I have somewhat mixed feelings about it. I have no doubts about profane minimalism like that of Glass, Nyman, Adams nad so on, I find it trivial, annoying and unworthy of being labeled as classical music. But with sacred minimalism, it seems different, at first it makes strong impression as if there was some spiritual depth in it. But after listening to it a couple of times it is also beginning to appear increasingly trivial and boring. This is especially true of Gorecki's 3rd symphony, with Pärt, I am reluctant to overlisten to his music for fear of getting fed up with it. So, what do you make of composers like Pärt, Gorecki, Korndorf, Knaifel?
"Holy minimalism" is the term I often hear. I like a good bit of it (mostly Arvo Part), and it does seem to hearken back to early religious music. I also like Glass, Adams, Reich, et. al., however. None of it is my favorite, but I like it.
A friend well versed in Classical Church Music, complained to me about the musical repetitiveness and the simple lyrics of much of Contemporary Christian Worship music. I referred to Magister Pérotin's 12th century work 'Viderunt omnes', a wonderful piece which takes an awfully long time to cover a short and simple text.
The answer may well be 'yes', at least for the deeply religious. J.S. Bach closed his manuscripts, both secular and religious, with the monogram "S.D.G." for 'Soli Deo Gloria'... to God alone the glory. Bach was essentially stating that it his was all 'religious' music.
C.S. Lewis once disagreed with a fan who had said to him, "The world needs more Christian writers like yourself." Lewis replied (paraphrase alert), "No, madam, what the world needs are more writers who are Christian," thus infusing all their works with the Christian world-view.
Some of Reich's music is interesting for a few listens, although not enough to buy any, but the minimalism of Glass, Nyman, Pärt et al. leaves me feeling that it is "trivial... and unworthy of being labelled as classical music."
I recently found a used copy of Rautavaara's Symphony 7, which could be called spiritual minimalism, I suppose, due to the angelic theme. Some of the movements have a bit more action, so I am willing to give it a chance, but in all honesty, I don't feel much different about it than about the aforementioned.
I view it as a perfectly valid and reasonable stylistic choice. Maybe not my favorite but more enjoyable than some other musical styles. I don't find it particularly profound, but I'm not looking for profundity in music.
In today's era of eclecticism, composers can freely draw from all prior western and non-western musical traditions, mix-and-match if they want, and/or attempt to create their own sound. As long as their works don't sound too much like a film soundtrack eek: !!! the horror !!! ) we can respect their music.
I see minimalism as only a tool composers can use. Some are adept at generating a spiritual soundscape with it and some don't tend to even think in that direction.
It's interesting you outright find minimalism unworthy of being called classical but that you like holy minimalism. Are you simply applying different standards to the two, judging some minimalism on the extra-musical idea of it's supposed spirituality? I personally think there is potentially a spiritual aspect to any music and isn't confined to music labelled 'requiem' or similar. People are usually searching for something through music and that can be found through crunching guitars just as much as through appeals to a god.
I like aspects of both kinds of minimalism, sometimes the repetativeness can be simply annoying othertimes it can be very lulling and relaxing, bringing to mind natural things like waves on the shore, then again it can also be very driving and dramatic. On the other hand a lot of the minimalism with an explicit spirituality may be immediately attractive with its simplicity but hardly takes any listening to reveal that it is a false depth, an attempt at profundity that really doesn't tell you anything. John Tavener had this effect on me, his works are very pretty and can appeal instantly, they almost as quickly lost that appeal and sounded like new-age music. Even Gorecki's 3rd has an obvious heart-string pulling quality about it and despite its beauty I tend to feel more manipulated by it every time I listen to it.
The plainer, less affected minimalism of Reich, Adams and Glass, that doesn't attempt to impose a spiritual dimension holds an increasing interest. Not that these too don't hold a spiritual depth but they seem less likely to choke the music with sentiment.
It's interesting you outright find minimalism unworthy of being called classical but that you like holy minimalism. Are you simply applying different standards to the two, judging some minimalism on the extra-musical idea of it's supposed spirituality? I personally think there is potentially a spiritual aspect to any music and isn't confined to music labelled 'requiem' or similar. People are usually searching for something through music and that can be found through crunching guitars just as much as through appeals to a god.
