9 ms·

Organ Grinding: When the Audience Revolted at Carnegie Hall

59 points by tintinnabula 9y ago

johan_larson 9y ago
Well, at least they got a reaction from the audience. It would make a good The Onion headline: Classical Music Audience Responds with Something Beyond Polite Applause.
zaroth 9y ago
It’s a long essay, but maybe the YouTube link should appear at the top. Because when you click play and try to listen, you might find yourself feeling quite like they did back in Carnegie Hall. My vote? Noise, not music.
- BrentOzar 9y ago
  > maybe the YouTube link should appear at the top No, because half the readers would close the browser or click Back before they finished reading the post.
- kurtisc 9y ago
  I don't like the way judging if something is or isn't art, or is or isn't music, carries an implication of judging its quality. You can think it's music if you don't enjoy it, think it's bad at what it sets out to achieve, or think it's trite. So I disagree with you on it not being music, there are certainly more conventional pop/rock songs with noisy sections like this piece that don't stop being music when those sections begin. But I won't add it to any playlists.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    I have no bone to pick with Reich, but I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’.
    - nugi 9y ago
      I would argue you are woefully wrong. Much great music is made of sounds only fleetingly able to be considered 'intentional'. A noise that conveys a feeling, no matter that feeling, is music. Sure, I don't sit around jamming to John Cage, but I similarly feel vaugely ambivilant about much pop music. Is it any different? Much good hiphop is atonal, much jazz does not repeat, and much popular techno has but a faint hint of "humanity". And yet they are not just music, but wildly popular styles. there are few qualifiers you can put on music, art, etc. without drifting dangerously into 'I know it when I see it' territory.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        It’s certainly true you can find musical qualities in almost any noise, but “music” by definition is a purposeful structure or arrangement of sounds to convey an idea or emotion. That is not to say that all music must follow some prescribed form or another, but the distinction between sound and music is, at a minimum, structure and intent. And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. Structured noise can certainly evoke an emotion — in this case for instance, confusion and disgust, and likely this is intentional. It may be an artform but I don’t think the noise is meant to be musical so much as it is meant to provocate.
        tjr225 9y ago
        > And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. This is artwork, and your impression is largely irrelevant. This sentiment that it's too simple or too unintentional reminds me of how I felt when I was 12 and laid eyes upon Clyfford Still's 1951-52 at the Chicago Art Institute. It didn't seem like art to me at the time, but now I see that it is- and that I don't get to define what art is or isn't.
        zaroth 9y ago
        Hah, as artwork the only thing that is relevant is our personal impressions! My impression may not be relevant to you and vice verse, but who cares? I never said it wasn’t performance art through noise. It’s definitely performance art through noise. It’s just that if there is any meaning to the word “music” above and beyond “structured noise” then I’m not sure this hits the bar. @jedimastert commented below that in fact it was precisely this threshold which the artist was exploring in this piece, so instead of foreclosing on the discussion outright as somehow diminishing their work, maybe appreciate that there’s an interesting question here which actually isn’t just a matter of “turn off that god awful noise!”
  - optimuspaul 9y ago
    I agree. It fills me with sadness that people think they can just decide what music is or isn't. Frankly it doesn't matter what they think.
- michaelt 9y ago
  My vote? Noise, not music. I've heard the same thing said about EDM, dubstep, metal, alt rock, rap, punk, pop, rock, and rock and roll. The truth is, any time you try to draw a bright line between what is and isn't a form of art, someone will try to bisect the line in hopes of creating something new and interesting. I think when teenagers' music starts to sound like noise to me, it just means I'm getting old.
- ssaew333 9y ago
  Na, definitely music. It's based in sound. It's meant for you to listen to, and appreciate like other music. You could just say it's bad music. As in you don't like it.
mortehu 9y ago
I had a similar experience a couple of years ago, watching Drumming at Lincoln Center without knowing what I was in for. Through the entire thing I was convinced it was an elaborate prank. A person walked in halfway through, instantly fell asleep, and snored so loudly most of the audience could hear him. Yet at the end the 80 minute piece the audience was ecstatic. Here's part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DbqNlUNqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DbqNlUNqc
