# What is the point of Minimalist music?



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Figured it was worth a shot.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2017)

Only when you have arrived at a consensus on "what is the point of music" should we really bother asking this question of subcategories. Until then, I'll take a shot and guess that the point of minimalist music is the same as the point of other music.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

What is the point of existing on planet earth? next?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Figured it was worth a shot.


Still trying to found out, not very fanatic I must add.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

It is intended to signal that all of the good music has been written and it is time for our galactic overlords to exterminate the human race.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

To help some hungry composers find food.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

*What is the point of Minimalist music?*

Depends on what you are going to call Minimalist, I have never asked "what is the point" but it is surprising what you can leave out of music and still find enjoyment in it. Do you call Parts "Alina" minimal ?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Doing more and more with less and less and less until you are doing everything with nothing.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

Becca said:


> Doing more and more with less and less and less until you are doing everything with nothing.


Not everything is linear. I think you reach an asymptote at some point.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It is indeed not linear but the whole point of asymptotes is that you get closer and closer but *never* reach the end point


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Perhaps one point/function of minimalism is to cultivate a state of mindfulness in the listener, by training the ear to be attentive to every tiny shift in the music. This level of awareness could perhaps teach people to be fully present in the moment. I'm not sure about this, though...I don't have much firsthand experience with listening to minimalist music. I get bored and restless every time I try (although maybe repeated exposure to minimalism could help cure this??)


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Bettina said:


> Perhaps one point/function of minimalism is to cultivate a state of mindfulness in the listener, by training the ear to be attentive to every tiny shift in the music. This level of awareness could perhaps teach people to be fully present in the moment. I'm not sure about this, though...I don't have much firsthand experience with listening to minimalist music. I get bored and restless every time I try (although maybe repeated exposure to minimalism could help cure this??)


I've mentioned this in other threads, but it goes directly to your post, so forgive any repitition. Morton Feldman's "Piano and String Quartet" has that exact effect on me. When I'm in the proper frame of mind to engage with it, I find I can reach a state as close to meditation as I have ever achieved.

I have a few albums by Steve Reich which I definitely enjoy from time to time. I've also mentioned "In C in Bali" as my favorite purchase of 2016, though I suspect very few people would describe that particular recording as minimalist. And minimalism - Adams, Glass, Part - has often attracted choreographers. Just one example - Jerome Robbins' "Glass Pieces" is one of New York City Ballet's perennial crowd pleasers.

Edit - Brain fart - in C in Mali


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

To bore people like me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> It is indeed not linear but the whole point of asymptotes is that you get closer and closer but *never* reach the end point


Darn. I was looking forward to that end point.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

To make a point repeatedly many times over.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I like the repetitive kind, not the "a few plinks and ploinks here and there" kind.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Figured it was worth a shot.


it's easy, a lot of classical music before minimalism had the cult of variation. You had to change in order to be interesting, and that arrived to an end with the twelve tone music of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez etc. Repetition was seen as simply boring and something to avoid. Minimalists said that this was just another religion, and that repetition can be interesting as a variation (for instance inducing a trance). 
Both are extremes of the same coin. Personally I accept both variations and repetition, and the quality of the music is not necessarily tied to the fact that I'm listening to repetitious notes or not.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Entertainment and expression. The same as all music. If it's not for entertainment or expression, it's not music, just a "sound experiment." Can we stop these threads now?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> Entertainment and expression. The same as all music. If it's not for entertainment or expression, it's not music, just a "sound experiment." Can we stop these threads now?


Not yet, what is the point of entertainment or expression?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

The point of minimalism?
Well ... if you want to be a composer, and you have absolutely no musical ideas ... then, there's minimalism to allow you to fulfill your career interest!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mathisdermaler said:


> Entertainment and expression. The same as all music. If it's not for entertainment or expression, it's not music, just a "sound experiment." Can we stop these threads now?


Of course, why can't a "sound experiment" be music? I would suggest that many an avant-garde composer has created "sound experiments" not to entertain an audience or to express him/herself in any particular way. But rather to explore possibilities -- the possibilities of organized (even if randomly chosen organization) sound as music.

Music need not entertain. It may help soothe one's emotional state. I certainly don't find funeral home organ music entertaining; but as a curtain of soothing sound it helps ease tension, perhaps a bit, and perhaps for some folks more than others -- maybe better than pure silence in a funeral home, or better than a Beethoven symphony or a Rolling Stones' album!

