Re: Bebop and minimalism
>Nick Rothwell writes:
>> (Max)imalism is a genre of music that is Franco-Amercian in origin
>Ooh, I don't think so! My album, and all my live projects, makePlease forgive me. What I meant to say is that (Max)imalism had its
>extremely heavy use of MAX, and I'm neither French nor American, and
>so neither is my music.
origins with (max)imalists Miller Puckette and David Zaricarelli (they
are Amercian, aren't they?), among others, at the IRCAM centre, which is
a Mecca in Paris for electronic music where (much to its detriment) one
leaves one's drum and bass and minimalist music at the door in the
Happily, (max)imalism has taken root in many countries and cultures,
including the homeland of my Welsh ancestors (Dewiswch enw Cymreag - a
dewiswch gyda'r llyfr hwn!).
That being said, the following comment from Richard@... really
blew my mind:
>I would agree with this, and have no difficulty with classifying asI'm jealous. Why didn't I think of that?
>"minimalist" music which is extremely similar to the kind of work
>being done by the "original" minimalists (ie those who first worked
>under that rubric). Just as I don't have a problem with saying that
>there are plenty of bebop bands in London at the moment, even
>though bebop as a genre is usually dated roughly 1940-1950.
>What I think we're getting to is the idea that "minimalism" is aRich goes on to recommend the use of term "post-minimalism".
>*genre* (like bebop) not a general descriptive term (like "loud" or
The first time I saw "post-minimalism" used by a critic was in 1978 by
Greg Sandow in the Village Voice (in NYC) to describe the work of a new
generation of composers who were working in a downtown art and rock
context. I think the term is a good catch-all for any Minimalist
influenced music written since the late 70s, just the way post-bebop has
been used by crtics in NY to desribe Wynton Marsalis and his friends.
I think these labelling terms are important, because believe it or not,
they actually mean something to the people who really know the music! For
example, I'm sorry, but jungle is not the same as drum n bass.
I mean, we live in relatively open societies, right? So anyone can call
anything they like "jungle music", but that doesn't mean they are right...
because jungle music will have a very specific connotation to the group
of people who actually made the music and for those who danced to it and
otherwise participated in the rite, who risked their lives going to
bombed-out squat parties and woodland environments and who, essentially,
lived through the exerience, rather than intellectualize about it after
So yes, labels are important. They're important because they stand for
I'm on a run here. Another point that I thought of which addresses what
Edmund was saying earlier is that a lot of music which is "minimal", i.e.
music which is somehow reductive in either its compositional process or
sound material, already has its own genre label e.g. ambient music,
minimal drum n bass, new age music, etc. While this music certainly has
its roots in the music made by the original Minmalist composers, they
already are easily indentified by their more current genre handles,
aren't they? So we don't need to call them post-minimalist unless it is
a group who is overtly trying to sound exactly like Tony Conrad, John
Cale or La Monte Young.... or Terry Riley. The way the post-beboppers
are revisting the late forties and fifties.
On a slightly differnt topic:
Is Paluine Oliveros' piece I of IV a minimalist piece? It certainly is
reductive in its use of material. IU'm surprised to realize that I
somehow never have thought of it as minimalist, possibly because I always
thought of Pauline as a kind of "school unto herself"...
God, I'm so full of questions! I better stop while I'm ahead.
Have a nice weekened, everybody.
- At 10:37 AM +0100 2/27/99, Rhys Chatham wrote:
> just the way post-bebop hasI think the proper term is "rebop". Captures the canned flavor, too.
> been used by crtics in NY to desribe Wynton Marsalis and his friends.
--- X ---