# so what's the big deal about Philip Glass?



## PhillipPark (Jun 22, 2011)

I've listened to his most recommended pieces...I feel like I'm missing something. As far as taste: I'm not really fond of his work (though I do love how well his soundtracks complement movies, my favorite being _Koyaanisqatsi_). I wouldn't call myself a hater, I am more curious than willing to form an opinion on him.

What exactly is Glass most well known for? What earns him the title as "one of the most influential composers of the 20th century" in many circles?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I guess he was one of the first Minimalists, or a leading one anyway. Minimalism was big when it first came out, being tonal, yet new in style. He also made movie music as well, which probably gave him the most fame. Otherwise, I know no other details about him.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I am a proponent of Minimalism. Glass is certainly at the forefront of the style, the poster child, perhaps.

I have always liked Glass. His works are strangely melodic and fascinating texturally. Does a lot of his stuff sound the same? Yes. He is a composer who has a style so unique to itself that, if it were to branch out too much, I suppose, it would cease to be the music of Philip Glass.

I can understand why people would not like him. If you are into theme and variation, Glass is likely not for you. But is there such a thing as a composer or musical style that EVERYBODY likes? Of course not. 

I would never go so far as to tell an anti-Glass person that "they don't understand his music." Understanding has nothing to do with it. It could be said, even, that Glass's music is very easy to understand as it bears itself pretty plainly on the surface. It does not pretend to be something that it is not. 

I admire Glass for keeping to his distinctive style over the years and making his own niche. He is one of the few modern composers who, in a matter of a few notes, you will know exactly who it is. Whether he is good or bad depends on personal taste. Whether or not he has created a music that is singularly distinctive is, I think, a bit more concrete. Perhaps he can be considered one of the most influential composers of the 20th century because of his ability to be so distinctive.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I know musicologists who think his violin concerto is one of the greatest pieces written. I'm not ready to make that claim, but I suppose if it's true, that's a pretty big deal.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Glass has harnessed the power of repetition.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Nix said:


> I know musicologists who think his violin concerto is one of the greatest pieces written. I'm not ready to make that claim, but I suppose if it's true, that's a pretty big deal.


I was thinking of his Violin Concerto when I wrote my post. Certainly one of my favorite Glass pieces...and one of my favorite violin concertos.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Clever marketing has built Glass up as Baby's First Modern Composer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> ...I can understand why people would not like him. If you are into theme and variation, Glass is likely not for you. But is there such a thing as a composer or musical style that EVERYBODY likes? Of course not...


Some good points there, but I doubt that some people's 'problems' with Mr Glass' music stem from technical aspects. It's more that to some highbrows and elitists, Glass & some others in the so-called Minimalist camp (another one is the UK's Michael Nyman) have been quite successful at what they have done, especially in terms of popularity & sales. In other words, because they are amongst the richest musicians on the planet, they mustn't be any good, must they? Here in Australia, we call this the "tall poppy syndrome" - if someone grows to tall & reaches certain heights, we have to pull/put them down. It's far more trendy listening to some obscure or unknown composer whatever their quality, right?

To be more specific about Glass' music, I too enjoy the _Violin Concerto_ as well as the chamber work _Facades_. His solo piano works - such as the _Metamorphoses_ series - are also okay. What I like about him in this age of excess, is the relative restraint of his musical style. In that way, he comes across to me to be a bit like a modern Brahms. I haven't heard a single symphony or opera by him as of yet, but I have a feeling I may well get a bit bored with his longer works, because of the repetitiveness. In the smaller formats, he's better for me, "short & sweet." It may be quite true that the other big American minimalist of that generation, Steve Reich, has branched out more in stylistic terms than Glass. Listening to a radio broadcast of a concert here last year of some of Reich's works for pianos and percussion, I could hear a lot of variety there, incorporation of many things, from West African drumming to hip-hop. I think Glass is more kind of dependable & uniform in his style, Reich is more changeable and daring. With Reich, the listener doesn't know what to expect when experiencing each new work, whereas with Glass, his music often has a sense of deja-vu...


----------



## PhillipPark (Jun 22, 2011)

Hmm....definitely some clarification. 

Still: I don't really get his stuff like "Music in Fifths" and his "String Quartet No. 2" (or maybe the intention is that there isn't anything to get?). 

His more 'minimalist' stuff reminds me of Native American spiritual leaders: they would spend hours staring at a single spot on their totem poles, eventually causing themselves to hallucinate and would see the spirits.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Agreeing with what some have said here, from what I've heard of Glass he is very good at what he does, but he doesn't branch out much. I am a big fan of the Violin Concerto, I pushed it consistently in the top Violin Concerto thread, however I believe I was the only one participating in the thread that was voting for it. Good to know I'm not totally alone on that one.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PhillipPark said:


> I've listened to his most recommended pieces...I feel like I'm missing something.


Don't worry; if you miss something, he'll repeat it.



PhillipPark said:


> ...I don't really get his stuff like "Music in Fifths" and his "String Quartet No. 2" (or maybe the intention is that there isn't anything to get?).
> 
> His more 'minimalist' stuff reminds me of Native American spiritual leaders: they would spend hours staring at a single spot on their totem poles, eventually causing themselves to hallucinate and would see the spirits.


