a first or last movement

of a symphony.


41

Third Movement

The third movement, titled “Of One,” bears a resemblance to the first movement, in that

it does not appear to be structured in a sonata-allegro form and is not written in the fast tempo

expected. Like the first movement, a single chorale-like theme introduced by the mezzo soprano

is developed (this time in the Locrian mode) and is continuously re-orchestrated and modulated

as the piece progresses. However, unlike the first movement, the third movement bears a strong

resemblance to a passacaglia (which is not unheard of as a final movement form in the

symphony), in that the chorale theme is consistently repeated in a literal manner and can be

clearly heard a total of ten times. Stephenson wanted this movement to act as an “apotheosis,”

steadily building up until the resolution back to E-flat major finally takes place at measure 71.55

Not only does this harmonic element coincide with the return to tonic as would be expected in a

final movement, but it also bears tremendous symbolic meaning, which will be addressed in the

final section of this chapter.


Because Stephenson wrote the second movement first, he was able to adapt the main

thematic ideas for the outer two movements after the fact, giving Symphony No. 2 extensive

55 Ibid.

42

thematic cohesion. The initial theme presented by the mezzo soprano in Movement 1 not only

becomes a melodic point of departure for future themes, but also presents critical intervals which

are also used by Stephenson to frame the entire symphony harmonically. The fragment in

measure 21-22 demonstrates this, as the vocalist goes from E-flat to D to G, creating the intervals

of a perfect fifth and a minor second. When examining the final pitch center for each movement,

the intervallic relationship is the same: G to A-flat to E-flat – a minor second and a perfect fifth.

The accompaniment figures in measure 52 of Movement 1 also provide material to be developed

later in the work, as they represent the same line in augmentation that will become the A theme

in Movement 2. Finally, in Movement 3, the B theme from Movement 2 is inverted and used to

create another “chorale” theme, and a derivative of the A theme from Movement 1 is manifested

in measure 47, giving the work the cyclic unity expected in a symphony.

Stephenson uses a great deal of symbolism in his works, and in the case of his Symphony

No. 2, he is able to symbolically communicate ideas both on a universal level as well as on a

personal level through the use of the symphonic form. The very idea of writing for wind band –

an ensemble made up of extremely diverse instrumental timbres – became symbolic of the idea

of the unification of diverse sociocultural groups for the common good. Stephenson elaborated

on this point, stating:

I’m very passionate about all of us being treated equally. It doesn’t make any sense for anyone to not be treated equally by somebody else…So when I heard these people laughing behind me, that gave me an idea (and I know I’m not the first to have this idea) that I could treat every single member of the wind ensemble equally…So, a bassoon looks a lot different from a tuba, which looks a lot different from a snare drum. And yet they all have to work together for the common good. And we’ve all been performers – we know how great it feels to get to be in a performance and you feel like you’ve been a key member…And so, that’s kind of what I wanted to do with this piece. To create this thing where we work together and hopefully bring forth a message of unity to the audience.56

56 Ibid.

43

Stephenson further represents this idea in the second movement, through the use of the Locrian

mode, the 7/8 meter, and phrasing in seven-measure increments. With the emphasis on the

number seven, Stephenson is representing the seven continents and further developing the broad

idea of unification of mankind.57

On a personal level, the work bears additional meaning for Stephenson. In an interview,

Stephenson shared the fact that his mother had passed away at the time of the commission. The

sheer weight of this experience most certainly had an effect on his ability to write the work, and

he elaborated on this in a statement:

I had a really hard time writing this piece. Let me put it this way: part of me thought that I was going to write a ton of music when my mom died. Like I just have to work through this musically. But I couldn’t write a thing. And so, this piece was me working out my mom dying. So getting back to the E-flat and the chord progression – the whole symphony’s related to the intervals that I use in a lot of the melodies, and the movements are in those same intervallic relationships. So, by the time I get back to E-flat – that’s all about me coming to peace with my mom.58

In an additional twist of fate, Stephenson realized that by using E-flat to begin and end the work,

which is pronounced as “Es” in German pitch nomenclature, he was effectively spelling his

mother’s initials, S.S.59

57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid.

