From: alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Glass meets Clive Barker response
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:43:40 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: calvin.usc.edu

In article <1992Oct14.090306.18345@lloyd.Camex.COM> chrisi@lloyd.Camex.COM (Chris Ischay) writes:

>Well, not really.  Most of what he has done has been done previously by
>others.  Steve Reich, Terry Riley and Lamonte Young probably deserve to be
>called innovators more than Glass.

What is the basis for such a statement? It is true that there were cross-
influences between several of the minimalists in the mid-1960's, but I
see no evidence for Glass's style of the time to have been "derived from"
Reich, Riley, or Young. Consider the following chronology:

 1958 Reich & Glass attend Juilliard
 1959 Young & Riley meet in California
 1961 Reich moves to California
 1962 Young begins performing in New York
*1964 Glass moves to Paris on Fulbright
 1964 Riley writes "In C" & meets Reich
*1965 Glass writes his first minimalist works
 1965 Reich records "It's Gonna Rain"
 1965 Reich moves back to New York
 1966 Riley performs with Young in New York
 1966 Reich records "Come Out"
 1967 Glass moves back to New York, writes "Strung Out"
 1968 Reich & Glass meet again, sometimes concertize together

The only minimalist who Glass was likely to have heard before he left
for Paris in 1964 was Young, and Glass's and Young's music from that
time are very different. After 1967 with all four in New York and
occasionally working together I'm sure that there was a lot of cross-
stimulation, but by that time each had established an independent musical
voice. It's probably more accurate to say that they received mutual
confirmation for what they had already started doing. If anything, a
stronger case could be made for Riley having "derived" from Young since
his minimalist style directly followed Young's and since they frequently
worked together throughout the sixties. Also, Reich's first minimalist
writings immediately follow his working with Riley on the premiere of
"In C" in San Francisco.

But to call any of these composers "derivative" of each other is to beg
the question of what stylistic similarities exist. Aside from the general
"less is more" aesthetic and a preference for new uses of tonality, their
styles at that time and since are really very different. Glass moved on
to arpeggios, tertial chord progressions, and asymmetric meters (until
1975). Reich began his phase music and pattern-pulse pieces. Riley began
improvising on a justly-tuned keyboard with tape delays. Young continued
his largely non-pulsatile "clouds" of harmonically-related sounds. (By
the way, I know Chris Ischay didn't say "derivitive" above - this is partly
in response to an earlier poster.)

Now you may not think Glass's music is as successful or as enjoyable
as Reich, Riley, Young, or Verdi, or whomever, (in fact, he's not my favo-
rite among that lot either). But I do give him credit for important inno-
vations and original thinking. It's as easy to dismiss minimalist tech-
niques today as it is to shrug at the seeming simplicity of the twelve-
tone method. Both were arrived at by a very gradual evolution and took
considerable creativity, original thinking, and faith in the face of an
indifferent or hostile public.

Glass is not a favorite of mine, but I can't sit back when people imply
that he's a charlatan or uncreative. The guy has a legit background, he
knows music, he's paid his dues. I certainly don't begrudge him a Met
commission - in fact I am very happy that the Met is getting back into
the commissioning business. And if a lot of other people like him, so
much the better.

(resisting the urge to say something inflammatory about Verdi...:-)

Bill Alves
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical