Approaching Composition

Musically, I had to start somehow. Evidently I learned piano at home with my grandparents who played. My grandmother played piano and my grandfather violin and so I learned violin, piano, etc. at an amateur level. After time, when I was 10/11 years old, upon my own initiative, I became much more seriously interested in music. On the one hand, because I had time, on the other hand because I was interested, and, in this sense, I was self-taught for some years. Later, of course, I realised that I had to learn music properly if I wanted to do anything in the area of music. The dream of developing a musical career appeared very early in my mind and I understood that I had to do some serious study. First I studied with Artur Santos, then Composition with Fernando Lopes-Graça and, evidently when you study composition, it is natural that you think you are a composer... As I said just before, a person begins to read and to write and at school you are taught that this is absolutely indispensable for the rest of your life, not necessarily to become a writer or poet; some will be, but not all. But when you study composition and, at least, on my part, as I was not a virtuoso instrumentalist, I could not make a career as a violinist, I could not make a career as a pianist, then composition was obviously the way I had to assert myself. And I was always interested in “instrument” orchestra. First because obviously, my mastery of the violin and of the piano was insufficient and, as a result, these were not satisfactory for me; the orchestra, on the other hand, had a very special fascination for me because of the sonority that a symphonic orchestra could produce. Within this “ideal” context and even when I was 10 / 12 years old, I used to frenetically compose works for orchestra, without knowing the basic rudiments of orchestration or of composition. But this didn’t bother me in the slightest… at that age things don’t concern us (...). I later started to learn and I naturally joined the Juventude Musical Portuguesa. João de Freitas Branco was a great supporter and invited me to be part of its Administration. It was at this time that I saw that everything that was modern in Europe was unknown in Portugal or, at least, rejected. I remember that, for example – this happened in 1958 – Maria de Lourdes Martins wrote an article in Arte Musical on dodecaphonic music, stating that the music was incompatible with Latin sensibility. I remember writing a letter to João de Freitas Branco contradicting this… because it has nothing to do with being Latin, but is rather a system of composition; a person can use dodecaphonism to do whatever he or she wanted and express him or herself in whatever way they desired. As otherwise also composers like Luígi Nono were impossible, as they were Latin composers and so on and so forth... Because after the stage of studies with Lopes-Graça I had gone to Darmstadt, etc. and I knew what was going on in the rest of Europe; in that way I became known as much for what I wrote about dodecaphonism as for my works, as a representative of dodecaphonism and as the first Portuguese composer who became seriously interested in dodecaphonism and defended it fiercely as if he were saving the homeland... evidently it wasn’t the case, I know that now looking back, but well... I received a lot of support, because there were not many composers at that time; I mean, anyone who appeared and had a minimum of credibility in terms of composition, who had learned his “métier” with competent people and who had imagination, was supported, effectively. And there can be no doubt at all that Rádiodifusão still had the heritage of its musical studies bureau, which was a great source of encouragement for Portuguese music in the forties and fifties, which always had to present new works for orchestra. You just have to think of works by Luís de Freitas Branco or other composers such as Joly Braga Santos which were written purposely for the Radiodifusão symphonic orchestra.

This then disappeared… but I still came along at a time when the heritage was still somewhat alive from that period when Radiodifusão or the National Radio effectively and systematically encouraged Portuguese musical creation, especially for orchestra works, because it had the Radiodifusão orchestra (of the National Radio) at its service and one of its services was precisely to put on the first performance and present works by Portuguese composers.

Interest in symphonic writing and Dodecaphonism

Evidently my enthusiasm for the orchestra made me concentrate on the composition of works for orchestra. My enthusiasm for the orchestra also meant that I got to know the “instrument” orchestra very well and from there to the conducting of orchestras was a simple step and a logical step which was naturally taken. I just continued to compose, I continued to conduct and, little by little, I reached an obvious conclusion: that the fact that one knew how to write music was not necessarily synonymous with being a composer, because to be a composer one had to have something to say.

