<< Home
Artist Interview - Dr. Michael Kurek
by
Misha V. Stefanuk
I met Dr. Michael Kurek in 1998 at the Blair School of Music, Vanderbilt University, where he is still a head of music theory and composition department. My wife graduated from Vanderbilt and was his student. From our first meeting, we became friends. Michael was at our wedding, probably the only one who understood the 45 minute long organ concert of our music before the wedding. Dr. Kurek is one of the most interesting contemporary composers in my opinion. He primarily composes orchestral music with performances by Nashville Symphony, and others all over the United States and abroad. About a month ago he stayed at our house on his way to and from Germany where his orchestral piece was performed with Schiedmeyer celesta, the same company my piano in Moscow was build by in the 1890's! Michael is one of my favorite music people. He is in constantly searching for new and exciting musical sounds, and his music is very pleasant and intelligent. Michael's website is http://www.vanderbilt.edu/~kurek/MKBioPage.htm. Among the many musical subjects of his site, it also features an insightful culinary recipe page! Believe me, it is worth checking out. Michael has cooked for us, and it is always a delight! In April he came to Atlanta to hear my wife's debut as "Suor Angelica" in Puccini's Suor Angelica. This is an interview taken during that visit, discussing music and life:
MS: Why do people compose and perform music?
MK: Why does a fruit tree produce fruit? Because, the quality or taste of the fruit aside, the tree simply must create this product if it is alive and thriving. People often explain the creative impulse in terms of a need for self expression or in terms of communicating or contributing something of their unique spirit to the cultural discourse, which are certainly valid points. But perhaps even more fundamentally and more simply we are all fruit trees. It's just the way we are wired; it's what we humans do, and then we find words to justify it.
MS: What of your achievements in music are you most proud?
MK: I am most gratified by having written music long enough to have finally evolved toward a much better realization of what aesthetic factors are most important to me. Though I am still learning to write more effectively within that aesthetic, at least I am able to enjoy the process now that I finally know more clearly what my goals are. In such an information-saturated and pluralistic climate, this can actually be as important an artistic hurdle for a young composer as mastering the craft itself. I am also most proud of having finally gotten to the place where I genuinely don't worry what colleagues and former teachers think about my style, which is liberating.
MS: What is it about music that you like the most?
MK: For some, music is about discovering or working out something inside one's own psyche or inner life, for others it is a therapeutic response to external events (war, personal trials, etc.). For me, it can be both of those things but is perhaps more about losing myself altogether in the music, by which I do not mean escapism, but becoming one with the music and pouring myself out into it -- you know, when four hours have passed in what you thought was only fifteen minutes.
MS: How did music change your life?
MK: I don't know, because I never had a life without music.
MS: How did you start, what influenced you the most?
MK: I began by making up my own songs as a very small child, and looking back, I think probably took up instruments primarily to facilitate composing. Listening to my parents' classical music collection (Greatest 100 Hits of the Great Composers, or something like that) probably influenced me the most, as a very young child.
MS: How did you start, what influenced you the most?
MK: I believe I first knew I would attempt to make a profession of music in the sixth grade, while playing in the school band. Since then, I never wavered once from that notion.
MS: Is your idea of what you would become as a musician the same today as it was when you started?
MK: Yes, I originally set my sights on becoming a school band director to have a "safe" backup career to make a living, but after one year in college realized that this course of study would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I decided to risk the composition major and go all the way with grad school, and fortunately it worked out. I never imagined in high school that I could become a college music professor, much less a performed composer. That is why I tell students now to dream bigger and not let small-minded people limit or even crush their dreams. Even if they don't "make it," they won't have to live with the regret of not having tried, and they will probably end up a few notches higher than they might otherwise have, at the least.
MS: When working on the project, do you always go for the absolutely best result, or do you settle down for something less?
MK: I do not accept deadlines that will compromise my work, or rush my work. I throw away a lot of music, not because it is poorly crafted, but because it doesn't carry the plot of the musical argument forward as effectively as I had hoped, and I ruthlessly rewrite some passages multiple times.
MS: What is the main genre of music that you prefer?
MK: I am most drawn to composing orchestral music, secondarily to chamber music with piano and strings, and not very often to vocal music. This is because I love orchestration and am good at it, and because I do not enjoy serving the text in my melodic writing, which tends to want to be very free.
