Student Report : by Matthew Stone      sp '99

I Hate Philip Glass. I Love Philip Glass

Page 1

I hate Philip Glass. I also love Philip Glass. The aging composer/performer has been a great influence to many aspiring musicians, not only with his static yet moving works, but also by his philosophy in the many realms of music he is a part of. I love this aspect of Philip Glass. It is a shame I can¼t listen to his music for more than five seconds at a time.

Philip Glass was born in early 1937 in Baltimore, Maryland. He began his musical studies at a young age (like so many influential composers of the past). While he was at college at the University of Chicago, Illinois, he studied and majored in philosophy, but all the while, he was obsessed with music. After he graduated from the University of Chicago, he moved to New York to study at the Juliard School. After New York, he took his musical talents to Paris, where he studied with the legendary teacher, Nadia Boulanger (Page 1). But we will get to more on that later.

Glass spent the early years of his career as a cab driver, a plumber, and a dish washer at various restaurants. He kept working hard at his music though, and in his spare time, he stared assembling what would become the Philip Glass Ensemble. This group consisted of seven musicians, playing all kinds of keyboards, woodwinds, and vocals, and eventually, they started playing around and making a name for themselves. Philip Glass eventually gained a sort of a cult following, and took off from there. He eventually made associations with several important names in the music community, including the likes of sitar virtuoso Ravi Shankar, poet Allen Ginsberg, Paul Simon, Susan Vega, electronic musicians Aphex Twin, Mike Oldfield, and Foday Musa Suso. While being an influence to many upstarts (including the afformentioned Aphex Twin), Glass also has his mentors. He says that his greatest influence was Ravi Shankar (with whom Glass was an assistant for in his early career). He says that such things as personal

Page 2

qualities (integrity as an artist) made him such Shankar such a powerful influence. He was also

inspired by his piano instructor, Nadia Boulanger, as well as Hector Berlioz, Franz Schubert, and Igor Stravinsky (*).

While Philip Glass¼s music annoying and repetitive to some (including me), there are people who find greatness in his music. Glass is often described as a minimalist (although he hates that term), a genre that is „based on the extended repetition of brief, elegant, melodical fragments that weave in and out an aural tapestry (*). Tim Page compares Glass¼s music to a challenging painting; one that initially appeared boring and static, but eventually bringing out all kinds of surprises when you really concentrate on it (I compare it to watching paint dry). One shouldn¼t really expect the traditional things used in Western music, things like the articulation, sudden diminuendos, and sforzandos. Instead, the composition develops (quite slowly), metamorphosizes, and changes in a patient way. Those who think highly of Glass think that he is not a minimalist, but rather a „late blooming Romantic¾ (*). Writers like Ethan Smith say that Philip Glass has a remarkable sense of tonality and lyrical vocabulary, which is not evidence of simple-mindedness, as is often the stereotype of minimalist composers. Even Glass said that „once you hit notions like stretching the time frame of a symphony, or composing an opera without lyrics, the whole language of previous periods becomes available again...including tonal, nineteenth-century romanticism¾ (*).

There are those who think different, those who would rather commit suicide by chewing on their wrists than give Glass the credit of being a brilliant composer. People like Ned Rorum, Milton Babbitt, and Geoffrey Wheatcroft question the relevance of Glass¼s music in a world of serious music. Composer Virgil Thomson spent years before his death trying to persuade people

Page 3

the vote Glass into the American Academy of Arts and Letters, but failed because according to Rorem, „none of the musicians would vote for him¾ (*). Rorem also says that Glass is doing the same things composer Lou Harrison did 50 years ago, except that Harrison was writing beautiful and worthwhile tunes. Wheatcroft says that over the years, Glass has become even less interesting. In an article he wrote, entitled Is Music Dead? he said that Glass¼s music has become „a sorry affair, adding that it merited the label minimalism chiefly for its minimal musical content¾ (*).

I tend to agree with Wheatcroft and Rorem, but I do think that Glass¼s impact has nothing to do with his music, but rather with his philosophies of music. Although he is eccentric and weird, he is creative and inventive, always trying to keep up with the technologies of the time. He says that he has a recording studio which is a full-fledged, state of the art recording facility. He has all the digital technology that is available, and then some. His performances have transcended the typical conductor/orchestra arrangement. His productions are technical and sequenced. In his latest work Monsters of Grace, he has created a work which appears as a 3-D image, based on computer realization of drawings created by associate Bob Wilson. This is accompanied by Glass¼s ensemble, four singers and six musicians. It is conducted by Michael Riesman. This work also incorporates along with his music, the poetry of the mystic Rumi. It is a 74 minute work which he has performed in about 55 different cities around the world. The technical aspects used are also very interesting. The composer, Riesman, synchronized the film visually by watching the film and conducting. During the performance, he has a laptop computer he keeps on the piano, and it indicates the performing tempo and location of the film (*).

Page 4

Monsters Of Grace is just one of the example of Glass¼s ambitious attitude toward creating music using the technology of today to its fullest degree.

„I think technology has helped music a great deal. Today with very few instruments one can obtain a full- fledged sound. In addition, sampling provides the possibility to work with an enormous variety of sounds. With less than ten people we were able to perform the soundtrack of Powaqqatsi, while it had taken thirty or forty to record it. Technology is a valid support and it has developed very rapidly in music thanks to pop artists; composers such as myself, who pay more attention to innovation, have immediately adopted it.

That was an excerpt taken from an interview with Philip Glass in November of 1997 about his attitudes and thoughts on technology. Glass is an innovator is the implementation of electronic music, but I think that his biggest influences are still yet not talked about.

Glass has taken a number of roles in the music industry, from composer to performer, and even to record executive. He has created a partnership with PolyGram records, called point music. He describes this venture as an opportunity to „set the direction of the repertoire...but I have to get my budgets approved, so I¼m not completely autonomous (Weidenbaum 2). He uses this as an opportunity also to promote and give chances to his peers who haven¼t been as commercially successful as Glass. An example of this is Gavin Bryars, a British bassist whose career has recently taken off, thanks to Glass¼s doings. This is also just an example of how Glass is exploring all aspects of music, and not limiting himself to just one specialized area.

„Multi track has changed the way everyone thinks about music. I don¼t compose that way, but I record that way. The only people who are a little behind are people who come out of a classical tradition and teach in music schools. Any young composer today knows, it becomes a technical process for them...my studio is too fluid, there are too many things going in and out of my room.¾ (Weidenbaum 2)

Page 5

Glass has always had a strong opinion of the music of the times, and also of the music of the past. One may deem him the typical composer ahead of his time. Like so many of his predecessors, he becomes frustrated by limitations. Even at an early age, he was frustrated with playing the flute, blaming the limiting repertoire (Jiminez 1). He doesn¼t even follow the current music scene anymore, claiming boredom. He can¼t relate with the current thoughts and philosophies of the Universities and such. He said that he feels closer „to artists such as Arvo Part, Giya Kancheli and Gavin Bryars...who are non-academic musicians¾ (Chianura 2). He claims that he is different from the ideologies of pop; doing what the people want. He prefers not to compose for a preexisting public, but rather expand the boundaries of music. And he has succeeded in areas such a composition (in the opinion of some), performance (and technology), and business. Like I said before, I hate Philip Glass. I can¼t stand his music. But I also love Philip Glass. He is expanding. He doesn¼t follow the current trends in music. He takes full advantage of the technology surrounding him. He is misunderstood, but to him that is okay. Philip Glass is the perfect model of a revolutionary. Maybe, after his death, people will look at him the way we look at his predecessors and realize that he was a genius ahead of his time.