13. Lavender in a London Fog - Russell N. Avellanosa

[Aaron] Hello, and welcome to the Theorist-Composer Collaboration, a podcast interview series highlighting modern composers and their compositions, hosted by music theorists. My name is Aaron D’Zurilla, and I'm a graduate music theory student at Florida State University, and I will be your host for today. The music that you were just listening to is an excerpt from the piece titled, Lavender in a London Fog, by the composer Russell Avellanosa, who, alongside his music, is the featured guest for this episode. That leads me to welcome Russell Avellanosa himself to the program. How are you?

[Russell] Good, how are you?

[Aaron] I'm good, I'm good. So Russell, how about, before we get into everything, introduce yourself to the audience, personally, professionally, academically, whatever you choose.

[Russell] Hi, I'm Russell N. Avellanosa. He/him works. I'm a Filipino-American composer and recording engineer. Kamusta to any Filipinos listening. Academically, I got my bachelor's at the University of Florida in composition, which is how we met. Currently working on a master's in management, also at UF. If we're talking about background, I think a lot of people around me have been in choirs or in band programs, sometimes orchestra programs, depending on school district. I'm actually kind of curious about how that works wealth-wise. But personally, I didn't really get into any kind of organized community thing until the late end of high school. I was very lucky that my dad, he did radio in the Philippines for a little bit, college radio, and he had a band. So he had a lot of different guitars and keyboards, some of which I've kind of inherited. So I was very lucky to have this equipment around to play around with. Once I got older and I decided that I wanted to try it, but I really only started getting into music in high school when I tried to teach myself music theory and jazz theory. 

[Aaron] Your primary instrument is piano, right?

[Russell] That's what my degree says, yes.

[Aaron] Yeah, okay. Fair enough. Point taken. Yeah, so Russell and I, as Russell just said, we know each other from University of Florida. I would say we're pretty good friends, considering on this Zoom call recording, we just spent about 20 minutes talking about a whole bunch of stuff before I actually said the intro, which none of you will hear, but just to point that out. So yeah, I say this charitably as it's always a little bit difficult to talk about when it comes to talking about composer identity or what your sound is because labels have power and also your music, I would say, is a reflection of yourself in some way. But if you were to describe your music, your sound to another composer, to a time period, or just on its own identifiers, what is your music like?

[Russell] So for one thing, I would say that this is true for a lot of young composers, which I am one of, kind of by design, my music is varied. And if you look at two different pieces, they're relatively different in, at least in style, I would say. So kind of what I gravitate towards, what's more fun for me to do sometimes, the meat and potatoes of my work, a lot of times is relying on, like I said, jazz harmony and sort of funk and pop music. A lot of different genres of Black American music have influenced me a lot in terms of harmony and rhythm and syncopations. Formally I draw a lot of inspiration from, well, in that same kind of vein, John Coltrane and Kendrick Lamar, but also for more theater kid listeners, maybe Sondheim. Yeah.

[Aaron] Shout out to the theater kids out there. Yeah, yeah. I suppose that was a bit of a leading question because we've had quite a bit of talks about, you know, the music that you like and listen to. Oh, myself, of course, too. And we just, it's a good time to be a Kendrick fan, as we talked about in our not released preliminary talk right there. 

[Russell] Do it for your Patreon.

[Aaron] Yes, for my Patreon. Sure, sure. Disclaimer, I don't have one. Talking about, you know, different types of composition, because as you said, you have varied styles. And even just from what you said right there, it shows that you have a diverse catalog of works without people even really having heard them because at the beginning of this podcast episode, you hear the full orchestra piece, which we will be getting into depth, lavender and a London fog. And you say here that, I'm not saying, I'm sure I did not do a harmonic analysis, but I'm sure there's jazz influenced harmony in there. But you said two of your greatest inspirations are Kendrick Lamar and John Coltrane. And maybe not the first things you think of when being introduced with a full orchestra piece, atmospheric textures. So you did a composition degree at University of Florida, and you have your own personal pursuits. What is it like going between those different compositional worlds and leveraging them? I say dealing with them, but that makes it sound like it's a problem. Can you talk about that?

[Russell] Well, I'd actually argue that it is a little bit of both. It is a problem at times and it is its own solution. Yeah, so when I applied to UF, I had initially wanted to do pop music. And then the program there, for as much as I love it, it's not exactly built for that. It is for, sort of a more academic, high art kind of music. 

[Aaron] And let's put high art in quotes, of course. Yes, yes.

[Russell] That is a very loaded thing. And then the, I mean, sort of built into your question is that these are these two worlds. And that is an aspect of why it's a problem to deal with them is that there is this division that oftentimes doesn't need to be there or exists there because of, you name it, of elitism and racism in Europe, and Eurocentrism and white supremacy. And ah God, why is now the time that I forget his name? Not Schoenberg, a different German guy. Schenker.

[Aaron] I was going to help you there, but there's like 20 possibilities.

[Russell] Yes, Wagner. So yeah, it is difficult at times to kind of navigate those two things. And it's frustrating when you, to use another loaded word, as an artist, what you do is inherently selfish. What you do is inherently built around your own goals and what you want to do, and for me, the sounds that I want to hear. But in doing that, you're working with so many different people, both the people who are helping you produce that work or the people who are listening to it and critiquing it and criticizing it or helping you guide and make it  in the case of, say, my professors. And it is just, like, a kind of a complicated thing because people have these different expectations. People have different wants and desires. And so if I were to like, yeah, if I were to take Lavender and give it to, like, my friends back home who listen to, yeah, Kendrick or whoever else, everybody back home who's a big, big fan of J. Cole.

[Aaron] Poor guy. I'm just kidding.

[Russell] He came out in the end. But yeah, if I, you know, he can enjoy Lavender, say. And it's an interesting piece here. Sort of the kind of the bridge in these worlds is film music is that's generally where the general public gets to know these sort of orchestral textures and more experimental things. For the general public, the, really, the only place that they would hear, like, atonal music, schoenberg type music would be in these 50s era or maybe earlier film scores. It can be very confusing trying to navigate those two things. But at other times, one of my professors, Dr. Scott Lee, he's really great at kind of bridging these things and bringing popular music into the academic world and the art world. And there's a whole conversation we had there about what the right way to go about doing that is. But you know, he and a lot of other people are really evidence that there are these ideas in popular commercial music, however you want to denigrate it, that are also really resonant for people who are quote unquote serious about music.

[Russell] Yeah, yeah. You know, I got to say, shout out to Dr. Scott Lee, because this is the third podcast episode out of, at this point 13, that he's been brought up. He was brought up in Dr. Gutierrez, the housing crisis, and here. So, I think…

[Russell] Dylan, I didn't know, does Nico know him?