The repetition causes the analytical mind to shut down, as it has 'been there, heard that' and allows the intuitive side to kick in. This music will do wonders for your right-brain; I've seen cases where it cured grouchy old men. Try mowing the lawn while listening.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Can't say I'm a fan, but his _Harpsichord concerto_ is an enjoyable creation.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Minimalism as whole is laughable. Glass and co. are clever businessman who've marketed their highly repetitive brand of populist music as high art. Predictably, the masses have responded with: 'Take my money! I want to be sophisticated!'. My dislike for this music has nothing to do with its popularity (otherwise I'd hate Beethoven and Bach), but everything to do with its creative bankruptcy.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Minimalism as whole is laughable. Glass and co. are clever businessman who've marketed their highly repetitive brand of populist music as high art. *Predictably, the masses have responded with: 'Take my money! I want to be sophisticated!'*. My dislike for his music has nothing to do with its popularity (otherwise I'd hate Beethoven and Bach), but everything to do with its creative bankruptcy.


No, they respond because they like the music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve Reich and Philip Glass are serious men... so is Terry Riley, who is into Eastern religion. Glass studied & collaborated with Ravi Shankar.

Glass and Reich are both of Jewish ancestry, as well. Just sayin'.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Steve Reich and Philip Glass are serious men... so is Terry Riley, who is into Eastern religion. Glass studied & collaborated with Ravi Shankar.
> 
> Glass and Reich are both of Jewish ancestry, as well. Just sayin'.


???????????????


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I hear music in "Philip Glass". There are many ways of expressing music, and the "Philip Glass" way is just one of them.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Steve Reich and Philip Glass are serious men... so is Terry Riley, who is into Eastern religion. Glass studied & collaborated with Ravi Shankar.
> 
> Glass and Reich are both of Jewish ancestry, as well. Just sayin'.


Uh... is there an agenda here I should be aware of?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't worry; if you miss something, he'll repeat it.
> Try mowing the lawn while listening.


I prefer to keep my toes.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> ???????????????


Eastern enlightenment. Not quiet a fashion these days. Now we're in the age of morally greyness started around 2005 and its prominent sign can be Batman 2008 movie, The Dark Knight. In music Hans Zimmer comes to my mind.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I get what the composer "is doing," while I just don't care for it. I prefer the works of Steve Reich way beyond Glass.

As to the repetition, it works for me with Reich's music, but not Glass. [Morton Feldman's later music, while he is not "a minimalist," is staggeringly repetitive with many literal repeats, but his manner is not 'process,' and these works, some hours long, hold me entirely.]

I think Glass' work is most effective when he writes for film, i.e. it works better with film as underscoring than front and center music to listen to on its own (just an opinion.)

Arguments that these composers "commercial success" is at the root of why Glass or Reich may be resented within 'the musical establishment' are beyond lame, i.e. whatever broad success came late enough that Glass (and Reich) had to rely on other jobs, like driving a taxi, up until ca. age forty before either could more regularly rely upon commissions and royalties as a soul source of income. (This is not huge commercial success by most people's measure of it.)

David Lang fared only a bit better, having been fortunate enough to gain a number of scholarships and grants along the way, but too, not exactly rolling in dough.

Lang and Reich have each won the Pulitzer Prize for music, none too early in their careers, while I doubt that Terry Riley or Philip Glass will ever be awarded that prize 
Both Glass and Reich do have large numbers of audience who display little or no other interest in any other sort of classical music, Ergo they certainly qualify in that regard as 'popular / populist' composers.

From a less personal and more remote perspective, I admire the lot of 'em, Terry Riley, Glass, Reich, for quite sticking to their personal pursuits, persevering in writing how they wanted to, while 'waiting for their wider audiences to catch up.'

Simplistically but significant, it is news when any contemporary classical composer (from any era) writes music which is readily consumed by many in their own time, i.e. their music 'speaks' to many. That is, whatever you think of the music, kind of a big deal


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Repetition works in Feldman's later music because he was just that good a composer. The same cannot be said of Glass or Pärt. Additionally, dedication and belief in one's work do not necessarily make it worthwhile.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I discovered Mahler and Glass round about the same time.

Unfortunately nobody was there to put me straight, so I ended up liking both of them.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> I discovered Mahler and Glass round about the same time.
> 
> Unfortunately nobody was there to put me straight, so I ended up liking both of them.


You unfortunate soul. :tiphat:


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I've yet to really listen to much of his stuff but I can say I like the couple pieces I've heard quite a bit. "The Poet Acts" and "Morning Passages" from The Hours soundtrack is pretty attractive sounding music. The whole album is on my to-do listening list but I haven't got to it yet.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Repetition works in Feldman's later music because he was just that good a composer. The same cannot be said of Glass or Pärt.[/QUOTE]

Their is an ocean of difference between Feldman and Glass or Reich and it is technical; Feldman is not a "process" composer. Feldman's repetitions are highly intuitive, and have nothing to do with the working principles of process as deployed by either Glass or Reich.

