Episode 59
Thomas Little
Thomas Little is widely known for his incredibly articulate and popular podcast The Classical Nerd. He is a wonderfully great teacher with an enthusiastic wit that compels the viewer to keep on watching and learning. But did you know Thomas is a versatile and brilliant composer?
Find out more at www.michaelshapiro.com
Transcript
Michael Shapiro:
This is Michael Shapiro. Welcome to Interplay: Conversations in Music. This conversation is with the remarkable Thomas Little, who some of you may know as the Classical Nerd from his thousands and thousands of broadcasts all over the internet. But I'm talking to Thomas today, one composer to the next, about Thomas Little, composer. There may be some touches of Classical Nerd, but hello Thomas, how are you?
Thomas Little:
I am well. It's a little cold out there with the blizzard, but I'm staying warm inside.
Michael Shapiro:
You're upstate New York, I'm downstate New York. But it is what it is, we shall deal. You know, Thomas, on your website, you— you— you— uh, start, you have your birth date, which makes you a young man. You're— you're in the category of my children. And, but you write that you write music that toes the line between algorithm and intuition by using analysis as a tool to generate emergent narratives, lush textures, and distinct emotional effects. His work is inspired by history, poetry, linguistics, theatricality, and breath. Well, this old guy likes the second sentence. He has some issues or questions about the first. So when you say algorithm and intuition, what do you mean?
Thomas Little:
That's related to something I like to think about in terms of musical grammar, not entirely dissimilar to some of Bernstein's Norton Lectures, although I don't go as far as he does. I think of algorithm as process and as sort of the baseline underlying structure of a piece. And then, intuition is what the composer does in that grammar that they set up. So, the music that I like the most and music that I like to write, by extension of that, there is a certain amount of process formula in the what you might call the pre-compositional stage, as problematic as that term is. And then, once all of those parameters are set up where I understand how the piece is going to work, how the different elements are going to interact, then I feel that there are— there are boundaries within which I can be expressive. Um, similar to Stravinsky, I think, saying that you have to kind of limit yourself in order to be truly truly creative. And I think of it somewhat more along the lines of linguistics, rather than, strictly speaking, algorithm. So, maybe it could use some rewording.
Michael Shapiro:
Let's talk about linguistics because, you know, I've listened, of course, to the Norton Lectures. I know my friend Jamie Bernstein was very annoyed when Lenny showed up that year because she said, "I wanted to be alone and he's here!" [Laughs] One thing, by the way, I love about your broadcasts is that you've got such a great sense of humor. It really is very, very helpful when dealing with these serious subjects, you know. But talking about linguistics, for me, I think that writing about music, or even talking about it— and you're very good about it, about talking about music. My friend Jan Swafford, the great biographer who you've interviewed, is amazing at it. But he's also a composer, as you know. But is linguistics or the study of linguistics really somewhat influential on you? Because that's the part I'm missing, because to me, music is sound. It's not— this is bad. This gets in the way. This helps. Any thought on that?
Thomas Little:
I— I think I see where you're coming from. It helps me to parse music as though someone is, you know, telling a story, to— to— to misquote Cage a little bit, or to quote him, but rather in a different context. And the way I hear— the way I hear— Well, that's— that's a separate interest of mine. Um, [Laughs] I haven't poisoned anyone yet, uh, we'll see.
Michael Shapiro:
He tried, he tried. By the way, depends on who you were.
Thomas Little:
Hm, okay. [Laughs] Getting back—
Michael Shapiro:
Getting back.
Thomas Little:
Getting back to it. Um, I— I think that music is inevitably heard as a narrative. I've always heard it that way, I always think of music that way because, you know, if you— if you look at, say, a piece of visual art— this is why I've never understood what Feldman said about composers and painters— is that when you see a piece of visual art, you're able to kind of go through it at your own pace and there's no— there's no element of time there. Whereas, if you're telling a story, there is that element of time involved. And I've— I've found that I think most people who are coming to music, especially those who aren't like super trained in it, people who are just, um—
Michael Shapiro:
I want to hear.
Thomas Little:
—the— the lay people— um, the— the most of the public is going to understand a piece of abstract music— um, I take much of instrumental music in that category— as a story. They will put their own thoughts and feelings on top of that. And to me, the— the— the idea of thinking about music and the way that elements fit together in a grammatical sense helps me to create pieces that— that have a bit more of a— of a structure and flow and, at the end of the day, just sound the way I want them to sound.
Michael Shapiro:
But what's telling you to do that?
