# Is Minimalism Baby Music?



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm reading the book "The Lives of the Great Composers" by Harold C. Schonberg. In the introduction he briefly talks about contemporary music and states that musical Minimalism is "baby music." (and implies that it is not deserving of being considered part of the musical legacy of the "greats").

Is Minimalism so simplistic as to be appropriately labeled baby music (even in jest)?

Or is Minimalism a legitimate part of the tapestry of western art music worthy of the musical legacy of Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, etc?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I suppose we could start by naming some well-known and appreciated minimalist works? I don't particularly care for minimalism, of the type that emerged during the 60s and led chiefly from the U.S. I feel it lacks the melodic content and interest of early minimalistic works like those of Satie.

On the other hand baby music is often considered melodic music, so perhaps minimalism is something else.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I like some minimalist pieces, but a little goes a long way (well, I guess the composers write it like that!)


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Though not an expert, here are my views:

I believe minimalism was a reaction to the increasing complexity found in music (especially academia) through the mid to late 20th century. Just as there was a bubble burst of increasing dissonance in tonality that finally led to atonality there was a bubble burst of increasing complexity that led to a new simplicity called minimalism. 

I think it is worthy of the tapestry of music, but I also see it as a beginning of a new style of music, not an apex moment but a nadir (I think I'm using that term correctly). I think composers such as John Adams and Louis Andriessen have taken the initial idea and have developed it from what started from Riley, Reich, and Glass.


----------



## timothyjuddviolin (Nov 1, 2011)

Reich, Glass, and Adams seem to have all moved beyond the "minimalism" they were doing in the 1970s. But if you listen to a recent piece, like this one by Timo Andres (written in 2014) you definitely hear interesting references to traditional minimalism.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I can’t imagine that minimalism would be very healthy for babies.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's a fun one, _Hoodoo Zephyr_, a light-hearted homage to the great cross-country trains of the middle 20th century. Reich touches this vein in the first part of his _Different Trains_.






As Marcel Proost says upon becoming a music critic: "Minimalism? Check your brains at the door."


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

20centrfuge said:


> Though not an expert, here are my views:
> 
> I believe minimalism was a reaction to the increasing complexity found in music (especially academia) through the mid to late 20th century. Just as there was a bubble burst of increasing dissonance in tonality that finally led to atonality there was a bubble burst of increasing complexity that led to a new simplicity called minimalism.
> 
> I think it is worthy of the tapestry of music, but I also see it as a beginning of a new style of music, not an apex moment but a nadir (I think I'm using that term correctly). I think composers such as John Adams and Louis Andriessen have taken the initial idea and have developed it from what started from Riley, Reich, and Glass.


do you also think that it reflects the influence of Popular Music, which is so dependent upon one idea being repeated incessantly with little change in the space of 2 to 4 minutes?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Formally, pop music has always depended on repeats of a short idea, at least during my sufficiently long lifetime. No change there. I would agree that to the extent that minimalism has flourished, it's because it has found more popular favor than some other directions taken by "serious music" in the 20th century and after. No surprise there. Personally, I find it a welcome addition to available musical styles, and not necessarily on a standalone basis..


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Formally, pop music has always depended on repeats of a short idea, at least during my sufficiently long lifetime. No change there. I would agree that to the extent that minimalism has flourished, it's because it has found more popular favor than some other directions taken by "serious music" in the 20th century and after. No surprise there. Personally, I find it a welcome addition to available musical styles, and not necessarily on a standalone basis..


 I don't intentionally seek much of it out (i.e., I don't think that I have ever purchased any minimalist music) but one encounters a fair amount of John Adams, his son Sam Adams, and Glass in concerts and in movies. I'm not going to complain about it being there, and if it brings in some new listeners to Classical Music then I think it's really valuable. And it's nice to see actual living Composers get programmed, but I wish I could find it more praiseworthy.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"Is Minimalism so simplistic as to be appropriately labeled baby music (even in jest)?"

Hmm, I think it takes a certain adult discipline to be so musically repetitive or obsessive that when the music wants to change it sounds like the composer doesn't. But there can be certain psychological effects created when that's done. Philip Glass's soundtrack to _The Hours_ (about Virgina Woolf) was highly effective. Keep in mind that so much happened in Minimalism after Schonberg's 3rd edition of his book was released in 1981, and there's never been a musicologist or historian who hasn't had shortcomings. The rest of his book is so outstanding that I do not think he should be condemned for some of his highly personal views. He didn't think much of Mahler at the time either. There have been too many composers interested in Minimalism to categorically write it off, and there is so often something highly distilled in the music that tries to strip away the non-essentials and can make it work. The focus on consonant harmonies also make it attractive to some listeners. So "baby music"-No.

John Adams (born in the United States)
Louis Andriessen (born in the Netherlands)
David Behrman (born in Austria)
Barbara Benary (born in the US)
David Borden (born in the US)
Gavin Bryars (born in the UK)
Joseph Byrd (born in the US)
Tony Conrad (born in the US)
Tibor Szemző (born in Hungary)
Julius Eastman (born and died in the US)
Ludovico Einaudi (born in Italy)
Brian Eno (born in the UK)
Roger Eno (born in the UK)
Renaud Gagneux (born in France)
Frans Geysen (born in Belgium)
Jon Gibson (born in the US)
Philip Glass (born in the US)
John Godfrey (composer) (born in the UK)
Karel Goeyvaerts (born and died in Belgium)
Michael Harrison (born in the US)
Christopher Hobbs (born in the UK)
Simeon ten Holt (born in the Netherlands)
Terry Jennings (born and died in the US)
Scott Johnson (born in the US)
Douglas Leedy (born in the US)
Angus MacLise (born in the US, died in Kathmandu)
Richard Maxfield (born and died in the US)
Robert Moran (born in the US)
Phill Niblock (born in the US)
Michael Nyman (born in the UK)
Mike Oldfield (born in the UK)
Pauline Oliveros (born in the US)
Charlemagne Palestine (born in the US)
Rabinovitch-Barakovsky (born in Russia)
Steve Reich (born in the US)
Terry Riley (born in the US)
Arthur Russell (born and died in the US)
Howard Skempton (born in the UK)
Dave Smith (born in the UK)
Ann Southam (born and died in Canada)
Yoshi Wada (born in Japan)
Michael Waller (born in US)
John White (born in the UK)
La Monte Young (born in the US)
Ralph Zurmühle (born in Switzerland)


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

Assuming that classical music can be traced to Gregorian Chant, 800 or so years of development seems to leave little space for a modern day composer to create music that is at once original and appealing to some segment of listeners. Once one style is pushed to the limits, another style must be invented. I give credit to the minimalist composers and other composers who've incorporated elements of minimalism into their style with, at least, bringing something new to music. There are a handful of minimalist works that I enjoy; among them Gorecki's Symphony #3 "Sorrowful Songs"; a powerful commentary on the horror of war, as well as, a tribute to the mother/child bond.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Sometimes I feel that way about minimalism, compared to some more complex and eloquent music, but it is also interesting in its distillation of some melodic bits. I see it as an experimentation rather than a real direction in music. It can get maddening if I focus on the music too much.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

No.

