Minimalist Mash-Up!

[Mahlerian]

I'd rather vote for Morton Feldman, who is directly one of my aesthetic tastes.
Is he generally considered a minimalist?

I think the term is generally restricted to the school of repetitive minimalism and other styles influenced by it.

As appropriate as it might seem to group Feldman, some Cage, and others under a minimalist label for their aesthetic, they're generally called the "experimental" composers instead.

[SharpEleventh]

In a way you could think that repetition is anything but minimalistic.

[Mirror Image]

I should have voted for Part as he's my favorite from the list now. I can't stand the other composers that are listed.

[Keep Going]

I can't stand the other composers that are listed.

But you made a Top 5 Reich works poll a few months back ... 

[North Star]

I'd rather vote for Morton Feldman, who is directly one of my aesthetic tastes.
Is he generally considered a minimalist?

No, here's something on the matter:

Feldman's work bears a relationship to Minimal music analogous to Rothko's contemporary relationship to Minimal art: both work reductively and brilliantly within an expressionist style fundamentally alien to Minimalism albeit influencing its development.
     Bernard delineates three distinguishing strategies of the Minimalist style in art and music: "(1) the minimization of chance or accident; (2) an emphasis upon the surface of the work . . . ; (3) a concentration upon the whole rather than the parts." Feldman's 1957 piano pieces share none of these traits. Piece for Four Pianos is more closely allied to indeterminacy, requiring the performers to extract an unequal "series of reverberations from an identical sound source," while Piano (Three Hands) emphasizes the dissolution of harmonics akin to the floating/hovering colors of Rothko's washes. Perhaps most importantly, both share a focus on the evanescent sonic event rather than the musical continuum.    To put it another way, what most distinguishes Feldman's work from Minimalism is its greater eventfulness and unpredictability in its acceptance of constant but irregular harmonic and dynamic change within a given composition. What is minimal in Minimalism is not merely the number of notes but their relationship, which is normally static harmonically and regularized durationally.

[North Star]

But you made a Top 5 Reich works poll a few months back ... 

I see you've met John. 

[Ken B]

I see you've met John. 

Just what I was about to say!

[Mirror Image]

But you made a Top 5 Reich works poll a few months back ... 

Yes, it's true that I did create that Reich list awhile back, but I've been pondering on what the minimalists mean to me and I've come to conclusion that I'm better off without them!

Of course, I have a bad habit of backtracking and being, ultimately, indecisive about a lot of music I 'enjoy.' I suppose it's the constants in my listening habits that actually tell the true tale there.

[Mirror Image]

Pärt's Tabula Rasa has to be one of the greatest pieces of minimalism ever created IMHO. A masterpiece.

[Keep Going]

Re: Feldman, this post by nathanb sums it up quite well:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,4429.180.html#quickreply

Minimal means versus minimal ends

Considering 20th century style is so often defined by means rather than ends ("serialism", "spectralism", "indeterminacy"), yes, the minimal means of Reich/Adams/Glass qualifies moreso than the elaborate interwoven asymmetries of Feldman's "minimal ends" (see also Klaus Lang, Jakob Ullmann, Jurg Frey, Antoine Beuger, Michael Pisaro, Francisco Lopez, etc...).

The early music of Reich, Glass, Riley, Young, Andriessen, etc. are more or less viewed now as what was a reactionary 'movement' against the perceived nature of much music being written around the 60's, i.e. highly 'intellectual', serial, non-rhythmic and abstract.

Reich and Glass were trained in the 12-tone manner of their time, notably under Berio and Nadia Boulanger, respectively. At some point, somewhat contemporaneously, they became disillusioned with it all - a similar 'realisation' sent the music of Part, Rautavaara, Gorecki, Rochberg, Penderecki, etc. into very different directions also.

Of course, the minimalist style that emerged through the early works of Glass / Reich / Riley (the sound of the 'hypnotic school', as it were) bears very little resemblance to their more recent music. Ditto with John Adams, even though his early music was only partly influenced by minimalism.

[Mahlerian]

The early music of Reich, Glass, Riley, Young, Andriessen, etc. are more or less viewed now as what was a reactionary 'movement' against the perceived nature of much music being written around the 60's, i.e. highly 'intellectual', serial, non-rhythmic and abstract.