44

CHAPTER 6

KEVIN WALCZYK – SYMPHONY NO. 4: UNFORSAKEN

Kevin Walczyk Biography

A native of Portland, Oregon, Kevin Walczyk had a wide variety of musical experiences

at a young age, playing the trumpet, horn, trombone, and piano, and singing in his elementary

school choir. He also participated in his school’s concert band and jazz band program (where he

was encouraged to begin composing), as well as a community orchestra.60 Dr. Walczyk received

his Bachelor of Arts in Education from Pacific Lutheran University in 1987 and his Master of

Music and Doctor of Musical Arts degrees from the University of North Texas (where he

received the Hexter Prize for outstanding graduate student). His principal composition teachers

include: Larry Austin, Jacob Avshalomov, Thomas Clark, Martin Mailman, and Cindy McTee.

He has also studied jazz arranging with Tom Kubis and Frank Mantooth, and arranged for the

UNT One O’Clock Lab Band from 1988-1989. Currently, Walczyk is Professor of Music at

Western Oregon University in Monmouth, Oregon, where he teaches composition, orchestration,

jazz arranging, and film scoring/media production. 61

Many notable ensembles and organizations have commissioned Dr. Walczyk’s works,

including the Oregon Symphony, the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra, the Third Angle

Contemporary Music Ensemble, the Portland Brass Society, the Pittsburgh New Music

Ensemble, the Chamber Orchestra Kremlin, the Portland Youth Philharmonic, the Institute of

Chamber Music, the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, Indiana University, the University of

Texas, the Musashino Academia Musicae, the Eastman School of Music, Northwestern

60 Luke D. Johnson, “The Need for Technically Accessible Chamber Winds Music and a Conductor’s Guide to Winter Ricercar by Kevin Walczyk,” doctoral diss., (University of Kansas, 2015), 9-10. 61 Kevin Walczyk, “Composer.” Keveli Music. Accessed November 12, 2017, http://kevelimusic.com/composer/.

45

University, and the University of North Texas. Honors and awards bestowed on Walczyk include

nominations for the 2011 Pulitzer Prize in music composition and the 2012 Grawemeyer Award

for his Symphony No. 2: Epitaphs Unwritten (2010), and election into the American Bandmasters

Association (2017). Recent prizes include the 9th annual Raymond & Beverly Sackler Music

Composition Prize (2012) and the 2012 Big East Conference Band Director’s Association

Composition Contest. He has also earned prizes from the National Band Association’s William

D. Revelli Composition Contest, the College Band Directors National Association, ASCAP,

BMI, the Lionel Hampton Creative Composition Contest, and the Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Wind

Ensemble Composition Competition.

Program Notes: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken

Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken was commissioned by the Musashino Academia Musicae

Wind Ensemble, under the direction of Ray Cramer. Originally conceived as a 5-minute fanfare

to commemorate the opening of the new building at the Musashino Academy, Walczyk instead

felt the need to compose an extended work for the ensemble. According to Dr. Walczyk:

Maestro Cramer has been perhaps the most critical component in establishing me as a wind band composer over the past decade. He has been involved in numerous commissions of my works, continuously performs my works throughout the United States, recommends my works to other directors, records my work, and is untiring in his efforts to support my work within every aspect of the wind band world. Feeling like I owed him more than a 5-minute fanfare (for all that he has done for my career), I asked Maestro Cramer if I could compose an extended piece for the new building dedication…At that time I didn’t know what I was going to write (let alone a symphony-inspired work) but his response, as humbling as it was for me, is what fill composers with hope and inspiration!62 About his work, Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken, Walczyk writes:

62 Kevin Walczyk, interview, January 27, 2018.

46

The work’s primary pitch materials come from the ciphering of the word Musashino and multiple Japanese modes, including Akebono, Hirajōshi, Insen, Iwato, Min’yō, and Yō. The Symphony’s form utilizes a palindromic 5-part arch, or bridge form (A - B - C - B’ - A’). The A sections are further broken down into a ternary structure that includes, in the outsets of the section, the Musashino “call” motive. In between the two “calls,” beginning in measure 31, is the work’s powerful fanfare. The final ‘A’ section of the Symphony, beginning in measure 305, repeats this format layout. The close of the Symphony reprises the “call” motive and brief interjections of melodic motives from the entire work. The Symphony’s ‘B’ sections comprise the energetic scherzo (beginning in measures 84 and 270 respectively) that features the Japanese Min’yō mode. The middle ‘C’ section also utilizes a ternary structure in which “call” motives (measures 176 and 251 respectively) serve as the bookends to the composer’s lyrical Emblems of Sacrifice hymn (beginning in measure 186). The hymn was the product of a grade 2-3 commissioned work by the same title, Emblems of Sacrifice, but the composer wanted to expand the hymn’s compositional possibilities and has done so here. The Symphony’s title, Unforsaken, is in response to another work by the composer that was composed for the Musashino Academia Musicae Wind Ensemble entitled, Eloi, Eloi, which asks the question, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). Symphony No. 4 - Unforsaken answers this inquiry with God’s response - “...and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20). The connection to the two works is also referenced through melodic pitch content and contour, in which the Symphony’s motives to both the scherzo and hymn are similar to the opening motif in Eloi, Eloi.63

