Philip Glass

[mcgillcomposer]

What is Philip Glass' most difficult piece?

[mcgillcomposer]

Yes...


It's a joke.

[soliloquy]

the violin concerto.  terrifying string crossing

[mcgillcomposer]

the violin concerto.  terrifying string crossing

Wanna arrange some dangerous bed crossing? 

[soliloquy]

Wanna arrange some dangerous bed crossing? 

You know you don't even need to ask


So, what sort of "danger" do you have in mind?

[invictious]

Try Mad Rush, 16 minutes.
Although not the longest piece, the constant repetitive motions can cause lots of injuries.

Thanks for the joke though. I think I only turn to Philip Glass when I need to re-learn or revise how the art of relaxation.

[mikey6]

KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE? KNOCK KNOCK! WHO'S THERE?
PHILIP GLASS

(prolly all heard that before)

[Nightscape]

I imagine Music in Twelve Parts or Einstein on the Beach is probably the most taxing Phillip Glass to play.

[Nightscape]

Speaking of Philip Glass, I was actually listening to Music in Twelve Parts earlier today.  I think that the first movement is one of the most relaxing and trance-like pieces of music there is - a highly effective minimalist work.

[cmg]

What is Philip Glass' most difficult piece?

Difficult?  Difficult??  I knew some NYC musicians who performed in the pit for one of his "epic" operas.  ("Einstein on the Beach," as I recall, or was it "Heissenberg in the Hamptons.")  No matter.  Silly material.  The grossly repetitive patterns in orchestration were so tedious and obnoxious, they had to demand "tag teams" to spell one another.  Tendonitis was their greatest concern.   

Glass's works are "The Emperor's New Clothes."  At best, he's known as the originator for the trademark compositional technique known as "minimalism."  Minimalism is not a school nor a movement, musically speaking.  It's merely a compositional technique that Carl Orff stumbled upon in the 1930s with "Carmina Burana."  It was nothing new then, nor is it now, but in a world as intellectually impoverished as ours, Glass stands out.  I remember his early works being championed by musical ignoramases in NYC.  People who wouldn't know Mozart if they found him in their underwear, but discovered to their great delight that Glass's output was "accessible."  Finally!  "Serious" music for the under-educated! Musicians who understood, like Mahler, that music IS counterpoint have always found Glass tedious and infantile.  For that reason, yes, all Glass, then, is "difficult." 

Glass's film scoring, as well, is embarrassingly over-wrought and ridiculously purple.  Film critics, unaccustomed to even noticing music, find his scores extremely distracting and irritating.

But, of course, you can see I have no feelings around this issue at all.

[dnephi]

"Musicians who understood, like Mahler, that music IS counterpoint"

Might Brahms or Reger be a better example? 

It's not *only* counterpoint.  It's also form, character, rhythm, texture, color, tone, and development. 

Of course, most of those are missing from Glass's works too :p.

[Nightscape]

I wouldn't call Glass the 'originator' of minimalism.  Nor would I call Carl Orff and his isorhythms minimalist nor would Ravel's Bolero be considered as such.  In fact I would classify only a small portion of Glass's output as minimalist, as well as Steve Reich.

But considering the climate that minimalism emerged in - the 1960s where serialism was worshiped as the end all be all of music in academic circles, it is pretty amazing and yet at the same time an inevitable occurrence.  I find only a few of Glass's scores to be tedious (try listening to 600 Lines for example) and most of it to be refreshing.  Musicians and the public have been fascinated with Minimalism since it first appeared, and despite frequent predictions of its death, it has done nothing of the kind.

I believe the same was said of almost every musical trend that ever existed.

[cmg]

"Musicians who understood, like Mahler, that music IS counterpoint"

Might Brahms or Reger be a better example?

No, not really. 

And actually it was Mahler himself who stated that "music is counterpoint."  Mahler may not have indulged in the strict logic of fugal writing as Brahms or Reger did, but his works, nevertheless, are permeated with counterpoint.

