> It's a ridiculous label to apply to Philip Glass.

I disagree.

>The word "avant-garde" comes up not once in Philip Glass's Wikipedia article The only uses of the word "experimental" are in reference to his early interest in experimental theater.

What's that meant to show? I opened the first four references on that Wikipedia article and all contained the phrase 'avant-garde':

[1]https://www.biography.com/musician/philip-glass

>Philip Glass is an Oscar-nominated avant-garde composer whose notable works include 'Einstein on the Beach,' 'The Hours' and 'Notes on a Scandal.'

[2]https://nymag.com/news/features/influentials/16903/

>Took the avant-garde mainstream, offering hope and inspiration to countless composer-followers.

[3]https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/nov/24/arts.highe...

>The project that would propel Glass from downtown New York notoriety to international stardom came in 1976 - an avant-garde music theatre collaboration with theatre visionary Robert Wilson"

[4]https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_9ugCQfxwym0C/page/n5/mode...

OK, this one doesn't use the phrase in reference to Glass.

That's nice, but none of those references speak to the idea that Philip Glass is avant-garde. They simply (and inaccurately) apply this label to him, mainly because they're mainstream sources that do not actually cover Western art music.

What’s up with the gate keeping dude? Philip is an experimental musician, avant-garde has an experimental aspect to it, so people like calling him that. Why fuss over a word?

And fwiw, things change, language is emergent, words acquire and lose meaning based on how people use it, not the other way around.

Personally, I'd be happy to be convinced that he's not an avant-garde composer. There might be some aspect to the term I'm not aware of. But "the word doesn't occur in the Wikipedia article" certainly isn't a very convincing point.

What aspects of music does Glass experiment with, in the 21st century?

In 1968, it was fair to call him an experimental composer and musician. In 2021, not so much, certainly no more than any composer who is alive and still trying to write new work.

I'm interested; what's the definition of avant-garde as defined by the Western art music world?

It really depends what time period you're referring to. Maybe broadly we could say that it's music that is either notably ahead of it's contemporaries in terms of innovation or that intentionally breaks out of stylistic models of its time to do something new.

So in those terms, Beethoven was at one point "avant-garde" in that his some of his compositions were so strikingly progressive compared to those of his contemporaries that they stood out. They were "at the front" of musical innovation in that sense.

John Cage started to compose music that intentionally and radically diverted from the trajectory of traditional western art music, so that was considered "avant-garde," although it was so influential, that I'd say much of it has become "canonized" in a way that performing it isn't really innovative of "edgy" in the way it was at it's original reception.

Today I think it's hard to pin down because there aren't really any established traditions that composers are breaking away from like they were at the cusp between the 19th and 20th centuries. I've seen and performed pieces for amplified fluorescent light bulbs, 4 screaming men in loin clothes, and for a solo performer articulating gestures in ASL to a pre-recorded musical track. None of it was scandalous, and some of it was quite good.

Avant-garde does not precisely mean “unlistenable.” There’s plenty of music that’s listenable but still way “out there.”

Glass’s music is maybe not consistently on the edge, but his avant-garde reputation comes from works like the “opera” Einstein On the Beach, which is a formidable listening and performing experience, even if it’s heavily diatonic and based on familiar major/minor modalities. It is a sui generis approach to musical structure and musical theater.

Einstein On The Beach is definitely on the extreme end. On the other hand, Itaipu (my personal favorite) and many of his symphonies are about as close to mainstream as modern "classical music" usually gets.

Bwahahahah. You think EotB is "on the extreme end". You've never heard "Music in Similar Motion", I assume?

I'll add that to my playlist, but I'd argue that the difference between 12 minutes and 5 hours counts for a lot! (Although I guess maybe opera audiences are primed for sitting in place for that long? I just don't have the attention span for anything longer than Figaro.)

Scratch that then. Try out "Music in 12 Parts", which is about 4 hours long :)

Glass' early minimalism makes EotB seem almost conventional by comparison, at least to me.

I agree with Glass in that I don't think minimalism is the best term for what Glass does. Call it postmodern, maybe.

>is easily the most popular, mainstream living music composer

But, this isn't an article about Danny Elfman....

I would have gone with John Williams, but I got a chuckle out of this.

Congrats you discovered discovered minimal music.

Clearly looking at his age he is already an elder. Nevertheless he definitely qualifies as avant- Garde. You can compose listenable pieces and be avant- garde

Minimalism was "avant-garde" when it was explored as a response to Serialism. Its history is comprised of works that would be considered unlistenable to most audiences.

Calling any modern regurgitation of Glass's very-listenable minimalism "avant-garde" is misleading and shuts out the contemporary listener to an entire world of avant-garde music - much of it, very listenable.

>Calling any modern regurgitation of Glass's very-listenable minimalism "avant-garde" is misleading and shuts out the contemporary listener to an entire world of avant-garde music - much of it, very listenable.

I'm not convinced that someone simply using the word "avant-garde" shuts anyone out of anything.

For example, if I type "Taylor Swift is avant-garde" did this suddenly shut out listeners from an entire world of pop music?

> Calling any modern regurgitation of Glass's very-listenable minimalism "avant-garde" is misleading and shuts out the contemporary listener to an entire world of avant-garde music - much of it, very listenable.

I think that's reinforced by the anecdote from the original poster, though.

There's still a significant fraction of the audience who dismisses his work out of hand. Yes, they're shut out of even more stuff, but they aren't even open to him, yet.

I could see my mother being the upset person in the first story...