For me, both Glass and Part are uninteresting, Ergo pretty much 'unlistenable.' ...and both are also very popular contemporary classical composers.



Lope de Aguirre said:


> Additionally, dedication and belief in one's work do not necessarily make it worthwhile.


Well _Amen to that!_ 
It is perhaps sad, that dreams, love, passion, belief and dedication are not enough, but they are not.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I've heard a number of Glass's works - Glassworks, string quartets, violin concerto, a few symphonies (3 and 4 at least), Satyagraha. I enjoy the 3rd and 4th quartet and the violin concerto. Many of the other works are OK, but admittedly I do sometimes get a little bored after awhile. I could not finish Satyagraha because the music seemed to repetitive.

There is one work that I truly adore - Aguas de Amazones. I'm not sure how different the music is theoretically from other works, but I simply love the feel of the music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

So far, I have yet to find a Glass work that I like.

I do like Reich. But the naive simplicity of his music (in harmony, in form, etc.) sometimes irritates me. He has good ideas, but often they get diluted in a sea of unimaginative developments.

Ligeti was quite impressed by Reich's pulse ideas, he even dedicated one of the pieces of his Three Pieces for Two Pianos to him.

But I think Ligeti is really the composer that makes justice to these very interesting ideas about pulse and transformation (also present in gamelan and african music).

When I hear _Desordre_ or _Fem_, which are typical pulse/pattern transformation pieces, I can't stop thinking "now, that's how you use that technique".

Those two piano etudes alone are far more interesting than anything Reich ever wrote.

I think the answer is simple. Ligeti is putting in those pieces all of his knowledge and craft as a composer belonging to the classical tradition, while Reich was being influenced by very bland pop music.

I still think that Reich's music "works"... but sounds so trivial after listening to those Ligeti etudes...

John Adams is a composer whose great craftsmanship always amazes me. Like in this piece.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

I think it sometimes easy to hear a few things by someone and put them in a box. I have quiet a few recordings of works by Glass. And I'm very fond of the music composed for soundtracks. And I'll bet I could pull a couple selections from The Hours and Notes On A Scandal that would open the eyes of a few naysayers.


----------



## Funny (Nov 30, 2013)

Glass hit the big time with his collaboration with Robert Wilson, Einstein on the Beach. Partially due to Wilson's near-nonsensical libretto and partially to Glass' absurdly excessive repetitions, our rational criteria for enjoyment are stymied and the soundscape becomes akin to a meditative trance. Not everybody is going to enjoy being taken to such a different place - certainly an Eastern-influenced place - in hearing Western "classical" music, but there are rewards there that are unlike any in more narrative-based musical systems. Glass won me over with that (sealing the deal when I saw his ensemble perform the Spaceship Music live, which was literally gasp-inducing) and I've been a fan in general ever since. That said, some of his excursions, especially the "Low" Symphony, do absolutely nothing for me.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Minimalism as whole is laughable. Glass and co. are clever businessman who've marketed their highly repetitive brand of populist music as high art. Predictably, the masses have responded with: 'Take my money! I want to be sophisticated!'. My dislike for this music has nothing to do with its popularity (otherwise I'd hate Beethoven and Bach), but everything to do with its creative bankruptcy.


Try saying that about serialism and see what you get.
One person's passion is another's poison and all that!

Creative bankruptcy? 
Perhaps you just don't 'get it'.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I own one Glass CD
View attachment 40024
View attachment 40025


I like it, but only in small doses. If I want to listen to this, I'll listen to one quartet at a time, at night, when I want to empty my brain before going to sleep.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

senza sordino said:


> I own one Glass CD
> View attachment 40024
> View attachment 40025
> 
> ...


That's good. You've found some use for Glass.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Weren't the early minimalists highly influenced by Indonesian Gamelon?

Gamelon is specifically designed to alter ones brain state, from beta to alpha (a meditative state). Which might explain the same effect with Glass and the others.

I really like Daniel Lenz, along with Glass and Reich.

'Is it Love'






I actually wrote a couple of limericks at a different site just about a week ago:

There is a composer named Reich
Whose music many dislike
His style is minimalism
He caused quite a schism
The music establishment can go take a hike

There is a composer named Glass
His music, some take a pass
"Einstein on the Beach"
He took quite a reach
The critics can shove it up their... derrière*

*I couldn't think of an ending rhyme. Anyone have an idea on a word rhymes with 'pass'?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> ???????????????





Crudblud said:


> Uh... is there an agenda here I should be aware of?


No, nothing we haven't seen before. What are you implying?

http://www.talkclassical.com/27625-jewish-composers.html


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The critics just want to see who comes out of the woodwork.

I see it basically as the same old dialectic, which I have approached from different angles for years on this forum, and others. It has nothing to do with Philip Glass in any substantial way; after all, if these critics hate the music, they've never been receptive to it, and so have probably never heard any of the works in detail.

I think it's more 'the idea' of Philip Glass (& company) that rankles the critics. What is this 'idea,' and what does it represent?

