Minimalism

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, ;)

Unfortunately, I can't really offer you specific rules from a music theory standpoint, as the style itself is still somewhat incipient. However, as I'm sure you already know, it is based on the repetition and slight variation of a specific motif. The motif is generally stated simply early on in the piece and then repeats extensively throughout, undergoing slight modification during the development section. From my experience with the genre (mainly the works of Phillip Glass and John Adams) the piece can have a formal coda or simply come to a stop. I, too, have become a fan of this style and have written several pieces in it, though I remain a Romanticist at heart :P

I strongly encourage you to listen to the two above mentioned composers (Glass and Adams) to enhance your understanding of the genre in a very modern context, as both of them are still alive and working on new pieces. Though arguable, some would consider Shostakovich a minimalist composer, yet in a far less strict sense than most modern composers of the same ilk.

I believe it is certainly a worthy endeavor as a composer of classical music to become educated and familiar with this contemporary style, regardless of whether one chooses to embrace it, as it is presently en vogue and ostensibly the future direction of "formal music" in general.

The best way to learn, as with most things, is by doing. Write a few pieces in the style to the best of your ability and go from there. Regarding specific intervals, I would suggests you keep your harmony "open" if you're looking to achieve a modern sound, that is, use fourths and fifths of the tonic with no third---the use of a third is a very conventional practice and, consequently, makes for a traditional sound. Seventh and ninth chords sound more "jazzy" or Debussy than minimalist, but you should really just experiment and see what appeals to your ear.

Good luck and best regards for the future!

There are no "rules" of any particular style of music.

For the record, John Adams is a post-minimalist, or at least was. His music since the early 90s has sounded absolutely nothing like his early keyboard and other works from 70s and 80s. If anything, he and Glass are polar opposites.

I would recommend looking at Steve Reich's early pieces. That sort of sums up the early phase of minimalism pretty well. 20 minute long repetitions with only slight variations (Come out and It's gonna rain, piano phase, etc.)

Reich's work, if you listen from the oldest of his pieces to the newest, or until Caves, or until Different Trains you can clearly see the progression in techniques. The repetition element is used in many different ways later on, unlike Glass, Reich varies his style lots.

What is interesting about Reich and Glass is both have a very specific harmonic constellation they use all the time. It all returns to specific harmonic sequences, despite what the piece is. I think that's also something to consider, as an overall aesthetic thing.

There are other people, such as Yann Tiersen (Amelie, Good Bye Lenin OSTs) who use a little bit from the early phase and the later phase. Again, Tiersen's got a very defined harmonic constellation in all of his music that he always returns to, or allures.

In general, I'd say that one of the things you ought to do is grab all what is considered "minimalist" and shoot for what you actually like best, since the term is extremely broad. There are no.. uh... "interval" rules or such, and as far as I'm concerned you can make atonal minimalist music. One of the reasons for something like Reich's piano phase being tonal is probably because after so much repetitions tonality starts to sound abstract on its own. Like, it stops sounding like a chord progression and it begins sounding like background noise. Or at least that's one of the things the effect is known to cause.

So, yeah. It's a fun style, but it's really broad in definition.

for once i thought morton feldman to be 'atonal minimalist', oh, well - webern in minimalist disguise.

:O

:O

i'll give you my reasoning behind that. feldman's music is quiet and slow, and often very long. he said that no pattern is better than the other one. he ascribed same musical value to any sound/pattern. plus he used a lot of aleatoric in his music, which to my mind is not so far from atonalism. so, essentially his slowness and aleatoric thinking/usage of patterns made me think of him as atonal minimalist. overall, i wanted to show how minimalism is very vast notion. and it has (the term) more of a philosophical value than purely musical. it's a style of thinking (in this case-musical) to me.

There are so many approaches to minimalism that you are basically given carte blanche... explore what you WANT to explore.

My understanding of the origins of minimalism were that it was a reaction to the extremes of complexity that contemporary music was taking, and as an exploration of primitivism in music as a "new" source of inspiration.