Structural Analysis: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken

Kevin Walczyk’s Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken is unique among the four works

addressed in this document, due to the fact that it is written as one continuous movement.

Despite this, the work still maintains a majority of the structural components expected of a

symphony. Divided into five sections, the piece is structured in arch an overall arch form, which

gives the work both organizational and symbolic meaning. Its 16-minute length, while not falling

63 Kevin Walczyk, program notes from Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken (McMinnville, OR: Keveli Music, 2016).

47

exactly within the 17 to 27-minute range established by this study, is still not outside the norms

of a typical symphony for wind band.

The work includes the following instrumentation:

• 3 Flutes

• 3 Oboes

• E-flat Clarinet

• 3 Clarinets

• Contralto Clarinet

• 3 Bassoons

• 2 Alto Saxophones

• Tenor Saxophone

• Baritone Saxophone

• 4 French Horns

• 5 Trumpets (4 & 5 doubling on Flugelhorn)

• 3 Trombones

• Bass Trombone

• Euphonium

• Tuba

• Timpani

• 5 Percussion

• Harp

• Piano

• String Bass

Walczyk notes that the expanded instrumentation offered by the wind band is a critical

component to his output in this form, stating that “These are orchestrational colors that I can only

rarely utilize in my compositions outside of the symphony genre.”64

There are five contrasting sections in the symphony, each providing variance in terms of

thematic material, tempo, and harmonic language. When addressing the tempi of each movement

in order, there is an overall pattern of fast-slow-fast: Section 1 includes a moderate tempo range

of quarter = 76 – 112, Section 2 has a consistent tempo of quarter = 144, Section 3 includes a

slower tempo range of quarter note = 72 – 84, Section 4 returns to the tempo of quarter = 144,

and Section 5 goes back to the moderate tempo range of quarter note = 84 – 112.

Section 1

At 16 minutes in length, the work is the shortest of the symphonies in this study, yet

many of the structural components typical of individual movements are present within the single

work. Section 1, which lasts 84 measures, introduces the first two thematic ideas, titled “The


48

Call” and “Fanfare” by the composer. The overall structure of this section can be categorized as

rounded binary, with “The Call” representing the A section, and “Fanfare” representing the B

section, and a shortened return to the A section at the end. Additionally, the harmonic

components of this section align with conventions in the first movement of a symphony, with the

A section introducing an overall harmonic foundation on E-flat and the B section modulating to

the parallel E-flat minor. Melodically, Walczyk is able to capitalize on the combination of

Akebono and Hirajoshi Japanese modes during this section, Akebono comprised of the pitches

E-flat, F, G-flat, B-flat, and C-flat, and Hirajōshi comprised of the pitches E, G-sharp, A-sharp,

B, and D-sharp.

Figure 6.1: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken, Section 1 Diagram

Section 3

The typical second movement component of this symphony actually takes place in

Section 3, in which the composer utilizes a previously composed lyrical theme from another

work of the same title, “Emblems of Sacrifice.” The overall tempo is the slowest of the entire

symphony, and the form of the section is ternary, with a repeated pattern of ABA split up by a

brief interjection of “The Call.” The Section 3 begins in E-flat major, the overall tonic of the

49

piece, and goes through various modulations in the second ABA statement, beginning at measure

228, and culminating in D-flat major at measure 248.