[cmg]

I wouldn't call Glass the 'originator' of minimalism.  Nor would I call Carl Orff and his isorhythms minimalist nor would Ravel's Bolero be considered as such.  In fact I would classify only a small portion of Glass's output as minimalist, as well as Steve Reich.

But considering the climate that minimalism emerged in - the 1960s where serialism was worshiped as the end all be all of music in academic circles, it is pretty amazing and yet at the same time an inevitable occurrence.  I find only a few of Glass's scores to be tedious (try listening to 600 Lines for example) and most of it to be refreshing.  Musicians and the public have been fascinated with Minimalism since it first appeared, and despite frequent predictions of its death, it has done nothing of the kind.

I believe the same was said of almost every musical trend that ever existed.

Yes, I know Glass disavowed the term.  And, yes, of course, minimalism's simplistic approach to harmony and the use of repetitive patterns was a reaction to serialism.  But Glass, though perhaps not the "originator" of minimalism, is unversally regarded as one of the primary examples of this technique and is always cited as one of the leading exponents of the minimalistic style.  Read any citation on minimalism and you'll find Glass's name at the top of a very short list.  Despite his absurd disavowal.

I disagree with you about Orff.  What else would you call his exploitation of the same rhythms and harmonies in "Carmina Burana" as anything but so-called minimalism?  Minimalism is not a "modern," innovative school of composition.  It's a COMPOSITIONAL TECHNIQUE that has been around since Music.  Chopin famously used the technique in his "Berceuse."  That it is, as you call it, a "trend" is the result of bored critics and academicians in search of a "speciality" or something "new" to write about.

And what rescues "Carmina Burana" from tedium is the beauty of its themes.  Beautiful themes can bear repetition, but they are helped, when repeated, by variation.  Orff often employs subtle variation, even if it is only variation in dynamic level. 

Ravel was a composer I never mentioned.  That "Bolero" contains minimalist compositional techniques (repetitive rhythm and harmony) is obvious.  What rescues it from tedium is the brillant application of orchestral colors.  That was Ravel's aim.  To call him "minimalist" and to lump him with Glass is something I would never do.  Glass is hardly a step above Andrew Lloyd-Weber in creative ability.  His primary failure is not his use of minimalist techniques but his appalling lack of imagination in orchestrating his annoyingly repetitive and uninspired passages.  It's simply repetition without variety.  Just contrast his work to Ravel's brilliant "Bolero" and you understand the difference between genius  and journeyman.

[Nightscape]

I think you are mistaking minimalism for repetition.  "Minimalism" did not come from nowhere - surely previous experiments in repetition intrigued Terry Riley and Philip Glass and Steve Reich, but their methods were not mere experiments but valid and stimulating approaches to music composition.  Philip Glass had a notion of 'blocks' of sound, in which a small segment was repeated, with beats being added and taken away from each time.  This results in an asymmetrical shape of the music and is in many ways like looking at the Fibonacci sequence.  Steve Reich explored the idea of phasing music, in which two rhythms would gradually diverge and in turn generate a kaleidoscope of sound and rhythmic color.  And Terry Riley incorporated ideas of Indian music into his wild keyboard improvisations, and explored elements of tape, electronic and aleatory music.  These are not puerile experimentations, but valid approaches to expanding the boundary of western music.  They owe more to folk music and Indian music and La Monte Young than to Carl Orff, Chopin, or Ravel.

But that aside, despite what you may think of 1960s-1970s minimalism, you can't deny that if it wasn't for this movement, more modern music such as that of John Adams wouldn't exist.  Think of something like Harmonium or Harmonielehre or even Phrygian Gates for piano.  These are beautiful and expansive scores that have a tinge of minimalist influence, but are maximal in their musical content as far as melody, rhythm, harmony, form, etc are concerned.  And they wouldn't exist if minimalism hadn't been explored previously. 

[lazlo]

His suite "metamorphosis" for solo piano is absolutely beautiful. And not incredibly techinically challenging. I know this thread was dealing wiht the most difficult. But I thought, who cares what's most difficult. Its about what's the best music! And this is really beautiful highly recommended.

