Never again
 

Here's a request for a "song" I hope I never have to hear again.

Philip Glass, Part 5.

I suspect it took longer to listen to than to write. Sounds like he just left the keyboard arpeggiating for 15 minutes while he went down the pub for a beer.

Man! I don't complain much and I can appreaciate a really broad variety of music - but what the hell WAS that supposed to be?

I just heard it, too, and had the same anti-request.

For some possible insight, here is Philip Glass' AMG Bio.

I've always viewed Philip Glass more as a minimalist contemporary artist rather than a musician "making music." Rather than using painting or sculpture, he works with musical tones and sounds. I think if you try to listen to his works as a musical composition, rather than its intrinsic artistic expression, like a lot of contemporary art, you're going to be dissapointed.

Avian

Perhaps, but like a lot of contemporaray art - all it says to me is "let's see how many people we can con into thinking this piece of [used food] is worth paying money for".

That is _exactly_ what most of the music world says about progressive rock. You can probably appreciate the position contemprary artists are in!

Avian

Well when they hear people defending stuff like that Paul Glass rubbish, is it really any surprise?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Neil.

I'm sure there's stuff out there that you like but I (or someone else) might think should go down the toilet.

Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's worthless. If just ONE person appreciates something I create then it's worth the effort.

Well, yes. Many people find their child's crayon drawing beatiful, and numerous art critics were taken in by the work of a w3ell promoted new artist that turned out, at his first press conference, to have been a monkey playing with the paints.

None of that excuses making us listen to the same single chord mechanically arpeggiated over and over (and over and over and over...) again for 15 minutes without any break, change, colour or, well, anything to distract from the tedium.

This is the sort of thing that gives "prog" a bad name.

[QUOTEThis is the sort of thing that gives "prog" a bad name. [/b][/quote]

Except that Philip Glass is world reknown as a musical genius. But if you don't like him, that's certainly your perogative. There are certainly other people out there who would agree with you.

Avian

I disagree with you totally there Neil.

If looking at a pile of bricks in an art gallery turns some people on that's fine.

It certainly doesn't give modern art a bad name in my book and I don't happen to think that the pile of bricks is a particularly interesting piece. Likewise Tracy Emmin's unmade bed isn't that good in my eyes but it doesn't make me think that just because something's MODERN it has to be bad. There are LOTS of great pieces of work out there.

Surely the same applies to music which, when you get down to the base facts, is just another art form.

In any case I've always put Philip Glass in the "Classical World" and wouldn't index his music as Prog in my catalogue...EVER!

I didn't criticize Glass's "work" for being MODERN. I criticized it for being BAD, BORING, MONOTONOUS, INCONSEQUENTIAL.

It's like it't trying to be Tangerine Dream by buying an expensive keyboard instead of by learning to play music.

It sounds like he found a sound he liked on the keyboard and left it playing while he went down to the pub.

I mean, let's get away from generalities and principles - did you actually enjoy listening to that? Is there anyone here who did? If do, tell me why then we have something worth conversing about.

I think you missed the point of my last post Neil.

I was replying to your comment that "This is the sort of thing that gives prog a bad name"

One piece of music CAN'T prejudice a whole genre.

That's like saying that just because you don't like cheddar cheese then ALL cheese must be bad......nonsense!

List a few of the bands, composers, artists, ANYTHING that you really like. I expect there will be a few we agree are good, some which I think are "almost there" and some which I think are c**p.

For the record. with the PG piece you're talking about. On it's own it doesn't work but in the context of the whole work it's vital.

Buy it and listen to the whole thing and tell me what you think then.

I'm not familiar with the piece in question, but I'd say to anyone interested in Glass not to pass judgement without first listening to Koyaanisqatsi (preferably seeing the film as well, it's great IMO) and Songs from Liquid Days. But don't look for anything like prog rock per se.

You either like "minimilism" or repetitiveness, or you don't I think. I will say that no arpeggiators were used in the process of Glass' music, to my knowledge, unless I'm mistaken, yadayada. And I've sure heard some Glass pieces I don't care if I hear again, but others I've really enjoyed. I even embraced a touch of opera; certain pieces from his collected opera stuff Songs from the Trilogy really do it for me.

Right on there spedblavio. I went to see the film earlier this year with the Philip Glass ensemble playing live to the movie.......it was beautiful!!!!!

I think it's my favourite film EVER!