Thomas Little:
I mean, it's been a process of kind of discovering that. You know, I first got into composition, it was through the back door of getting bored of playing Mozart and Haydn sonatas that I was given to study, and I liked improvising much better than that. And eventually, I started to— to study it in, you know, high school and then went on to conservatory and, you know, eventually kind of going on through with— with the academic route. And at first, you know, it's like, "Oh, this is really fun. You know, I get to write my own stuff." Um, and I didn't really understand, you know, say this, you know, an early Christopher Rouse interview that I saw when I first first getting into it where he said, "Oh, music— like, writing music is very hard work, you know, it's a really struggle and painful to get it out." And I thought, "That's so stupid." And now, I understand, a few years later. It's like, wow, this is— the more you know, the more you know you don't know and the more you're, you know, there's too many options available to you. So, like, what do you— what do you create?
Michael Shapiro:
There's always an alternative.
Thomas Little:
There— there is always an alternative. That's— that's true. So, um, it was really towards the end, junior, senior year of college where I started to write music that was very much conscious of how it was unfolding in time, and music that was, like I mentioned earlier, a— a balance between writing something intuitively, writing something that, "Oh, I think this— this really sounds— this is the sound of what I'm kind of I'm going to for." And then, analyzing that, looking at that and saying, "Okay, well, if— if I like this, I don't understand exactly why I like it. Let's break it down. Like, what— what are the intervals I'm liking to use? What are— what's the relationship between the different instruments?" And that gives you like— that gave— that gave me, especially in this violin sonata that I wrote sort of a capstone piece, quote-unquote, for— for my undergrad, that gave me a sense of how I'm writing this piece of music. And then, I could use that section and then continue on with that or invert some or all of those rules to get a contrasting section. And so, that's when I— when I talk about um, emergent narrative, I mean, this is really an extension of the old compositional chestnut of, you know, letting the material do what it— like, do what it wants to do or go where it needs to go. Um, but some— in some ways a little bit more um, directional and— and— and process-oriented. You're not just— you're not just doing it in an intuitive way. You're using theoretical tools and frameworks to figure out, "I don't just like it because I like it. I like it because X, Y, and Z. Now, I'm going to do X and Y, but not Z." And then, you have I think a final—
Michael Shapiro:
The alternatives. Now, there is something which I think about. Two things. First, the development of one's own style, because you speak a different way than I speak, you hear a different way than I hear, because we're different people. We come from different places. Okay, that's one part of it. And I know that I worried about style for many, many years until I found a style that I felt was completely mine. It took a good number of years, and I studied with some, you know, household names. But I also felt one thing else. I was recently at a function— because his house is in— in, uh, White Plains, and I met a young composer who came over to me, talking to me about composition. And I said to him, "How much counterpoint studies have you done? Have you done 16th-century counterpoint?" He looked at me as if he didn't know what— I— I was talking in another language. I said, "Well, what about 18th-century? Do you know how to write a canon or a fugue?" I said, "Okay, look at this breakfront over here that's holding Percy Grainger's China. Can any carpenter make that? How about the regular carpenter? He can maybe put up studs with a— a nail gun and maybe if they're lucky, he can cut sheetrock and put it against there with a nail gun. But can that same carpenter make that big breakfront out of precious wood?" I said, "In order to get to my stage of the game where you've written a body of work and you're continually getting into holes because you realize there are so many alternatives and you've got to fight your way out," like Christopher Rouse said, and I have a story about Chris and me, "but if you don't have that study behind you, you can't build a breakfront." So, at your stage of the game, which is me 43 years ago, do you think you have had enough training— cabinet— and that you can to hold the China?
Thomas Little:
Well, I do— I do feel very indebted to my training for giving me, you know, rigorous counterpoint study, for instance. Um, well, part of my philosophy when it comes to like taking composition lessons, especially at that kind of the doctoral level, um, more so here than previous eras of my education, is that eventually you're going to— you're going to run out of that and you're going to be on your own. You can't rely on that as a crutch of, you know, "Oh, I— I can't at this point, and now I'm— I'm struggling." So, you know, here, you know, tell me— tell me what's wrong with it. I— I've developed a— a bit more of a— a distanced approach to lessons, not that I don't enjoy them, but I'm— I'm thinking more of more of the art of teaching so that I can then not have to rely on it. And the ultimate goal of that is I want to be able to write music where I'm also— I can see it from a third-party perspective, and that's very difficult to do. And I think that's— that's what gives you the ability to understand like all the different paths you can go down. Because I know when I do composition teaching, you know, on Zoom, and students come to me— high school students or kids who— I say kids, you know, folks who are older than me who are just like getting into it or getting back into it, that happens a lot, that they get stuck somewhere.
Michael Shapiro:
Now, my private students are in their 30s and 50s, by the way.
Thomas Little:
Yeah, well, [Laughs] I mean, you— people are always at different stages. It's not that—
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah.
Thomas Little:
—age has anything to do with it, it's just how much training you've gotten with it.
Michael Shapiro:
Correct.
