Philip Glass

[cloughie]

Succinctly put, SA.

Glass's music reminds me of a very persistent and painful migraine and something that you are delighted to see the back of!

When I see his name I think half-full or half-empty? I hear his music I think half-written, please add the tune!

[MrGongGong]

When I see his name I think half-full or half-empty? I hear his music I think half-written, please add the tune!

I think he has done exactly the opposite of what you suggest
the early works (Music in fifths, Music with changing parts,Music in 12 parts, Einstein etc etc ) were wonderfully intense and engaging
then after he became popular (after Einstein) there's too much "tune" writing .........

[Serial_Apologist]

When I see his name I think half-full or half-empty? I hear his music I think half-written, please add the tune!

The late David Bedford remarked similarly in an interval discussion once, saying one always expected the Big Theme to accompany whichever actor it was he said, riding down the mountainside in the opening credits to a Western. Mind you, David Bedford could also be accused of same in some of his pieces.

A friend whose contributions to jazz I much respect once told me how important Minimalism had been to his own ideas; if repeated patterns and rhythmic layerings and superpositions are used as improvisational underpinnings, as in eg Soft Machine 3 (the one with the simulated brown paper cover), then that's fine by me, as the centre of listening attraction is the improvisation rather than the frame. I can see the "point" in using backgrounds for meditative purposes, though I wouldn't use them for that myself; it's when Minimalist composers start to recycle tonal harmonic processes, along with the associations of tension and release either eluctably or ineluctably associated historically with them, that the problem with Minimalism arises, since:

a) It amounts to "too much information", negating the mantra-like mind-calming properties inherent in repetition, as used in eg Reich's "Drumming"; and

b) It all starts to sound like the Daybreak movement from "Daphnis and Chloe", reminding one of just how superior a composer Ravel was, in both the orchestral and melodic spheres.

[Roehre]

I think he has done exactly the opposite of what you suggest
the early works (Music in fifths, Music with changing parts,Music in 12 parts, Einstein etc etc ) were wonderfully intense and engaging
then after he became popular (after Einstein) there's too much "tune" writing .........

Exactly my own thoughts. I personally appreciate -though not always admire- highly Glass' pre-Einstein works, but -again IMO- since then his work has become less interesting, less compelling, even more Adams like

[MrGongGong]

The late David Bedford remarked similarly in an interval discussion once, saying one always expected the Big Theme to accompany whichever actor it was he said, riding down the mountainside in the opening credits to a Western. Mind you, David Bedford could also be accused of same in some of his pieces.

A friend whose contributions to jazz I much respect once told me how important Minimalism had been to his own ideas; if repeated patterns and rhythmic layerings and superpositions are used as improvisational underpinnings, as in eg Soft Machine 3 (the one with the simulated brown paper cover), then that's fine by me, as the centre of listening attraction is the improvisation rather than the frame. I can see the "point" in using backgrounds for meditative purposes, though I wouldn't use them for that myself; it's when Minimalist composers start to recycle tonal harmonic processes, along with the associations of tension and release either eluctably or ineluctably associated historically with them, that the problem with Minimalism arises, since:

a) It amounts to "too much information", negating the mantra-like mind-calming properties inherent in repetition, as used in eg Reich's "Drumming"; and

b) It all starts to sound like the Daybreak movement from "Daphnis and Chloe", reminding one of just how superior a composer Ravel was, in both the orchestral and melodic spheres.

For me , this music works when there is NO background / foreground or tension/ release just intense relentlessness , in my experience of listening to it when it starts to fall back on the compositional techniques of the 19th century (modulation or even too many chord changes) then it sounds like there is something "missing". A similar thing is true (IMV) of much electronic rock music (for want of a better name ?) when the technology developed to have polyphony and midi driven chord changes Tangerine Dream (for example) stopped being an interesting group working within a well defined sound pallet and became a cheesy rock band. The same happened (again IMV ) to Glass, Einstein is a work of genius whereas once everyone wanted a bit then the later operas sound lame in comparison.

[Serial_Apologist]

when it starts to fall back on the compositional techniques of the 19th century (modulation or even too many chord changes) then it sounds like there is something "missing".

Yes exactly. De-historicised, de-contextualised harmonic processes - a typical postmodern cliche, equivalent to a gothic arch stuck on the face of a well-loved friend, or a reclaimed Victorian fireplace in a 1930s semi replacing a 1960s surround, like one I saw only yesterday!

To me, the incipient message of such music is loss of faith in a given musical language to yield anything new. Even Schoenberg said there was still new music to be written in the diatonic language, though I hear fewer and fewer composers coming up in the *concert hall music tradition* doing it well and with originality and conviction, Sally Beamish imv being one.