Through the looking Glass

[teamsaint]

I must say I'd come to your 'mistaken' conclusion too, Boilk... likewise about Mr Glass, insofar as I've sampled his works. I'm sure there are exceptions, but with limited time available in life for music which for me is inexhaustibly excellent, I find I have to make choices based on partial information - 'snap' decisions, possibly. I have no inclination to give either Mr Glass or Ms Emin any further time - my personal choice is that there are hugely more profitable and enjoyable ways of spending that time.

I am very interested in the view you express Caliban.
I think this is a valuable lesson , and certainly one that I think I learned later than I would wish...looking back.

the value of the time we appear to have ( or not to have) is not always obvious to us when we are younger.

Its a pragamatic thing to do, to just go for the obvious and proven "class",but it does reap rewards. Like you, I don't want to waste my time on the second class or the charlatan, when there is so much tried and tested out there that I can , with a degree of confidence, head towards.
That is not to say, of course, that trying the new and different is a not worthwhile, or that plotting our own journey isn't very valuable(I am glad I dabbbled in the marginal stuff that I did in younger days)....but just that a certain pragmatism can be worthwhile.

Which is why I am always tapping you lot on these boards for information and opinion. Sorry. But it's in a good cause!!

[Roehre]

I agree that the ENC argument is over-used, often as a substitute for genuine consideration of why the piece doesn't work for that listener, but the Guardian review did not (as I read it) use the ENC/con trick criticism - that was in a subsequent post on this thread.

So I would be interested to know why MrGG thinks the review is "c..p" (I'm sure this is not simply another way of saying that he doesn't agree with it ).

It was me who put the ENC remark in this thread.
I don't believe Glass 6 is a great work (IMO the rot set in as early as Satyagraha and Einstein on the Beach - though a recent cello concerto shows some of earlier, and revolutionary, treats of Glass' output).
IMO this work, and that's certainly not helped by the non-musical but rather political texts, is in the same category as Beethoven's Der Glorreiche Augenblick op.136: unworthy of the man.
As a consequence someone who is defending this work should take a thorough view at the score and ask himself honestly what this score offers in terms of architecture, previously not used procedures, inventions, re-chewed mantras and so on, before declaring it a master piece.

So I would be interested to know why MrGG thinks the review is "c..p" (I'm sure this is not simply another way of saying that he doesn't agree with it ).

So do I.

[heliocentric]

It's a crap review

It certainly comes loaded with assumptions about what a "well put together" piece is, what "development of musical ideas" is and why the lack thereof is a problem (whereas presumably in a piece by Messiaen it wouldn't be), what the "old tricks" are that Glass is supposedly "blatantly regurgitating" and so on, to the point that if you're minded to see Glass as an Emperor's New Clothes kind of composer you'll find plenty of grist to your mill (as we see in this thread), but if you aren't, you're given very little idea of what this piece actually sounded like. Apart from that, the way this review is phrased is (a) sloppy (why are "strings sawing in unison" bad in a Glass symphony but presumably not bad in, say, the Sacre du printemps?), and (b) gives me the impression that the critic would be equally scathing about a lot of music that I would greatly enjoy. Just because one might agree with it if one heard the music doesn't make it good writing.

[aeolium]

Its a pragamatic thing to do, to just go for the obvious and proven "class",but it does reap rewards. Like you, I don't want to waste my time on the second class or the charlatan, when there is so much tried and tested out there that I can , with a degree of confidence, head towards.
That is not to say, of course, that trying the new and different is a not worthwhile, or that plotting our own journey isn't very valuable(I am glad I dabbbled in the marginal stuff that I did in younger days)....but just that a certain pragmatism can be worthwhile.

I agree with that, ts - as long as you are relying on your own ears and your own judgement, and not second-hand opinions. It is all too easy to be put off listening to something by an article or opinion that appears to be authoritative but in the end it comes down to the personal taste of the listener. I would never rely on the dismissive verdict of a third party as the basis for making up your mind about a composer, or one of his works.

[Roehre]

I would never rely on the dismissive verdict of a third party as the basis for making up your mind about a composer, or one of his works.

[MrGongGong]

I wish I had (given up that early, that is). The trouble is, while I find nearly all the stuff Glass has done since Music in 12 parts pretty dire, there are one or two exceptions. The chamber opera Orphée is an example of something I find worth giving time to.

I'm with you on this. The early works I remember going to hear were stunning and full of energy but sadly after Einstein he became a "famous" composer (I guess no one really wants to drive a cab all their life so I don't begrudge him the success ) and was commissioned to write music for groups who weren't conversant with the needs of the music so it all gets a bit dilute.

I agree that the ENC argument is over-used, often as a substitute for genuine consideration of why the piece doesn't work for that listener, but the Guardian review did not (as I read it) use the ENC/con trick criticism - that was in a subsequent post on this thread.

So I would be interested to know why MrGG thinks the review is "c..p" (I'm sure this is not simply another way of saying that he doesn't agree with it ).

I'm sure the piece wasn't great, But I thought the review was a bit superficial

this

Overlong and belligerent, the Plutonian is devoid of new ideas, and Glass's blatant regurgitation of old tricks makes a mockery of the innovation he once championed and for which he's still fanatically revered.

for example .........

surely one of the things about Glass is that he DOES use the same techniques as he always did ?
It's a bit like saying the perfect cadences in Mozart are "blatant regurgitation"
and I'm not sure why she says the soundworld is "dogmatic" ?