golemotron 9y ago
It seems like a low grade echo of the more tumultuous premiere of Igor Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring': http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22691267 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22691267
- mannykannot 9y ago
  That might have been more of a response to the choreography than the music. Earlier in 1913, a performance of Schoenberg's work turned into a riot during the 'Skandalkonzert' in Vienna. Even that, however, may not have been so much about the music as the composer, who apparently behaved haughtily at a previous concert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandalkonzert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandalkonzert
mannykannot 9y ago
I am not a huge fan of so-called minimalist music, though among its prominent composers, Mr. Reich is the one who appeals to me most, and I think his skills have developed considerably since this early work. The boorish, self-centered behavior of certain audience members would have made it very difficult to appreciate anything of the work at its premiere. Unfortunately, this is increasingly so even for public performances of works firmly in the classical canon.
- eadmund 9y ago
  > The boorish, self-centered behavior of certain audience members would have made it very difficult to appreciate anything of the work at its premiere. Is it the audiences or the composers & performers who are boorish & self-centred? This quote from the article is a bit revealing: ‘For sure, by tomorrow, everyone in the world is going to know about you and your music.’ Good music isn’t about being known; it’s about good music. No doubt someone could release 40 minutes of flatulence and get everyone talking about it — but that wouldn’t make it good music. When audiences reject music, maybe it’s bad.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    If the intent was to provoke a hostile reaction, then I would tend to agree, but I think it was a good-faith attempt to make enjoyable music that was not immediately successful, but which had a silver lining for the apparently dejected composer. If you go to a concert of new works, I think you have a obligation to not interfere with the rest of the audience's attempt to appreciate it, even if you do not. It seems that the objectors' rejection of the work was not shared by the whole audience, or even a majority.
    - melq 9y ago
      Not that I condone the audience's behavior, but this was not the premiere. They mention having played it in Boston before taking it to NY.
- bjoli 9y ago
Jgrubb 9y ago
I don't know what's the matter with me, but I love this.
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  nothing at all. I am a huge fan of Reich (and other minimalists) I can appreciate that others may not like it, there are many types of music that I don't like but I would never disparage someone for liking it.
- sosuke 9y ago
  Nothing is wrong with you, it was enjoyable. Very very different. I found myself bobbing alone with the maracas enjoying the organs as they built up.
jackhack 9y ago
I have only limited formal music education, but I am an ardent amateur performer and listener. But I agree with the person who ran down the aisle at the 1970 performance, yelling "Stop! I will confess!" Western music requires rhythm, melody, harmony. (though rhythm may stand nearly on its own.) Beauty can be subjective to a degree (some non-Western cultures do not find dissonant notes to be objectionable in an otherwise harmonious piece) but coherence of chord progression and melody are fundamental. This "Four Organs" piece is to my ear a timing algorithm, far less interesting than a perpetual canon ("song in rounds") because it implements only rhythm - melody and harmony are missing. Frère Jacques... no, scratch that, even "Happy Birthday To You" seems a grand compositional achievement by comparison. It is a meager elevation beyond the sort of finger and timing exercises every music student performs -- play a scale in eight notes. Now dotted eights, now triplets, etc. This sort of timing-coherence pattern is pretty common in percussion -- two musicians playing in different time signatures so that the beats periodically align. But the arrogance of four organs playing a monotonous note stretches this simplistic exercise beyond any value, and to raise it up as a great achievement is absurdity equal to the art world's all-black canvas, empty box, or filled rubbish bin. I'm going to use Rush Limbaugh's definition of art : (paraphrase) "Art is what I can't do. I can throw paint on a canvas. I can glue litter to a floor. I can pound the keys of a piano. That's not art. I cannot carve a statue of David from marble. I cannot paint the Mona Lisa or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel nor compose an orchestral work. These are all art." [edit: added last sentence]
- scarecrowbob 9y ago
