Has minimalism been more artistically successful outside the classical trad?

[paulb]

I have no answer.
i thought minimalism was like expression of a  static nature, lacks flowing movemennt, just playing with forms, little real development or inner structure, lots of repeats.
any way i was not impressed with Part, Adams and a  few others.

[Israfel the Black]

ahh now i clearly understand why i have slowly lost, and now totally become dis-interested in Sibelius syms. I prefer the single narrative approach. Sibeluis reminds me too much of Beethoven's piece-meal styling, sectional, things not leading from one to the other/disjointed-ness. Beautiful passages at times, but akward at the joining points.

In a sense, yes, which is interesting you should point out. Often times Sibelius is written off as being little more than a warmed over Tchaikovsky (how many times have we seen this exact phrase written? It is so banal the way we mass-produce these catch-phrases as though reflecting the consensual academic criticism), but in reality, Sibelius' musical structure was very modernist. (Although, to be fair, I should say Tchaikovsky's 4th comes to mind when I think of Sibelius' aesthetic.) He is often confused as being a late Romantic due to his lush melodic themes, but the essence of the Finnish landscape he captures with his music, namely with the 3rd, 4th, and 6th, is only made possible by a modernist disposition in the music. Yet, I should take issue with this point that his approach was piece-meal styling or fragmented, as the entire conception of his music is based on this sequential synthesis of constant development on theme. The 7th embodies this idea, where he did away with the separated movement structure, and arguably even composed the piece back to front.

Sure Schnittke can appear at tims like this, but from first note to very last, there is something intensely taking place, there's no waste, everything has meaning and a connection to the whole.. No meandering , "Ok I got it" repeats, as i find in Sibelius.

I see the meandering in Sibelius' music, he often stays with a theme that might perceivably be an unpopular one before moving on to a more famous melodic one, but I do not find that his music is particularly fragmented or illogical in this sense. The modernist touch, I do believe, comes in through the way his music depends so heavily on these more discordant and dissonant moments in the music to bridge these contrasting themes. It reflects something of dialectic or contradictory tension that is so true to modernism.

Bruckner i hear as a  direct continuation of what Beethoven would be writing had he lived  another 30 yrs. Beethoven has this minimalist tendency, passages dived off, with little sense of meaning of what went before and comes after wards. His 9th is a perfect example of Beethoven at his typical. His 3,5 syms are less so with these issues. Someone said Beethoven was poor at orchestration. i tend to think so.
. Mozart does not suffer from any of these issues in his late works.

Bruckner does many things Beethoven would likely do, but I would not say he was a direct continuation. If that were so, Bruckner would be in much higher esteem than he is today. This is not to say public reception equates with talent, but let us face it, Beethoven is one of the most accessible composers of all time. Bruckner, not so much. Beethoven certainly got more avant-garde with his late chamber work, but if you look at his symphonies, which is mostly the bridge that connects Bruckner and Beethoven, I would argue his work was getting even more accessible from the Symphony 5 and on, which culminated with the 9th.

[Kullervo]

Well this is a particularly broad question. I can say many things in defense of modern minimalism, but probably nothing of which that would yield a radical shift in the way of one's thinking. In order to avoid delving into the much exhausted debate of the music's comparative technical merits (which I no doubt can do if need be), the ultimate determining agency of whether or not one can value minimalism as a music is if one can value late modernist art in its own right, which would entail all the minimalism, pastiche, theory, and paradoxical tensions that embody the postmodern movement. Minimalism is the result of a paradigm movement in the late modernist arts which signified a radical change in the way high art and commercial art are understood. I find there is something very intellectual in the works of Glass and Reich, and this is how I am able to appreciate the music. Ergo, it is a cognitive approach initially, but the music says much about the modern era, and I find the technical experiments and the sustaining moods in the tradition of Bruckner or Sibelius no less satisfying. I do not find that classical music should entail a single meta-narrative in the way of development, expression, and progression. I would not expect as much of painting, theater, and literature, for which minimalism no doubt coincides.

