Minimalist piano works

[pies]

a

[rachfan]

Maybe you've been right to avoid minimalism!  I sometimes wonder if minimalists such as Philip Glass write such limited, excessively repetitive, monotonous and uninspiring music due mostly to a lack of talent, ideas, and/or ability to undertake forms and styles which contain far greater and varied complexities.  Seems like minimalism receives more attention than it merits. I mean if one wishes to slip into a trance, minimalistic music need not be the conduit--merely repeating the utterance "Om" over and over works equally well.       

Anyway, here are some you could check into: Terry Riley, Steven Reich, Per Norgaard, Zoltan Jeny, Gyorgi Ligeti, and Philip Glass.     

[mattgreenecomposer]

Phrygian gates is a great piece--John Adams that you mentioned.

There are also many new young composers that write in a minimalist style as well.

[retrouvailles]

Anyway, here are some you could check into: Terry Riley, Steven Reich, Per Norgaard, Zoltan Jeny, Gyorgi Ligeti, and Philip Glass.     

Ligeti was not a minimalist. And neither is Nørgård. And I haven't heard of Jeny, other than the fact that he has scored obscure Hungarian films. Did you just pick these three at random? It seems like it.

I must respectfully say not to listen to rachfan. He has said in the past that contemporary music is his weak point, and it definitely shows here. Not all minimalism is just the repetition of simple phrases, such as in Glass, who I think is one of the worst minimalist composers. Same goes for Riley. Steve Reich is a great minimalist composers, but he doesn't have any works for solo piano. John Adams is definitely a great post-minimalist composer whose Phrygian Gates, China Gates, and American Berserk are great pieces. If you can get another pianist, Hallelujah Junction is worth looking into as well. The two latter are far more complex and inspired than anything Glass ever put out. If you want some Dutch minimalism, look into Louis Andriessen, who is probably my favorite of the genre. I think he has a few pieces for solo piano.

[s_bussotti]

Otte's Das Buch der Klange

Really don't suggest trying that piece.

How about Glass' Metamorphoses I-V?  They're pretty nice.  Arvo Part also wrote a set of variations for piano which is a very good piece.


I'm not even going to bother responding to Rachfan's crap; and yes, it's definitely crap.  Also, retrouvailles, there is very little that's simple about Glass' compositional technique.  Just because his music is the most accessible doesn't mean he is one of "the worst".  Try his string quartets, for starters.


PS- look into La Monte Young.

[retrouvailles]

I'm not even going to bother responding to Rachfan's crap; and yes, it's definitely crap.  Also, retrouvailles, there is very little that's simple about Glass' compositional technique.  Just because his music is the most accessible doesn't mean he is one of "the worst".  Try his string quartets, for starters.

I didn't say that his compositional techniques are what make him bad. It's that he doesn't seem to know how to use these techniques. I've heard pieces that can be just as simple as something by Glass that were amazing. I have heard my fair share of Glass and I frankly don't think I am missing out on the rest. However, I have become quite infatuated by the "holy minimalists", like Pärt, Vasks, etc. Now their music is really lovely, and can be very simple.

[pies]

Really don't suggest trying that piece.

¿Por qué?

[s_bussotti]

I have heard my fair share of Glass and I frankly don't think I am missing out on the rest.

Bit Derekean.

[pies]

a

[thierry13]

Ligeti was not a minimalist.

He wrote minimalist pieces.

[retrouvailles]

He wrote minimalist pieces.

I don't think he wrote a significant amount to be called a minimalist though. Lots of people have written minimalist pieces but cannot be called minimalists.

[rachfan]

To s_bussotti:

Just because you happen to disagree with another person's point of view does not mean it's "crap".

[s_bussotti]

To s_bussotti:

Just because you happen to disagree with another person's point of view does not mean it's "crap".