I studied dodecaphonism which is in fact, relatively simple to study. At that time it seemed transcendental. But, in retrospective, the rules of dodecaphonism are the rules of “b,a,ba”, it has an elementary simplicity, much more simple than tonality. The resolution of chords, the preparation of dissonant chords and everything else in tonality is much more complex. Because, fundamentally, in dodecaphonism you can do anything provided the notes follow the pre-established series. It was, therefore, something perfectly elementary, but which appeared transcendental due to the fact that it was something new.

A composer at the mirror

And I reached the conclusion that the fact that I had learned how to write and knew how to write music, knew how to compose and knew the orchestra well, where things sounded good for orchestra (and this was the result of my enthusiasm for “instrument” orchestra and of knowing all of the implications of dynamics and of the conjugation of the various instruments), I became convinced that I was effectively a composer. It was only some twenty years later, already in the nineteen eighties, more precisely when, with the orchestra of the Radiodifusão Portuguesa, that I was asked to do a program in the S. Luís for a symphonic concert, exclusively dedicated to my work (in which I included, for the only time in my life, only my own works in the program – something I had never done as it did not seem appropriate) that I was shook down to earth! At that time I was living in the United States, where I had already been the musical director of various orchestras, I had already been the director of the Radiodifusão Portuguesa National Radio Symphony Orchestra, I was receiving thousands of scores from music editors which were promoting the works of their contemporary composers. And naturally I began to read the scores and said “this is no good.” I would open the first page and say “I’ve heard this a thousand times before.”, “this is boring.”, or “this is tremendously complicated, no one would have the patience to conduct a thing like this, forget it!” Then music with graphics, for which you even have to use a dictionary to first understand what words the composer used – because, transporting this into... they aren’t semiquavers, nor demi semiquavers, nor anything we learned: “forget it, I don’t have the patience for this!” And, after a while, I reached the conclusion: but after hearing this program, what is it that I am doing within this context of thousands of composers? Just another person (me) writing music which no one plays because, ultimately, I don’t have anything to say! I don’t have anything new to say! Dodecaphonism was new, oh yes, no doubt at all, but only at a given time. All the experiments being done with “tone clusters”, and with this and with that and the other were all new. I presented works here in Lisbon, or elsewhere, which had this novelty, and just as Penderesky’s music was not yet known, Ligeti’s music was also not known and the music of 10 thousand other composers wasn’t known, including Varèse.

I wasn’t known and it seemed as if I had created something new. And, in the end, it was really nothing new as I had based myself on what I knew and had learned with other composers.  I reached the very simple conclusion that I had no message to transmit. And, therefore, to be filling paper with music, with notes to then be stowed away in a drawer, very sincerely, it was too frustrating. Because I even looked at myself in the mirror and put myself in the place of those many other composers whose works I received to possibly present in public and which I simply threw away because they didn’t have anything new in them, nothing interesting, or because they were excessively complicated or excessively complex, or excessively difficult or badly written for orchestra, etc., etc., etc.

Therefore, my role and my professional activity. In view of the needs which I saw my country had (and always from a perspective of serving my country), I wanted to correct the crass errors I found, because I was aware that I had mastered a certain area. This and the obvious fact of having recognised that in spite of knowing how to write music, of mastering the technique of composition like someone who knows how to read and write, it is not this that necessarily transforms someone into a poet or into a writer (because for this you need to have creative ideas in the area of composition which, obviously, my works did not reflect), increasingly distanced me from composition. I still compose, sometimes, in my head, just as a question of mental exercise. But then I think that it is just not worth the bother to take the trouble of writing it onto paper. Just three years ago I wrote a work which had its debut in Israel because I was appointed artistic director or tutelary maestro of an orchestra in Raanana.  As a kind of gesture for the orchestra, I wrote a short piece, a kind of overture, which I called “For Raanana”, For Raanana as it is the city where this orchestra is based and I debuted the work with them. But I saw immediately that it only confirmed precisely what I already knew!

Divorce between composition and performance?

The idea has been created that the composer imagines the things in his or her head, independently of whether they work or not and that even he or she really dislikes the practical part because they believe that what matters is one’s imagination and that is enough. And that if the interpreter is not able to fit it into his or her imagination to perform it, then it is always the interpreter who is to blame and not the composer.  Several schools of composers who live in an ivory tower have been created. Especially those who are connected to institutions like Darmstadt which went towards creating this somewhat, although not so much as others. There are many Universities that created Departments of Music and of Composition which are completely divorced from the real world and in fact, today there is a major divorce between musical creation and its execution.

