Minimalism

Nacnud, you should've seen me got shot down right after I joined for what I said about Schubert...

See, I take a much more punk view of Cage. Shock value was definitely a factor in Cage's music. Maybe not shock value, but ridiculous extremism; which is sort of expected since he was taught by Schoenberg, who's a pretty textbook expressionist.

Ok, but shock value wasn't the main point of it, which was what I said

Don't forget its indeterminate length. And I'd argue that it's the second most minimalist work, next to the Beatles' (or is it just Lennon's?) 60 seconds of silence, simply since there is no sound or action at all. His interest in gamelan's also pretty minimalistic. His work in random words, recorded poetry, and his collaboration with Sun Ra all could be considered minimalist.

Meh. If you want to think about it THAT way...

Which is to say that genres are a bad way to think about music. It helps a bit, it orients you to a specific listening of a record. But it isn't sufficient.

Agreed, but they do give us a way of thinking about music that helps.

I love minimalism! I'm not as crazy about Phillip Glass just because of the instruments he uses and the melodic material he uses... just doesn't taste good to my ears. I love his processes though.

I'm a HUGE Steve Reich fan though. I LOVE his melodic material. Really puts me in a nice mood. Same with John Adams. Reich really takes the cake for me, though--and not just because I'm a percussionist :P

I need to listen to more Arvo Part. I really like what I've heard so far, but have yet to actively seek it out.

As for Cage, since he somehow came up in here, I really like a lot of his earlier stuff-namely pieces like Living Room Music, 3rd Construction, and his Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano. That guy could really groove. I don't really seek out his heavy indeterminate stuff, but I definitely respect it.

I really hate it, because when I listen to it I fall asleep. It is so repetative

4'33" is actually probably my favorite piece by Cage...

4'33" is also my favorite piece by Cage, by far... it's the only piece of Cage's where I don't have to listen to his "depersonalized" style. I'm no fan of Cage, but if I had to pick a work, I'll go with anything of "silence" by him than anything else he's written.

----------------------------------------------------------

See, you're not alone, Nacnud. People love Cage or they hate him. There's little room for any real "middle" ground when it comes to the musical extremists. Such is true for all composers, I imagine, but there are those few that seem to break through to the extreme areas and actually illicit some form of appreciation from students of the First and Second Viennese Schools - like Stravinsky or Penderecki, Liszt or Chopin, or Mahler and Schoenberg.

This is one reason why I fail to see the point in being "extreme" in your compositional approach today (not pointing fingers at anyone here, just in general). There's always the sense of discovery, sure. I fail to see where anyone thinks they can really go from here in terms of "shock value" in the world of music today (can't really foresee anymore Riots at Ballets or Soviet oppression or the like). What's the point, except to claim the next right of passage into the theory books, be hailed as the next great sensation in art music, or have competitions and prizes awarded in your name after you're dead? It was the struggle within each context that made such innovations "shocking" to begin with... that time is over.

Maybe someone will come along that blows my mind... but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. There's a dogma that leeches itself to the world of art music that won't go away anytime in the next century. How's that for extreme? I mean, if we're going to give the OP this type of criticism for the individual's views, let's back it up with more than just dogma and theory.

For my part, I hate to see it when someone expresses their utter distaste of something and proceed to be bullied into accepting something they have no taste for... it's absurd. If Nacnud doesn't accept the work, then he doesn't accept the work. Be offended all you want, call me stupid, dumb, uneducated, an anarchist, or a troll. I don't really care either. But by all means, if people here have to put up with "Mozart is overrated" and "Beethoven is just more popular", then take a dose of your own medicine when someone comes along and says Cage is crap!

-End Rant-

P.S. And I've had a really good day today, too. I don't even want to know what this post would have been like if I was in a bad mood. Wouldn't be pretty...

People love Cage or they hate him. There's little room for any real "middle" ground when it comes to the musical extremists.

Not really. I neither hate nor love Cage. I find him an extremely important composer and I quite like some of his stuff, but I'm far from being a "Cage fan". I'm definitely glad he existed, for his ideas and all the stimuli he has given to other composers, but when I want to enjoy some music for myself I rarely pick a Cage record.

Performing Cage on the other hand can be extremely fun and I also think that's where the major strength with his pieces is: A creative performer can pull out a completely new piece out of his "templates", which is living and unique and adds a whole new quality to it. But nothing can be as boring as a Cage piece that is played without any creative impulse by the performer whatsoever, as a mere "historical reproduction". And sadly, the latter still seems to be the more prevalent form of Cage interpretation than the former. (Which is why I can understand if people dislike Cage extremely well.)