[lau]

His suite "metamorphosis" for solo piano is absolutely beautiful. And not incredibly techinically challenging. I know this thread was dealing wiht the most difficult. But I thought, who cares what's most difficult. Its about what's the best music! And this is really beautiful highly recommended.

it sounded alright for the first 30 seconds. but then i realized the whole peice was that same 30 seconds. that fact right there overpowers what beautifulness it may have had, and makes it sick.

[mcgillcomposer]

Yes, I know Glass disavowed the term.  And, yes, of course, minimalism's simplistic approach to harmony and the use of repetitive patterns was a reaction to serialism.  But Glass, though perhaps not the "originator" of minimalism, is unversally regarded as one of the primary examples of this technique and is always cited as one of the leading exponents of the minimalistic style.  Read any citation on minimalism and you'll find Glass's name at the top of a very short list.  Despite his absurd disavowal.

I disagree with you about Orff.  What else would you call his exploitation of the same rhythms and harmonies in "Carmina Burana" as anything but so-called minimalism?  Minimalism is not a "modern," innovative school of composition.  It's a COMPOSITIONAL TECHNIQUE that has been around since Music.  Chopin famously used the technique in his "Berceuse."  That it is, as you call it, a "trend" is the result of bored critics and academicians in search of a "speciality" or something "new" to write about.

And what rescues "Carmina Burana" from tedium is the beauty of its themes.  Beautiful themes can bear repetition, but they are helped, when repeated, by variation.  Orff often employs subtle variation, even if it is only variation in dynamic level. 

Ravel was a composer I never mentioned.  That "Bolero" contains minimalist compositional techniques (repetitive rhythm and harmony) is obvious.  What rescues it from tedium is the brillant application of orchestral colors.  That was Ravel's aim.  To call him "minimalist" and to lump him with Glass is something I would never do.  Glass is hardly a step above Andrew Lloyd-Weber in creative ability.  His primary failure is not his use of minimalist techniques but his appalling lack of imagination in orchestrating his annoyingly repetitive and uninspired passages.  It's simply repetition without variety.  Just contrast his work to Ravel's brilliant "Bolero" and you understand the difference between genius  and journeyman.

Aside from his complete lack of craftsmanship, the thing that gets me most about Glass is the fact that he is hardly even a musician, let alone a composer. I watched this documentary of him, and there is a scene where he is seated at the piano repeating a C major triad in a steady rhythm C ... E ... G ... C ... etc... and is staring up as if it were the most sublime thing ever written. To make matters worse, he is struggling to play this simple 3 note figure...in fact, it almost looks like a second-rate contortionist act.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing Philip Glass has going for him is the fancy little name he gives to his [I know it's not 'his', per se] boring style: minimalism. There is a very big difference between something that is simple and sublime and something that is simplistic and uninteresting. Of course, someone is going to bring up the point that this is all a question of taste...all art is subjective. Well, I have news for you, that is a bullshit remark. There is a big difference between great art and something my cat could do by accident in his spare time.

...yes, my cat has spare time...

[indutrial]

I've never found Glass's work remotely interesting and minimalism in general is a recipe for boring! While I like being entranced by something beautiful when I hear it, I prefer that the trance have a little bit of variety and contour. Listening to Glass is like getting hypnotized by a swinging pocketwatch, but it never goes beyond the "you're getting sleepy" stage.

Philip Glass and all of those atrocious post-rock groups who cite him as a genius can go F themselves.

I can't help but dislike Glass even more when I realize how many great non-minimalist composers from the 20th century have gone totally unrecognized while his garbage continues to sell pretty steadily (just the other day, someone told me they bought the soundtrack to Koyanniskatsi or whatever, BLECH!!!)

What does anyone here think of Gorecki's 3rd Symphony, which a lot of people would consider minimalist. This is a piece that I've heard quite a few times and have never quite latched on to (at least in comparison to Gorecki's other works).

[Nightscape]

Unfortunately, no one here has yet to bring up a valid criticism of Philip Glass.  Saying he enjoys the sound of a C major triad is not a criticism.  Saying your cat could compose something like Koyaanisquatsi or Music in Twelve Parts is not only wrong, but not a criticism either.  Saying Philip Glass can go F himself is not a criticism.  Saying his music is boring is not a criticism - it is an opinion.  Literally millions and millions of people find all classical piano music boring - does that make it true? (In fact, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?)