[Aaron] It was because I first heard Nico's music at a masterclass that Dr. Lee was giving. But regardless, shout out to Dr. Lee. Now, okay, so on the topic of labels, and those different sort of identifiers, which we've had away from recording equipment, plenty of conversations about, which are some of my favorite conversations I've ever had about music, which is one of the main reasons why I invited you onto the podcast, of course. So I mean, I thought we talked about this during the housing crisis episode of it, or I did with Dylan, but is that although these identifiers that I'm going to ask you about don't maybe fundamentally matter at the end of the day, because we are all music makers in some way within this context. But I think exploring these labels and identifiers are a unique way to see how someone perceives the world and yourself. So that being said, I'm going to ask, would you identify as a composer, producer, artist, sound artist, you know, all those different terms? What's your take on that?

[Russell’ Well, sort of the easiest thing to rely on is the fact that my degree, what it says on my degree is composition. So that's the easiest label to rely on, kind of. And I have been in, kind of, I think the meaning of labels is as important to who you are and what you do as it is with who you're around. So also for that reason, I would also say composer. I know I called myself an artist earlier, but I struggle sometimes to use that word just because it sounds so pretentious.

[Aaron] It does, doesn't it? It feels, not to call out anyone who uses that, but it feels weird.

[Russell] Well, I mean, for one thing, there's the sort of general association we have with art of being specifically a visual art or at least like this tactile like pottery, right? Sort of in this broad word, this intentionally broad word. It is sometimes the most accurate word for, you know, multi-hyphenates who do, I'm struggling not to just name some of my professors, but if you're doing a sound installation, right? That is so many different things that's, depending on what it is, it can be working with circuits and it's electrical engineering. 

[Aaron] Are you thinking about Dr. Talon?

[Russell] Yes.

[Aaron] Shout out to Dr. Tina Talon.

[Russell] Yes. So yeah, labels are very confusing and it's very easy to just stack on as many as you like because technically, I'm going to sound more pretentious saying this. I don't remember the French for it exactly, but there's a French saying that was an exercise we used in high school. Again, I forget what the French saying itself was, but it translated to a blacksmith is someone who smiths. And so you say these things of a writer is someone who writes, a composer is someone who composes. And so more and more it's becoming easier and really happy about that. It's becoming easier to record things, it's becoming easier to produce things, to compose things. And so more and more people can do it. And it is just kind of, I sound like an idiot.

[Aaron] No, no, you don't. No, I totally understand what you're talking about because like, for example, I take it in a very literal way most of the time too. And like, for example, the episode with Ben Williams with his album On My Own, we had a briefer talk about this, but he did not like the label of composer for himself. He much preferred producer because to him, the different societal and academic connotations around the different words of choice were a little bit more important to his own identification as a music creator. And not that I did, you know, I'm going to use the label that someone uses to identify themselves. That's just the nice thing to do. But I would still consider him a composer because he wrote that music. It's not notated, but I don't even think that really matters. As you just said with Dr. Talent, is a sound installation notated? Well, it may not be music staff, but it's probably written down in terms of instructions. So that is a kind of literal notation. It's not musical notation, but then musical, you get it, the hemming and hawing. For every, if you put your stake down in the ground and say this is the definition of something, I can guarantee you a couple of Google searches later, you're going to come up with something that kind of flies in the face of that.

[Russell] The definition that we've relied on for a while now for what composition is, is the Varèse thing of, it's organized sound. And if you take it to say that if you add in, I don't know that you necessarily need to, but let's pretend for a moment that you add in, you bake into that definition that is notated, a book is a way to organize someone's speaking sound. So a book is technically, well, it's composition, but it's a different kind of composition. And yeah, labels are, this is true both in the political sense and in sort of the artistic sense, but labels are really, really useful in helping to identify things. And you're leading me down a linguistics conversation. There's this idea of prescriptivism versus descriptivism and whether a word should be, decide what something is or should be essentially like a chicken and the egg thing of the word and the object it's referring to, which one is more important in determining. And for like a commercial world, yeah, it's, like if I were to say that I was a producer that comes with all of these connotations. And if I were to write that on a resume, someone would expect me to have specific skills. Whereas if I were to say composer, that'd be a different thing. And if I were a songwriter, that'd also be a different thing. Even though all of these producers also have a very complicated word in that it also depends on what industry you're in if you're in the recording industry versus the film industry. But yeah, words are complicated.

{Aaron] Words are complicated, but that's the beauty of it too. So I suppose we should probably get on to the piece in question today. Your piece, we could, we could, but we shall. So Lavender in a London Fog for orchestra, Lavender in a London Fog, I, just like my interest in talking about labels, I love talking about titles. I just, I love hearing about titles and how people come up with them. And you know, I remember Will Davenport with Reed Quintet number one, he said that in many cases the title is the composer's few chances to tell you what the piece is without, you know, you may or may not be able to give someone program notes. So the title is like one of the most pivotal parts of almost, advertising makes it sound like a commercial money-making thing, but just telling people…

[Russell] Which is not true because you don't make money off of things.

[Aaron] Yeah, there is that problem. But that is all to say, can you talk about the title of Lavender in a London Fog?

[Russell] Yeah, I don't know how, some of the answers that I'll give for these sorts of questions, I don't know how interesting they're really going to be because I am a very practical, or I try to be a really practical person and really literal person at times. Lavender Fog is an Earl Grey tea, which has added honey, vanilla extract and some milk. And one day, I went to a cafe with some friends and they had a special and they were offering a London Fog with lavender in it. And I don't know if it was because of the company or if it was the tea itself or if it was just where I was in my life and with my health. A decent amount of the work that I've written and my creative impulses that I sometimes have to say no to are somehow relating to burnout and procrastination and being overworked. I don't know what that says about me. I don't quite remember if it was, trying to think about what the, sort of the inspiration for the piece came first. I think I had had the tea and a few months later when I started to work on I want to write in an orchestra piece, at that point I decided, okay, well, there are only so many, sort of this is jumping ahead a little bit, but I had actually, so the reason that I wrote the piece was for some readings, some orchestra readings at UF. And so I had talked to, asked around with some of my violinist friends and I'd asked them, you know, what kind of music does the director here, Dr. Tiffany Lu, what does she like? And I was told that she likes character pieces, pieces that have to do with narrative. So I did what I like to do and I try to draw up a narrative and from narrative draw form and structure to the piece. And that was kind of the most, well, it is sort of the default one in the back of my brain because of my health. So at the time, I kind of trans, superimposed that tea onto the piece.

[Aaron] And here's a little fun bit of this episode is I was one of those violinists that he was consulting and I'm on that recording in the second violin section somewhere. I don't quite quite remember where, but yes, I, I remember when you, I remember we were sitting in the music courtyard one day and like a handful of other pieces you've written, you're like, hey, could you, would you mind listening to this? Just I don't know, see what you think or like you maybe a specific question about string writing. And I remember thinking, listening to it and seeing the titles like, oh shit, man, what does this mean? And you're like, it's the name of a tea. And no, no, no, don't don't say that's boring. Just the literal answers are just, you know, that's, that's a great way to find inspiration. It was also in the context of your life and work cycle at the time, you know, and yeah, Dr. Lu, Dr. Tiffany Lu, I miss her so much. I wish I had more than just one year in orchestra with her. Phenomenal director, phenomenal professor and seems like a really great person, such a great supporter of modern music and has great taste, great taste in the classical canon as well, with what she selects.

[Russell] It's been really nice seeing the different concerts she's put on with the UF Symphony Orchestra and seeing, yeah, these new pieces. I may not be a little bit biased seeing that some of them happen to be Asian composers. 

[Aaron] So yeah, that, you know, you took some of the description that I was going to bring up in a little bit later is that this is largely a character piece. And I've heard a handful of different descriptions of what that descriptor means in terms of, like if you were sitting with a composition student, Russell, and you were mentoring them, how would you describe what a character piece is on a fundamental level? 

[Russell] So when you're teaching composition, it's really useful to have reference points. Just generally when you're talking about art, it is useful to have reference points. So the one that I think is used for me a lot is Mother Goose Suite by Ravel. And as we'll get into later, I think we're going to be talking quite a bit about Ravel as we're talking about this piece. Yeah, Mother Goose Suite is a good one. It is literally, each movement approximately is a different fairy tale relating to a specific character.

[Aaron] It's funny you bring that up because that was on the first concert that Dr. Lu ever put on at University of Florida.

[Russell] This is true. And that's also why.

[Aaron] Yeah. Anyways, go on, go on.

[Russell] So that's a simpler one. I think and maybe I'll be crucified a little bit for this, but well ‘cause character piece, and well, okay, so broadly, right, these are the two labels that I do feel confident in placing is that we have the spectrum from programmatic music to absolute music, music which is written for music's sake and music which is written with varying different levels of involvement of program notes and underlying narrative or maybe other media like an opera or a film. And so character music is skewed more towards programmatic music. And so in this sort of vein of music, which has a narrative and dramatic structure, one of the most obvious ones that comes up is Symphonie Fantastique by Berlioz. I don't know if I've really answered the question other than…

[Aaron] No, no. Yeah, you gave some good examples. Yeah, if I was to give a very informal definition, a shorter, maybe 10 minutes or less piece that describes a very particular soundscape or even sometimes a scene or person or entity. It's, like, to contrast it with, let's say, a very classic big C and little C classical example, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, in that there is an underlying story or narrative to the entire symphony, but it is far too long and varied in its different elements to give a specific description of something. Specificity varies between different character pieces. Sometimes it's incredibly… And also a character piece, I'm not calling yours necessarily lighthearted, but usually a character piece in my experience is not incredibly intense or it doesn't weigh heavy on you, I would say. Do you agree? Like, like I'm thinking about Ky Nam's A Vietnamese Mother's Letter to Nixon because it fits all those descriptions that I just said, but I wouldn't describe that as a character piece. 

[Russell] So I'll be upfront and say that really the only times the phrase character piece has come up has been when I'm talking to string players, particularly in an orchestral context. 

[Aaron] Interesting. That's interesting. I didn’t…

[Russell] I think that normally in these sorts of conversations that I have with composers or professors or whoever, it's primarily, it is just put on that spectrum of absolute to programmatic music and then all of the sort of shades of gray that are buried into programmatic. It's typically how I think of it personally. Am I just showing my sort of inexperience with the theory world, the repertoire?

[Aaron] I wouldn't call it inexperience, just different perspective. And that's interesting that it's primarily string players that say that. I wouldn't know because I have a string, like a string player bubble over my head. We had a reading at the orchestra and that was the opportunity that brought you to write for full orchestra. Let's talk about the compositional process a bit or what your process is.I have some experience, it's limited, not as much as yourself in writing for large ensembles and it is overwhelming. And I'm even looking at your piece here. You got some thick textures or at least lots of different layers that are like dovetailed into each other. Dovetailing is not the exact right word for it, but you have a lot going on. Sometimes you have incredibly thick vertical moments and then very thick linear moments in combination with different lines. And so how did you approach writing this piece and how did you manage tossing all around the different instrumental colliders?

[Russell] Yeah, writing for orchestra is a daunting task. Large ensembles in general, there's kind of two broad approaches that you can take, which are writing a sketch, which traditionally is for piano, two pianos, something like that, or maybe a small chamber group, piano quintet being one of the major ones, or sometimes just string orchestra. And what that does is it lets you focus on your materials and your melodic fragments, your harmonic whatever, and develop them and understand your materials. And then you can focus on orchestration as its own thing and working on how these particular materials work for these particular voices. The other approach is just working directly in the score, which when there are more staves, an empty measure is so much more intimidating. 

[Aaron] I've said this before on a different episode, and probably to you, when I had to write for symphonic band that one time, it was stressful because I just went straight to the score and I thought I don't need five clarinets, what am I doing with these?

[Russell] Right, so part of it has to do with familiarity of, well, you're a string player, you haven't played very much in symphonic band.

[Aaron] Well, yeah, fair enough. You got me on that one.

[Russell] Yeah, and so on a similar level, for the little that you can describe me as a pianist, even then pianists don't get terribly much experience with orchestra specifically. And beyond that, the individual player doesn't necessarily see the full score in the big picture that a conductor does. So it is just a lot to take in and it's a lot of new things. And that's why to do something like this, I'm not going to say that it's totally necessary, but it helps a lot to go in and study scores as its own thing. That's why conductors do it, that's why composers do it.

[Aaron] Have you ever orchestrated out of a piano reduction that you wrote?

[Russell] Well, let's talk about the piece now.

[Aaron] Oh, okay, okay, sorry.

[Russell] No, no, no, you're fine, you're fine. In terms of my process for the piece, like I mentioned, it was supposed to be this narrative thing. So I started out with a general sketch of the narrative structure of the piece and I knew vaguely what kind of… So I would describe a lot of the material in here, as I was writing it, at least, I would describe a lot of the material in here as being polytonal. That was my intention going in. And then we can have a whole discussion about how much, regardless of what the composer's intention is, how much that particular harmonic language or whatever actually comes out to a listener and if that even matters. But I knew what kinds of materials and what kinds of things I wanted to play around with. Polytonality in particular as being this almost an apex form of counterpoint of truly having line against line, intensely independent, unnaturally independent lines. So I knew that going in and then I started out with, it did start out with the fog itself. I was working on that in three piano staves, working on three different lines in if memory serves, C minor, maybe a G, G Phrygian, an E flat Lydian, something like that. And just having them move in and out of each other and move on to gradually grow and, and modulate into this larger texture that comes in later. And then that was actually really… That bit was the easiest thing, honestly, to orchestrate because it was just putting these notes into string parts and making sure that there wasn't any problems with double stops or whatever. 