I can name you a few qualities of this 'idea:'

_1. Minimalism, and Philip Glass' music, is repetitive, and therefore represents a 'non-cerebral' aesthetic; it requires that the analytical ticker-tape chattering mind be temporarily turned off. This would turn off and irritate 'logical' types who do everything according to a controlled conscious intent; in addition,

2. The repetition represents 'trance-like' states which represent, conjure, invoke, or induce images of non-Western, 'primitive' tribal magic and/or Eastern religion, or simply non-analytical, passive, relaxed, receptive, and meditative states of mind. This 'passivity' is foreign to the West, which has always operated by a more conscious, willful, dominating, and aggressive mindset.

3. According to these critics, this non-Western quality should, rightfully, exclude it from serious consideration in the Western canon, especially as this traditional canon relates to *Christian religion* and sacred music;

4. The repetitive nature of minimalism does not exemplify the Western 18th-century idea of 'exposition and development,' or of harmonic progression, which most critics consider to be of prime importance in distinguishing Western 'classical' music as a 'dominating' and forward-moving music which manifests the Western colonial mindset of conquering other 'primitive' cultures, and distinguishes it as a music form from other genres and forms which do contain repetition and rhythmic focus; so minimalism comes across as related to these 'vulgar' forms of popular, pop, and folk musics.

5. The 'short' version is that these critics of minimalism, and Glass, have a world-view paradigm which is decidedly Western and specifically *Christian* in nature. These critics were initially drawn to, and remain with, a conservative version of Western classical music which was formed in the past, and which exemplifies for them a rational, traditional, Christian worldview._


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> No, nothing we haven't seen before. What are you implying?


You brought up their Jewish ancestry for no apparent reason, so I wondered what point you were trying to make, that's all.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I like trance-like music as described by millionrainbows. I usually prefer various types of electronic music, but I do appreciate some of the minimalist music I've heard, including Glass.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Big deal? What big deal? I simply ignore him.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Minimalism as whole is laughable. Glass and co. are clever businessman who've marketed their highly repetitive brand of* populist music* as high art. Predictably, the masses have responded with: 'Take my money! I want to be sophisticated!'. My dislike for this music has nothing to do with its popularity (otherwise I'd hate Beethoven and Bach), but everything to do with its creative bankruptcy.


This is some use of the term "populist" that I don't understand. I'd say that, in terms of the general public, Glass is about as listened to (and about as ignored) as most of the rest of the classical repertory. If anything, he's probably listened to a bit _less_.

I mean, I respect people's choices to not like the guy's music, but "I don't like him because he's so POPULAR" seems to be a bit of a non sequitur.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I prefer John Adams music style much more than his minimalist comrade Philp Glass. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Glass and Reich have changed over the years, so there is a lot to investigate. The early stuff, of course, is 'purer' and more hard-core minimal/process, as these were the prototype works which were defining the territory. Lately, Glass has gotten downright conservative, but still good in works like Itaipu and The Canyon.
With Terry Riley, he keeps revealing new aspects of his nature, such as his identity as a solo pianist and his string quartet writing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> You brought up their Jewish ancestry for no apparent reason, so I wondered what point you were trying to make, that's all.


Hmm...I guess it's resentment that a 'joke' can be made on that other thread, which will not be removed.

So if someone throws some stuff out there, and if it sticks to the wall, the explanation really should really concern the statement about minimalists 'taking people's money.' Uhh, what's that referencing? What's another word for that? What's it got to do with music?


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

I was a huge fan of Glass back in the days before his Low Symphony type excursions, which I didn't quite get the point of. In fact, the more that Glass got into orchestral music, the less interesting he became for me. To my ears, the Glass of the early ensemble pieces, featuring reed instruments, keyboards (especially the Farfisa organ), and voices -- that's the great stuff. I couldn't get enough of Music in Twelve Parts, Music with Changing Parts, Music in Similar Motion, and most of all, Einstein on the Beach.

I finally got a chance to witness Einstein on the Beach, staged, last year. Apparently this iteration of the production was the last time that the three principals (Glass, Childs, Wilson) would be staging the work together. It was remarkable and confirmed for me what a genius Glass was when he was in that primary, foundational element. If you never got a chance to witness this work staged by these three creative figures, you missed out on something both provocative and stirring. Wilson's lighting -- which neither video nor photography does justice too -- is magical. Childs' choreography is maddeningly simple and simply splendid. Meanwhile, Glass's raga-like riffs and doodles, especially in his Night Train, Bed, Spaceship, and in the saxophone-led Building -- these took my breath away. 

I still give his music a chance, but I must confess the later stuff tends to leave me cold (with some exceptions, such as the brilliant soundtracks for Mishima and Koyaanisqatsi and his music for Cocteau's film La Belle et la Bête). In fact, a couple of years ago I watched Adams conduct the LA Philharmonic in a program featuring Arvo Part's Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten, Adams' Violin Concerto, and Glass's Eighth or Ninth Symphony... I forget which because the thought of sitting through it in the second half of the concert was too much to bear and I didn't stay to hear the US premiere of the piece. That's how much I can no longer handle the orchestral Glass. But the stuff Glass wrote through the early 1980s? I can't get enough of it.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

*Original post has been deleted*


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2014)

I'm not sure when/if I'll ever get around to Einstein On The Beach based on some of the things I've heard (then again, these comments usually come from people with pretty shady posting histories...), but I definitely enjoy Glass from time to time. A bit of a niche composer for me, but no one really does it like him, so when I want to listen to his violin concerto, I will damn well listen to his violin concerto. Sorry, ye folk on ye high horses.


