Jump to content

Talk:Minimal music/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hannan?

We need a better link; current links to producer of cat-dog, kids show.

Wrong guy. It's been fixed now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

that is nonverifiable

"No other late-20th-century musical style, outside of pop music, has occasioned so much controversy." this is an opinion. it is non verifiable. end of story. also, as your username is "Kylegann" it appears that you are citing yourself as a source (conflict of interest?). T-1 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If not "so much controversy" then certainly it's generated "a lot" of controversy. That wouldn't be difficult to cite, as there have been many articles and books about this controversy (generally the controversy has come about from composers and critics who dislike the style intensely, for various reasons). Badagnani 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
that's fine, as long as it's cited. however, if someone says that it's the MOST controversial thing outside of pop music, that's very hard to cite for several reasons. Pop music by itself is a very iffy area. To me, something like Venetian Snares is not pop, to an academic, it probably is T-1 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Name another late-20th-century style that has occasioned nearly as much controversy, or I'll put it back in. And since I'm citing published academic texts, even if they are my own, I've been told by Wikipedia administrators that there's no problem. Kylegann 12:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The threshold of inclusion is of course verifiability rather than truth. However, it seems that there is some disagreement among editors. Where a fact is challenged, but supported by sources, the best solution is often to acknowledge the source more explicitly. Model: from "Football is the most popular sport (cite Albert Macdonald, 1923)" to "Albert Macdonald, writing in 1923, has stated that football is the most popular sport (same cite)". Notinasnaid 12:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I have great respect for Kyle Gann—and of course we all should welcome his expertise and his highly respected publications here—I have to agree with Notinasnaid. Remember that the burden of proof lies with the person wishing to include material, so I think it is not fair to request that others "name another...style that has occasioned nearly as much controversy". I personally do believe that the contested sentence is true and verifiable, so I feel that it shouldn't be too hard to cite a third-party source (to avoid any controversy or potential conflict of interest) or to word it in the way Notinasnaid has suggested. VectorPosse 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a logical fallacy of burden of truth. Academic or no, not everything published in academic papers is worth putting in wikipedia as fact, see Scientific racism for an extreme example. But if you want to play that game, I'll point out breakcore, noise music, idm, ambient, death metal, rap music as all being several music styles that are extremely controversial. The definition of pop music itself isn't even clear enough to make the distinction. Some would call minimalism pop, some wouldn't. Some would call some of those genres I mentioned pop, some wouldn't. also, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. this is completely a matter of opinion. The amount of perceived controversy also highly depends on the circles of people you communicate with. In the case of an academic, I can see this perception, but if you played to some random guy off the street some Phillip Glass and then you played some Venetian Snares, which would he find more controversial? I'm thinking the Snares. this either needs to be changed to something like "Kyle Gann has referred to Minimalism as the most controversial form of 20th century music" or just removed altogether. T-1 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the only reason for the qualification "except for pop music" (probably "popular musics" is a more accurate wording, as it would certainly include rap, death metal, and whatever other styles you're referring to) is to imply that it's the most controversial "classical"/"serious" style. Minimalism isn't generally described as a "pop" style though of course numerous popular groups have adopted elements of it, so I don't believe this issue creates any confusion. 12-tone/serial music was also controversial, but it wasn't developed in the late 20th century, so the statement is probably correct. One needn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, though Gann's repeated reinsertion of the self-referential statement, contrary to the consensus here is problematic, so saying that it is "perhaps the most controversial trend in the art music of the late 20th century," or even "has generated considerable controversy, probably more than any art music style of the late 20th century," with links to notable published essays and opinions on the subject, would be just fine. 12-tone/serial music itself generated quite a bit of controversy in its time, something that cannot be disputed, and it's interesting to note that minimalism, as a reaction against 12-tone/serial music, has occasioned a similar controversy--but generally from the serialists themselves, rather than from audiences. Badagnani 03:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Minimalism sounds a lot more like Britney Spears than say Merzbow. Which would you call pop? Also, I would call Merzbow and other noise music controversial. Ditto for Venetian Snares and other complex glitchy breakcore. You can't measure or prove which is more controversial. Just because some music is made by people without phds does not make it any less serious or any less art. IDM its various spinoffs and relatives are more often than not about making art. T-1 18:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, minimalism shares a lot in common with pop music. But it is generally considered to be "concert"/"art"/"classical" music. Many of the 12-tone people (like Mel Powell, for example) were secret jazzers but consciously chose to never include any references to jazz or other popular musics in their pieces. The early minimalist composers listened to jazz, rock, Indian music, etc. and often put elements of those styles into their pieces. The truth about Merzbow is that he/it generally ignored by the classical music establishment because he/it isn't considered "concert" electronic music. I don't believe noise/electronic music has occasioned as much controversy as minimalism. Come to think of it, John Cage's music has probably occasioned the most criticism of all (and some of his music, like the silent piece, "Cheap Imitation," "Dream," the String Quartet, etc. is very minimal), though the height of this criticism was probably the 1950s through the 1970s. Badagnani 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I read somewhere about Snares being played at a rave one night and then in a concert hall filled with academics the next night... valid enough. Snares is pretty controversial with all of the pedophilia images present in Doll Doll Doll or Horse and Goat for example (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). T-1 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If we're quoting Wikipedia policy, let's not omit rules inconvenient to bring up: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I made an improvement in the case of every alteration I made; this anonymous T-1 person did not. I also discussed changes I wanted to make on the talk page before making them; "T-1" did not. Kylegann 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You added a citation to yourself. I don't call that an improvement.T-1 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Websites

where can i find a decent website about steve reich, john adams and/or philip glass?