I like the "secular" minimalism of Glass, Riley, Young and especially Nyman, Reich and Adams much better than the holy minimalism of Tavener or Pärt (who I despise as a composer).
I do think minimalism is often unfairly labeled as unworthy and simplistic. It might be wishful thinking, but I think in 100, 200 years' time, minimalism will be as intimately linked with postmodernism as serialism is with modernism. In both cases, people will say "yes, there was other stuff going on, of course, but that is the main style of that time". And that is good, because goodness knows I can't stand most of the non-minimalistic postmodern music.
I find most SM harmless on the verge of tiresome (Someone mentioned Gorecki's Third, what a sleeping pill!), I find slightly more food for the ear in some Secular Minimalism, I'm amazed that a work like Glass' "Voices" have not yet been committed to a commercial recording!
I think 'spiritual minimalism' is a misleading name. I haven't heard any obvious evidence of the use of the kind of additive processes, phasing or augmentation that were characteristic techniques of 60's minimalism. I also know for a fact that Arvo Part refers to his own work as 'Tintinnabular' music and makes no reference that I know of to the work of Reich or Glass.
I'm not even really sure what "spiritual minimalism" means. What makes one kind of minimalism more or less "spiritual" than the other?
But yes, I got into Arvo Part a few years ago and have been listening to him ever since. His choral works are excellent, ie., Magnificat, The Beatitudes, De Profundis, etc. My favorite piece by him is probably the Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten, it's sad and lovely. Also the Stabat Mater. Good stuff, and I'm always in the mood to listen to it. I can't even say that about Beethoven sometimes!
I also like the Te Deum, Selby. Da Pacem and In Principio seem worth mentioning as well. The Estonian Chamber Choir does an excellent job on those recordings.
Is Terry Riley considered spiritual minimalism? I love his work. Don't know much about other stuff. I need to listen to Gorecki's 3rd again to form a proper opinion.
I've had a conflicted relationship with Gorecki's 3rd since I first heard it. If you'll allow a suggestion, if it is the Upshaw/Zinman you struggle with - maybe try a different recording. The Stefania Woytowicz performance from the '70s is very powerful and at a significantly quicker pace. I would have to look it up, but I would venture to guess a full 8-10 minutes faster. It is less hypnotic and mesmerizing but still very heartbreaking. The sorrow approaches more of a rage for Woytowicz. Just a thought.
I have several Arvo Part recordings. His tintannabuli technique is deceptively simple - i.e., a piece like Fratres. He has explored that concept pretty fully, but I think he has come to the end of himself. Still, I find many of his pieces moving.
I haven't come to appreciate Taverner. Something about his music doesn't click with me.
I haven't heard the other guy you mentioned.
I agree with Mitchell about Gorecki's 3rd; you can do better than Dawn Upshaw's version if you're looking for something to plumb its depths.
I just started listening to Arvo Part last night and I think it was generally ok. The sensations he gave me is the same as the sensations when I first listened to Riley's In C, just slower and more meditative. Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs is one of my favorite piece of music. I think the "Lento" is just divine.
I find a lot of it to be little more than pastiche. (Arvo Part especially but not exclusively).
In terms of spirituality (and I am speaking only from my own experience - no reflection cast on how it affects others) I think it's a best vacuous and more seriously tending toward the swamp of quietism.
I do like Valentyn Sylvestrov, but not sure that he fits the minimalist bill.
One of the more unfortunate of stylistic labels, much of the rep, with the odd exception here or there, is paper thin and I find a lot of the efforts, and the ID tag itself, "spiritually vain." Arvo Part, in this one stylistic phase -- his least interesting, imho -- being a sibling to a few of the "plain" minimalists and with the same earnest criticism -- i.e. "The emperor has no clothes."
I find "no there there," with a lot of what falls under the style.
I don't know a lot of Part, nor the genre of "spiritual minimalism" as a separate thing, but I think Fratres is a masterpiece both intellectually and emotionally.
If you can find Paul Hiller's book Arvo Part, it will help you.
Also, BBC Radio 3's Discovering Music has a presentation on Arvo Part.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Classical Music Forum
2.6M posts
40.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to classical music for musicians and other enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about composers, compositions, arrangements, collections, recordings, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!