# Minimalism before Minimalism



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Three composers born in the 1860s curiously gave very different and yet parallel examples of "minimalism before minimalism. By parallel I mean composed around the same time, towards the ends of their careers. 

Janacek with Taras Bulba and Sinfonietta as two crowing examples, was much criticized in his life for his repititious " folk speech melody" style which he had the makings of much earlier. Regularly unfair comparisons were drawn to Smetana, *** Janacek "lacked" the lush orchestration or had too many "static ideas". And yet in hindsight we love Janacek's unique orchestration and very different phrasing. Less is more with him.

Then we have Sibelius, who by the time we get to his 7th, has become thematically subtle and organic like no one before him. A first listen to no 7 might give one an impression of a static piece. And yet somehow he retains a strong harmonic influence from Wagner.

Then with Nielsen, we have Symphony no. 5. He has reduced the thematic content of the 1st movement to the most fundamental Nielsenisms, and on the whole it is a work that is great when listened to from start to finish, but can hardly be broken down or mined for the "good parts."

These three not only did "minimalism before minimalism", but they grow right out of the late romantic tradition and sidestep the bulk of the cutting edge techniques from their time, resisting influence from Debussy, Stravinsky(though in the case of Nielsen I sometimes wonder if he didn't pick up a little from Stravinsky), and Schoenberg.

Can you think of any others like this? Do you think it is reasonable to compare them in this way?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Can you think of any others like this?


Ravel perhaps, for example _Bolero_ and some of the piano works like _Une Barque Sur L' Ocean_, but I think we could probably find examples from other composers too.



clavichorder said:


> Do you think it is reasonable to compare them in this way?


Yes and no, you do have some valid points, but then again on this topic it seems like the old saying "there is nothing new under the sun" kind of applies. We can go back to Monteverdi and see minimalistic traits and then again in Schubert.

Another example of this kind of thing is people like to point out how Beethoven abandoned sonata form and went free-form in his late period which looks towards the modern period, this is true, but then again Bach was already composing free form pieces long before Beethoven.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Sure. I just think it's a curious coincidence that this type of work was coming out of these composers of the same generation, in the late teens and the 20s. Now that you mention Ravel, it conforms to this as well. And yet none of these composers were especially well acquainted, right?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Erik Satie was proto-minimalist. For example, his 3 Gymnopedies take one thought, a melody over a static accompaniment, and explores it through all three pieces. And the melody is a basic thought which is not developed but flows from itself a
nd could go on indefinitely.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Pérotin had a huge influence on Steve Reich, apparently. "Pérotin's music has influenced modern minimalist composers such as Steve Reich, particularly in Reich's work Proverb." (Wikipedia)

In a Pérotin/Hilliard recording I just purchased, Steve Reich's views are in the liner notes, he's quoted as saying, "In 18 [music for 18 musicians], the drumming out and then the elongation of that opening chordal cycle comes from Pérotin."


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

What about the very first (C Major) of the Bach 48, the start of Zadok the Priest, and the start of the Vivaldi Gloria? All very much in that 'proto'-idiom.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

Wagner's little prelude.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Kyle Gann made an interesting observation in this respect about "I Have a Song To Sing, O" from Gilbert & Sullivan's _Yeoman of the Guard_ (and the folk song tradition that it imitates):






http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2013/04/the-minimalist-song-of-a-merry-man-moping-mum.html


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

No mention of Bruckner, whose penchant for repetitive rhythms and motivic fragments is well-known? Sibelius was a Bruckner devotee, although their music sounds quite different.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

Pachelbel's Canon(?)


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Then, in the sense of a general aesthetic as opposed to particular devices, I think the minimalists of the second half of the 20th century can maybe be understood as doing to Schönberg, Webern, Boulez, and Stockhausen what Debussy had already done to Wagner.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> These three not only did "minimalism before minimalism"...


What you seem to be referring to is not "doing minimalism". I think you're describing pieces which are seemingly 'stripped-down', i.e. pieces which present to us the essence of a composer's aesthetic and technique in a direct, non-superfluous way.

This has nothing to do with minimalism, where the aesthetic and technique *itself* is stripped down, placing emphasis on extreme simplicity of ideas (or cells) which are developed, but over such a long period of time that at face value it appears that the music is entirely based on repetition (which it isn't).