Harold Schonberg was pretty lost outside of his very narrow comfort zone. He wouldn't have made it as a music critic outside his particular middlebrow time and place.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Harold S was a product of his time and his books are a reflection of many writers who struggled to come to terms with contemporary music. He grew up listening to the giants of the piano, violin, and podium. Performers who played the undeniably great masterworks that make up the vast bulk of the repertoire. New musical trends were an anathema and, in his view, not worthy to stand alongside the work of the great composers. History, it seems, has proven Schonberg correct. His description of minimalism as Baby Music was probably a good one: simple, trivial, banal. That the public by and large hasn't embraced it is not surprising. It is dull, repetitive, monotonous. It's music written by composers of little talent who somehow have managed to bamboozle people that it is profound, great stuff. There are some fine works, to be sure: the Gorecki 3rd - but he's a far better musician than Adams, Reich, Glass and other. So audiences don't care for it, how about performers? I cannot stand playing music of this school - dull, repetitive, mindless. What is really comes down to is this: these "composers" are/were looking for a way to be relevant, to seem important known that alongside the masters like Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and others, they are nothing. Nothing they have written will pass the test of time. There is no demand for their music. Compared to the masters, they are babies. Henry Pleasants said it 60 years ago - he saw it all and hit the nail on the head.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"...simple, trivial, banal...dull, repetitive, monotonous...dull, repetitive, mindless...audiences don't care for it...There is no demand for their music."

Must be _some _demand, since Adams (at least) is often considered the most-performed contemporary American composer, and Glass probably isn't far behind. Personally, I can listen to their music -- some of it -- without needing to compare it with Bach, Beethoven, and the rest.

Have some fun! Listen to Adams's _Gnarly Buttons_, or this:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I’m not a huge fan of Gorecki’s 3rd, but Adams was more talented than most other minimalists in my view, in that his works is more sensitive to traditional tastes while also progressive.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

To my ears a lot (not all) of Mozart and Haydn is childish, simplistic, repetitive and boring music. Ideal for babies witha brain that still has some development to do.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Casebearer said:


> To my ears a lot (not all) of Mozart and Haydn is childish, simplistic, repetitive and boring music. Ideal for babies witha brain that still has some development to do.


Fighting words! Fortunately my bomb shelters have been restocked for these Trumpish years, and I will retire there to monitor the outcome of this dispute.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> To my ears a lot (not all) of Mozart and Haydn is childish, simplistic, repetitive and boring music. Ideal for babies witha brain that still has some development to do.


What does that make minimalist music? Ideal for people without a brain entirely? :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Perhaps minimalist music is written for people with FLDS (frontal lobe deficiency syndrome).


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I daresay it is simply too early to know minimalism's place in music history. It takes a century or two before we know that a masterpiece is a masterpiece.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Listening to _The Chairman Dances _right now. Said to be a foxtrot... I think it's a major mistake to dismiss a musical movement out of hand. Safer to speak of individual works!


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

To answer the question: No, it is not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mostly terribly boring music from what I have heard


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Listen to some of the links given in this thread, you may change your mind.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2018)

20centrfuge said:


> I'm reading the book "The Lives of the Great Composers" by Harold C. Schonberg. In the introduction he briefly talks about contemporary music and states that musical Minimalism is "baby music." (and implies that it is not deserving of being considered part of the musical legacy of the "greats").
> 
> Is Minimalism so simplistic as to be appropriately labeled baby music (even in jest)?
> 
> Or is Minimalism a legitimate part of the tapestry of western art music worthy of the musical legacy of Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, etc?


I've not read the book, but before deciding whether Schonberg is "right" (it's an opinion, so of course it's "right") you'd need to reflect on what else he has to say about music - about the alleged greats (for example, that "Beethoven had what Mozart lacked - a powerful personality") - about the idea that you understand the music if you understand the man (p15 3rd Edn) - about the line of development that he traces and the narrative he offers to accompany that line.

He seems to reject minimalism for not being what he was looking for - an acknowledged 'leader of music' (p14). He doesn't seem to elaborate on what, exactly, he means, but I take it that he's using it to refer to the comparative stature of the musicians producing minimalism and the giants of the past. I don't think he means it was written for babies, or that it is only suitable for the new and undeveloped mind that a baby has - just that Reich and Riley were babies in comparison with superhumans like Beethoven and Stravinsky.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mozart may have been a child when he wrote his early works, but that doesn’t make it baby or childish music intended to help grow babies’ brains or ridiculed because some students like to study to it. As far as Haydn is concerned, that he could do simple things effectively doesn’t make it baby music either. Sometimes it’s hard to believe some of statement made about these two master composers though no one is obligated to like them, or make silly statements about them in support of the Minimalists.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> That the public by and large hasn't embraced it is not surprising.


They have though, whether they know it or don't. Minimalism makes up a great deal of television and film music and has transferred to other composers for those media who aren't necessarily art-musicians. 
Arvo Part's _Spiegel im Spiegel_ is probably familiar to millions of people who don't know what it is. 
Someone on page one mentioned Gregorian chant and minimalism does have something in common with it, so perhaps it does hit a certain core musical centre.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2018)

Er, no to the question.

Page 2 and no semantic debate yet? Minimalism is such a broad category that I find it difficult to lump it all under the one name.

What has Gorecki got to do with Eno? >

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimalist_composers


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I heard Glass in concert in the early 70s and my life didn't change, have heard some things by Adams on the radio and have enjoyed them, heard the Gorecki Third in the background at a friend's house and it soured my stomach and hastened my departure . . . the less said about Arvo Part, the better. But that's me. I don't have the attention span to properly appreciate a long repetitive line. That also goes for Bruckner and some Wagner. So it's not just baby music. Still, I don't have the interest to listen to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star (even Mozart's variations) either. Or Little Duckie Duddle. Babiness is in the ear of the beholder.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I'm not sure Einstein on the Beach is the same as some other works of minimalism, where there really are a very limited set of ideas repeated. Einstein was a successful work that used minimal techniques but offered the listener a lot of complex unique experiences that were well-executed. I don't find that many minimalist works as good. A Rainbow in Curved Air is also good but the only minimalism is the ostinato background. There is constant riffing on top of it that is always changing.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Minimalism the music tag is the art of building an extended piece of music around one or two themes. This is what Ravel did in "Bolero" way back in 1928 though I doubt anyone would call that baby music. I think minimalism is a trend that was followed for a reasonably short time in a period when worldwide classical music composition was seeking a new identity it did not find. Minimalism has not developed much of a following. The most successful is probably Glass's use in cinema music that has been heard by millions. Otherwise I doubt there is a masterpiece of minimalism that average concert goer or casual listener would know. Reich's Music For 18 has a cult following but probably has never been on your local symphony's program.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

MarkW said:


> I don't have the attention span to properly appreciate a long repetitive line.


I think one's attention span is at the heart of appreciating minimalism, at least the early phases of it in the '80s. It was about subtle changes to an existing pattern, so it required focusing on the present moment instead of anticipating the coming moment. Personally, my mind tends to wander, so this type of music is a challenge to me to stay focused on. I seem to listen to it more as a mental exercise than as a source of pleasure.

So I don't think this music speaks to a simplistic mind so much as to one that is focused or is seeking to develop focus. Of course, Debussy had the same concept, of reveling in the present moment, so if I'm seeking mindfulness, his music is more of a draw for me.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I really like a lot of minimalism as film accompaniment, which is not intended as disparagement. I enjoy both popular and more experimental combining of the media.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> I suppose we could start by naming some well-known and appreciated minimalist works? I don't particularly care for minimalism, of the type that emerged during the 60s and led chiefly from the U.S. I feel it lacks the melodic content and interest of early minimalistic works like those of Satie.


Melodic content in Satie? I thought that the fact that he's often considered a forerunner of minimalism is because of of his piece Vexation, that it's more a novelty, definitely something not particularly melodic or musically interesting to me.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Manxfeeder said:


> I think one's attention span is at the heart of appreciating minimalism, at least the early phases of it in the '80s...


