# Do you appreiciate Phillip Glass? Where do you draw the line?



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Everytime I listen to a Phillip Glass, attempting to avoid all my pre-judgements of "this is stupid," I still get tired of it and tend to not enjoy myself. The only pieces I've listened to in entirety are his Violin Concerto and his 3rd symphony. What is there to this composer? I really hate the subversive thought of emporer's new clothes, as I've realized how I've been wrong in the past with composers like William Schuman, Alan Hovhaness, Webern, and Elliot Carter who if I think about it too hard, lie nearer to the edge of what is acceptable for me, so I tend to give them some extra attention(and thus I really get to know their music), if that makes any sense. Phillip Glass seems quite a bit over that edge. Same with Arvo Part and Steve Reich and some older composers like Sorabji. John Adams sometimes over, sometimes on the edge. Cage is not even near that edge on the "out of acceptable" range. 

I don't want this to turn into a silly debate so quickly. So if some users come and start ranting about whether its the listener or the composer for too long, try to get back to expressing what is acceptable for you and what isn't in a zone free of judgement, excepting me, which in my case, I am essentially asking you to judge me.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I like Philip Glass. Arvo Part and Steve Reich are great too.

What line?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Argus said:


> I like Philip Glass. Arvo Part and Steve Reich are great too.
> 
> What line?


Do you like it anymore than you like techno beats? I was speculating the other day that Phillip Glass has about that level of complexity and variety. Its sort of like a groove that just gets going. I don't know, I just don't think there's much skill involved in making it and I like to appreciate a complex craft of some sort. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm willing to be proven wrong, I'm legitimately curious.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

The key to liking Philip Glass is finding the right pieces, trust me.

Previously I had listened to his violin concerto, glassworks and some other repetitive work and wrote him off as stupid too. So when my Aunt got me a CD of his 4th symphony it took me a long time to listen to it. But that one isn't as repetitive and actually fairly enjoyable.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> 4th symphony.


Is it true that his earlier works can be thought of akin to background music? Is it only the newer works like the 4th symphony that have craftsmanly interest? I know that I was curious about parts of the 3rd symphony, I'll have to listen to that.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Is it true that his earlier works can be thought of akin to background music? Is it only the newer works like the 4th symphony that have craftsmanly interest? I know that I was curious about parts of the 3rd symphony, I'll have to listen to that.


Well it depends on what you like listening to I guess. Some people really like the way his more repetitive works slowly transform. I couldn't tell you much about form or craftsmanship of his earlier works though, haven't listened to them enough.

You mentioned Steve Reich in your initial post though and I urge you to listen to more of his music. IMO his music is infinitely more interesting than Philip Glass.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> Do you like it anymore than you like techno beats? I was speculating the other day that Phillip Glass has about that level of complexity and variety. Its sort of like a groove that just gets going. I don't know, I just don't think there's much skill involved in making it and I like to appreciate a complex craft of some sort. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm willing to be proven wrong, I'm legitimately curious.


I wouldn't compare his music to techno beats unless it's the more laid back Larry Heard or Frankie Knuckles kind. Glass is not really dance music at all.

I disagree with violadude here. His Violin Concerto, plus his work for films (especially Koyaanisqatsi) and Glassworks are all great and pretty accessible. I'm not even a fan of the string quartet form, yet I like all his quartets apart from the first which is in a totally un-Glass style.

I can understand being put off by the repetition of his 60's/early 70's pieces, like Music with Changing Parts or Music in Fifths, but by the mid-70's he eased off the repetition and put out a lot of consistently good stuff. However, he does rely on similar motifs and arpeggios, and if you don't like those in their base form then even with all the decoration he adds, you might not like his music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I like Reich and Glass. I do find the latter's works can at times start to sound too similar (I have that problem with Takemitsu too). But I find Glass explores the power of subtle chord changes very effectively and in a way that really captures a mood (of intrigue, mystery suspense) in a very cool and unique way. I get in moods where I want to listen to a lot of Glass, but I also get in moods where the music starts to sound too repetitive and lacks a bit of excitement (the same type of thing happens to me with rock music which is in ways similar to minimalism - these styles can pack a powerful punch, but perhaps lack the staying power of less repetitive forms?). I've never been able to get into Adams outside of the enjoyable _Short Ride in a Fast Machine_ piece.


----------



## Cygnenoir (Dec 21, 2011)

tdc said:


> I've never been able to get into Adams outside of the enjoyable _Short Ride in a Fast Machine_ piece.


 Do you speak disparagingly of Harmonielehre? No staying power??


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

berghansson said:


> Do you speak disparagingly of Harmonielehre? No staying power??


I'd take Light Over Water and both Phrygian and China Gates over Harmonielehre.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Interesting discussion. My experience has been largely the same as yours, clavi. I'll yet the 4th Symphony later.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I am _so_ impressed with Glass' music that I usually think 'Hugh Glass' when only the surname is mentioned.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I find Glass's music tiresome very quickly. It's pretty much the same pony trick over and over too. If you have one recording of his, you don't need any more.