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

I have a somewhat faint memory of seeing Einstein on the Beach at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1984. It was very long, but quite an amazing experience, completely different from anything else I had ever heard or seen up to then.

There is also an interesting film about him, available from NetFlix.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

peterb said:


> "I don't like him because he's so POPULAR" seems to be a bit of a non sequitur.


But you can't be serious. You have to know by now that this is a powerful motivation for many of our tastes.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

If only one could sacrifice Glass so that Boulez would live another 30 years and compose, at least, one final masterpiece.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The first Glass I heard was the Kronos album of his string quartets. I was young then and I didn't know my way around classical music and definitely didn't know the social dynamics associated with his music yet. I was blissfully unaware of all the "oughts."

It was only my second or third Kronos album (following "Black Angels" and maybe Golijov's _Dreams and Prayers of Isaac the Blind_), and these were some of my first experiences with classical music of any kind, modern or otherwise. In all three cases I was initially puzzled that anyone would really enjoy this music, but I was poor and didn't have a lot of CDs to listen to, and every so often I would get curious to re-listen to these, and I would put them back on... In every case the music grew on me, grew on me, I found more to like, I became a fan. For awhile I felt that Glass was really great, and then I listened more, and more, and I actually began to enjoy his music less. (This didn't happen with "Black Angels" or even Golijov, though I know better than to advocate for Golijov too enthusiastically. He has some good tricks, basically, and I like them most of the time, and I know I'd better stop there before the experts here find even more reasons to scorn me.)

I am not persuaded by the idea that this music in general is meant to put us into a post-sectarian state of religious consciousness, nor that resistance to the theology behind that idea accounts for the hatred of Glass or minimalism. Instead, I suspect that minimalism and Glass particularly are so disliked for several other reasons. They have successfully challenged and overthrown a kind of dogma in the world of modernist classical music (there must be a world where this is the main reason but that is not the world that most of us live in), their music does not even try to do many things that classical music has valued in the past, and, probably most importantly for many of us, they have become popular with _the wrong kind of people_ - the kind that buy albums put out by Narada, and the kind that like Andre Rieu, and the kind that vote for _The Lark Ascending_ as their favorite work.

The _Aguas da Amazonia_ disk cited by mmsbls earlier in the thread is one of my top hundred or so albums; I still enjoy the Kronos album of his quartets but not inordinately, and this applies to pretty much everything else I've heard by Glass. I still buy new recordings of his music to follow the hype - the key in our community is to know the music without approving of it! But I don't have high expectations for any of it, and they're rarely disappointed. I get my jollies from novelty, and even if there is a lot of novelty from work to work in Glass, at any rate I can't hear it.

For me, it's a really big mistake to lump Glass into the same category as Reich. I hear Reich's work with tape and rhythm as very different than what Glass does, even if both of them have renounced some of the same traditions of classical music. I enjoy Reich's music a lot more than most of Glass's, although in the end I suppose he only has a few tricks as well. As for Riley, I don't know what that guy is up to most of the time, and I haven't enjoyed his music that I've heard well enough to follow it up and figure it out. Same with Adams, though I enjoy his music almost as much as Reich's, and I get the sense that folks with more authority actually have the most respect for him out of this group.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> The first Glass I heard was the Kronos album of his string quartets. I was young then and I didn't know my way around classical music and definitely didn't know the social dynamics associated with his music yet. I was blissfully unaware of all the "oughts."


My first minimalism was *Steve Reich's Violin Phase*on Columbia Masterworks vinyl, out of print, with *Paul Zukofsky *playing violin. This was in the early 1970s. On the flip side was *It's Gonna Rain.* I found it in a record store in Big Springs, Tx, a place run by two 'brothers' whose policy was to order one of everything that came out, and never return anything. Sometimes you could find years-old out of print LPs.

The first thing I noticed were the moire patterns on the vinyl's surface, due to the repetition. I had never heard music like this, and I felt I had stumbled onto something that only I knew; and in West Texas, this was probably literally true.

Out there in the desert, we had a different creed of survival. To transcend one's roots one had to search and dig, and treasure every drop of moisture for the spirit. I had evolved a way of standing on my tiptoes and hiding beneath record store bins to avoid the killing heat.



science said:


> ...but I was poor and didn't have a lot of CDs to listen to, and every so often I would get curious to re-listen to these, and I would put them back on... In every case the music grew on me, grew on me, I found more to like, I became a fan.


I can relate; but in the desert, one keeps one's friends very close, as a matter of survival.



science said:


> ...I am not persuaded by the idea that this music in general is meant to put us into a post-sectarian state of religious consciousness...


That's just a given fact. If one is not persuaded, this says more about the listener than the music or its intent.



science said:


> ...or that resistance to the theology behind that idea accounts for the hatred of Glass or minimalism.


