Minimalism

or you can write non-minimalist music following the Boulez-formula:

1. /list every dynamic possible
2. /list every instrument possible
3. /pick random line in sudoku grid (generate series)
4. /apply step 3 to steps 1-2
5. /print result
6. /call publisher
7. /organize concert
8. /call press conference
9. /declare yourself a genius
10. /return to step 1, repeat ad nauseam

there ya go.. Boulez in a nutshell, in 10 easy steps.

For me, minimalism is all about two things: Flow and coherency. Make it flow as gradually as possible, and make it as tightly coherent within itself as possible. All the methods previously listed by other posters about minimalism pretty much are means to these two ends. But in minimalism, there are so many varieties and different kinds - it's really all about personal taste.

Reich was a 'phaser', which means he repeated lines but in a way so that they were in opposition of each other. He also used (in his large ensemble pieces) a LOT of harmonic variety, going against the 'minimalistic' idea as put forth by Riley or Glass, as far as harmony is concerned.

Reich's music is based more on canonic processes than anything. "Phasing" is just a canonic process, or one of them. Tehillim is definitely not phasing, can we please not define composers by ONE piece please?

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

My understanding of the origins of minimalism were that it was a reaction to the extremes of complexity that contemporary music was taking, and as an exploration of primitivism in music as a "new" source of inspiration.

...

I happen to believe that minimalism was as natural a reaction to the avant-garde of the 1950's as serialism was to the extreme chromaticism of the Wagnerians.

... Ah? And here I was thinking Penderecki, Berio, etc were all reacting to the Nono/Stockhauen syndrome of super-complexity back in the 60s. Didn't minimalism come a good decade after this? Penderecki's signature Threnody is composed entirely out of techniques learned on electronic music that came about BECAUSE of serialism. Nevermind that the tell-tale sign of reaction here is the fact the Threnody has quasi-improvisatory elements which are unthinkable in a strictly serialist piece.

Moreover, I really don't think "primitivism" is a good term to describe anything save for MAYBE Stravinsky's Sacre, but that's also rather questionable. I've heard the term meditative music thrown around, maybe that's more accurate really. Primitivism also can lend itself to a derogative interpretation since it deals with a concept of progress, which isn't a factor in music (I wouldn't say a minimalist piece is any more or less "primitive" than Bach, there's no real parameter to make a judgment on that here.)

And, uhh... Serialism was a reaction to what, again? I thought it was just a natural development from Schoenberg's idea of composing using rows. Schoenberg ended up with such a system to try to ensure an atonal-system of composition, which of course didn't go as intended.

Oh wow, what the shit is this about Boulez again? I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment. Jeesh.

Originally Posted by SSC

... Ah? And here I was thinking Penderecki, Berio, etc were all reacting to the Nono/Stockhauen syndrome of super-complexity back in the 60s. Didn't minimalism come a good decade after this? Penderecki's signature Threnody is composed entirely out of techniques learned on electronic music that came about BECAUSE of serialism. Nevermind that the tell-tale sign of reaction here is the fact the Threnody has quasi-improvisatory elements which are unthinkable in a strictly serialist piece.

Moreover, I really don't think "primitivism" is a good term to describe anything save for MAYBE Stravinsky's Sacre, but that's also rather questionable. I've heard the term meditative music thrown around, maybe that's more accurate really. Primitivism also can lend itself to a derogative interpretation since it deals with a concept of progress, which isn't a factor in music (I wouldn't say a minimalist piece is any more or less "primitive" than Bach, there's no real parameter to make a judgment on that here.)

And, uhh... Serialism was a reaction to what, again? I thought it was just a natural development from Schoenberg's idea of composing using rows. Schoenberg ended up with such a system to try to ensure an atonal-system of composition, which of course didn't go as intended.

Oh wow, what the shit is this about Boulez again? I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment. Jeesh.

1. the Boulez comment was a retort to the "compose like Glass" comment he previously made. Don't take it out of context.

2. I didn't say that minimalism was the "only" reaction to anything. I said it was a natural reaction to the hyper-complexification of music at the time. You really need to learn how to read instead of having knee-jerk reactions to single lines.

3. primitivism is an excellent term for things like Clapping Music, or Come Out, where the "musical" impetus is something OTHER than a traditional instrumental ensemble - the human body, or simply the spoken word. I think that to limit the idea of "primitivism" to Le Sacre is, well, limiting, particularly when one consideres the extent to which Le Sacre is ANYTHING but "primitive". It is highly advanced, and incredibly complex.

4. the movement towards serialism was a natural reaction to the Wagnerian extreme of chromatic harmony. this included the passage through the first attempts at atonality and the subsequant attempt to bring order to atonality. I'm sorry if I didn't take the time to write an entire disertation on the subject. Just read it as "A leads to D", with me skipping over the "A lead to B which lead to C which lead to D"... it doesn't change the sequence of events in any way. It just makes less typing for me.

Rows did not just "pop into existance out of nowhere". Schoenberg didn't suddenly start with tone rows. Rows were his means of bringing cohesion and coherency to non-tonal musical material So, in effect, rows could be seen as a natural consequence of seeking to bring order to non-tonal music. In reaction to the extreme chromaticism of Wagnerian (and I guess one could say "post-wagnerian" ) harmony, the reaction was in effect "well, if harmony can be that chromatic to the extent that it basically is NOT tonal anymore, why not go all the way and NOT be tonal". (excuse the vulgarisme)

And before you argue against this interpretation of events, well, maybe you were taught differently, but this is how I was taught. Different musicological schools might have different interpretations of how events unfurled. This happens to be how I was taught, by teachers who studied under Boulez, Stockhausen, and Messaien.

Thanks for some of the awesome feedback guys i think i know enough to get a piece going now. I'll follow some of the tihngs mentioned as guidelines, but i think the beauty of contemporary is that there is a bit of room for your own touch - hopefully i'll post my attempt once im done

thanks again guys!

Oops, didn't catch the philip glass comment. Haha, what bunch of nonsense too, though I can see why someone'd say that.

For the record, I wasn't "taught" different, I just happen to see it differently without really needing to flaunt my credentials. Who are you trying to impress?

Originally Posted by gms5287

Reich's music is based more on canonic processes than anything. "Phasing" is just a canonic process, or one of them. Tehillim is definitely not phasing, can we please not define composers by ONE piece please?

Yes, that is true. I used the word phasing in parenthesis because I couldn't find the correct word - canonic, as you put it. I was referring more to his works like Desert Music or Sextet, not his actual phasing works such as Violin Phase, or Come Out.

Noone has mentioned Terry Riley! I think In C is one of the most important pieces of the 20th century! It's not performed enough, I don't think.

Originally Posted by SSC

For the record, I wasn't "taught" different, I just happen to see it differently without really needing to flaunt my credentials. Who are you trying to impress?

I'm sorry you saw it as "flaunting credentials"... (notice I never SAID what my credentials were?) I wasn't actually trying to "impress" anyone.
I was meaning that I learned it from people who themselves learned it from the originators of the various techniques. I'm only repeating how THEY explained it to me.

It seems odd to me that someone would want to study minimalism. Since minimalism seems to be the default of what my scores tend to be and easier to compose. Going beyond minimalism for me any ways, takes alot more effort.