Thomas Little:
Right. Um, and it's helpful to me that if I see a piece once every week, once every couple of weeks, it's instantly like, "Oh, you could do this, you could do that, you could do that." But I know, oh gosh, if I was working on something, I would, you know, am I— am I at the point where I can understand all the different paths and possibilities? So, I think I've gotten better at it, but, you know, I still got a few more years left, so let's— let's hope I get there.
Michael Shapiro:
You have plenty of years left. But you have to find the style, so if I heard a piece of yours— and you have one on your wonderful website, you've got a list of works, large ensemble, you have this— the, you know, vocal music, you have the smaller ensembles, and so forth. But if I heard a piece of yours, I'd say that's Thomas's music, I would know it. Hop! There are certain composers in history, and some of them that you have even done your broadcasts on, your nerd broadcasts, who have an identifiable style because it's become their language. That's the way they express what they want to express, you know?
Thomas Little:
Mhm.
Michael Shapiro:
So, um, it may fu— it may— you may find it coming to you sooner than you know. I do want to mention one thing which is very helpful to me. My dad was a klezmer, but he had a lot of friends in— in the jazz business and like Buck Clayton, and he grew up with, um, Ella, of all people. And so, I've been influenced by jazz, but my music is not jazzy, but it has the flexibility of jazz. But I will say one thing, that my dad used to say, "It doesn't send me," or, "Oh, my god, that sends me!" So, Thomas Little, composer, educator, internet VIP, what music sends you? That of composers who are no longer with us or composers who are with us still?
Thomas Little:
That's a difficult question, and it ties into why I really kept going in composition, is that there's— there are certain pieces that do, but largely it's not composer-based, it's individual piece-based.
Michael Shapiro:
Mhm.
Thomas Little:
Now, I mentioned Rouse earlier, and again, I have mixed feelings about— about Rouse, but, you know, there's— the Flute Concerto was an incredible work, especially the— the Elegy, you know, with his— with the chorale that comes back and— and visually it goes into chaos. I mean, those are— those are some wonderful moments, um, or some— or some pieces, especially some of the earlier works by Xennakis, of course, a lo— a lot of Ives as well. Um, I do like a lot of music that really comes from, let's say, maybe 1880 to 1940, the transition between the late Romantic and early modernism, the disintegration of Romanticism into all these different isms from the early 20th century before—
Michael Shapiro:
The isms. The isms. Yeah.
Thomas Little:
—serial— before serial technique really—
Michael Shapiro:
I was around for a lot of those isms, by the way, at least after 1960. [Laughs]
Thomas Little:
Yeah. I mean, the isms kept continuing, but I— I meant particularly like what happens, you know, after the downfall of— of Romanticism and before um, sort of postwar serial technique. I— I find that there's a lot of music in there and it's— it's— it's always disappointing to me to really find a piece that I really like of, say, Dallapiccola, another composer that I— I quite enjoy. Um, he's not quite in that era, but, you know, he— the way he treats serialism is a little bit different from—
Michael Shapiro:
Well, he— he's personalized. Person-ized. It's just his own voice. Yeah.
Thomas Little:
It's personalized, yes. Yeah. Exactly. But I listened to some— a piece of his, I was like, "Oh, I really want to listen to— to more of this. This is— this is really cool." And turns out, "Oh, I only like a couple of pieces of his." [Laughs] So, you know, I— and I think it has to do with the kind of music that I like to write that has the— that has the expression, the immediacy of expression of someone, you know, telling you a story. But at the same time, that there is a unique grammatical structure that underpins it that makes it make sense, even though it might not be what you're um, what you're really mostly familiar with. Um, and— and that's hard to find. And that's— that's why I like writing it myself. It's like, well, if nobody else is going to be doing this on a consistent basis, at least I can. [Laughs]
Michael Shapiro:
So, we're talking about style, the evolution of style. Just a quick Christopher Rouse story. When I— I saw Christopher's Trumpet Concerto premiered at the Chicago Symphony, which used a big Mahler hammer in it. [Laughs] And I saw him afterwards and we were talking, and we— we came to the realization that Christopher and I were the two last people that Aaron Copland helped. And this goes to style. Uh, I gave Aaron two of my early sonatas, my first Violin Sonata and uh, my Clarinet Sonata. And he really looked at them and he would do this— this is the kind of person he was— and he wrote me back from, you know, Peekskill, New York, I live in Chappaqua, saying that, "You should really focus on the harmonic style you have in the Clarinet Sonata, which I think is more agreeable. Uh, this is just a cons— a considered opinion and I hope you take it for such." Something like that. And, looking back, he was very right because what I was doing in the Violin Sonata was kind of a kind of— a lot of clusters, a very kind of condensed thing, not having the soaring melodies that I have in the Clarinet Sonata. And I— I— I— I started to say, what is my style? Is my— is my style the— the— the style of Inscape of um, Copland, or Elie Siegmeister's latest symphony, or who knows what else at the time? It's kind of, you know, new neo-expressionism music. It wasn't me. So let's go to style. I have great affection for Arnold Schoenberg as a human being. And it's— and also Berg and Webern. I do. Webern less as a human being, but I find Schoenberg as a human being a very interesting person, although he had all kinds of things going on in his life. But I would say that period of time, and then the postwar thing, was a reaction to the world as it was then. And I wonder, right now, I write pieces because um, I want— I'm thinking not only of me writing and the great utterance of the— from on high, but [Laughs] who's listening to this? Am I opening up a composition store so people come in and— you can't feed your family on dissonances. You know who said that. So, as you are in—
Thomas Little:
[Laughs] My hero.