That hatred could exist for a whole spectrum of reasons, none of which have been articulated. To put my original hypothesis as 'resistance to theology' is misleading, as I refer to a generalized 'mindset' which is automatic, unarticulated in most cases, and 'knee-jerk' as a reflexive response, perhaps cultural/geographical, rather than some sort of conscious, willful protest on religious grounds.



science said:


> ...they have become popular with _the wrong kind of people_ - the kind that buy albums put out by Narada, and the kind that like Andre Rieu, and the kind that vote for _The Lark Ascending_ as their favorite work.


None of that tripe existed in 1970-74, and if it did, I didn't buy it. But as a precaution, I would advise you to avoid close contact with those kinds of people. Many of them don't go to Sunday School, and some of them became Episcopal priests.

No, that's a horrible stereotype. This was, for me, a quest for art of the highest nature.



science;647750[B said:


> ]...it's a really big mistake to lump Glass into the same category as Reich._ [?]_[/B]I hear Reich's work with tape and rhythm as very different than what Glass does, even if both of them have renounced some of the same traditions of classical music.


The early stuff by both is very similar in its purity and repetition. As both developed, they staked-out their own territory. In fact, Philip Glass even played on this recording of two Steve Reich works.












science said:


> ...As for Riley, I don't know what that guy is up to most of the time, and I haven't enjoyed his music that I've heard well enough to follow it up and figure it out... and I get the sense that folks with more authority actually have the most respect for him out of this group.


Just chalk it up to living long enough to have seen the whole thing emerge, before virtually anybody knew what was happening; and for me, this is a legacy, as I was there when the tree was planted, as an acorn.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2014)

I have to say the elitest griping from a few select members is getting tiresome. It's splattered all over the place - anti-Glass, anti-ClassicFM, etc. Not that I'm the biggest fan of any of these things, but the passive aggressive insults and superiority complexes definitely leave a bad taste in my mouth. I won't make any promises, because, frankly, I just get bored - but I think I may try to keep my posting to the ongoing project threads for a while. I think a lot of us feel unwelcome almost anywhere else, over the last couple of weeks...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I have to say the elitest griping from a few select members is getting tiresome. It's splattered all over the place - anti-Glass, anti-ClassicFM, etc. Not that I'm the biggest fan of any of these things, but the passive aggressive insults and superiority complexes definitely leave a bad taste in my mouth. I won't make any promises, because, frankly, I just get bored - but I think I may try to keep my posting to the ongoing project threads for a while. I think a lot of us feel unwelcome almost anywhere else, over the last couple of weeks...


I've often noted that people insulting music makes me want to like it more, just to shove it in their faces. I'm a bigger advocate of several things because of that: musicals, "light" classical, minimalism, contemporary music both avant-garde-ish and neo-whateverish, the big 3, all those "2nd rate" romantic composers, the 2nd Vienna school, Wagner....

In the end, I really am grateful to the more snobbish people around, because they've helped me to deepen my appreciation for a lot of great music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Let me encourage you to like Philip Glass even more. He's a hack and all his music sounds the same.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Science, if you ever feel your enthusiasm for Glass fading I'll happily reinvigorate it with a stream of snobbish invective and elitist griping


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dgee said:


> Science, if you ever feel your enthusiasm for Glass fading I'll happily reinvigorate it with a stream of snobbish invective and elitist griping


Don't worry, man! It's been done enough for me already.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'll reinvigorate it with plain old horse sense!


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

I've been hearing criticism of Glass's music for thirty years and it's never as interesting as Glass's music. So, I'd rather listen to Glass's music (at least his work up to around 1985). The wholesale critiques of Glass's music sound to me like the wholesale critiques of Schoenberg's music or the wholesale critiques of Stockhausen's music, which is to say: they don't say much. They don't delve into the music, they don't differentiate between early and late Stockhausen, for example, or the evolution of Schoenberg's style, and hence I don't find them instructive or illuminating. They just say: this music is crap. To which my best response can only be: Okay, thanks for your contribution.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PeterFromLA said:


> I've been hearing criticism of Glass's music for thirty years and it's never as interesting as Glass's music. So, I'd rather listen to Glass's music (at least his work up to around 1985). The wholesale critiques of Glass's music sound to me like the wholesale critiques of Schoenberg's music or the wholesale critiques of Stockhausen's music, which is to say: they don't say much. They don't delve into the music, they don't differentiate between early and late Stockhausen, for example, or the evolution of Schoenberg's style, and hence I don't find them instructive or illuminating. They just say: this music is crap. To which my best response can only be: Okay, thanks for your contribution.


I love Stockhausen and Schoenberg. Glass? CRAP. Tee-hee!


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

Thanks for your contribution, Lope!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre, you rascal!

*Hey Peter!* Long time no see! It's good to see you still exist! Give me some more recommendations. I'm sure Lope would take note of them, as his tastes, at least along serial lines, are congruent with ours. I still have that "500 dollar" Schoenberg CD...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm in agreement with PeterfromLA. I really like Glass' early work like Glassworks and Einstein on the Beach. I'm not so big on his larger orchestral pieces like the symphonies and the violin concerto. 