Fair enough. I agree that a teleological view of music history and making value-judgments based on that view is wrong, and it accounts for nearly all arguments by people who will foam at the mouth and fight over whether or not a piece of new music has "legs" (disgusting term, really). My problem with Reich and Glass's music is that it seems to be merely concerned with the working out of one process or experiment, rather than relating to ideas that are universal. I know I'm getting into mystical territory, and it's impossible to argue this, but it doesn't seem to come "from the heart". Of course, I don't expect anyone else to have the same value-judgment as myself, and my opinions stem from my romantic ideas of what art should be. "Your mileage my vary"

[Israfel the Black]

Fair enough. I agree that a teleological view of music history and making value-judgments based on that view is wrong, and it accounts for nearly all arguments by people who will foam at the mouth and fight over whether or not a piece of new music has "legs" (disgusting term, really).

No doubt.

My problem with Reich and Glass's music is that it seems to be merely concerned with the working out of one process or experiment, rather than relating to ideas that are universal. I know I'm getting into mystical territory, and it's impossible to argue this, but it doesn't seem to come "from the heart". Of course, I don't expect anyone else to have the same value-judgment as myself, and my opinions stem from my romantic ideas of what art should be. "Your mileage my vary"

I can accept this, and I respect it. There are a few things I can add. The first is that by appreciating the contextual and broader paradigmatic approach to the minimalist aesthetic, in that, by attempting to understand the music better by way of such analysis or knowledge, can certainly change one's emotional affinities or relationship with the music. I, for one, know this has surely held true for me. Secondly, in regards to the more essential archetypal element of music for which we are all so seemingly compelled, I do believe these composers have captured such relevance in more subtle strokes. For example, Glass' early work such as Glassworks and his film scores, namely Koyannisqatsi, or even his most recent score for The Illusionist, I think reaches this level of accessibility; but perhaps the most exemplary case for Glass' more emotional pieces would be his very intimate Violin Concerto, his solo piano works, and his Etudes, which, I think, come as close to the more universal greatness of music as any piece of the 20th century. It is probably quite clear I am partial to Glass here, but Reich I think has also championed these grounds in such a manner, perhaps most plainly with his concert hall music.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yes, art is not some purely subjective fantasy world that exists merely to serve your personal feelings and allows you to say whatever asinine trash you want

Judging by the artistic trends of this past several decades, you could have fooled me.

[paulb]

Israfel
Excellent post, braod understanding of music. Beyond my limited understandings, but get the gist of your meaning.
Sibelius had been something of value in my listenings...until came along Shostakovich's 5,7,8. Then Sibelius neighboring country, Sweden broght forth a  composer, Pettersson. Sibelius syms now seemed antiquated, old forms, after each listen it was more "been there/done that" sort of experience.
I know EXACTLY how the music will go , staying just ahead of the score. I can shut the player off and hum my way through the sym.
Pettersson is a   living form, one that will takea   life time to become acquainted with.

[Israfel the Black]

Judging by the artistic trends of this past several decades, you could have fooled me.

More evasive non-sequiturs and tautologies. Come back when you have something meaningful to add to the discussion. No, scratch that. Don't come back.

[Israfel the Black]

Israfel
Excellent post, braod understanding of music. Beyond my limited understandings, but get the gist of your meaning.
Sibelius had been something of value in my listenings...until came along Shostakovich's 5,7,8. Then Sibelius neighboring country, Sweden broght forth a  composer, Pettersson. Sibelius syms now seemed antiquated, old forms, after each listen it was more "been there/done that" sort of experience.
I know EXACTLY how the music will go , staying just ahead of the score. I can shut the player off and hum my way through the sym.
Pettersson is a   living form, one that will takea   life time to become acquainted with.

I see that. Shostakovich and Pettersson are certainly more involved it would seem, but I do not think they are anymore complex. I think there is still much to be gathered in Sibelius' silences and troubled developments. It seems often times people remember the pattern of Sibelius' music and melodies since there is less dense orchestration going on than say Shostakovich, but I think there is still something to sit with and contemplate for what he was trying to do musically.

[paulb]

No, no, that is far cry from two cents. There is no value in any such ridiculous reductionism, which is an outright disrespect to my position for which I was in no way forcefully imposing. I was rather attempting to provide some possible insight and some personal sentiment hopefully worth discussing. Alas, this is this same kind of cultural solipsism that no doubt blinds individuals to the reality of the world that exists outside of their own. Yes, art is not some purely subjective fantasy world that exists merely to serve your personal feelings and allows you to say whatever asinine trash you want, nor does it give any credence or any value worth anyone's interest to your laughably weak blanket statements. Instead, you recede into the superficial masses just like the rest – another impetuous voice goes unheard for lacking any sort of rational perspective.