Sections 2 and 4

Sections 2 and 4 function primarily as a third movement scherzo, split by the slower

Section 3. Section 2 is composed in a basic rounded binary form, with a repeated AB section as

follows: |: AB :| A |. The A theme is characterized by a lively, almost American west style

melody, and is contrasted by the mixed meter B theme. During the second statement of these two

themes, the B theme is significantly shortened, and the A theme at the end acts as a type of coda,

with the A theme augmented and presented in canon. A key component to identifying this

section as the typical “scherzo” third movement of the symphony is that, in addition to the

composer labeling the overall section as “scherzo,” it includes a dance-like element,

characterized by the dotted rhythms and mixed meter components. Walczyk explains his use of

that term, stating, “I use the term ‘scherzo’ in my sketches – not for its meaning (a “joke”) but to

remind me that I’m writing something frenetic, joyous, and at times difficult…I had no intention

of deeming it a “scherzo” in the historical sense (other than its implied tempo)…in the end the

50

term ‘scherzo’ was just a designation.”65 The return of these ideas is significantly shorter in

Section 4, due to the omission of the repeated A and B themes. The Section 4 “scherzo” is placed

in the more conventional position within the symphony, taking place following the lyrical

Section 3 and signaling the downward motion of the overall arch form before leading the listener

into the final Section 5.



Section 5

Given the previous analysis of the first four sections of this symphony and how they

correspond with traditional structural forms of a symphonic work, it would stand to reason that

65 Ibid.

51

the final section of this piece would mimic the function of the final fourth movement of a

traditional symphony. Although not written in a traditional form for a final movement (i.e. rondo,

sonata-allegro, theme and variations, etc.), this section does provide an interesting means of

cyclic culmination of themes that ties the entire piece together and also ends on the established

tonic from Section 1 – very much an expectation of the final movement of a symphony. The first

two segments of this section are literal repeats of the first two themes presented in Section 1,

with measures 309-344 corresponding with measures 14-49 exactly. In measure 345 however,

the timpani solo is slightly altered, signaling the beginning of a simultaneous recapitulation of all

themes. The “Fanfare” theme is heard in measure 346, followed by the mixed meter B section of

the “Scherzo” theme at measure 351, “Emblems of Sacrifice” at measure 354, and “The Call” at

measure 360. The final tonicization on E-flat takes place in the final measure, with a tutti

reference to the “Fanfare” theme. The idea of thematic cohesion (as seen in this portion of the

symphony) is specifically addressed by Walczyk, who states, “I always try to process my

compositions with obvious threads of continuity that allow for both a greater musical cohesion

and potential for a more meaningful musical experience for the musicians and audience members

alike.”66


66 Ibid.

52

Figure 6.6: Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken, Full Symphony Diagram

Dr. Walczyk frequently references spiritual topics in his works, and Symphony No. 4:

Unforsaken is no exception. The work itself, according to the composer, is a spiritual response to

another work written for Ray Cramer called Eloi, Eloi (2015). The title of this earlier work

references a question asked by Jesus in Psalm 22:1, Matthew 27:46, and Mark 15:34, “Eloi, Eloi,

lama sabachthani?” which translates to “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”67

According to Walczyk “I couldn’t leave this question unanswered, so Symphony Number 4

provides God’s answer…and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age [Matthew

28:20]. We are, therefore, unforsaken.”68

67 Kevin Walczyk, Eloi, Eloi. McMinnville, OR: Keveli Music, 2015. 68 Kevin Walczyk, interview, January 27, 2018.

53

In addition to the overall meaning of the work as a response to the question asked in Eloi,

Eloi, Walczyk provides additional insight into the meaning behind each individual section of the

symphony:

I use 2 Peter 1 as the inspiration for the Symphony – how we are to learn and act in order to not be forsaken. I’m particularly drawn to this scripture because it speaks heavily to the process of learning (and Musashino is an establishment of learning), faith (which is too often stolen from college students), and working hard (to be ‘students’ of God) so that we…can live a strong, good life for the Lord [2 Peter 1:9].69

Thematically, Walczyk represents these ideas in each section of the symphony. In Sections 1 and

5, the “Call” is meant to reference the aspect of hard work, while the “Fanfare” is meant to

represent the learning process. The “Scherzo” themes presented in Sections 2 and 4 are also

meant to represent the concept of work and continuous learning, and the integration of the

“Emblems of Sacrifice” theme in Section 3 is meant to be symbolic of the “more myopic (an ‘in

awe’) understanding of what we have to gain.”70 Finally, it is in the use of the palindromic arch

form that Walczyk specifically relies on structure of his symphony in order to communicate a

broader message: “I use this form to represent a 2-way vertical communication between earth

[Sections 1 and 5] and Heaven [Section 3] – or man’s communication up to God and God’s

communication to man.”71

69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid.