That said, I think his sountrack to the movie Koyanisquatsi suits the film perfectly. The repetitions echo the pixilation technique and as long as there's something interesting to look at, I don't notice how little there is in the music. His soundtrack to Tod Browning's Dracula infuriates me though. The idea of adding a score to it is a good one. The early sound films can sound kind of bald sometimes. But Glass proves how stubbornly insensitive he can be to what is going on up on the screen. He's probably guaranteed that no one else will be able to come in and score it properly. An opportunity like that and he peed all over it. What an ***.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Glass isn't really my cup of tea, though I've tried. I don't think it is that he's over some line I have, though, as I like some other "minimalists"; I just don't care for his particular sound. Love Adams, though. If there are specific, individual qualities that make music "acceptable" or "unacceptable" for me, I haven't been able to identify them yet. (Well, maybe ridiculous, booming, sub-woofer bass that makes me feel like I'm having a heart attack is unacceptable.) I've gotten a lot better at listening to music on its own terms rather than comparing it with other stuff, which I think is something that has enabled me to enjoy a wider variety, including music of which I was skeptical at first. (Some Cage, for instance. My introduction to Cage was hearing the college student who taught music theory classes at my youth orchestra ranting about him, so that prejudiced me.)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"What line?" 
I really do like that 

The only line is, really, what holds your attention and if you like what you are hearing.

I, too, have tried, and found I could only 'make it through' the violin concerto, barely.

What did hold me rapt was the very early "Einstein on the Beach," but that is a completely different matter of a lot of other business wrapped up with the music as one factor / fraction of it - which leads me to think he is more successful in theater and film than as a composer of self-standing works.

I controvert anyone saying it does not take great skill. Whatever his means, he is 'successfully' making what he wants, and some of that includes the use of complex rhythmic patterns or cycles drawn from his study of classical Indian music. Now, since those are not heard, exactly, but used as a sort of 'glue,' I suppose, they are not perceived or trackable for me, so that is more a ho-hum as a listener.

I really tire quickly of a bass-line which is that kiddie piano configuration of a fifth and the octave then going back and forth, regardless of its instrumentation, (and usually in triplets.) I'm not a stickler for opposed motion, but Glass' parallelism is really dulling to my ears.

I saw Koyaanisqatsi on a preview night where none of the audience had any idea, really, of what they were about to view. The movie, and the music with it as a prime element, worked superbly in the theater. I have never wanted to hear the score again.

My 'line' then, always moveable, is when I feel within a few measures that whatever twists and turns a piece may later take that I have too much of an idea of what 'it will all be like' before sitting through its duration. Glass is one of those.

There is a danger of becoming so enamored of one process that a composer will soon be "re-hashing" as one forum member so aptly put it, the same ole same ole regardless of a choice of some different notes. Other than a handful of youthful works and some into their early maturity, I toss a few composers, all 'worthwhile' and of greatly varied sensibility and 'quality,' -- Paul Hindemith, Pierre Boulez, and Steve Reich... there are probably others if I applied the remaining memory cells to the task, but that should suffice. Each became entrenched in a process or a theoretical paradigm where -- as Virgil Thomson predicted about Boulez as Boulez stepped over the thresh-hold into total serialism -- they would soon 'Write themselves into a corner.' This is the opposite of what Mozart, Beethoven, hosts of others through to Stravinsky, etc. did, which was constantly evolve. These 'stuck' in their own process can only further refine. Once in a while, those later refinements pay off, and we get a wonderful later work which is, nonetheless, not 'fresh' as much as a more perfect later piece in the same vocabulary.

Arvo Part's uber-simplicity is another which holds for me, if any charm, a momentary one - usually no more than once through, I'm done. Hovhaness, too, quickly went his way, away from me, after hearing one or two pieces in my teens. Hovhaness is another where you were fairly guaranteed to hear the same same same each time with each 'new' work.

I think the 'emperor's new clothes' is pretty worn out as a very easy criticism, dismissal, while it IS the handiest way to explain Not The Composer, but the audience who are all agog at that composer's music.

Glass is known, for one night or a short run, to fill the seats of a major opera house by drawing concert-goers who are otherwise never seen in the seats of that same venue at any other time. The audience who show up for a concert rendition of the accompanying score of 'Zelda' or whichever video game score it might be, or a concert presentation of Joe Hisaishi's "Howls moving castle," are a similar phenomenon -- they show up that one night for that music.

No matter how elaborate or 'subtle' his constructs are, for me the music is of an blaringly extreme paucity of idea -- that is part of its aesthetic: aesthetic or not, there is nothing enough there to hold my attention for more than a few moments. Contrast that to my being able to repeatedly listen to, over the course of more than a decade without yet tiring of it, Morton Feldman's Piano and String Quartet.

There are always those about us whose taste make us think we may be missing something. Survey it all, both personal recommends and what some sector of the public are consuming, while paying no attention to peer pressure or 'fashion.' I will always want to know what others are listening to and check it all, but long ago learned to not worry if it was or was not 'for me.'

After all, 'its just music.'