Some of the concepts that became material for minimalist expression were:

• actual repetition
  
• repetition with gradual modification
  
• minimal harmonic material (holding the same harmony for as long as possible before changing)
  
• harmonic pattern repetition
  
• rhythmic modification
  

There are so many approaches to take when starting to explore minimalism. I have always been fascinated by it as well. There is a tinge of it evident in most of my music.

I happen to believe that minimalism was as natural a reaction to the avant-garde of the 1950's as serialism was to the extreme chromaticism of the Wagnerians.

Excesses in any single direction often tend to give birth to reactionary movements.

There are so many approaches to minimalism that you are basically given carte blanche... explore what you WANT to explore.

My understanding of the origins of minimalism were that it was a reaction to the extremes of complexity that contemporary music was taking, and as an exploration of primitivism in music as a "new" source of inspiration.

Some of the concepts that became material for minimalist expression were:

• actual repetition
  
• repetition with gradual modification
  
• minimal harmonic material (holding the same harmony for as long as possible before changing)
  
• harmonic pattern repetition
  
• rhythmic modification
  

There are so many approaches to take when starting to explore minimalism. I have always been fascinated by it as well. There is a tinge of it evident in most of my music.

I happen to believe that minimalism was as natural a reaction to the avant-garde of the 1950's as serialism was to the extreme chromaticism of the Wagnerians.

Excesses in any single direction often tend to give birth to reactionary movements.

agreed, it's a reactionary movement but very intact and in its right place. also, minimalism, as a way of art thought, came not only in music, but in arts (painting) and literature. so it's kind of general, in a response to our uncertain, chaotic and very unstable political/technological age. while it will tend to be more complex (historical and social conditions) i think minimalist thought in arts will prevail in so many different ways.

It's easy to write a minimalist piece following the Philip Glass formula:

1. Take 3 or 4 chords, preferably minor triads.
   
2. Break these chords into arpeggio figures, like doodle-doodle-doodle-doodle (in 8th notes) or doodly-doodly-doodly-doodly (in triplets) or doodly-diddly-doodly-diddly or some other variation of it.
   
3. Then copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste,copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, etc.
   

If you wish you can add a hint of melody after n repetitions or so.

or you can write non-minimalist music following the Boulez-formula:

1. /list every dynamic possible
   
2. /list every instrument possible
   
3. /pick random line in sudoku grid (generate series)
   
4. /apply step 3 to steps 1-2
   
5. /print result
   
6. /call publisher
   
7. /organize concert
   
8. /call press conference
   
9. /declare yourself a genius
   
10. /return to step 1, repeat ad nauseam
    

there ya go.. Boulez in a nutshell, in 10 easy steps.

For me, minimalism is all about two things: Flow and coherency. Make it flow as gradually as possible, and make it as tightly coherent within itself as possible. All the methods previously listed by other posters about minimalism pretty much are means to these two ends. But in minimalism, there are so many varieties and different kinds - it's really all about personal taste.

Reich was a 'phaser', which means he repeated lines but in a way so that they were in opposition of each other. He also used (in his large ensemble pieces) a LOT of harmonic variety, going against the 'minimalistic' idea as put forth by Riley or Glass, as far as harmony is concerned.

Reich's music is based more on canonic processes than anything. "Phasing" is just a canonic process, or one of them. Tehillim is definitely not phasing, can we please not define composers by ONE piece please?

My understanding of the origins of minimalism were that it was a reaction to the extremes of complexity that contemporary music was taking, and as an exploration of primitivism in music as a "new" source of inspiration.

...

I happen to believe that minimalism was as natural a reaction to the avant-garde of the 1950's as serialism was to the extreme chromaticism of the Wagnerians.

... Ah? And here I was thinking Penderecki, Berio, etc were all reacting to the Nono/Stockhauen syndrome of super-complexity back in the 60s. Didn't minimalism come a good decade after this? Penderecki's signature Threnody is composed entirely out of techniques learned on electronic music that came about BECAUSE of serialism. Nevermind that the tell-tale sign of reaction here is the fact the Threnody has quasi-improvisatory elements which are unthinkable in a strictly serialist piece.