The 1880s I presume?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

norman bates said:


> Melodic content in Satie? I thought that the fact that he's often considered a forerunner of minimalism is because of of his piece Vexation, that it's more a novelty, definitely something not particularly melodic or musically interesting to me.


That's one of the pieces that interested Cage, and no doubt others, but all his music had minimalistic aspects. He constantly used ostinato figures and repeated melodic fragments; especially in the 'humoristic' works between 1913-1918. His real seed of minimalism is in his _Musique d'Ameublement_, but that was not music intended to be listened to.

But he also wrote many melodic works. Even in those humorous pieces you find lilting melodies like the brief middle movement of _Les trois valses du précieux dégoûté_ and the constant stream of songs he poured out for the Paris singers of the day.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's one of the pieces that interested Cage, and no doubt others, but all his music had minimalistic aspects. He constantly used ostinato figures and repeated melodic fragments; especially in the 'humoristic' works between 1913-1918.


Also notable was his use of time as the guiding structure of his music rather than melody. That was also a big influence on Cage.

As you noted about repeated patterns, his film score to the Relache en'tracte is nothing but patterns which repeat, then are rearranged, in sync with the film, and they don't call attention to themselves. He carried this technique to its highest form in Socrate, where the accompaniment is similar to Relache, but this time the repeating patterns don't emphasize the text but rather form a halo around it.

Personally, I understood what Philip Glass was doing after I studied the Gymnopedies, which feature a melodic line which doesn't develop but rather expands, contracts, or inverts.

Is Vexations considered minimalistic? There is no variation in the patterns; it is just one piece repeated 840 times.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> The 1880s I presume?


Ha! Good observation.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

20centrfuge said:


> I'm reading the book "The Lives of the Great Composers" by Harold C. Schonberg. In the introduction he briefly talks about contemporary music and states that musical Minimalism is "baby music." (and implies that it is not deserving of being considered part of the musical legacy of the "greats").
> 
> Is Minimalism so simplistic as to be appropriately labeled baby music (even in jest)?
> 
> Or is Minimalism a legitimate part of the tapestry of western art music worthy of the musical legacy of Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, etc?


I knew Harold Schonberg both by his work and personally. He was a brilliant journalist with an encyclopedic memory, a great researcher and writer, and an enthusiastic but very much amateur pianist. He was no chess expert either when he was assigned by the New York Times to write about the Bobby Fischer - Boris Spassky chess match, yet his great account helped make it into the legend it became. Like most of us here, he had strong opinions when it came to classical music, and you could certainly often see them in his concert reviews in the newspaper, but for the most part he wisely moderated or repressed them when he wrote his books. His talents made him a more reliable music historian than music critic. 
Ironically, New York's other great music critic of the 20th century Virgil Thomson, had the opposite problem. He was very much an expert professional musician, but allowed the promotion of his own personal reputation and agenda to color his opinions. So I'd say Thomson's opinions are far more reliable, as long as you stay as far as possible from anyone or anything that concerned him personally.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Most minimalism seems yawn inducing to me. I'd agree with Schonberg.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Manxfeeder said:


> Also notable was his use of time as the guiding structure of his music rather than melody. That was also a big influence on Cage.
> 
> As you noted about repeated patterns, his film score to the Relache en'tracte is nothing but patterns which repeat, then are rearranged, in sync with the film, and they don't call attention to themselves. He carried this technique to its highest form in Socrate, where the accompaniment is similar to Relache, but this time the repeating patterns don't emphasize the text but rather form a halo around it.
> 
> ...


Indeed, all of those ballet scores: Parade, Mercure (though less so), Relache are built up of small, repetitive musical units - Parade very much so. And you are right about Socrate. This way of writing was part of his 'methodology' of little figures and palindromes that get interrupted.

However I wouldn't want to drag all Satie's music into the sphere of 'minimalism'. I don't associate him with any movements, he always seemed to be either one step ahead (_Le piège de Méduse_ preceding Dada by five years) and thus also out of step with whatever -ism was used to describe him. What is clear though is that he was doing this kind of thing - the structures used in later minimalism - decades before minimalism was coined as a 'thing'. He just didn't devote himself to that alone.

It's already been said in this thread, that not all 'minimalism' is the same, so perhaps it;s not all 'minimalism'...whatever minimalism is.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Star said:


> Most minimalism seems yawn inducing to me. I'd agree with Schonberg.


Would you extend that to minimalistic, pithy remarks?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's one of the pieces that interested Cage, and no doubt others, but all his music had minimalistic aspects. He constantly used ostinato figures and repeated melodic fragments; especially in the 'humoristic' works between 1913-1918. His real seed of minimalism is in his _Musique d'Ameublement_, but that was not music intended to be listened to.
> 
> But he also wrote many melodic works. Even in those humorous pieces you find lilting melodies like the brief middle movement of _Les trois valses du précieux dégoûté_ and the constant stream of songs he poured out for the Paris singers of the day.


I know that he composed many melodic works, but I don't think we could consider stuff like the gymnopedies as minimalism.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

norman bates said:


> I know that he composed many melodic works, but I don't think we could consider stuff like the gymnopedies as minimalism.


I didn't include them, although in some ways they _are_ minimalistic as Manxfeeder described them. They are (like the Gnossiennes) series of repeated first inversion triads with a single line melody above; also repeated.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> However I wouldn't want to drag all Satie's music into the sphere of 'minimalism'. I don't associate him with any movements, he always seemed to be either one step ahead.


He did have a way of anticipating what became major developments in the 20th Century, like frame-by-frame film music, polytonality, and neoclassicism. I'm going by memory, so I may be rusty on all of them right now. In addition to Dada, he also did musically what Picasso was doing with collages by introducing snippets of common/popular songs into this pieces.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Harold S was a product of his time and his books are a reflection of many writers who struggled to come to terms with contemporary music. He grew up listening to the giants of the piano, violin, and podium. Performers who played the undeniably great masterworks that make up the vast bulk of the repertoire. New musical trends were an anathema and, in his view, not worthy to stand alongside the work of the great composers. History, it seems, has proven Schonberg correct. His description of minimalism as Baby Music was probably a good one: simple, trivial, banal. That the public by and large hasn't embraced it is not surprising. It is dull, repetitive, monotonous. It's music written by composers of little talent who somehow have managed to bamboozle people that it is profound, great stuff. There are some fine works, to be sure: the Gorecki 3rd - but he's a far better musician than Adams, Reich, Glass and other. So audiences don't care for it, how about performers? I cannot stand playing music of this school - dull, repetitive, mindless. What is really comes down to is this: these "composers" are/were looking for a way to be relevant, to seem important known that alongside the masters like Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and others, they are nothing. Nothing they have written will pass the test of time. There is no demand for their music. Compared to the masters, they are babies. Henry Pleasants said it 60 years ago - he saw it all and hit the nail on the head.


I owe a great deal to Harold Schonberg. As a child of the 1970s, I came to classical music by way of old Bugs Bunny and Tom & Jerry cartoons, as well as, "Star Wars" which featured John Williams' big and brassy classically-inspired score. From there it was hit-or-miss, buying classical records based upon whatever looked interesting and having nothing else to guide me besides the liner notes that came with my records. Even though my mother had no desire to know or understand classical music, she encouraged my interest and bought me a copy of Schonberg's "Lives of the Great Composers" as a Christmas present when I was about 16. It was that book that seemed to bring everything together for me; not that I always agreed with Schonberg's views but because the book was so well-written, so thoughtful and unlike so many books on classical music that I've since read, achieves the difficult task of explaining complex musical ideas in a language that ordinary people like me can understand.