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Everytime I listen to a Phillip Glass, attempting to avoid all my pre-judgements of "this is stupid," I still get tired of it and tend to not enjoy myself. The only pieces I've listened to in entirety are his Violin Concerto and his 3rd symphony. What is there to this composer? I really hate the subversive thought of emporer's new clothes, as I've realized how I've been wrong in the past with composers like William Schuman, Alan Hovhaness, Webern, and Elliot Carter who if I think about it too hard, lie nearer to the edge of what is acceptable for me, so I tend to give them some extra attention(and thus I really get to know their music), if that makes any sense. Phillip Glass seems quite a bit over that edge. Same with Arvo Part and Steve Reich and some older composers like Sorabji. John Adams sometimes over, sometimes on the edge. Cage is not even near that edge on the "out of acceptable" range.
> 
> I don't want this to turn into a silly debate so quickly. So if some users come and start ranting about whether its the listener or the composer for too long, try to get back to expressing what is acceptable for you and what isn't in a zone free of judgement, excepting me, which in my case, I am essentially asking you to judge me.


You misspelt his name.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I guess I've been lucky with Glass. Years and years ago, when it was new, I got the Kronos Quartet album of his string quartets. Back then I didn't have a lot of music, and I trusted KQ, so even though I didn't immediately get it I listened to it repeatedly, until I found that I really liked it. 

That was the only Glass I heard for probably a decade. Then I got Aguas da Amazonia, I can't say why, but anyway, I loved it immediately. I can imagine that from a theoretical POV it's uninteresting, but that's just guessing because it's not my POV; from the POV of just listening, it's wonderful. Recently I got his first violin concerto, and it's either one of his string quartets reworked, or the string quartet is the violin concerto reworked. Still, I like the string quartet better, so far. I even more recently got the solo cello disk, but haven't listened to it yet. 

Other minimalism has generally come easily to me: Reich's Music for 18 blew my mind at first, but I loved it by the end of the first time I heard it (I'm kind of surprised I got through even once). Now it's one of my favorite works. Part is just ok to me, his music has grown on me yet. I like or love everything I've heard by Adams. Etc.... 

Reich's Music for 18 Musicians is my favorite, but Aguas da Amazonia is the most enjoyable. I've heard Harmonielehre only once....


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

Well I must honestly say that I've only listened to his string quartets enough to make a fair judgement, though I have listened to quite a few other things of his. I like what he's got going on and the ideas, especially in the quartets, however as a whole when I listen to very much of it I soon find myself sick of arpeggios and craving some sort of variety in the compositions. I don't really think that this has anything to do with a "line" that is or isn't being crossed, but honestly a lacking of creativity and/or adventure on the part of the composer himself.

I love minimalism, it's one of my favorite musical ideologies (if one could call it that) but Philip just doesn't really do it for me. I have no problem with him other than that, like I said, I enjoy his string quartets... but otherwise it all just seems like he comes up with a key signature and tempo and does an arpeggio for ten minutes or so or with a small progression somewhere in there. I prefer minimalists such as Terry Riley and John Adams. If Arvo Pärt really is considered a Minimalist then I'd have to list him as my favorite, his music is comprable to Bach's in my opinion as a master of his period.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Believe me, we all draw lines whether we know it or not. Quit bashing on my choice of words people, you get the idea. If Glass is lacking creativity to your ears, then he's on the other side of the line of what you would prefer to listen to. The line doesn't necessarily mean mindless prejudice, it can mean any number of things.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Yeah not my thing. At least the Violin Concertos aren't. I don't understand why it got such high ratings on amazon.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> Yeah not my thing. At least the Violin Concertos aren't. I don't understand why it got such high ratings on amazon.


Because a lot of people like it.

Does no else think that Glass is one of the few composers who has a style that is identifiable within seconds of hearing his music? I can be watching a film and hear a few of those minor arpeggios and instantly think either this is Philip Glass, or this is somebody writing in the style of Philip Glass. Maybe that's a sign of his increasing homogeneity but I like that he has a recognisable voice.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

True his style is unique. I don't think anyone would want to copy it as he done his style to death already.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I like, very much, the PG opera _AKHNATEN_. For me it is a kind of monumental musical art - the Hymn to the Sun in Act II is really gorgeous, and there is only one 'number' that I don't like - it follows the long Hymn and is a trio of female singers who are Akhnaten's daughters. The rest of the work is filled with beautiful colors, textures, and even melodies. The overture enthralls me, and when the great voice-over comes in with lines from the Egyptian Book of the Dead the effect is stunning. It may be that ancient Egypt is the perfect subject for this kind of music - a civilization that was so stable for so long that there was little change in the style of their art for a thousand years*. On long road trips I always take Akhnaten, just in case I get in the mood 

I also like several works by S.Reich - Music for 18 Musicians is a joyful romp esp if the bass clarinet(s?) are in good form, and Vermont Counterpoint for a bunch of flutes is great stuff. Adam's is even more accessible, esp the Harmonielehre (_pace Schoenberg_), which verges on movie music in places.

*not a quote, I don't think, but the thought is not exactly original - probably from some BBC Documentary.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Amongst the works I have of Glass the ones I'm mostly in two minds over are his 'Heroes' and 'Low' symphonies. Although I'm comfortable listening to them I can still hardly tell them apart - it's as if he's trying to say how similar the first two 'Berlin' Bowie/Eno albums were (especially the instrumental tracks), even if Glass was only using them as a sort of 'cell extraction' rather than quoting from them directly. That said, it's the original premise which makes me kind of uneasy rather than the music itself - I'm probably wrong, but the more I hear them the more the association with the original albums seems so remote as to be unnecessary in the first place, even if the project was given Bowie and Eno's blessings.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Looks like I might be the biggest Glass fan on this forum...