First try the "External link(s)" sections of Steve Reich, John Coolidge Adams, and Philip Glass. Hyacinth 19:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Postmodernism series

I've created a template feel free to add other important examples of postmodernism - broadly defined - in this template so that readers can gain a better understanding of the terms involved by comparing and contrasting their use over several articles. Stirling Newberry 17:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Klein

I'm moving the following here to be reintegrated as Klein is not a composer and this was in a list of composers:

  • Yves Klein, whose 1947 Monotone Symphony consisted of a single sustained chord, predating similar works by La Monte Young by several years.

Hyacinth 06:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your proposal for reintegration? The work is conventionally notated and Klein is as much of a composer as Tony Bennett is a painter :) There is such a thing as a "Renaissance man," you know. There are actually a number of the early minimalists (Charlemagne Palestine included) who were primarily visual artists or sculptors. Please consult the original work (it can be found reproduced in coffee table books about Klein) and re-add. I didn't include the ref frivolously. Badagnani 06:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
You'll find my "proposal" above. Where did I write that it was frivolous? Hyacinth 07:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Above where? Sorry for assuming, there are so many people here at WP who are quick to delete things and I wanted to be sure you understood that this is an important work closely tied to this aesthetic movement (though little known, that's why I added it). I suppose you could say Klein was "primarily a visual artist" or something similar. Badagnani 07:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Early

My vote is for Lucier to go in the "early minimalists" list. Hyacinth 07:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's at least as early as Glass. Glass told a friend of mine in an interview that it was just a fluke he got famous, and not others like Lucier (he also named some others I can't remember). Should we have criteria for "early"? Such as active in minimal composition before 1975? If so, maybe add this date range in the heading. Date of birth isn't as relevant matter because some like Andriessen started out as 12-tone guys. Badagnani 07:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
At issue may be to what extent Lucier is a minimalist composer as opposed to a composer who produced a few seminal works which can be considered minimal. --Myke Cuthbert 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What about going even earlier? Proto-minimalism such as Erik Satie? I think this could be mentioned. 128.223.131.112 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Proto-minimalism"? I've never heard this expression, but if you have got reliable sources, by all means add something about this. (Do Wagner and Bruckner count, as well? I'm thinking of the beginning of Rheingold and the first twenty pages or so of the scherzo in Bruckner's Ninth Symphony, but has anyone actually cited these as precedents for minimalism?)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't heard much Bruckner, I'll have to check it out. As far as sources, I do recall reading the term "protominimalism" as applied to Satie and others, about a year or so, though I don't recall if it was from something very academic. Hopefully I will come across it again. 24.20.12.57 (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

confusion

i think minimal music refers more to a sub-genre of electronica. maybe there should be 2 separate articles. Unixer 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do other people think this? Can you name some examples (bands, composers, pieces)? Hyacinth 13:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not. There may be a confusion of two different genres using the same terms. Every book published about "Minimal Music" that I am aware of refers to the contemporary classical genre associated with Young, Riley, Reich, Glass, Adams, et al. (authors: Potter, Fink, Strickland, Schwarz, etc.) --Myke Cuthbert 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed

  • "The music of these three composers, hence, represent three radically different interpretations of what "minimalism" means: While the music of Steve Reich has distinctly "mechanical" tone, the music of Philip Glass has a significantly "flatter" texture and is more homophonic, with more of an emphasis on "vertical" elements (i.e. chords and cadences). Adams' minimalism, however, is significantly more complex than that of his predecessors: being far more rhythmically and harmonically unpredictable."

I removed the above as it doesn't end up discussing interpretations of minimalism but instead promoting Adams. Hyacinth 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"influenced by"

changed title from "Rock Bands influenced by" to "popular music..." (as it's not just all "rock bands" that should be on this list.) also removed "cant" from list and added "can" (assuming that's the band intended to be on the list". Put a few more on the list . Funks 22:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am gleefully awaiting the 'Critical supporters of minimalism' section

i suggest that bands like radiohead should be removed, after all most critics say that Kid A sounds a lot like Aphex Twin.

Whoever you are, please stop vandalizing Wikipedia with your dozens faked identities. Aphex Twin is over-mentioned in dozens of articles. If you are him, you may expect that Wikipedia's administrators may consider to investigate this matter, if you are a fan, please be aware that wikipedians can get bored with this spamming, also a sort of hate toward Aphex Twin may arise, that is exactly the opposite that a fan wishes for the beloved band or artist.Brian W 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody added The Beatles to this section... um, I'm not getting that at all... explain? Funks 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a listen to She's So Heavy off Abbey Road and tell me that isn't minimalist.
Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a strong case can be made that the Beatles were influenced by "modern" classical or avant-garde/experimental music (Stockhausen in Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Revolution 9). As for minimalism, the Beatles tended to be aware of what was going on in art and film, and were contemporaries of Reich, Riley, etc. Beyond that, can a case be made to list the Beatles under influenced by...? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is not so much influenced by minimalism but its use of blues has minimal(ist) elements. --Freshacconci 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well said... in fact, I think this long list really needs to be pared down... Cat Power?? Air? Velvet Underground? I mean, at a certain point, just about ALL popular/electronica music has some "minimalist" elements. That doesn't mean it's the primary (or even an intentional) influence? Funks 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a link between minimalism and Ambient (Brian Eno) which leads to house et al, so an interesting section could be written by someone with some expertise. But, yeah--according to that list, you might as well add _everyone_ to the list. Hell, the Ramones were pretty minimalist (two-, sometimes one chord...)--Freshacconci 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we must remove James Holden coz he doesnt recognize minimalism as a influence for him, saying "it has no meaning", several records he plays an edit on his label have the structure of minimalistic musical pieces, but he doesnt recognize the minimalistic stream of dance music so maybe he wont like to be into an article like this...

