Has minimalism been more artistically successful outside the classical trad?

[drogulus]

    Glass has had some impact with his film music. I don't know if the minimalist category applies due to the fragmentary nature of film music in general. I'm thinking partcularly of The Truman Show, The Illusionist, and especially Kundun and my favorite Hamburger Hill.

[Israfel the Black]

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?

Of course not, and to infer that I suggested otherwise is absurd. Although one should expect such a ridiculous conflation when you filter all arguments through a quasi-ontological reductionist outlook on art.

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

The artist does not transcend society and culture – they contribute to it. Individual 'interjection', as you describe it, is nothing more than describing the components that make up society. All of culture and society is obviously intersubjective, where individuals contribute to the collective whole and we agree or disagree on what is or is not art.

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.

This is absurd. Without cultural context, Beethoven would not have written anything. What is sonata form without prior context? What is a fugue without Bach? A symphony or string quartet without Hayden? A piano concerto without Mozart? I am not saying Beethoven's music is not great. I am saying his music is only made possible by the massive web of contexts, meanings, and relations human beings create as the apparatus for new things.

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.

That is because your appreciation of Bach is indoctrinated and latent. You did not grow up listening to Philip Glass' Eienstein on the Beach did you? Or anything remotely similar to it? I doubt it. I imagine you have been around music forms that have been directly inspired by classical form and arrangement, thus indicating Bach's according greatness. The problem is you do not realize that your ability to appreciate Bach is fundamental to your understanding of harmony and musical form, which all of us are culturally informed by experience. African tribesmen who grew up listening to African tribal music may not understand Bach's music, but that does not mean they could not. Yet, there are a great number of people who simply do not like Bach or classical music. You do realize that you are part of a cultural minority in terms of exclusivity, correct? Greatness is not determined just by the mob – that is populism, not art.

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

His work speaks plainly for itself, but it is informed by a larger historical context. It is generational largely, and that is why his audience is younger or academic.

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.

Are you serious? Is that what you think modernism is about? Deconstruction is not destruction, and neither is progressivism.

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.

These artists do not "reject" cultural values, they embrace the modern values of the time. They may reject certain conventions they deem inadequate for representing those values of the time, to be sure, and this is why Mozart and Haydn were not warmed over Baroque emotionalist – society and cultural moved away from melodrama into a progressive, and some times very distant, classicism.

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.

Indeed, a cultural reactionary just as modernists are reactionaries. I knew you were a postmodernist. You embody the paradox you preach against.

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.

Again, more of the same banal logic. All of this is informed by culture, values, and history. Knowing Bach does not provide you with just a springboard for your own creativity, but a basis for what is aesthetically important to society and that individual. If a person grew up in a cave divorced from all society and created what he perceived as a magnificent work of music or art – we would call it ridiculous garbage unless we consider context. This has nothing to do with the "limits" of his creativity, but gives direct weight to the assessment of creativity.

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

Postmodernism does mostly reject meta-narratives, but is easily understandable. The theory is really more simplistic than it is complex from a historical point-of-view. The postmodernist's rejection to be self-defined only explains what it is to the outsider. As a whole philosophical theory, I am not terribly interested in it, but historians and sociologists find the meaning of the term in applied contexts. I am only interested in how postmodernity and how the postmodern theory itself arises and informs certain artists and values in society.

[paulb]

The artist does not transcend society and culture – they contribute to it. Individual 'interjection', as you describe it, is nothing more than describing the components that make up society. All of culture and society is obviously intersubjective, where individuals contribute to the collective whole and we agree or disagree on what is or is not art.

I am not saying Beethoven's music is not great.

Some artists do in fact transcend the society's level of consciousness at the time they live.
Van Gogh, Nietzsche, Socrates, countless others . All unique, individuals which were far and away above the common man of their day. Common man is just that, common, of little true value other than as a  consumer.
There are always a  few compoers/artist that are given to deep intuitions and powerful understandings of the epoch which they live in. Thus their inner creative spirit gives voice to these profound works of art. They are always, and forever ahead of the time, as far as the majority are concerned. Shakespeare was given some due credit, but not to the degree of his quality of his works and volume of works. Was he fully rewarded for his masterful plays which are alive today , as when penned and will forever remain so.

Hollow-Wood playwrites are made wealthy, yet produce alot of worthless junk. Shakespeare was not made a  wealthy man by his supreme masterpieces. Society is always behind the masterful creative artist. Which each epoch only produces a moderate number. There was only a  few to match  van Gogh's genius of creativity. There was one man called Socrates and one man called Plato, each had a  few close deciples. Christ had how many apostles? 12, not 24. The composers who lived along side Vivaldi and Bach were small by comparison, and today those same contemporaries of Bach are still insignificant, meaningless.
Why anyone would want to resurrect Salieri as a  composer to be remembered is so much a  joke. Yet someone on this board actually made a  topic for that worthless composer, called Salieri. makes absoluetly no sense. Bach-ians want Bach to be as great the day he penned his music as in today's world. bach wrote muisc for his time, not mine. His music is interesting for sure, but great in onlya   historic context, not the contemporary sense.

