AMERICAN RIVERS SUITE

for orchestra

(1990) Duration: 13:00

PURCHASE

American Rivers Suite was composed in the late spring of 1990 with the support of a National Endowment for the Arts Composer Fellowship and later support of an Al Smith Artist's Fellowship from the Kentucky Arts Council.

American Rivers Suite attempts to synthesize several diverse musical styles: the new romanticism, minimalism, various popular music idioms, and traditional contemporary concert music. The goal was not to juxtapose these styles but to blend them into a single musical language. The work is in five sections: three central movements framed by a short overture-like movement that is repeated to conclude the piece.

The movement titles were chosen because I feel they represent the character of four dramatic American rivers: Niagara, Colorado, Mississippi, and Columbia. Each of these rivers suggests to me qualities and characteristics that seem to be embodied in the music. The first movement, Niagara, rushes headlong, befitting the river that feeds the great cascades of the falls. The second movement, Colorado, is heavy and monolithic, as its namesake was capable of carving the massive Grand Canyon. The Mississippi movement, slow and languid, is mostly calm and placid with only a suggestion of its overwhelming power. The fourth movement, Columbia, is diverse and energetic, sometimes playful and sometimes very intense. The conclusion of Columbia dovetails into the return of Niagara without pause.

The original title of the work was not American Rivers Suite. This title is derived from a comment by a listener after the premiere, “The music seemed to carry me along on a journey, like a river.”

The premiere of the work was controversial. The audience was enthusiastic, but critics and modern music specialists (including many of my composer friends) were outraged by the simple and direct nature of the work, and they were not shy about saying so, even in public print when they had the means.

I believe my own impulse for composing the work arose from my desire to find a new direction for myself, one that was not simply following in the tracks of my teachers, mentors, and leaders in the field at that time. I knew the attempt would put me in direct opposition to the primary trends of the day. but I felt compelled to follow my instincts for the work. In some sense, the work almost forced itself on me. Yes, I could have resisted, but I was curious enough to explore the different path. I have the ability to mimic musical styles (perhaps too easily), but I needed to find a separate path, even if that path wandered away from the expected.

At the time, I wrote the following:

The New Simplicity, An Observation
The years between 1945 and 1970 were a time of intense musical experimentation, producing a dazzling array of new idioms and often music of dazzling complexity. Approaching 1970 a surging backlash against complexity appeared in the music of the minimalists, the neo-romantics, and many others, all of whom could be subsumed under the larger heading of the "New Simplicity," though this term is generally used more restrictively. This sudden off-shoot or rise to prominence of a simpler music is not an isolated phenomenon in music history. Compare the music of the late Medieval period with that of the early Renaissance, or the music of the late Renaissance with that of the early Baroque, or again the music of the late Baroque with that of the early Classical period. In each case there was a clear break with the complexity of the past, and in each case a gradual growth and maturation of the new until it too had to be supplanted by the next wave of "New Simplicity." Perhaps we have recently passed through such a moment in music history. If so, the coming decades might produce a new period of "common practice" or "common musical currency," a synthesis of the current diversity.
– Steve Rouse, 1990