Reich and Glass were trained in the 12-tone manner of their time, notably under Berio and Nadia Boulanger, respectively. At some point, somewhat contemporaneously, they became disillusioned with it all - a similar 'realisation' sent the music of Part, Rautavaara, Gorecki, Rochberg, Penderecki, etc. into very different directions also.

Boulanger had a skepticism of the 12-tone method and primarily taught Neoclassicism in the Stravinskian vein (though she did teach some 12-tone works, especially Stravinsky's).  Penderecki was never a serial composer in any sense as far as I'm aware.

It's also fair to say that the Darmstadt serialists' styles were altered by the currents of the age, and one can find an increased softness of sonority and opening up of harmony in the works of Nono, Boulez, and Stockhausen from the 1970s on, concomitant with a loosening of serial procedures (though never an abandonment of them).

[Keep Going]

Boulanger had a skepticism of the 12-tone method and primarily taught Neoclassicism in the Stravinskian vein (though she did teach some 12-tone works, especially Stravinsky's).  Penderecki was never a serial composer in any sense as far as I'm aware.

Right, thanks. If I recall correctly, both Reich and Glass studied under Milhaud. Maybe that would be a more relevant example? I'll have to check, but perhaps Glass' initial 12-tone training (if at all) wasn't as rigorous as Reich's.

Re: Penderecki, I was thinking of how he and those other composers gradually moved away from a quite modernist language (but not necessarily serial) to a more 'conservative', even neo-romantic aesthetic.

[ahinton]

I usually try to avoid saying anything negative about Glass & Co.  (and this will end my contribution in this thread) but I cannot help but be mystified by the amount of support for his music there is on a classical music forum. 

To my ears Glass's music, although he often uses words like "symphony", "concerto" and "string quartet", it sounds mostly like pop.  Now, there is nothing wrong with pop music, I like it - but I don't even think Glass's music is good pop music; Imogene Heap is much better.  He does not show the kind of creativity found in a lot of good popular music, but his style also does not exhibit the kind of discipline that is the hallmark of serious classical music, e.g. Charles Wuorinen, Henri Dutilleux, Georg Friedrich Haas, or Per Nørgård.

There is a pretension surrounding Glass that combined with the fatuousness of the music I simply find insufferable.

There, I've said it.

Now I will be quiet.

I will agree with you.

Now I will also be quiet!

[Keep Going]

To my ears Glass's music, although he often uses words like "symphony", "concerto" and "string quartet", it sounds mostly like pop. 

You mean that his music comes across as very simplistic (or simply constructed), and so it resembles pop? Because in terms of sound, by default a symphony sounds nothing like pop music. 

In his defense, I think he's written a lot of music with quite a lot of detail in terms of counterpoint and orchestration. Clearly a lot of Reich's music is all to do with counterpoint.

I would say in general not all classical music needs to be filled with discipline or complexity.

[Mahlerian]

Right, thanks. If I recall correctly, both Reich and Glass studied under Milhaud. Maybe that would be a more relevant example? I'll have to check, but perhaps Glass' initial 12-tone training (if at all) wasn't as rigorous as Reich's.

Re: Penderecki, I was thinking of how he and those other composers gradually moved away from a quite modernist language (but not necessarily serial) to a more 'conservative', even neo-romantic aesthetic.

Milhaud was interested in and remained informed in regards to more recent developments, but his style remained more or less Neoclassical with his own brand of bitonality.

Personally, I use modernist to refer to everything from the period between 1910 and 1970 or so, with the exception of those who stuck with a 19th century Romantic language (not Barber, Prokofiev, or others who used elements of Romantic language with elements of contemporary idioms).  The subsequent trends, including Minimalism and Neoromanticism, are usually grouped under the name Postmodern, excluding those who stuck with a high modernist language, like Boulez or Carter.

The minimalists' early works were a direct reaction against the Darmstadt style (and even against the American experimental tradition which had itself opposed serialism); in place of non-repetition they offered constant repetition, rather than excluding triadic harmony they embraced it wholeheartedly, and they replaced pulseless complex rhythms with a steady pulse.  All of these have been modified over time, to some degree, to allow more ambiguity into their idiom.