But there are other essentials, like rhythm (or pulse), "tonal" harmony and sometimes chance, e.g. in Riley's In C, the performers can choose how many times they repeat a certain or phrase, or whether to play it at all. This is probably important because repetition isn't at all unique to minimalists.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> No mention of Bruckner, whose penchant for repetitive rhythms and motivic fragments is well-known? Sibelius was a Bruckner devotee, although their music sounds quite different.


Bruckner had actually belatedly come to mind as being related somehow to these composers in the way I am describing. And he is a curious case unto himself, being significantly the senior of them, and not having lived into the 20th century.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

Borodin's On the Steppes of Central Asia is eloquently minimal in comparison to the bombast of Bruckner and Mahler. Something about Sibelius' music seems deeply tender, delicate and linear to me. I wouldn't call it minimal though describing his 7th as growing organically is an interesting point about symphonic structure in general. His strikingly beautiful work The Wooden Nymph is like a piece of Wagnerian blown glass artwork you wouldn't dare touch for fear of it breaking.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

Bernard Herrmann may have indirectly influenced the minimalists with his ostinati rich film scores from the fifties and sixties.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Skilmarilion said:


> What you seem to be referring to is not "doing minimalism". I think you're describing pieces which are seemingly 'stripped-down', i.e. pieces which present to us the essence of a composer's aesthetic and technique in a direct, non-superfluous way.
> 
> This has nothing to do with minimalism, where the aesthetic and technique *itself* is stripped down, placing emphasis on extreme simplicity of ideas (or cells) which are developed, but over such a long period of time that at face value it appears that the music is entirely based on repetition (which it isn't).
> 
> But there are other essentials, like rhythm (or pulse), "tonal" harmony and sometimes chance, e.g. in Riley's In C, the performers can choose how many times they repeat a certain or phrase, or whether to play it at all. This is probably important because repetition isn't at all unique to minimalists.


Exactly. Composers have always used repetition for various expressive purposes, one of the most suitable of which is evocation of the moods and rhythms of nature. Go back to Beethoven's _Pastoral Symphony,_ with it's suggestion of the delectable monotony of a carefree ramble through field and forest. Wagner's operas are full of repetitive passages - the prelude to _Das Rheingold_, the "Forest Murmurs" in _Siegfried_, the "Ride of the Valkyries" - intended to evoke the dynamics of natural forces. Sibelius, to an even greater extent, employs repetitive rhythms and ostinati to suggest the spaciousness and timelessness of nature in work after work, climaxing in the powerful hypnotic vision of _Tapiola_. Other composers have used repetitive figuration and static textures to evoke various moods not necessarily related to nature, though I think it's very easy for us to feel the connection of such rhythms with the slow unfolding of natural phenomena.

I wouldn't call any of this "proto-minimalism," since, as Skilmarilion says, its aesthetic purpose is fundamentally different; minimalism is structural in essence, and isn't intended to be evocative. Maybe "quasi-minimalism" would be a better term for these apparent premonitions.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> minimalism is structural in essence, and isn't intended to be evocative.


Minimalism is intended to be evocative. For example, of one or another of at least two dreams of the high tension line step down transformer, or fire in the aspect in which it's a mirror, or a rainbow in air that is curved, or a desert consisting of ice.

Early Steve Reich and Philip Glass are not intended to be evocative, maybe, but that's only a problem if you think early Steve Reich or Philip Glass is the beginning or end of minimalism.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Skilmarilion said:


> What you seem to be referring to is not "doing minimalism". I think you're describing pieces which are seemingly 'stripped-down', i.e. pieces which present to us the essence of a composer's aesthetic and technique in a direct, non-superfluous way.
> 
> This has nothing to do with minimalism, where the aesthetic and technique *itself* is stripped down, placing emphasis on extreme simplicity of ideas (or cells) which are developed, but over such a long period of time that at face value it appears that the music is entirely based on repetition (which it isn't).
> 
> But there are other essentials, like rhythm (or pulse), "tonal" harmony and sometimes chance, e.g. in Riley's In C, the performers can choose how many times they repeat a certain or phrase, or whether to play it at all. This is probably important because repetition isn't at all unique to minimalists.