YICKES
I failed to read your post here...I am sure with my above thoughts on Sibelius, you have even more , justily deserved, criticisms to level at me.
I'll take it like a  man

To my understanding music is purely subjective, though obviously how the majority votes has the weight of power. The past considerations of valuations should never over-rule our personal sentiments about a  composer or work. Growing up the 60's, certain names were held in the very highest esteem and always in the spot light center stage.
Now there is a  sense of revolt in the modernist camps to go against this bias of beliefs.
This is the reason we harbor such attitudes towards the past opinionated enviornment we came out of.
The Inet now has allowed us to bring together new insights and experiences.
The CM INDUSTRY has promoted what it felt was for the popular man, common man. Whats sells, only logical, =profits Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.
Thus we have 150 complete cycles of Beethoven and 100 cycles of Tchaikovsky. I own none and  no interest even if free.
This is 2008, not 1968. There's options now, certain late 20th C composers have now, in the 1990's have received at least one recording of thir works. Thats only 10 yrs+ in exsistence.
Why of course I am going to praise to the high heavens what i feel is rightfully due the utmost praises.
And if i bash abit of the old standards, well its some sort of abberation and weakness in my character, like a   repression blowing  its volcanic top.

[Israfel the Black]

YICKES
I failed to read your post here...I am sure with my above thoughts on Sibelius, you have even more , justily deserved, criticisms to level at me.
I'll take it like a  man

The post was not in response to you. It was in response to the dunce above. On the contrary, you have offered great thoughts worth discussing in the thread. Nevertheless, I'll address your points below.

To my understanding music is purely subjective, though obviously how the majority votes has the weight of power. The past considerations of valuations should never over-rule our personal sentiments about a  composer or work. Growing up the 60's, certain names were held in the very highest esteem and always in the spot light center stage
Now there is a  sense of revolt in the modernist camps to go against this bias of beliefs.
This is the reason we harbor such attitudes towards the past opinionated enviornment we came out of.
The Inet now has allowed us to bring together new insights and experiences.
The CM INDUSTRY has promoted what it felt was for the popular man, common man. Whats sells, only logical, =profits Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.
Thus we have 150 complete cycles of Beethoven and 100 cycles of Tchaikovsky. I own none and  no interest even if free.
This is 2008, not 1968. There's options now, certain late 20th C composers have now, in the 1990's have received at least one recording of thir works. Thats only 10 yrs+ in exsistence.
Why of course I am going to praise to the high heavens what i feel is rightfully due the utmost praises.
And if i bash abit of the old standards, well its some sort of abberation and weakness in my character, like a   repression blowing  its volcanic top.

Music is intersubjective; nothing is "purely" subjective. It is something of an urban myth. Our entire conception of the world is interdependant on our relationship to others and society. Art does not exist in a mutually exclusive vacuum for each individual, but is rooted in the world of meanings that is history and society. As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.

[paulb]

I see that. Shostakovich and Pettersson are certainly more involved it would seem, but I do not think they are anymore complex. I think there is still much to be gathered in Sibelius' silences and troubled developments. It seems often times people remember the pattern of Sibelius' music and melodies since there is less dense orchestration going on than say Shostakovich, but I think there is still something to sit with and contemplate for what he was trying to do musically.

Even the once beloved Lemminkainen Legends where of great interest to me, but alas of late that may not seem to hold as solid.
Now i do recall I loved greatly his Kullervo, i do think that continues to holds strong interest. I love the powerful gripping main theme, and the chorus.
But even some works  of Shostakovich has taken a  lowering on my scale of valuation, due to the powerful music of Schnittke, the heir to Shostakovich.

[Josquin des Prez]

More evasive non-sequiturs and tautologies.

Says the man who bases his view on evasive solipsism followed by a barrage of verbose non-arguments.

"the ultimate determining agency of whether or not one can value minimalism as a music is if one can value late modernist art in its own right, which would entail all the minimalism, pastiche, theory, and paradoxical tensions that embody the postmodern movement."

In short, one cannot value minimalism unless one values crackpot modernist rhetoric, that is, the theory justifies the art form. Did i understand this correctly?

Music is intersubjective; nothing is "purely" subjective. It is something of an urban myth. Our entire conception of the world is interdependant on our relationship to others and society. Art does not exist in a mutually exclusive vacuum for each individual, but is rooted in the world of meanings that is history and society. As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.