[Aaron] I will say real quick about that bit. So I said earlier, and you said as well, that you consulted a fair amount of string players and you consult me here and there. I have to say, Russell, you are a very… How do I say? Very accessible composer in that you try your absolute best to make sure that the performers are comfortable and capable with what you're writing. If you know that a certain group or a certain group of people are going to be writing something, you try to make it as smooth and best as possible, which not… Like just, is this possible? Is this comfortable? And we'll ask, is there a better way to do this? You are always very open to critique, criticism, and just comments from players, performer, all sorts of people, which not to throw stones, I'm not even thinking of anyone in particular, that cannot be said for a lot of composers, especially in history. But so I think that...

[Russell] I was thinking of history.

[Aaron] Actually, I've said this before, but just like a lot of people, I do love Beethoven's music, but some of the string part writing, especially in finale presto movements, it's terrible. Man needs to reopen an orchestration textbook. I'm sorry, but 64th notes in cut time at like a hundred beats per minute, and it's a scalar idea will not clearly come through unless if it's the highest level orchestras, which maybe he was dealing with. But anyways, that's all besides the point, but you are very considerate with how you compose in many ways, but also of the people who are performing the music, which I feel as someone who's performed, well, this was… Yes, I've performed one of yours, Pocket, which is a story for a different day, but also played your orchestra piece and sat around you as you worked on all the different ones. You're very considerate, which is nice. It's really nice.

[Russell] Well, thank you. I do try to be, and I think on some level it sort of comes from… I think it probably started when I was in high school when I was writing. Initialized writing, just writing for MIDI, and then once you start writing for actual players and you realize there are things that actual players can't do, and then you get yelled at by your players.

[Aaron] One of my first pieces ever, I wrote the first violin part. It was an E major. You want to know what I did for the second violin part, Russell? I just dropped it an octave and I said, good luck.

[Russell] Well, it's not as if that's not orchestrationaly sound.

[Aaron] It didn't sound great. It wasn't their fault.

[Russell] Yeah, I think it definitely started out with me having sort of a fear that something would be… you know, I think the most anxiety thing, a lot of the things that I say today are going to make me sound like I have a lot of anxiety, which I hope I don't. But there is sort of the fear that you'll hand a player something and they'll look at it and they'll do it and they'll try their best and they're a very talented player. And then they'll tell you, Russell, this doesn't work and I hate your music and I'm never going to play it ever again. So I have a buddy back home who loves to say that I don't write music. I write a piece of paper that someone else will use to make music, which is accurate. The person that I, in this notated form of composition, am directly communicating with is not the audience, it's a player. And so that relationship is so important. And I try my best, at varying levels of success at times, to make it an amicable one.

[Aaron] Yes. And I think any performer, and I would say reasonable person, can agree with that. I've never been a fan of this is my art, deal with it. Unless if that's like the purpose of whatever that gets messy. But yeah, that's something definitely appreciated.

[Russell] I think that the people who are who are most willing to, what's a safe… I can't just say fuck over.

[Aaron] I might leave that in. I think that's funny.

[Russell] Me thinking it over. I think the people who are most willing to fuck over a string player are string players and vice versa.

[Aaron] Well, that's very true. In defense of that, it's because you kind of in string writing, you kind of get used to things that are uncomfortable, but are so idiomatic that they become comfortable or at least you just expect them. But then you, like, reach a threshold of okay, this is dumb.

[Russell] I was thinking about that earlier today. I'm actually curious that I want to ask you a question for all of the Bach fugues that are played on violin. Were any of them written for violin?

[Aaron] Literally, yes. Also, well, in a literal sense, yeah, he wrote them for violin. But yeah, and also I want to say this is the first time anyone's ever asked me a question on all these episodes. Thank you. But I would say like a third of them are easily transmittable. There are some of them like, okay, the Bach. Oh, shoot. Come on, Aaron. Don't forget it. You performed it. The Bach G minor fugue is like one of the most metal freaking violin pieces. I love it. It's like, it is a straight up masterpiece. I mean, a lot of those Bach solo violin works are just when they're played to perfection are some of the coolest classical music for violin you can ever find. I legitimately think that. But if you're going to if you showed some of that in a, like, orchestration or arranging class, you would Dr. Lu would have to have a long talk with you about because he would allege that you're abusing the player because some of that stuff like a four voice counterpoint on a violin, which again, let's remember it has four strings is quite crazy. So your point is taken though. You are you are I know you're yeah.

[Russell] I will also say that making sure that your player the person who's performing your music is comfortable and happy with your music, both just from the literal, I want to have a nice relationship and a comfortable working relationship with you. But more than that, the more playable and accessible your music is, the more it's going to get played. 

[Aaron] What a crazy thought that would be, isn't it? The more accessible your music is, the more people might play it.

[Russell] There is a whole conversation to be had. I don't know if I'm the right person to have this conversation with you, but there's a whole conversation to be had about how if you're making money off of composition for composition sake, more of it is made writing for high school or middle school bands or orchestras than it is writing music for music sake.

[Aaron] This is true. Not because I don't want to have that conversation. But let's put a pause on that. But I like where that's going. So one of the parts of this piece that you brought up, Ravel, earlier a little bit, one of my favorite parts about this piece, other than you talked a bit about the foggy atmosphere with the way that you did the string writing at the beginning. My favorite part really is the way that you write the theme or the thematic elements, primarily at rehearsal B, I'm thinking of, is when the first complete presentation of that thematic material comes into play. And first you have it in the brass, and then it gets traded to the string choir. And I have to tell you, when the string choir comes in, that is some class A romantic style, maybe a little bit further than romantic. We were talking, just brought up Ravel, beautiful string writing. I love how you orchestrated the string choir. It sounded like something straight out of those different time periods. And so that is, my question is, how did you approach the melodic content specifically?