I'll second what Gardener said. Cage's piano works (particularly the prepared stuff) interest me, but the rest mostly leaves me cold, possibly with the exception of a couple of his esoteric electronic compositions.

To claim there's no room for middle ground when dealing with "extremists" (ignoring the fact Cage wrote in a lot of different styles, and also the fact Beethoven among others was considered an "extremist" of sorts in his day) sort of reveals your black and white thinking, does it not, AA? It's not mandatory to either completely like or completely dislike a composer. In fact, I don't think there's a single composer whom I can profess to completely like or dislike. Polarisations of this kind normally come about through emotional knee-jerk responses.

I will agree with a small portion of what you said: the part about dogma. I agree pedalling an agenda-based dogma can do little good. But the reason we're talking about Cage at all is Nacnud brought up 4'33" in a thread about minimalism. If one's horizons are narrow enough to categorize that work as "minimalist", surely it's too early to reach judgement, and some further listening and/or reflection is in order? Minimal in terms of scoring and notes it may be - of the minimalist school, it is not...

My only question is if the school determines the style... I think you certainly can consider 4'33" as a minimalist work, in the same way you can consider Gamelan or Punk to be minimalist.

Also, I got pwnd badly.

I'll second what Gardener said. Cage's piano works (particularly the prepared stuff) interest me, but the rest mostly leaves me cold, possibly with the exception of a couple of his esoteric electronic compositions.

To claim there's no room for middle ground when dealing with "extremists" (ignoring the fact Cage wrote in a lot of different styles, and also the fact Beethoven among others was considered an "extremist" of sorts in his day) sort of reveals your black and white thinking, does it not, AA? It's not mandatory to either completely like or completely dislike a composer. In fact, I don't think there's a single composer whom I can profess to completely like or dislike. Polarisations of this kind normally come about through emotional knee-jerk responses.

I will agree with a small portion of what you said: the part about dogma. I agree pedalling an agenda-based dogma can do little good. But the reason we're talking about Cage at all is Nacnud brought up 4'33" in a thread about minimalism. If one's horizons are narrow enough to categorize that work as "minimalist", surely it's too early to reach judgement, and some further listening and/or reflection is in order? Minimal in terms of scoring and notes it may be - of the minimalist school, it is not...

I was certain your post was about Pok

My only question is if the school determines the style... I think you certainly can consider 4'33" as a minimalist work, in the same way you can consider Gamelan or Punk to be minimalist.

Also, I got pwnd badly.

4'33" is more aleatoric than minimalist. These are of course just arbitrary labels we use to help identify things - there's nothing that inherently links the term minimalism to its usual application in music. Wikipedia seems to provide a good outline: Minimalist music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition, since 4'33" was written (or devised, whatever Cage did) before the term minimalism was even applied to music, it can't be deemed "Minimalist" in the real sense. That would be a bit like calling Vivaldi minimalist because he used a lot of repetition. So maybe it's a case of small M versus capital M - who knows?

P.S. Mark, stop drinking. :P

Everyone should listen to '26' and '23' by John Cage, they are truly beautiful pieces of music. There is definitely an influence of 'minimalism' in these pieces - but more of the La Monte Young brand with long sustained pitches.

Of course Ferky knows what minimalism is :P.

Anyway, I don't have any strong reaction for or against Cage. Some of it is...interesting. Some is worth listening to, some isn't. I really haven't heard enough of his works, anyway. (I've heard 4'33" and Imaginary Landscape No. 1, so...barely anything.)

My only question is if the school determines the style... I think you certainly can consider 4'33" as a minimalist work, in the same way you can consider Gamelan or Punk to be minimalist.

Surely you can, and it would probably even be useful to do so (which I think you were implying). You could probably interpret it as fitting into one of many schools. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you about it being minimalist, it just isn't within Minimalism as we normally define it today, a fact of which I'm sure you're aware.

I think it's worth noting that "minimalism" as a style has evolved a great deal since the 70s, and I don't actually see the problem with having anachronistic labels (Satie's Vexations, anyone?) so long as they make some degree of sense.

I wrote something really long, with heaps of examples, but meh, it looked ridiculous.

I'll do it Minimalistic style instead of 2000 page long essays.

"MINIMALISM FTEW."