Oh and that kid before is not Aphex Twin, he just couldnt be in any way related to shameless self promotion on a serious project like this, so Aphex Twin deserves to be in the list, he even edited a track in collaboration with Philip Glass Faridsaavedra 10:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the Velvet Underground, members John Cale and Sterling Morrsion had performed in minimalist groups prior to being in the band, and John Cale had worked with Lamonte Young, Angus MacLise, Tony Conrad, and Terry Riley in the Theater of Eternal Music. The other rock bands may be a stretch, but the Velvet Underground were unquestionably influenced by the minimalist school of composition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater_of_Eternal_Music

Yeah, I agree with that one (plus Lou Reed's lyrics are influenced by the hard-boiled writing of Raymond Chandler and Delmore Schwartz, so minimalism is sneaking in that way as well). The VU was essentially free jazz mixed with avant-garde music mixed with doo-wop. So, I'm thinking leave the VU in, but the rest, it's debatable.


(UTC)

Minimalist Composers

removed: "Edward Richardson - a child prodigy who is widely believed to be one of the greatest composers and musicians of his time," which is clearly bogus. If not, please provide supporting info.Funks 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

removed: "Edward Richardson" again. Broken link. And a Google search for "Edward Richardson composer" returns no relevant results to this artlice. I imagine it is Mr. Richardson, "a child prodigy who is widely believed to be one of the greatest composers and musicians of his time" who keeps adding himself here. Please stop. Funks 12:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Brief History Of

I removed the Schumann reference, which is dubious at best despite the link offered. If we want to get into that kind of history, we need to also include Perotin, Bach canons, Wagner, Satie, Scelsi, etc. As it stands, we seem to be after the history of the "minimalist" movement labeled as such. Funks 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Female composers such as Pauline Oliveros, Eliane Radigue, Maryanne Amacher and Laurie Spiegel have been said to have been as innovative and influential as the "big four" minimalist composers." Innovative, yes... but as influential? I don't see how this is justified. I am removing influential unless someone who can support that statement wants to put it back...? Also, specifically pointing out that these are "female composers" sort of hints at a hidden agenda behind this statement...? Funks 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there a more prominent mention of Erik Satie, who was quite explicitly a minimalist in his composition style? Whether he influenced subsequent minimalists is of course open to debate, but his work did presage some of their major principles in more detail than any other composer I can think of. This is discussed briefly here: http://www.comcen.com.au/~carowley/points.htm . I can produce more documentation regarding this claim if desired; just thought it was worth mentioning.

Removed this entry from "precendents to minimalism" section: "Leif Inge, whose work 9 Beet Stretch made by augmenting Beethovens 9th Symphony to 24 hours with no distortion in pitch and so feature a sustained soundscape" How can a 2002 work be a "precedent" to minimalism??? Funks

Additions

"The Grim"? "The Grim" is a minimalist composer? Googling unearths no such entity, and I'll remove the reference unless supporting info is offered.

Also, Jonathan Bernard's 1993 article "The Minimalist Aesthetic in the Plastic Arts and in Music" unpersuasively trashes the idea of musical minimalism and really isn't worth including here.Kylegann 05:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This list seems to be entirely speculation and not useful/informative in any way. This list could potential be thousands and thousands of artists long. Could it be removed? Wickethewok 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, as stated above in the "Influenced By" discussion, that the list needs to either be removed or seriously pared down. If we pare it down, I would propose keeping only the following on the list, since they seem to be most directly linked to the "Minimalist" music movement: [ Can, Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, Neu!, Spacemen 3, Stereolab, Sufjan Stevens, The Velvet Underground ] But, frankly, I agree it's still a rather useless list and could easily be removed. If someone wanted to write a subsection of this article discussing minimalist influences in popular music and vice versa, that might be a worthy inclusion. Funks 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, my edit was instantly reverted by someone I'm not sure how to contact, so I guess I'll try to pare it down to the bare minimum instead...Funks 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to contact? No talk page? Anw, let's discuss a little such large edits. Dr. Who 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)  ;)
To reiterate again... I agree with the users above that this list could potentially be thousands of entries long, based on a loose definition of "minimalism" that could apply to almost all popular music. So why include such a useless list here? And even if we did, why are we not requiring any kind of supporting references establishing a legitimate connection with the "minimalist music" movement described in the article? Including artists like The Who and Cat Power in this section harms the credibility of the entire article, in my opinion. That's why I think this section should just be deleted and/or seriously reduced. Instead, people keep adding entries to the list unabated and without justification. I guess I will leave it up to the Wiki powers that be... Funks 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's work here in the talk page, it is my favourite method. Who are the artists that you want to include? With regard to the draft list you mention above, I would add some german electronic musicians. Let's avoid (and we are doing well) edit reverts, edit war, and similar timewasting activities. Happy editing. :) Dr. Who 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh, you are asking the moon. ;). These borderline lands are usually not explored by reputable musicologists. Anw, any further ideas are welcome.Dr. Who 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

let's remove--Doktor Who 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

    • So are you saying we can remove this entire section now? More and more irrelevant names keep getting added to the list... Funks 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes¸ that´s it, go on.Doktor Who 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Systems music? No way

"There is a branch of British minimalism called systems music in which the note-to-note procedure is determined numerically; the term was briefly (due to Michael Nyman's popularity) used informally as a term for all minimalism in the 1980s." - This is abolutely false, at least in America. I've been following minimalist music closely since 1974, and this article is the first I've ever heard of "systems music." Kylegann 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The term was used, primarily in the UK in the early days (probably in the '70s), in much the same way "process" is used, with the implication that the music is created through a perceivable process, like Rzewski's "Les moutons de Panurge" or Reich's "Clapping Music" or whatever. But the term never quite caught on, and apparently never gained currency in North America. If you do a targeted Google search you'll see that it's been used (and continues to be used to some extent) primarily by British writers on music.[1][2] Badagnani 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Tom Johnson, Philip Corner, and Daniel Goode (sometimes with Barbary Benary and David Feldman) identified themselves as "the systems group" in the 1970s. This is parallel to the work of British composers John White and Christopher Hobbs, who identified their own music as "systems music". --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.28.33 (talk • contribs)

Critical response and POV

I moved Ian MacDonald's idiosyncratic interpretation of minimalism from the section on musical style, where it did not belong, to the section on "Critical Response." I also deleted the sentence, "From hippie to yuppie.minimalism is a drip-feed pseudo-art for cultural bottle-babies" for its argumentative POV - also for its problematic grammar and lack of literal meaning. Kylegann 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also remove about half those composers whose names are on the list of minimalist composers. Many of them, like Petr Kotik and Jo Kondo, aren't minimalists by any stretch of the term - some of them are Fluxus composers, or people who returned to simple tonality under minimalism's influence, or postminimalists. Criteria for the list are ridiculously inconsistent, just dozens of people adding their seemingly favorite composers. Cardew? Moondog? Zimmermann? Subotnick? It's ludicrous. Kylegann 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
An argument could be made for Moondog/Hardin, though more appropriately as an "early influence"/"precedent". Otherwise, I agree -- get these people off the list, it is not helpful or relevant to the topic...!! Funks 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and Lief Inge as a precedessor of minimalism when that piece came out in 2004? Thanks for the deletion. Kylegann 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Massive removals

Editors should seek consensus here before removing massive amounts of text from the article. The following did not improve the article and should be reversed:

