From: utzoo!watmath!cbostrum
Newsgroups: net.music
Title: Overintellectualising Music
Article-I.D.: watmath.4435
Posted: Fri Jan 28 18:07:20 1983
Received: Sat Jan 29 02:34:25 1983

I dont think one could reasonably accuse peterr of "overintellectualising"
the subject (of minimalist music). Whats wrong with trying to figure out whats
going on with a piece of music? It seems to me that there is almost an
anti-intellectual attitude that is always popping up here in this newsgroup.
Any attempt to make some point with music other than in lyrics is greeted as
pretentious hype (witness "this women is about as creative as a toothpick").
I dont think laurie anderson is pretentious. I dont think robert fripp is
pretentious, i dont think steve reich is prententious and i dont even think
glenn gould is pretentious. (well, maybe they are just a little). The most
serious point the last three musicians are trying to make (and I exclude
anderson because I mean I have heard these musicians attempt to make this point
verbally outside their music) is that the trichotomy made between listening,
performing, and composing music is a somewhat artificial one. Now reich
and fripp have attempted to do this with a notion of music as a gradual
process, and gould by blurring the performing process and claiming things
like "there is no reason to record a work unless you do it **differently**"
(thus being a sort of composer) and shunning the listening to and performing
of music as a public activity. I think that all three musicians have been
forceful and articulate at making their points.

One thing i dont really understand is what is the essential criterion for
identifying the so-called minimal music. I really dont detect enough similarity
between, say, talking heads and steve reich to include them in the same class.
(I wouldnt, but people seem to want to).

If there is interest, I will post some of Reichs apology to this group.
Perhaps then there will be some understanding of these amazingly creative
toothpicks.