As for expression .... Many of us in the arts would suggest that art (including music) is an expression of one's self. It's more difficult to say how music expresses a self. One can begin to talk about emotions, feelings, or intellectual constructs (some music seems more intellectual as a construction than emotional), but a film music composer works to find expression for a scene rather than his or her own intellectual or emotional states. Experiments have shown how changing the incidental music to a scene can change the audience's perceptions of the meaning of the scene.

Too, I wonder what old Bach was trying to express when he penned his Art of Fugue. Much here seems to me an experiment ... a sound experiment. One that is highly intellectual. Yet, somehow, magically, it is all very emotionally expressive. But music is like that. It's multi-dimensional and not so easy to pin down.

But if one has few musical ideas of themes and rhythms and orchestral colors, one might adopt the minimalist mode to repetitively hammer out a C-major scale ... I suppose.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> The point of minimalism?
> Well ... if you want to be a composer, and you have absolutely no musical ideas ... then, there's minimalism to allow you to fulfill your career interest!


Reminds me of a silly play I once saw about two derelict guys kvetching next to a tree, expecting someone who never even shows up.

And by the way . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neither_(opera)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

jegreenwood said:


> Reminds me of a silly play I once saw about two derelict guys kvetching next to a tree, expecting someone who never even shows up.


We are waiting for the title of that play . . .


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Bettina said:


> Perhaps one point/function of minimalism is to cultivate a state of mindfulness in the listener, by training the ear to be attentive to every tiny shift in the music. This level of awareness could perhaps teach people to be fully present in the moment.


This seems right, if it must have a point.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Not yet, what is the point of entertainment or expression?


I would say pleasure and relaxation.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Perhaps the point of minimalist music is to be pointless.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, why can't a "sound experiment" be music? I would suggest that many an avant-garde composer has created "sound experiments" not to entertain an audience or to express him/herself in any particular way. But rather to explore possibilities -- the possibilities of organized (even if randomly chosen organization) sound as music.
> 
> A sound experiment can be music. I would argue that all music is also sound experiment, but not all sound experiments are music. Yes, many avant-garde composers have done this, and I don't consider it music. The best example I know of is a piece I once saw on YouTube by an avant-garde artist which was simply 100 metronomes playing at once. It sounded very cool, but all the pleasure derived from the piece was because it was interesting to hear how it sounded (I can't quite express this precisely, but a sort of pleasure that you get from solving a mystery, in this case the mystery was "how would 100 metronomes playing in unison sound?") and because it was relaxing, like the sound of rain, neither of these aspects have anything to do with musical enjoyment.
> 
> ...


ddddddddddddddddddd


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

I want to refine my argument. For a set of sounds to be music, it has to be musically enjoyable. I define "musically enjoyable" simply as having at least rhythm and probably melody. In this case I define rhythm as a changing or repeating of tones within a reasonable amount of time, including at least two distinct intervals of time (meaning that John Cage piece which is a constant tone that changes every 50 years doesn't count, and a tone that repeats so many times every second so it sounds like a constant tone is not either). By "at least two distinct intervals of time," I mean the set of sounds has to be something like "note, rest, note, rest rest, note, rest, note, rest" and not just "note, rest, note, rest, note, rest," ad infinitum. Obviously this rules out something like a fire siren or a metronome. In this case I define melody as a perceivable changing of tones within a reasonable amount of time. 

Obviously all minimalist music (that I've heard) fits this criterion, as does all the atonal music I've heard. To be honest, I think most people have much higher standards for what is and isn't music than I do. :lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> Reminds me of a silly play I once saw about two derelict guys kvetching next to a tree, expecting someone who never even shows up.


Nothing to be done, with folks like you critiquing drama.
Well, shall we go? Yes, let's go.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

nathanb said:


> Only when you have arrived at a consensus on "what is the point of music" should we really bother asking this question of subcategories. Until then, I'll take a shot and guess that the point of minimalist music is the same as the point of other music.


exactly

I would ad that the point of music may well just be keeping our mind of other pointless activities. I think the more passionate and hard-headed debaters here on T.C. should remember now and then that all music (from the silliest pop-music to Beethovens' string quartets) is actually just a way of passing our time in an absolutely pointless way.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mathisdermaler said:


> I want to refine my argument. For a set of sounds to be music, it has to be musically enjoyable. I define "musically enjoyable" simply as having at least rhythm and probably melody.