[Russell] So there's a fugue I wrote, or started to write, some number of years ago in 6/8, and I have a tendency to go back to that and borrow from myself, just reusing all of these rhythmic motives. Particularly I'm looking at it now, this like one, two, and three, and. That's one of my favorite rhythms in a three meter. I think it's beautiful, something that I come back to a lot. So I hesitate sometimes to call this a fugue, but it was fugal, Lavender. And so it was laying out what is my subject, what's my counter subject. And what I like to do if I'm approaching something in that way is to say, I have one particular rhythmic motive that serves as the opening half of my subject, another one that's the back half of it, the opening half of my counter subject, the back half of my counter subject. How do those things line up with each other when you have your subject against, or rather you answer against your counter subject, and the way that those rhythmically contrast with each other. And then these things with aligning those up in, giving those rhythms pitch, is its own thing. The particular one that I think is most interesting, I'm gonna be honest, I don't know that it's, I appreciate the compliment. The fact that you're comparing me to these high romantic orchestrators is a massive compliment that anyone could be lucky to get. I don't see it as being that special. What I think you might be responding to is the, there's this rhythm, one, two, and, on the and of three. And that's this leap up of a sixth, and then various other points I've changed it to leaping up a seventh, and then going back down to probably Ti, the leading tone resolving somewhere. And I do think that that leap is potentially what you're talking about in terms of high romantic, and it was this contour thing of I want to make this memorable, so let's give it a memorable leap and a memorable interval that I can assign to it and come back to. The way that that particular mode, or that the subject for lack of a better word here is played directly, I mostly thought of it being in this harmonic minor context, which you see in the bassoons and the brass in the opening of the fugue, and then towards the end you see it in, I forget exactly, but I think it's a Lydian kind of thing, where we then replace that sixth that I'm talking about with a major seventh. This really complicated interval, the sing, I think it's gorgeous. It's so distinct. 

[Aaron] Yeah, yeah, thank you for that. Definitely distinct intervals. I can't really totally quantify why my ears related it to that, but I would, at least for the string writing comparison.

[Russell] Is it the orchestration or is the melody itself?

[Aaron] It's the melody itself primarily, and then the orchestration. I think it's the very large dissonant leaps followed by smooth contour that help give that and I don't know, just the timbre of the recording reminds me of something of that time period. Now, here's a question. You were talking about the different parts of the fugue, and what's interesting is that you wrote this before you actually took counterpoint one and two at University of Florida. So not to make you critique your own music, but now that you have some specific classroom experience and learning counterpoint, what are your thoughts about it?

[Russell] That's a good question. You tell me not to critique my own music as if that isn't natural for me. Yeah, so, so, I mean, I want to come back to this fugal section. Maybe my ADHD is showing here, but I want to come back to this fugal section to talk about that for a little bit. But the fog is actually the thing that I most want to look back at from a contrapuntal perspective because well, for one thing, so to talk about what I'm doing there for people who can't see the score, it is just these string tremolos with two different notes, if I can geek out about the polytonality here. So like I mentioned, so we hear it in first violins, second violins and viola, and occasionally a little bit of doubling in the winds that didn't come out so much in the recording. But yeah, each individual string line I had assigned to a different mode. It's hard to say that it really has a sense of tonality and like center, but at least when I was writing it, I had that sense of this should be focused on this note. And so it's C something, E flat something, G something. It's this minor triad that starts out really clear in that minor-ness and then, or sort of clear in that minor-ness and then it branches out into more complicated interlaid… So that was the fun of just interlaying these modes against each other. But then there was the fun of the multi-note tremolos where we have each, well, it's two things for one, it's just the fact that the line, the theoretical idea itself is going back and forth between saying E flat and an F. And then we get that weird sort of trill effect of what is the actual center of this. And then when you interlay that with both the three line layer that's already going on there and then more so the fact that because it's tremolo, not every string player is going to play that in the same rhythm. And then you get even more interlay. And so it's kind of this pool of multiple notes going in and out of each other. That I think is the most fun thing about it. And I would love to come back to this now having a, because again, I'm talking about modes, the first time I was exposed to modes was a jazz harmony and thinking about it in the way that a jazz musician would, which is very different from how we talk about it in Renaissance counterpoint. So for that reason, as well as just like, I would love to come back and see. It's a bit difficult because it's just by merit of being polytonal. The same sort of intervallic rules of Renaissance counterpoint or Bach counterpoint don't really apply here. So I can't really go in and mark all of them at parallel fifths and say that that's wrong. It's a different style.

[Aaron] No, but it's the overall idea of it, right? You're touching on something that I totally agree with. One of my favorite parts about music theory on a technical level is the study of counterpoint because it's not just, I mean, it's important to understand the style, but it's more for being versed in looking at counterpoint. And that's not just a fugue or an invention, but those two counterpoint classes with Dr. Paul Richards, who, love Dr. Richards, call out to him. A bunch of shout outs this episode, but go Gators, I suppose. But ever since that class, I mean, it helped me analyze pop music so much better and more acutely. And I see so many more things than I wouldn't have before. Of course, you know, like, yes, it breaks all the counterpoint rules, quote unquote, but it's just like another way of analyzing music that helps you see some connective tissue. And maybe you can help improve this or there or make, you know, you're not sure why this part's not so interesting. And maybe you can put that in, you know, I think it's an essential thing for people to even just get a little bit of with what you're talking about. I think it's really cool that you're now training in counterpoint feels you more prepared to look at this atmospheric section and how it's like relating to itself on a micro level rather than like the highly technical fugal part. I think that's well, I mean, it's like it's almost kind of ironic, but I think that's the power of counterpoint education right there, you know?

[Russell] And also the power of being trained by Dr. Paul Richards.

[Aaron] That is a great power. That is a great power. My first ever, my first ever research advisor was a composer. So yes. So let's move on to a little bit later in the piece where I suppose this isn't necessarily a focal point of the piece, but with the vibraphone, you have you highlight the vibraphone at a certain point. And in these episodes, sometimes I like to ask questions of, like, hey, can you talk about this just out of, I just like it. There's, I suppose there isn't a grand theoretical statement here. But what I really like about this vibraphone feature, let's call it that maybe not necessarily solo, is that it first pokes itself out of a texture after a moment of textural intensity. A lot of texture going on right now. And then it transforms into more of an ostinato figure. It's maybe not as melodically significant as more the timbre of it and then how it adds to the evolving nature. But I just really liked it. It gave me some planning vibes. It's not quite but the way that you organize the different intervallic patterns. Yeah, can you just chat about that for a second, I suppose?

[Russell] Sure, yeah. Broadly speaking, vibraphone is just a beautiful sound. If I had more time with this piece, I would have loved to introduce some bowed vibes, bowed vibes with the motor without the motor. But that's the fact that you bring up the high intensity is actually one of the more key points, is that I'm using this vibraphone feature as a transitional point. I'm trying to move out of the fugue out of this intensely contrapuntal stuff in this really big large orchestral stuff into, to bring it back to the sort of the narrative of the piece into something that's less complicated and something more calm and the actual finding the lavender. And that's a, it's a difficult bridge to build. So part of that the section where that pops up is I put it in to make kind of just to, well, I suppose it was more of a motivated choice of I wanted it to feel a bit like a waltz, which is why the, we have this pattern of, so it's seven eight. It's one, two, one, two, three, one, two. Right? And that's largely what the vibraphone is doing, it’s outlining those beats. And part of it was just I want to introduce this kind of awkward, because you don't see seven eight in this, well, actually, oddly symmetrical way that we don't often see it that way. So I wanted to have that as an introduction and give it to a percussion player to then lay the groundwork for the players that come into it afterwards. I also wanted it to be a, vibraphone is, like I mentioned, it's a beautiful sound. It's a beautiful timber. It's very, if you, depending on how you write it, it's very serene. I think it's kind of calming, but just the actual timbre of the vibraphone. And it was a, it was a good bridge and kind of a good sudden bridge out of the intensity of the full orchestra. 

