# What do you think of spiritual minimalism?



## Perotin

I have somewhat mixed feelings about it. I have no doubts about profane minimalism like that of Glass, Nyman, Adams nad so on, I find it trivial, annoying and unworthy of being labeled as classical music. But with sacred minimalism, it seems different, at first it makes strong impression as if there was some spiritual depth in it. But after listening to it a couple of times it is also beginning to appear increasingly trivial and boring. This is especially true of Gorecki's 3rd symphony, with Pärt, I am reluctant to overlisten to his music for fear of getting fed up with it. So, what do you make of composers like Pärt, Gorecki, Korndorf, Knaifel?


----------



## GreenMamba

"Holy minimalism" is the term I often hear. I like a good bit of it (mostly Arvo Part), and it does seem to hearken back to early religious music. I also like Glass, Adams, Reich, et. al., however. None of it is my favorite, but I like it.


----------



## brotagonist

Some of Reich's music is interesting for a few listens, although not enough to buy any, but the minimalism of Glass, Nyman, Pärt et al. leaves me feeling that it is "trivial... and unworthy of being labelled as classical music."

I recently found a used copy of Rautavaara's _Symphony 7_, which could be called spiritual minimalism, I suppose, due to the angelic theme. Some of the movements have a bit more action, so I am willing to give it a chance, but in all honesty, I don't feel much different about it than about the aforementioned.


----------



## GGluek

Since I am minimally spiritual, I'm uncertain.


----------



## nightscape

Perotin said:


> ...This is especially true of Gorecki's 3rd symphony...


First thing I thought of when I read the title of the thread.


----------



## Guest

I view it as a perfectly valid and reasonable stylistic choice. Maybe not my favorite but more enjoyable than some other musical styles. I don't find it particularly profound, but I'm not looking for profundity in music.

In today's era of eclecticism, composers can freely draw from all prior western and non-western musical traditions, mix-and-match if they want, and/or attempt to create their own sound. As long as their works don't sound too much like a film soundtrack eek: !!! the horror !!! ) we can respect their music.


----------



## david johnson

I see minimalism as only a tool composers can use. Some are adept at generating a spiritual soundscape with it and some don't tend to even think in that direction.


----------



## quack

Perotin said:


> I have somewhat mixed feelings about it. I have no doubts about profane minimalism like that of Glass, Nyman, Adams nad so on, I find it trivial, annoying and unworthy of being labeled as classical music. But with sacred minimalism, it seems different, at first it makes strong impression as if there was some spiritual depth in it. But after listening to it a couple of times it is also beginning to appear increasingly trivial and boring. This is especially true of Gorecki's 3rd symphony, with Pärt, I am reluctant to overlisten to his music for fear of getting fed up with it. So, what do you make of composers like Pärt, Gorecki, Korndorf, Knaifel?


It's interesting you outright find minimalism unworthy of being called classical but that you like holy minimalism. Are you simply applying different standards to the two, judging some minimalism on the extra-musical idea of it's supposed spirituality? I personally think there is potentially a spiritual aspect to any music and isn't confined to music labelled 'requiem' or similar. People are usually searching for something through music and that can be found through crunching guitars just as much as through appeals to a god.

I like aspects of both kinds of minimalism, sometimes the repetativeness can be simply annoying othertimes it can be very lulling and relaxing, bringing to mind natural things like waves on the shore, then again it can also be very driving and dramatic. On the other hand a lot of the minimalism with an explicit spirituality may be immediately attractive with its simplicity but hardly takes any listening to reveal that it is a false depth, an attempt at profundity that really doesn't tell you anything. John Tavener had this effect on me, his works are very pretty and can appeal instantly, they almost as quickly lost that appeal and sounded like new-age music. Even Gorecki's 3rd has an obvious heart-string pulling quality about it and despite its beauty I tend to feel more manipulated by it every time I listen to it.

The plainer, less affected minimalism of Reich, Adams and Glass, that doesn't attempt to impose a spiritual dimension holds an increasing interest. Not that these too don't hold a spiritual depth but they seem less likely to choke the music with sentiment.


----------



## GiulioCesare

I like the "secular" minimalism of Glass, Riley, Young and especially Nyman, Reich and Adams much better than the holy minimalism of Tavener or Pärt (who I despise as a composer). 

I do think minimalism is often unfairly labeled as unworthy and simplistic. It might be wishful thinking, but I think in 100, 200 years' time, minimalism will be as intimately linked with postmodernism as serialism is with modernism. In both cases, people will say "yes, there was other stuff going on, of course, but that is the main style of that time". And that is good, because goodness knows I can't stand most of the non-minimalistic postmodern music.


----------



## ptr

I find most SM harmless on the verge of tiresome (Someone mentioned Gorecki's Third, what a sleeping pill!), I find slightly more food for the ear in some Secular Minimalism, I'm amazed that a work like Glass' "Voices" have not yet been committed to a commercial recording!