Moreover, I really don't think "primitivism" is a good term to describe anything save for MAYBE Stravinsky's Sacre, but that's also rather questionable. I've heard the term meditative music thrown around, maybe that's more accurate really. Primitivism also can lend itself to a derogative interpretation since it deals with a concept of progress, which isn't a factor in music (I wouldn't say a minimalist piece is any more or less "primitive" than Bach, there's no real parameter to make a judgment on that here.)

And, uhh... Serialism was a reaction to what, again? I thought it was just a natural development from Schoenberg's idea of composing using rows. Schoenberg ended up with such a system to try to ensure an atonal-system of composition, which of course didn't go as intended.

Oh wow, what the scraggy is this about Boulez again? I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment. Jeesh.

... Ah? And here I was thinking Penderecki, Berio, etc were all reacting to the Nono/Stockhauen syndrome of super-complexity back in the 60s. Didn't minimalism come a good decade after this? Penderecki's signature Threnody is composed entirely out of techniques learned on electronic music that came about BECAUSE of serialism. Nevermind that the tell-tale sign of reaction here is the fact the Threnody has quasi-improvisatory elements which are unthinkable in a strictly serialist piece.

Moreover, I really don't think "primitivism" is a good term to describe anything save for MAYBE Stravinsky's Sacre, but that's also rather questionable. I've heard the term meditative music thrown around, maybe that's more accurate really. Primitivism also can lend itself to a derogative interpretation since it deals with a concept of progress, which isn't a factor in music (I wouldn't say a minimalist piece is any more or less "primitive" than Bach, there's no real parameter to make a judgment on that here.)

And, uhh... Serialism was a reaction to what, again? I thought it was just a natural development from Schoenberg's idea of composing using rows. Schoenberg ended up with such a system to try to ensure an atonal-system of composition, which of course didn't go as intended.

Oh wow, what the scraggy is this about Boulez again? I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment. Jeesh.

1. the Boulez comment was a retort to the "compose like Glass" comment he previously made. Don't take it out of context.

2. I didn't say that minimalism was the "only" reaction to anything. I said it was a natural reaction to the hyper-complexification of music at the time. You really need to learn how to read instead of having knee-jerk reactions to single lines.

3. primitivism is an excellent term for things like Clapping Music, or Come Out, where the "musical" impetus is something OTHER than a traditional instrumental ensemble - the human body, or simply the spoken word. I think that to limit the idea of "primitivism" to Le Sacre is, well, limiting, particularly when one consideres the extent to which Le Sacre is ANYTHING but "primitive". It is highly advanced, and incredibly complex.

4. the movement towards serialism was a natural reaction to the Wagnerian extreme of chromatic harmony. this included the passage through the first attempts at atonality and the subsequant attempt to bring order to atonality. I'm sorry if I didn't take the time to write an entire disertation on the subject. Just read it as "A leads to D", with me skipping over the "A lead to B which lead to C which lead to D"... it doesn't change the sequence of events in any way. It just makes less typing for me. :P

Rows did not just "pop into existance out of nowhere". Schoenberg didn't suddenly start with tone rows. Rows were his means of bringing cohesion and coherency to non-tonal musical material So, in effect, rows could be seen as a natural consequence of seeking to bring order to non-tonal music. In reaction to the extreme chromaticism of Wagnerian (and I guess one could say "post-wagnerian" ) harmony, the reaction was in effect "well, if harmony can be that chromatic to the extent that it basically is NOT tonal anymore, why not go all the way and NOT be tonal". (excuse the vulgarisme)

And before you argue against this interpretation of events, well, maybe you were taught differently, but this is how I was taught. Different musicological schools might have different interpretations of how events unfurled. This happens to be how I was taught, by teachers who studied under Boulez, Stockhausen, and Messaien.