  As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can play; that doesn't make them not art. I enjoy drawing though I am not great at it; that doesn't make my drawing not art... that just makes my drawings mediocre art. So, at the very least, I don't think that's a sustainable definition of art. For what it's worth, if you can accept that argument, then you might want to go a step further and question what does qualify as "Great art", and I feel like it's not just way out in left field to say that in addition to execution, the difference is in how it treats ideas. Hypothesizing that people are responding to formal ideas would give at least an account that avoids a redunctionist and cynical "the emperor has no clothes" account of why people who seem to know a whole lot about their respective art forms like things like free jazz, abstract paintings, and strange performance art.
kindohm 9y ago
I attended a performance of Four Organs in April 2017. There was an incredible amount of tension in the room because the performers looked like they were at their limit of being able to successfully pull off the performance. They did succeed, and the audience roared with applause and cheers.
tzs 9y ago
I didn't notice the YouTube link at the bottom of that article, so went searching myself, and found a different recording of it [1]. That's the 2002 remastered version. It's longer than the one linked in the article--I don't know if the tempo is just slower or if the remastered version has more material. Then I saw a comment mentioning the link in the article. I stopped the playback of the remastered version, and started the video from the article. Then I switched from watched the embedded video in the article to watching that video on YouTube itself. It turns out that I botched stopping the playback of the remastered version, and botched the switch to the YouTube page, so I actually had three copies of the piece playing, at different places within the piece (and possibly one going at a different tempo). It took me something like a minute with all three going to realize that something was wrong. I only noticed because I rewound the one I was actually watching back to the start, and the intro sounded wrong, prompting me to check the other tabs. I think it says something (not sure what) about this work that I could have three copies at different points within it playing simultaneously and not quickly notice. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BSt3oKpWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BSt3oKpWk
teilo 9y ago
Organ grinding indeed. I love electronic music and the history of electronic music. But as I was delving into that history, particularly its early history when it was known as tape music or avante garde, I discovered that the rift between east and west coast synthesis goes back much further than I realized. I am unabashedly turned off by west-coast/avante garde/tape music. When I tried to enjoy, for example, the seminal work of the west coast school of synthesis (which is to say, the album which brought it into the public consciousness), Silver Apples of the Moon, no matter what attention I gave it, or lack thereof, it was just noise to me. It could not enjoy or appreciate it, even on a technical level. I had the same reaction as I listened to early tape music. The following is my opinion alone. I know it will rankle those who love this stuff: I can find no beauty here, nor anything that pleases the ear or elevates the spirit. The emotional chord this music strikes in me differs from nails on a chalkboard only in degree. This is not because I can only enjoy the modalities of western diatonic music. I have learned to appreciate and enjoy a lot of eastern, middle-eastern, and african music, even in scales decidedly bizarre to western ears. But what all those schools of music have in common is an internal cultural unity and structure. Each speaks with its own language, and this language can be learned. Avant Garde is deconstructionist by its very nature, rejecting all unity, structure, and modality as too constraining to the composer. But the result (again, my opinion) is not an expansion of expression, but a lack thereof, and a decent into chaos.
- phlakaton 9y ago
  I don't think that's the right definition of avant garde. Though there's no unified language between _all_ of the works of art collected under this banner, that's not to say that there aren't working dialects that help to shape the exploration. Otherwise, your distinction between east-coast and west-coast synthesis would be meaningless, after all! Recall that serialism, which is practically the first thing that comes to mind for many people when they think of avant-garde music, was essentially a _structuralist_, not a deconstructionist, movement. The deconstruction of the tonic system was what came before, in the music of the late 19th and early 20th century. Serialism encompasses various attempts to build a new musical language from the remains. So it is with Steve Reich. Rather than focusing purely on what Reich's music takes away, you will get more from his work if you look at what he is trying to _build._
