Minimalism

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

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".

At least my "parody" had a greater basis in truth than yours. Glass actually does write formulaic music (this is not to bash him, but face it - he has been churning out the same earcandy for years now; however, I have stated elsewhere on this board that I do respect his more radical earlier stuff), whereas Boulez does not and keeps reinventing his musical idiom.

Originally Posted by mgrafe@indiana.edu

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

I agree. Andriessen is one of the most interesting minimalists and perhaps the only one who has been able to combine minimalist techniques with post-war European modernism and dissonance. Although not everything I've heard by him has the same strength, at least Andriessens harmonic language is way more interesting, complex and sophisticated than the simplistic, easy-going triadic harmonies of John Adams and Philip Glass.

the only one who has been able to combine minimalist techniques with post-war European modernism and dissonance.

...

easy-going triadic harmonies of John Adams

...
(Yeah, btw, NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies! In fact, nothing new can be done with words built out of letters. Time for innovation. Wait - improvement! 12387 502 239872356 3847 378 34736429 38 747 477. 3847 378!! 87 3847 18 9843 734 71 38734 9 8 8378347.)

Boulez does not and keeps reinventing his musical idiom.

12398 7283 09127 63 30938743 873 634643 63463 3847 198271983 387 10238?


In English that means "Boulez is just pure rubbish though - who actually likes this shit?"
Just a rough translation though - my radical new message can't be cramped into the old language.

Originally Posted by Daniel

...

...
(Yeah, btw, NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies! In fact, nothing new can be done with words built out of letters. Time for innovation. Wait - improvement! 12387 502 239872356 3847 378 34736429 38 747 477. 3847 378!! 87 3847 18 9843 734 71 38734 9 8 8378347.)

12398 7283 09127 63 30938743 873 634643 63463 3847 198271983 387 10238?

LOL. NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies, is pretty much true ain't it? It's what you get when a system exists for centuries and centuries on end, eventually you'll run out of new things. That's what happens with every system and technique eventually.

There's nothing new under the sun~

About Boulez, uh. I don't know why he gets so much shit, nor Glass really. Come on. Might as well start bashing everyone from Cage to Vivaldi and Palestrina.

Oh wow people have different tastes in music? IMPOSSIBLE! It MUST be the composers that suck instead!!

Originally Posted by Daniel

...

...
(Yeah, btw, NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies! In fact, nothing new can be done with words built out of letters. Time for innovation. Wait - improvement! 12387 502 239872356 3847 378 34736429 38 747 477. 3847 378!! 87 3847 18 9843 734 71 38734 9 8 8378347.)

12398 7283 09127 63 30938743 873 634643 63463 3847 198271983 387 10238?


In English that means "Boulez is just pure rubbish though - who actually likes this shit?"
Just a rough translation though - my radical new message can't be cramped into the old language.

Boulez is an internationally acclaimed composer AND conductor, and he's in the history/theory books. What have you done?

What have you done?

1298 36761391 917263 3487 1209 8 3 1791 123987347 387 1756 123987 1826 91872 1953.


In English (if you're that backwards) - I haven't made shite music, and an idiot out of myself. And my hair is cooler than his.

Originally Posted by Daniel

1298 36761391 917263 3487 1209 8 3 1791 123987347 387 1756 123987 1826 91872 1953.


In English (if you're that backwards) - I haven't made shite music

In YOUR opinion

, and an idiot out of myself. And my hair is cooler than his.

Yes, a guy's cool level always goes up when he looks like a woman.

In YOUR opinion

Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant.

Yes, a guy's cool level always goes up when he looks like a woman.

Hell yes! Not to get off the topic, and descend to attempting personal insults though!

Originally Posted by firsty_ferret

Hey guys,

I'm not really at a stage in my studies of composition where i can learn much about different techniques (I've never actually had a specific lesson on composition, just written what i can gather from the styles of other composers). I've recently been listening to some of Micheal Nylan's pieces and i was wondering if anyone would mind explaining to me some of the things i should consider when writing a minimalist piece such as rules i should follow, intervals to avoid ect.

I'd really appreciate some feedback - i'm getting quite into this style of music

thanks,

No disrespect or anything, but hasn't this thread gone slightly off the point for which it was intended?

Can we please stop discussing Boulez? Otherwise I feel constantly torn between not wishing to help derail this thread (since clearly Boulez has nothing to do with minimalism), and wanting to defend Boulez against "cheap" accusations.

I never know whether to laugh or cry when these kinds of discussions (frays?) surface.

Mostly everyone has their own personal philosophy when it comes to aesthetics. It's subjective, because it's personal. Need I repeat that? It's subjective. For that reason, dogmatic statements of personal leanings never bode well in discussion: nobody can accept them, and nobody can rebut them.

gianluca obviously believes that "newness" is the most important (if not the only) factor in reaching value judgements. I don't personally subscribe to that. I believe it's important also to communicate with audiences in a language they will understand. Unless people in Europe or the US have spent some time immersed in musical academia, chances are they will possess a bias towards Western tonality, rhythm, timbre and all the rest of it. For better or for worst, this is the "language" people understand, and it's hardly surprising: they are Westerners who have grown up in a Western society surrounded by a dominant musical aesthetic. Sure, you want to innovate too, but if you depart significantly from a comprehensible reference point, you run the risk of confusing your listener. Think of it as the difference between inventing a new word and inventing a new grammatical construction, or even language.

Of course, some people (gianluca, Carter to name but two) are not concerned with how the audience will react. Again, I don't personally subscribe to that. I derive as much satisfaction from reaching out to my audience (whoever they may be) as I do creating something I am personally satisfied with.

Again, that's all my personal opinion, and I embrace the fact that there are people out there with differing views. But I draw the line at embracing philosophies of exclusivity: that is, I have trouble sympathising with viewpoints which dictate that my own be invalidated. It's a two way thing, after all.

Oh, and I dig minimalism.