You seem to have a narrow definition here, and one that is impractical. Whom, we might ask, has to enjoy the "set of sounds" in order for it to qualify as music? I have much music in my collection that I don't really enjoy -- symphonies, quartets, songs, jazz pieces. Does that mean it is no longer music? In fact, I have in my collection almost all of Hindemith's music that is currently recorded. I enjoy much of it, especially the _Mathis Der Maler _Symphonie, but there are a few pieces I don't especially enjoy. Does that mean some of Hindemith's music is not "music"?



mathisdermaler said:


> In this case I define rhythm as a changing or repeating of tones within a reasonable amount of time, including at least two distinct intervals of time (meaning that John Cage piece which is a constant tone that changes every 50 years doesn't count, and a tone that repeats so many times every second so it sounds like a constant tone is not either). By "at least two distinct intervals of time," I mean the set of sounds has to be something like "note, rest, note, rest rest, note, rest, note, rest" and not just "note, rest, note, rest, note, rest," ad infinitum. Obviously this rules out something like a fire siren or a metronome.


Of course there is much music written without regular rhythms. Some of it without time signatures or bar lines. Such music flows or wafts along, and some of it is enjoyable, to me. And I wonder what Stravinsky would have thought about your term "a reasonable amount of time" when it comes to changing or repeating tones. Let alone time signatures. Take a look at the score of _Rite of Spring_ sometime. Old as it is, it still boggles rhythmic sensibilities. But it is certainly great music.



mathisdermaler said:


> In this case I define melody as a perceivable changing of tones within a reasonable amount of time.


Which makes me wonder .... If I plunk two keys on a piano, C, then D, say, within a reasonable amount of time, over and over, and over and over .... am I producing music? Or is it music only if I enjoy it? I probably won't enjoy it. But, it is minimalistic. Heck ... forget that D. Let's tune to a quartertone above C. That's change, but less change. Better minimalism, perhaps.



mathisdermaler said:


> Obviously all minimalist music (that I've heard) fits this criterion, as does all the atonal music I've heard. To be honest, I think most people have much higher standards for what is and isn't music than I do. :lol:


My own definition of music is something more akin to music being "organized sound". I say organized in the sense that a human mind chooses a path, even one of aleatory or chance happenings. Conversely, animals don't produce music. Birds may tweet and sing, but it is perceived as music only to humans who will assign it as such. The most wonderful thing about music (and art in general) is that it defines humanness, because only humans can produce art (or assign something to be art). Spiders create ornate webs, but it is never art. It is a programmed DNA calling that allows the spider to produce exactly the same web every time. Yet, a painter might create a web-like structure on canvas, and it is art. Whether you like it or not.

My first drama instructor defined art in a wonderful way, till cogent to me some sixty years past. Art is useless (in the utilitarian sense) but not valueless (in the human sense). We don't need music to live. Deaf people do without it. We don't need paintings to enjoy life. The blind get on without seeing it. But it seems that the lives of all, especially perhaps the blind and the deaf, are improved by having art in our world. It is a primal marking point that separates the non-human from the human.

Which is why I long featured cave paintings on the walls of my classrooms, whatever I taught, wherever I taught. That bison painting was useless. It did not provide food to the cave dwellers of prehistoric Lascaux, France. Or shelter or warmth. But it wasn't valueless. It marked their generation, the generation who made the paintings, as finally human in the sense we are human and not mere animals today.

And music is much the same for making us human. And it's great to be human. Isn't it?


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> You seem to have a narrow definition here, and one that is impractical. Whom, we might ask, has to enjoy the "set of sounds" in order for it to qualify as music? I have much music in my collection that I don't really enjoy -- symphonies, quartets, songs, jazz pieces. Does that mean it is no longer music? In fact, I have in my collection almost all of Hindemith's music that is currently recorded. I enjoy much of it, especially the _Mathis Der Maler _Symphonie, but there are a few pieces I don't especially enjoy. Does that mean some of Hindemith's music is not "music"?
> 
> *By musically enjoyable I don't mean that anyone enjoys it, but I mean that someone is capable of enjoying it on a musical level. As I said in the first post, I don't think that music I don't like is not music.
> *
> ...


Frankly, music is defined by melody and rhythm, and I think everyone who rejects that idea secretly understands that (not that saying that is a valid argument, its just my suspicion...). Even the most atonal music in the world is enjoyable for the sole factor that it always has at least a smattering of rhythm and melody, so long as it has multiple tones that change within a reasonable amount of time. I don't know if I could call a bird tweet music, I find it hard to argue against your position that music is art and thus inherently human, but I'm certain I would classify a bird tweet as music before I classify a metronome as such.