Sure, until somebody interjects his own subjective artistic interpretation, gives it societal and cultural credence and then creates an art form stemming from the vacuum of his own personal little universe. Isn't this what "post-modernism" is all about?

[paulb]

The post was not in response to you. It was in response to the dunce above. On the contrary, you have offered great thoughts worth discussing in the thread. Nevertheless, I'll address your points below.



Music is intersubjective; nothing is "purely" subjective. It is something of an urban myth. Our entire conception of the world is interdependant on our relationship to others and society. Art does not exist in a mutually exclusive vacuum for each individual, but is rooted in the world of meanings that is history and society. As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.

well i do feel your admonishment could have applied to my some of my gripes.

Intersubjective, yes thats much better expressed, than  the way i said it 'subjective" as though one werea   island in the vast sea. Although at times we Petterssonians do feel isolated on our small populated island
Schnittke, Pettersson, these 2 connect to me ina   way that i feel the world\. What they know , see  and understand about the world speaks directly to my depths.
So you have said it well, "rooted ina   world of meanings that is CURRENT history and society".
Music has to be alive for me to have meaning.
History of CM has its importance along side the individual 's opinions living in 2008.

[Israfel the Black]

Says the man who bases his view on evasive solipsism followed by a barrage of verbose non-arguments.

Is this a postmodernist's way of saying, "I know you are but what am I"? Yes, I can see you took my charge straight out of my own posts dunce. Did you think you were being clever?

In short, one cannot value minimalism unless one values crackpot modernist rhetoric, that is, the theory justifies the art form. Did i understand this correctly?

What is crackpot Modernist rhetoric? Is it the same as crackpot overwrought Romantic rhetoric? What about crackpost Baroque rhetoric? Or crackpot Middle Ages rhetoric? Or crackpot Stone Age rhetoric?

Sure, until somebody interjects his own subjective artistic interpretation, gives it societal and cultural credence and then creates an art form stemming from the vacuum of his own personal little universe.

How could someone possibly give their own work societal and cultural credence? That doesn't make any sense. Society and culture gives an artist their credence. I bet philistines like you who would have all the museums holding any modernist art from surrealism on to abstract expressionism thrown out the window. Let us burn our novels by Woolfe, Joyce, and Hemingway too. We might as well throw out our history books documenting the events of the 20th Century while we are at it. Oh wait, are you one of those who think art is mutually exclusive with history? I wouldn't doubt it. It requires about the same logic as a Holocaust denier. Where do you even exist? Why are you using the internets?

Isn't this what "post-modernism" is all about?

I don't know, you tell me. You are the only postmodernist in this thread. Wagner would hate you.

[paulb]

As for the recordings issue, I have no real stake in that.

yeah well i find in of some interest that Beethovenians need multipules of each sym in order to sustain interest. Reading a  "whats your fav Beethoven sym recording?" (substitute any composer for that matter), one begins to doubt if the music is really as good as the composers fans claim it truly is.
Whereas there's only 1 or 2 recordings of Pettersson and Schnittke, with great success. Though there does remain a  few Schnittke scores  that have yet to given full expression. Pettersson's BIS and CPO are as close to definitive as to make me content. No need for 150 recordings of Pettersson's 7th   to pick and choose from.

I guess in summary, older forms in order to maintain a  sense of living breath, to validate itself as significant in the 21st C, needs multifarious venues of expression. "Ok so you don'd like this recording, how bout this one,,no? ...Ok and this one?..NO? humm, oK, here's one you are sure to like? ...YES?...ahh no you don't like recording # 78...don't fret we still have another X to go, I'm confident we'll hook you up".
Get real. The only recording of Beethoven's 4th that i could stand to listen to is Bruno Walter/Columbia. That goes for most of the Mozart syms recordings. there's only 2  recordings of the last 6 syms I like, with the Mackerras as runner up 3rd place. The others pail in comparison, including Klemeper's mono/Testament which are over-rated.

With Schnittke and Pettersson receiving the "minimalist" consideration of studio  contracts, 2 at times just 1 offering, yet all have this convincing quality The music appeals and grips the senses, and thus not overly dependent on the success or failures of the artistic imput of the conductor and his forces.

[Josquin des Prez]

How could someone possibly give their own work societal and cultural credence?