I read my original copy of "Lives of the Great Composers" so many times that I've memorized portions of it and have long since worn out the binding. Apart from minimalism, Schonberg isn't so kind to the new music of the 1950s and 1960s: the serial movement, indeterminacy and so forth; nor did Schonberg seem particularly impressed by Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Richard Strauss, Prokofiev, Shostakovich or Britten (in his 3rd edition, he seems to soften his stance on Britten and Shostakovich, and also makes a sincere attempt to include women composers in his narrative).

Schonberg had big ideas and big opinions that I thought of as sincere even though I disagree with some of it.

As for minimalism, while we can criticize it as "dull, repetitive, monotonous", the fact remains that there was a void that needed to be filled (Schonberg himself talks about this in his book). The Ultra-Modernist movements of the 1950s and 60s left a gulf that developed between composer and audience that could not be reconciled. Yes, "masters like Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Dvorak and Tchaikovsky" were great, but who in modern times could compose in their style and still sound original? At the very least, minimalism helped bridge the gulf between composer and audience and seemed to help revive interest in what living composers have to say.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

fluteman said:


> I knew Harold Schonberg both by his work and personally. He was a brilliant journalist with an encyclopedic memory, a great researcher and writer, and an enthusiastic but very much amateur pianist. He was no chess expert either when he was assigned by the New York Times to write about the Bobby Fischer - Boris Spassky chess match, yet his great account helped make it into the legend it became. Like most of us here, he had strong opinions when it came to classical music, and you could certainly often see them in his concert reviews in the newspaper, but for the most part he wisely moderated or repressed them when he wrote his books. His talents made him a more reliable music historian than music critic.
> Ironically, New York's other great music critic of the 20th century Virgil Thomson, had the opposite problem. He was very much an expert professional musician, but allowed the promotion of his own personal reputation and agenda to color his opinions. So I'd say Thomson's opinions are far more reliable, as long as you stay as far as possible from anyone or anything that concerned him personally.


Like Schonberg, my two most prominent interests (apart from family, friends and my own spiritual, mental and physical well-being) are classical music and chess. Most of all, I see Schonberg as something that I think makes for all great writing and that is the ability to be a great story-teller. In "Lives of the Great Composers" Schonberg brings the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and so forth to life. In "Lives of the Chess Players" even an amateur chess player like me can see how Schonberg does not possess the same technical knowledge that is apparent in "Lives of the Great Composers". Indeed, in "Lives of the Great Chess Players", Schonberg is unable to describe the difference between Capablanca and Alekhine without resorting to what he knows best. As I recall, he states: "If Capablanca was the Mozart of chess, then Alekhine was it's Wagner". Even so, he still manages to put together a fairly good narrative of the chess world by virtue of good writing, which I'd also call good story-telling.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Boston Charlie said:


> "If Capablanca was the Mozart of chess, then Alekhine was it's Wagner".


If memory serves, I recently read that Prokofiev once defeated Capablanca in chess. It was a "Wow!" moment.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart may have been a child when he wrote his early works, but that doesn't make it baby or childish music intended to help grow babies' brains or ridiculed because some students like to study to it. As far as Haydn is concerned, that he could do simple things effectively doesn't make it baby music either. Sometimes it's hard to believe some of statement made about these two master composers though no one is obligated to like them, or make silly statements about them in support of the Minimalists.


I didn't make a silly statement on Mozart and Haydn, I stated my authentic musical experience listening to the majority of their works. I even said it does not apply to all of their music, some of it is great. Nevertheless I find it impossible to enjoy most of their music through sheer boredom. It often even gives me the creeps and makes me really very uncomfortable. I find lots of it unbearable to listen to and, if I were to be tortured, playing their music would be a most effective way. This is a sincere statement and why would that be so difficult for you to just take it as it is. There is nothing objective about it, as there is nothing objective in stating that minimalism is baby music.

I also didn't state it in support of the Minimalists per se, more as a reaction to this small-minded classical heroism I get sick of (some classical composers are treated as 'untouchables'). Concerning minimal music I feel quite the same as towards classical Classical music: most of it is boring but some pieces give me enormous pleasure, e.g. Music for 18 Musicians (a masterpiece, I've heard it perform myself) and Einstein on the Beach. I do have a long attention span.

And to all that think classical music produced some great art until the 1850's and all composers that came after that are babies in comparison to the great heroes: explain for yourself how and why humankind seems to have developed economically, scientifically, technically and culturally in every field of human endeavour.... except for classical music. All human endeavour builds upon tradition, breaks away from it, and builds on that further. Maybe the problem is you?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Casebearer said:


> ...And to all that think classical music produced some great art until the 1850's and all composers that came after that are babies in comparison to the great heroes: explain for yourself how and why humankind seems to have developed economically, scientifically, technically and culturally in every field of human endeavour.... except for classical music. All human endeavour builds upon tradition, breaks away from it, and builds on that further. Maybe the problem is you?


There were quite a few games on another site that voted on the best works by decade from the past 300-400 years. Doing some calculations from the results, the peak years for classical music, as seen today, were around 1806-1810 -- right in the middle of Beethoven's 2nd period.

Not to say good or bad, but music before and after that has not achieved the same degree of popularity or admiration.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

That's what I mean....


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Yes, it is "baby music". I tried to listen to Satie and Glass and it was not my cup of tea  It reminds me of the electronic techno music which also repeats one simple tune ad nauseam


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

KenOC said:


> If memory serves, I recently read that Prokofiev once defeated Capablanca in chess. It was a "Wow!" moment.


Prokofiev was a very good chess player. but Francois-Andre Danican Philidor (French composer 1726-1795) was, perhaps, the greatest chess player of his times. We can credit Philidor with developing the essentials of positional play; that a superior position is a direct result of pawn structure; as Philidor once stated; "The pawns are the soul of chess". As for Philidor's music, I have a CD by Jordi Savall of some of Philidor's compositions and it is very pleasant and very listenable without being outstanding. Another chess/classical music crossover would be Vasily Smyslov of the Soviet Union who was champion 1957-1958, known for very methodical, positional play. As an amateur opera bass/baritone opera singer, Smyslov would sometimes entertain at chess events. Chess Grandmaster, Mark Tamianov (1926-2016), also Russian, was also a concert pianist. The blind jazz pianist/singer Ray Charles was a very good amateur chess player.

I'm very interested in understanding psychological relationships between chess and music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Yes, it is "baby music". I tried to listen to Satie and Glass and it was not my cup of tea


It's not your cup of tea...That's fine. How does that make it "baby music"?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

"It's not your cup of tea...That's fine. How does that make it "baby music"? "
because the music is so simplistic that even the undevelopped brains of babys can process and enjoy it


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Anyone who thinks Satie's (or Glass's) music is merely repetition or remotely like Techno, is doing more talking than listening. 

I have a limit for hearing 'that's my opinion, it's not objective'. I say at least have some knowledge of and familiarity with the thing in question if you're going to make any sort of meaningful critique of it.