Saying his music lacks craftmanship is wrong too, while I can't speak for his more recent work as I am unfamiliar with it, his music from the 70s and 80s was meticulously composed.  In particular, I find the score to Koyannisquatsi to be one of the most effective of all film scores and certainly one of the most original and imitated.

Now I don't want to have anyone here think that I am some sort of Philip Glass worshiper.  I used to hate his music too until I picked up a book about it and actually bought a CD and listened to it in depth.  It helped being familiar with the works of Steve Reich and John Adams first because I could see where a lot of it was going.  I respect Philip Glass's achievements in music however I agree that there are greater composers around, many who are unjustly less famous - however this is anyone but Philip Glass's fault.

[cmg]

Unfortunately, no one here has yet to bring up a valid criticism of Philip Glass. 

That, of course, is strictly your opinion.  I have yet to read a post by you where you demonstrate a clear understanding of this so-called minimalism.  Perhaps our criticism of Glass is based on a visceral (and negative) reaction to the repetitive, hypnotic and ultimately soporific effect of his music, but your appreciation is hardly based on a defense that is any more intellectually rigorous.

Let's get your end of the debate started with Kyle Gann's description of some of the characteristics of "minimalism."  Gann is an American composer and former critic for The Village Voice.  This info comes from the Wikipedia entry on minimalism.

1) static harmony and audible structure
2) alogorithmic, linear, geometric or gradual processes (such as pattern augmentation by 1, 1 +2, 1+2 + 3, etc.
3) a steady beat
4) static instrumentation
5) "metamusic" (unplanned acoustic details that arise as side effects to the performed music)
6) pure tuning
7) influence of non-Western music (African drumming, Indian music)
 
Using these criteria, we can all agree that Glass uses some or all of these technques here and there in his works.  Some of the techniques he uses to such length (and to the exclusion of so many other traditional compositional techniques) that one is compelled to classify him as a minimalist.

No problem there.  Nothing wrong with minimalism.

The problem with Glass (and this can only be subjective, no matter how much you demand scientific objectivity from us regarding an art form) is that his basic material is uninspired and uninspiring.  Listening to any work of his eventually induces a sense of boredom that comes from:

-- the repetitiveness of his orchestration (i.e. massed strings and woodwinds used exclusively for prolonged periods) with very little change in color.

-- harmonic palette (no more chords than appear in a Britney Spears' song).

-- a steady, (normally) four-square beat that is relentless in its unvarying steadiness.

Just these three items alone spell a gross lack of variety for the ear.  It induces boredom.  Unrelieved repetition induces boredom.  One of the first things any composer learns is variety and  just shuffling the same notes and chords about in pattern augmentation (1, 1 + 2, etc.) doesn't do the trick alone.

Wagner uses a very "Glassian" technique in the opening of "Das Rheingold" with the immensely prolonged E-flat pedal and the strings swirling above in arpeggios.  But, that's only a starting point for Wagner.  He moves on to contrasting material to bring to an end the "river water" trance and to draw the listener back into the drama.

Glass is such a poor dramatist because of his inabilty to offer up any real variety.  He's a slave to his technique, which is the antithesis of variety.  And any musician who is a slave to technique is probably a slave because real musicality eludes him. In lieu of inspiration, he relies only on technique.

I doubt that this will satisfy your high standards for "valid criticism," so debate these issues in a follow-up post.  You seem to have unlocked the secrets of Glass's music that none of us know about.  Kindly share.

 

[Nightscape]

I have not "unlocked", as you say, any secrets of Philip Glass's music.  I have merely listened to it and appreciated its qualities for what they are - some of the very same qualities that were mentioned in that wikipedia article.  You are putting words in my mouth - I never claimed to be an expert authority on minimalism.  I have become acquainted with the repertoire, have performed some of it, and have read articles and books beyond wikipedia to augment my understanding of it.  I have even composed some minimalistic pieces.  I imagine this constitutes a greater knowledge of minimalism than you possess, however I am still learning about it and have a lot left to learn.