But as far as American Minimalism goes, I like Reich's music a lot better than Glass' all around.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

To some extent I can see PeterfromLA's point. But that's not the case in my critique to Reich. Of course, you can disagree with it, but I tried to provide an explanation of why I disagree with some of his musical ideas.


----------



## PeterFromLA (Jul 22, 2011)

Hey million, so good to "see" you again... well, "read" you again. That story of you with that Reich-Zukofsky CBS Odyssey record, alone in West Texas, was terrific. I could almost picture the tumble weeds blowing by, the big blue sky, and the occasional big rig blasting past as you listened to Zukofsky's coiling violin solo... And then of course, listening to Come Out in post- Civil Rights West Texas, where ML King was a hated figure, and the very idea of hearing the voice of a fourteen year old kid who had been beaten repeatedly by the cops, saying, "I had to like -- open up the bruise blood to let some of the bruise blood come out, to show them... Come out, to show them come out, to show them..." becoming more and more distorted in that hot baking sun... well, it just was electric, that's all.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think a lot of Glass' music is repetitively stale and boring. It's to do with the minimalism idiom he composes in. But his biggest strength is making avant-garde music much more accessible to anyone willing to give it a listen, so for that he deserves a little credit more than his contemporaries.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PeterFromLA said:


> Hey million, so good to "see" you again... well, "read" you again. That story of you with that Reich-Zukofsky CBS Odyssey record, alone in West Texas, was terrific. I could almost picture the tumble weeds blowing by, the big blue sky, and the occasional big rig blasting past as you listened to Zukofsky's coiling violin solo... And then of course, listening to Come Out in post- Civil Rights West Texas, where ML King was a hated figure, and the very idea of hearing the voice of a fourteen year old kid who had been beaten repeatedly by the cops, saying, "I had to like -- open up the bruise blood to let some of the bruise blood come out, to show them... Come out, to show them come out, to show them..." becoming more and more distorted in that hot baking sun... well, it just was electric, that's all.


Hey, Thanx, *PeterFromLA.* I'm glad these stories of mine entertained you. With you , in LA, I always imagine a big modern house by the sea, as your hand reaches past a crystal glass of white wine, across a glass shelf to grab a rare Schoenberg CD, and put it into a Mark Levinson CD player. Maybe it's less glamorous, like desert survival is. You know, the Mojave ain't far off...

Yes, as P. and *violadude *say, Glassworks is a crucial CD, and be sure to have the remaster. The sound is great. I never got Einstein...it was on Tomato, I remember.

To those who say Glass is boring, it's all in the details. Sometimes his note choices are disturbing, and sound harmonically 'incorrect,' so I rationalize this (Glass must know what he's doing) by recognizing that his music is not based on harmonic progressions, so note choice is due to other factors. It does sound odd in places, though. Does anyone else notice this?

I need to read-up more on these guys; I saw a three dollar book I'll get later. What was the deal with those Farfisa organs? I once made a correlation with those *Japanese Gagaku m*outh pipes; they sound just like a Farfisa!* Elvis Costello's *pianist *Steve Naïve *was using Farfisas during the time of_ This Year's Model._ Connection...?


----------



## Funny (Nov 30, 2013)

Yeah, PeterFromLA, I think my hills and valleys on Glass's output match up with yours just about exactly. Couldn't have said it better, so I'll just say: Yes!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Clever marketing has built Glass up as Baby's First Modern Composer.


There is a great misconception here, because Philip Glass arose from the New York art scene, and was always ignored by the traditional academy, so his rise was due to sheer popularity and fascination with his music in the art scene, museum concerts, and art-loft concerts, by regular, normal people who like all kinds of music.

Glass hung around artists more than he did musicians, because they were more interested in what he was doing, and he they.

Glass had a small ensemble, a "band" so to speak, and they played with amplification, quite loudly. Loudly enough to make traditional academy concert goers uncomfortable.

This small amplified ensemble had advantages: the group was stable and consistent, so it was well-rehearsed, and the music was performed well.

The amplification gave them the volume and power of a symphony orchestra, but was able to bypass the symphony/concert system.

They played in clubs like The Kitchen, and it became influential on rock music, since the trappings were similar, and it had a rhythmic drive. Popular and serious music were beginning to interact, and it became OK to like all sorts of different music and genres.

Concerts in France, Germany, and Holland solidified Glass' worldwide reputation, much to the disgruntlement of academic American composers.

_During his many years of marginal economic existence, Glass worked as a furniture-mover, plumber, and taxi-driver; a few weeks after the glamorous *Einstein on the Beach *premier at the Metropolitan Opera House in 1976, he was back behind the wheel of a cab!

_These disparaging comments about Philip Glass are ill-informed and ignorant of the facts. Let's realize that this music rose up from the fabric of history like a Darwinian force, and it was the right time and place. New York is where art was alive and thriving, not the Midwest, and it emerged as triumphant because _people liked it.
_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

P.S. I saw a "sho" player in Yo-Yo Ma's Silk Road Ensemble on PBS.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm not a fan of Glass though do like double-glazing


----------



## BRHiler (May 3, 2014)

For me, I find it odd that I love Reich's music and Glass does nothing for me. I haven't listened to much of Glass's earlier stuff, but I tried the Heroes Symphony, and it did nothing for me. 

