top of page

Reading programme notes at concerts I often find that the more complicated they are, the more disappointing the piece turns out to be...

I think it is a great misconception to believe that the artistic quality of good and inspired compositions can be explained through analysis, however meticulous. Although the "Schenkers" amongst us would like to dictate this, there's no such thing as the right structure, harmony or melody. 

The same applies to some critics, telling us with much conviction which music is to be accepted or discarded.

I studied theory of music and would be the last person to deny how much a thorough study of analysis, harmony, counterpoint and other theoretical subjects can contribute to the development of a composer. At the same time I believe these disciplines have very little to do with the actual act of composing in it's initial phase, which merely consists of the birth and development of an interesting musical idea. All the technical aspects of composing come into view in the second phase and using a surplus of these techniques may very well smother the original idea. 
I'm convinced good composers rely on their often highly developed intuition and use their analytical capabilities as a tool for research and verification.

It seems my music often evokes images and is associated with journeys or trajectories. 
As long as it concerns a trajectory of which the destination is unknown and the listener experiences feelings of expectancy at the beginning and fascination throughout the journey, I have no objection at all to this comparison.

bottom of page