Criticizing the work is one thing. Trying to bully people for finding beauty where you can't is kinda childish.

Many people do not realize that they do not "listen" to music. They simply put it on for background ambiance, to do other things. And before anyone feels further offended, please see this [0] post from 30 minutes ago on HN that completely proves my point made in the previous post.

> I think to this day its great background music for programming work

Philip Glass wrote his music to be heard in the concert hall. Very few people responding to this article have ever heard any of his works performed live. If people were to actually sit there and listen to his music as intended, the reaction to my post would be very different.

Sitting still and listening carefully is a dying practice. I would challenge anyone reading this to seriously ponder, "when was the last time I sat in silence and intently listened to a long-form musical work?"

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25345602

I saw two performances of Einstein on the Beach during its revival. Glass intended it to be like Indian classical theater where you can get up and walk around whenever you want. I stayed except for a bathroom break, while friends left to smoke. I think Glass was trying to make a state of mind, not just have people hanging onto every note.

Even during Mozart’s time, opera was such a social event that people complained you could hardly hear the music.

I’m all for careful listening, but we shouldn’t invalidate people who listen to Glass the way he intended.

I really understood early Glass a lot more when I got the chance to visit a Richard Serra sculpture in LA. Literally walking in the piece helped me understand this idea you're talking about - when I listen to that music now it's a helpful framework to think of exploring a sonic space, rather than tracking linear music like I would with other composers.

I saw that too if it's the one that was at the Ohio State University in 1986 or 1987. I was just a kid who had never heard of either of those guys, but I still remember it thirty-some years later.

Interestingly that used to be the custom for opera in Europe too. Opera wasn't some kind of reverent Church-like experience, it was the TV on in the background at the bar.

It's strange to believe that you know what people undergo during something as subjective as a sensory experiment. No matter your expertise, you can never really know how another person is perceiving their reality.

We're all given a set of senses and a brain to explore the world in our own way. It will not be the same from one individual to the next. If some people are looking to be soothed by music, while others are looking to be stimulated, does that give one group an authority on taste over the other?

> does that give one group an authority on taste

What the hell? I never made any such comment on the subjective experiences of listeners.

You can enjoy music and know it's "junk food." I like listening to plenty of bad music. I don't judge anyone for what they enjoy.

To call Philip Glass a master of his domain, a rightfully-celebrated contributor to Western art music, or any of this other crap - that's what I take issue with. Enjoy his music all you want - it's all available and in print, and his various corporate music labels make sure of that. Just don't mislead others who may actually take HN users at their word.

> What the hell? I never made any such comment on the subjective experiences of listeners.

It was impossible to read your post as anything other than "I am a learned connoisseur and the unwashed masses are all fools".

Half laughing at the comments, but on the other hand, you always have to appreciate such passion towards any subject matter.

post-Cage I think it's gotten a bit hard to pin down what it means to be a significant contributor to "Western art music." How do you define that? Has Glass been influential (yes), popular (yes), and tried things compositionally that others hadn't (arguable). Is Steve Reich's music "better"? I think so, both as a listener and a performer, but Glass being potentially more popular doesn't really do any harm to anything. It just is what it is.

But I've had as many (and honestly, more) arguments with "anti-contemporary music/art" folks about Berio and Feldman, for example. What is late Feldman doing compositionally? Just shifting around simple chords surrounded by loads of silence while stuffy audiences in turtlenecks nod sagely and compose tweets in their mind for later about how "serene and haunting" this performance was? (I love Feldman, for the record)

DO NOT SPREAD YOUR INCORRECT OPINIONS. ONLY THE OPINIONS OF ANDREWUNMUTED ARE VALID.

Step back and listen to yourself. You are shitting on other people's preferences all over the comments and it's distasteful. If you want to advocate for carefully listening to western art music, you could hardly do it in a worse way.

I've seen Philip Glass in concert twice.