  • Removal of bulleted text in intro, which made it easier to identify stylistic traits
  • Removal of Cope citation
  • Removal of Wagner reference
  • Removal of "Early minimalists" heading (this was very important)
  • Removal of Kotik from list (have you ever listened to "Many Many Women" straight through)?
  • Removal of Andriessen, Volans, Martland. Kondo, Dresher, Duckworth, Giteck, Lauten, Lentz, Rouse, Scott, and Stone from the list. Each of these has written minimal music, though they may now be doing something that may now be considered "not minimal" or "post-minimal." Badagnani 16:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1. The list of stylistic traits applied primarily to Reich and Glass, not to minimalism in general. 2. The Cope citation was pretty stupid: "brevity" as a characteristic of minimalism? Are you kidding? And I replaced it with nine much more appropriate traits below in the "style" section. 3. I didn't remove the Wagner reference, I merely rewrote it a little more accurately. 4. The "early minimalists" were not all early (if by early we mean early '60s when the style took off). If we're going to make that distinction (which I find rather meaningless, because some of the early minimalists are late minimalists as well), then we at least need to get the early minimalists right - Dennis Johnson, Angus MacLise. 5. Good lord yes, I know Many Many Women inside and out, have heard it live, and own a score to it, and Petr is a good friend of mine. I don't consider it minimalist (there's no audible structure at all, its structures are completely hidden and derived from found materials), nor do I consider Kotik's music in any way minimalist in general, nor does he. Although Many Many Women is all in perfect fifths, there is no limitation on the pitches, and it is virtually atonal, albeit mostly consonant. I've interviewed him about how the piece was written, and published the info he gave me in American Music in the Twentieth Century (Schirmer). Take a look at the CD recording, and you will find that I wrote the liner notes. 6. Most of the people I removed are also listed as postminimalists, or else ought to be. There's nothing linear or predictable about the musics of Kondo, Duckworth, Giteck, Lentz, etc. The mere use of tonality does not make a recent composer a minimalist. This minimalism article is pathetically incomplete and inconsistent, and I'm trying to clean it up and make it consistent with the rest of what's in Wikipedia regarding new music, and also with what's consistent in the published literature. You got a problem with that? Or do you want Wikipedia to be the only reference work on the planet that believes that (pace David Cope) most minimalist pieces are "brief"? In addition, I already signaled my intention to make some corrections in the "Critical response and POV" section immediately above, and was urged to go ahead. Why didn't you weigh in then?
Badagnani, I really appreciate and respect all the work you've done on behalf of new music on Wikipedia. You've been an amazing font of new-music information. But I wrote a history textbook on American music which is in widespread use, the first one to discuss movements after minimalism, and I currently have an NEH grant to write a book on postminimalist music. Besides, the article as it stood was extremely confusing. The style descriptions seemed only to refer to Glass and Reich, but the range of composers called minimalist was (and still is) breathtaking in its inclusivity. Are there only two minimalist composers or 500? Common sense and knowledge of the field suggests a number in-between. Cope allegedly cited brevity as a minimalist trait (which I find hard to believe - this should have been footnoted), yet the four-hour Many Many Women is supposed to be minimalist? And how many lists of traits can you put in one article without acknowledging the major discrepancies among them? If we're going to list various peoples' criteria (and it's a good idea), put them all in the same paragraph and compare them, don't scatter them in one section after another and confuse the reader. I thought a long time about simply deleting "brevity" from Cope's list (and you must know how many long, long minimalist pieces there are, like Einstein on the Beach and Music in Twelve Parts), but I was afraid I'd simply be falsifying the list, and the remainder didn't make sense in context. The article has been cobbled together by a lot of people, several of them evidently with an anti-minimalist axe to grind. Somebody needs to make the pieces fit together, or it's just not informative. Kylegann 03:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In regard to what I regard as one of the most important items at issue here, we just have to admit that the European "spin" on minimalism is different than the American one. Your own writing is quite excellent in most regards, with the exception that I believe it to often be "Americentric" in character, ignoring many European minimalists such as, for example, the Hungarian ones. I would certainly describe Kotik's work, or Jeney's, or Kondo's, as "minimal" rather than minimalist. Yes, their work is more chromatic, less overtly repetitive, and the process is more hidden. But in many other regards the early works of these composers are emphatically "minimal" in that the musical materials are severely restricted in such a way that the music seems repetitive. (It isn't possible in most of Phill Niblock's music, for example, to determine the process and the beats are not regular and predictable, etc., yet his music is clearly "minimal" in its restrictiveness regarding instrumentation and pitch material--putting the music under a microscope, as it might be conceptualized). I'm thinking particularly of Kondo's "Sight Rhythmics" and Jeney's "Orpheus' Garden," "Arthur Rimbaud in the Desert," and "Impho 102/6" (this last piece, for crotale ensemble, which is described in the Tom Johnson book). I'd be interested in your thoughts about these particular works. If they're not "minimal," I don't know what in the world one would call them, and it seems fairly well documented that, for example, the Hungarians (including Group 180) were operating under the influence of the American minimalists--presumably in their view making a "180"-degree turn from earlier European contemporary music while still retaining some European elements such as chromaticism which most of the early American minimalists eschewed. The Europeans (with exceptions like Nyman, Andriessen/Hoketus, Martland, etc.) are probably less rock-influenced and more influenced by the "tradition," as one can hear in almost all of Simeon Ten Holt's works. Regarding Kotik, he may object to the term "minimal" being applied to his music, but then many other verifiably minimalist composers do as well.
Regarding "Many Many Women," the use of a very repetitive Stein text, use of very long durations, restriction to fifths, and freedom for the musicians to come in and out (as in Glass's early works), just to name a few, provide quite a few affinities with early minimalism, if one looks at these traits in a broader manner. Thus, I believe the nine traits you present are in a way prescribe criteria that are overly narrow.
Regarding the "Early minimalists" heading, as far as I understood, extended through approximately the mid-1970s (the period documented by Tom Johnson during his VV tenure), not just the 1960s, and is a heading I do believe it is important to retain--though it could be qualified that the list extends from c. 1960 to c. 1975 or whatever. If Cope states that minimalist works are generally "brief," he's wrong, yes (I don't know where he got that, although I would say that a very short piece, as some of the Fluxus pieces are) would be "minimal" in its own way). I don't think that one example negates the validity of the rest of my comments, which were made in good faith, by someone who also follows this music very closely. Best of luck with your book. Badagnani 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Dennis Johnson in the article. Are you going to add something?
Also, what is your opinion regarding the "minimalist" credentials of Andriessen, Volans, Martland, Dresher, Lauten, Rouse, Scott, and Stone? Obviously you removed them but it isn't clear why (is it because you regard them all to be "post-minimalist"? Andriessen's "De Staat," "White Man Sleeps," Dresher's "Guitar Quartet," Stone's early works such as those on the "Four Pieces" CD, most of Scott's output, etc. manifest most of the stylistic traits and in many cases can be traced directly to the influence of the early minimalists. Badagnani 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You may consider my minimalist traits too narrow, but at least I can define them. What are yours? What definition can you possibly give us that will tie together all the music you want to include here? And my criteria are published elsewhere, in several places, and can be multiply footnoted. They’ve been vetted by the musicology profession and approved. Yours, unless you have some authority for them besides yourself, look like original research. Were I going to continue working on this, I would also add into the Style section John Adams’s and Paul Epstein’s criteria for a definition of minimalism, which are also published and can be verified - and which I have personally rejected in my own writings because they are even more restrictive than mine.
Re: ‘’Many Many Women’’: The Stein text isn’t really repetitive in the minimalist sense that exact phrases are repeated. Freedom for the musicians to come in and out isn’t a specific trait of any minimalist works I know of - it’s a rather unavoidable condition of ‘’Music in Fifths’’, but it isn’t specified that that’s *supposed* to happen. All the conditions of Kotik’s style, by his own admission, come from Cage, not from minimalism, and are based in chance, not in repetition. He started using parallel fifths to keep Julius Eastman’s singing in tune, and liked the sound, but it had nothing to do with minimalist process or influence. I do agree that several of the Hungarians, including Jeney and Laszlo Sary, are minimalists - never said they weren’t. But I’ve never heard a piece by Jo Kondo (and I’ve heard over a dozen or so, ‘’Sight Rhythmics’’ included) that sounded remotely minimalist. In ‘’Sight Rhythmics’’ the movements all start more or less the same, but then take different paths, a strikingly unusual narrative-style trait I’ve never heard in any other minimalist work. Tom Johnson continued to write for the ‘’Voice’’ until 1982, and critics started announcing the death of minimalism by 1978. Therefore, if you use Tom’s tenure as your “early minimalism” criterion, you’ve encompassed what several writers (including Reich) consider the entire history of the style, and “early” doesn’t mean anything.
As for the younger composers - Lauten, Stone, Dresher, Rouse, et al - many of them got sick and tired of superficial critics calling them minimalists in the ‘80s because they were doing something so much more complex and less linear, which included influences from traditions that had nothing to do with minimalism. There is a difference between hating the word “minimalism,” as Glass does, and denying that you have anything to do with the movement to which the word is applied. A composer’s insistance that his compositional methods have demonstrably nothing in common with Reich’s and Glass’s is not irrelevant. And there has to be an allowable distinction between “minimalist” and “influenced by minimalism.” Have you ever looked at the complexity of a Mikel Rouse score, with its ostinatos of five against six against seven, that look more like Nancarrow than Reich? And aside from ‘’Shing Kee’’, which I might accept as an isolated minimalist piece, Stone’s grooves have to do with pop, not minimalism. Most of the people you mention are friends of mine, and I know for certain they think that people who consider their music minimalist don’t know how to listen to it.
I have no doubt you’re acting in good faith, but your criteria for what is relevant to this article seem utterly vague and not based in analysis of scores of what I consider postminimalist music. You want to list all the same people as minimalist whom I and others have also listed as postminimalist in the postminimalism article, and let the reader scratch his head. You can delete the postminimalism article if you want, and define, based on your own research into whatever, minimalism as any tonal music after 1960. But unless you can footnote it, I think you’re going to run up against Wikipedia’s original research policy. Clearly the list of minimalist composers is going to be heavily conditioned by the criteria chosen. Perhaps we could have a list of composers that the scholarly literature associates with the minimalist movement and another list of composers who were admittedly influenced by minimalism but have moved far away from it and cringe whenever someone fails to hear all the antiminimalist complexities in their music. At the very least, though, it would be nice if the the article were consistent, nonredundant, and non-self-contradictory, which goal I have tried to advance. Kylegann 12:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