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

Good article here. Some fierce detractors (Wuorinen, George Perle), and others who believe in it's intrinsic values (John Adams, Del Tradici); to me both sides have some validity.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-06-18/entertainment/ca-3773_1_new-music-minimalism-elliott-carter


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Must confess that if minimalism is the best modern composers can produce then we have a lack of musical talent on planet earth.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Melvin said:


> Good article here. Some fierce detractors (Wuorinen, George Perle), and others who believe in it's intrinsic values (John Adams, Del Tradici); to me both sides have some validity.
> http://articles.latimes.com/1989-06-18/entertainment/ca-3773_1_new-music-minimalism-elliott-carter


Very interesting article, thanks!


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2018)

Jacck said:


> "It's not your cup of tea...That's fine. How does that make it "baby music"? "
> because the music is so simplistic that even the undevelopped brains of babys can process and enjoy it


You misunderstood my question. In the post I quoted, you implied a link between not liking minimalism ("not my cup of tea") and, the validity of the description of it as "baby music". My question challenges that link, and I offered you the opportunity to provide a better analysis.

Of course, "the music is so simplistic that even the undevelopped brains of babys can process and enjoy it," could just as easily be a compliment - unless babies' enjoyment of music is a bad thing?

[add] I assume you've gone a bit further in your listening than Satie (who doesn't get a mention in this wiki article, and was not a Minimalist!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_music



Star said:


> *if* minimalism is the best modern composers can produce then we have a lack of musical talent on planet earth.


I don't agree with your hyperbole, but in any case, as your 'if' implies, modern composers are busy working on all kinds of material, not just minimalism, so planet earth is safe for a while longer yet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I don't agree with your hyperbole, but in any case, as your 'if' implies, modern composers are busy working on all kinds of material, not just minimalism, so planet earth is safe for a while longer yet.


I might add that there are plenty of people writing scads of new music outside of what we're pleased to call "classical." The problem is not with them but with ourselves, perhaps doomed to become irrelevant to what "real" people want to hear.

Are we simply frogs in an evaporating mud puddle, arguing over the quality of the water? The world goes on, and it remains full of music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

"You misunderstood my question. In the post I quoted, you implied a link between not liking minimalism ("not my cup of tea") and, the validity of the description of it as "baby music"
It was Schonberg who called minimalism "baby music", not me. Strictly speaking, there is no link between me not liking the music and it being called baby music. I would not even say that I do not like the music. I might like it at the beginning but get bored fast, because the music is simple and repeats a lot. Satie is imho a minimalist, listen to his Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I assume you've gone a bit further in your listening than Satie (who doesn't get a mention in this wiki article, and was not a Minimalist!


He was a main source, despite what Wikipedia declares.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Jacck said:


> "You misunderstood my question. In the post I quoted, you implied a link between not liking minimalism ("not my cup of tea") and, the validity of the description of it as "baby music"
> It was Schonberg who called minimalism "baby music", not me. Strictly speaking, there is no link between me not liking the music and it being called baby music. I would not even say that I do not like the music. I might like it at the beginning but get bored fast, because the music is simple and repeats a lot. Satie is imho a minimalist, listen to his Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes


But you chose to frame this thread with that heading, thereby implicitly demeaning in advance anyone who might take a contrary position.

By the way, Alex Ross, in his multi-prize winning history of 20th Century music, "The Rest is Silence," includes "Music for 18 Musicians" as one of his top 10 must have recordings of music from that century. Another baby, I guess.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I discovered Glass around 1990 or so, which was about the same time as I discovered Mahler. Both are favourite composers still, and the idea that someone would wonder whether minimalism is "baby music" is as ludicrous to me as the idea that someone would wonder whether Mahler is proper music too.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> He was a main source, despite what Wikipedia declares.


I'm certainly not offering wiki as an authoratative source on what is and isn't minimalism, but as an easy starting point to offer to someone asking about it.

Having said that, there are two specific objections to the idea that Satie is a minimalist. The first is that (according to the non-authoratiative wiki) minimalism as a description of a piece of music was not used until after Satie's death (so he didn't describe himself that way and nor did anyone else at the time). The fact that one might be able to apply such a term because there are some similarities to the work of the 'real' minimalists is, IMO, insufficient justification.

The second is that if one uses Satie as source material for a minimalist work, or even cites him as an inspiration, one may as well say that anyone used by a minimalist becomes a minimalist. Vivaldi, for example, used in this work by "post-minimalist" Max Richter...


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2018)

Jacck said:


> It was Schonberg who called minimalism "baby music", not me.


But you said,



Jacck said:


> Yes, it is "baby music".


Are you now disowning your previously held opinion?

As for "listen to his Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes", I'm very familiar with these pieces. You might like to elaborate on what it is about them that you think qualifies them as minimalist works.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Melvin said:


> Good article here. Some fierce detractors (Wuorinen, George Perle), and others who believe in it's intrinsic values (John Adams, Del Tradici); to me both sides have some validity.
> http://articles.latimes.com/1989-06-18/entertainment/ca-3773_1_new-music-minimalism-elliott-carter


There are a number of interesting things about that article. First, note that it is now nearly 29 years old. Steve Reich and Philip Glass, though still living, are hardly the latest hot topic in contemporary music at this point. I had the honor and pleasure of meeting David Del Tredici, also an older guy at this point, and just a wonderful guy and a brilliant composer with a great sense of humor. I think Final Alice will retain a significant place in the western musical canon long after all of us are gone. But I also think what happens with movements like minimalism is that they have their impact on our culture, but in time other ideas and movements supersede them, and the controversy dies down. I mean, Bach put some popular tunes in the Quodlibet at the end of the Goldberg Variations, and Mozart and Beethoven made use of the popular music of their day, as did Stravinsky with ragtime and jazz. Wourinen makes a good point about the distinction between art and entertainment, but art has always included commentary on the popular entertainment of its day.


----------



## spectral (Dec 19, 2017)

20centrfuge said:


> I'm reading the book "The Lives of the Great Composers" by Harold C. Schonberg. In the introduction he briefly talks about contemporary music and states that musical Minimalism is "baby music." (and implies that it is not deserving of being considered part of the musical legacy of the "greats").
> 
> Is Minimalism so simplistic as to be appropriately labeled baby music (even in jest)?
> 
> Or is Minimalism a legitimate part of the tapestry of western art music worthy of the musical legacy of Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, etc?


The term minimalism itself is reductionist.

Critics are only as useful as far as you can throw them.

Next to a piece like Roslavets' affetamente etude, Bach's Italian Concerto can be called minimalism for kids but is it, really? No, it's a great piece - as is the Roslavets.

One of the most profound pieces of classical music is Satie's Ogive 1. I'll take it over every one of Godowsky's Chopin embroideries, regardless if it takes three hands to play them or not.

There is more passion and profundity in a great performance of Mad Rush than there is in a lot of very complex, very layered, very ornate scores occupying many pages and derived from complex intellectual theories and historical references.

Minimalism vs. maximalism is just as much of a useless dichotomy to judge something on, in terms of it being a quality scale as the "big government" fallacy. In reality, government simply needs to be the size it needs to be. How big that is depends on the variables. Similarly, classical music needs to be as complex as it needs to be, no more no less. The tool needs to match the work.

Schonberg is simply trying to superimpose his arbitrarily personal artistic taste upon the whole of the genre (in a manner humorously similar to the proclamation from some "serious" critics that Rachmaninov and Romanticism in general is garbage for the lowbrow masses because it has too many notes. Too many notes = unserious watered-down notes. Neoclassicism is required!) This is what critics do when they're vain enough to write books, at least those that are taken seriously.

The tool needs to be what it needs to be. That's all. 5 notes. 500 notes. There is no objective superiority to one or the other without the variable of what an artist is attempting to do. And that's just one part of it. The other is the appraiser's appraisal, which involves all sorts of personal and cultural baggage - not just intrinsic factors derived from human DNA.