You gave a list of composers in which half of them weren't even minimalists and one was misspelled, you said it's right to avoid minimalist composers, you compared the entire output (meaning you think Glass and Reich and Young and Otte are all the same, which is crap) to nothing more than chanting "Om", you said that they have inferior compositional techniques, you called all their music "monotonous and uninspiring" and you said that it does not merit even the very small amount of interest it gets.

How is that not crap?

[retrouvailles]

I have to say that I am with s_bussotti on this one.

[tompilk]

I have to say that I am with s_bussotti on this one.

I laughed when I read these last few posts. the argument is so one-sided it's funny!

[rachfan]

I'm trying to keep my sense of humor here.   

Minimalism, as everyone here would agree, is inherently reductionist in nature.  Originally, it was a reaction to aleatory composition (which I call chance music), around which it became too difficult for most listeners to wrap their minds.  So minimalism was a reaction (perhaps an over-reaction in my humble opinion) which brought simplification to music--i.e., use of musical fragments (or germ motifs as we used to say in Theory 101), simple straightforward harmonies, and--to make sure listeners "got it"--incredible amounts of repetition!  So while much music prior to the minimalist movement featured contrast (although chance music probably went off the deep end with contrast), minimalism pushed the pendulum over to repetition a la Philip Glass.  What was missing was balance.  If one looks back to Baroque, Viennese Classicism, Romanticism, Late Romanticism or Impressionism, for example, there was indeed a thoughtful balance in composition between contrast and repetition.  For me, that helped make the music of those periods so enjoyable and listenable.  That same balance afforded complexity without being complexity of the opaque and abstruse kind.

After being a member of this forum for a number of years, I believe that most people know that I have a dry sense of humor.  My "Om" comment was meant purely in that vein.  Folks might need to lighten up a bit!    Having said that, here's an interesting take I found today in Dr. F. E. Kirby's book, Music for Piano: A Short History (revised): "... it [minimalistic music] may over time produce a meditative, even hypnotic, effect on the listener, so that it has also been called trance music."  Minimalistic music has likewise been called systemic music, process music, meditative music, hypnopompic music, and repetitive music (on that last one, I wonder why?!?).  So in addition to my humor, there is some basis in fact that correlates to that "Om" observation.

As to s_bussotti's points:

You quoted me as saying "It's right to avoid minimalist composers."  I kindly refer you back to my original post where I actually said, "Maybe you were right to avoid minimalism."  As worded, that was a speculative possibility being posed.  Maybe also goes hand-in-hand with... maybe not.  That would be for pies to decide.

Yes, I am guilty of a typo in adding the "n" to Steve Reich's name.  I doubt that I'm the first member to make a typo here, nevertheless, I offer my profound apologies for that!

Yes indeed, I do equate endless repetition with monotony and a lack of contrast to be uninteresting and uninspiring.  Moreover, I do believe that reductionist simplification, when carried to the extreme, leads to inferior composition in the sense that it seems to be aimed at an assumed musical mind that cannot perceive, process and appreciate composition of reasonable complexity.  (That's not a criticism of anyone here in this forum, so no need to seethe.)  It almost seems a bit demeaning.  This thinking is not new actually.  Europe was still in the throws of serialism at the earliest inception of minimalism.  European intellectuals at that time feared that minimalism would become the new opium of the masses.  Ironically, I cannot help but wonder if, when Glass is played as elevator music, the expressed concern of those earlier European composers might have been prophetic and well founded.

Regarding composers:

I had mentioned Terry Riley, as some consider him to be the first minimalist.  His "Keyboard Studies" based directly on "In C" is considered to be a landmark in the minimalist literature.

Per Norgaard wrote "Groovy" which signaled his attraction to the minimalist movement.  According to Kirby, this piece "... is a kind of developmental minimalism in which figurations are constantly being adjusted, however slightly, while new pitches are added and others phased out."  David Burge in Twentieth Century Piano Music notes the repetitions in this piece, calling them the "trademark" of minimalism.  This too would have to be a minimalist landmark.