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Do you like it anymore than you like techno beats? I was speculating the other day that Phillip Glass has about that level of complexity and variety. Its sort of like a groove that just gets going. I don't know, I just don't think there's much skill involved in making it and I like to appreciate a complex craft of some sort. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm willing to be proven wrong, I'm legitimately curious.


It takes skill and good taste to compose even the simplest music, anybody who has tried knows this. Perhaps you haven't found complexity because you haven't looked hard enough in the non-classical facets of the music in question.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

Philip said:


> It takes skill and good taste to compose even the simplest music, anybody who has tried knows this. Perhaps you haven't found complexity because you haven't looked hard enough in the non-classical facets of the music in question.


I have to agree here. I've come to believe that the greatest complexity lies within simplicity.

Of course as I have said, I don't really find this to hold as true in the case of Glass, but I still appreciate and respect him as a composer.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I too feel that minimalism is harder to produce than people give it credit for. It may sound simple, but coming up with something with enough variance and progression to come away with something interesting time and again isn't as easy as it sounds. The more you listen to the music the more you find little nuances within the work. A composer trying to work with the tinier details and make the music about them has the challenge of trying to figure out which aspects will have the largest impact.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> I too feel that minimalism is harder to produce than people give it credit for. It may sound simple, but coming up with something with enough variance and progression to come away with something interesting time and again isn't as easy as it sounds. The more you listen to the music the more you find little nuances within the work. A composer trying to work with the tinier details and make the music about them has the challenge of trying to figure out which aspects will have the largest impact.


Exactly. 
I love it.






Each note seems to tell a story of it's own.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Iforgotmypassword said:


> Each note seems to tell a story of it's own.


And through all the superfluous baroque extravagance, Bach was an avant-garde minimalist at heart. Here is the most intimate story you will ever hear in your life:


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

Philip said:


> And through all the superfluous baroque extravagance, Bach was an avant-garde minimalist at heart.


Oh, you'll hear no argument from me there as you can see from what I posted earlier on this page:



Iforgotmypassword said:


> If Arvo Pärt really is considered a Minimalist then I'd have to list him as my favorite, his music is comprable to Bach's in my opinion as a master of his period.


I have fallen in love with bach's music, particularly his instrumental music like what you've posted, which is where I feel he truly let his heart shine through.

These two composers have probably influenced me more than any other, in the way that they use notes to interact with oneanother in such an incredibly intimate way. 
I hope to one day compose music like that... unique to myself of course, but within that same ideology.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

A few months ago I would have said *meh* and scoffed! But after listening to *Glass* for a bit I really do like it. I can see why it's not for everyone it's not "hard" to listen to like some modern classical music may be at first but it isn't as "classical" as pre-modern classical, this may leave some people a bit empty.

I've noticed it's sampled a lot on television. Since I don't watch television a lot and I've heard it three times this week I'd say an awful lot. Maybe it's just the programs I watch?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Pieces like this by Glass, I might listen to it once and maybe that's it, not terribly engaging. Sounds like something for a movie.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I appreciate Philip Glass. Especially his operas. But this is where I draw the line:


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I appreciate Philip Glass. Especially his operas. But this is where I draw the line:


Those kind of dated 80's digital synth tones are hot right now. It's not my favourite of his but I don't hear anything wrong with it.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Re: Philip Glass, I just listened to his* 3rd* and *4th Symphonies on Spotify* last night, and I liked both of them, especially the *3rd. *I don't know if I've "drawn a line in the sand" yet as regards *Glassworks,* due to its very repetitive nature, but I am somehow still drawn to it in spite of this for some reason.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Re: Philip Glass, I just listened to his* 3rd* and *4th Symphonies on Spotify* last night, and I liked both of them, especially the *3rd. *I don't know if I've "drawn a line in the sand" yet as regards *Glassworks,* due to its very repetitive nature, but I am somehow still drawn to it in spite of this for some reason. I guess since I don't enjoy opera as a genre at all, I would draw the line with him there, as I do with any and all other classical composers.

Edit: Sorry, DUP.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I appreciate Philip Glass. Especially his operas. But this is where I draw the line:


This is quite rough. I'd prefer Ray Lynch if we go into Synthetic Minimalism.






I guess Glass is the first "Classical"(?) composer I got into. I liked Koyaanisqatsi and Metamorphosis. But it didn't take much time until his music became boring to me.
I guess I'm ought to try his symphonies and string quartets.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Chrythes said:


> This is quite rough. I'd prefer Ray Lynch if we go into Synthetic Minimalism.


I like me some Ray Lynch, but come on 'Synthetic Minimalism', it's New Age music. I know the label New Age seems to have some stigma attached to it, but that doesn't stop me from liking some of it, especially the synth practitioners like JD Emmanuel or Kitaro, or even the neo-hippies like Stephan Micus.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> A few months ago I would have said *meh* and scoffed! But after listening to *Glass* for a bit I really do like it. I can see why it's not for everyone it's not "hard" to listen to like some modern classical music may be at first but it isn't as "classical" as pre-modern classical, this may leave some people a bit empty.
> 
> I've noticed it's sampled a lot on television. Since I don't watch television a lot and I've heard it three times this week I'd say an awful lot. Maybe it's just the programs I watch?