POV?

I beg to know how the sentence "No other late-20th-century musical style, outside of pop music, has occasioned so much controversy," reveals POV? Perhaps you're too lazy to say, as well? If so, I will revert. Kylegann 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements such as "No other..." tend to be POV. This is desirably in many books and reference works, where a unified tone and attitude can be both welcome and useful; but it is not under Wikipedia style guidelines. "The musical style has occasioned a good deal of controversy" would be less POV, and could be better supported by the given cite. +sj +
I sympathise somewhat with T-1 who regards this statement as POV, citation notwithstanding. I also sympathise even more with Kyle insofar as the article is currently quite unsatisfactory and would benefit with major hacking about. Can I suggest that instead of inserting and reverting this particular comment, which is somewhat trivial, it would be more productive to concentrate on improving other aspects of the article? The whole thing is desperately in need of citations and I feel that more than just Kyle's book(s) should be called up e.g. Mertens with respect to critical responses; Strickland on Origins etc. I have in mind to do some of this myself but am currently busy elsewhere. On this particular quote, I would suggest a more neutral statement would be "A prominent critic has claimed that ..." etc. -- Kvetner 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I had thought I would try cleaning up and expanding the article, but it's not worth my time if I have to fight for every sentence. Somehow, "From hippie to yuppie.minimalism is a drip-feed pseudo-art for cultural bottle-babies" sat on the minimalism page and no one objected. I've got actual books to write. Kylegann 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No one objected to its removal either. The claim has never been made here that the article was great before you came along, and neither has anyone said that your improvements were unwelcome. At any rate, there's no need to overreact. I won't speak for others, but I suspect that the vast majority of editors here (including myself) are very grateful for your help on this article. A little flexibility about a few sentences will go a lot farther than the viewpoint that the consensus process is a battle that needs to be fought. We know of your expertise and we know you're a busy guy, so let the process work, even if it means modifying ever-so-slightly a perfectly defensible statement. The article will not suffer if the contested sentence is reworked in any one of the number of ways that have been suggested here. I believe that this is the same thing that Kvetner was trying to say. VectorPosse 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reassuring words. If you look up and down this page, though, at the number of paragraphs I've had to write (ten) to justify the number I altered (two or three), I don't think I'm overreacting in saying that I don't have time to both work on the article and also defend my changes at a 4-to-1 word ratio. Nor will I volunteer to waste my time polishing sentences that youngsters can then peremptorily delete. I'm flexible about everything I write at Wikipedia, and I try hard not to step on others' toes. For instance, I took pains to preserve the "figures, motifs, and cells" distinction in the first 'graph, which I find pedantic, but I thought someone might be attached to it. I'd like to expect the same consideration. In any case, it is not my responsibility to rewrite a sentence that someone has taken an objection to (especially on the basis of what appear to be, in the "that is nonverifiable" argument, historically illiterate grounds). According to Wikipedia's Resolving Disputes page, that responsibility rests with the reviser. The paragraph needs a climax sentence to sum up the movement's significance. I read some of Wikipedia's smooth, informative, detailed articles on other historically important subjects, and think, "Minimalism could be like that." But it's not going to happen at this rate. Kylegann 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame that an obvious idiot like T-1 could drive away someone like Mr. Gann. Oh well. Bartleby 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

This blanking is not good, as this is a key facet of the reception of minimalism, well documented. Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's so well-documented, why hasn't anyone been able to come up with a source for nine months? I haven't been able to find one, but if you can do it, please restore the text, with appropriate citations (it may well take more than one, because there are two contrasted points of view in that material). Just one other thing: removing a single statement does not constitute "blanking". See Wikipedia:Glossary#B. Calling such an edit by the name is provocative and borders on incivility.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Certain Modern Pop Music as Minimalist?

Since I don't know a lot about the technical aspects of categorizing music, I thought I would ask on the discussion page what people thought of this. Could certain popular contemporary pieces of music, like Clocks for instance, be considered minimalism? The article describes the musical structure as "built around a repeating piano riff, it features a minimalist soundscape of drums and bass over an aura of synthesizers and strings." There are a lot of songs by Coldplay that have this element to them, and I'm sure there are plenty of other groups that are also like this I don't even know about. But would this merit inclusion in the article about minimalist music? I wasn't sure, but I thought it would be worth throwing out there.