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

The point of minimalism is to be strange enough that someone will wonder what its point is and make a thread about it.


----------



## Naughtilus (Apr 19, 2017)

IMO it's not just music, but all aesthetics after WWI&II are driven by postmodernist ideology. It was deemed needed to detach from old eurocentric ordinate traditions and values that despite all self-glorification and racial supremacy resulted in two devastating inhumane wars. The follow up generations wanted to cleanse their minds from culture driven conflict and meld into something universal, abstract, simple, existential and global. 
Kenzo Tange's brutalist architecture, Karlheinz Stockhausen's punktuell musik, an expanding psychodelic drugs culture among artists and academics, electronic instruments and computer H/S development etc. Non-intellectual classes went harder in this rebellion by popularizing 'black music', massive drug usage, promiscuity, guitar distortion etc. But they were still attached to the avant-garde. Beatles connection to Stockhausen for example. The new musical genre electronica stemmed both from contemporary classical and experimental music and gay/transgender clubbing music. Everything more or less interweaves.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mathisdermaler said:


> Frankly, *music is defined by melody and rhythm*, and I think everyone who rejects that idea secretly understands that (not that saying that is a valid argument, its just my suspicion...). Even the most atonal music in the world is enjoyable for the sole factor that it always has at least a smattering of rhythm and melody, so long as it has multiple tones that change within a reasonable amount of time. I don't know if I could call a bird tweet music, I find it hard to argue against your position that music is art and thus inherently human, but I'm certain I would classify a bird tweet as music before I classify a metronome as such.


Just one question here, please clarify: Does melody, in your conception of the term, _depend_ upon rhythm, or is it a separate entity from rhythm?


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> Just one question here, please clarify: Does melody, in your conception of the term, _depend_ upon rhythm, or is it a separate entity from rhythm?


Yes, in my conception in this context, melody necessitates rhythm, because melody necessitates a changing of notes which already fulfills my definition of rhythm.

I looked up rhythm to see how people define it, and everyone says something along the lines of "a regular, recurring pattern of beat." I was not using this definition. I was using my own definition of "a changing of or repeating of notes in sound within a reasonable amount of time," which is not really what rhythm means. I should have been more specific and not redefined words. Also, I will concede that music doesn't need melody to be music, only "rhythm" in my inaccurate conception of the word, but I think music without melody is invariably unbearably boring (and most would agree).

I want to thank you for arguing with me. You helped me refine my opinion. I don't think this conversation made me think any "set of sounds" that I thought wasn't music before is music, but now I can better explain why.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> Yes, in my conception in this context, melody necessitates rhythm.
> 
> I looked up rhythm to see how people define it, and everyone says something along the lines of "a regular, recurring pattern of beat." I was not using this definition. I was using my own definition of "a changing of notes in sound within a reasonable amount of time." I should have been more specific and not redefined words. Also, I will concede that music doesn't need melody to be music, only rhythm, but I think music without melody is unbearably boring (and most would agree).
> 
> I want to thank you for arguing with me. You helped me refine my opinion.


Agree with you on all except the without melody, music is unbearably boring. I find some music very interesting without melody.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with you on all except the without melody, music is unbearably boring. I find some music very interesting without melody.


I would love to know what music that is!


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

mathisdermaler said:


> but I think music without melody is invariably unbearably boring (and most would agree).


You wouldn't like Medieval music, Renaissance music or baroque music then :lol: when the melody is indistinguishable, even in Bach (after the first ten seconds)


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> You wouldn't like Medieval music, Renaissance music or baroque music then :lol: when the melody is indistinguishable, even in Bach (after the first ten seconds)


As I respond to your comment, I am listening to Missa Papae Marcelli. Earlier I was listening to the Mass in B minor. I assume you're being sarcastic, because this music is clearly melodic (just very polyphonic).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> I would love to know what music that is!


Varese's Hyperprism. Xenakis' pleiades. Stockhausen's Kontakte. Even Reich's Clapping Hands.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Varese's Hyperprism. Xenakis' pleiades. Stockhausen's Kontakte. Even Reich's Clapping Hands.


