Minimalism

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

What about Louis Andriessen? He's certainly an interesting take-off on the minimalist school.

Originally Posted by pliorius

i'll give you my reasoning behind that. feldman's music is quiet and slow, and often very long. he said that no pattern is better than the other one. he ascribed same musical value to any sound/pattern. plus he used a lot of aleatoric in his music, which to my mind is not so far from atonalism. so, essentially his slowness and aleatoric thinking/usage of patterns made me think of him as atonal minimalist. overall, i wanted to show how minimalism is very vast notion. and it has (the term) more of a philosophical value than purely musical. it's a style of thinking (in this case-musical) to me.

I hold to that idea as well.
There is nothing 'better' about any certain aspect of music, when compared to a like aspect. Gm is not 'better' then A. 16th notes are not 'better' than 8th note triplets. Except as per our personal preferences and value judgments. Those aspects have no 'value' in and of themselves.
I think that's why so many composers used aleatoric methods. To break away from their 'interference' with those aspects. (What did I really just say?)

Personally, I happen to like the preferences and value judgments I've made about music. That's, uh, why I made them....

Originally Posted by gianluca

It's easy to write a minimalist piece following the Philip Glass formula: .......

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

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

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

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

Can I for a moment though? If only to say:

What is wrong with that, if that is what you want to do?

Actually, I don't really like Glass or Boulez, so, well, I guess I'll agree with both of you......ROFLMAO

Seriously though.

Originally Posted by oingo86

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.

I agree!!!

Originally Posted by HymnSpace

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

Yes, but is it good?
I think you'll find that writing good music is harder than you think.

Originally Posted by HymnSpace

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

I just love how people always feel they have to defend a certain kind of music by attacking an "opposite genre/composer" with ridiculous blanket statements. This is directed at QcC's Boulez bashing as well. Just because someone makes unfunded accusations against music you like, doesn't mean you have to do the same with the music you assume the other person likes. It wasn't Boulez who attacked Glass in this thread, so why even bring him up?

I am defending minimalism in as much as it is perhaps the one 'genre' that receives the most bashing. Usually people make very sweeping generalizations about it based on the fact that it must be very simple repeated arpeggios (a Philip glass trademark, not a minimalism trademark) and I feel it is important to stress that with all music, writing something that is good, regardless of composer/genre is actually much harder to do.

Originally Posted by Gardener

I just love how people always feel they have to defend a certain kind of music by attacking an "opposite genre/composer" with ridiculous blanket statements. This is directed at QcC's Boulez bashing as well. Just because someone makes unfunded accusations against music you like, doesn't mean you have to do the same with the music you assume the other person likes. It wasn't Boulez who attacked Glass in this thread, so why even bring him up?

Gardner, please, read the thread.

GianLuca felt the need to write the smarmiest, most condescending "parody" of minimalism, a very few post before my Boulez comment.

STOP fixating on my comment and take the time to read what he wrote and how equally unacceptable his comment was. You MIGHT then understand the context for my "parody".

You're being a bit hypocritical here in attacking me for my Boulez joke, yet leaving GianLuca's Glass post uncommented upon.

How about showing the SAME egalitarian outrage over the fact that GianLuca obviously hates minimalism and had no real reason to post in this thread other than to bash minimalists? His comment was in no way constructive (following the general trend of MOST of his comments).

Let me be fair and egalitarian in turn: I actually passionately dislike the music of Philip Glass. I just see no need to be smarmy and sarcastic about it within this thread.

Maybe if this was an "Oh God! I really hate Philip Glass's music" thread, it might be a different situation.

I did read the thread.

The only reason I didn't attack gianluca's post was because it seemed so obviously out of place anyways. Other people already commented on it, so I didn't feel the need to do so too. By no means I find yours or HymnSpace's post more offensive than gianluca's, so my comment was more meant as a "don't step down to his level". So I quite understand the context of your quote. This is not in the least about whether Glass or Boulez are more "worth" to be defended, simply about not answering every attack on a composer with an attack on another composer. Attacking Boulez in such a way doesn't just attack gianluca, but also everyone else who happens to appreciate Boulez, but who doesn't share gianluca's point of view in the least.

But my post was more directed at HymnSpace's "Boulez is cacophony" remark anyways, than at your post. I just included yours because it had the same problem, to me. If HymnSpace hadn't posted, I wouldn't have replied at all. (And I don't really mind "it's easy to write in style X" comments much anyways, as I find that completely irrelevant to the question of quality.)

Originally Posted by Reth

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.

Originally Posted by HymnSpace

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

hahahhahaha

I enjoy the concept of minimalism and I think it is good to draw from it and incorporate some elements of it, just like almost every other genre of music. Every genre brings something to the table.

Personally listening to minimalism is fun but not always super-fulfilling, musically. Works like "Music in 12 Parts" by Glass are more like "These textures are cool" whereas a work like "The Chairman Dances" by Adams is more like "These textures are cool, and the piece really goes somewhere too" and so I find the latter more fulfilling. But equally pleasant.

Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh

I enjoy the concept of minimalism and I think it is good to draw from it and incorporate some elements of it, just like almost every other genre of music. Every genre brings something to the table.

Personally listening to minimalism is fun but not always super-fulfilling, musically. Works like "Music in 12 Parts" by Glass are more like "These textures are cool" whereas a work like "The Chairman Dances" by Adams is more like "These textures are cool, and the piece really goes somewhere too" and so I find the latter more fulfilling. But equally pleasant.

Bam!