a big job well done

"Like a movie you haven't seen, you can't critique what I did to
finish the "Universe Symphony" because you have never experienced it."
That was a response Johnny Reinhard made (in a previous TD exchange)
to some comments that I had made about Charles Ives' Universe
Symphony... but as this was based on an unfortunate miscommunication
(hardly an uncommon occurrence in the often rapid-fire email exchanges
of the TD), I replied that any personal experience type of references
that I would have made to the Universe Symphony would have only
pertained to what I had heard: the Larry Austin version, and that any
general references ("to my mind the Universe has got to be at least as
all encompassing, stunning, and "Ivesian" as the Fourth," etc.) were
certainly not critiques of something which I hadn't heard, but were
simply my own opinions (which I of course wouldn't expect everyone to
agree with) that I rolled out while the topic was rolling by...
However, since the time of this exchange, I have had the opportunity
to hear Johnny Reinhard's realization of the Universe Symphony, and
I'd like to attempt to offer a few brief comments...

Unlike the realization of Larry Austin -- of which I mainly remember a
numbing overall sense of underwhelmingness (due in no small part to my
own unrealistic personal expectations), the obstinate tolling of a
single bell note (F#, if I'm remembering correctly?), and some *very*
univesian trills in the xylophones or marimbas{1} -- the main tenor of
Johnny's realization by and large sounds like Ives... And if this
(Reinhard's realization) still sounds, to my ears and my sensibilities
anyway, very much like an incomplete work - i.e., a rough draft (and
here this calls the most attention to itself by way of static or
monochromatic stretches somewhat similar to say the Browning or the
St. Gaudens), I was genuinely stunned by how much material there was
to work from... and this is especially pertinent in lieu of Johnny's
often voiced concern (here at the TD) of trying to do what he does
with others work with a minimal amount of editing... Johnny's
realization (at an hour plus) both dwarfs the Austin realization
(which primarily seemed to me to focus in on the clustered and
multilayered possibilities of the percussion or rhythmic 'algorithm')
and brings into serious question the conventional narrative that has a
fascinating but in the end woefully slight half-collection of drafts
and plans comprising the Universe... This would really seem to be a
misleading scenario that has passed and perpetuated undeterred through
a variety of sources over the years, and I really have a great deal of
respect for Johnny for walking right through this, and presenting this
sizable a work with what I'm assuming is an absolute minimum of
editorial 'finishing.'

In short, Ives seems to be in good (AND GET THE DAMN JOB DONE!) hands
with Johnny Reinhard... and for whatever they're worth, my
congratulations on a big job well done.

Dan

PS - I'm also very happy to say that I personally found the pitch
sensitive reading here to indeed be a chief attraction of this
realization, and well worth whatever 'the price of admission' is in
and of itself...

_____________
{1} In an off-list discussion with Joseph Pehrson about the Austin and
Reinhard realizations of the Universe Symphony, Joe wrote, "...the
overall sound of the piece is not "candy-coated" like the Austin. He
stays away from all that light mallet percussion that makes the Austin
so particularly "un-Ivesian..." And I'd have to agree that that seems
to be a good characterization of part of what makes the overall
texture of Austin's Universe realization so wrongish sounding (similar
I believe to bits of William Schuman's orchestration of Ives'
Variations on "America," where the "light mallet percussion" also
imparts a decided sense of wrongishness; almost like Ives reflected
back through the light of a Coplandesque Americana...).

In a message dated 12/28/99 11:43:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
stearns@capecod.net writes:

<< the obstinate tolling of a
single bell note (F#, if I'm remembering correctly?), and some *very*
univesian trills in the xylophones or marimbas{1} -- >>

Dan, there is a low bell that is asked for that "tolls" every 16 seconds, the
pitch is not specified. We used a low nipple gong belonging to Skip
LaPlante. I don't believe there are any trills in the wooden ideophones.
Where did you hear trills?

As for sections seeming unfinished...can you describe where that might be.
The full length of the performance was 74 minutes and 6 seconds. There are,
in the last movement, instructions for vast space and there is a tacet there
for the membranophones. In other words, what may seem like "not enough
material" might be Ives's way of really capturing something different.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

[Johnny Reinhard:]
> the obstinate tolling of a single bell note (F#, if I'm remembering
correctly?), and some *very* univesian trills in the xylophones or
marimbas{1} -- >>

Johnny, you left out the first part of the sentence here:

"Unlike the realization of Larry Austin --"

So the whole parenthetical bit was:

"Unlike the realization of Larry Austin -- of which I mainly remember
a numbing overall sense of underwhelmingness (due in no small part to
my own unrealistic personal expectations), the obstinate tolling of a
single bell note (F#, if I'm remembering correctly?), and some *very*
univesian trills in the xylophones or marimbas{1} --"

a reference only to the Austin realization.

>As for sections seeming unfinished...can you describe where that
might be. The full length of the performance was 74 minutes and 6
seconds.

Sorry Johnny, perhaps "unfinished" was not the best choice of words as
I was not referring to the length or arch of the form as much as the
detail (a sense that the dynamics and phrasing etc., etc. in various
spots were not really all that they could or rather would've been had
Ives been able to give it all his attention, in other words the
feeling of a draft as opposed to that of a finished work).

Dan

In a message dated 12/29/99 9:15:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
stearns@capecod.net writes:

<< Sorry Johnny, perhaps "unfinished" was not the best choice of words as
I was not referring to the length or arch of the form as much as the
detail (a sense that the dynamics and phrasing etc., etc. in various
spots were not really all that they could or rather would've been had
Ives been able to give it all his attention, in other words the
feeling of a draft as opposed to that of a finished work).
>>

Thanks, Dan for clearing up your points. As for detail, it has little to do
with Ives. Ives was well known for under-representing dynamics in his
scores. I suspect there is a different kind of listening involved with this
piece and that with re-listenings you may get different perspective. For me
it is all there, though it was the only performance of this work ever.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>Thanks, Dan for clearing up your points. As for detail, it has
little to do with Ives.

Well I did use the St. Gaudens and the Browning as specific examples
of what I was trying to get at, and not say the Comedy or some other
example from Ives' oeuvre that others might point to as being "static"
or "monochromatic"... And I do think that I'd have to disagree with
you when you say, "As for detail, it has little to do with Ives,"
because I personally think that a lot of Ives is just jam packed with
wonderfully rich detail, but here I am distinguishing "detail" from
say an overly finical sense of 'refinement.'

>Ives was well known for under-representing dynamics in his scores.

Well yes and no I'd say.

>I suspect there is a different kind of listening involved with this
piece and that with re-listenings you may get different perspective.

Oh, I'm sure your right ("with re-listenings you may get different
perspective"), and I very much look forward to that... it's a big
piece with an arch that seems to demand a certain degree of
'patience.'

Dan