I haven't heard the piece and probably wont bother BUT i'm sad that I missed Einstein the other week at the Barbican which was (according to some folk I know who went) wonderful......

[teamsaint]

I agree with that, ts - as long as you are relying on your own ears and your own judgement, and not second-hand opinions. It is all too easy to be put off listening to something by an article or opinion that appears to be authoritative but in the end it comes down to the personal taste of the listener. I would never rely on the dismissive verdict of a third party as the basis for making up your mind about a composer, or one of his works.

A good point. I don't think its really in my mindset to be put off by a negative, I am usually looking for a signpost to the worthwhile....but of course there are dangers in both.

I am strongly of the opinion that we should make our own judgements based on the evidence(in all areas of life)...but life is short..with so much music to hear, for instance, that shortcuts via other peoples experience are unavoidable.

[Rolmill]

I'm sure the piece wasn't great, But I thought the review was a bit superficial...
surely one of the things about Glass is that he DOES use the same techniques as he always did ?
It's a bit like saying the perfect cadences in Mozart are "blatant regurgitation"
and I'm not sure why she says the soundworld is "dogmatic" ?

MrGG, I agree with all of these points - I'm not sure that makes the review "c..p" though, merely unsatisfactory! I'm rather wary of unnecessary polarisation of reaction (every opinion expressed as an extreme), you only have to read some of the threads on Platform 3 to see how that approach can hijack a potentially interesting discussion. Anyway, speaking as someone who knows very little Glass, thanks for the amplification.

[MrGongGong]

MrGG, I agree with all of these points - I'm not sure that makes the review "c..p" though, merely unsatisfactory! I'm rather wary of unnecessary polarisation of reaction (every opinion expressed as an extreme), you only have to read some of the threads on Platform 3 to see how that approach can hijack a potentially interesting discussion. Anyway, speaking as someone who knows very little Glass, thanks for the amplification.

Fair enough , I probably over egged it a bit................

[Boilk]

surely one of the things about Glass is that he DOES use the same techniques as he always did ?
It's a bit like saying the perfect cadences in Mozart are "blatant regurgitation"

Maybe with Glass the techniques often lead to too-similar results, because the material can be very thinly spread, or is often arpeggiated texture rather than truly melodic.

...and I'm not sure why she says the soundworld is "dogmatic" ?

I can quite understand someone labelling some of it "unrelenting".

[MrGongGong]

I can quite understand someone labelling some of it "unrelenting".

When I went to see his ensemble in the 1980's this was what was so brilliant about it
totally unrelenting , high energy and LOUD
sadly he seems to have mellowed so that the music seems a bit of a shadow of it's former self

Also on the "melodic" aspect , to my ears what is so great about pieces like Music in 12 partsis that there is NO foreground/background , so that the idea that some things are "accompaniments" is only a result of the psychoacoustic effects and not something that is "written" , each time you can hear different "melodies" (this is more obvious in pieces by his compatriot Steve Music for Mallet Instruments , Voices and Organ being one of the greatest examples).

No one did arpeggios like glass (well, maybe Tangerine Dream ? ) but the intensity seems a little lost these days........

[Serial_Apologist]

Also on the "melodic" aspect , to my ears what is so great about pieces like Music in 12 partsis that there is NO foreground/background , so that the idea that some things are "accompaniments" is only a result of the psychoacoustic effects and not something that is "written" , each time you can hear different "melodies" (this is more obvious in pieces by his compatriot Steve Music for Mallet Instruments , Voices and Organ being one of the greatest examples).

No one did arpeggios like glass (well, maybe Tangerine Dream ? ) but the intensity seems a little lost these days........

Interesting that, because I have a tape somewhere in which Elisabeth Lutyens says much the same sort of thing about wanting to get away from contrapuntal hierarchies, citing a wish to return to the great 14th and 15th century polyphonists.

I'm just thinking - maybe, just maybe the impression of diminishing intensity in music of this kind - and I'd add Reich's, which I find myself unable to listen to any more - has something to do with the law of diminishing returns applying to simplified means: they eventually become "outworn"?

[MrGongGong]

I'm just thinking - maybe, just maybe the impression of diminishing intensity in music of this kind - and I'd add Reich's, which I find myself unable to listen to any more - has something to do with the law of diminishing returns applying to simplified means: they eventually become "outworn"?

Possibly
though i'm more inclined to think that its to do with the amount of time the performers have to prepare and what they do the rest of the time !
Having heard various groups play Reich and to a lesser extent Glass I have found that ensembles that would easily stroll through a bit of Xenakis are unable to deliver in this music. When I was a student Jon Gibson came to use the college to rehearse some pieces, he was at it day and night for days...... the best you will get out of most professional groups these days is 2 x 3 hours (and often less than that !).

[Boilk]

When I went to see his ensemble in the 1980's this was what was so brilliant about it
totally unrelenting , high energy and LOUD

I had the same feeling back in 1982 (Philip Glass Ensemble at Sadlers Wells) but, in hindsight, wasn't the real thrill that it was all so NEW back then, that is...a 'respectable' bunch of score-reading, amplified musicians, when usually those who played with amps were hairy, bearded axe-playing rock stars.

The perception of nearly everything changes with time.

[MrGongGong]

I think we must have been at the same gig