Michael Shapiro:
My hero also. One of the great all-time people of all time. Of— of— amazing person. So, as you progress, where do you want to go with this? What are you doing with this? Are you going to be teaching? Are you going to be in academia meeting there whatever requirements that your colleagues want you to do? Or is it something that's going to come out of you that's going to be, "Oh, my god, that's Thomas, he's— he's— he's saying it, and I want to hear it"? How do you get there?
Thomas Little:
If you have any [Laughs] advice on how to get there, I'd be certainly open to it.
Michael Shapiro:
Happy to.
Thomas Little:
Well, the academia is— is, you know, it's— it's a blessing and a curse. And I think that's true in music, it's true in the rest of the arts, it's true of— of most fields.
Michael Shapiro:
Right.
Thomas Little:
And especially looking at Babbitt, for instance, in his— his history of, you know, his vision of what music should be in the institution.
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah.
Thomas Little:
That— that represents the— the high-water mark of like lofty goals and ideals about what it could be. But I mean, my parents were professors for a long time, not in music. My dad's basically tone-deaf. Um, but they understood, you know, even though teaching business and marketing and all that stuff, uh, they understood, yeah, it's a good gig. It's a really good gig if you can get it. Um, but again, it's, you know, there's— there are ups and downs, and of course, you have to deal with administrations and people at the top who uh, maybe don't quite understand what you do. And that's— I think that's certainly been shown with one of my alma maters at Brandeis, which has, you know, announced their decision to— to kill—
Michael Shapiro:
I saw that. That was awful. You— you wrote an article about it. That— that's an atrocity.
Thomas Little:
It really— I haven't— I have not heard an update about it, but I do know that some of the faculty have, you know, are going to be exiting just because even if they're able to get the— get the programs back at some point, there's no point in continuing to fight. So, that's— that's the other end of the story of, you know, it can be a great place, but also you have to deal with people who don't understand maybe the value of the arts because there's no— there's no money in it. So, I would like to be able to be in that sort of position. It'd be— it would be great to have an academic job. But to me, as long as I can stay in music and stay involved in music in some way, and make— even if it's nickeling and diming and doing a little bit of this and doing a little of that, staying in— staying in music, this— that's a perfectly fine uh, that's a perfectly fine model for— for my life. And— and the channel, you know, it doesn't— I mean, it's— you couldn't live off of the money that thing makes anywhere in this country. [Laughs]
Michael Shapiro:
No.
Thomas Little:
But um, but it— I enjoy doing it, and, you know, it— it's not really about the money. It's about providing a resource for people who want to learn about something that you and I both love.
Michael Shapiro:
Well, you're— you're certainly doing that, and I— I've told you how much we love class— we love Classical Nerd and I've seen so many episodes on YouTube. Uh, it's just magnificent how you portray it, and your sense of humor and everything else.
Thomas Little:
Thank you very much, it means a lot.
Michael Shapiro:
No, it's really exceptional, and Marge and I are thrilled with it, and she's away right now and she said to me, "Oh, I can't wait for you to talk to Thomas, he's so great." But, Thomas, I want to—
Thomas Little:
Give her my best then. Yeah.
Michael Shapiro:
I will. [Laughs] But listen, I really want to talk to you about where you've been and where you're going to go. It's a favorite subject of me having survived the pandemic, because I had COVID in March of 2020 and I was in the hospital. And I said to myself, "All right, where have you been? Where are you now and where are you going?" Something I think about all the time, and it's also the purpose of pieces— the purpose of pieces. Now, early on, I remember what it was like, you wrote pieces because you needed experience and you needed to— to get somewhere. But for example, your First Symphony is called The Grand Tetons. So, The Grand Tetons must have had an impression on you. We— we— we— we have a— a house in Southern Utah that we go to, and also family in Arizona and in New Mexico, and very familiar with that part of the world. And it's amazing. I was also at the premiere, by the way, of the can— From the Canyons to the Stars with Messiaen. Another story.