Some good points and while I agree with you that the examples in the OP weren't literally "doing minimalism", I think you go too far in suggesting these things have nothing to do with minimalism. I think it is highly likely some of these things inspired and contributed towards minimalism, if not, then what? All musical movements build off something previous to them.

I'm not sure that I agree with your definition that the examples are "pieces which present to us the essence of a composer's aesthetic and technique in a direct, non-superfluous way" in the case of Sibelius 7, the work is quite unique and I don't think really represents the essence of his over all style.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I actually think many example of Medieval music feature "minimalism" idioms. Their harmony and repetition to my ears sound that way.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

When I think of a more "minimalist-esque" Sibelius, I normally think instead of his piano sonata in F major.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> Some good points and while I agree with you that the examples in the OP weren't literally "doing minimalism", I think you go too far in suggesting these things have nothing to do with minimalism. I think it is highly likely some of these things inspired and contributed towards minimalism, *if not, then what?* All musical movements build off something previous to them.


To quote from the Kyle Gann piece that Harold referred to above: 
"That Young, Riley, Reich, and Glass were inspired, in their early minimalist efforts, by John Coltrane, Indian music, African drumming, Ravi Shankar, and other non-European traditions is well documented. I have written many times, in many places, that minimalism was an irruption of non-Western influences into the Western tradition - even, American music's attempt to connect with the rest of the world."

Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that, say, Philip Glass heard the opening bars of the coronation scene from _Boris Godunov_ and wondered what it would be like to write an entire opera (or several!) using such limited material. But obviously minimalism itself, as a whole, came from a different set of ideas.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> To quote from the Kyle Gann piece that Harold referred to above:
> "That Young, Riley, Reich, and Glass were inspired, in their early minimalist efforts, by John Coltrane, Indian music, African drumming, Ravi Shankar, and other non-European traditions is well documented. I have written many times, in many places, that minimalism was an irruption of non-Western influences into the Western tradition - even, American music's attempt to connect with the rest of the world."
> 
> Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that, say, Philip Glass heard the opening bars of the coronation scene from _Boris Godunov_ and wondered what it would be like to write an entire opera (or several!) using such limited material. But obviously minimalism itself, as a whole, came from a different set of ideas.


This is interesting, but I think conscious influences are one thing and unconscious another. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that Glass and company were not influenced by western classical music at all.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> I think it would be pretty hard to argue that Glass and company were not influenced by western classical music at all.


I don't think anyone has ever argued that.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> I don't think anyone has ever argued that.


The comment I was replying to in post #18, suggested the examples in the OP have "nothing to do with minimalism".


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> The comment I was replying to in post #18, suggested the examples in the OP have "nothing to do with minimalism".


Well, I don't think they have anything to do with it either, except in the superficial sense discussed by skilmarilion. This isn't the same as saying the minimalists weren't at all influenced by western classical music. For example, as mentioned above, Reich has been influenced by Pérotin, and his _Tehillim_ took inspiration from Bach's _Christ lag in Todes Banden_ - but he has also said that post-Bach classical music in general is pretty much irrelevant to his music. I personally don't see any relevance of works such as Nielsen's 5th symphony to minimalism as a genre.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> Well, I don't think they have anything to do with it either, except in the superficial sense discussed by skilmarilion. This isn't the same as saying the minimalists weren't at all influenced by western classical music. For example, as mentioned above, Reich has been influenced by Pérotin, and his _Tehillim_ took inspiration from Bach's _Christ lag in Todes Banden_ - but he has also said that post-Bach classical music in general is pretty much irrelevant to his music. I personally don't see any relevance of works such as Nielsen's 5th symphony to minimalism as a genre.


This may be true for Reich, but personally I hear some influence of Romantic composers on Glass and Adams.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Okay, the comparison to minimalism "proper" was more or less an attempt to be provocative and to call attention to this particular collection of composers born in the second half of the 19th century. I was calling attention to the interesting coincidence of similar things occurring in their works at a similar time. Though they were not closely connected, I believe this is a little more than mere coincidence. The inherent qualities of their compositional style and skills, as well as the "spirit of the times", is likely what allowed these parallel developments to occur. And in a much more genral sense, the mentality that inspired this seems to me to be of a suble "anti-rebellion" or alternative path of progression in musical evolution. Similar feelings seem to have inspired the later minimalists, the key different being that they freshly established their style whereas Sibelius, Nielsen, Janacek, or even Ravel, we're merely modifying their already established ways in a manner freshly relevant, and in some cases just as apparently difficult for contemporary audience consumption as the serialism, neoclassicism, or other new types of music of the time. 

