# Phlip Glass's comments on music of his generation



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I just watched a documentary called _In the Ocean - A Film about the Classical Avant Garde_. The film had music and thoughts by (mostly) American composers of the past 50 years about the classical music of their time. I thought it was entertaining and interesting, but I was struck by some comments made by Philip Glass.

Speaking of his time, he said the "spirit of experimentation and inclusion is much stronger with this generation." And further, one of the legacies of his generation is that young composers no longer have to have an allegiance to a musical ideology.

The composers were essentially saying that the "old" modern music before their time required a specific "way to compose". In the 60s and after (at least in the US) that changed. Composers were free to compose however they wished and include elements of any musical styles (tonality, jazz, polyrhythms, etc.) including completely new ones. I know, for example, that people here have mentioned Boulez's pressure to write in a pan-tonal or serial style, but do people agree that before the 60s there was significantly less experimentation and a greater allegiance to a musical ideology? That earlier modern music was constrained much more strongly than after the 60s?

I bought Griffiths' Modern Music and After but unfortunately have yet to read it. I hope to soon explore that book, more documentaries, and much more recent music. I'd be interested in other similar books.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Takemitsu has a similar quote about how more recent composers are "free" (he said it a while ago, so recent doesn't mean the 21st century).

Certainly it's consistent with these postmodern times to pick and choose among myriad styles.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

Thanks for posting the link. I agree with one of Reich's comments early on, paraphrasing... "why do we need to create a second hand version of whatever Europe is doing" re: pre-60s.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Nah - I watched that and found it_ interesting_. It's true that a subset of US composers did their thing and there was a subset of composers that were into serialism but the "academic baddies" thing is completely over-played and the "prescription" of minimalism and pomo is consistently under-played and the so-called freedom these composers are bleating about is now starting to look like a bit of a 80s vibe and dating accordingly (compare pomo art and architecture)

However, there is good and bad music of all sorts and ain't noone whistling Philip Glass ;-) If you want that listen to soul or pop. I'm happy doing a bit of detroit 69 and vienna 1919 and loads of other stuff but no love for the "deeply serious" music new york of stock brokers and posh gallery parties which has sunk without trace because it has ultimately proved non-compelling

"Freedom" happened before and still does - these guys did not do the hard work on this!!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Also a very American-centric video with people "discovering" music concrete in the 80s through John Cage - which surely deserve a wtf? from anyone with a wider view (futurism anyone? Mosolov's Iron Foundry?)? And then the works of Andriesen as a distinction from the Euro AG - really??? Beware agendas... and the appropriation of authority from pop towards the end??

Just f**** listen to good pop!!!!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

New York stockbrokers in the 60s probably listened to Bernstein's Beethoven more often than to Reich. 

I feel that San Francisco was the real center of minimalism, if that's what we're talking about. It's those hippies again.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I believe what Reich and Glass are saying about an ideological orthodoxy in academic composition programs of that era has much truth to it. (Not a Glass fan, by the way; Always thought much of his music sounds like inferior prog rock  Surely depends on where one studied, however. In some institutions, this persisted well into the 1970s. At the heart of this phenomenon, IMO, is a single delusion: the evolutionary view of music history, the notion that the "progress" of music at a given historical moment has a discernible trajectory or teleology, that there is a logical or correct "next step" in the development of technique, vocabulary, and so on. Their mythical evolutionary tree tended to look like this: tonality —> extended tonality —> atonality —> serialism —> multi-serialism. Among the absurd claims rooted in this delusion is Schoenberg's claim (paraphrasing) to have invented something that will assure the supremacy of German music for the next one hundred years. 

I find it funny and ironic that those espousing this ideology, those whose principal concern seemed to be trying to anticipate that next step in the evolution of music so they would be on the right side of history, ended up on the wrong side of history.

Edit: Picking up on Science's comment: That is another funny thing about this film; seeing just how provincial New York composers can be. Always think they are the microcosm of the world at large.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LOL. This just proves composers will talk. Remember the flap about the (already older) quip from Ms. Higdon? 

Whether it was that blah blah of Higdon's, or Schoenberg wanting to assure the 'supremacy of German music' for a century or Schenker coming up with a form of analysis to prove tonality is 'the way' and, incidentally, prove German music the superior strain, or anyone else, microcentric and parochial viewpoints seem to be an inevitable human impulse. I suppose reactions to those statements could come from a similar mindset.

History is important, written by those who prevail, and also at times, as Henry Ford said, "bunk."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> At the heart of this phenomenon, IMO, is a single delusion: the evolutionary view of music history, the notion that the "progress" of music at a given historical moment has a discernible trajectory or teleology, that there is a logical or correct "next step" in the development of technique, vocabulary, and so on. Their mythical evolutionary tree tended to look like this: tonality -> extended tonality -> atonality -> serialism -> multi-serialism. Among the absurd claims rooted in this delusion is Schoenberg's claim (paraphrasing) to have invented something that will assure the supremacy of German music for the next one hundred years.


I have mixed thoughts on this "discernible trajectory" idea. On the one hand, before the 20th century music did seem to have a very clear trajectory with composers essentially composing in one style (with slight variation) before a given era gave rise to a new one. During the Baroque and Classical periods, classical music sounded very similar. Even during the Romantic (maybe Early and Late Romantic) music sounded much more similar than it has during the 20th century. So there did seem to be a trajectory: Renaissance -> Baroque -> Classical -> Romantic. There were periods of relative stasis between shifts to a new style.

The 20th century has seemed distinctly different to me. Starting in the early part of the century music started to diverge into different paths. Maybe there was greater divergence after WWII. I often wondered how people will categorize the 20th century in the future. Will all the different contemporaneous styles be put in one category or even two?

For me music before the 20th century seemed to take a linear path of evolution, but during the 20th century musical evolution mirrored biological evolution in that it looks more like a bush with variation spreading in many different directions at the same time.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> This just proves composers will talk. Remember the flap about the (already older) quip from Ms. Higdon?


When I watch documentaries with composers discussing others' work, I'm always cognizant of the many quotes by older composers dissing other composers of their era (or earlier). I'm never sure how exactly to take what I'm hearing. We've had threads on TC where some of us have agreed that positive commentary is probably more valuable than negative commentary. Still it's interesting to get the actual composers' views on music of their time.


----------