I only know Xenakis' Pleiades. It is a great piece, it is also a melodic piece. I don't agree with the idea that drum music has no melody - it has lots of melody. All of these guys are playing on different sized drums which produce different musical tones. It is not all the same tone, it is organized, so it is melodic.

http://www.themelodicdrummer.com/haredrums/2015/2/9/the-drum-set-as-melody-instrument

EDIT:

I listened to Reich's Clapping Music. I think I will go back to Music for 18 Musicians.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> I only know Xenakis' Pleiades. It is a great piece, it is also a melodic piece. I don't agree with the idea that drum music has no melody - it has lots of melody. All of these guys are playing on different sized drums which produce different musical tones. It is not all the same tone, it is organized, so it is melodic.
> 
> http://www.themelodicdrummer.com/haredrums/2015/2/9/the-drum-set-as-melody-instrument


You're right, that it definitely has some tone, but it is more the sound than the interaction of the tones as in melody.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> You're right, that it definitely has some tone, but it is more the sound than the interaction of the tones as in melody.


Yes, it is more focused on rhythm than melody, but it is the melody that keeps it interesting.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> Yes, it is more focused on rhythm than melody, but it is the melody that keeps it interesting.


It is not melody  but different pitches in sound only.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Melody: definition: a sequence of single *notes* that is musically satisfying.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> It is not melody  but different pitches in sound only.


From Wikipedia (not a reliable source, I know, but it expresses the general consensus on most things very adequately):

"In its most literal sense, a melody is a combination of pitch and rhythm"

Isn't rhythm + different pitches in sound exactly melody?


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Melody: definition: a sequence of single *notes* that is musically satisfying.


Are you saying that because the pitches of these instruments are not part of the 12 classic Western tones (A-G#) they are not notes? Pretty eurocentric If I do say so myself (joking).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> Are you saying that because the pitches of these instruments are not part of the 12 classic Western tones (A-G#) they are not notes? Pretty eurocentric If I do say so myself (joking).


No, they are not notes.  At least, more importantly, they are not treated as notes or tones, as Varese once said, but sounds.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with you on all except the without melody, music is unbearably boring. I find some music very interesting without melody.





mathisdermaler said:


> I would love to know what music that is!





Phil loves classical said:


> Varese's Hyperprism. Xenakis' pleiades. Stockhausen's Kontakte. Even Reich's Clapping Hands.


And an awful lot of African drumming. Or Brent Lewis!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mathisdermaler said:


> From Wikipedia (not a reliable source, I know, but it expresses the general consensus on most things very adequately):
> 
> *"In its most literal sense, a melody is a combination of pitch and rhythm"*
> 
> Isn't rhythm + different pitches in sound exactly melody?


I like that definition of melody. A verticle row of pitches is a chord, whether dissonant or consonant. A melody is a horizontal progression of pitches, or even of a single pitch (as in, say, Jobim's classic song "One Note Samba"). That progression is marked by a certain rhythmic setting. A single pitch held is likely not a melody (though I'm not entirely certain I would discount it in specific situations -- I listen to a great deal of music, much avant-garde stuff in which rules are always changing). A melody depends upon the timing and spacing of the horizontal progression of notes. It can be simple, as in "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star," or complex, as in Xenakis's "Metastasis". A melody may be easily hummable, or not.

What I often wonder about is if a melody need be a single linear progression of pitches and rhythms. Or can it involve horizontal happenings of pitches just as well. Harmony (horizontal pitches) determines much about the sense one derives from a melody. So much so in some cases that the same horizontal progression of pitches will seem different with different harmonies.

Even moreso, though ... in a case such as Penderecki's "Threnody". Is the melody simply a linear horizontal progression of pitches, or does it involve more complex vertical pilings added to the horizontal progression. Can one say in the Penderecki piece that note A is the melody note and not notes B or C or D that are piled horizontally along with A? Or in those cluster passages is the entire cluster, as it moves forward horizontally, all part of the single melody?

I don't believe simple definitions often define all aspects of art. One of the reasons I enjoy music (and arts) so much is that so much of it is ineffable.

Which is also the reason I have never been a great fan of mathematics. Math is too well defined. I prefer philosophy where the "truth" is not an exact thing, as is the answer to 1 plus 1. Yet I see a beauty in the frigidity of math. Take, for example, the Pythagorean theorem. The power and beauty of that concept is that everyone thinking of it has exactly the same notion in mind. That is a profound thing. It is certainly not like the notions different people will have of concepts such as "love" or "justice" or "beautiful melody". The most powerful thing about music and art is that every single person will conceive of it in a unique and individual way, not in the single mass mentality of the Pythagorean theorem.

So, some may argue that Penderecki's "Threnody" has no melody. I beg to differ. It is impossible to say either of us is right, or wrong. That is the power of art. And it is a difficult power, not a simple one.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

One of my student friends listened to a piece by Feldman and concluded that: "the piece didn't get anywhere", meaning that it ended where it started without journey. I responded by saying: "that was the whole point of minimalism, that is starts at point A and ends at point A without a journey".