draw_down 9y ago
It is not a very stimulating piece of music, at least as far as listening goes. It was probably fun to write, and maybe even to perform. Still, I think it is important for such art to exist, to the extent that it opens up space for new ways of thinking and creating to come into existence. Where would we be if everything had to be harmonious, wholesome, a product of a singular cultural unity, easily understood, pleasurable and unchallenging?
phlakaton 9y ago
This is my second time encountering this piece, and based on my experience with other electroacoustic compositions, it seems to me that the venue and position of sound sources would make a huge difference in the perception, and reception, of this work. For example, I could see this piece fitting right into a contemporary museum setting. It wouldn't be at all out of place as an exhibit in the annual "Garden of Memory" that takes place in Oakland every year. It seems to me to invite both casual and meditative experiences, neither of which an orchestra hall is ideally suited for. What would it be like if I were hearing it in surround sound, with significant spatial separation between the speakers? Or a binaural recording on headphones? Would it come off as more of a kind of heterophony? Even better: can you imagine a piece like this being pulled off at one of those great Baroque cathedrals in Europe where there are antiphonal organs positioned around the cathedral? I've been dreaming of the possibilities ever since I visited one...
dsrftyjdrtyn 9y ago
Is anyone else surprised by the high proportion of dismissive comments here? Of all Reich's work, this is one of my least favourite, but it is certainly music; not noise, not a joke, and not intended as lazy provocation. Reich himself has notoriously conservative views on music, and here he is repeatedly framed as a charlatan! I often wonder how society will make progress on truly divisive issues when moderately deviant works like this one remain controversial 45 years onward. How will we embrace the proverbial other, and react to difference with compassion when we can't even exercise these principles through our reception of art?
ciconia 9y ago
The biggest turnoff about classical music is how so-called connoisseurs will dissect and analyse a piece of music ad nauseum, in order to provide legitimacy and authority to their aesthetic judgement of a piece of music. You like the music? Fine. You don't? That's also fine. But personally, reading stuff like "the final resolution of the cadence sounds like nothing less than a great Amen" reminds me why I don't go to classical music concert anymore.
filoeleven 9y ago
There are a lot of negative comments here about the piece, and I’m not going to disagree with anyone’s musical tastes. I will however caution you not to dismiss the composer based on this work alone. A fair amount of his work is as sparse as this, and some of what is not can still be pretty inaccessible especially if you’re expecting to hear something more traditional. One piece of Steve Reich’s in particular though grabbed me when I first heard it 15 years ago, and I don’t think it will ever let go: Music for 18 Musicians. An acquaintance lent me the disc and said he thought I might like it. I put on my headphones and hit play, and after a short period of acclimation was blissfully lost for the next hour. Despite feeling ambivalent about a lot of minimalism, 18 is my favorite piece of music, hands down. Take the musical ideas behind Four Organs (steady pulses, phase shifting, slow evolution, others) and then replace the rigorous organs with singers and players of instruments with widely varying textures (strings, pianos, clarinets, marimbas). Give the whole thing a rich harmonic structure. Divide it into sections with melodies that expand and collapse, or build up in surprising ways. Make it cathartic and uplifting and human. It’s still not for everyone, but adventurous listeners should give it a try when you have an hour or so to spare. Don’t commit to the whole piece necessarily—the full hour is just in case it catches hold of you—but do commit to listening past the “Pulses” section. That’s just the intro, and what sounds at first like a frantic hammering quickly mutates into a framework to hang the larger, wavelike movements on. It really starts to kick in around the 15 minute mark, when Section 3B begins. There used to be several good recordings of it on YouTube that have all since disappeared, which is a shame because it raises the barrier for entry; I would have loved to link one here. It’ll really take you for a ride though, if you let it.
- Fellshard 9y ago
  Precisely this. Reich's other works do a much better job, in my opinion, of accomplishing his goals, engaging you intellectually without boring your ears, either. 'The Desert Music' is also very good composition, as well, more organic and almost score-like in its structure, if you want his take on something more traditional.

