Writing a good Minimalist piece

Hey everyone,

I was dinking around on the piano earlier, and I came up with a really cool (well, in my opinion at least) piece. It would be minimalist, but I want to keep it from getting boring.

Since all I really have is just the same basic thing repeated over and over again, just in different keys, the only other thing to the piece is the transition between keys. So I must ask, what are a few things I could add to keep the piece from becoming boring?

I mean, is just having the piece switch keys (or chords, I am basically playing broken chords in a certain pattern the whole time) every three measures enough or could I add something else to bring in some flavor? I don't want people to sit there and after the first 30 measures they just tune it out, but I want to keep it minimalistic at the same time. So what could I add?

Thanks!

Mathieu

Minimalism is all about change by gradual transformation. Picture a minute or an hour hand on a clock. Whereas with most music (symbolised by the second hand) you easily perceive each change and development at almost every moment in time, minimalism is like that minute or hour hand - you really can't see it move if you concentrate on it, yet after a certain amount of time, you might find yourself realising that it moved from one point to the next by imperceptible gradual motion. Transformations in minimalist music can be thought of like this, and pieces in this genre strive for the essence of this whole "gradient" idea.

So what you might want to do, is figure out what you'd like the beginning to be like, and what you'd like your end point to be like. Maybe they will be completely different, not just by chord name, but by motivic development, patterns, rhythms, sonorities, range, dynamic, layering of different elements, anything really. Then you take this beginning and end and paint a line from one to the other in music, gradually transforming until you've reached your goal. Whenever you think things might be getting old and boring, add something new, or begin another transformation, make it subtle, the listener will catch on and perceive it as a story that slowly progresses, yearning for a resolution. Some music goes from a start to an end, and back to the start again, creating a sort of journey to "far away lands". Some of it just goes through endless transformations in a free form, it all depends on what you want to do with it.

It isn't necessarily that you have to make your material more interesting by adding to it, but that you transform it into something else. Why do you think Philip Glass used the word "Metamorphasis?" Also, when in doubt, go listen to some real minimalism, get inspired. Copy ideas - maybe you'll soon develop your own idea of what exactly minimalism should be.

Hope this helps any. :)

I would say check out some non-Western musics too, like gamelan and latin drum circles, focusing especially on rhythm. Same idea, different applications.

Minimalism is all about change by gradual transformation.

Is it? :x (how is the word "minimal" relevant to your definition of "minimalistic music"? :x )

For a start, you might find it interesting to actually listen to those pieces that have been called "minimalist", starting from early pieces by Glass, Riley, Reich, LaMonte Young, and understand where they come from and why. Play some of their pieces if you have a chance, and read relevant chapters off Nyman's (also a "minimalist") "Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond", which is an incredible book covering a lot of topics and giving a great deal of insight in the experimental music scene (as opposed to the "avant-garde" music scene) of the 60's and 70's (which is when it was written).

Also what Ferkung said :P

good minimalism.

There's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

good minimalism.

There's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

I'm sure the rhythmic simplicity and repetitiveness of Baroque music or the Alberti bass had no influence on minimalism and have no minimalistic qualities.

I suggest listening to Steve Reich and John Adams. I'm not very partial to Philip Glass...

Don't worry about the audience getting bored! An effective minimalist piece SHOULDN'T bore the audience. I think a great strength of minimalism is the ability to see pieces holistically almost instantly - accomplished through repetition and gradual change. I would say that effective minimalism focuses on non-harmonic and non-melodic changes. When I write something minimalist, I think it really helps to focus on timbral and rhythmic changes to produce effect in addition to advancing melodic cells.

Take a gander at isorhythms and other "rhythmic dissonance" - modifying melodies through addition and subtraction of beats is a very effective tool. Oh yeah, listen up to some gamelan and Indian ragas. Very interesting ideas there.

What kind of instrumentation were you thinking you might use?

I'm sure the rhythmic simplicity and repetitiveness of Baroque music or the Alberti bass had no influence on minimalism and have no minimalistic qualities.

haha, seriously :rolleyes:...

I need some clarification...

Is there being made a distinction between Minimalism (capital "M") and minimalism? Is there such a thing as definitive Minimalistic criteria: as Enigmus said - "all about change by gradual transformation" ...

TO ME, minimalism is just an emphasis on the interaction of "few" versus the "many" ...

I consider this to be "minimalist" ... just not in the sense that Terry Riley or Steve Reich seem to have defined it....

Yves Robert - In Touch (Var. II) - In Touch (48' de tendresse) | Deezer

^^

Great record, by-the-way.

even within the same "minimalist" tradition, Reich's, LaMonte Young's, Rzewski's, Adams' and Glass' "minimalisms" differ... so I think robin's emphasis on the "few" rather than the "many" is more or less what minimalism is about. Hence the name ("minimal" could refer to "minimal material", whatever happens to it) (in that sense, Satie is in a sense the first true "minimalist" composer).