And this is a major problem of contemporary music, I think. Because in the past there were many composers but the Beethovens, the Mozarts,  the Haydns, even the Schumanns or Brahms, they were practical musicians, and not just theoretical! Nowadays, there are many composers who write whatever pops into their head, irrespective of the physical contact with its execution, because they don’t have access to the instruments as composers used to. You just have to realise that the majority of the great composers were instrumentalists and therefore had the practice. This is something we have lost.

Then, we see that these days, at least in erudite music, each composer creates his or her own language. I mean, formerly. Haydn, for example: his 104 symphonies were all poured out from the same mould, with the same language and a new symphony did not have, fundamentally, anything different from the previous symphony.

Orchestra direction

Meanwhile I have absorbed myself more and more in the management of orchestras and in the direction of orchestras, just by force of the circumstances (because I lived in the United States and in Portugal, I had one foot there and the other here and I knew that some things worked in the United States – and well! – and I knew that some things worked in Portugal – and badly! – so much so that the National Radio orchestras were disbanded and this demise followed a very long period in which the orchestras were moribund and the level dropped for various decades) and I watched the slow death of the orchestras. Evidently, as I was the head of an orchestra and the orchestra was my “instrument”, I just couldn’t stand by and let this happen. It is like having a piano at home which is, shall we say, getting rusty. One person accepts perfectly well that it is going rusty and does nothing. For a pianist this is impossible! I would have to take a stand and get involved in the problems of managing orchestras! And so, by force of circumstance, I became a manager of orchestras (what is called “Artistic Director”). Because something was also happening here that I saw right at the outset: the problem in the orchestras was not usually a problem in terms of the musicians, but rather a problem of management; of financial management and of management in terms of technical competence, of knowing how to do with the musicians what they can do: or rather, do not demand a repertoire from them that they cannot play, give them enough rehearsal time and a number of decisions which imply a knowledge of what is effectively going on.

Contemporary writing for Orchestra

There is a problem here on the composers’ side. It is a vicious circle, ultimately. Perhaps because there isn’t an orchestra today as there used to be in the days of the Emissora Nacional, in the forties and fifties, or rather, an orchestra dedicated to presenting works by living Portuguese composers. Living Portuguese composers first of course. But most of them do not write for the “instrument” orchestra or, when they do, they use it in an individualistic way, in which it is not the whole orchestra which is presented together as a formation. Or rather, they use various instruments of the orchestra; they do not use a symphonic formation, but rather a chamber formation and, perhaps, more solo instruments. I, for example, have recognised, as conductor of the Algarve Orchestra and of the Nova Filarmonia Portuguesa, that composers are very reluctant to write for a classical formation and then they always need extra instruments, for this, that or the other. Personally, I think that today people can still create with a string orchestra without any extra instruments, with sonorities that surpass anything that has been done before; in my head, I can imagine a string orchestra sounding in a way Pendereski never did, as Bartok never did, as Tchaikovsky also never did. The imagination is not limited to the need to use certain instruments. So composers are, very often, their own worst enemies by making the work of the interpreter more difficult.

Then, evidently, orchestras operate according to a certain regime of work and there are normally 4, 5 or 6 rehearsals for a concert. When you get a work which goes beyond that which the musicians can master in this space of time, in terms of difficulty and in terms of composition technique, this makes it difficult from the point of view of its execution. Therefore, there is, without a shadow of a doubt, a lack of contact between composers and orchestras. The Americans invented a system of the “resident composer”, precisely to create in a composer’s imagination the effective knowledge of the work of an orchestra in its day to day, so that when he or she composes a work, they will know what instrument to use and the limitations and vicissitudes of the specific “instrument”, which is a symphonic orchestra. This is extremely important. Then, there is effectively too many composers for the lack of “instruments” which are the orchestras. For example, why isn’t there an orchestra performing regularly and exclusively to present music from the 20^th century in Lisbon? Even if it were just for 200 or 300 people? Little by little, I guarantee, composers would begin to write more music for these orchestras. Of course you may ask: is it justified, for 200, 300, 400 people, to have one “instrument” which costs “x”? It is a question of perspective.  I also ask myself: is there a need for two football stadiums, in terms of their occupation, one in front of the other, on the Lisbon ring road, just 2 kilometres apart? Is it justified? Let the football public answer that. I think that in the cultural field, the existence of an orchestra of 30 or 40 musicians which, somewhere in Portugal, was dedicated exclusively to contemporary music is perfectly justified, for example.

I think that it is obviously a question which should be put to those in charge. But the main problem which we also have in Portugal is that every time someone new takes over in the area of Culture, the whole philosophy concerning the priorities in this area changes. And both Education and Culture, as with other areas, require continuity. No one thought of pulling down the 25th of April Bridge (which used to be called the Salazar Bridge) and build a new bridge which would be called the 25th of April Bridge. They purely and simply changed its name, but the bridge is the same! But the National Radio orchestras did not survive this, they had to be terminated. It was necessary to put an end to the orchestra of the São Carlos National Theatre! It had problems, for sure. But no one considered taking on the problems which were created by the poor management in the sixties, seventies and eighties, no doubt about that. Also no one considered pulling down Belém Tower to rebuild it!  However, in terms of orchestras, today we still have that phantom (I, at least, and I am sure that many musicians in Portugal do too), that it is possible for an orchestra to be terminated at any time! Just this year, six months ago, the Beiras’ orchestra (Orquestra das Beiras) was terminated! As a result, we are constantly seeing the situation where political priorities, or of the Government, or of the Local Authorities, can put the survival of an Institution such as an orchestra into doubt. And while we live with this uncertainty, neither do the orchestras do well, nor do composers write for them, nor do we create a public for them.

Suitability of the “Orchestra” model to current musical trends

I understand your question and I think that this is a false problem, in economic and cultural terms. First, because every day people are born who have never heard Beethoven’s 5^th symphony (and when I say Beethoven’s 5^th symphony, I can cite another 50 works just as important, and which these people have never heard because they wouldn’t exist). This is the first question. The second question is that we live in a world context in which there is – and I am tired of saying this –, on average, one orchestra for every one million inhabitants, a symphonic orchestra of one hundred musicians, in round numbers. And as Portugal has ten million inhabitants, it should have ten orchestras. If we look at the number of orchestras there are in Spain, in France, in Germany, in the United States, in fact, in all of the so-called developed countries, we see that the average is about this, of one orchestra for one million inhabitants; in some cases more, in others a little less, but the average is about that, which means that in Portugal we should have ten symphonic orchestras, or rather: one thousand jobs for musicians. I know well that a thousands jobs is a lot, but considering that we have a working population in the order of four or five million, in a population of eleven million, one thousand jobs in music (considering also that we have around seven hundred thousand civil servants – and musicians do not need to be all civil servants) it does not seem excessive to me. But this was if we were at the level of the European average. And I do not even dream that this may happen in my lifetime (and probably also not in yours). But we would have six orchestras, five symphonic orchestras, or rather: two or three in Lisbon, two in Oporto, and another two or three regional orchestras, etc. There is clearly another problem: large orchestras in the regions outside of Lisbon and Oporto come up against the lack of appropriate halls. But I usually say that first come the people and then the houses for them. You wouldn’t build houses in the desert, in the Sahara, where people don’t live. Therefore, first there needs to be a “need”, and then the answer appears to that need. If there are no orchestras, the places also will not appear. This is the first question in generic terms. I wouldn’t even say where these orchestras should be based, as this is a secondary problem. Now, Portugal should be covered by a network of orchestras to be presented. Then, there is another extremely important aspect: the halls and orchestras should have an identity, in the sense of a philosophy and a strategy of creating their own audiences. For example: I wouldn’t look for sardines in an Italian Restaurant, neither would I look for Chinese food in a Steak House. Or rather, I would go to a certain restaurant to eat a certain food and I would not then be surprised if I didn’t find, as I was saying, spaghetti in a restaurant where they served Japanese food. And so, we should have certain spaces, where certain instruments of culture would perform, which were aimed at a certain public. When we speak of a certain public, there is an audience for the great Romantics, there is an audience for Contemporary music, there is an audience for many things, and there is an audience for mixed events. Evidently, I am not so reactionary as to think that the ideal program of a symphonic concert is an Overture by Mozart, a Concerto by Beethoven and a Symphony by Brahms, which not be at all that bad. But, while an Overture by Mozart, a Concerto by Beethoven and a Symphony by Brahms may be perfectly viable, there are other possible combinations. What does not exist, with rare exceptions (like the Gulbenkian and the São Carlos), is a space with an identity linked to that which is held in it. And if we look at the São Carlos and the Gulbenkian, these are two spaces which, basically, are quite elitist, they created their elite, they created their image, they created a certain public, in which the various millions of inhabitants of Lisbon are not included nor with which they relate to.