54

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

Examination of the structural analysis of each work revealed several characteristics from

the rubric that were shared among all four symphonies in this study. These characteristics

include: instrumentation that supports an expansive or large-scale ensemble; multiple contrasting

movements or sections; sonata-allegro, rounded binary, or similar form in the first movement or

section; thematic cohesion between movements; and the intention of communicating a broad

message to the public. While Stephenson’s Symphony No. 2: Voices did not conform to the fast-

slow-fast pattern between each movement in that order, the contrast desired through the use of

divergent tempos was still implemented. Three of the symphonies fell within the 17 to 27-minute

length established as “typical” of an American symphony for wind band, though Walczyk’s

symphony only falls short of this range by a minute, with a total performance time of 16 minutes.

Although several traditional elements of the symphony could be seen in each of the four

works, there were also elements in which all of these works diverged from conventions. The

typical third movement form of a minuet and trio or scherzo was only present in Walczyk’s

Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken. However, the dance-like quality associated with this movement in

a symphony was found in all four works and was confirmed by the composers themselves.

Finally, the arrangement of the forms was not always in the order expected of a symphony in the

works examined. This can be seen by Stephenson’s first movement form appearing in the second

movement, as well as Walczyk’s splitting of the third movement ‘scherzo’ into two sections

separated by the more lyrical third section. A comparison of each symphony with the rubric of

symphonic norms can be seen in Table 7.1

55

Table 7.1: Comparison of each symphony against the rubric

Dzubay, Symphony No. 2

Grantham, Symphony No. 2

Stephenson, Symphony No. 2

Walczyk, Symphony No. 4

Instrumentation that supports an expansive or large-scale

ensemble

Multiple contrasting movements or sections

A fast-slow-fast pattern between movements X

Typical 1st Movement Form (in the 2nd Movement)

Typical 2nd Movement Form X X (in the 3rd Section)

Typical 3rd Movement Form X X X

(in the 2nd and 4th Sections)

Typical 4th Movement Form X (in the 3rd Movement)

(in the 3rd Movement;

not at a fast tempo) X

Thematic cohesion

Length of 17-27 minutes X

Intent to communicate a broad message

After interviewing each of the four composers addressed in this study, several themes

emerged, revealing commonalities in approach as well as general understandings of the

symphonic form as it applies to the wind band medium. All of the composers mentioned the

importance of thematic cohesion as a critical element to the symphony, with Grantham

describing this component as “a kind of thread,” woven throughout the entire work and

connecting each element together. Significant length was another element agreed upon by each

composer, with Stephenson pointing out that writing in the form was “a chance to basically

explore an idea to the full depth that I was able to…So for me, the symphony meant significant

56

length…that allowed me in whatever form…to just dig into that idea, and see how far I could

take it with no restrictions.”72

Although all of the composers wrote in at least one of the expected movement-specific

forms, and all of them were able to connect themes and movements harmonically in ways that

would be expected in a traditional symphony, most of these elements were not intentional

guiding forces during the composition process. On the contrary, several of the composers

commented that they had no specific forms in mind as they wrote each movement, as was the

case with many of the harmonic relationships. When asked about the intentionality of his

harmonic relationships in Symphony No. 2: Though a Glass, Darkly, Dzubay stated “You know,

that kind of thing is hard to know where it comes from. It’s serendipitous somehow, how these

key relationships might relate to each other.”73

The commissioning process was another element that was shared by all four composers,

with each of them being approached to write their respective symphonies by major ensembles or

consortiums in the wind band discipline. Interestingly, no restrictions were placed on the

composers by their commissioning groups, with the exception of time limitations, which were

given to Stephenson and Grantham. Each composer was encouraged to write freely, and although

Grantham and Walczyk were both writing for specific celebratory events, they were still able to

develop their ideas in a manner of their own choosing. This highlights the importance that

commissioning has on developing the repertoire and ensuring that composers are able to

contribute through the symphonic form. It may also indicate the rationale for the influx of

symphonies that were written for wind band in 2016, as composers may now be supported by

72 James Stephenson, interview, January 19, 2018. 73 David Dzubay, interview, January 18, 2018.

57

more encouraging commissioning bodies who allow the composer to freely compose in the

symphonic form.

