La Jolla Symphony and Chorus: Philip Glass' Cello Concerto

[tjk355]

Glass is quite demanding of his soloists :-)

[thatonemusickid]

I do love this concerto, but I don't think Wendy Sutter is necessarily my favourite cellist. Beautiful cello though.

[StopTheMoti0n]

if i would have discovered Glass before i started playing bass, i'd be a cellist.

[eggplantboy7]

i want him to write a cardboard box and elastic band concerto for a short fat ugly woman from alabama

[GreenlandCat]

@eggplantboy7 huh?!

[ander2365]

i'd love that philip would do some viola work, it will be very nice.

[Juergen50Mi]

Oh, was für ein wundervolles Stück! Heftig, sensibel und technisch höchst anspruchsvoll. Ein typisches GlassStück halt. Vielen Dank für die inspirierte Interpretation.

[Vakdaro]

Incredible concert, we saw this amazing interpretation by Wendy Sutter in Ecuador the 30/07/2010. And also we meet the master Philip Glass. Read about this in our blog. Att: QUINTO PILAR

[ODRADEK111]

please, remove this video from youtube.

For a better world, for a cleaner world, for a cleaner internet.

Let's erase the irrelevant, outdated, shallow pastiche-like music from the web. Let's start with this one.

[2cello]

she f-d up the first note, but after that pretty good

[RunLemmingRun]

People who dont understand Glass....From my experiences minimalism music interacts with my brain in a way different than most music..in that my brain will " fill-in-gaps" when I am listening..it creates a kind of mental state that I don't get with other music, because I think maybe my subconscious is adding more notes.. Philip Glasses piano pieces mostly

. I dont know if others feel the same way

[saddrcrafty]

@RunLemmingRun , true same way loving the gaps ad mind spins

[philglassfan]

Wendy Sutter is a goddess!

[Rheesoman]

aswomeness.....i do like a good cello concerto.

[treasurehunter629]

I just made the audition and will be a part of this, so excited :)

[flammesombres]

I do follow his work with interest, because I think that, at his best, he's a good composer. I just find those good moments so few and far between and it's frustrating! This is a guy who studied with Nadia Boulanger, the greatest teacher of the 20th century -- why doesn't he fully utilize all that knowledge? It baffles me.

[FlowersInHisHair]

My problem with Barbarians is that it's all recitiative, and the chorus interludes are redundant if you've heard Koyaanisqatsi.

The 3rd mvt of Symph#3 is possibly my favourite Glass 'moment'. I agree with you about symph#1 too, and aside from the 1st mvt i never listen to #4. The operas are great, especially Akhnaten.

The concertos are well worth attention: try the timpani conc for sheer bombast, and the sax quartet conc to see how well Glass understands the instrument(s). It's delightful.

[glass0000000]

I think minimalism is a way of living and not only some reapetitive music.And who said that only complex music is beautiful?I like very much Dvorak Cello concerto but we live in 21th century the composers can't racycle music as wonderfull it can be.Probably with his new album ''Songs and Poems for Solo Cello'' may answer all your questions...

[AZZbb22]

I don't know much about Glass, but im interested in minimalistic music, and everything i hear is either "Glass is awful" or "Glass is god" and you're the first person whose taken an intermediate view on the whole thing. Could you please point at me those good moments you mention? I'd deeply appreciate it. Haven't heard much of Glass but it all sounds so repetitive to me... probably because of my ignorance about his work. If you or anybody else that read this could help me I'd be grateful. Thanx!

[jhamain]

@AZZbb22 metamorphoses, the hours sound track, the qasti trilogy and his Symphony No. 5.

[jhamain]

@AZZbb22 oh and modern waltz

[flammesombres]

All I feel when listening to the music is that it's lifeless, bland, and just lacking in any creativity whatsoever.

[FlowersInHisHair]

I suppose I just connect to it in a different way to you, because I hear dynamism, passion and technical skill in much of Glass's music. There are exceptions, of course - I didn't like Waiting For The Barbarians, or the score for The Hours, for example, but I rate the symphonies and concertos pretty highly.

[flammesombres]

I've always felt that he was at his best in the operas and the earlier ensemble pieces (Music in 12 parts, Koyaanisqatsi, etc.). The Voyage being a good example, and of course the Einstein/Satyagraha/Ahknaten trilogy. I found Waiting for the Barbarians pretty good in places, but clichéd in others. The "Dreamscapes" (which are really just entr'acte's) are interesting: it seemed to me that he was actually *developing* his style there instead of just reusing older ideas.

[poetscope]

THE north american premier. Had only been performed in New Zealand Scotland and China (notes per this video, mostly music)

[celloeye]

Does any one know if there is a CD available of the Glass Cello Concerto?

[FlowersInHisHair]

There sure is. Search Amazon for the product code B0002X4UBA and you'll find it. Julian Lloyd-Webber is the soloist on the recording, which also contains the excellent and bizarre timpani concerto.

Also consider the recording of Naqoyqatsi, which features yet more great cello writing by Glass, delicately and movingly played by Yo-Yo Ma. It's almost another cello concerto in its own right.

[elufologo]

This is a masterpiece of the 21st century. As great as any of Haydn concerti, or Dvorak's or Elgar's. It is a pitty we will never have this awesome piece of music played by Rostropovich or Fournier.

[nostradamusguy]

I agree wholeheartedly, yet I feel that Rostropovich plays more beautifully in the less contemporary styles.

[henriqueschucman]

Beautiful music. I especially liked the somber 2nd movement. Thanks for posting this (44 min. ! )

[adilghanty]

does anyone know what is playing at the start of the piece? thnaks

[ingoldofinwe]

Do you mean which instruments? Solo cello accompanied by double basses and bass drum.