Thanks for some of the awesome feedback guys :) i think i know enough to get a piece going now. I'll follow some of the tihngs mentioned as guidelines, but i think the beauty of contemporary is that there is a bit of room for your own touch - hopefully i'll post my attempt once im done :)

thanks again guys! ;)

Oops, didn't catch the philip glass comment. Haha, what bunch of nonsense too, though I can see why someone'd say that.

For the record, I wasn't "taught" different, I just happen to see it differently without really needing to flaunt my credentials. Who are you trying to impress?

Reich's music is based more on canonic processes than anything. "Phasing" is just a canonic process, or one of them. Tehillim is definitely not phasing, can we please not define composers by ONE piece please?

Yes, that is true. I used the word phasing in parenthesis because I couldn't find the correct word - canonic, as you put it. ;) I was referring more to his works like Desert Music or Sextet, not his actual phasing works such as Violin Phase, or Come Out.

Noone has mentioned Terry Riley! I think In C is one of the most important pieces of the 20th century! It's not performed enough, I don't think.

For the record, I wasn't "taught" different, I just happen to see it differently without really needing to flaunt my credentials. Who are you trying to impress?

I'm sorry you saw it as "flaunting credentials"... (notice I never SAID what my credentials were?) I wasn't actually trying to "impress" anyone.

I was meaning that I learned it from people who themselves learned it from the originators of the various techniques. I'm only repeating how THEY explained it to me.

It seems odd to me that someone would want to study minimalism. Since minimalism seems to be the default of what my scores tend to be and easier to compose. Going beyond minimalism for me any ways, takes alot more effort.

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

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

i'll give you my reasoning behind that. feldman's music is quiet and slow, and often very long. he said that no pattern is better than the other one. he ascribed same musical value to any sound/pattern. plus he used a lot of aleatoric in his music, which to my mind is not so far from atonalism. so, essentially his slowness and aleatoric thinking/usage of patterns made me think of him as atonal minimalist. overall, i wanted to show how minimalism is very vast notion. and it has (the term) more of a philosophical value than purely musical. it's a style of thinking (in this case-musical) to me.

I hold to that idea as well.

There is nothing 'better' about any certain aspect of music, when compared to a like aspect. Gm is not 'better' then A. 16th notes are not 'better' than 8th note triplets. Except as per our personal preferences and value judgments. Those aspects have no 'value' in and of themselves.

I think that's why so many composers used aleatoric methods. To break away from their 'interference' with those aspects. (What did I really just say?)

Personally, I happen to like the preferences and value judgments I've made about music. That's, uh, why I made them....

It's easy to write a minimalist piece following the Philip Glass formula: .......

or you can write non-minimalist music following the Boulez-formula:.......

1. the Boulez comment was a retort to the "compose like Glass" comment he previously made. Don't take it out of context.

Can I for a moment though? If only to say:

What is wrong with that, if that is what you want to do?

Actually, I don't really like Glass or Boulez, so, well, I guess I'll agree with both of you......ROFLMAO

Seriously though.

Noone has mentioned Terry Riley! I think In C is one of the most important pieces of the 20th century! It's not performed enough, I don't think.

I agree!!!

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

Yes, but is it good?

I think you'll find that writing good music is harder than you think.

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

I just love how people always feel they have to defend a certain kind of music by attacking an "opposite genre/composer" with ridiculous blanket statements. This is directed at QcC's Boulez bashing as well. Just because someone makes unfunded accusations against music you like, doesn't mean you have to do the same with the music you assume the other person likes. It wasn't Boulez who attacked Glass in this thread, so why even bring him up?

I am defending minimalism in as much as it is perhaps the one 'genre' that receives the most bashing. Usually people make very sweeping generalizations about it based on the fact that it must be very simple repeated arpeggios (a Philip glass trademark, not a minimalism trademark) and I feel it is important to stress that with all music, writing something that is good, regardless of composer/genre is actually much harder to do.