You have some bizarre chip on your shoulder, have given no reason for anyone to credit your critical opinions, and are generally showing bad taste and rude behaviour.

I did recently (in the before times) watch a simulcast of Akhnaten at a local theater, which I quite enjoyed. Does that count?

> Sitting still and listening carefully is a dying practice. I would challenge anyone reading this to seriously ponder, "when was the last time I sat in silence and intently listened to a long-form musical work?"

It's interesting how many people get pissed and come out of the woodwork when you mention this. Something deep within them is slighted or invalidated simply by the mere notion that they might be interacting with music sub-optimally ;)

You seem fun.

Is your goal with this comment to encourage people to give Berio, Feldman, Riley, and Reich a try, or is to try to convince others how much better at listening to music you are than them?

For anyone else who likes Glass's piano work, you might like some pieces by Yann Tiersen or Erik Satie.

> For anyone else who likes Glass's piano work, you might like some pieces by Yann Tiersen or Erik Satie.

And then go find yourself any of the multiple-piano music by the Dutch composer Simeon Ten Holt. "Canto Ostinato" is the famous one, but "Incantante IV" is probably my favorite.

That's a strange dichotomy of choices. Another post in this thread backs up entirely my point that this is music to be played in the background, not thoroughly consumed and heard. [0]

> I think to this day its great background music for programming work

This article was nothing more than sponsored content for a contemporary artist who already has all of the success, publicity, and fandom he could ever need. By leveling him to a tier much closer to reality, and throwing out the names of much more accomplished and more musically-important 20th century composers, I hope to provide a counter-point to The Guardian, which is neither an authority on music nor the broader culture.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25345602

> Another post in this thread backs up entirely my point that this is music to be played in the background, not thoroughly consumed and heard

Those two are not necessarily exclusive. I enjoy some kinds of songs as background music as well as by itself. Why would I listen to background music that I wouldn't like otherwise?

> I hope to provide a counter-point to The Guardian, which is neither an authority on music nor the broader culture.

Neither are you. Or anyone else except the individual person deciding what they want to listen to.

Is your point that the music is bad because it can function as background music and doesn’t require active listening to enjoy? Or that the music is good but the listeners are bad as they play it in the background?

Would your opinion of his music be any different if you were alive when it came out? He is so influential that when you listen all you hear is a tired old style, which would never exist without him.

I'm very interested in what minimalist tropes you would say Berio and Feldman explored in any of their work.

Feldman's second string quartet (https://youtu.be/QPMUHVza-KA) is very long, has lots of repetition, with occasional pulsating rhythms/drone notes. I quite like it when I'm in the mood. There's a lot in it, but it's so slowly developed so slowly moment to moment it has characteristics of minimalism.

This short article covers some of his work including the second quartet from this perspective in slightly more detail: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/17/arts/music-where-minimal-...

Well sure, most of Feldman's work could be described as "minimal" but saying it is part of the body of work that is typically referred to as "minimalism" is a little disingenuous, in my mind.

But maybe it just makes it more obvious that these categories aren't particularly useful. I think it's interesting to talk about those early works in the 70s and compare them to minimalist art, like Judd's or Serra's sculptures or paintings by Sol Lewitt, Stella, etc., but it's just a component of a much broader conversation that needs to be based in listening first.

It's interesting to me that Glass' early music didn't really click for me until I had stood inside of one of Richard Serra's Bands sculptures at LACMA. It gave me a different mental (and metal, haha) framework to engage with the music through. That's probably why the Berio/Feldman comparison was so surprising to me in the first place, because I feel like the music from those composers both demand different kinds of engagement to find them enjoyable that Glass' early music, both as a listener and a performer.

Indeed, much of Feldman's late period fits this description. I would also recommend Piano and String Quartet [0] [1] from Feldman as an extreme example of his interests in minimalism.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_and_String_Quartet_(Feld...

[1] https://vimeo.com/231496382