[Aaron] Definitely agree. Definitely agree. The, the atmospheric and also mechanical uses of it are great, as you just said. Well, coming to the middle of the are coming to the end of the middle section, Russell, is there anything else you want to say specifically about the piece? Lavender in a London Fog or writing for orchestra?

[Russell] Yeah, I would like to say that to criticize myself a little bit more every time I look back on this piece, my biggest gripe with it and my biggest gripe with myself and writing it is that it's, it's too short. I wish that each individual section was longer. I wish there was more of that. I wish there was more development and growth in that repose of the vibraphone and then leading into the duet of the bassoon and the bass clarinet, or the contrabassoon and the bass clarinet. I would love to, now that I've had all of this contrapuntal training, fix or improve or build upon the actual fugal structure in it. And more than anything, I wish that the fog and the complicated nature of it… Oh, I want to talk about Ravel a little bit, actually. The biggest inspiration for the piece in terms of the actual technique is La Valse by Ravel, and it opens with this same string tremolos that are low and kind of gurgling and kind of eerie for a little bit. And then we get just like what I wrote winds that are slowly expositing these little fragments that eventually evolve into the full piece. And that was what I was trying to mimic. And I would love to do it better and also have it just happen more gradually and let that kind of slowly build up.

[Aaron] Well, also, I mean, to be nice to yourself, part of this was this was a reading for, you know, there was a certain time limit given. Yeah. But certainly this could be prime suspect for some exploration and expanding it. Well, so moving on to the final segment of this podcast, I'm going to ask this broadly and generously, Russell, what does music and composition mean to you? 

[Russell] I love these big questions.

[Aaron] Easy, light question, right?

[Russell] Yes.

[Aaron] Yeah. It's like a multiple choice.

[Russell] Well, to that point, it is a question that only has so many answers. And I think one of the things that makes it most intimidating is the fact that you don't want to give the same answer that everyone else kind of already has on some level.

[Aaron] I guess so. But maybe that's why composers connect in a similar field.

[Russell] Yeah. So I've premeditated an answer a little bit, knowing that this would come up. So I'll work my way from the atmosphere and down. So I would say that art, generally, is connection. The point of it is it's a way to connect with another person, share your experience, share your ideas, whatever it is. And that's just as much about artists. So there's sort of this idea that an artist is a singular person, that this work is created by a single person, which is intensely complicated when you think about the ways that, for instance, for this piece, the influence that you or other string players or other people around me have had on my string writing or my orchestration, or even showing up to lessons once a week and presenting a piece and having someone critique your piece and tell you these are the directions that you should take it in. And more than that, it doesn't have to be a solo thing. It can be this collaborative thing between multiple composers. I wish so much more that there was more two composer pieces, more works where two composers come together and they decide, hey, we have these ideas that we want to work on and you have strengths, I have strengths. I want to experiment with what you're good at and what I'm good at and see what we can do from there. I wish there was more of that. So to come back to my point, art, performance, music, composition, all of it's about connecting with another person, or connecting with so many different people.

[Aaron] I think you can probably surmise from the conversations that we've had before, and I know that you've listened to this podcast, but I completely agree. You know, something that I said on last week's podcast with Isabella Tempreville and the Infernal Suite is that I'm not in music theory because of the music theory. That portion of it, I don't know, this is an odd thing to say publicly, but I don't care about it too greatly. But for me, I know, I know. I don't care about it too greatly because to me, what's most important, and what I find special about music theory, is its way to connect with people. I love the discussions of music, understanding other people and their perspectives and how other people see what they put out there, which is essentially what this podcast is. To me, that's what makes music theory special. And the most special thing to me is to connect with other people and my way of doing it is through music theory. And so I very much, I can sympathize with your viewpoint with composition. And so this is the fun part. In big quotes, I know everyone loves this. Let's flip the coin around. Music theory. What does it mean to you? And just like I did with the housing crisis, I'm sorry, but I'm going to take away an answer. I'm going to take away an answer. Yes, music theory is a good and I would argue essential tool. Even if you don't think of it as music theory, whatever you do when you create music, it is essential on a fundamental structural, even if you're disregarding structure, you're thinking about different theoretical topics other than it being a useful tool, which is an easy, you know, I would agree it is. 

[Russell] I would say that that's the composer answer.

[Aaron] That's the composer answer. I'm looking for something a little bit further than that. What is your opinion on music theory? It's a function for yourself, people around you, institutions, so on.

[Russell] You can stop me if you would like. I will still say that it is a tool, but not exclusively a tool for, you know, I think oftentimes you think of a composer alone in, or now at the computer, thinking of what chord symbols do I use where and these interlying lines and the tools of that. But more than that, as someone who's making art, it's an interesting and sometimes confusing feeling to be known. And so when a conductor studies my score or a theorist studies my score or a musicologist studies my score, it's a little bit, at times it can be alarming of, oh, this person knows this extra, weirdly intricate detail about me and kind of habits that I rely on or markings that I make. But at the same time, it is, it's, I don't know if liberating is the right word, but it's the one that comes to mind now. It's wonderful to be known by someone else. And so in that way, in terms of what you're doing with the podcast and theory in general, I think when music theory or when music theorists are using it as an action to analyze a living composer's work and then kind of spread that and communicate that to other theorists, to musicologists, to whoever, and then we learn more about each other's music, I think that is kind of beautiful. And it's really rewarding as a composer.

[Aaron] I have to say, you know, as we're friends, so obviously, you know, I agree with that too, again, and I appreciate the compliment. And I think I said this at some other point, not today, but at some other time that not that I myself have power, or any music theorists truly, maybe some at the top of the food chain do, and some people who write textbooks and structure theory, okay, they do have power. They do have power. 

[Russell] Yes.

[Aaron] Yes. It’s your choice to analyze, to look at music, to talk with a composer or talk about a composer if they're deceased, is platforming. And it's highlighting, it's giving importance, unless if you're criticizing the composer, you know, which hopefully they're long gone and you're doing it in good faith if that's the case.

[Russell] That is sort of the difference between creation and curation.

[Aaron] I like that. I'm going to put that in the episode description, curation versus creation. I like that. But yeah, so not that I don't want to pose myself as a virtuous person trying to highlight or whatever. And I'm not trying to put down people because they have because they really enjoy Brahms or they really enjoy Schoenberg or they really enjoy Shostakovich. Have at it, explore it. I'm sure there's still many more things to see. But it comes with it, the understanding that you are giving an inordinate amount of importance to whatever you choose to study, spend your time on, publish, and spotlight. So I feel like that's a thing that some theorists don't always consciously think of, in my opinion. 