Thomas Little:
Oh, fantastic. [Laughs]
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah, I mean, it's amazing. It's— you know, living in New York is just amazing things happen to one if— one is an— a musical nerd like me and go to a zillion concerts, especially as a kid. But you wrote the piece about The Grand Tetons, why?
Thomas Little:
That was— I mean, that's an undergraduate piece, and I have a lot of problems with it. And, you know, the— the first movement was the only one that's ever gotten played, and it got played a couple of times. The local symphony picked it up and— and played it, and I think they did a— did a pretty good job with it. But that was an early example of me really thinking about narrative in music, because in my uh— in my younger and more vulnerable years, uh, my parents and I would go on these huge road trips. I mean, 8,000 miles, we'd start in North Carolina and sometimes we'd have a plan and sometimes we wouldn't. You know, we'd just sort of amble our way here and there. And that— that piece was inspired by um, a journey into Grand Teton National Park. It's not really about the Grand Tetons as an abstract concept. It's about, "Oh, I was in a really treacherous car ride!" [Laughs] In a car that probably shouldn't have been going over, you know, these huge mountain passes. Um—
Michael Shapiro:
Well, it's not as bad as Jim Morrison and The Dead Indians, okay? [Laughs]
Thomas Little:
Uh, well. I was also thinking of— of C.W. McCall's "Wolf Creek Pass," which is not— it's in Colorado, but it's uh— it's— I've also been over that, and that— that song really, really does resonate about brakes going out or what— what have you. Um, so that was— then the first movement of Teton Pass is really about this journey of you, you know, you're trying to— you're trudging up. You don't really see anything yet. It's— it's just all trees. Then you come to the top and you stop for a while and you can see Jackson Hole, you can see the Grand Tetons beyond. Uh-huh. Um, and, you know, I— I've been to a lot of really beautiful places. I've been very fortunate and blessed to have gone by road to 49 out of the 50 states.
Michael Shapiro:
That's so cool.
Thomas Little:
Yeah, it's— and like, I love Alaska as well, but there's— there was something about that day and about like coming over the ridge and just seeing that landscape that's really stuck out.
Michael Shapiro:
Phenomenal.
Thomas Little:
And then you pause there for a while and you just soak it in, it's like, "Oh, this is really pretty." And then it's like, "Oh, we got to go down." Uh-oh. [Laughs] And um, and that was, you know, we— we made it, you know, brakes squealing, you know, steering down what— what have you, but uh—
Michael Shapiro:
Do you think that's in the piece, all of this stuff?
Thomas Little:
All of this, I know— I remember at the time I was— I was I kept bringing it into my professor and he kept pointing out, "Well, you know, this— this— it's going to sound muddy," because I had these repeated very low double stops in the double basses and the cellos.
Michael Shapiro:
I've heard them.
Thomas Little:
Well, how— you weren't there, you're like, "You— this sounds like an engine." [Laughs] It's like you're sitting there in my dad's Buick LeSabre, which should not have been going on this road! Like, this is what it sounded like to me, and it was— and it turned out to actually be very effective in— in performance. I think that's— that's the only time that he really understood. It's like, "Oh, yeah, I— I understand now." It's like, well, you've been fighting me on this for months, but this is— it's part of the narrative, it's part of the story, and I don't think you would be able to get that effect of this is— this is literally road trip music without having some of those— some of those sonorities.
Michael Shapiro:
Okay. This is very interesting. The narrative that you created in Symphony Number One, The Grand Tetons. This piece, I think, was intended when you wrote it for would you say a wider audience than some of your chamber music? Would it be more ex— would the recipient understand it differently?
Thomas Little:
Well, that's— that's a problem with program music sort of inevitably, is that you can give someone even a very brief story about, "Oh, this is about a— a car ride, you're— you're going to hear this." But if you— you could go like the— the— the the Symphonie Fantastique route and say, "Well, this means this, and this means that, this means that," whatever. And— and that's not really something that I think adds to the experience of a piece, because then you're— you're taking away someone's ability to imagine the story alongside of you. Um, so I tend to think about narrative even when it's a very abstract piece. The— it's relatively conservative, you know, it's a fairly tonal piece, certainly a more consonant piece, um, in part because um, I was younger and I think it fit the subject matter. And also, I knew that, okay, the student orchestra is going to perform this, and if I do something that's a little, you know, too wild and out there, then it's— the effectiveness of the performance um, might be diminished. Um.
Michael Shapiro:
Would you go back and— and work it— work it— work it up differently?
Thomas Little:
Well, there have been— there are three subsequent movements to that that have never seen the light of day that I think are much— they're— they're really more like sketches than they are— I was happy with them at the time, but I was, you know, I was much younger and so, you know, I wouldn't go back to them now.