It's done all the time actually. You don't think cultural and societal values are created by sporadic individual interjection? Do you think there would have been a romantic era as we know it without Beethoven?

The difference of course is that originally, such cultural interjections were the result of genuine artistic manifestations which transcended the cultural and societal context under which those artists operated, that is, (real) art has never been bound to cultural context in the first place. Beethoven was not great because he was a great classicist or a great romantic (or both), he was great, period.

Your argument that minimalism can only be appreciated if we appreciate the cultural dogma of "paradoxical tensions" which define the context under which this style was conceived is a faulty one in that i don't have to appreciate or accept the context under which Bach operated (particularly the crackpot theory of universal harmony reflecting the divine) in order to appreciate Bach.

If the works of Philip Glass can't speak for themselves then they might as well be silent, as simple as that.

What is crackpot Modernist rhetoric?

It's the theory that the destruction of all artistic and aesthetic notions as we know it is an art form in and of itself.

Society and culture gives an artist their credence.

At best, they give an artist a peculiar frame under which to exercise their creative powers. Unless of course that frame involves the "rejection" of all cultural values and traditions for rejection's sake which calls for the wrong type of creativity being channeled into misguided paths. This is how charlatans like John Cage have made a name for themselves.

I bet philistines like you who would have all the museums holding any modernist art from surrealism on to abstract expressionism thrown out the window.

Actually, the only "philistines" here are the artists whose work is donned on the walls of those museums. Truth to my nature, i'm a mere reactionary.

Oh wait, are you one of those who think art is mutually exclusive with history?

I think acts of genuine creativity are mutually exclusive with history. As i said, they occur after individual interjection, which transcends cultural context. Context can still be relevant in order to understand the principles under which this interjection operated, but it gives no weight to the general assessment of creativity. The only reason why history is important is that creativity breeds more creativity, and great artists set an example for those to follow. If you don't know Bach, it's quite possible that you may not understand the limits of your own creativity and you may not achieve as much. Surely, this is most true in popular music, an art form which is completely myopic to anything older then a single generation, so that artists keep "reinventing the wheel" (so to speak) for the extend of human ingenuity, which is why the standard never goes anywhere.

I don't know, you tell me. You are the only postmodernist in this thread. Wagner would hate you.

Well, according to postmodernist rhetoric, it is impossible to define postmodernism, which really shows the crackpot nature of this ideology.

[paulb]

It's done all the time actually. You don't think cultural and societal values are created by sporadic individual interjection? Do you think there would have been a romantic era as we know it without Beethoven?

The difference of course is that originally, such cultural interjections were the result of genuine artistic manifestations which transcended the cultural and societal context under which those artists operated, that is, (real) art has never been bound to cultural context in the first place. Beethoven was not great because he was a great classicist or a great romantic (or both), he was great, period.

Your argument that minimalism can only be appreciated if we appreciate the cultural dogma of "paradoxical tensions" which define the context under which this style was conceived is a faulty one in that i don't have to appreciate or accept the context under which Bach operated (particularly the crackpot theory of universal harmony reflecting the divine) in order to appreciate Bach.

If the works of Philip Glass can't speak for themselves then they might as well be silent, as simple as that.

It's the theory that the destruction of all artistic and aesthetic notions as we know it is an art form in and of itself.

At best, they give an artist a peculiar frame under which to exercise their creative powers. Unless of course that frame involves the "rejection" of all cultural values and traditions for rejection's sake which calls for the wrong type of creativity being channeled into misguided paths. This is how charlatans like John Cage have made a name for themselves.

Actually, the only "philistines" here are the artists whose work is donned on the walls of those museums. Truth to my nature, i'm a mere reactionary.

I think acts of genuine creativity are mutually exclusive with history. As i said, they occur after individual interjection, which transcends cultural context. Context can still be relevant in order to understand the principles under which this interjection operated, but it gives no weight to the general assessment of creativity. The only reason why history is important is that creativity breeds more creativity, and great artists set an example for those to follow.

You've got alot going on in this post.
Will take some time for me to express all the points i wsih to make.