P.S. Mark, stop drinking. :P

What's that... did you say drink more? :innocent:

In addition, since 4'33" was written (or devised, whatever Cage did) before the term minimalism was even applied to music, it can't be deemed "Minimalist" in the real sense. That would be a bit like calling Vivaldi minimalist because he used a lot of repetition. So maybe it's a case of small M versus capital M - who knows?

This is not exactly correct. Minimalism may not have been historically applied to music until 1960, after much research into minimalism in visual art that traced its roots back to before 1900. Wikipedia seems to nicely stack Minimalism into 1960s culture, but there are literary sources that seem to more authoritatively state "minimalism" has been around well-before 1900 in visual art.

The earliest traits and characteristics of Minimalist Music appeared as early as JS Bach and Henry Purcell. I speak of repetition, pulsation, and tonal consonance as the chief characteristics of Minimalist Music (stasis is almost a chief characteristic because of the "time" factor involved in minimalist music, but not in all cases), which is the much more solid explanation for why Cage's 4'33" is not minimalist music at all. In context, minimalism cannot be applied to something that is indeterminate by design, which Cage's work most certainly is.

It's nit picky, but I don't think anyone has really gotten down to the musical grind of it all to explain why 4'33" is in no way minimalist.

This is not exactly correct. Minimalism may not have been historically applied to music until 1960, after much research into minimalism in visual art that traced its roots back to before 1900. Wikipedia seems to nicely stack Minimalism into 1960s culture, but there are literary sources that seem to more authoritatively state "minimalism" has been around well-before 1900 in visual art.

I did make it clear in the bit you responded to that I was referring to the term "Minimalist" being applied specifically to music.

The earliest traits and characteristics of Minimalist Music appeared as early as JS Bach and Henry Purcell. I speak of repetition, pulsation, and tonal consonance as the chief characteristics of Minimalist Music (stasis is almost a chief characteristic because of the "time" factor involved in minimalist music, but not in all cases), which is the much more solid explanation for why Cage's 4'33" is not minimalist music at all. In context, minimalism cannot be applied to something that is indeterminate by design, which Cage's work most certainly is.

It's nit picky, but I don't think anyone has really gotten down to the musical grind of it all to explain why 4'33" is in no way minimalist.

And I also said, "4'33" is more aleatoric than minimalist", which is essentially a paraphrased version of these two paragraphs, is it not?

You seem to have repeated what I already said in a more verbose form, despite professing to disagree.

Come on... are you guys seriously going to bicker about when exactly Minimalism started? Why don't you leave that to the academics please.

It's not the facts I'm taking issue with, more that AA claimed to disagree with me yet appeared to mimic what was said already. I thought perhaps there was a communication issue afoot.

This conversation appears to be taking on a few minimalistic qualities.

An example of cycladic art.

I find myself to be drawn to the beauty of artistic simplicity (≠ artistic paucity).

Alexander

Well there's a hidden dimension of perspective that is uncovered when you get down to "simplicity." In music, the repetition and slow change provide plenty of time for the patterns/sound to sink in. In visual art, it's appreciating the details such as the way the paint is arranged beyond just "oh that's a tree." You start paying much more attention to the detail of something the more you look past the prominent features.

Cage's 4'33" deal is along these lines, in a sense "minimal" because there's no musical "clutter" coming from him to get in the way of hearing every little thing that happens during that time. It's just like staring at an empty canvas, you will notice all sorts of things going on there without the need to do anything yourself if you get past the fact that the canvas is blank.

In the case of repetition in minimalist music, the same thing is in effect. You lay down a simple element and repeat it until it becomes that empty canvas, so to speak. But by the same stretch, just holding a single chord for a long time is also achieving the same effect.

Anyways, the fact something has "repetitions" means nothing by itself, much less that it is minimalist. It's the whole concept/attitude/context that puts it in that zone, and even then it's more on the side of the listener than on the composer.

It's not the facts I'm taking issue with, more that AA claimed to disagree with me yet appeared to mimic what was said already. I thought perhaps there was a communication issue afoot.

There was no communication error, I got the message loud and clear. I just think there are more facts to be considered. Taking into account the presence of "pre-minimalist" techniques, there is an element of minimalism that exists before Cage's 4'33" was written. That was my point.

I accept your facts, I just thought there were more that needed to be offered. This is the reason why I stated my disagreement with you initially.

This conversation appears to be taking on a few minimalistic qualities.

*snicker*

Steve Reich and John Adams are great. Philip Glass, not so much.

can't repeat it often enough:

Desert Music

did you get that?

Desert Music

once more?

Desert Music

again?

Desert Music

and once for good luck:

Desert Music