Besides "Einstein", is there any Glass someone could recommend for me to try out?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Glassworks, Satyagraha, and Akhnaten were my introduction to Glass.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BRHiler said:


> For me, I find it odd that I love Reich's music and Glass does nothing for me. I haven't listened to much of Glass's earlier stuff, but I tried the Heroes Symphony, and it did nothing for me.
> 
> Besides "Einstein", is there any Glass someone could recommend for me to try out?


Get *Glassworks, *the remastered version. If you still don't like it, I have no advice except to move on.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Get *Glassworks, *the remastered version. If you still don't like it, I have no advice except to move on.


Ain't life funny? Just yesterday I created a thread and stated I had very little interest in anything Post-Romantic and that it could be 10-20 years before I even begin exploring that area. I just finished listening to Glassworks due to your post. I almost dislocated my finger clicking "buy now" on Amazon.


----------



## new but obsessed (Dec 19, 2021)

I know this is an ancient thread, but I found it googling Adams and Glass because I was really digging some Adams that was playing on the radio (I think my first time hearing an Adams piece). And I was wondering if people preferred Adams to Glass. I see frequent mention of Nixon in China and would love to see it one day.

Anyway. I just wanted to add some things I've picked up recently. As my handle states, I'm new to this all, but opera is now a really deep obsession of mine.

So some things I picked up:

1) Oddly, my very first opera experience was Satyagraha and started my obsession with the art form. So it'll always have a special place in my heart. Not quite a starter opera that I'd recommend, but it was just perfect for me! It blew my socks off. To that point I had never seen a bigger and mind-blowing theatrical production. And the grandeur of the music was immense - as were the dozens of voices singing on stage next to the twenty foot papier mache puppets and the guys on stilts. Mesmerizing.

I know people who love the old fave operas who might not be obvious Glass fans (why would Glass make sense for someone who likes Puccini and Rossini?), but everyone I know who's *seen* Akhanaten and Satyagraha speaks highly of them. I even got to meet a background singer from the show who loved singing in both those operas, but was quick to mention that the orchestra HATED playing Glass because it was such a pain.

So I want to emphasize the word *seen* again. These are theatrical works, so "listening to them on stereo" isn't quite the intended experience. I now love listening to operas, but only ones that I've seen that remind me of the joys of seeing them live. And the experience is not the same. So I think if your first exposure to Glass' operas is via recording, it can be quite tough.

And as far as post-war operas go, it seems like Glass' rank highly. I wouldn't put them up against Mozart or Verdi. I think it's just great that people are still making new operas.

2) I listened to a recorded chat with Glass from idk when. Decades ago. He described his origins as one out of theater. Not opera. But he said he got lumped into opera because Einstein on the Beach required the infrastructure that only opera houses tended to have (I don't know the terms, but "wings" and other stuff that I think are next to the stage). It was just something that he and Wilson came up with on their own and put up by themselves. Certainly not "establishment" art. Satyagraha was the first "proper opera" that was actually commissioned by an opera house. And as was mentioned, he was making bread by helping his brother at his moving company and working as a cabbie, and all despite his elite musical education. And so his fame came from opera, not his orchestral work. So as much as I do love listening to Glassworks, after seeing Satyagraha, I came to realize that for me Glass makes most sense in the theater (and maybe then a natural fit for cinema?).

3) Someone in the early part of the thread mentioned not liking anything past Low Symphony. In one or such interview with Glass that I recently listened to, he talked about Low and Heroes. Apparently he and Bowie and Eno were just buddies running around in the same circles way back when. So to him it was just riffing off of his friend's music that he loved. He said he really admired the composer in Bowie, and I can really see that with the second side of Low (Warzawa, etc). Apparently Bowie really dug it. He and Eno agreed to be photographed for the album cover of Heroes or Low. Bowie later used one of the recordings of Glass' "covers" as entrance music for a concert, or something. Glass also claimed that somewhere in Bowie's archive (this was sadly after Bowie's death), there's even a version of V2 Schneider that Bowie recorded where he was singing over the Glass orchestral music. Not that this is an indication of why Glass is great. I just thought that was neat trivia. I'd love to have hung out with Glass and Bowie back then!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ For me its a matter of the flow in either Adams or Glass. I connect way more with the flow in Adams, especially Harmonielehre. In Glass I lose interest very quickly and find his rhythms too samey, even if he repeats things at different speeds. I get a stronger sense of direction in Adams' music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I have to say Torkelburger's insightful views gave me a new perspective on Glass and his Atonal medleys
Favourite 3 Atonal Composers


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

new but obsessed said:


> Glass also claimed that somewhere in Bowie's archive (this was sadly after Bowie's death), there's even a version of V2 Schneider that Bowie recorded where he was singing over the Glass orchestral music. Not that this is an indication of why Glass is great. I just thought that was neat trivia. I'd love to have hung out with Glass and Bowie back then!


Apparently Moondog once crashed at Philip Glass's apartment in New York. That's a "fly on the wall" household if there ever was one.


----------