/ptr


----------



## Guest

quack said:


> It's interesting you outright find minimalism unworthy of being called classical but that you like holy minimalism. Are you simply applying different standards to the two, judging some minimalism on the extra-musical idea of it's supposed spirituality? I personally think there is potentially a spiritual aspect to any music and isn't confined to music labelled 'requiem' or similar. People are usually searching for something through music and that can be found through crunching guitars just as much as through appeals to a god.


Hear! Hear!

Of course, it does depend entirely on who's crunching the guitars: Marr, no thanks, Greenwood, yes please! I get plenty spiritual from Radiohead.


----------



## Jobis

I find it a little dull and an easy way to avoid having to create something complex. 

I'd rather hear spiritual maximalism like Saint Francois on crack.


----------



## Yardrax

I think 'spiritual minimalism' is a misleading name. I haven't heard any obvious evidence of the use of the kind of additive processes, phasing or augmentation that were characteristic techniques of 60's minimalism. I also know for a fact that Arvo Part refers to his own work as 'Tintinnabular' music and makes no reference that I know of to the work of Reich or Glass.


----------



## Geo Dude

Spiritual minimalism? Given that I'm as irreligious as a stone I am quite fond of the idea.


----------



## Selby

I enjoy both minimalism and "spiritual" minimalism.


----------



## Celloman

I'm not even really sure what "spiritual minimalism" means. What makes one kind of minimalism more or less "spiritual" than the other? 

But yes, I got into Arvo Part a few years ago and have been listening to him ever since. His choral works are excellent, ie., _Magnificat, The Beatitudes, De Profundis_, etc. My favorite piece by him is probably the _Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten_, it's sad and lovely. Also the Stabat Mater. Good stuff, and I'm always in the mood to listen to it. I can't even say that about Beethoven sometimes!


----------



## Selby

Arvo Part has probably written the best sacred music of the past few decades. the Berliner Messe and Te Deum will stand the test of time.


----------



## Garlic

Is Terry Riley considered spiritual minimalism? I love his work. Don't know much about other stuff. I need to listen to Gorecki's 3rd again to form a proper opinion.


----------



## Selby

I've had a conflicted relationship with Gorecki's 3rd since I first heard it. If you'll allow a suggestion, if it is the Upshaw/Zinman you struggle with - maybe try a different recording. The Stefania Woytowicz performance from the '70s is very powerful and at a significantly quicker pace. I would have to look it up, but I would venture to guess a full 8-10 minutes faster. It is less hypnotic and mesmerizing but still very heartbreaking. The sorrow approaches more of a rage for Woytowicz. Just a thought.

http://www.classical.net/music/recs/reviews/o/oly00313a.php


----------



## Manxfeeder

I have several Arvo Part recordings. His tintannabuli technique is deceptively simple - i.e., a piece like Fratres. He has explored that concept pretty fully, but I think he has come to the end of himself. Still, I find many of his pieces moving.

I haven't come to appreciate Taverner. Something about his music doesn't click with me. 

I haven't heard the other guy you mentioned.

I agree with Mitchell about Gorecki's 3rd; you can do better than Dawn Upshaw's version if you're looking for something to plumb its depths.


----------



## peeyaj

I just started listening to Arvo Part last night and I think it was generally ok. The _sensations_ he gave me is the same as the sensations when I first listened to Riley's In C, just slower and more meditative. Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs is one of my favorite piece of music. I think the "Lento" is just divine.


----------



## Oreb

I find a lot of it to be little more than pastiche. (Arvo Part especially but not exclusively).

In terms of spirituality (and I am speaking only from my own experience - no reflection cast on how it affects others) I think it's a best vacuous and more seriously tending toward the swamp of quietism.

I do like Valentyn Sylvestrov, but not sure that he fits the minimalist bill.


----------



## PetrB

One of the more unfortunate of stylistic labels, much of the rep, with the odd exception here or there, is paper thin and I find a lot of the efforts, and the ID tag itself, "spiritually vain." Arvo Part, in this one stylistic phase -- his least interesting, imho -- being a sibling to a few of the "plain" minimalists and with the same earnest criticism -- i.e. "The emperor has no clothes."

I find "no there there," with a lot of what falls under the style.


----------



## hreichgott

I don't know a lot of Part, nor the genre of "spiritual minimalism" as a separate thing, but I think Fratres is a masterpiece both intellectually and emotionally.


----------



## Buddha

Selby said:


> Arvo Part has probably written the best sacred music of the past few decades. the Berliner Messe and Te Deum will stand the test of time.


I also like the Te Deum, Selby. Da Pacem and In Principio seem worth mentioning as well. The Estonian Chamber Choir does an excellent job on those recordings.