In your post, you defined the basic qualities of the music of Philip Glass.  Then you proceeded to say, that despite the craftsmanship evident in his works, you find the material and its unfolding uninspiring personally.  That is fine with me.  Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and not everyone needs to love minimalism for it to exist or thrive.  However, it is wrong to generalize that everyone will experience the music in the same way.  You say that by listening to a Philip Glass work, a sense of boredom is inevitable.  But for me and millions of others this is not true.  For you and others of you opinion it is true.

If you look up the wikipedia article on baroque music, you should be able to come up with a similar list of criteria:

1) extensive use of counterpoint
2) tonal, functional harmony
3) use of devices such as fugue, ritornello, french overture
4) extensive use and exploration of the binary form
5) rhythms based on the quarter note, eighth note, and 16th note

and so on.  J.S. Bach used all of these in his works, in fact he never really deviated from these descriptions.  Does that too make him a slave of his techniques?  Perhaps.  But then you could say that despite his rigid adherence to his techniques his musical material was inspired and moving.  Some would say yes and some would say no.

I think we can agree that almost of the well-known composers from JS Bach to Philip Glass crafted their music in a coherent fashion that can be described in a very general way by a set of criteria.  If their music is judged to be coherent in this fashion, then it simply becomes a matter of personal opinion whether or not you like it.  And the more people who like a composer (and the more prestigious people who like that composer) the more and more that composer appears to be a great composer and an influential composer.

A valid criticism of Philip Glass would be saying that his music is not coherent in this fashion.  That it is sloppily put together without any understanding of the craft of composition.  Not just that you don't like it.

[cmg]

Excellent rebuttal, I must say! 

So, what we are saying, quite honestly, is that you appreciate and like much of Glass's work and I don't.

This reminds me of the musicologist Deryk Cooke's (sp?) admission that he hated much of the Beethoven Fifth Symphony.  He used a wonderful phrase for his dislike:  he said that the work, sadly for him, was one of those "closed doors."

Obviously, Glass is a closed door for me.  Now, if his stuff just didn't sound so monochromatic to me I might listen to it more and develop an appreciation.  Give me some years to air out my brain.  I'll try again.  What the hell. 

[Nightscape]

Yes, I think we can both agree to disagree about liking Philip Glass.  But even some of his music grates on me, like 600 Lines which is 45 minute or so piece with a short annoying melody played over and over again (way more than 600 times).  I don't really listen to much Philip Glass: I listen to Koyaanisquati, the 5th string quartet, Music in Changing Parts and Music in Twelve Parts.  The 5th string quartet isn't very 'minimal' sounding to me, it is more recent music by him.

[mcgillcomposer]

Saying his music lacks craftmanship is wrong too, while I can't speak for his more recent work as I am unfamiliar with it, his music from the 70s and 80s was meticulously composed.  In particular, I find the score to Koyannisquatsi to be one of the most effective of all film scores and certainly one of the most original and imitated.

Then perhaps you can actually cite examples, because everywhere I look in his music there are signs of mediocrity, and not those of a master craftsman. Just because something is meticulously composed does not mean that it is founded upon a solid craft. It has also been my experience that most people aren't even equipped to judge what solid craftsmanship means. I have had too many arguments with people whose idea of counterpoint, for example, is two semesters of study under some third-rate teacher. I am not implying that you are one of these people, but I must be cautious as I am not willing to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.

[soliloquy]

Then perhaps you can actually cite examples, because everywhere I look in his music there are signs of mediocrity, and not those of a master craftsman. Just because something is meticulously composed does not mean that it is founded upon a solid craft. It has also been my experience that most people aren't even equipped to judge what solid craftsmanship means. I have had too many arguments with people whose idea of counterpoint, for example, is two semesters of study under some third-rate teacher. I am not implying that you are one of these people, but I must be cautious as I am not willing to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.

I suggest starting at the String Quartet No. 5 played by the Kronos Quartet if you're still looking for "suggestions".  It is very much the opposite of how you describe "all" of Philip Glass' music.