Most of the time, I find myself in sympathy with the extreme complexity of the high modernists over the minimalists, and of course there are many who cannot abide either, but I don't have any interest in denigrating a style because of a (relative) lack of sympathy.  Reich's music and Adams' music have some interesting things in them, and I don't dismiss it out of hand.

[Keep Going]

Okay, since you asked me a direct question I will answer.  Because of the recommendations thread, Glass's Songs from Liquid Days was listed.  I had never heard of it before so I found it on Spotify and started listening.

The first thing I noticed from "Changing Opinions" was the chord progression that he repeated several times at the beginning with a hackneyed rhythm: dotted quarter - dotted quarter - quarter.  This is a chord progression which is a pop cliche.  He repeated it over and over with some figuration and arpeggiation, a little transposition - but essentially it was a pop cliche repeated. 

When the singer entered, more pop allusions (the singer is no Donny Hathaway).  Then a flute arpeggio outlining the same chords.

That is what I am talking about.

The trouble is that Songs from Liquid Days is in fact a quasi-pop album written in a minimalist style, with lyrics by notable pop musicians.  He hasn't written much else in this particular vein.

If you feel like scrutinising further (I assume you probably wouldn't!) then his more traditional works would be more relevant - something like Violin Concerto No. 1 or String Quartet No. 5 or Symphony No. 8 etc. etc.

[Sergeant Rock]

...a minimal-ish style, using long tones and stretches of sound landscapes which I enjoy.

Here's one example:

Jacob Kirkegaard : Labyrinthitis

Shouldn't that be Jacob Kirkegaard : Tinnitus ?    Sounds like it to me, anyway 

Sarge

[Keep Going]

Well, it was recommended on the classical list ... but I will check out those other works.  I am someone who regularly revisits composers who haven't resonated for me in the past.  You never know.

I think that Glass, Reich, Riley, Adams etc. have written so many varied works over the years that there's possibly something of interest in their ouevres for everyone. Or maybe not and I'm just naive. 

[PotashPie]

I like different minimalists for different reasons. Glass' Dance Nos. 1-5 is what I characterize as "hardcore minimalism." This music is so repetitive that one cannot simply "like" or "dislike" it; it requires a different kind of listener, as Cage or Messiaen does, for a full understanding.

This music's repetition is due to Glass' involvement in Eastern thought; the patterns can induce one into trance-like states. It's no wonder that well-educated Western listeners who "like" classical music are repelled by this. This is not narrative music that one follows; it is music into which one simply immerses oneself, and awaits the fading of the ticker tape conscious mind. This is a very foreign, even disturbing, way of listening to music to objective Western minds.

Some of Glass' solo piano music is like this as well; hardcore. Terry Riley's Persian Surgery Dervishes (The Paris performance, disc 2) will also produce these brain resonances, as well as his Keyboard Studies. Hardcore repetition designed to "tune the brain" into the zone.

Riley I like for his obvious ties to Indian music, and his alternate harmonic tunings, evidenced in Sri Camel and The Harp of New Albion. I enjoy his sax soloing and solo acoustic piano concerts, both of which show his jazz side.
His string quartet work satisfies a more traditional academic Western classical appetite. He "proves" he is a composer here.

Steve Reich's early music was pure process, without seeming to be "religious" or producing a "spiritual" state or trance; it seems to be for the intellect brave enough to immerse in to it.
The hardest-core Reich works are "Violin Phase," if you can hear the original by Paul Zukofsky (what a control freak; that's why it never made it to CD; see him on WIK concerning copyrights and his father's poetry), and it will produce kaleidoscopic arrays of patterns, verging on the trance-like or spiritual, but really more like Op Art; "Four Organs," likewise, will drive you either to distraction or to nirvana.
The rest of most of Reich is soothing, listenable music most of the time: Music for Mallet Instruments, Eighteen, etc.

[Andante]

I have always been a lover of Parts music particularly the choral works but never thought of it as minimalist however the album "Alina" could be classed as such.