BTW, I did notice the above section referring to something similar to this. Perhaps it could be rewritten to explain minimalism's influence rather than simply cite examples? Unixfanatic (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Minimalism is a genre that began in contemporary classical music, but which has also clearly exerted influence on other genres, most notably rock. Badagnani (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Shrapnel

Not sure it was a good idea to remove Hugh Shrapnel from the article. Badagnani (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I merely removed the redlinks. If you find Hugh Shrapnel notable, then please create an article for him, and restore him to the list. I have just done this for Terry Jennings.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article completely misses a genre...

Seriously. An article on minimalist music, and not one mention of the minimalistic black metal movement, such as Darkthrone or Burzum? Not one? 216.209.117.168 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Until early March 2007 there was a huge section listing pop bands influenced by minimalism. It was deleted after considerable discussion on grounds that it amounted to little more than trivia. See the sections Popular_music_influenced_by_minimalism and Certain_Modern_Pop_Music_as_Minimalist?, above.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I just listened to some Darkthrone on YouTube and it doesn't seem particularly minimalist; it sounds like regular metal music. It doesn't seem to be influenced by the minimal aesthetics described in this article. Badagnani (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Anything off of Darkthrone's Transilvanian Hunger, shows massive minimalistic influences. Extremely simplistic song structures, a beat that stays constant throughout the whole album (let alone song), no tempo changes, songs that use only 2 or 3 riffs throughout, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilvanian_Hunger 216.209.118.29 (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how this all adds up to influence of minimalism? I can think of a lot of pop songs dating back as far as the 1890s that would fit this description (apart from "constant beat throughout an album", since albums are a comparatively recent phenomenon).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like black metal, and I've never heard of "minimalistic black metal". To be sure, some black metal (like Darkthrone) is sonically minimal, but by no means influenced by Young, Riley, Glass, Reich, et. al. However, drone metal, surprisingly enough, is actually a fusion of minimalism and heavy metal (with some black metal elements). Rhys Chatham, for example, has participated in the style. Aryder779 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Michael Nyman-Gattaca-The Other Side.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What about minimalism in the black metal and ambient genres?

No, I'm not kidding. It's a term that's thrown around a lot by people involved with both of those genres. Black metal has almost always been minimalist in nature since it's beginnings in the late 70's-early 80's. Of course there are bands that go outside that, but most bm and ambient music is minimalistic. 165.196.83.30 (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that it's kind of been talked about before, I guess. I still think it's worth a mention. Right in this article it talks about how minimalism fits a larger definition and scope than most realize. Many artists from completely different genres can be minimalistic. I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about further. Both fans and members of bands within the bm community have talked about minimalism since the 80's. That's what most bm IS. Dark, mysterious, simplistic and emotive. There's even a lot of use of minimalistic art within the genre for album covers, etc. Bathory, one of the earliest bm bands in the early 80's even talked about minimalism in interviews. Both the physical art form and music form.

I know it was mentioned but Darkthrone is a great example of minimalism. [3] Ambient shouldn't have to be argued at all. It just IS minimalism for the most part. 165.196.83.30 (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

30 seconds

Yes, Badagnani, if I had "only taken thirty seconds to check the reference"—that you only added afterward. It is a good reference, but please in future try to add the reference at the same time that you add new information.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem but I thought it was generally known that a tambura was used in that song. We don't always source every sentence of every article, at least not initially. Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is "generally known" (you know it, and I know it, but that does not satisfy Wikipedia's demand for verifiability), but the recently supplied source merely said "Indian drone", without mentioning the instrument, and the previous claim had referred to "Indian drone music", which naturally does not exist. I am much obliged for the source you have supplied.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Indian drone music" is simply a fairly general shorthand for the drone-based music called "Hindustani classical music" or "Hindustani raga" (which had a significant influence on La Monte Young, Terry Riley, the Beatles, the Doors, et al.). One could simply have substituted that term and maintained the original meaning. In fact, your current verbiage obscures this original meaning. Badagnani (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve on my verbiage, then. However, I have not up to this moment been aware of the use of this terminology, however "general" it may be, and North Indian music is certainly not "based on" drones, except possibly in the sense that there are drones over which the music is played. Anyone supposing that the drones are the most important part of this music is sadly mistaken. In this sense, I suppose that Pìobaireachd could be called "Scottish drone music", but I wouldn't use that expression in front of a piper without first making sure I had a clear escape route. The musicians you mention certainly did seize upon the drones from North Indian classical music in the 1960s, when it was first popularized by Ravi Shankar, amongst others, and this fact probably reflects either their own inability, or their assessment of their audiences' inability to grasp the complexity of the improvisations carried out over the drones. Shankar and other musicians of that period were perfectly aware of this problem, which is why they recorded mainly truncated versions of performances, in order not to bore Western listeners. I would not be surprised, however, to learn that they find using the term "drone music" to describe their art offensive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the drone element of that music was one of the aspects most intriguing to Western musicians of the time (and one of the easiest to imitate). One can even hear it in the Velvet Underground's "Heroin" (John Cale had earlier played drones on his viola in La Monte Young's ensemble). Badagnani (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no doubt about it, and an important source for the "drone" (La Monte Young) branch of minimalism. The failure to comprehend the larger aspcts of Hindustani Music on the part of some of the musicians eagerly embracing the drones at that time, and the contempt toward them displayed by North Indian musicians, is encapsulated in the reaction of Ravi Shankar to his own student George Harrison's sitar technique ("Just imagine some Indian villager trying to play the violin when you know what it should sound like") found here, or, when asked about Donovan's claim to have "mastered" the sitar in six months' time, something to the effect that he must be an amazing musician, because he (Shankar), had been playing it for over forty years, and did not yet consider himself its master.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good points. Badagnani (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Carnevale