"I am no saying Beethoven's muisc is not great'.
Debussy and Ravel tended to think  so, that Beethoven was in fact ws a genius with shoddy taste.. And as you know, so do I. It was  great  music in his time and up to Schonberg's time, beyond that and particuliarly in 2008, its all so old and stale. Dead.
There are pschological reasons why Beethoven appeals to this younger under 40 crowd. Reasons i won't go into.

Each epoch gives men a  few high genius in art forms, not dozens.  The classical epoch is soon to close the door to that glorious era.

[Israfel the Black]

Some artists do in fact transcend the society's level of consciousness at the time they live.
Van Gogh, Nietzsche, Socrates, countless others . All unique, individuals which were far and away above the common man of their day. Common man is just that, common, of little true value other than as a  consumer.
There are always a  few compoers/artist that are given to deep intuitions and powerful understandings of the epoch which they live in. Thus their inner creative spirit gives voice to these profound works of art. They are always, and forever ahead of the time, as far as the majority are concerned. Shakespeare was given some due credit, but not to the degree of his quality of his works and volume of works. Was he fully rewarded for his masterful plays which are alive today , as when penned and will forever remain so.

Hollow-Wood playwrites are made wealthy, yet produce alot of worthless junk. Shakespeare was not made a  wealthy man by his supreme masterpieces. Society is always behind the masterful creative artist. Which each epoch only produces a moderate number. There was only a  few to match  van Gogh's genius of creativity. There was one man called Socrates and one man called Plato, each had a  few close deciples. Christ had how many apostles? 12, not 24. The composers who lived along side Vivaldi and Bach were small by comparison, and today those same contemporaries of Bach are still insignificant, meaningless.
Why anyone would want to resurrect Salieri as a  composer to be remembered is so much a  joke. Yet someone on this board actually made a  topic for that worthless composer, called Salieri. makes absoluetly no sense. Bach-ians want Bach to be as great the day he penned his music as in today's world. bach wrote muisc for his time, not mine. His music is interesting for sure, but great in onlya   historic context, not the contemporary sense.

"I am no saying Beethoven's muisc is not great'.
Debussy and Ravel tended to think  so, that Beethoven was in fact ws a genius with shoddy taste.. And as you know, so do I. It was  great  music in his time and up to Schonberg's time, beyond that and particuliarly in 2008, its all so old and stale. Dead.
There are pschological reasons why Beethoven appeals to this younger under 40 crowd. Reasons i won't go into.

Each epoch gives men a  few high genius in art forms, not dozens.  The classical epoch is soon to close the door to that glorious era.

I have trouble reading your posts, but did you say Beethoven is stale, old, not great, and had shoddy taste?

[Israfel the Black]

pffff "minimalism" that moniker says it all doesnt it? YAWN. never was a fan of folks associated with this "camp"...sure there are probably a few good scores but overall what ive heard is pretty insipid & repetitous; listening to it, i find it requires little 'active' involvement to obtain enough effective content, and it never seems to intrude into the foreground of my consciousness...they have the right to do what they feel is right of course, but considering the great things that came before, and other more meaty things happening concurrently, to evolve to such a place/solution is just horrible, lacks substance, mediocre... IMO...

It is not all great, and minimalism is a relatively small movement, as there is only a handful of them, but how do you feel about modernism though? I bet you do not reject modernism altogether.

[paulb]

Go read some comments of Ravel and Debussy on Beethoven as remembered by close friends. What i said was dainty and sweet in comparison.
What i REALLY TRUTHFULLY HONESTLY wish to say about Beethoven and his music, can't be made a  public record.
I'll leave the  opinions of Debussy and Ravel stand good enough for me

[some guy]

It is not all great, and minimalism is a relatively small movement, as there is only a handful of them....

Wait a tick! Only a handful?

Young
Conrad
Johnson
Palestine
Niblock
Kutavicius
Oliveros
Dempster
Fox
Cox
Adams (John Luther)
Smith
Fink
Radigue
Feldman

That's a small sampling (the ones I could think of offhand without breaking a sweat) of people other than the usual suspects who write/have written various kinds of minimal music (it's not just one thing). Plus all the people like Groult and Tudor who have written minimal pieces, and pre-coining of the term people like Satie and Cage, and even most (all) of the so-called noise bands whose music while maximal in volume is minimal in other ways.

[Mark G. Simon]

some guy,

have you heard of David Borden?

He's another minimalist, from Ithaca, New York. He worked with Robert Moog in the early days of the Moog synthesizer, and formed the first all-synthesizer group "Mother Mallard's Portable Masterpiece Company".

Works include "The Continuing Story of Counterpoint", "The Perilous Night Companion" (after Cage), and "Variations on a Theme of Philip Glass".

I heard him perform the latter. It's kind of a minimalist Goldberg Variations, including canons at different intervals, all for synthesizers.