Hamelin said he likes to listen to multiple pieces of music running simultaneously. Yes, this is an interesting experience but it's not superior to listening to music normally. It's just different. Complexity for complexity's sake is just one take on art. Art has no intrinsic value. It's all in the beholder's judgment. That includes the creators and performers, who are beholding judges as well.

Schonberg, like anyone foolish enough to think he/she can be a universal arbiter of art, exposes himself as a narrow-minded person. Maybe Wilde should be required reading for everyone who goes into musicology?

Any young child that can fully appreciate "minimalism" is a genius.

When Robin Williams stood upon a desk and told students to tear out Mr. Pritchard, he had it right. Criticism interests critics. The rest of us enjoy experiencing the art.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

_"Are you now disowning your previously held opinion? As for "listen to his Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes", I'm very familiar with these pieces. You might like to elaborate on what it is about them that you think qualifies them as minimalist works. "_
No, I do not like to elaborate. I can only describe my impression of the Satie music. I find it slow and repeating a simple melody several times. At first listening I liked it, at third listening I was bored. Whether it is minimalism or not I do not really care. I have no musical education and am not that interested in word playes. But here is some article about Satie and minimalism
http://www.minim-media.com/satie/points.htm


----------



## spectral (Dec 19, 2017)

Some of Satie's Gnossiennes are among the very best pieces in the classical genre. The performances are what vary in quality. That's my opinion. Boredom, for me, would only come from a lacking performance. By contrast, only the first Ogive is a masterpiece in my view. The others are merely derivative.

One thing people often fail to take into account is how strongly reverb can influence the perception of a performance. Take the dry analog sound of de Leeuw's Early Satie set and put some reverb on it with Audacity or similar and, suddenly, it sounds even better. There is an Italian pianist who is frequently suggested for Satie. His name escapes me. I found his performance uninteresting.

If you take the Mona Lisa and put it under really bad lighting then it's going to have an inferior impression. As a painter, I can tell you that lighting makes a huge difference in impact. This is why Rothko insisted on very specific lighting conditions for the display of his pieces.

Performance can be absolutely essential to the perceived quality of a piece. Compare Lvov's performance of Miaskovsky's 2nd sonata with Biret's, for instance. The former is clear and architectural. The latter is improvisational and sloppy. By contrast, Biret's performance of Rachmaninov's first sonata is clear and architectural while Weissenberg's is far too fast.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

spectral said:


> There is an Italian pianist who is frequently suggested for Satie. His name escapes me. I found his performance uninteresting.


PMJI, but I'm guessing Aldo Ciccolini. Carry on.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'm certainly not offering wiki as an authoratative source on what is and isn't minimalism, but as an easy starting point to offer to someone asking about it.
> 
> Having said that, there are two specific objections to the idea that Satie is a minimalist. The first is that (according to the non-authoratiative wiki) minimalism as a description of a piece of music was not used until after Satie's death (so he didn't describe himself that way and nor did anyone else at the time). The fact that one might be able to apply such a term because there are some similarities to the work of the 'real' minimalists is, IMO, insufficient justification.
> 
> The second is that if one uses Satie as source material for a minimalist work, or even cites him as an inspiration, one may as well say that anyone used by a minimalist becomes a minimalist. Vivaldi, for example, used in this work by "post-minimalist" Max Richter...


Both those arguments are not simply spurious, they're just wrong. Dozens of art movements have official names that appear long after the people who either pioneered them or were their main influences. Turner's watercolours - the work he loved to produce especially in his later years, often in preference to the work he was expected to exhibit - were basically impressionist paintings. Monet and others knew this and he was often cited as an influence. Was Turner an impressionist? He certainly and obviously wasn't part of the group of "impressionist painters", but he painted "impressionist" works.

Was Arthur Crudup (1940s) a Rock 'n' Roll singer? He certainly laid down the style adopted by people like Elvis and Carl Perkins, but he's most often classified as an Rhythm and Blues artist, or just ignored.

Using Vivaldi and deliberately having to alter his work, which was not intended to be minimalist or had any deliberate minimalist ideas in it, is not the same as Satie deliberately using a composition methodology which precedes the manner of minimalist composing decades later.

Satie was a pioneer of minimalism. End of story.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Both those arguments are not simply spurious, they're just wrong. Dozens of art movements have official names that appear long after the people who either pioneered them or were their main influences. Turner's watercolours - the work he loved to produce especially in his later years, often in preference to the work he was expected to exhibit - were basically impressionist paintings. Monet and others knew this and he was often cited as an influence. Was Turner an impressionist? He certainly and obviously wasn't part of the group of "impressionist painters", but he painted "impressionist" works.
> 
> Was Arthur Crudup (1940s) a Rock 'n' Roll singer? He certainly laid down the style adopted by people like Elvis and Carl Perkins, but he's most often classified as an Rhythm and Blues artist, or just ignored.
> 
> ...


And don't forget how it was Beethoven who invented Jazz:


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> Both those arguments are not simply spurious, they're just wrong.


Well I don't like to do things by half measures. Nor do you with your counter measures, it seems!



eugeneonagain said:


> Dozens of art movements have *official names *that appear long after the people who either pioneered them or were their main influences.


The only "official" names are those taken by artists themselves - and even then, one must treat with scepticism. Anything else is just a label applied by others whose opinion may be valid - but is still just an opinion. (One might also ask if Debussy is an impressionist when he was most emphatic that he wasn't. This labelling business can be a bit tricksy for the less-than-dogmatic.)



eugeneonagain said:


> Using Vivaldi and deliberately having to alter his work, which was not intended to be minimalist or had any deliberate minimalist ideas in it, is not the same as Satie deliberately using a composition methodology which precedes the manner of minimalist composing decades later.


You've lost me here. Stick with comparing like with like. You said Satie was a "main source" (though you don't say who for, or cite an example). I was showing how Vivaldi was a source too. By your argument, that makes Vivaldi a minimalist, which we both know is nonsense (though his work is somewhat repetitive!)

As for Satie's composition methodology - perhaps you'd like to explain to me (spurious and wrong - so I need to be put right) what it is about his methodology that precedes the minimalists?



eugeneonagain said:


> Satie was a pioneer of minimalism.


Doing my own research - since I suspect you won't oblige me - I can follow an argument that attempts to show similarities, (http://www.minim-media.com/satie/points.htm a link offered by Jacck) but some of them seem to be no stronger than "Satie used repetition - so did the minimalists" (since Mozart and Beethoven did too, where are we going with this line of argument?) See p.124 of Strickland's _Minimalism: Origins _for a very brief analysis, giving the idea short shrift. On the other hand, you've got support from Alistair McGowan...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/articles/6d6ba084-7740-44f2-bbd2-6ef6417dc385

And then again, Ivan Hewett is doubtful...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...9/Why-everyone-is-wrong-about-minimalism.html

So, I'll stick with my spurious and wrong opinions, thank you, and you can keep yours. 



Jacck said:


> _"Are you now disowning your previously held opinion? As for "listen to his Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes", I'm very familiar with these pieces. You might like to elaborate on what it is about them that you think qualifies them as minimalist works. "_
> No, I do not like to elaborate. I can only describe my impression of the Satie music. I find it slow and repeating a simple melody several times. At first listening I liked it, at third listening I was bored. Whether it is minimalism or not I do not really care. I have no musical education and am not that interested in word playes. But here is some article about Satie and minimalism
> http://www.minim-media.com/satie/points.htm


I have no musical education either, and I thought we were debating your assertion that, yes, it is baby music (not word plays) but if you don't care to continue, that's fine.