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Arvo Parts "Spiegel im Spiegel' do you class this as minimalist? Part calls it 'Tinntinabular' I think it is the same thing
It is beautiful music IMO


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> One of my student friends listened to a piece by Feldman and concluded that: "the piece didn't get anywhere", meaning that it ended where it started without journey. I responded by saying: "that was the whole point of minimalism, that is starts at point A and ends at point A without a journey".


Watching paint dry can be a fascinating thing, but only for very special paints.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> One of my student friends listened to a piece by Feldman and concluded that: "the piece didn't get anywhere", meaning that it ended where it started without journey. I responded by saying: "that was the whole point of minimalism, that is starts at point A and ends at point A without a journey".


You keep calling Feldman minimalist...while I would like that term to be applied to Cage and Feldman rather than to Reich and Glass, you'll find that when someone talks about minimalism in classical music they generally aren't thinking about Feldman.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> One of my student friends listened to a piece by Feldman and concluded that: "the piece didn't get anywhere", meaning that it ended where it started without journey. I responded by saying: "that was the whole point of minimalism, that is starts at point A and ends at point A without a journey".


Feldman isn't a minimalist, he doesn't compose music manipulating polytythmns and repeated patterns at all


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Feldman isn't a minimalist, he doesn't compose music manipulating polytythmns and repeated patterns at all


I was the first person to bring Feldman into the discussion, and I agree there are differences between what Feldman does and what Reich and Glass do. But Feldman is often described as a minimalist (by critics and others), sometimes even as the "true minimalist" compared with Reich, Glass etc. The term has different meanings for different people. As for repeated patterns, I would argue that a basic musical pattern that is yet ever changing is the essence of Piano and String Quartet, the work I referred to.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I find minimalism--especially Glass' music--to be particularly effective in film and TV.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> I like that definition of melody. A verticle row of pitches is a chord, whether dissonant or consonant. A melody is a horizontal progression of pitches, or even of a single pitch (as in, say, Jobim's classic song "One Note Samba"). That progression is marked by a certain rhythmic setting. A single pitch held is likely not a melody (though I'm not entirely certain I would discount it in specific situations -- I listen to a great deal of music, much avant-garde stuff in which rules are always changing). A melody depends upon the timing and spacing of the horizontal progression of notes. It can be simple, as in "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star," or complex, as in Xenakis's "Metastasis". A melody may be easily hummable, or not.
> 
> What I often wonder about is if a melody need be a single linear progression of pitches and rhythms. Or can it involve horizontal happenings of pitches just as well. Harmony (horizontal pitches) determines much about the sense one derives from a melody. So much so in some cases that the same horizontal progression of pitches will seem different with different harmonies.
> 
> ...


No, Penderecki's Threnody has no melody, and no rhythm. It is the original Wall of Sound, more fitting to that description than to Phil Spector's.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Naughtilus said:


> IMO it's not just music, but all aesthetics after WWI&II are driven by postmodernist ideology. It was deemed needed to detach from old eurocentric ordinate traditions and values that despite all self-glorification and racial supremacy resulted in two devastating inhumane wars. The follow up generations wanted to cleanse their minds from culture driven conflict and meld into something universal, abstract, simple, existential and global.
> Kenzo Tange's brutalist architecture, Karlheinz Stockhausen's punktuell musik, an expanding psychodelic drugs culture among artists and academics, electronic instruments and computer H/S development etc. Non-intellectual classes went harder in this rebellion by popularizing 'black music', massive drug usage, promiscuity, guitar distortion etc. But they were still attached to the avant-garde. Beatles connection to Stockhausen for example. The new musical genre electronica stemmed both from contemporary classical and experimental music and gay/transgender clubbing music. Everything more or less interweaves.


 but minimalism, brutalism or stockhausen weren't not examples of postmodernism at all.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

African drumming is melodic, lol.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> One of my student friends listened to a piece by Feldman and concluded that: "the piece didn't get anywhere", meaning that it ended where it started without journey. I responded by saying: "that was the whole point of minimalism, that is starts at point A and ends at point A without a journey".


 I'm not sure if you say that as an insult or as a qualitative statement, either way I disagree. Philip Glass's Einstein on the Beach, my favorite minimalist work, is an epic journey, just a slow one.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

mathisdermaler said:


> African drumming is melodic, lol.


Like this?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

jegreenwood said:


> Like this?


Like this:


----------