----------



## Cosmos

I like minimalism, I love "spiritual" minimalism. 

I've just recently got into this sub-genre, and I only know of Part, Gorecki, and Tavener. What are some other names/works I can look into?


----------



## Mandryka

Jonathan Harvey. Bhakti for example.


----------



## Albert7

I want to get into Arvo Part music. Anywhere I should start?


----------



## uaxuctum

Perotin said:


> I have somewhat mixed feelings about it. I have no doubts about profane minimalism like that of Glass, Nyman, Adams nad so on, I find it trivial, annoying and unworthy of being labeled as classical music.


Are you placing Reich in that bag too? _Different Trains, Music for 18 Musicians, Tehillim, Drumming, City Life..._ some of those are masterpieces and anything but "trivial" (although, well, they may be "unworthy of being labeled as classical music" depending on what definition one uses for "classical music", of course-but so would be Schönberg, Nono, Xenakis, etc.).



brotagonist said:


> Some of Reich's music is interesting for a few listens, although not enough to buy any, but the minimalism of Glass, Nyman, Pärt et al. leaves me feeling that it is "trivial... and unworthy of being labelled as classical music."


I'd say many of Reich's works are worthy of much more than just a few listens. _Different Trains_ is an amazing masterpiece (although, with so much going on with the train sirens, spoken fragments, etc., one might argue if it qualifies as a "minimalist" piece), and _Music for 18 Musicians_ has to be one of the most hypnotically atmospheric pieces I've ever heard.



Perotin said:


> But with sacred minimalism, it seems different, at first it makes strong impression as if there was some spiritual depth in it. But after listening to it a couple of times it is also beginning to appear increasingly trivial and boring. This is especially true of Gorecki's 3rd symphony, with Pärt, I am reluctant to overlisten to his music for fear of getting fed up with it. So, what do you make of composers like Pärt, Gorecki, Korndorf, Knaifel?


I have listened to Pärt's _Miserere_ many times over the past 15 years, and never have I gotten the feeling of it starting to get trite-at all. In fact, the more I listen to it, the more of its little hidden beauties I discover. And about the same thing is happening now that I'm finally getting into his (twice longer) piece _Passio_.



Yardrax said:


> I think 'spiritual minimalism' is a misleading name. I haven't heard any obvious evidence of the use of the kind of additive processes, phasing or augmentation that were characteristic techniques of 60's minimalism. I also know for a fact that Arvo Part refers to his own work as 'Tintinnabular' music and makes no reference that I know of to the work of Reich or Glass.


Some people use the term "neocontemplative", which evokes the "spiritual" thing without (directly or indirectly) connecting it with the minimalist techniques of Reich or Glass.



albertfallickwang said:


> I want to get into Arvo Part music. Anywhere I should start?


I'd start with _*Miserere*_ (ECM New Series 450, also containing _Festina Lente_ and _Sarah Was Ninety Years Old_) and _*Tabula Rasa*_ (ECM New Series 1275, which also contains _Fratres_ and _Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten_). Then, you could try, for example, _*Arbos*_ (ECM New Series 1325, also containing _De Profundis, Summa, Stabat Mater, Pari Intervallo, An den Wassern zu Babel,_ and _Es Sang vor Langen Jahren_) and _*Passio*_ (ECM New Series 1370).


----------



## Manxfeeder

albertfallickwang said:


> I want to get into Arvo Part music. Anywhere I should start?


If you can find Paul Hiller's book Arvo Part, it will help you.

Also, BBC Radio 3's Discovering Music has a presentation on Arvo Part.


----------



## Albert7

Manxfeeder said:


> If you can find Paul Hiller's book Arvo Part, it will help you.
> 
> Also, BBC Radio 3's Discovering Music has a presentation on Arvo Part.


Thanks for the recommendations... any reasons why Part's music isn't performed by symphonic orchestra or at least, not the Utah Symphony?


----------



## millionrainbows

Hmm, I could have sworn I posted a reply in this thread, but after searching, apparently not. I guess the assertion that Glass is not "spiritual" or is "profane minimalism" struck me as being not worthy of reply.


----------



## PetrB

Thinking the term a dreadful label, and finding much of what is 'tossed into the bin under that label' of little interest, with little of the supposed claimed effects such music is supposed to have.

The closest I can come to an opinion on it is to recall that maxim on a bumper sticker about 
"The Moral Majority," -- i.e.
Spiritual Minimalism? 
"It is neither."


----------



## PetrB

---------------------------- dupe (drat!) -----------------------------------


----------



## hpowders

Thanks for this thread!

Next time someone asks me if I'm an atheist, I will simply say, Nope!! I'm a Spiritual Minimalist!! Sounds like I have a freakin' PhD!!


----------



## pmsummer

albertfallickwang said:


> Thanks for the recommendations... any reasons why Part's music isn't performed by symphonic orchestra or at least, not the Utah Symphony?