Michael Shapiro:
Well, sometimes one can go back. Sometimes one can go back to try to find that thing, and sometimes it's worth doing. You know, a lot of your pieces do have To See Without Light, Awakening, Aubade for the Midnight Sun, Rainfall. They have descriptive titles. Um, so I'm assuming you were thinking of a particular shade of a color? [Laughs] I mean, you're obviously seeking in— in these pieces um, a particular view of something, I think, and then trying to portray it in sound, sometimes with words. With words. Why do certain poems bring you in and others don't? Why would you set certain poems and other poems you just— you just say, "I cannot do it"?
Thomas Little:
Those decisions, I think, have to be made when you're first reading a poem. I know that if I'm looking for something, within a few seconds of reading it, it's either I— I have an idea of what textures, what melodies,
Michael Shapiro:
Right.
Thomas Little:
how— what form it should be, or I don't, and if I don't, then I'm really not going to force it. The only exception to that is I wrote a very brief piece kind of between undergrad and my master's for a friend of mine who wanted to sing a setting of uh, one of uh, the Shakespearean sonnets that meant a lot to her.
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah, that's a nice record— that's— that's a nice recording.
Thomas Little:
Yeah, it was— it— and I— I— I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever in a million years set Shakespeare [Laughs] if someone hadn't asked me to do so. Uh—
Michael Shapiro:
That's Sonnet 116. Now, let me ask you a question about Sonnet 116. You've just said in a million years I wouldn't uh, set Shakespeare. I've done some Shakespeare madrigals. Um, but I totally agree. Now, without me saying the reason why I feel that much of Shakespeare is not settable, why do you feel that way?
Thomas Little:
I think there's a couple of reasons. One is I— I think that the— there's a lot of musicality in a— a good recitation of Shakespeare already, much as there is, I think, in a good— a good reading of Whitman. Um, so I— I find Whitman— I— there's a few Whitman settings that I've done that I thought, they're much later on that I thought, actually benefited from a setting. But mostly, Leaves of Grass, I think, just works fine as it is. I'm reminded a little bit of, I think it was Hugo Wolf, I— been a long time since I've— I've uh, read this quote, but I believe it was Wolf, uh, whose idea was, you know, if someone— if the music can't be— if the poetry can't be improved by the music, or if someone has already done a musical setting and it's already good enough, then I'm not going to touch it. So, you know, you— you really— you're messing— when you're using someone else's art, you have to— you have to do something interesting with it and elevate it in— in some way.
Michael Shapiro:
Would you say there's too much— yeah, go ahead, I'm sorry.
Thomas Little:
Well, the other reason is, I think, just my own personal taste of like the way that Shake— like, Old English and the way that the words are laid out and the way they flow,
Michael Shapiro:
Right.
Thomas Little:
certainly, the— the— the meters that he uses, I don't think that just meshes well with the kinds of things that I like to write.
Michael Shapiro:
That's very interesting. Don't you think there's just too much color and consonant and vowel in some of this stuff that it's already— the music is already there? Uh-huh. Copland, who was not a famous songwriter by any means— an instrumental guy— did say that he— he chose poetry that needed music to make it more full. And it's also true of film scoring, which is very interesting. There is film scoring that works and there's film scoring that doesn't work. The film scoring that doesn't work uh, doesn't portray what's happening in the— in the action at all. It just goes off on its merry way and does some stupidity. But the greatest film scoring happens when you— you typically don't even notice it's going on, but it's getting a response to you from looking at whatever the action is. I think it's the same thing with songwriting and choral writing.
Thomas Little:
Mhm. I totally agree there, and one other thing about— about— and I don't want to throw one of my favorite poets, who's Robert W. Service under the bus. I mean, he's not really known as a serious author of, you know, he's not in the same category as Whitman, he was known as a mostly a writer of doggerel during his lifetime. Robert Service? Yeah. Cremation of Sam McGee, The Shooting of Dan McGrew, we know. But he has a lot— he was— he was my great-grandfather's favorite author, and he was a— my grandfather was a really interesting fellow. He was a— a World War II POW, was a editor of a newspaper.
Michael Shapiro:
Oh, wow.
Thomas Little:
And, got post in North Carolina for a really long time, and he had this book of poetry that was, I think, the collected works of Service, and like a lot of his books, he has like these dog ears and just random scraps of old paper that have been stuck in there that he just left in there after his death, and so—
Michael Shapiro:
Great for you.
Thomas Little:
—all those— those— well, those that I inherited, I, you know, I never— I never can figure out why he why he marked one poem or another, but I don't move them, it's sort of like this— this living uh— this living document, I, I, in some— in some weird way, like, you know, preserving some of the last things that he did because words and books were very important to him. So, there's a kind of a family connection of finding poetry, especially kind of lesser-known poetry by— by Service to set. Um, I also think that there's a lot of inherent musicality to it that can be amplified and can be expressed in—
Michael Shapiro:
That's right. That's right.
Thomas Little:
—in settings. And— and I think that I'm actually doing something like— you know, some of my Service settings really took me not too long to write because it— it just seemed to like really mesh and really flow, it's like, "Oh, I— I can really do something with this and— and pull a lot of the— the emotion out of this." And there's some very vivid imagery—
Michael Shapiro:
Mhm.
Thomas Little:
—in— especially when he's talking about the frigid, you know— the frigid Yukon. That— it's like, "Oh, how— how do I get—" It gets really— it gets my imagination going in a way that I think the— the more abstract and— and self-contained things like, you know, Shakespearean sonnet about love, you know, like that's— I come to that and I think, "Well, what am I supposed to do with this?" [Laughs] You know, "How do I— how do I uh— how do I express these more um, abstract ideas versus more concrete, you know, here's a huge mountain with a, you know, landslide," or something like that.
Michael Shapiro:
Right. Well, again, this goes back to what I was saying before. It's got to send you, using the old jazz term. If the poetry doesn't send you, go to the next poem. I mean, there's no sense to it.
Thomas Little:
Exactly.
Michael Shapiro:
Which ends us to the final question having to do with the nexus in your life. You are very well known now with three— 3 million-plus views of the Classical Nerd as an educator and as a pres— it's a crazy number, isn't it?
Thomas Little:
Compared to some— compared to some, you know, really big name like YouTube viral stars, it's nothing, but in— in our world—
Michael Shapiro:
No, in the classical world, it's a— it's a mess. Do— do you have any sense how it got there?
Thomas Little:
Um, I mean, yes, I— I do a little bit, and it— it mostly had to do with hitting upon some stuff that went viral at just the right time. [Laughs] Like? I don't— I— I don't go into it thinking that I'm going to, you know, make a career of it, do viral videos, like, really make my content—
Michael Shapiro:
No, you get 46,000 views, 52,000 views. I mean, for one video on YouTube, that's pretty incredible. And you have fans, you have people who are have joined Patreon, and so forth. I mean, how did it get there? How did you get 3 million over how many years?
Thomas Little:
Well, I started it— [Laughs] I started it in, I believe, it was like January of 2016. I know that I— I was very underqualified to do it at first because I was a freshman in undergrad.
Michael Shapiro:
Wow.
Thomas Little:
I loved music history, but only on an amateur basis. I had never taken a class in it. And I waited for until the fall is when the— the— that curriculum started at the School of the Arts. I just really like the idea of being enthusiastic and, at the time, making very short videos. You might think of it similar today, if I started it today, it might be more along the lines of an Instagram Reel or something on TikTok, right? Something that's like very, very short, very, very condensed that someone could just like, "Oh, I don't know anything about Bach, but here, I can watch, you know, 1 to 2 minutes on that." And that's really what the state of YouTube was like at the time. But 2016, or sometime around there, YouTube started to change their algorithms, and you start to see a proliferation of longer-form content, not just from me, but from the entire platform, because YouTube realized that you get millions of hits on something that's a minute long or 100,000 hits on something that's an hour long, which one can you sell more ads against? The longer one. Uh, and it grew— so, my— my content naturally grew as the platform changed, as I matured, as I got better at all the aspects of this. [Laughs] I mean, the earliest videos, they look like— they look like garbage. I am— I'm really close, I'm out of focus, it's dark, I, you know, I don't have lighting, I don't have the right camera, I don't have sound equipment, I'm not good at editing.
Michael Shapiro:
You have your sense of humor, though. Sense of humor is always there.
Thomas Little:
That's something I've— that I've retained, but I think you can see over the— over the course of it not just a— a— an evolution in like the depth of— of how far I go into things, but also just the production value of— you— you even people who go to film school, YouTube is such a different thing that I think you have to just be really bad at it for a little while and learn and then get—
Michael Shapiro:
But still, how did it proliferate with the— with the number of YouTube selections that exist? How— how did this get 3 million views? That's a crazy number.
Thomas Little:
I just— I just kept working at it, and I— I— I kept at it because when they were shorter, I could do, you know, one a week, and it was fairly easy to give people introductions. Mhm. And then, I did one on Jenny Lind as part of a series, I think my second year of doing the channel. I decided for Women's History Month that I would do a bunch of like short videos on famous women in music history, mostly composers, but also Jenny Lind. And this, you know, it got maybe 900 views. And then— Jenny Lind? Jenny Lind. And then, a little movie called The Greatest Showman came out, and it went— [Makes noise] it went crazy. Another video on viola jokes that went viral a couple of times after some other channel started making viola joke content, and then people wanted to know why these are jokes. Well, I have a video talking about like the history, like why viola jokes exist and—
Michael Shapiro:
How many violas walk into a bar, or do a light bulb or— [Laughs]
Thomas Little:
There are so many, we— we can't— we can't get off on— on too many tangents there. So, that— that went up.