59 points by tintinnabula 9y ago

Well, at least they got a reaction from the audience. It would make a good The Onion headline: Classical Music Audience Responds with Something Beyond Polite Applause.

zaroth 9y ago

It’s a long essay, but maybe the YouTube link should appear at the top. Because when you click play and try to listen, you might find yourself feeling quite like they did back in Carnegie Hall. My vote? Noise, not music.

BrentOzar 9y ago
> maybe the YouTube link should appear at the top No, because half the readers would close the browser or click Back before they finished reading the post.
kurtisc 9y ago
I don't like the way judging if something is or isn't art, or is or isn't music, carries an implication of judging its quality. You can think it's music if you don't enjoy it, think it's bad at what it sets out to achieve, or think it's trite. So I disagree with you on it not being music, there are certainly more conventional pop/rock songs with noisy sections like this piece that don't stop being music when those sections begin. But I won't add it to any playlists.
- zaroth 9y ago
  I have no bone to pick with Reich, but I do think to call something music, the bar is higher than ‘sound made intentionally’.
  - nugi 9y ago
    I would argue you are woefully wrong. Much great music is made of sounds only fleetingly able to be considered 'intentional'. A noise that conveys a feeling, no matter that feeling, is music. Sure, I don't sit around jamming to John Cage, but I similarly feel vaugely ambivilant about much pop music. Is it any different? Much good hiphop is atonal, much jazz does not repeat, and much popular techno has but a faint hint of "humanity". And yet they are not just music, but wildly popular styles. there are few qualifiers you can put on music, art, etc. without drifting dangerously into 'I know it when I see it' territory.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      It’s certainly true you can find musical qualities in almost any noise, but “music” by definition is a purposeful structure or arrangement of sounds to convey an idea or emotion. That is not to say that all music must follow some prescribed form or another, but the distinction between sound and music is, at a minimum, structure and intent. And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. Structured noise can certainly evoke an emotion — in this case for instance, confusion and disgust, and likely this is intentional. It may be an artform but I don’t think the noise is meant to be musical so much as it is meant to provocate.
      - tjr225 9y ago
        > And it is also possible to intentionally structure some sounds in a way as to be not music, or unmusic, which is the impression I get listening to Four Organs. This is artwork, and your impression is largely irrelevant. This sentiment that it's too simple or too unintentional reminds me of how I felt when I was 12 and laid eyes upon Clyfford Still's 1951-52 at the Chicago Art Institute. It didn't seem like art to me at the time, but now I see that it is- and that I don't get to define what art is or isn't.
        zaroth 9y ago
        Hah, as artwork the only thing that is relevant is our personal impressions! My impression may not be relevant to you and vice verse, but who cares? I never said it wasn’t performance art through noise. It’s definitely performance art through noise. It’s just that if there is any meaning to the word “music” above and beyond “structured noise” then I’m not sure this hits the bar. @jedimastert commented below that in fact it was precisely this threshold which the artist was exploring in this piece, so instead of foreclosing on the discussion outright as somehow diminishing their work, maybe appreciate that there’s an interesting question here which actually isn’t just a matter of “turn off that god awful noise!”
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  I agree. It fills me with sadness that people think they can just decide what music is or isn't. Frankly it doesn't matter what they think.
michaelt 9y ago
My vote? Noise, not music. I've heard the same thing said about EDM, dubstep, metal, alt rock, rap, punk, pop, rock, and rock and roll. The truth is, any time you try to draw a bright line between what is and isn't a form of art, someone will try to bisect the line in hopes of creating something new and interesting. I think when teenagers' music starts to sound like noise to me, it just means I'm getting old.
ssaew333 9y ago
Na, definitely music. It's based in sound. It's meant for you to listen to, and appreciate like other music. You could just say it's bad music. As in you don't like it.