Finally, the use of the symphony as a vehicle for communicating broad messages to the

public was an idea embraced by all four composers, with Dzubay exploring the musical ideas

behind the accessible concept of mirrors, Grantham championing the broad topics of the poet

Hafiz, Stephenson emulating the ideas of unity and diversity, and Walczyk’s balance of faith and

the learning process. Each work presents ideas or messages that could be understood by the

public as a whole, but without relying on programmatic elements. Walczyk elaborated on this,

stating:

I believe that the symphonic form’s motivation, as it has evolved over the centuries, has taken a course from a purely abstract conception to one with a much greater reliance on personal, non-abstract topics of humanity (“broad messages” as you have speculated), which provides a greater connection to how audiences experience a musical work. In the end, if I pursue matters of significant self-edification during the composition process then the audience, armed only with basic program notes – an over-simplification of that particular creative process – will on some level experience music that has greater meaning attached to it. And it is this extra-musical meaning attached to art (as defined by the listener’s experience) that gives it transformational powers.74 Despite the fact that Dzubay, Grantham, Stephenson, and Walczyk each have differing

musical backgrounds and compositional styles, they all have managed to write within the same

traditional form, encompassing a majority of symphonic form rubric established at the beginning

of this study. Further research may warrant investigations into other recent symphonies written

for the wind band to see if and how these trends may manifest themselves in the works of other

composers. Future research may also compare these findings with the recent symphonies of

composers of other nationalities, as this study was limited to that of American symphonies for

wind band. An examination of commissioning individuals and groups of significance may also


58

be warranted, as this appears to be an important element shared by the works in this study, and

therefore a critical component to the development of the wind band repertoire. Finally, the

identification of works which may not bear the word “symphony” in their titles, but nonetheless

conform to the suggested rubric of symphonic norms established in this document may also yield

interesting results regarding wind band repertoire from a variety of time periods.

While the symphony for wind band has been utilized by composers since the 18th century,

the form is no less relevant in the 21st century as a means of artistic musical expression.

American composers in particular have found success writing in the form in order to

communicate ideas with the greater public, and to showcase their compositional mastery and

depth in this significant genre. With the encouragement of commissioning entities, as well as an

eager community of musicians hungry to perform new and innovative works, there are no signs

of deterring the American symphony for wind band from reemerging as the pinnacle

achievement of the most talented composers.

59

APPENDIX

PERFORMANCE TIMES OF AMERICAN SYMPHONIES FOR WIND BAND SINCE 1949

60

Year Composer Title Performance Time

1949 H. Owen Reed La Fiesta Mexicana 22:00

1950 Gunther Schuller Symphony for Brass and Percussion, Op. 16 17:00

1951 Paul Hindemith Symphony in B-flat 17:00

1952 Morton Gould Roy Harris Alfred Reed

Symphony No. 4 ‘West Point’ Symphony for Band (West Point) Symphony for Brass and Percussion

16:00 19:00 17:00

1953 Frank Erickson First Symphony for Band 10:00

1956 Vincent Persichetti Symphony No. 6, Op. 69 15:00

1958 Frank Erickson Vittorio Giannini

Second Symphony for Band Symphony No. 3

17:00 23:00

1959 Robert Washburn Symphony for Band 15:00

1960 Fisher Tull Liturgical Symphony for Brass Choir 13:00

1961 John Barnes Chance Symphony No. 2 for Winds and Percussion 17:00

1963 Robert Jager Symphony for Band 24:00

1970 Walter Hartley Symphony No. 1 (Symphony for Wind Orchestra) 15:00

1975 James Barnes Symphony, Op. 35 29:00

1977 Claude T. Smith Symphony No. 1 for Band 12:00

1978 Walter Hartley Robert Jager

Symphony No. 2 for Large Wind Ensemble Symphony No. 2 (The Seal of the Three Laws)

19:00 17:00

1979 Alfred Reed Second Symphony 20:00

1981 James Barnes Gunther Schuller

Second Symphony, Op. 44 Symphony No. 3: In Praise of Winds

22:00 29:00

1984 Frank Erickson Third Symphony for Band 19:00

1985 David Maslanka Symphony No. 2 35:00

1986 Julie Giroux Space Symphony 9:00

1988 Alfred Reed Symphony No. 3 20:00

1991 Eric Ewazen David Maslanka

Symphony in Brass Symphony No. 3

17:00 35:00

1992 Alfred Reed Fourth Symphony 18:00

1993 Walter Hartley Ira Hearshen David Maslanka

Lyric Symphony for Band (Symphony No. 4) Symphony on Themes of John Philip Sousa Symphony No. 4

13:00 45:00 27:00

1994 Jams Barnes Alfred Reed

Third Symphony (Tragic), Op. 89 Fifth Symphony: Sakura

38:00 19:00

1995 David Gillingham Walter Hartley David Holsinger

Apocalyptic Dreams (Symphony No. 1) Centennial Symphony Easter Symphony

16:00 14:00 47:00

1996 Nancy Galbraith Wind Symphony No. 1 17:00

61


1997 Andrew Boysen, Jr. Dan Welcher

Symphony No. 1 for Winds and Percussion Symphony No. 3: Shaker Life

17:00 19:00

1998

1999

James Barnes Andrew Boysen, Jr. Andrew Boysen, Jr. Mark Camphouse

Fourth Symphony (Yellowstone Portraits), Op. 103b Symphony No. 2 Symphony No. 3, JFK Symphony from Ivy Green (Symphony No. 3)

21:00 17:00 18:00 26:00

2000 James Barnes Julie Giroux David Maslanka

Fifth Symphony “Phoenix,” Op. 110 Culloden (Symphony) Symphony No. 5

43:00 16:00 40:00

2003 Andrew Boysen, Jr. Frank Ticheli

Symphony No. 4 Symphony No. 2 for Concert Band

12:00 22:00

2004 John Corigliano David Maslanka

Symphony No. 3: Circus Maximus Symphony No. 7

35:00 19:00

2005 Dan Welcher Symphony No. 4: American Visionary 20:00

2006

Julie Giroux Julie Giroux David Maslanka Jack Stamp

No Finer Calling: An Airman’s Symphony Symphony of Fables Give Us This Day: Short Symphony for Wind Ensemble Symphony No. 1

20:00 24:00 15:00 21:00

2007 David Gillingham Symphony No. 2: Genesis 20:00

2008 James Barnes David Holsinger David Maslanka

Sixth Symphony, Op. 130 The City Symphony Symphony No. 8

25:00 25:00 42:00

2009

Brett Abigaña Donald Grantham Jonathan Newman James Stephenson

Symphony No. 1: Omnes Gentes Symphony for Winds and Percussion Symphony No. 1, My Hands Are a City Symphony for Wind Ensemble

23:00 20:00 27:00 25:00

2010

James Barnes Andrew Boysen, Jr. Andrew Boysen, Jr. Kevin Walczyk

Symphonic Requiem (Seventh Symphony) Symphony No. 5 Symphony No. 6 Symphony No. 2

33:00 15:00 33:00 37:00

2011 David Maslanka Carter Pann

Symphony No. 9 My Brother’s Brain: A Symphony for Winds

75:00 30:00

2013 Andrew Boysen, Jr. Julie Giroux

Symphony No. 7 Symphony No. 4: Bookmarks from Japan

17:00 22:00

2014 John Mackey Kevin Walczyk

Wine-Dark Sea: Symphony for Band Symphony No. 3

30:00 28:00

2015 Brett Abigaña Symphony No. 2: La Commedia 20:00

2016

Brett Abigaña David Dzubay Donald Grantham Timothy Mahr James Stephenson Kevin Walczyk

Symphony No. 3: The Rose Symphony No. 2: Through a Glass, Darkly Symphony No. 2 ‘After Hafiz’ Symphony No. 1 Symphony No. 2: Voices Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken

23:00 25:00 17:00 31:00 20:00 16:00

62


2017 Julie Giroux Adam Schoenberg Dan Welcher

Symphony No. 5: Sun, Rain & Wind Symphony No. 2: Migration Symphony No. 6: Three Places in the East

25:00 28:00 34:00

Mean: 23.4 minutes

Range: 9 – 75 minutes

Mode: 17 minutes

Median: 20 minutes

Majority: 17 – 27 minutes

63

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Battisti, Frank. The Twentieth Century American Wind Band/Ensemble: History, Development and Literature. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music, 1995.

_____. The Winds of Change. Gainesville, MD: Meredith Music, 2002.

_____. Winds of Change II: The New Millennium. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music, 2012.

Butterworth, Neil. The American Symphony. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1998.

Cannon, Cormac. “Symphony No. 2 Voices.” In Teaching Music Through Performance in Band, Volume 11, edited by Richard Miles, 1040-1049. Chicago: GIA Publications, 2018.

Carr, Drew. “Chorus Austin Wraps 50th Anniversary with Past, Present, and Future.” Statesman, May 17, 2016. http://www.statesman.com/marketing/chorus-austin-wraps-50th-anniversary-celebration-with-past-present-and-future/XbZgNCt3Ulev98N9bSiKrO/.

Cuyler, Louise. The Symphony. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1995.