[Israfel the Black]

Wait a tick! Only a handful?

Young
Conrad
Johnson
Palestine
Niblock
Kutavicius
Oliveros
Dempster
Fox
Cox
Adams (John Luther)
Smith
Fink
Radigue
Feldman

That's a small sampling (the ones I could think of offhand without breaking a sweat) of people other than the usual suspects who write/have written various kinds of minimal music (it's not just one thing). Plus all the people like Groult and Tudor who have written minimal pieces, and pre-coining of the term people like Satie and Cage, and even most (all) of the so-called noise bands whose music while maximal in volume is minimal in other ways.

Minimalism spawned new possibilities for composition, but only a handful have made a dent on classical cannon. The minimalists are not as large as modernism, late Romantic, and so on. In fact, most modern composers still compose in the early 20th Century style rather than late.

[paulb]

Minimalism spawned new possibilities for composition, but only a handful have made a dent on classical cannon. The minimalists are not as large as modernism, late Romantic, and so on. In fact, most modern composers still compose in the early 20th Century style rather than late.

Now thats acceptable.
Minimalism/avant garde (most =99%) doesn't fit with in with R&R, New Age space music, new age jazz, nor classical music. It falls within  a  class/genre  of music all by itself.
How about we tag it as "modern instrumental". yeah i like that.

[paulb]

so like is John cage minimalISM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

The audience actually applauds at the start

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

and ck out the conductor with the joke of wiping his brow due to all the heavy duty conducting needed in the  first "part"...I'd be laughing  my arse off

Music it is, but what to tag it AS, thats a  open question...in which you have 4 minutes and 33 sedonds to answer...and now start thinking.. clocks going.


/oh I hear the standing cheers.
Is this in britain...YES the Barbrican Hall.
Cage must be british. Oh how the brits support THEIR home town team.

someone said, 'oh man you should consider cage, he studied with your fav Schonberg"

I heard other Cage at Tulane's ML 2 yrs ago. So I am basing my post on more than just this "4:33".

[bhodges]

Just FYI, Cage was American (1912-1992), and that I suspect he would have been delighted to hear laughter during a performance of 4'33".  At one of the performances I've attended, for chamber orchestra, the conductor divided it into three "movements," e.g., "Largo," "Rondo," etc.  It was hilarious.

--Bruce

[karlhenning]

Help me, Rondo, help, help me, Rondo . . . .

[paulb]

Just FYI, Cage was American (1912-1992), and that I suspect he would have been delighted to hear laughter during a performance of 4'33".  At one of the performances I've attended, for chamber orchestra, the conductor divided it into three "movements," e.g., "Largo," "Rondo," etc.  It was hilarious.

--Bruce

Bruce i take it you like the music of J Cage?

[bhodges]

Bruce i take it you like the music of J Cage?

I like some of it, not all.  I almost admire him more as a philosopher than a composer; sometimes his ideas seem more interesting than his music.  FWIW, I'd rather see Cage performed rather than listening to him on recordings.  Many of his works have a spatial component (e.g., players spaced widely apart on stage) that is lost, listening at home.

--Bruce

[some guy]

some guy,

have you heard of David Borden?

Mark, I have indeed. And have many (most?) of his CDs. Which makes it a bit embarrassing that his name didn't come to mind when I was whipping off that "top-of-my-head" list. Pfffft. Careless.

[ChamberNut]

Go read some comments of Ravel and Debussy on Beethoven as remembered by close friends. What i said was dainty and sweet in comparison.
What i REALLY TRUTHFULLY HONESTLY wish to say about Beethoven and his music, can't be made a  public record.
I'll leave the  opinions of Debussy and Ravel stand good enough for me

Ravel, DeBussy and you can have your opinions of Beethoven.

Most popular work (arguably) for Ravel:  Bolero   

Most popular work (arguably) for Beethoven:  Symphony No. 5, or 9 let us say.

Hmm, wonder what Beethoven would have thought of Ravel?

[paulb]

I almost admire him more as a philosopher than a composer; sometimes his ideas seem more interesting than his music. 

--Bruce

I may want to read his essays. His music, i'll pass.
While on this topic of composer as offering ideas as interesting, perhaps moreso that than the music, read the  book A Schnittke reader/Ivashkin's interviews of Schnittke. Some of the most profound mystical, yet very earthy ideas , than anyone spiritual writer i know. On the level of Eckhart, Nietzsche and Jung.
Yet this piercing evocative mind of Schnittke as shown in his words,  is also revealed in his music. The deepest  spiritual music i know of, only matched by one other composer, make that 2 others.

[paulb]

Ravel, DeBussy and you can have your opinions of Beethoven.

Most popular work (arguably) for Ravel:  Bolero   

Most popular work (arguably) for Beethoven:  Symphony No. 5, or 9 let us say.

Hmm, wonder what Beethoven would have thought of Ravel?

very good Chamber, you learn fast i see. Counter attack, lazer guided misseles
OOUCHHH