What do you think of Philip Glass?

Question

Would you mind telling me about his music? i really love it, but there is something special about it. what is it?

Answer 1

I can understand the widely varying opinions - for decades, Philip Glass has been an frequent target for critics of modern music. Let's put questions of ego and "ism" aside and consider the actual music. Billy Corgan once said that it's important to think about "What was the intent?" and then "How well was it realized?", in considering any work of art. (This is a different line of thinking than only asking "Do I like it or not?")

I've heard a great number of Glass's pieces, and can say that I hear three very distinct styles in his work:
1) Early minimalism (or what he termed "repetitive pattern music"): the intent is very different than most Western classical music. The whole idea was to create music that was harmonically static, and rhythmically intricate, without a clear sense of direction or goals. Now - plenty of listeners don't like this idea, and I don't blame them! But did Glass do it well? From piano and violin solos, to ensemble music ("Music in Twelve Parts" being the brilliant culmination of this style), even to opera ("Einstein on the Beach"), Glass wrote pieces with great rhythmic complexity and intricate layering between instruments - and earned his fame with music which was unlike anything that had been heard before. If you can make yourself still enough to listen, you hear that it's never exactly the same for more than twenty seconds or so.

2) Music with more diiverse melodic/harmonic ideas: here the intent is clearly not as severe as in the first category, the music progresses through tangible forms and dramatic climaxes, and harmonic changes may occur with as much frequency as they do in Mozart. The use of repetitive patterns is still important, but now it's more in the sense of an Alberti bass - for the harmonic accompaniment to have a pulsing rhythmic drive to it - and the biggest difference, it's generally not the only layer of musical activity. Some of these pieces are Glass's absolute best, in my opinion: String Quartet no. 5 ought to make even a lifelong Glass-basher reconsider! The other string quartets also fit this description, as does Symphony no. 2, the "Low" Symphony and "Heroes" Symphony.

3) A blend of pattern music and more diverse music: here's where the intent is no longer so clear (to me, at least), and the quality of the music also varies greatly. Some of his very best work is here: "Songs from Liquid Days", the film score "Koyanisqaatsi" and the opera "Akhnaten". Some of the work is quite unsatisfying: Symphony no. 3 and the truly dreadful Violin Concerto. It's hard to make a judgement call on "Hydrogen Jukebox", whether its very earnestness makes the piece successful or an overwrought failure.

Whether you agree with my categories or not - the important thing is consider what sort of music the composer was trying to write. And then within those expectations, how does it sound - is the material and the development any good? (Glass has written hundreds of pieces - it's no surprise that some are much better crafted than others.) We listen to Palestrina with very different expectations than how we listen to Wagner - I think there should also be room for Glass in there.

To address your final question, "I really love [Glass's music], but there is something special about it. What is it?" In my favorite pieces of his, which I have mentioned above, I hear a very keen attention to detail, an imaginative approach to instrumentation/orchestration, a strong command of form, and (yes, even!) an impeccable sense of timing. In other words - I hear a good composer at work, one who is able to follow the music where it leads. I would even say it is expressive without being self-expressive, though that's an esoteric notion which might or might not lead you anywhere. In contrast, in Glass's least successful pieces, there's very much the sense of throwing down the notes, using the same old Glass-isms, getting it done quickly - and to me, that's not the same composer at all.

Answer 2

Did someone really quote the singer from Smashing Pumpkins as part of an answer to this question?

As for the question...what do I think of Philip Glass? Not much. Pretty chord progressions, lots of arpeggios. That sums up all of the music of his that I've heard. There's probably more out there, but based on what I've heard, I'm not interested...

Answer 3

I really like Philip Glass!

Answer 4

If you aren't into studying the music, then I wouldn't recommend just listening to it for enjoyment because it tends to get a little annoying (my opinion), but I think minimalism plays a large role in his music.

Answer 5

I think minimalism explains it --

Minimal talent
Minimal ear
Minimal imagination
HUGE ego

What is special about it? It is uniquely mediocre, and excrutiatingly boring, insipid and trite. For minimalist music, I prefer Adams and Reich.

His real talent lies in marketing himself.

Phillip Glass told me himself that he had trouble passing Peter Schikele's ear training class at Julliard. There, you heard it from his own mouth.

Answer 6

You may like to hear the man himself explaining it!

Click on this link;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/glassp1.shtml

Also see:

http://www.philipglass.com/glassengine/

Quite a trip once you can make it work!

Answer 7

''touch my body''