[Russell] I would be curious to see how often theorists do consider that. 

[Aaron] In my experience, and I can only speak to the program that I'm in, and the people that I've met, I've only met such a few amount of what is a actually pretty big music theoretical world is that the societal and social context of such things is not always at the top of the discussion at all. 

[Russell] I would agree. And well…

[Aaron] Go for it, Russell. Go for it.

[Russell] Anytime I have a conversation with someone, I always am kind of tracking the through line of it. And I like to make clear in my music, if I can. That is the other thing is that because music is so abstract, or can be abstract, it can be on this… When you're working with story, it's very literal. But if you're working with just music and sound, it can be on the spectrum from intensely abstract to very literal and anything in between. But I do kind of like to keep track of what a through line could be for things. And the conversation I've been having, a lot of it is working with other people, which I know that one of the questions that you're going to ask is what's the state of music and how should things go forward?

[Aaron] Yes, go. Go for it.

[Russell] I think it also has something to do with… Talking about labels again, it has to do a lot with who you're in community with and who you're interacting with. Sort of the atmosphere for the people who are going to call themselves composers, and the people who are going to call themselves music theorists, sometimes are your everyday person going about their lives who have a degree in, I don't know, biology. But a lot of times the people who end up… I'll make the caveat that a lot of times the people who end up with some kind of platform to speak about these things are people who have a degree in this and therefore have the resources to get said degree and spend their money on that to varying levels. But the atmosphere in an academic form of composition or of music theory is very much, as much as we like to say that we will interact with each other and we'll support each other in community and we'll review each other's work, it is very easy to get holed up in your space and just doing your own things. It's very easy to create your own bubble of not even the people around you but just yourself and your own work and the things that are relevant to that. Especially when there is so much… I like phrasing it that Debussy and Ravel, when they were composing and they were writing, they would be competing with each other. But today, I think it would be very generous to say that I'm competing with Ravel. I think I'm being...

[Aaron] Oh no. Oh no. You're getting cursed on by Ravel. The diss didn’t go so well, I suppose.

[Russell] But yeah, there is so much… One of the beautiful and horrible things about the internet is that there's so, or just recorded media in general is that there's so much to sift through and not all of it is noise but if you're trying to do a very specific thing, if you're trying to write a dissertation or what have you, you just naturally can only, I don't want to say can but people do only consider so many different things and so many different people. So it's really easy to get isolated. As a theorist, as a composer, and I would just wish for that to not be the case.

[Aaron] I'd like to say I practice what I preach for the most part but you do too, Russell, with what we were talking about before about your deep consideration and collaboration with your performers and your care for them enjoying the experience and hopefully advocating for your music just as much as you do for yourself. I mean, shit. Being nice to the people who are taking the time to play your music doesn't sound like the craziest damn thing in the world but that is a really big plus. 

[Russell] The other thing is that some composers get things go to their heads. I don't know how much we really want to go into that.

[Aaron] Probably not too much.

[Russell] I will say that on a semi-related note, more so than just what we write in our papers or what we write in our pieces, also as you mentioned, what's in textbooks and what's taught in the classroom at over in the UK they have music theory taught in, I think, throughout all of public education.

[Aaron] It depends. It's better than the United States. Let's go with that.

[Russell] I would say that here in the US we have a couple things in elementary school and then if you go to the right school you'll get like a music theory program. 

[Aaron] If you're born into the right zip code and the right social economic class.

[Russell] I was very lucky to be and have those privileges.

[Aaron] Myself as well.

[Russell] On a similar note, I would love to see more discussions of these things in those classes or even just at the… okay, I don't know how much you're going to want to keep this one in. I think that conservatories and music schools at the college level have a pretty bad retention rate at the freshman level.

[Aaron] I've heard that too. I can't cite anything but I've heard that colloquially. I've heard that too.

[Russell] And you're right. I think that I'm making some claims that I don't necessarily have a lot of evidence other than not even necessarily my own experience, just my own impression of my own experience. But assuming that that's true and if someone wants to throw some articles at me that would be great. But assuming that that's true, I would posit that potential reasons for that are what kind of music theory we teach at the freshman level. One of the potential reasons for that is how limiting and seemingly unrelated freshman theory can be to the music that people interact with even in a classical setting where you're mostly playing Mozart.

[Aaron] Well, I would say arguably at a actually uniquely at a conservatory, it is reflective of the music that they interact with. But I think your point is to the broader scope of the modern landscape of music. That is a, see, the practicality argument is one that I don't really know how to tackle, even though, at least in my studies at Florida State University and with this podcast, is something I think about on a pretty regular basis. For example, if you want to show how a cadential six four can be easily orchestrated in a piano texture that is just so bleedingly clear that you can circle it on a board. There are few better examples than a Mozart piano sonata. It's just like the, like, clear as day thing. But then the problem comes is when that's the only example that you show of that or your next example is from Schubert and then your next example is from Mahler and then a previous example is from a Bach chorale. What do all these have in common? Classical canon, European white men, right? And so the response to some of what you're saying from colleagues of mine, other professionals and maybe even myself to a degree is the argument of practicality. But then you're basically excusing just running in a hamster wheel, you know, like, like, oh, I can't fix the problem because the problem's too hard, but I'll make a career out of complaining about the problem. So yeah, like for, for example, I want to give compliment to a professor, Dr. Rachel Lumsden in our atonal class. One of the first, I think the second piece we ever looked at in the introductory graduate atonal class was a, I don't remember if it was a piano sonata. It was a short piano piece by Julia Perry and we talked, and it was a way to structure conversation around set classes and set theory and all those different things. It's outside of what we would consider the classical canon. She's a composer of diverse background, Julie Perry is an African American woman composer and it was a phenomenal piece. So incorporating composers such as that from diverse backgrounds, music that reflects them, or maybe it doesn't even need to necessarily. It could just be absolute music, but you just have more representation other than the standard bearers. Do you understand my point about like, it's, sometimes it's out of practicality, but then that begets stagnation.

[Russell] Yes. I, that is sort of the general catchphrase that I will sometimes use jokingly is this is why structural change doesn't happen. Yeah. It's, it's, what is it? It takes a village and I'm talking about a lot of us are very holed up in our own papers and our own classes. Yeah. So this is this idea of dismantling the master's house or the master's tool. Can you take Schenkerian tools and explicitly like German supremacist tools to break down German supremacy and to that point, can you use the way that we look at music theory now to break away from the racism and the Eurocentrism that is almost inherent to it? And yeah, your example of teaching a cadential six four, I agree that probably the best example you can is Mozart, probably more Mozart, probably more Mozart, maybe Schubert. But then there's the, that begets the question of, do we need to teach a cadential six four or is there maybe an underlying principle that can be taught instead? And then it's just a broad thing of, again, there is so many different ideas that you can teach and different approaches to harmony and orchestration that I agree with you. It is difficult to decide what do we keep? What do we not keep?

[Aaron] Look, I'm only 22. You know, I don't, I don't, I don't totally know, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say, yes, I think we should be teaching things such as a cadential six four. I think we should be teaching roman numeral analysis, but I think the devil is in the details of the framing, the framing of the lesson, the framing of the ideas. You know, when you're doing a cadential six four, I'm not thinking of a song in particular, but why not throw in an example from the Backstreet Boys from a Kendrick Lamar track? I'm sure there's one somewhere, you know, just, it's a, it's a fundamental idea, but it's more often than not music theory boxes itself in with the justification of practicality in the past, and therefore into a homogeneous world of music, which is then very negative. And then on top of the argument of practicality, there's the more sinister angle of purposeful boxing out of music for a variety of reasons based, based off of the inherent biases of the analyst, the author, so on and so forth. That can get very thorny. I'm not throwing out accusations, but these are issues that are inherent in the world of academia and music academia. Not just music academia, just all over.

[Russell] I think we have clear examples of it in music academia, but yes.

[Aaron] Oh, yeah. Although I think that the beginnings of the music theory sequence and academic required classes for music training are primarily good, it's all about the framing and how you treat that material, you know, as you've said, as you've said. So Russell, you know, we, you know, we know each other. We could go on for hours about this sort of stuff in probably much more colorful and even more controversial terms. But we're going to come to the end of the show here. And so Russell, you're working on your masters right now in business as you previewed right there. Oh, but you know, include, I get, I suppose, including that, but further than that, what's next for you? Maybe musically as well.

[Russell] Working on a couple different projects right now, larger scale projects. Something that I'm often told is that should stop writing shorter things and work on longer things because I have the mind for it. Or that almost sounds elitist. I have the interest in it, is what I think is most accurate. So I'm trying to work on some larger things. I'm working on an orchestra piece right now. Very early sketching stages. And in this particular case, I am working from sketch rather than writing directly to the orchestra. I'll let you know how that goes. Hopefully that'll get a, I'll get a reading at least. We'll see if it develops any more than that. I'm also working on a larger project that I might contact you about in the future, but it's working on a recital.

[Aaron] Cool. Awesome. You know, I have to come down for Gainesville for that one. All right. So that sounds like a lot of great and exciting stuff. How best could the audience contact you for any comments, questions, or inquiries, maybe even commission requests?

[Russell] Oh yes. In regards to commission, I'm not currently, my load is a little bit heavy. So but post, let's say post April of next year, probably I'll have potentially a little bit later. For as much as I, my music is about being overworked. I do it to myself. If someone wants to contact me for any reason, like Aaron mentioned, right now you can, I don't quite have a website just yet, but for now you can message me at on Instagram at @rightnowaudio, rightnowaudio spelled the way that you would think, that's really the best way to contact me right now.

[Aaron] All right. Excellent. And I'm going to give the last word to you, Russell. What if, you know, what would you say to the audience about music, composition, music theory, life, the whole art world? What would that be?

[Russell] I'll take it a little bit. I say this as if the conversations we've been having are not also broad. So we've talked around this a little bit, but I'm at an interesting point in my career, a transitional point where I've finished my bachelor's. Technically I have a little bit more to go for this master's that I'm doing, but yeah, I'm at a point where I'm figuring out, and a lot of my colleagues, my friends are figuring out right now. Do I go to grad school? Do I do something else? Do I do whatever? Something that I might want to, not necessarily state as a truism about life or really art, but a potential thing to think about that I'm thinking about a lot is pivoting. Because I think, so as we've mentioned, I'm by certain definitions a composer, depending on who you ask. Maybe you could also think of me as doing some songwriting, but lately I've been doing more recording engineer type stuff. And I think it's really useful as an artist or as a creative person to pivot and to take up different crafts and do different aspects of maybe the same thing of what you do, maybe other things in music or pivot entirely and go into do pottery. Specifically talking about a particular idol of mine is this guy named Freddie Wong. So he started out on YouTube making Rocket Jump and eventually became Video Game High School and now he's doing some podcasts that are really great. You should check him out. That guy just does anything and it's beautiful. I have so much respect and admiration for his and other people's ability to do different things purely because it interests them and it makes them happy. And figuring out a way to make money out of that or make a career out of that. I think he's beautiful. Something that I aspire to.

[Aaron] Well you heard it here. And Russell, I want to thank you very much for coming on to this podcast. This has been Russell Avellanosa with his piece for full orchestra Lavender in a London Fog. Thank you again very much Russell for coming on. 

[Russell] Thank you so much for having me. This was a great opportunity.

[Aaron] Hello, this is Aaron again, and I want to thank you for listening to this episode of the Theorist Composer collaboration. I also want to give another big thank you to Russell Avellanosa for coming on to the podcast and for sharing his piece, Lavender in a London Fog. Russell's contact info was listed both in the description of this episode as well as on the corresponding contributor page on the TCC host website as well. And I would appreciate it if you could show him some support. As I said in the episode, you know, one of the first people I thought of quite a while ago to have on to the program was Russell. Even though we're a good bit of the episodes of the way through, I always had him in mind because as I said earlier, some of the most interesting and engaging conversations I've had about music have been with Russell, and I always love talking to him about some of the most controversial, most complicated, and multifaceted things within music. I've actually learned quite a lot with Russell over the years, talking about all sorts of different things and getting different perspectives on things within music or, hell, even just within life from him that I really appreciate. I look forward to continued conversations with Russell, both on this podcast and in a future return feature, and also of course off of it. Regardless, I want to give a very, very special thank you again to Russell Avellanosa for coming on to the podcast and for sharing his phenomenal piece, Lavender in a London Fog. For further updates and notifications on the Theorist Composer collaboration, make sure to subscribe to our email listing on the homepage of our host website and follow our Instagram and Facebook pages. Relevant links in the description. You can listen to future episodes through our host website, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, iHeart Radio, and YouTube. So make sure you subscribe to the platform of your choosing. Again, all relevant links are in the description. TCC episodes are posted weekly on Mondays, and don't miss our weekly blog posts, which go live a few days after a new episode is added. I'm also excited to promote that our next feature composer is Natalia Rojcovscaia-Tumaha and her piece, Philosophy of a Miracle, a symphonic poem for full orchestra. There will be more information on this in the upcoming blog post and, of course, in the next full episode. Make sure to follow our social media accounts and relevant streaming platforms because you won't want to miss it. But until then, this is Aaron, and thank you for joining the TCC.

Transcript edited and formatted by Justine de Saint Mars