Never again

[Neil T]

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?

[Vermillion]

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

[Avian(Admin)]

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

[Neil T]

Originally posted by Avian
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".

[Avian(Admin)]

Originally posted by Neil T


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

[Neil T]

Originally posted by Avian


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?

[KeithieW]

Originally posted by Neil T


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.

[Neil T]

Originally posted by Keith Waye


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Neil.

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.

[Avian(Admin)]

[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

[KeithieW]

Originally posted by Neil T
This is the sort of thing that gives "prog" a bad name.

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!

[Neil T]

Originally posted by Keith Waye


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.

[KeithieW]

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.

[spedblavio]

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.

[KeithieW]

Originally posted by spedblavio
listening to Koyaanisqatsi (preferably seeing the film as well, it's great IMO)

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.

[roger]

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....

[Neil T]

Originally posted by Keith Waye
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!

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.

[Neil T]

Originally posted by Avian

Except that Philip Glass is world reknown as a musical genius.

Avian [/b]

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.

[Neil T]

Originally posted by spedblavio
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

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

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,[/b]

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.

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. [/b]

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.

[KeithieW]

Originally posted by roger
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....

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!!!!!

[KeithieW]

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!!!!