I think it's plausible to say that a little of the spirit of the minimalism to come(in it's genral sense), was being channeled by these guys. But as others in this thread have pointed out, they are not unique in this, with Bruckner, the very different Eric Satie, ect as other examples. But there were four or more of them who demonstrated this pattern in this time.

I also want to add that I recall Martinu, who I have always thought similar to these guys of the 1860s though a tad younger, was directly inspired by Sibelius and Janacek, and Martinu had a great influence over Hovahness. While Hovahness is a distinct case from the minimalists, I have always felt he belongs to the same era, the same essence fueling him. It possible there are some other lineages not commonly considered. It also seems that Morton Feldman had an admiration for Sibelius.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Just a quick perusal through the wiki page of Glass shows he studied the music of Franz Schubert and has recently written music in (his quote) "the Brahms tradition".


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Again: I don't dispute for a second that the minimalist composers, as individuals, have been influenced by, or converged towards, the western classical tradition.
The question is merely whether what (specifically) Nielsen, Janacek et al were up to in their compositions could be considered as a precursor of, or influence on, minimalism _as a genre_. I don't see it myself, as there were too many other factors at work.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I think there's some earlier music that uses minimal materials for more or less the same expressive purposes as minimalism.

Take this canon, dubiously attributed on this recording to Josquin:






The composer is doing the same thing that Reich and Glass often did in their earlier pieces, that is, starting a process and just letting it run. (Reich was very fond of strict canons, in fact.) I would also say the expressive purpose is essentially the same.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

tdc said:


> Some good points and while I agree with you that the examples in the OP weren't literally "doing minimalism", I think you go too far in suggesting these things have nothing to do with minimalism. I think it is highly likely some of these things inspired and contributed towards minimalism, if not, then what? All musical movements build off something previous to them.





Nereffid said:


> To quote from the Kyle Gann piece that Harold referred to above:
> "That Young, Riley, Reich, and Glass were inspired, in their early minimalist efforts, by John Coltrane, Indian music, African drumming, Ravi Shankar, and other non-European traditions is well documented. I have written many times, in many places, that minimalism was an irruption of non-Western influences into the Western tradition - even, American music's attempt to connect with the rest of the world."
> 
> Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that, say, Philip Glass heard the opening bars of the coronation scene from _Boris Godunov_ and wondered what it would be like to write an entire opera (or several!) using such limited material. But obviously minimalism itself, as a whole, came from a different set of ideas.


I think Gann is mostly wrong about that part.

By general consensus, the first minimalist piece is La Monte Young's 1958 trio for strings (or Terry Riley's 1964 _In C_, but that, of course, came after), which is a serial piece with really long notes ("long tones") (excerpt: 



). Thus one essential influence is Schönberg's - or Schönberg as distilled by Webern, or Webern as interpreted by Adorno and/or Boulez - treating every note as interesting for its own sake (as opposed to interesting for its place in a harmonic progression). Not to mention that the extreme consonance of much minimalism is an obvious opposite reaction to atonality. And then that extreme consonance, and the extreme length of the notes in Young's trio, seems to owe a pretty obvious debt to the deliberate perversity of John Cage (and, behind him, Henry Cowell). Maybe Stockhausen is important too, and maybe more to Riley than to Young: The beginning of _Gesang der Jünglinge_ sounds to me already almost like Riley's tape loop technique, and some of the electronically generated gestures even make me think of "A Rainbow in Curved Air."

Indian and African music have, I think, roughly the same importance for the minimalists as Mussorgsky and gamelan did for Debussy - less a profound influence on their work than something they were eager to _claim_ as an influence, because it was chic and because it diverted attention from more significant debts. The same goes, of course, for Steve Reich's professed debt to Bach. I mean, really, who does he think he's kidding? (Cue Schönberg's "Vielseitigkeit.")