I notice that User:Badagnani has placed a hidden-text note against Roberto Carnevale's name, to the effect that his own Wikipedia article does not mention minimalism as one of his stylistic attributes. To judge from the two score samples in that article, his style seems very remote from minimalism, indeed. It appears that the assertion stems from the Wikipedia article on the Kronos Quartet, possibly bolstered by the Terry Riley article. It is difficult to judge whether numerous blog and publicity sites are simply mirroring the Wikipedia article on Kronos, or if there may be a common source in there somewhere, but in any case it not sourced in the Kronos article and I do not find a reliable source elsewhere to verify this. It could well be nothing more than an often-repeated mistake stemming from a careless association made by a Wikipedia editor. Kudos to Badagnani for spotting this probable error.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Keith Kenniff

An anonymous contributor has added Keith Kenniff at the top of the list of "Notable Composers", i.e. out of alphabetical sequence. I cannot find any non-promotional information about this composer. Can anyone vouch for his notability? --Deskford (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No response, so I'll remove it. --Deskford (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations

What, why, how, and where does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Hyacinth (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I took your question as a notification of the fact that you had just finished a major cleanup of citations in this article, and I removed the banner accordingly. You must surely know you've done good work but, if I were in a similar position, I too might hesitate to remove such a banner on my own, when the article is long enough that some doubt may remain whether I have addressed all the problems spotted by other editors. A second pair of eyes is always useful in such circumstances.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Metamorphosis

This valuable commentary was in a comment tag in the intro paragraph; I'm moving it here where it is more likely to be seen and discussed: "What does 'metamorphosis' mean in this context? Is it different, or the same as metamorphoses carried out in other styles (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Neoclassical)? How is this different from the 'slow transformation' mentioned in the previous sentence? The body of the article does not use this term, let alone explain it."

I agree; metamorphosis of what? Need it even be included? While I might have an intuitive sense of what the word was intended to denote, I'm at a loss to elaborate in a way that distinguishes minimalism from the developmental/motivic conventions in other styles of music (appropriately to the intro paragraph). /ninly(talk) 14:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that the sentence in question was added on 16 March 2010 by unregistered editor Ollie31770, and the query was added the same day—by me, as it happens. It struck me at the time as an example of a "fine phrase" unfortunately devoid of meaning, or at least vague beyond hope. I haven't changed my opinion in the meantime. Since we are examining the article lede here, any such unusual terms ought to be explained in the body of the article somewhere, but that is not the case. Alternatively, if a reliable source can be found that uses these terms, then they should be at least provisionally acceptable.
It is true, on the other hand, that a distinction is sometimes made between two different types of "metamorphosis" in music. English music theory does not have a particularly good terminological distinction for these, which in German are usually called Durchführung and Entwicklung. The former term literally means "leading through", and refers specifically to motivic manipulation and transformation. This is usually translated into English as "development", in the specifically musical-motivic sense (as for example in reference to the "develpment section" of a fugue or sonata-allegro movement). Unfortunately, the other German word comes much closer to the common English meaning of "development", and it is often so translated, but may alternatively be rendered as "evolution". There are of course other terms used in music theory for similar concepts, but "metamorphosis" is not one of them. If there is in fact a difference between the kind of "development" commonly found in minimalism on the one hand, and the traditional kind used in the Classical/Romantic sphere on the other, it would probably be this distinction between gradual transformation (Entwicklung) and motivic manipulation (Durchführung), respectively. Although this does not distinguish minimalism from all other types of music, it does separate it from the usual practice in the (predominantly German) Classical-Romantic tradition. The article presently lacks a discussion of this point, which it seems to me is an important one. I wonder how difficult it really would be to find something about this in one of the usual sources?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I would guess it's a reference to the Philip Glass piece and not a general characterization of minimalist music. There are plenty of cited characterizations already in the article. Hyacinth (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Erm, what? There is, to be sure, a Philip Glass piece called Metamorphosis, but I only find the word "metamorphosis" used once in the present article, in the sentence in the lede reading "It often contains features such as additive process, phase shifting, and metamorphosis". Do you think this is a reference to Glass's 1988 piano composition? I fail to make that connection, myself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jerome; the word seems to me to refer to some kind of slow, systematic development across the duration of a piece or movement (probably Entwicklung if I'm understanding your description correctly, but series of discrete motivic alterations may have been intended as well), and not to a specific composition (which would definitely be out of place). However without more discussion (probably more than is appropriate for the lead), this doesn't seem to constitute a distinguishing stylistic trait. /ninly(talk) 15:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. The gist of the discussion seems to be that the vague "metamorphosis" must have been meant to represent the same thing as "slow transformation", so I have edited the lede accordingly (though preferring "gradual" to "slow", since that reflects the actual wording in the Nyman quotation in the main text). If I've got it wrong, by all means correct my edit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Low Mainstream Popularity?

Can anyone justify this claim? Philip Glass is about as popular as a contemporary composer can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.99.210 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is probably with the word "mainstream", which is defined in very different ways by different people. Personally, I think that a piece of music that has won a Pulitzer Prize and has been released on a major record label qualifies as "mainstream". Not everyone would agree.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minimal_music/Archive_1&oldid=1254102787"