What's Wrong With Choral Music Today

20 or 25 years ago, some people started writing a different kind of choral music. My first awareness of it was in some works by Morten Lauridsen - think "Dirait-on" - but I'm sure there were others. As a composer, I think of it in technical terms: Lots of extended diatonic harmonies; lots of "V" chords which contained both the leading tone AND the tonic; added seconds are de rigueur; and, whenever possible, keep the tempo and harmonic rhythm slow so the audience (and choir) can soak up those pseudo-dissonant chords.

Now, to be sure, Lauridsen does not write solely in this style - his madrigal cycles contain some fascinating (and challenging) writing. However, his "Magnum Mysterium" is perhaps the most visible work of his using these techniques. And it is a beautiful piece (which, I am sorry to say, does not translate terribly well to instrumental music - more on that later). But Lauridsen kicked off a movement that is going strong today, largely because of Eric Whitacre.

Whitacre is the closest thing the choral world has to a rock star. His music is hugely popular, especially with young choral singers. I do not begrudge him his success, and I only slightly begrudge him his flowing rockstar hair. Unfortunately, success breeds imitation, and I think it is safe to say there are a LOT of Whitacre imitators out there. Including Whitacre himself.

Really, it's a good problem to have: The reason for the imitators is simply because people like to listen to it and choirs like to sing it. And this, I think, is a large part of the popularity of the style: kids in choirs like the feel of those tight harmonies, full of seconds and ninths (but nothing too dissonant!).

But here is the problem: many composers are simply writing music for effect. Or, put another way, the music is not about expressing the text, but rather just about creating beautiful sounds. It seems that many composers come up with the beautiful, sonorous music first, then find a text to slap on. Or, as is the case with a recent "Gloria" I heard, the text is just a vehicle for the composer to incorporate as many trendy styles in one piece as possible. With little thought for unity, or continuity, or (heaven forbid) the text.

There seems to be a lack of originality in the choral world right now. If you want to be popular, write like (standard) Whitacre. (You could, of course, take a chance, and write like a DIFFERENT Whitacre: "She Weeps Over Rahoon" is one of his more original pieces which had its beginnings as a piano improvisation.)

I am not denigrating Whitacre, except for maybe his hair just a bit. He took elements of a style introduced by Lauridsen (and others I'm not aware of?) and took the next evolutionary step. And he has a range of compositions for a range of situations, some more original than others. What I AM denigrating is all the composers who choose to write in Eric Whitacre's voice rather than finding their own. That's taking the easy way out.

An original style does not need to be dissonant or difficult to listen to. (It seems the freshest new music these days comes from Scandinavia.) But dissonance and difficulty have their place as well.

Directors: Look beyond Whitacre and Whitacre Lite. Composers: Look beyond your own experience. High School choral students: Look beyond the hair. (Or not - that one was just for fun!)