Jazz is a different story. Young and Riley's approach to improvisation, at least, seems to have more to do with jazz than anything they might have gotten from classical music. The textures of Reich, especially in the '70s, also bring jazz at least somewhat to mind, but maybe not as much as they do mid '60s pop music (cf. the Swingle Singers). Though, of course, in any case, jazz isn't "non-Western" so much as a western development of a rudimentary vestige of African music.

Philip Glass, of course, started writing minimalist music way too late for there to be any question of his getting the idea to use limited materials from Mussorgsky, or anywhere except from Reich, Riley, Young, et al.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> ...I agree with you that the examples in the OP weren't literally "doing minimalism", I think you go too far in suggesting these things have nothing to do with minimalism. I think it is highly likely some of these things inspired and contributed towards minimalism, if not, then what? All musical movements build off something previous to them.


I think there's a clear difference between certain music providing great inspiration to composers of later generations, and certain music *foreshadowing* techniques and devices explored by later generations, by having similar characteristics *utilised with the same intent.*

Mahler clearly inspired Schoenberg, and his move away from traditional tonality surely owed a lot of Mahler's treatment of tonality (especially in the late works). But then we wouldn't say that Mahler's 10th was "atonal" music before "atonality".

I just didn't think it really correct to say, because x composer in the early 20th century wrote music that was more "static" than developmental or utilised repetition (however this manifests, and however the term is actually defined), then x composer could be said to have written "minimalist" music before any such idea of minimalism even existed.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I strangely find a relation between calm/slow romantic pieces, impressionist works and minimalist ones. I don't know why.

Edit: I agree with OP about Sibelius.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Skilmarilion said:


> Mahler clearly inspired Schoenberg, and his move away from traditional tonality surely owed a lot of Mahler's treatment of tonality (especially in the late works). But then we wouldn't say that Mahler's 10th was "atonal" music before "atonality".


That would be especially stupid because not only was Mahler's Tenth written _after_ Schoenberg's first works without key signatures, the composer himself was fully aware of what his friend was writing at the time, having studied the score of the String Quartet No. 2.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> Then with Nielsen, we have Symphony no. 5. He has reduced the thematic content of the 1st movement to the most fundamental Nielsenisms, and on the whole it is a work that is great when listened to from start to finish, but can hardly be broken down or mined for the "good parts."


For some reason I missed this part of your post, and had only read the references to Janacek and Sibelius.

It's interesting to me that you cited this work, because the oscillating figure in the violas that begins Nielsen's 5th is totally, totally evocative of Philip Glass. In fact, if you listen to the first five seconds of the below, it sounds like the Glass is simply a slowed down version of the Nielsen:











I guess you can make of that, what you will - but my initial response to your OP wouldn't change. :tiphat:


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Skilmarilion said:


> I think there's a clear difference between certain music providing great inspiration to composers of later generations, and certain music *foreshadowing* techniques and devices explored by later generations, by having similar characteristics *utilised with the same intent.*


Excellently put.



Skilmarilion said:


> Mahler clearly inspired Schoenberg, and his move away from traditional tonality surely owed a lot of Mahler's treatment of tonality (especially in the late works).


I'd rather guess that Schönberg's move away from tonality owes the most to his eventual bête noir, Richard Strauss. His technique of dividing the orchestra into smaller groups, on the other hand, seems to be a clear case of influence by Mahler.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Skilmarilion said:


> It's interesting to me that you cited this work, because the oscillating figure in the violas that begins Nielsen's 5th is totally, totally evocative of Philip Glass.


90 years prior to that, dig the second half of the "March of the Pilgrims" from Berlioz's _Harold in Italy_:


----------



## seven four (Apr 2, 2016)

Arsakes said:


> I strangely find a relation between calm/slow romantic pieces, impressionist works and minimalist ones. I don't know why.


I've heard it too. Glass changed and moved into a new area with Glassworks. That made it more obvious.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Liszt's Nuages Gris is, to me, a good example of "proto-minimalism". Clear, concise, just two short ideas that build up every note of the piece. I guess here the definition is arguable, but still


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> 90 years prior to that, dig the second half of the "March of the Pilgrims" from Berlioz's _Harold in Italy_:


Harold in Italy is one of my all time favorite large orchestral works, likely to be included in my hypothetical top ten. I am sorry I did not notice this.


----------