mortehu 9y ago

I had a similar experience a couple of years ago, watching Drumming at Lincoln Center without knowing what I was in for. Through the entire thing I was convinced it was an elaborate prank. A person walked in halfway through, instantly fell asleep, and snored so loudly most of the audience could hear him. Yet at the end the 80 minute piece the audience was ecstatic. Here's part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DbqNlUNqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DbqNlUNqc

golemotron 9y ago

It seems like a low grade echo of the more tumultuous premiere of Igor Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring': http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22691267 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22691267

mannykannot 9y ago
That might have been more of a response to the choreography than the music. Earlier in 1913, a performance of Schoenberg's work turned into a riot during the 'Skandalkonzert' in Vienna. Even that, however, may not have been so much about the music as the composer, who apparently behaved haughtily at a previous concert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandalkonzert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandalkonzert

mannykannot 9y ago

I am not a huge fan of so-called minimalist music, though among its prominent composers, Mr. Reich is the one who appeals to me most, and I think his skills have developed considerably since this early work. The boorish, self-centered behavior of certain audience members would have made it very difficult to appreciate anything of the work at its premiere. Unfortunately, this is increasingly so even for public performances of works firmly in the classical canon.

eadmund 9y ago
> The boorish, self-centered behavior of certain audience members would have made it very difficult to appreciate anything of the work at its premiere. Is it the audiences or the composers & performers who are boorish & self-centred? This quote from the article is a bit revealing: ‘For sure, by tomorrow, everyone in the world is going to know about you and your music.’ Good music isn’t about being known; it’s about good music. No doubt someone could release 40 minutes of flatulence and get everyone talking about it — but that wouldn’t make it good music. When audiences reject music, maybe it’s bad.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  If the intent was to provoke a hostile reaction, then I would tend to agree, but I think it was a good-faith attempt to make enjoyable music that was not immediately successful, but which had a silver lining for the apparently dejected composer. If you go to a concert of new works, I think you have a obligation to not interfere with the rest of the audience's attempt to appreciate it, even if you do not. It seems that the objectors' rejection of the work was not shared by the whole audience, or even a majority.
  - melq 9y ago
    Not that I condone the audience's behavior, but this was not the premiere. They mention having played it in Boston before taking it to NY.
bjoli 9y ago

Jgrubb 9y ago

I don't know what's the matter with me, but I love this.

optimuspaul 9y ago
nothing at all. I am a huge fan of Reich (and other minimalists) I can appreciate that others may not like it, there are many types of music that I don't like but I would never disparage someone for liking it.
sosuke 9y ago
Nothing is wrong with you, it was enjoyable. Very very different. I found myself bobbing alone with the maracas enjoying the organs as they built up.

jackhack 9y ago

I have only limited formal music education, but I am an ardent amateur performer and listener. But I agree with the person who ran down the aisle at the 1970 performance, yelling "Stop! I will confess!" Western music requires rhythm, melody, harmony. (though rhythm may stand nearly on its own.) Beauty can be subjective to a degree (some non-Western cultures do not find dissonant notes to be objectionable in an otherwise harmonious piece) but coherence of chord progression and melody are fundamental. This "Four Organs" piece is to my ear a timing algorithm, far less interesting than a perpetual canon ("song in rounds") because it implements only rhythm - melody and harmony are missing. Frère Jacques... no, scratch that, even "Happy Birthday To You" seems a grand compositional achievement by comparison. It is a meager elevation beyond the sort of finger and timing exercises every music student performs -- play a scale in eight notes. Now dotted eights, now triplets, etc. This sort of timing-coherence pattern is pretty common in percussion -- two musicians playing in different time signatures so that the beats periodically align. But the arrogance of four organs playing a monotonous note stretches this simplistic exercise beyond any value, and to raise it up as a great achievement is absurdity equal to the art world's all-black canvas, empty box, or filled rubbish bin. I'm going to use Rush Limbaugh's definition of art : (paraphrase) "Art is what I can't do. I can throw paint on a canvas. I can glue litter to a floor. I can pound the keys of a piano. That's not art. I cannot carve a statue of David from marble. I cannot paint the Mona Lisa or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel nor compose an orchestral work. These are all art." [edit: added last sentence]