The only time I ever heard Glass on television was when they broadcast this:










So it must be the programs you watch.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> So it must be the programs you watch.


I think it's more a British/Australian thing. Over here one of his Metamorphoses or something from Glassworks seems to appear in every other BBC documentary and a smattering of films and dramas. So I can confirm that what Lenfer says is true.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

I put an interview with LPO conductor Vladimir Jurowski in News forum, in which he says very harsh words about Glass:
-"Some people go crazy about this music". 
-"And you?"
-"No. I don't. I think this music drives mostly the lower part of human body... Don't get me wrong I like minimalism, some works by Steve Reich..."


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

for some reason I absolutely love minimalism. I like trying to hear every little embellishment of the motif(s). perhaps it's my background in video game and electronic music (yasunori mitsuda, dennis martin, soichi terada, juan atkins, stewart copeland etc), but I suspect slight variations to be my biggest obsession, which is why I like jazz as well. it puts you in a trance like state to hear slight variations of the same thing for so long, such as a 40-70 minute qawwali piece where there are only like 2 lines about 5 seconds a piece being slightly varied several hundred times, it's magic you just don't get with other kinds of music. it's not better, it's just different (nor is it worse or lazy or necessarily pretentious thank you very much!).


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

I'm sure I've commented on this elsewhere on TC but can't immediately find it.

Minimalism was developed (late sixties, earl seventies) as a reaction against the avant garde complexities (pretensions?) of composer like Boulez, Stockhausen, Penderecki et al. Minimalism made the music be about itself in the simplest way possible - whether it was singers counting beats or singing solfège in _Einstein on the beach_ - or Reich artfulling constructing his bar, note by note, in the opening of _Drumming_.

So minimalism (as defined by Michael Nyman, who coined the term) can really only be found in the early works of these composers (and let's include La Monte Young who, arguably, set it all off).

Everything from _Satyagraha _onwards (in the case of Glass), much of Reich, to say nothing of all of John Adams (who never did minimalism in the first place) and many others, is best described as simplistic. And, because it is simplistic, it has to be extraordinarily good if it is to stand with the classical mainstream of the past few centuries. These composers are trying to pay ball with both hands voluntarily tied behind their backs.

A small number of post-minimalist works seem to cut the mustard: John Adams's _Harmonium _and Arvo Pärt's _Passio_, for example. For the rest, the best that can be said is that a few may be enjoyable (eg Philip Glass's _Akhnaten_, maybe) - but the majority are desperately disappointing.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Please don't call it minimalism.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Usually, I find that by watching documentaries on composers I start to appreciate them more.

Yaaaay!!! Someone uploaded it to YouTube!!!


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Please don't call it minimalism.


If it refers to my earlier post -
Should I call it Ambient Music? Or maybe Pseudo Minimalism? Commercial Minimalism?!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> You misspelt his name.


what the L?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Yeah not my thing. At least the Violin Concertos aren't. I don't understand why it got such high ratings on amazon.


There is an audience for it who really consume hardly any (if any) other classical music....


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Chrythes said:


> If it refers to my earlier post -
> Should I call it Ambient Music? Or maybe Pseudo Minimalism? Commercial Minimalism?!


Just call it music by Philip Glass.


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

why shan't one call it minimalism? it's minimalistic in every way. name one way it isn't. don't worry so much about sub-genre terms, lest the forum becomes worse than bickering metalhead forums that get pissed when you call one band splatterdeathblackcore when it's actually splatterdeathjazzcore.  listen to dance IV for the organ. listen to about 20 seconds no more, then immediately scan to about 5 minutes in. listen to about 20 more seconds, flip past another 5 minutes, repeat. notice something?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

chee_zee said:


> why shan't one call it minimalism? it's minimalistic in every way. name one way it isn't. don't worry so much about sub-genre terms, lest the forum becomes worse than bickering metalhead forums that get pissed when you call one band splatterdeathblackcore when it's actually splatterdeathjazzcore.  listen to dance IV for the organ. listen to about 20 seconds no more, then immediately scan to about 5 minutes in. listen to about 20 more seconds, flip past another 5 minutes, repeat. notice something?


I don't like calling it minimalism because that term was taken from the visual arts (where it had a very good purpose of describing a certain style of sculpture, painting etc.) and applied to music. The music of all these so called "minimalist" composers are all so different that it makes sense to describe their music differently. The English language is one of the richest languages on earth so why not use more effective words to describe music rather than applying words from the visual arts? Another thing: "minimalist" composers hate it when their music is described as "minimalist."


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

chee_zee said:


> why shan't one call it minimalism? it's minimalistic in every way. name one way it isn't.


I just think the term says nothing about the cycling, repetitious and homogeneous nature of Glass' music. You may also describe Mompou's music as minimalistic, for example.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I appreciate Philip Glass. Especially his operas. But this is where I draw the line:


Reminders me of every discothèque in *France*.

(disclaimer: I don't go to discothèques but I've had the misfortune of walking by one or two.)



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't like calling it minimalism because that term was taken from the visual arts (where it had a very good purpose of describing a certain style of sculpture, painting etc.) and applied to music. The music of all these so called "minimalist" composers are all so different that it makes sense to describe their music differently. The English language is one of the richest languages on earth so why not use more effective words to describe music rather than applying words from the visual arts? Another thing: "minimalist" composers hate it when their music is described as "minimalist."


Agreed very well put although I would add that I've never met anyone who has appreciated the label they were given. I'm pretty sure *Bach* hated being called baroque composer he was a rocker at heart.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

chee_zee said:


> why shan't one call it minimalism? it's minimalistic in every way. name one way it isn't. don't worry so much about sub-genre terms, lest the forum becomes worse than bickering metalhead forums that get pissed when you call one band splatterdeathblackcore when it's actually splatterdeathjazzcore.  listen to dance IV for the organ. listen to about 20 seconds no more, then immediately scan to about 5 minutes in. listen to about 20 more seconds, flip past another 5 minutes, repeat. notice something?


There is a huge difference between splatterdeathblackcore and splatterdeathjazzcore, and I mean a world of difference. It isn't like the mix up is between say, splatterblackdeathcore and blackenedsplatterdeathcore.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't like calling it minimalism because that term was taken from the visual arts (where it had a very good purpose of describing a certain style of sculpture, painting etc.) and applied to music. The music of all these so called "minimalist" composers are all so different that it makes sense to describe their music differently. The English language is one of the richest languages on earth so why not use more effective words to describe music rather than applying words from the visual arts? Another thing: "minimalist" composers hate it when their music is described as "minimalist."


Most composers seem to hate it when you call their music anything.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Chrythes said:


> If it refers to my earlier post -
> Should I call it Ambient Music? Or maybe Pseudo Minimalism? Commercial Minimalism?!


*Glassical*


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with ARgus, Glass' style is unique. & as with many composers like that, hard to pin down why. In any case, he's not readily easy to copy, I'd say, unlike my bugbear Arvo Part, all that rehash by him of himself and others of him.

Some works I know well & enjoy -

_Violin Concerto_
_Metamorphoses etudes for piano; Witchita Sutra Vortex; Mad Rush _(on the album with the composer on piano)
_String Quartet #2 "Company"
Facades_

I think he's a great tunesmith but tendency to have the dreaded "earworm" effect if I listen to these things too often. So I ration it.

I suppose that's where I draw the line. Eg. among the others you mention are guys whose music I listen to more regularly than Glass' stuff. Eg. Hovhaness and Carter. For different reasons, of course. Even John Cage, some of his works I listen to fairly regularly (_Credo in Us _is a favourite, as is _In A Landscape_).

So I think his unique style and talent for writing tunes may work against him a bit, eg. becoming cliche, but in any case, I have said it, I avoid music that's too earwormish, it ends up bothering me, easy to do overkill with it.



PetrB said:


> ...
> After all, 'its just music.'


No it isn't, it's a vehicle for various (hidden?) agendas. At least people aren't resorting to "it's to popular" or "he's a rich sell-out" or "it's too simple and childish, anyone can do it" kind of party line, which is similar to some people who were against American minimalism when it emerged back in the sixties.

We had a big anti-minimalist period here when I joined TC. Check out this, don't know if I should laugh or cry at it, honestly - http://www.talkclassical.com/5064-no-more-minimalism.html

As for the label minimalism, apparently Glass himself dislikes it, I don't think though he's offered an alternative label. Or anyone else. & now we've got post-minimalism, even Reich is kind of in that niche now, his music sounds quite different than it did when he was starting out. Same with some of the other older original minimalists (except Arvo Part, still doing the same thing as he was like 20 years ago, which is rehash).


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Just call it music by Philip Glass.


But my whole point is that Glass has written music in more than one genre, so one name won't fit all.

Minimalism is not the best term: after all, Adams's _Harmonium _certainly isn't minimalist, while Stockhausen's _Stimmung _most certainly is (one note with selected overtones for seventy minutes).

In the seventies, there was a drive to use the term 'process music', meaning that the emphasis, in works like Glass's _Music in twelve parts_, is *solely *on the process.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Era and Genre Definitions ~ 
"Romanticism" if taken literally in today's context of the word, is a red herring - the ethos of the period was not about hearts and flowers, but more about longing, angst, unrequited love, weltschmertz, death. It is seriously misunderstood by neophytes and those who haven't looked into the actual definition. Those are the ethos qualities of Romantic music. 
More to the point, the word has under its definition a host of harmonic procedures and usages which are characteristic of the era: Technical stuff, not emotive reactions.

Minimalism:
So in the same light we have the term. 'Minimalism.' 
First utterance credited to Tom Johnson, part of the earlier crowd of Le Monte Young and Alvin Lucier who were investigating drones, and similar. 
First credited use in print and in context goes to musicologist, critic and composer Michael Nyman.

There is a half-decent article in Wikipedia, which is often dubious enough but in this instance might be more up to date than that ten year old or older music history text sitting on your shelf. Wiki does waffle enough, because the genre is 'broad' and in historical time spectrum, genres are not fully defined until the period is over!

It is, as usual, about the technical procedures and particular characteristic use of harmony which generally define the style.
As usual, just like the other eras or stylistic genre definitions, it also accounts for numerous composers, each unique, each with a different approach. (Do all Romantic Composers sound the same? Of course not.)

