Re: [microsound] minimalism

[Ian Andrews <i.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your thoughts Julian. Just some quick comments:



> I would agree with your summary that this music draws attention to the
> underlying processes (or foregrounds them). Indeed in the case of some
> of Lucier's work, nothing exists outside the process. I would cite 'I
> am Sitting in a Room" as an elegant example of this. One could draw a
> comparison to modernist composition via the shared desire to foreground
> strict formalistic processes in composition. There is a precision and
> formality to the work of Reich which ironically can be seen to echo the
> approach of the serialists. I say 'ironically' because I understand
> Reich absolutely hates European Serialism and it is well known that he
> developed his compositional style in direct reaction to it. When he was
> a student, all music schools were teaching young composers straight
> ahead Darmstadt serialism.  Above all, it is clear that the process is
> easily audible in repetitionist music, far less audible in serial
> music. A serial work can often be identified without too much trouble,
> but the permutations of the row beyond straight transposition demands
> some freakish skills to hear. Even transpositions can be very hard to
> hear if the row is thrown between instrumental parts, as in the
> 'Klangfarbenmelodie' approach (gladiatorial music school listening
> tests come to mind.....). I would,  however,  contest the suggestion
> that the modernists 'failed' to make the structures audible. I would
> suggest  this was not necessarily an objective in the first place.

I thoroughly agree.  The Serialists very much regarded their 'systems' as
their tools and thus had no intention of revealing their tools in the
finished work. I didn't mean to suggest that they had the objective of
making their processes audible. It was possibly carelessness on my part that
may have given you that impression.
 

 Thirty to forty years on, we need to
> have something to add to that body of work.  We don't need the, 'hey
> minimalism is cool, so i'll play the same sound for a whole set and be
> really hip' thing..... or the "wouldn't it be cool to play nothing for
> the whole set' thing"..... yawn... I see this being a potential problem
> of "aesthetic minimalism" which allows  positions which can be
> sustained on a more superficial level.
> It seems to me that artists adopting this approach run a higher risk of
> falling into the traps I've outlined above and 'fashion' rears its ugly
> head again!. It raises the question,  can you have a non-specific,
> peripheral engagement with these ideas? Does it work? Minimalism in one
> sense, screams 'discipline', 'precision'. and 'form'.
> 
Exactly. I think the problem is that good aesthetic minimalism sounds
deceptively simple.  It sounds like its easy.  This combined with fashion
results in an abundance of second rate work. I think that some aesthetic
minimalism can be quite beautiful and highly engaging. But its is not an
easy discipline to master.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org