Thanks for the link. As you can see, it came in useful.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

From Philip Glass's autobiography _Music With Notes_:

In composing these pieces [early pieces such as _How Now_], I made the musical language the center of the piece. By "language," I mean the moment-to-moment decision made when a note of music is composed. To make that work, I had to find a music that would hold your atention. I began to use process instead of "story", and the process was based on repetition and change. This made the language easier to understand, because the listener would have time to contemplate it at the same time as it was moving so quickly. It was a way of paying attention to the music, rather than to the story the music might be telling. In Steve Reich's early pieces, he did this with "phasing," and I did it with additive structure. In this case, when process replaced narrative, the technique of repetition became the basis of the language.
There is a psychology of listening involved in this. One of the most common misunderstandings of the music was that the music just repeated all the time. Actually, it never repeated all the time, for if it had, it would have been unlistenable. What made it listenable were precisely the changes. There was a composer who was describing my music to someone else, and he said, "Here's what it is: if you take a C-major chord and just play it over and over again, that's what Philip Glass does."
Well, that's exactly what I _don't_ do. He completely missed the point. In order to make it listenable, you had to change the face of the music - one-two, one-two-three - so that the ear could never be sure of what it was going to hear. If you look at "Music in Similar Motion" or any of the other earlier pieces, what is interesting about them is how they don't repeat. To miss that point is like going to a play and falling asleep but waking up for the intermissions. You miss everything if all you hear is the intermissions. You've got to hear what the piece is actually doing, and unfortunately, at first, not everyone was able to do that.
Why could we hear something, while the people who screamed "The needle is stuck!" could not? Because we were paying attention to the changes. The mechanics of perception and attention tied you to the flow of the music in a way that was compelling and that made the story irrelevant.
When you get to that level of attention, two things happen: one, the structure (form) and the content become identical; two, the listener experiences an emotional buoyancy. Once we let go of the narrative and allow ourselves to enter the flow of the music, the buoyancy that we expereience is both addictive and attractive and attains a high emotional level.

FWIW, Glass never mentions Satie in his book.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well I don't like to do things by half measures. Nor do you with your counter measures, it seems!
> 
> The only "official" names are those taken by artists themselves - and even then, one must treat with scepticism. Anything else is just a label applied by others whose opinion may be valid - but is still just an opinion. (One might also ask if Debussy is an impressionist when he was most emphatic that he wasn't. This labelling business can be a bit tricksy for the less-than-dogmatic.)


I'm not dogmatic. The official names of 'schools of art' are hardly ever coined by the artists most associated with them. More usually by critics and journalists, sometimes after the fact. Debussy most certainly had a phase that both fitted the mould and helped create the mould for what is known as 'impressionism'. He had other phases too. Just like Satie wasn't walking around with a sandwich board on reading 'Minimalist Here!'. He also briefly toyed with 'impressionism'.



MacLeod said:


> You've lost me here. Stick with comparing like with like. You said Satie was a "main source" (though you don't say who for, or cite an example). I was showing how Vivaldi was a source too. By your argument, that makes Vivaldi a minimalist, which we both know is nonsense (though his work is somewhat repetitive!)
> 
> As for Satie's composition methodology - perhaps you'd like to explain to me (spurious and wrong - so I need to be put right) what it is about his methodology that precedes the minimalists?


You've lost yourself. Why are you telling me to stick with comparing like to like when you posted a Vivaldi mashup? Look back in this thread and you'll see that I mentioned Cage's 'rediscovery' of Satie mid-twentieth century whose music he brought back to attention in the west and stumbled upon Musique d'Ameublement - a clear forerunner to minimalist ideas.
Satie's notes and notebooks found after his death revealed the mathematical and planned methodologies he used especially for his later compositions. Directly comparable to ideas used by some "Minimalist" (are we allowed to use the term, you are wary of labels?) composers.



MacLeod said:


> Doing my own research - since I suspect you won't oblige me - I can follow an argument that attempts to show similarities, (http://www.minim-media.com/satie/points.htm a link offered by Jacck) but some of them seem to be no stronger than "Satie used repetition - so did the minimalists" (since Mozart and Beethoven did too, where are we going with this line of argument?) See p.124 of Strickland's _Minimalism: Origins _for a very brief analysis, giving the idea short shrift. On the other hand, you've got support from Alistair McGowan...


Beethoven's and Mozart's uses of repeated phrases (which are transformed as the work develops) in larger works is nothing at all like Satie's deliberate repeats of 2-4 bar unaltered phrases over 20 or more bars in Musique d'Ameublement or Vexations. Have you actually heard the former?



MacLeod said:


> So, I'll stick with my spurious and wrong opinions, thank you, and you can keep yours.
> 
> I have no musical education either, and I thought we were debating your assertion that, yes, it is baby music (not word plays) but if you don't care to continue, that's fine.
> 
> Thanks for the link. As you can see, it came in useful.


I didn't make any assertion that it is baby music. Pay proper attention.

Well I have had a musical education and a very long association with Satie's music. My arguments on this are not opinions, they are established facts.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> I didn't make any assertion that it is baby music. Pay proper attention.
> 
> Well I have had a musical education and a very long association with Satie's music. My arguments on this are not opinions, they are established facts.


Once again, we have to agree to differ. You tell me to pay attention, overlooking that I was replying to Jacck, not you!


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> FWIW, Glass never mentions Satie in his book.


Clearly, Glass was wrong.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I have to say when listening to Satie's "minimalist" music I hear nothing like Glass or Reich. It does remind me of Morton Feldman though. One has to specify what flavour of minimalism one is talking about.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

I remember reading a rather tart interview with Gunther Schuller in the 1980s from "Opus" (or "Ovation"?) magazine. Schuller was asked about the merits of the music of Glass and he basically said that he didn't like it, and then he went on say that it was done before, and much better, by George Antheil. 

While being familiar with Satie's "Gnossiennes" and after just revisiting a recording of "Ballet Mechanique" by Antheil on YouTube, I'm still unsure as to where to find the roots of minimalism.

To me, it always seemed that minimalism had some sort of musical connection to East Indian music in that it seemed to go along the lines of the music of Ravi Shankar and Alla Rakha where the ragas go on and on and seem to induce the listener into a trance-like state of consciousness.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Boston Charlie said:


> I remember reading a rather tart interview with Gunther Schuller in the 1980s from "Opus" (or "Ovation"?) magazine. Schuller was asked about the merits of the music of Glass and he basically said that he didn't like it, and then he went on say that it was done before, and much better, by George Antheil.
> 
> While being familiar with Satie's "Gnossiennes" and after just revisiting a recording of "Ballet Mechanique" by Antheil on YouTube, I'm still unsure as to where to find the roots of minimalism.
> 
> To me, it always seemed that minimalism had some sort of musical connection to East Indian music in that it seemed to go along the lines of the music of Ravi Shankar and Alla Rakha where the ragas go on and on and seem to induce the listener into a trance-like state of consciousness.