The style uses small-compass shorter motivic cells, the fundamental materials, as its premise. Those are often run repeatedly, sometimes with slight adjustment or additions. There may be more than one running at a time, and several may run in phase. The style is generally aggressively 'tonal,' often modulating by thirds. etc. However long a piece may linger in a key area (some stay in one key for their duration) there is no longer a use of tonality as 'direction oriented' as in previous musics.

The embodiment of one common aspect of the entire process is clear by looking at the remarkable one-page score of Terry Riley's seminal 'minimalist' work, "In C."

If you read the already accepted definition of 'the style,' you will find no conflict in its generally covering the works of Le Monte Young, John Adams, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Graham Fitkin, Michael Nyman, Philip Glass, some Louis Andriessen, Simeon ten Holt, and a host of others, the variety from one to another patently clear enough if you but listen to those composers works. 

The term does not fit, by procedure, the works of Morton Feldman. He may be listed in the Wiki article nonetheless, because, hey, it is Wikipedia.

It is almost always the critics, or some writer or journalist. whose use of the term, wholly appropriate or not, becomes attached to the style. viz: Expressionism / Impressionism (Used pejoratively about the art style, implying the painter could only come up with an impression of an image because they could not draw!) / Minimalism.

Yes, the visual arts genre named Minimalism would have better been named 'sparse gestures,' But it wasn't. Morton Feldman's music would have better been named 'music made with very little material and sparse gestures' but it wasn't.

Again, I see here a lot of emotive reactions completely out of whack, and preventable by merely looking something up.
I find this sort of tempest in a teapot really astonishing, as I am surprised that ardent fans of one genre in classical did not seem to have any inclination to 'just look something up.' It seems there is an atmosphere where people think they can just make something up, or that 'what they feel about it' should become universally accepted as 'what defines genre X.'

Done deal, defined decades ago; out of our hands; out of the composer's hands - who by the way, continue to write as they want, definitions of genre be damned; the term is not, really, 'literally' appropriate (what's new); the composers don't like the term (what's new); the definition very much generally covers what those composer's processes are (also not new); the definition fits the music and its procedures pretty damn well (also not new): It is already in textbooks.

The fact that looking up the definition might even make the less informed listener more aware of what they are listening to, what is going on, and allow them to hear more of what the piece is should be an incentive to read up on it a bit before just taking an empirical stab in the dark at a definition, spending collective hours of time debating what it is, and who is and is not a minimalist.

Everyone has got to make their own kind of fun, but I suggest if some of you just look this up you'll have more fun listening to these works with a more clarified idea of what they are vs. spending time re-inventing the wheel, and awkwardly at that 

(Wikipedia / Music minimalism - give it a whirl.)


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I think he's a great tunesmith but tendency to have the dreaded "earworm" effect if I listen to these things too often. So I ration it.


Rationing Glass would be my approach as well. I like some of his pieces, but it seems that he crammed all of his musical textures and structures in "Music in Twelve Parts" and has remixed them ever since. 
The arpeggio (often accompanied by very low bass accents and notes in the very high register) seems to be his pet musical idea as he applies it in almost every composition and it's the reason why I only listen one work of him at a time. I couldn't stand to listen to an integral recording of his complete string quartets, but an individual quartet is fine, for example.

As for Steve Reich, he is still working on a lot of the concepts he started out with (tape loops, voice melody, etc.), but his style has evolved noticeably. With Glass, from the eighties and onwards, I have hard time putting a date to his work, as it all sounds rather alike (there are exceptions, of course). Reich's "Three Tales" of "Different Trains" is a far cry from his phase shifting days in the sixties and seventies.

On the other hand, I hear Glass' 2008 "Songs and Poems for Solo Cello" is great.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

In one of those instances of coincidence, Radio 3 has happened to choose Philip Glass as the Composer of the Week for next week. The last one of these I listened to was the Steve Reich episodes. I find them more interesting when the composer is alive, so can be interviewed by Macleod.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d7b7p



> One of the most influential - and controversial - composers of our time...exclusively in conversation with Donald Macleod.
> 
> This year, Philip Glass turned 75. His music has captured the popular imagination - and come to soundtrack our lives - in a way almost unthinkable for a contemporary composer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

I didn't rate him before, but lately I've been listening _Music with Changing Parts_ and I'm unbelievable amazed. Just pure addiction, 4-5 listens per day, hypnotic.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'm seeing him play live in Glasgow next month. I also might catch the day with Kronos performing as well. Absolutely cannot wait. Apparently he is going to premiere something or other.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I enjoy Philip Glass like I enjoy a cup of milk pearl tea. 

When there's an occasion for it, I drink, but it's not something you drink everyday, and life is too short to drink it often. 

His music is enjoyable; it's not viscerally terrible in the least, however, that sets the bar very low and is damning with faint praise. 

His music is, relatively speaking, awful, anesthetic, and aesthetics, as an old TC user use to say. 

So I appreciate him, but my appreciation is quite low.

I'd rather, and I do, listen to Beach House than Glass.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

One word to describe Glass. Repetitive.


----------



## Ellyll (Apr 7, 2012)

Hopefully this does not come off too over the top:

It's meditative melodic composition, imo.