scarecrowbob 9y ago
As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. Like, there are plenty of musical pieces I can play; that doesn't make them not art. I enjoy drawing though I am not great at it; that doesn't make my drawing not art... that just makes my drawings mediocre art. So, at the very least, I don't think that's a sustainable definition of art. For what it's worth, if you can accept that argument, then you might want to go a step further and question what does qualify as "Great art", and I feel like it's not just way out in left field to say that in addition to execution, the difference is in how it treats ideas. Hypothesizing that people are responding to formal ideas would give at least an account that avoids a redunctionist and cynical "the emperor has no clothes" account of why people who seem to know a whole lot about their respective art forms like things like free jazz, abstract paintings, and strange performance art.

kindohm 9y ago

I attended a performance of Four Organs in April 2017. There was an incredible amount of tension in the room because the performers looked like they were at their limit of being able to successfully pull off the performance. They did succeed, and the audience roared with applause and cheers.

tzs 9y ago

I didn't notice the YouTube link at the bottom of that article, so went searching myself, and found a different recording of it [1]. That's the 2002 remastered version. It's longer than the one linked in the article--I don't know if the tempo is just slower or if the remastered version has more material. Then I saw a comment mentioning the link in the article. I stopped the playback of the remastered version, and started the video from the article. Then I switched from watched the embedded video in the article to watching that video on YouTube itself. It turns out that I botched stopping the playback of the remastered version, and botched the switch to the YouTube page, so I actually had three copies of the piece playing, at different places within the piece (and possibly one going at a different tempo). It took me something like a minute with all three going to realize that something was wrong. I only noticed because I rewound the one I was actually watching back to the start, and the intro sounded wrong, prompting me to check the other tabs. I think it says something (not sure what) about this work that I could have three copies at different points within it playing simultaneously and not quickly notice. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BSt3oKpWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BSt3oKpWk

teilo 9y ago

Organ grinding indeed. I love electronic music and the history of electronic music. But as I was delving into that history, particularly its early history when it was known as tape music or avante garde, I discovered that the rift between east and west coast synthesis goes back much further than I realized. I am unabashedly turned off by west-coast/avante garde/tape music. When I tried to enjoy, for example, the seminal work of the west coast school of synthesis (which is to say, the album which brought it into the public consciousness), Silver Apples of the Moon, no matter what attention I gave it, or lack thereof, it was just noise to me. It could not enjoy or appreciate it, even on a technical level. I had the same reaction as I listened to early tape music. The following is my opinion alone. I know it will rankle those who love this stuff: I can find no beauty here, nor anything that pleases the ear or elevates the spirit. The emotional chord this music strikes in me differs from nails on a chalkboard only in degree. This is not because I can only enjoy the modalities of western diatonic music. I have learned to appreciate and enjoy a lot of eastern, middle-eastern, and african music, even in scales decidedly bizarre to western ears. But what all those schools of music have in common is an internal cultural unity and structure. Each speaks with its own language, and this language can be learned. Avant Garde is deconstructionist by its very nature, rejecting all unity, structure, and modality as too constraining to the composer. But the result (again, my opinion) is not an expansion of expression, but a lack thereof, and a decent into chaos.

phlakaton 9y ago
I don't think that's the right definition of avant garde. Though there's no unified language between _all_ of the works of art collected under this banner, that's not to say that there aren't working dialects that help to shape the exploration. Otherwise, your distinction between east-coast and west-coast synthesis would be meaningless, after all! Recall that serialism, which is practically the first thing that comes to mind for many people when they think of avant-garde music, was essentially a _structuralist_, not a deconstructionist, movement. The deconstruction of the tonic system was what came before, in the music of the late 19th and early 20th century. Serialism encompasses various attempts to build a new musical language from the remains. So it is with Steve Reich. Rather than focusing purely on what Reich's music takes away, you will get more from his work if you look at what he is trying to _build._

draw_down 9y ago

It is not a very stimulating piece of music, at least as far as listening goes. It was probably fun to write, and maybe even to perform. Still, I think it is important for such art to exist, to the extent that it opens up space for new ways of thinking and creating to come into existence. Where would we be if everything had to be harmonious, wholesome, a product of a singular cultural unity, easily understood, pleasurable and unchallenging?