MS: How do you see the balance between classical and popular music?
MK: I respect both kinds of music, but find it useful to use a food metaphor. I would not want to eat fast food for every meal, nor a heavy ribeye steak for every meal. Life is rich and varied, and so can music be. I do believe there can be a distinction in principle between the fine arts and the commercial arts (at least in the abstract, if problematic in practice), but I try not to allow that distinction to be used in the service of eletist vrs. populist conflicts, connotations, or politics.
MS: What music do you listen to?
MK: In the concert hall, I can find something to enjoy in most styles of music, but on the car stereo I tend to gravitate a lot toward French art song and orchestral music of Ravel and Debussy, or toward standard pop ballads (Sinatra, Nat King Cole, and big bands).
MS: What would be your advice to younger musicians about listening. What should they listen to?
MK: In popular music styles, don't let radio stations spoonfeed your musical choices to you; work to explore a wider range of choices. In classical styles, read about premieres and new recordings in the New York Times or other sources on line and keep up with the newest contemporary music being written now, because in college music schools, the most recent things presented in most courses are at least ten to twenty years old.
MS: Do you see contemporary music and cultural situation as unique and more controversial than it used to be?
MK: No, but I do see just a few people who are still tying to keep alive old controversies, like tonality vrs. atonality, that belong to the old 20th century Modernist revolution. I hope we are past that now, and anyone can write in any style. The controversy should not be over the musical style or musical language someone uses, but over whether they have written a good piece.
MS: Many classical music fans prefer music written prior to the 20th century. What do you think of more contemporary classical music verses music before?
MK: On the one hand, I believe it is good for listeners to have an open mind toward more challenging music and give it a fair chance. On the other hand, some of their alienation from certain 20th-century compositions is probably justified and should require no apology, since only a small percentage of music written in any age turns out to be a lasting masterpiece. However, the news that hasn't entirely gotten out yet is that many current composers (such as I) are, in fact, writing in more accessible styles that are being well-received by audiences. My opinion is that all styles can be written by classical composers now, and are being written, and so it is impossible to generalize about "contemporary music."
MS: Improvisation, is it a bad word? What do you think the role of improvising is?
MK: Improvisation is a viable form of music making, and has emerged in different styles for centuries, including in classical music. It allows for a kind of spontaneity that can make a musical point more effectively than fully notated music, and the latter also has certain advantages over improvisation -- the ability to revise, for example.
MS: How important do you feel playing piano/keyboard is for you as a musician?
MK: I have had a certain amount of success as a composer without being much of a pianist, and so I would say that, while piano skills are very helpful, what matters more is the conception and imagination of the mind and of the spirit. I would advise all music students to acquire as much keyboard skill as possible, nonetheless.
MS: What do you think is important in teaching music?
MK: It is most important that you have a genuine love for students as human beings, a desire to help them along in any way you can, and if they sense you are genuine in this, they can learn something from you, even if it is not what either of you imagined they would learn.
MS: How do you think contemporary teaching effects the cultural situation?
MK: It sounds obvious (or should) but it is important to know something other than teaching techniques themselves, in order to have something to teach. It is not enough to have courses in education and educational jargon; one should also be educated in the subject matter one is planning to teach. I have had a successful teaching career without having ever taken an education course, but I would not have been able to have one if I had not had a sufficient number of music courses. Obviously, teachers now have a huge responsibility to train the next generation of audience members, and so it is important for them to acquire a basic familiarity with the arts themselves by attending concerts and museums, taking music and art appreciation courses, etc., so that they have some knowledge to impart about it to their students. And it is important for them to be allowed to do that job, by funding their teaching positions.
MS: Where do you see music go in the future?
MK: This is a dangerous question to try to answer, as over the years I have heard many wrong projections. However, it is a good bet that regardless of technological or other innovations, some fundamentals will stay the same: A good percentage of people will always value music that speaks to the emotions, they will always value melody and tonal harmonic progression, and they will continue to enjoy playing instruments. As long as anyone enjoys playing an instrument, even as a hobby, live acoustic instrumental music will not die out or be replaced by technology, because people will want to invite their friends to hear them play. And composition for instruments will not die, because they will want new pieces to play. I do not see the act of composition for acoustic instruments becoming obsolete, in spite of the temptation to think it might, due to technology.
<< Home
Creative Keyboard® Publications