[Nightscape]

Indeed, soliloquy's suggestion is a good one.

[mcgillcomposer]

I suggest starting at the String Quartet No. 5 played by the Kronos Quartet if you're still looking for "suggestions".  It is very much the opposite of how you describe "all" of Philip Glass' music.

I know the 5th quartet...I don't see what is so wonderful about it. I will admit, however, that it isn't entirely his fault. After all, minimalism is not exactly the most fruitful 'system' to work within.

[lazlo]

Let's get your end of the debate started with Kyle Gann's description of some of the characteristics of "minimalism."  Gann is an American composer and former critic for The Village Voice.  This info comes from the Wikipedia entry on minimalism.

1) static harmony and audible structure
2) alogorithmic, linear, geometric or gradual processes (such as pattern augmentation by 1, 1 +2, 1+2 + 3, etc.
3) a steady beat
4) static instrumentation
5) "metamusic" (unplanned acoustic details that arise as side effects to the performed music)
6) pure tuning
7) influence of non-Western music (African drumming, Indian music)
 
Using these criteria, we can all agree that Glass uses some or all of these technques here and there in his works.  Some of the techniques he uses to such length (and to the exclusion of so many other traditional compositional techniques) that one is compelled to classify him as a minimalist.

No problem there.  Nothing wrong with minimalism.

The problem with Glass (and this can only be subjective, no matter how much you demand scientific objectivity from us regarding an art form) is that his basic material is uninspired and uninspiring.  Listening to any work of his eventually induces a sense of boredom that comes from:

Let's get your end of the debate started with Kyle Gann's description of some of the characteristics of "minimalism."  Gann is an American composer and former critic for The Village Voice.  This info comes from the Wikipedia entry on minimalism.

1) static harmony and audible structure
2) alogorithmic, linear, geometric or gradual processes (such as pattern augmentation by 1, 1 +2, 1+2 + 3, etc.
3) a steady beat
4) static instrumentation
5) "metamusic" (unplanned acoustic details that arise as side effects to the performed music)
6) pure tuning
7) influence of non-Western music (African drumming, Indian music)
 
Using these criteria, we can all agree that Glass uses some or all of these technques here and there in his works.  Some of the techniques he uses to such length (and to the exclusion of so many other traditional compositional techniques) that one is compelled to classify him as a minimalist.

No problem there.  Nothing wrong with minimalism.

The problem with Glass (and this can only be subjective, no matter how much you demand scientific objectivity from us regarding an art form) is that his basic material is uninspired and uninspiring.  Listening to any work of his eventually induces a sense of boredom that comes from:

this is such a pointless and pretentious response... you think you're really sophisticated that you can "prove" that the music of philip glass is "uninspiring" and "uninspired" because it "induces a sense of boredom" in YOU. Just because YOU get bored listening to his work does not mean that EVERYONE in the world does. You can't just try to rationally prove why someone's work should or shouldn't be appreciated and liked as you try to do. Granted I don't like ALL of his work. But a lot of his pieces I fiind incredibly moving. And it just really makes me angry when someone comes along to try and prove why his work is unlikeable...

[indutrial]

I know the 5th quartet...I don't see what is so wonderful about it. I will admit, however, that it isn't entirely his fault. After all, minimalism is not exactly the most fruitful 'system' to work within.

If anything is released under his name and it sucks, it is most definitely entirely his fault. No minimalism police have a gun up against Glass's brainstem saying "use our sh*tty system to compose or die!!" If an architect can't build anything except a boxy, grey-scaled, cubic tenement house, you don't blame the bricks or the slide-rule. This isn't the dark ages anymore...nobody will be executed if they compose with tritones, altered extensions, and/or dynamic shifts.

Glass leans on his crappy tired play-it-safe style as pathetically and desparately as that idiot pianist Kastle (see other thread) leans on his mindless idea that Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no. 2 represents the peak of Western piano technique. Fortunately, Glass will always be able to make money as long as bleakness and lifeless apathy work as selling points (in movie soundtracks, especially).