phlakaton 9y ago

This is my second time encountering this piece, and based on my experience with other electroacoustic compositions, it seems to me that the venue and position of sound sources would make a huge difference in the perception, and reception, of this work. For example, I could see this piece fitting right into a contemporary museum setting. It wouldn't be at all out of place as an exhibit in the annual "Garden of Memory" that takes place in Oakland every year. It seems to me to invite both casual and meditative experiences, neither of which an orchestra hall is ideally suited for. What would it be like if I were hearing it in surround sound, with significant spatial separation between the speakers? Or a binaural recording on headphones? Would it come off as more of a kind of heterophony? Even better: can you imagine a piece like this being pulled off at one of those great Baroque cathedrals in Europe where there are antiphonal organs positioned around the cathedral? I've been dreaming of the possibilities ever since I visited one...

dsrftyjdrtyn 9y ago

Is anyone else surprised by the high proportion of dismissive comments here? Of all Reich's work, this is one of my least favourite, but it is certainly music; not noise, not a joke, and not intended as lazy provocation. Reich himself has notoriously conservative views on music, and here he is repeatedly framed as a charlatan! I often wonder how society will make progress on truly divisive issues when moderately deviant works like this one remain controversial 45 years onward. How will we embrace the proverbial other, and react to difference with compassion when we can't even exercise these principles through our reception of art?

ciconia 9y ago

The biggest turnoff about classical music is how so-called connoisseurs will dissect and analyse a piece of music ad nauseum, in order to provide legitimacy and authority to their aesthetic judgement of a piece of music. You like the music? Fine. You don't? That's also fine. But personally, reading stuff like "the final resolution of the cadence sounds like nothing less than a great Amen" reminds me why I don't go to classical music concert anymore.

filoeleven 9y ago

There are a lot of negative comments here about the piece, and I’m not going to disagree with anyone’s musical tastes. I will however caution you not to dismiss the composer based on this work alone. A fair amount of his work is as sparse as this, and some of what is not can still be pretty inaccessible especially if you’re expecting to hear something more traditional. One piece of Steve Reich’s in particular though grabbed me when I first heard it 15 years ago, and I don’t think it will ever let go: Music for 18 Musicians. An acquaintance lent me the disc and said he thought I might like it. I put on my headphones and hit play, and after a short period of acclimation was blissfully lost for the next hour. Despite feeling ambivalent about a lot of minimalism, 18 is my favorite piece of music, hands down. Take the musical ideas behind Four Organs (steady pulses, phase shifting, slow evolution, others) and then replace the rigorous organs with singers and players of instruments with widely varying textures (strings, pianos, clarinets, marimbas). Give the whole thing a rich harmonic structure. Divide it into sections with melodies that expand and collapse, or build up in surprising ways. Make it cathartic and uplifting and human. It’s still not for everyone, but adventurous listeners should give it a try when you have an hour or so to spare. Don’t commit to the whole piece necessarily—the full hour is just in case it catches hold of you—but do commit to listening past the “Pulses” section. That’s just the intro, and what sounds at first like a frantic hammering quickly mutates into a framework to hang the larger, wavelike movements on. It really starts to kick in around the 15 minute mark, when Section 3B begins. There used to be several good recordings of it on YouTube that have all since disappeared, which is a shame because it raises the barrier for entry; I would have loved to link one here. It’ll really take you for a ride though, if you let it.

Fellshard 9y ago
Precisely this. Reich's other works do a much better job, in my opinion, of accomplishing his goals, engaging you intellectually without boring your ears, either. 'The Desert Music' is also very good composition, as well, more organic and almost score-like in its structure, if you want his take on something more traditional.