Zoltan Jeny wrote "Endgame", considered by some an early "classic" of minimalism.  According to Kirby, Jeny has written a number of other short piano pieces as well.  Why shouldn't someone interested in minimalism look further into this composer's work?

I just checked in Hinson's Guide on Glass, and minimalist pieces for piano include "Wichita Vortex Sutra", "Five Metamorphoses", and "Mad Rush".  So that choice seems well justified.   

Ligeti's "Continuum" for harpsichord is considered very close to minimalism, and Ligeti himself agrees.  I assume it's legitimate to play it on piano as well, as we do with Bach's music daily.

(To those I probably should have added Tom Johnson who composed "Septapede" but forgot to.) 

I was remiss in recommending Steve Reich, as his "Piano Phase" is a duo-piano piece only, and I'm not aware of what minimalist pieces, if any, he might since have written for piano, and didn't have time today to research that.  In any case, it would not be a bad thing, however, if pies just wanted to read a bit about him and his general contributions to the minimalist repertoire. 
 
Obviously, I didn't mention Adams at all, as that composer was part of pies' inquiry.
Overall, although I'm admittedly far from being an expert on minimalism, I believe that my composer recommendations were certainly acceptable ones. 

One thing that history shows is that the pendulum is always in motion, and once it hits its outer-most extreme, it then swings the other way.  Just as serialism was far too complicated and abstract for most to appreciate, I believe that minimalism will likely wane as being deemed overly simplistic in the face of the rise of Neo-Romanticism.  Ligeti already found this trend among his students while teaching, and was so struck by the post-modern attitude that he stopped composing altogether for several years.  Personally, I hope that the Neo-Romantic trend continues to wax in importance as musicians and listeners alike demand more of a balance between repetition and contrast.  This is just my opinion--so please chill, no need to get into a knot over it.   

Having been taken "over the coals" I believe I've explained my post at length and more than adequately.  I hope this will end the contention.  As many know, I happen to love Late Romantic music; but if someone speaks negatively about it, calling it "film music" or whatever, to me it simply means that they have a different viewpoint and, thankfully, the freedom to express it.  After all, there is very wide variance in musical tastes.  So my approach to differing opinions is to "live and let live".  I hope others will agree with that premise.  I've talked with a couple of people off-line who read, but do not contribute to the forums here, as they do not wish to spend a lot of time defending their opinions as if on trial.  I think that's sad not to have the benefit of their inputs.  I image, unfortunately, that they could be just the tip of the iceberg.   

[s_bussotti]

Sandro?  Who is Sandro?

s stands for Sylvano?

[thierry13]

I don't think he wrote a significant amount to be called a minimalist though. Lots of people have written minimalist pieces but cannot be called minimalists.

The point is that he didn't call them minimalist. If you want minimalist music you can look into Ligeti, since he wrote some.  That does not make him a minimalist, that makes him one of those who wrote at least one minimalist piece.

[ramseytheii]

Interesting theory on the origins of minimalism.  I wonder if it is due not so much to a reaction against or that, but a cultural mentality that was fomenting.  Karl Lagerfeld said, "Minimalism is the art of our time."

Walter Ramsey

[retrouvailles]

But why would you recommend someone if a given musical genre isn't their main thing. I wouldn't say to look into Stravinsky if you want to hear serial music, just because he wrote a few pieces that use serialism. I would say to lool into Schoenberg because he was one that did it primarily. It is the same principle here. I wouldn't recommend Ligeti because he was not a minimalist. Also he has said that his piece "Continuum" can only be done on piano if it is a player piano, not by a real person. It can only be played on harpsichord otherwise. He cites that the action of the piano does now allow one to play the piece at a near continuum speed. So one can say that he has written NO works for piano that are minimalist.

[ramseytheii]

But Ligeti's piano works undoubtedly have elements of obsessive repetition, and of the continuous, perpetual motion textures so common to minimalism.  I wouldn't go so far as to say he was influenced by minimalist composers, because I don't know, but I think as a cultural phenomenon, which we've seen in music, painting, literature (Thomas Bernhard, Sandor Marai, Cormac McCarthy), it is an undeniable force in his music.