I know that does not "mean" anything outside of what I am trying to say about it, that is how I think of it.

If you are comparing it to western classical composition based on the merits of western classical composition you are bound to be disappointed.

It has the ability to alter mood, awareness, and sensibilities with out need for cognition. It is a sort of aural hypnotic drug for me. And it does not leave a hangover. 

I think this is one of the reasons it goes so well with visual arts - It has the ability to affect your reaction to other works without overwhelming your attention.

Perhaps I will make a composition to show you what I mean at some point, but I would need to get some suitable visual material together.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I see your point. I prefer Debussy, Faure, Satie, and Ravel for meditation. And electronic music I also enjoy for that reason. I won't mention the bands name but people here know who I am talking about. lol The Moog synthesizer is great for this.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> One word to describe Glass. Repetitive.


Not so much anymore. Compare "Einstein on the Beach" with "Kepler."

One word to describe neoshredder. Conservative.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Not so much anymore. Compare "Einstein on the Beach" with "Kepler."
> 
> One word to describe neoshredder. Conservative.


Quit being arrogant.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> i see your point. I prefer debussy, faure, satie, and ravel for meditation. And electronic music i also enjoy for that reason. I won't mention the bands name but people here know who i am talking about. Lol the moog synthesizer is great for this.


Tangerine Dream!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Don't say that word. It is forbidden on here.  I don't do drugs but I imagine the best band to do drugs to would be them.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

or Philip Glass. Seriously can't wait to see him.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

Yeah, that would be pretty awesome to see him live though, especially with the Kronos Quartet.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> or Philip Glass. Seriously can't wait to see him.


Got a point there. Seeing a famous composer live would be a thrill seeker.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Just to hear the beauty of his music in a live setting is majestic enough to fulfill my life.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Maybe the music of Glass will one day grow on me, but for now most of it I don't like. Its not just the repetitive nature of it, its the aesthetic. I'm not sure how best to describe, but you hear alot of similar music in car commercials (maybe they use Glass?). Its just this really smooth, shiny, sleek iPod sounding music (sounding like how an iPod looks, if that makes any sense), and that aesthetic doesn't appeal to me. Of his music I like some of his early works that have more bite to them, and I somewhat like his piano etudes, but thats mostly because they sort of sound like Chopin, and I love Chopin XD


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

From the works of Glass that I've heard, to me he has a great sense of melody. What I find is that his works can contain quite rich and memorable themes. The frustrating thing is that often his harmonies seem too simple, too stationary -- i.e. not going anywhere to allow his repetitions of melody and rhythm to 'make sense'.

Probably some of his best works can be found in the quartets -- these are really great. I like what he did with the Harpsichord concerto as well.

What I have found interesting is his move towards these massive (almost maximalist) symphonies in recent years, in which he's effectively writing in a sort of retro-romantic way. He seems to me to be a fine orchestrator too.

The 2nd movement of his 9th symphony is, for me, completely engaging and in places, absolutely beautiful.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Oops, just noticed this is a rotting zombie.  

Oh well, now that I am here. On a trip to a suburban shopping mall some years back, I turned on the classical station and heard music that sounded like really bad prog rock, but with classically trained singers. Mystified, I regretted that I would probably never know what it was or why the station was airing it, as I had some shopping to do. I needn't have worried! On returning to the car and starting it up, the mysterious and really annoying sounds were still oozing from the radio. Turns out it was The Fall of the House of Usher by guess who?

Just seeing the man's name in the soundtrack credits of a movie is sometimes enough to set me scrambling for a different DVD.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

The cool thing about this music-listening hobby is that nothing enjoyed will sour your punch... in fact, it'll sweeten it if done with an open periphery. 

I quite enjoy Glass when in the mood for something less intellectually involved. The problem is - I think many still listen with a subconscious bent on how it will "appear" to others that they're actually enjoying something so simple. "You must be stupid!" Haha

Trust me, I enjoy the intellectual twisty-turns as much as the next guy. But when I'm in the mood for something of the more obvious simplicity, I can enjoy some Glass. Dig it or don't, and forget about it.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Just seeing the man's name in the soundtrack credits of a movie is sometimes enough to set me scrambling for a different DVD.


Hope you didn't follow through with that re: _The Hours_.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Just seeing the man's name in the soundtrack credits of a movie is sometimes enough to set me scrambling for a different DVD.


Haha--I've heard that reaction before! However, I like his film music--most especially Dracula. For anyone interested, here's Tod Browning's Dracula (1931), with the Kronos Quartet playing Glass' score.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> Hope you didn't follow through with that re: _The Hours_.


Damn it! I just bought a used VHS of that movie, which I haven't yet seen. The local thrift store has a clearance going on, 5 for a dollar. In my greedy haste, I didn't read the credits minutia. Oh well, maybe that is grounds for a defective tape return and I can recover my $.20


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Damn it! I just bought a used VHS of that movie, which I haven't yet seen. The local thrift store has a clearance going on, 5 for a dollar. In my greedy haste, I didn't read the credits minutia.


That could end up being the best $0.20 you'll spend!

And then you could give _Mishima_ a chance. He wrote some nice music for that too, and re-used the material in his 3rd quartet. :tiphat:


----------