The interest of the Public

And another extremely interesting thing happened this year, in 2005. The Público, the Expresso and the Sábado newspapers distributed hundreds of thousands of recordings of Classical music, when these publications are not in the business of selling records, but they apparently know that there is a very vast public interested in Classical Music. And this public exceeds the number of people who buy newspapers, so they use the records as a trampoline to sell newspapers and extend their range of purchasers. I ask myself: where is this public and why is it that this public does not go to concert halls? Because if this public went to the concert halls, we wouldn’t have the capacity, all of the spaces would be sold out, and the São Carlos, instead of doing 40 recitals per year and 5 or 6 Operas, would do 20 Operas and 300 recitals. In 1900 – or rather, the season of 1899 – the São Carlos put on – and this is perfectly documented in Benevides’ book on the history of the São Carlos – 100 shows!

At that time Lisbon would have had around half a million inhabitants and we know perfectly well that, of that half a million inhabitants, half of them had no shoes on their feet and who could physically never enter the São Carlos. Therefore the universe would be, at maximum, 250 thousand people in Lisbon, for whom the São Carlos put on 100 shows.

With the universe we have today, in the order of two and a half million, the São Carlos should, theoretically, put on one thousand shows. Being unable to do this, it should, at least, do 300 and that is how many working days there are in a year, as they do in Vienna, as is the case in New York, and as happens in many other cities. And, however, we see that the São Carlos is occupied for more or less 60 / 70 days in the year; or rather, much less than it did one hundred years ago!

And in spite of this, we have to acknowledge that the São Carlos today has much more money than it ever did.  So, we have a very serious problem. A lack of public, it would seem, its not it. The newspapers, which are not in the business of selling records, proved that there is a very vast audience. In fact, the music festival which is held in the CCB and attracts 60 thousand people in one weekend, 60 mil people, is similarly proof that we have a public. And the major world orchestras which fill the Coliseu and which sell out (one week before there are no seats left!) also show that there is no lack of a public. The Atlantic Pavilion, which sells 16 thousand tickets for its mega productions, also shows that there is no lack of public. So, what is up?!… There are shortcomings in the management of the “instruments” which are the orchestras, in the management of the concert halls and in corresponding to the needs of the public. And it is this divorce that I recognise and where I am dedicated to making some contribution for it to be resolved, because we have a serious problem of a divorce between the public which exists and the entities promoting concerts. This has also to do with contemporary music. The audience can be extended to contemporary music, but first the habit has to be created for the population at large to go to concerts in the places where they are held.

Educational policies in Music

This begins at school, where young people should be taught to go to concert halls and to listen to concerts. The Young People’s Concerts, in the United States, which became known in Europe through Leonard Bernstein’s programs, are the “b,a,ba” of any orchestra. Because American orchestras are mostly financed by ticket sales and not by the public sector and, as a result, if there is no audience they close their doors; it’s as simple as that. Therefore, American orchestras know that they have to invest in generating their public in order to sell tickets tomorrow. In Europe, young people know they have to watch football in the Stadiums, they know that to go to the beach they have to go to the beach, they know that to play tennis they have to go to somewhere they can play tennis, but when it comes to music, they just have to buy a record and listen to it at home! And this is a serious problem which should have already been solved a long time ago and which is still unsolved, in as much as there aren’t, as a rule, any concerts for young people, held in concert halls and where young people can be taken from their school to learn to look for cultural events in the places where they are held. These spaces also do not have an identity with the creation of a specific public, as our halls are all multi-purpose... therefore, they do everything and really, they do nothing.