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

Hi s_bussotti,

Sorry, I confused you with someone else and just went back and corrected that in my reply.

[thierry13]

But why would you recommend someone if a given musical genre isn't their main thing. I wouldn't say to look into Stravinsky if you want to hear serial music, just because he wrote a few pieces that use serialism. I would say to lool into Schoenberg because he was one that did it primarily. It is the same principle here. I wouldn't recommend Ligeti because he was not a minimalist. Also he has said that his piece "Continuum" can only be done on piano if it is a player piano, not by a real person. It can only be played on harpsichord otherwise. He cites that the action of the piano does now allow one to play the piece at a near continuum speed. So one can say that he has written NO works for piano that are minimalist.

That was the piano of his time. Today's piano could do it. Now could the pianist do it with perfect evenness, is the question.

[rachfan]

Hi ramseytheii,

Yes, in the same way that Debussy, Ravel and Griffes were contemporaries of Monet, Manet and Pissarro et al in the Impressionist movement,  Glass and Riley and other minimalist composers have been counterparts to fine artists like Morris, Flavin and LeWitt, as well as like-minded sculptors and architects.  But it's difficult to know if in the early stages there was a chicken and egg dynamic, or whether there was instead simultaneous and mutual cross-influence.  So this element cannot be discounted out of hand.  However, it seems that musicologists see the rise of minimalism as being more overtly a reaction against serialism and chance music, much of which by then had become more and more unfathomable and inaccessible due to their complicated and not very obvious intracacies. 

[ramseytheii]

Interesting!  Well, I eagerly await the books to be published in the future with titles like, "Reich and his World," or "Glass and his Times."  I think as a cultural phenomenon, minimalism is the most gripping and compelling approach that has appeared in a long time.  In some ways, serialism might have had it right as far as a logical historical progression of musical technique, but serialism missed the boat on captivating the imaginations of the public at large.

Not that minimalism has a huge audience, but I think it must be seen dispersed among the peoples in a greater variety than serialism.  Just some random thoughts!

Are there any academic resources to learn about minimalism?

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

Go to amazon.com and set the search to Books and Minimalism.  It brings up several on the subject.  I didn't have time to read all the descriptions, but there might be one or more of interest to you there.  Also, if you just Google Minimalism, more articles will appear than you could shake a stick at.  The law of averages says that some of them have to be of high quality.  I'd try those searches first.  I believe that most musicology texts per se will have no more than a topic or chapter devoted to it, as such books have to cover a slew of material.  It's possible too that one or more academics have written a book(s) on it, but that would take some research. 

[slobone]

Hi ramseytheii,

Yes, in the same way that Debussy, Ravel and Griffes were contemporaries of Monet, Manet and Pissarro et al in the Impressionist movement,  Glass and Riley and other minimalist composers have been counterparts to fine artists like Morris, Flavin and LeWitt, as well as like-minded sculptors and architects.  But it's difficult to know if in the early stages there was a chicken and egg dynamic, or whether there was instead simultaneous and mutual cross-influence.  So this element cannot be discounted out of hand.  However, it seems that musicologists see the rise of minimalism as being more overtly a reaction against serialism and chance music, much of which by then had become more and more unfathomable and inaccessible due to their complicated and not very obvious intracacies. 

Hmm, well yeah I guess, but somehow when I hear a 4-hour opera by Philip Glass I don't think "gee that reminds me of Joseph Albers." These descriptive labels only have a limited usefulness.

I think the "minimalist" composers were just reacting against the previous generation, as all young artists do. Serialism had pretty much run its course, and people just weren't listening anymore. Audiences only wanted tonal music, but you couldn't go back to Rachmaninoff, so they had to come up with something that was pleasant to listen to but could still be defended as "modern" somehow. If you're cynical you could think of it as a strictly commercial decision.