But Prog?.....nah! Just Genius.

wow, Philip Glass on AM. pretty crazy.

definitely see Koyaanisqatsi, Reggio's filmography is terrific, and Glass's music fits it perfectly.

as far as arpeggiators are concerned, when I saw Glass's Ensemble a few years ago, they played every note. no sequencers. try to wrap your fingers around a few of those polyrhythms, and then see what you think.
Glass's music works on a different level, it's biologic patterns and macroscopic processes set to frequency and rhythm.

get stoned and listen.... :cool:

OK, listen...

I didn't say all of Glass's work is bad. I didn't say all of this genre are bad. I said this piece is bad, very bad, and I really hope I don't hear it again.

Now I did point out, in context, that defending pieces of work like this (note, not just one piece) can give a whole genre a bad name and it can. The bricks and the flag on the floor and their defenders have given "modern art" a bad reputation and works like this (note "works" not one work) can be exactly what gives prog a bad name.

Now bear in mind that NONE of that is in my original post. I don't want it never to be played here again because I don't like it, or because it gives prog a bad name - that all came up in subsequent discussions; but just because it's just a totally worthless waste of my time with no actual redeeming qualities.

So was that painting monkey until the critics discovered it was a monkey.

Being a world renowned musician doesn't mean that everything you do is good. Heck even Yes have produced a few serious clunkers.

Let me reiterate here, I never said I hope I never hear Glass again; only THIS glass.

Is that good? He didn't use arpeggiators but made a piece of music that sounded as if he had? I'm not sure I'd want to advertise THAT fact.

Well that's fine and I won't pass judgement on those unless and until I hear them. Just please spare me that 15 minutes of wasted time again.

Glass Fans of the world unite!!!!!
 

Roger,

I'm SO glad I'm not alone in this thread sticking up for the music of PG.

Have you heard any of his other pieces?

The Violin concerto is beautiful. His adaptation of David Bowie's music in the Low and Heroes symphonies are amazing and if you really want to get blown away get hold of:

"the CIVIL warS - a tree is best measured when it is down; Act V - The Rome Section." Unbelievable!!!!!

Other film soundtracks I've got include Powaqqatsi and Kundun.

I see the PG ensemble whenever they're in London and I never cease to be amazed at how they play some of those notes. We talk about Jazz drummers having an ear for rythmn and "switching off" while playing. These people are AMAZING......

Just going for a smoke now!!!!!

Not having a go Neil.
 

Neil,

Thank you for starting what has been one of the most animated discussions I've seen on the Forums for quite a while.

Excellent!!!!

Re: Glass Fans of the world unite!!!!!
 

I haven't checked out which song from the request list actually played, but I can guess it was from "Music In Twelve Parts" or some similar work from early on in Glass's career. Keith's suggestions of great Glass music all stem from his work after "Einstein On The Beach," his first major opera, which also contained quite a bit of the repetitive music heard in "Number Five." Despite the importance of "Einstein" and "Twelve Parts" in the development of Glass's style, I don't think they ever need to be listened to in their entirety. While Glass has never been or never will be traditionally classical, his post-1970's works are infinitesimally more accessible than anything he did before that period. It's like apples to oranges. Symphonies 2 and 3, "1000 Airplanes On The Roof," "Glasspieces," and "Satyagraha" are some more excellent examples of his work, but they are indeed, not for everyone.

Another fan of PG (the other one),

for those of you that don't enjoy PG(and those of you that do!), you might try John Adams, especially Harmonium (ECM 1277). really fabulous stuff, taking minimalism and imbuing it with a melodic sense, full of dynamic, textural, and emotional shifts. His treatment of Emily Dickinson's Wild Nights, is nothing short of incredible.
well, at least I like it... :D

so much music, so little time and money...

Re: Re: Glass Fans of the world unite!!!!!
 

It was called Part 5.

It was actually quite pleasant, if unimaginative, for the first 30-40 secs. Then it started getting boring because it just repeated over and over. By the end of the second minute it was really grating hearing the same thing over and over and before it was half way through it just sounded hair-pullingly, cut my ears off bad simply by being the same thing, that wasn't that good in the first place, and repeating it over and over again.

An aural equivalent of the chinese Drip Torture.

For all I know he's done some good stuff. For all I know this doesn't sound bad when it's used as a movie soundtrack.

As a piece of stand-alone music for listening to, though, I didn't notice any redeeming qualities after the first 30 secs.

Music in Twelve Parts is BY FAR the most repetitive of Philip Glass' works.

I'm still in the process of discovering which of his works to purchase for myself, as well as for AM.