Partly because much/most of his work is written for smallish ensembles.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm not an atheist, Christian, Muslim, or spritual minimalist...I'm an "independent," and I get a free magazine every month from Alex Jones.


----------



## millionrainbows

Now, everybody ought to know that Philip Glass did work for ravi Shankar, and is very spiritual, not profane...Terry Riley is a Buddhist, I would guess. I hate to see misinformation like this going around.


----------



## Perotin

Is it impossible for a composer, that is religious, to write secular music?


----------



## DavidA

Perotin said:


> Is it impossible for a composer, that is religious, to write secular music?


Of course not, any more than it is impossible for a religious person to design a car or paint a landscape.


----------



## pmsummer

GreenMamba said:


> "Holy minimalism" is the term I often hear. I like a good bit of it (mostly Arvo Part), and it does seem to hearken back to early religious music. I also like Glass, Adams, Reich, et. al., however. None of it is my favorite, but I like it.


A friend well versed in Classical Church Music, complained to me about the musical repetitiveness and the simple lyrics of much of Contemporary Christian Worship music. I referred to Magister Pérotin's 12th century work 'Viderunt omnes', a wonderful piece which takes an awfully long time to cover a short and simple text.



Perotin said:


> Is it impossible for a composer, that is religious, to write secular music?


The answer may well be 'yes', at least for the deeply religious. J.S. Bach closed his manuscripts, both secular and religious, with the monogram "S.D.G." for 'Soli Deo Gloria'... to God alone the glory. Bach was essentially stating that it his was all 'religious' music.



DavidA said:


> Of course not, any more than it is impossible for a religious person to design a car or paint a landscape.


C.S. Lewis once disagreed with a fan who had said to him, "The world needs more Christian writers like yourself." Lewis replied (paraphrase alert), "No, madam, what the world needs are more writers who are Christian," thus infusing all their works with the Christian world-view.


----------



## Perotin

Perotin said:


> Is it impossible for a composer, that is religious, to write secular music?


To avoid misunderstanding, this was a reply to millionrainbows, who is implying, that Glass' music is supposed to be deeply religious. Anyway, isn't it interesting, that we often question, whether an atheist can write sacred music, but not the other way around, that is to say, whether a religious person can write secular music. But it kind a make sense, it is difficult for an atheist to have sincere religious feelings within himself, meanwhile it is easy for a religious person to have sincere secular feelings.


----------



## millionrainbows

Perotin said:


> To avoid misunderstanding, this was a reply to millionrainbows, who is implying, that Glass' music is supposed to be deeply religious. Anyway, isn't it interesting, that we often question, whether an atheist can write sacred music, but not the other way around, that is to say, whether a religious person can write secular music. But it kind a make sense, it is difficult for an atheist to have sincere religious feelings within himself, meanwhile it is easy for a religious person to have sincere secular feelings.


Well, this depends on how much "spiritual cred" you are willing to give to atheists. Salmon Rushdie, for example, says that atheists can be very moral good people, and that morality is inherent to being human. We don't refrain from murder because Moses said it was the law; we refrain because, as humans, we know that to murder is inherently wrong. Even a predatory animal does not kill intentionally for pleasure, but instinctively to survive, which is the "natural" law of his nature.

Technically, Buddhists are "atheistic," in that their religion is "non-theistic" and has no "god" per se. But they are beholden to a strict code of conduct, based solely on their own actions.

Once again, I distinguish between "religious," which implies a system and dogma/scriptures, and "spirituality," which is inherent to everyone, before the existence of religion. In this sense, yes, an atheist can have strong spiritual experiences, even if they do not identify this as "spiritual."


----------



## Xaltotun

With spiritual minimalism, I get the feeling of searching, seeking, meditating. That's all good, but I'm in a place right now where I prefer "spiritual maximalism", where the feeling is that something is _given_ to us without effort on our part (because our efforts don't amount to much). What is _given_ may be unsettling, overwhelming, even shocking. It is alien to us, because _we_ are corrupt; we have to choose between absolute denial and total surrender.

But maybe the best thing is a combination of both... done so that the "revelation" is not the well deserved reward of our hard work and spiritual hunger, but again, something _given_ to us.


----------



## EdwardBast

albertfallickwang said:


> I want to get into Arvo Part music. Anywhere I should start?


I like Pärt's secular instrumental music. For that you can't get a better introduction than the CD titled Tabula Rasa, which contains the eponymous piece (my favorite) with prepared piano played by Alfred Schnittke, along with a couple of other favorites:


----------



## pmsummer

A nice piece on 'Holy Minimalism'... with samples.

http://www.metanoia.org/martha/writing/bestill.htm


----------



## Guest

As I mentioned recently elsewhere, Gorecki's 3rd moves me to tears.

I'll maybe get over it.


----------

