My original concept for this work was a large, slowly pulsing mass of sound out of which the soloist would emerge.  I sketched a number of ideas based on this concept, none of which seemed appropriate for a first movement.  In the end, these ideas became sections of the second movement, and I knew I had to rethink my approach to the opening of the work.

I returned to the original melodic idea that I had written down at the VERY beginning of the compositional process.  This melody, heard in the saxophone’s first statement (m. 11-22) provided a wealth of developmental ideas, many of which are based on the “head” of that motive (small pitch sets, quartal harmonies, large harmonic areas etc.).  As I composed, the work began to take on a “block” structure: large sections of similar material, with less emphasis on transitions.

I was also interested in applying certain extra-musical concepts to the work.  First among these was the idea of balance versus imbalance.  Fibonnaci relationships (e.g. 8=5+3) permeate many aspects of the work; phrases and ostinati are often 8, 5, or 3 bars long and meters are made up of groups of these integers, as well.  Even the overall durations of the various movements are 8, 5, and 3 minutes, respectively.  Each movement also has a significant arrival at its exact midpoint (as does the overall concerto, at the start of the second movement).  In terms of the three distinct movements, the last movement serves less as a discrete movement and more like a coda for the entire concerto.  All three movements are tersely constructed and the work seems to come to a crashing, if not sudden, conclusion.

I am extremely grateful to conductor Jacob Harrison and soloist Keith Kelly, as well as to the many ASU School of Music colleagues who dragged themselves to this session early on a Saturday morning.

I. Eight Minutes
 

II. Five Minutes
 

III. Three Minutes