Based on the 30 second sound clips I heard on CD Universe, 12 Parts sounded great. I have to admit, when I listend to the whole thing, I was dissappointed as in many places it felt longer than it needed to be. However, for the time being, I'm leaving it on the playlist. Some parts are better than others, and listen to anything from "Glassworks" or "The Photographer" - I think you'll be much happier.

As I acquire more Glass, we may reevaluate some of Music in 12 Parts and remove some of it.

Keep commenting!

The best Glass album for AM's playlist would probably be "1000 Airplanes on the Roof." It's very representative of his works in the 80's and early 90's--not repetitive, shorter songs (the longest track might be 5 minutes), varying styles and I think a few vocals thrown in at certain places (Linda Ronstadt was a guest artist on the recording).

Another one that might fit would be "Passages," an album he wrote and performed with Ravi Shankar. It's not so much prog as world music, but would make a great addition to a personal collection if it doesn't quite fit here.

Music in Twelve Parts in definitely a challenging listen - Twelve 15 minute pieces strected over three discs, and all have similar themes.

For the record, Glass is a major influence of MIke Oldfield.



Has anyone seen the one-act play "Philip Glass Buys a Loaf of Bread"? I acted in it once and it was pretty cool.

What???????
 

Wow!

I think the reply could have been, "well if you don't like it, don't listen", Avian - not that record-reviewer avant-garde speak like "minimalist, sculptured" etc. Come on! The guy doesn't like it! Why do either of you argue about that? I don't like it at all, personally - but I don't begrudge anyone else's right to.

Roger, please don't tell me to get stoned and listen to something - if it was worth it, you wouldn't need to get stoned. Even flies fornicating are interesting while stoned (but not Nick Mason - ooh, another Nick Mason dig).

Music that really gets on my nerves is bands that try to do too much - I saw again Land of Chocolate as an opener the other night - that's a good example.

Unfortunately Neil, you turned the Glass junkies loose. Just take a bathroom break next time.

Yesspaz, I couldn't care less who Glass has influenced. that has very little bearing on whether I like it or not.

And Jim, why would you remove parts of a catalogue like that? On what basis? What's left, then, music in Three parts?

And finally Keith, if I don't like Cheddar cheese, it won't spoil the whole block - but if it's limburger, maybe!

Is there anyone out there I haven't attacked?

Re: What???????
 

Rick,
you're absolutely right, though I can't say I ever watched flies... :D

my point was that Glass' music is trying to describe something outside our normal way of thinking, or a process that we haven't examined in these terms. sometimes we need a nudge to get us to see things differently.

I don't drink, and I haven't smoked for several years, but I'm still enjoying all this great prog! :cool:

Roger that -
 

actually Roger, you're one of the more measured Posters - keep it up. By the way did you hear that Rich Williams guested on a Glass Hammer cover of "Portrait" at Nearfest? Whoa nelly!

Re: What???????
 

The flippant answer would be "Because I can."

But simply, as Program Director, I'm trying to have the best mix of music available for the station, and if some of the pieces don't cut it in my opinion, I'll remove them. Kind of like when I add one song from an artist.

One mildly interesting point - Music in Twelve Parts was originally one piece - Part One - the 12 parts referred to the 12 "instruments" used - I think it was 2 organ parts, 6 vocal parts, and I forget what else. When PG first played it for someone, they said "That's nice, what are the other 11 parts going to sound like?" - so he took that as a challenge...

Re: What???????
 

Ummm... like this previous post?

"If you don't like it, don't listen to it" goes without saying, even though I said it above. What I'm trying to do is give some background on Philip Glass, especially if someone isn't familiar with him at all. He IS a minimalist... he is most definately avant-garde - he's also a film composer, 66 years old, yadda yadda... What harm does saying all of that do? It wouldn't be much of a conversation if I just had said "tough!"

Avian

IMHO, the only truly great work by Glass is "Einstein On the Beach", everything else is either an approximation ("Satyagraha", the other operas, film scores and the symphonies), a preparation ("Music in Twelve Parts"), a pastiche ("The Photographer" [but a good pastiche!]), or a failure (just about everything else). To be fair, his last two or three string quartets are OK.

LMG

OK, fine Avian
 

I guess I don't really care enough about P. Glass (had to make it sound like a rapper - he probably does that too) to worry about this post. I should have just stayed out of it. If you guys want to duke it out over him, have at it.

I see your point about using words like "avant-garde" to describe an artist that one is unfamiliar with. But personally, I always felt that words like that sounded high-brow and condescending, like we missed something when we didn't like it the first time we heard it.

Those words also remind me of B.S. words like "important" and "relevant".

That's enough of my personal hell for one day.