Listening to Satyagraha from the Met over the weekend, I had the same reaction I always have to his music: absolutely gorgeous for the first 10 minutes, then I'm tired of it. And I don't exclude his film scores from that opinion (although I admit I'm not familiar with his piano music.)

[indutrial]

I think the "minimalist" composers were just reacting against the previous generation, as all young artists do. Serialism had pretty much run its course, and people just weren't listening anymore. Audiences only wanted tonal music, but you couldn't go back to Rachmaninoff, so they had to come up with something that was pleasant to listen to but could still be defended as "modern" somehow. If you're cynical you could think of it as a strictly commercial decision.

Serialism, when treated as any kind of strict methodology, usually leads to trouble and gives listeners and musicians plenty of things to pregnant dog and complain about. While that -ism kind of fell on its face, I'm not very convinced that subtracting so much (until we reach minimalism) was really the best antidote. Sure, it brings listeners back, mostly of the college psuedo-intellectual film-student variety, but that's where the confusion hits me. Whenever I hear people blathering on about how awesome Glass's work is, or how entrancing something like Steve Reich's Nagoya Marimbas sounds, I give it another chance. 100% of the time I just feel like I'm listening to TV-commercial music and not much more. Usually the performer will impress me more than the piece itself, simply because the demands of playing something so redundant and tedious most be considerable. Getting back to the music, I just plain don't see what stuff like that is doing being released under the moniker of classical music. It's like soundtrack music that simply lacks a movie or video-game to embellish. To be honest, most video game music and movie score material is far more exciting and diverse to the ear.

I watched a really great interview with contemporary dodecaphonic composer Charles Wuorinen, who I would posit as one of the best composers alive right now. I don't remember the exact quotes, but he talked about how an overwhelming amount of music (in all genres) these days is all about flash-in-the-pan entertainment and that it does not demand any mental involvement from the audience. The music can't venture far outside of the expected territory. When music dares to step outside of this box, it gets stomped in the face by the forces of "bullyish populism" and forced to maintain a low (nearly nonexistant) profile in the public eye. He mentioned how several composers are guilty of cowtowing to this state of affairs and how it's made things increasingly difficult for composers who are trying to tow their own line in the scene. I can't wait to see the premeire of Wuorinen's work Synaxis, which is being performed in the same program as Vivaldi's Four Seasons early in May. A strange combination of pieces (if you have the slightest idea what to expect from Wuorinen's music), but surely one that shows a proper respect for different musics across the ages.

Anyhow, minimalism as a compositional methodology is kind of dodgy to my ears, just as much as a super-strict application of serial techniques would be. Both are too limiting. Minimalism is much worse though, if only due to its misguided and overwhelmingly popular appeal, which causes a lot of repercussions in the worlds of CD-releasing and show-booking.

On a related note, one of my favorite groups in the world is the Rascher Sax Quartet and they actually have both Wuorinen's amazing Saxophone Quartet and Glass's Concerto for Saxophone Quartet and Orchestra in their repertoire. I would say that Wuorinen's piece (which doesn't require booking a big-assed orchestra) is worth more than a thousand of Glass's, yet a heavy percentage of that group's booking is them performing the boring-ass Glass piece.

The color scheme in this video montage couldn't describe the piece better.

[pies]

a

[indutrial]

Has anyone here checked out a Danish composer named Wayne Siegel. His music is somewhat minimalist at times, but the results are actually pretty incredible. I like his piece "Sound Patterns", which he wrote for the LIN Ensemble (clarinet, cello, piano). He also did an incredibly unique work called "Jackdaw" scored for a bass clarinetist playing with a loop sequencer with a sampler simultaneously playing sounds that the composer derived from samples of a pet crow squawking (hence the name). Sure, this sounds very typically and tiresomely modern, but the musical results are nothing less then excellent. Siegel's also written some excellent works for strange ensembles like guitar quartet.