Michael Shapiro:
That's crazy.
Thomas Little:
And then, another video I did on Frank Zappa, again, kind of in the just, you don't know anything about Zappa, here's like his life story, here's some of his techniques so that when you go listen to his music, you have an understanding of like— he's got like 200 albums, like, how do you get started on that?
Michael Shapiro:
Right. Right.
Thomas Little:
And that, of course, being Frank Zappa fans are there's a lot of them, and they— it's— it's like this own— it's a little corner of the internet that's—
Michael Shapiro:
Yeah. Now, I know I had personal experience because I knew Nicolas Slonimsky and he loved Frank Zappa. They were good friends, apparently.
Thomas Little:
That's— that's another Ives connection. But, so there's— there— just to finally answer your question, as it grew along, like occasionally I would just hit upon stuff that either at the time or a little bit later just decided to— to go to the moon. And there's still people, like, if you look at the analytics, and there's a lot of analytics on YouTube, you can look at, you can see like which videos have gotten the most subscribers. And most of my video— most of my videos, you know, you'll get I'll get a handful of new subscribers, for people who like really wanted to know about this, like, "Oh, finally, there's something explains new complexity, I'll click on that." But that pales in—
Michael Shapiro:
"New complexity" always arises.
Thomas Little:
But it pales in comparison— like, there's— it's just basically a consistent little amount on each on each video. I do sort of wonder if I had ever— I've never asked people to like, comment, and subscribe, as so many people do on on YouTube because, mhm, I just think— I think that practice is demeaning, and people know that they can like and comment and subscribe, they don't need to be reminded.
Michael Shapiro:
All right, that's fine.
Thomas Little:
Yeah. But uh, I sort of wonder like, oh, what how— how many would I be if I really decided to do that, or if I decided to make content that was designed to get subscribers, designed to get clicks, designed to get views, but it— it wouldn't be the same thing because I— I—
Michael Shapiro:
It's true.
Thomas Little:
—feel like I'm craft— I'm creating an online library. And, you know, some library books are going to be checked out a lot, some less frequently, but they're all going to be valuable, you know?
Michael Shapiro:
Oh, it's no— no question. That's what some people have said about my Interplay show, that it's a record of so many performers and thinkers in music over the years. Um, final thought. Do you think your work as the Classical Nerd has influenced Thomas Little, composer, in presentation and getting the word out?
Thomas Little:
I think that most people don't know that I am a composer. [Laughs] I try to— I try to present myself that way, but—
Michael Shapiro:
Right.
Thomas Little:
—there's only so much you can do if a lot of the reason people know you is from more musicological perspective. I think it has helped my work, because if I'm doing a deep dive onto a composer, what I want to know when I'm doing that is not just the life story, not just how they fit into the kind of wider scheme, but how they conceptualize music, mhm, and how they wrote it. Mhm. And those are two— often two sides of the same coin, but no two composer is, I wouldn't say alike, but no two are even remotely similar. And that helps, you know, we talked about the infinite possibilities of going down these rabbit holes. It helps me, and I know this has helped me when I'm teaching, mhm, to think, "Oh, I'm— I'm— I'm at a crossroads here. Varèse thought of it this way, maybe I could do that. Berio thought of it this way, you know, maybe I can think of doing it this way. Um, Stravinsky had this technique, you know, let's— let's try that and see if that's going to be helpful here."
Michael Shapiro:
Well, you have to have Scotch if you can do Stravinsky, you need Scotch. [Laughs]
Thomas Little:
Well, yeah, um, to do proper Stravinsky, but, you know, that's— [Laughs]
Michael Shapiro:
Would you like some Scotch? Thomas Little—
Thomas Little:
—post-Stravinsky. I— I— you know, I— it— it's helpful— interesting question. Yeah, it has been helpful to me in some— in some subtle ways, but, no, it—
Michael Shapiro:
Scotch can help, yeah. [Laughs]
Thomas Little:
If— if I'm known— if I'm known for— for mostly being a popularizer and as an educator of classical music, if people get into it or learn more about it, or mhm, mhm, become more enthusiastic about something that I think has a bad reputation as something that's kind of elitist and scary because of what I do, and I'm known more for that than my compositional work, that's a— that's a fine— that's a fine uh, legacy to have.
Michael Shapiro:
Well, jury's out. [Laughs] Thank you. Get back to the— get back to the paper and knock it out and be— be yourself in that, in every note. Thomas Little, composer, thank you for joining me on Interplay.
Thomas Little:
Thank you, Michael. It's a pleasure.
Michael Shapiro:
This is Michael Shapiro for Interplay: Conversations in Music. Thank you for joining us.