Well yeah, Shankar and Rakha were a direct influence on Glass. As for Antheil, I've really enjoyed a couple of recent releases of his orchestral music and I have no idea what Schuller meant.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

_"I have no musical education either, and I thought we were debating your assertion that, yes, it is baby music"_
and how meaningful is such a discussion? This is no rocket science. The only objective fact here is the music (air vibrations), everything else is subjective evaluation of the music. I did not invent the term "baby music" nor was I the first one to use it in connection with minimalistic music. Schonberg probably used the expression in a mocking manner and I liked it, so I repeated it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2018)

Boston Charlie said:


> While being familiar with Satie's "Gnossiennes" and after just revisiting a recording of "Ballet Mechanique" by Antheil on YouTube, I'm still unsure as to where to find the roots of minimalism.
> 
> To me, it always seemed that minimalism had some sort of musical connection to East Indian music in that it seemed to go along the lines of the music of Ravi Shankar and Alla Rakha where the ragas go on and on and seem to induce the listener into a trance-like state of consciousness.


When I listen to some of Reich, to me it seems quite influenced by Indonesian gamelan; the _original_ process music! I don't know if that notion that has ever been aired.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

you are right, dogen. The Indonesian music is minimalist




and just like the minimalist music of Glass, I like it at first, but cannot listen to it too long. I suffered during my holidays in Indonesia (especially Bali) when they played the same music all the time. And all this music is the same.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

dogen said:


> When I listen to some of Reich, to me it seems quite influenced by Indonesian gamelan; the _original_ process music! I don't know if that notion that has ever been aired.


He did study gamelan music in California and went to Ghana to study African drumming.

Here's another interesting quote about the roots of his brand of minimalism: "I don't think we would have 'minimal' music if it wasn't for John Coltrane. He got there before the composers did."


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> FWIW, Glass never mentions Satie in his book.


I agree; I don't think Satie was at the direct root of Philip Glass' influences. But that being said, and more of an aside, Glass does understand what Satie was doing. He makes brief but insightful comments in this documentary about Satie at 5:31 and particularly at 31:51.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Manxfeeder said:


> He did study gamelan music in California and went to Ghana to study African drumming.
> 
> Here's another interesting quote about the roots of his brand of minimalism: "I don't think we would have 'minimal' music if it wasn't for John Coltrane. He got there before the composers did." (I'm not sure I agree with him, but it's interesting to see Coltrane thrown in the mix.)


Here's a useful article in which Reich discusses his influences - and expands a bit on the relevance of Coltrane ("harmonic stasis" is a handy phrase):
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-radar-then-along-came-radiohead-8517901.html


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Once again, we have to agree to differ. You tell me to pay attention, overlooking that I was replying to Jacck, not you!


You are right. I apologise for that mistake. I did not see the multiple quote.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Amy Dickson has devoted a great deal of energy over the last 10 years to the music of Philip Glass. I like the music and what she has to say about it... She's almost doing the impossible on soprano sax with the circular breathing necessary to perform the transcribed works from the violin. It's technically demanding as well and the stamina required to play it is enormous. Bravo!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I just want to quote an excerpt from Phillip Glass's version of "Where have all the flowers gone?" 
Where where where where where where where wherewherewhere WHERE where WHERE wherewherewhere (Repeat 43 times.) GERANIUMS UMS UMS UMS dandylionsdandylionsdandylions (Repeat 10 times) 
Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Gonetheflowersare gonetheflowersare GONE GONE GONE GONEgoneGONEgoneGONE Where where where where where where where wherewherewhere WHERE where WHERE wherewherewhere (Repeat 43 times.) etc.
PS: Do not take it too seriously, I am half joking


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Jacck said:


> I just want to quote an excerpt from Phillip Glass's version of "Where have all the flowers gone?"
> Where where where where where where where wherewherewhere WHERE where WHERE wherewherewhere (Repeat 43 times.) GERANIUMS UMS UMS UMS dandylionsdandylionsdandylions (Repeat 10 times)
> Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Gonetheflowersare gonetheflowersare GONE GONE GONE GONEgoneGONEgoneGONE Where where where where where where where wherewherewhere WHERE where WHERE wherewherewhere (Repeat 43 times.) etc.
> PS: Do not take it too seriously, I am half joking


Sort of reminds me of that tune where a whole chorus keeps repeating "Hallelujah." Sheesh! - they seem to go on forever and ever.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

> Sort of reminds me of that tune where a whole chorus keeps repeating "Hallelujah." Sheesh! - they seem to go on forever and ever.


or "Om mani padme hum" or "Om Tare Tuttare Ture Soha". Chanting one mantra half an hour


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> I just want to quote an excerpt from Phillip Glass's version of "Where have all the flowers gone?"
> Where where where where where where where wherewherewhere WHERE where WHERE wherewherewhere (Repeat 43 times.) GERANIUMS UMS UMS UMS dandylionsdandylionsdandylions (Repeat 10 times)
> Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Iknowthey'reinthegardensomewhere Gonetheflowersare gonetheflowersare GONE GONE GONE GONEgoneGONEgoneGONE Where where where where where where where wherewherewhere WHERE where WHERE wherewherewhere (Repeat 43 times.) etc.
> PS: Do not take it too seriously, I am half joking


Why would anyone take it seriously? It's such a cheap gag. Here's some actual Philip Glass vocal music:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Things have finally come full circle for me. Although this is just one thread, and I haven't read through it yet to see how hot it is, if the debate over minimalism really heats up, the board will have returned to where it was years and years ago, when I originally came here, ironically dubbing myself in that virtual incarnation "romantic listener!"


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

This from David Ives's great set of one acts, "All in the Timing."


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Glass evolved into something like a neo-Romantic. I actually prefer the earlier pieces that are closer to Jacck's attempted parody:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I like some mimimal music. 
Minimal classical music is in ways connected to certain world/ethnic music. And certain ambient and electronic music is connected to minimal music. I'm a big fan of some of that stuff.

I think this whole area of music is much more, if not only, about _effect_ rather than musical narrative, if that makes any sense. I enjoy these effects in healthy doses.

When it comes to repeating short, basic musical patterns and applying small changes stretched out over a long period of time, if such a thing is considered minimalism, I generally prefer non-classical electronic music.

Electronic music, with all its sound modulation (filters and effects and what not) makes repitition generally more bearable TO ME than lots of dry repeats on traditional classical instruments (like Tangerine Dream in their golden years; oh yes). But there are exceptions, it all depends on the music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I also do not want to sound like I hate minimalist music or Philip Glass. It is not true. For example his album "Uakti and Philip Glass - Aguas da Amazonia" is great. I just would not classify it as classical music. It is much closer to African rhytmic music (drumming) which induces certain trance states or to electronic music than to classical orchestral music.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> Sort of reminds me of that tune where a whole chorus keeps repeating "Hallelujah." Sheesh! - they seem to go on forever and ever.


That sounds a bit like the assessment of a tone deaf person.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I just want to quote an excerpt from Phillip Glass's version of "Where have all the flowers gone?"


So did someone before you, a couple of years back...






Note comments by ironpirites: "Troll here: I just want to quote an excerpt from Phillip Glass's version of "Where have all the flowers gone?"" [etc]


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I also do not want to sound like I hate minimalist music or Philip Glass. It is not true. For example his album "Uakti and Philip Glass - Aguas da Amazonia" is great. I just would not classify it as classical music. It is much closer to African rhytmic music (drumming) which induces certain trance states or to electronic music than to classical orchestral music.


You can of course classify music as you will...but here's one specialist classical supplier who disagrees with you...

https://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/classical/products/7927474--glass-p-aguas-da-amazonia


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

MacLeod, incidentally, if you look at the youtube page, the first comment by Bobby Watson proves that it is "baby music"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

A lot of minimalism use repeated simple chord progressions, and is very similar to pop music. But the idea is the use of repetition and its simplicity. i find it somewhat revolutionary in the sense of being against a lot of traditional asthetics.


----------