Dzubay, David. “Bio.” Accessed November 13, 2017. http://pronovamusic.com/bio.html.

_____. Interview by author, telephone, January 18, 2018.

_____. “Symphony No. 2 – Through a Glass, Darkly.” Accessed November 14, 2017. http://pronovamusic.com/notes/symphony2.html.

_____. Symphony No. 2, ‘Through a glass, darkly.’ Score. Bloomington, IN: Pro Nova Music, 2016.

Ferguson, Thomas. “An Analysis of Four American Symphonies for Band.” Doctoral diss., Eastman School of Music, 1971.

Frankenstein, Alfred. A Modern Guide to Symphonic Music. New York: Meredith Press, 1966.

Grantham, Donald. “Biography.” Accessed November 13, 2017. http://piquantpress.com/biography.


_____. “Donald Grantham.” In Composers on Composing for Band: Volume Two, ed. Mark Camphouse, 97-124. Chicago: GIA Publications, 2002.

_____. Symphony No. 2: After Hafiz. Score. Austin, TX: Piquant Press, 2016.

Johnson, Luke D. “The Need for Technically Accessible Chamber Winds Music and a Conductor’s Guide to Winter Ricercar by Kevin Walczyk.” Doctoral diss., University of Kansas, 2015.

64

LaRue, Jan. Guidelines for Style Analysis (2nd ed.). Harmonie Park Press: Warren, Michigan, 1992.

LaRue, Jan, et al. "Symphony." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed November 2, 2017. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/27254.

Noonan, Timothy. “Luigi Boccherini.” In The Symphonic Repertoire, Vol. 1, edited by A. Peter Brown, Mary Sue Morrow, and Bathia Churgin, 174. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2012.

McCallum, Wendy Zander. “Symphony No. 2 After Hafiz.” In Teaching Music Through Performance in Band, Volume 11, edited by Richard Miles, 1026-1039. Chicago: GIA Publications, 2018.

Mullins, Joe B. “Three Symphonies For Band By American Composers.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1967.

Norris, Kyle M. “Twenty-First Century Trumpet Music of James M. Stephenson III.” Doctoral diss., North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, 2012.

Pease, Andrew D. “An Annotated Bibliography of Symphonies for Wind Band.” Doctoral diss., Arizona State University, 2015.

_____. “The Wind Band Symphony Archive.” Accessed November 1, 2017. www.windsymphonies.org.

Persichetti, V. “Symphony No. 6 for Band.” Journal of Band Research 1, no. 1 (1964): 17-20.

Rhodes, Stephen L. “A History of the Wind Band: Dr. Stephen L. Rhodes.” Lipscomb University. Accessed December 29, 2017. http://www.lipscomb.edu/windbandhistory/.

Running, Timothy C. “An Annotated Bibliography of Symphonies for Band to 1989.” Doctoral diss., University of Northern Colorado, 1991.

Salzman, Timothy. A Composer’s Insight, Vol. 5: Thoughts Analysis and Commentary on Contemporary Masterpieces for Wind Band. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications, 2012.

Service, T. “The Symphony, and how it changed our world.” The Guardian, September 10, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2013/sep/10/50-greatest-symphonies-tom-service-series.

Smedley, Eric M. “Symphony No. 2 Through a Glass Darkly.” In Teaching Music Through Performance in Band, Volume 11, edited by Richard Miles, 1011-1025. Chicago: GIA Publications, 2018.

Stedman, Preston. The Symphony. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979.

65

Steinberg, Michael. The Symphony: A Listener’s Guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Stephenson, James. “Composer.” Accessed November 13, 2017. https://composerjim.com/composer/


_____. Symphony No. 2: Voices. Score. Chicago: Stephenson Music, Inc., 2016.

Tawa, Nicholas. The Great American Symphony: Music, The Depression, and War. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2009.

Ulrich, Homer. Symphonic Music: Its Evolution Since the Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.

Walczyk, Kevin. “Composer.” Keveli Music. Accessed November 12, 2017. http://kevelimusic.com/composer/

_____. Interview by author, email, January 27, 2018.

_____. Symphony No. 4: Unforsaken. Score. McMinnville, OR: Keveli Music, 2016.

_____. Eloi, Eloi. Score. McMinnville, OR: Keveli Music, 2015.

Date post:	20-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

AND KEVIN WALCZYK/67531/metadc... · Symphony in B-flat (1951), Morton Gould’s Symphony No. 4...

Documents