It’s like a “Row your boat” roundabout realized at its illogical extreme. The piece allows that each musician can play at their own pace, in order that new dynamics be produced through the varying relationships between modules the piece only ends when all musicians have cycled through each chart. Over the “pulse” (two high C notes banged constantly on the piano, and cheers to Margaret Hassell, because what musician wouldn’t want that fucking job?) the other musicians (on the original recording, ten of them, playing a combination of reeds, brass, a viola, and melodic percussion) play 53 charted modules. The open-source code of minimalism, Riley’s masterpiece (first performed in 1964) has been covered so many times its number should be retired. That “more accessible” is exactly what got them into trouble with their “serious” counterparts was “more accessible” an embrace of the populism of music or, as hardcore serialists felt, selling out? Either way, minimalism set the groundwork for all sorts of contemporary approaches to composition, and birthed several classic albums. Minimalists, on the other hand, adapted the paired-down structures of serialism (no “Ode To Joy” ruptures, for example) to more accessible tidbits, preferring to capture often unexpected juxtapositions through the repetitive and cyclic performance of several different phrasings. The game? Start with one tone, and then use the other eleven before returning to your tonic. Serialism looked for ways to expand 19th century composition out of the rut of major Western or diatonic scales, assuming that all 12 tones could function (tonally or atonally) within a piece. In abandoning the more difficult arenas of serialism, minimalist composers were accused of compromising the integrity of formal avant guard composition, and, hey - what’s better than “serious” composers getting into a pissing contest? Even more ironic, minimalists not only presented an affront to this nuclear culture by compressing notions of space and order they represented an affront to other radicals from whose ranks they came. It’s radical music, right?” This is absolutely true, and yet another indication of how some of the most radical art can simultaneously be influenced by and directed against the reactionary power of a dominant order. to hierarchical notions about the place of “high” art in culture. "But hold up,” you say! “Minimalism isn’t just fun to listen to it’s a P.F.O. Basically, minimalism and early electronica have their roots in the same culture of cereal box prize atomic decoder rings and appliance fetishism that propelled America to the forefront of global capitalism. Early sound-smiths like Raymond Scott found their experiments the soundtracks for commercials these recordings had unprecedented influence upon composers who were themselves getting excited about the possibility electronic mediums afforded. Meanwhile, the simultaneous growth of advertising and increase of household television sets created a demand for the most cutting edge commercial jingles science could provide to satiate the atomically-aroused culture of the American public. The money to develop potential aces for the military’s sleeve went everywhere: drug testing, nuclear energy, the space program, and communications and sound, which meant university sound labs across the country suddenly found themselves incredibly well-funded. Buoyed by post-WWII wealth, the nuclear obsession of the Eisenhower Cold War years fixated American culture on progressive technology. Conrad got some predictable flack for his superb “Bedding the Sellout” article here on the Glow (from readers and colleagues) I enjoyed it without entirely agreeing, but his argument certainly has at least one very powerful historical antecedent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |