DeLalla, Michael - Classical Guitarist
By: Dominick A. Miserandino
Michael DeLalla, talks about his feelings on the guitar and it's place in Classical Music.
DM) How did you get your start in classical guitar?
MD) Actually, I had been largely a self-taught player for a few years. I
didn't begin on classical guitar until I got to the conservatory at which I
studied. At that time, if I wanted to study guitar in a conservatory
atmosphere, my only option was classical guitar. This would have been the
years 1977 to 1981, when I graduated. Now, I have students who go on to study
many different styles of guitar. The study of the instrument has come a long
way.
DM) Some people feel that the piano and other instruments have more depth
than the guitar. There's more to study with piano and others, and they feel
the guitar's an easier instrument. I actually play both, so I've been
interested in other people's perspectives on this. What do you think?
MD) It would depend on how I defined "depth". One thing that I really found
frustrating as a guitar student was the lack of really first-rate repertoire.
Instruments like the piano and violin have so much more heritage, so much
more history, and certainly a greater depth in their respective repertoires.
The repertoires for those instruments went through their growing pains a long
time ago; the guitar's repertoire hasn't finished doing that yet. Also
maligning the guitar is the folk affiliation. It amazes me that because of an
instrument's relationship with a culture's folk music; it can be considered
in less serious terms by players of those instruments that are more
affiliated with "art music". It's changing, though, from both directions:
there is better music being written for the guitar now and greater
acknowledgment of the importance of folk/traditional music in the development
of repertoire. But let's say that we define "depth" in terms of an
instrument's expressive capabilities. The guitar is capable of a much greater
range of expression, timbre, and tone than most players are capable of
realizing. I would certainly compare it favorably with the expressiveness of
the above-mentioned instruments. And this is a good point to mention: my
disagreement with the idea that the guitar is an easier instrument. Yes, it's
easy to sound pretty mediocre, but it's probably one of the more technically
difficult instruments on which to excel. Having said all that, I definitely
recognize the guitar's limitations, particularly in its dynamic range. This
is why I don't usually enjoy all-guitar recordings. I like the interaction of
guitar with other instruments breaking up the sonic space a bit.
DM) Do you play other styles besides classical guitar?
MD) I guess I don't view classical guitar so much as a style than as a
technical approach, especially these days when I don't have much time to play
the classical guitar repertoire. I currently play three types of instruments:
the classical, the steel string acoustic, and the 12-string. All get
approached from the same basis of technique, which is rooted in classical
technique. I view my style in general terms as a hybrid of three main
elements: my classical training, which influences my technique, as well as my
composition; jazz, which gives me many of the improvisational tools I use;
and my undying love for many types of traditional music, particularly Celtic
music.
DM) Where did you get the Celtic music background?
MD) I can't really be sure. Both of my parents are Italian immigrants, so
it's not that I grew up listening to it. But early on, with the recordings of
John Renbourn, Fairport Convention, Planxty, DeDanaan, I found that the
Celtic struck a very profound nerve. I think it was how the melodies often
suggested harmony, even in a single line. Much of the music was originally
for fiddle or whistle, so harmony had to be implied by the contour of the
melody. So it was music that I would play recreationally, amidst my studies,
my gigs, other musical projects. About twenty years ago, I met up with a
couple of people in college with similar interests. We would get together,
play through the tunes, and then go do our other gigs. The fiddle player
worked in a community orchestra; the whistle player was with one of the army
bands, playing saxophone. We started getting gigs, then bigger gigs, and then
about ten years ago, a TV interviewer asked us what we called ourselves. The
next piece we were to play was "The Unfortunate Rake". It became our name on
the spot--those two people, Bruce Wilkin and Chas. Fowler and I are The
Unfortunate Rakes today.
DM) With an Italian surname, I was wondering if you've ever played Italian
folk music?
MD) One of the deepest, darkest secrets of my musical development is that, at
the age of eight, I studied accordion for a year or so, like all good Italian
sons did. I'm talking about one of those big, overly ornate, 120-button
jobs. But very little of the music was actually Italian folk music. Someday,
I'd like to just see what's there, in the music of the Paysani, just to see
if maybe there are some ties to what I do now that I'm not aware of. I've
been to Southern Italy where my family is from, but I didn't gain a lot of
musical insights. Maybe it's time to try again.
DM) I see that you play a number of instruments on the album. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of the steel string versus the classical versus
the 12- string?
MD) One disadvantage of the steel string is that, in my opinion, it doesn't
have as wide a range of expression as the classical. But the classical
doesn't deal well with altered tunings like the steel string does. The
12-string is merely difficult, one big disadvantage! I'm kidding, a little
bit. There are some arpeggios that sound just stunning on a 12-string, due to
the octave displacements that occur. And let's not forget the difficulties of
keeping a 12-string in tune. When I think of my compositions, I can't think
of one that sounds "right" on all three. Most don't even sound right on two
of the three. When I start a composition, it's usually away from the guitar,
so I don't fall into the usual idiomatic traps. After I get a bit into the
piece, the process, I start to get a feel for which instrument will do it
justice.
DM) Do you feel that we'll eventually have classical concerts w/guitars as
often as with other instruments?
MD) I think that it's already happening--there are more good young classical
players doing the performance circuit today than there have ever been. And
several of them cross into non-classical territory, both in terms of their
programs and the audience that they attract. Andrew York, Dusan Bogdanovic,
Sharon Isbin, the Assads and Muriel Anderson all come to mind.
DM) Why is there so much more pop music for guitar than for any other
instrument?
MD) I think the guitar's predominance in pop music is a cyclical phenomenon,
and perhaps a cultural phenomenon as well. Ten or fifteen years ago, it
looked like guitar, as a prevailing force in pop music, might be supplanted
by keyboards, samples, and quantized drum machines. It was around this time
that a renewed interest in acoustic-based music really took off. It would
seem that, once again, for every action in the universe, there is a reaction!
DM) What do you mean, the cultural aspect?
MD) I mention the cultural aspect because throughout music history, the "pop"
or "folk" or "music of the masses" always seemed to center around a popular
instrument. In another time or place, it could have been fiddle, a banjo made
from a calabash gourd, wooden flute or whistle, even voice.
What seems to be the common thread is portability. No matter how popular it
may become, I just don't see the tracker organ as being the quintessential
instrument of the people. Then again, maybe we need to re-examine the impact
of portability on the transmission of folk music. With today's means of
sending and receiving information, portability may cease to be an issue, if it hasn't already.
Talk to other readers about this story.
|