True genius is something of its time, and also somewhat above its epoch.
Beethoven was considered great late in his career, and has been so considered til today.
But that view has undergone recent changes.
One never came acroos the opinion back in the 1960's that Beethoven's muisc was only "OK", but I've run into the this opinion that some of his works are good, while others they feel they could do without. His status as 'great genius" is not bullet proof, Epochs condition the mind of the listener. I , like Debussy and ravel , we 3 acknowledge the genius of Beethoven, who can deny that. But the content of the music is not to our taste, to put it nicely as possible. This feeling in no way takes away from the historic fact of B's genius. thats a  part of the history books.
But as to the unique individual listener's valuation system, thats another matter.

Agree about how we should consider past composers as offering elements of inspiring future composers.
Wagner owesa   debt to Beethoven, ever moreso a  debt to Mozart.
Shostakovich influence by Mahler, as was Schonberg. Boulez takes Schonberg back to influences from Brahms
Boulez said of Webern, "where can you trace back the roots to, who influenced Webern?"

Anyway, why bring up John Cage, what does he or any of the minimalists have to do with that specific genre called CM? has nothing to do with "misguided ideations", either the creative quality is within the man or not.
Maybe had Cage waited some more yrs and listened and studied the masters of modern composition, he "might have" something of value to offer the CM community.
But he like 1000's of other "hope-to-be-CM-composers" jumped the gun and gave us some musical forms we are really not interested to hear.
At least concerning the serious minded of the CM community in the modernist camp.
This modern world is evolving, time moves on, so we should expect past opinions our grandfathers once held, not to be mainstay nor permanent.
I mean if you asked our grandfathers, "tell us how you liked Schonberg back at the turn of the century.?"
He wouldn;'t know  what we were talking about. The big hit at the concert hall was Beethoven, who was not to be outdone by any avant garde stuff.
Sure Stravinsky madea   big hit, the parisian opera houses was looking for something controversial and 'block-busting". Many other parisian critics considered his stuff c**p. I find one or 2 works of Stravinsky interesting, provided  its at the paris ballet , those cute french femme fatals are irresistable , and the score ain't bad.
The history books are just that, books, its the human mind that is of the greater sense of importance, as its the living psyche that gives life to the individual.
Everything is in a  state of flux, stability and change, both have their sense of purpose.
.

[some guy]

Unless of course that frame involves the "rejection" of all cultural values and traditions for rejection's sake which calls for the wrong type of creativity being channeled into misguided paths. This is how charlatans like John Cage have made a name for themselves.

You don't really know much about Cage, do you? Criticisms are much more effective if they're informed, ya know!

Anyway to get back to paulb's very quick answer to my question (thanks paul), the word minimalism covers many things, oddly enough. I suppose "piece-meal styling, sectional, things not leading from one to the other/disjointed-ness" could be construed as applying to certain minimalist pieces. Wouldn't have occurred to me first, anyway. To be fair, I don't see how those words apply to Beethoven or Sibelius, either.

Anyway, as for "a static nature, lacks flowing movement, just playing with forms, little real development or inner structure, lots of repeats," some of that does apply to some minimal music. Static? Some. A lot of it is quite flowing, though. Development is not pertinent to some, quite pertinent to other--some minimal music is only development, though the changes are small and subtle. Inner structure? I have no idea what you're referring to. Though that does remind me of an anecdote about Morton Feldman who, when a student asked him about structure, is supposed to have said--while laying out the student's score on the floor and walking on it--something like this: "Structure? Bridges have structure. This is supposed to be music!"

And lots of repeats? Yeah, some of it does.

"Any way i was not impressed with Part, Adams and a few others."

Hahahaha, who is? But seriously, these two are not all that representative, of any type of minimalism.

Just read your comment about Cage, Paul, which you just posted. Cage studied with Schoenberg, you know. Really guys, criticize Cage all you want, but make informed criticisms, at least!

[paulb]

"Any way i was not impressed with Part, Adams and a few others."

Hahahaha, who is? But seriously, these two are not all that representative, of any type of minimalism.

Just read your comment about Cage, Paul, which you just posted. Cage studied with Schoenberg, you know. Really guys, criticize Cage all you want, but make informed criticisms, at least!

Was not aware cage studied with my beloved Schonberg. i owe it to Cage to reconsider more than the little I know from him. I apologize for that snap judgement. I meant that Part and Admas are part of the some avant garde/minimalist trend.  Not that they were specifically called as minimalists.

[Mark G. Simon]

John Adams and Steve Reich have written a goodly number of really excellent scores. They are two of the great composers of our time.