[adilghanty]

Thanks, but I see my question was a bit misguiding.

At the start of the video, 0:00 - 0:13 there is music playing. I am wondering if anybody knows the name of that piece.

[ingoldofinwe]

OK. Now I see! That 13 second clip is actually an excerpt from the Cello Concerto.

[azrael8585]

The Taliban would shut this down.

[jdmg15]

It is beautiful, like all Philip Glass music

[stevtomato]

Great piece!

[KUfanThomas]

my brother is going to UCLA and he was able to go to this he said it was AWSOME!!

[cellodude1]

Is the solo the most important voice in this work?

No

Bad or Good?

[anaklasis]

Uh-uh, SequenzaVII, I understand that you don't like minimalism, but you cannot underrate an style by itself. Minimalism is not only Glass and Reich, but also Ligeti and even Sciarrino. Maybe you are talking about "repetitive music".

And I think that Reich is a good composer.

[sequenzaVII]

Okay, that's fair. I haven't heard anything by Sciarrino, but I'm a huge fan of Ligeti. Those early pieces like "Atmosphéres" have about a million more interesting things in them than anything that Glass or Reich ever did, though, and even in "Éjszaka", the repetition reaches a hugely moving climax. Ligeti uses those ideas to great affect.

I think the only one piece by Reich that I found interesting was Music for 18 Musicians. And even then, I only enjoyed it up to (and including) Section 5.

[sequenzaVII]

Re: "repetitive music". It's been some time since I posted those comments, and as always, I've been opening my ears to more and more music. Some of it I hate, and some of it I adore. Maybe my problem with the minimalists such as Glass and Reich is their use of harmony, because just recently I've been listening to some pieces by La Monte Young and Morton Feldman (The well-tuned piano, rothko chapel/piano and string quartet etc.) and even though those pieces are repetitive, I did enjoy them a lot.

[anaklasis]

What about Reich's Three movements and Desert Music? I think they are an interesting example of textures combination.

[sequenzaVII]

Desert Music has some interesting ideas, but I prefer Three Movements. Though I like the opening of Desert Music very much, and the vocal writing reminds me very much of Stravinsky, I think all too often Reich reuses old ideas to the point where you know exactly what he'll do next. The music ceases to become anything remotely interesting or intellectually stimulating, and therefore becomes dry and uninspired sounding. Daniel Variations was a nice surprise, though..

[anaklasis]

I think that we cannot compare so happyly and write comments such as "Bach is not like Mahler" and so on. And also there is no "basis", since we can write whatever we desire.

I think Glass' music become poor. His third symphony has nothing to do with this concert, which looks like an attemp to approach Adams' style. Of course, it's very well orchestrated, but I still prefer his violin concert.

[korras21]

it is luckily more about music than about making as much money as possible.. commercial jingles? it would inevitably lose its value

[Paggot]

Glass is apparently working in the wrong field for he would certainly be a fine composer commercial jingles and lifetime original film scores. Let's leave the concerto writing to people with a few more marbles rolling around up there.

[nkip9230]

Its clear that this is a demanding Concerto- She has the music in front of her, like when Yo Yo Ma performed the Lutoslawski Concerto- another demanding piece.

[sequenzaVII]

Oh come on.. Stravinsky was a genius, Glass isn't. People seriously need to differentiate between personal taste and basic facts.

[rouler97]

phillip glass is an abomination to classical music. This concerto is a slap in the face to the cello repertoire.

[nkip9230]

not necessarily,

People thought that the works of Stravinsky were more than an abomination to classical to music, but his compositions settled in.

This piece just needs settling.

[nkip9230]

ok, here is my official opinion.

Orchestrally, its really good.

The Solo line is not that great.

[sheepbird]

your a slap in the face to the classical music society. its people like you who will ruin music for the world. judgemental people shouldnt listen to classical music. you cant accept that music is about expression. glass wrote this piece not for others but for himself. we are just given the privilage to listen to it. its people like him who are pressing the boundaries of classical music. if you cant accept that then maybe you should start to rethink why your even listening to classical music

[douglakl]

There are so many different kinds of people in the world, and all of them express themselves through different types of art. By diminishing any type of art, we diminish the people who make that type of art, and there is hardly ever a good reason to do that. We can learn from everyone while keeping our own musical preferences. There is plenty to learn from simplicity, just as there is plenty to learn from complexity. No need to hate either one.

[sequenzaVII]

Re: "Art being elitist"

I wasn't sure how to phrase it, but i meant to say that the greatest of art should be on an elitist level. It's something that requires attention and thought, or maybe learning something about the work in question, etc. I'm sure a lot of people can live without doing that and use music like they would a sitcom or something, as a means of entertainment, which is fine, but it's my belief that these things ought to be distinguished.

[sequenzaVII]

I can't remember, and can't be bothered sifting through the comments looking for my, apparently, wrong definition of art, so i'll quote what i'm looking at right now;

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination..."

[sequenzaVII]

I think the most important word in that sentence is "skill". When i think of skill, i think technique, which is fundamental for any musician or composer. This gets away from my argument for a second, because I know Glass has spoken of the importance of technique and that without it there is no basis for a personal style. So I do have some respect for him in that sense, but i really don't feel he has utilized any kind of compositional technique that he's learned to its full extent.

[sequenzaVII]

Am I going to put the average pop musician up with Brahms in terms of artistry? No, because a single work of Brahms transcends just about anything any pop song or album could ever achieve, whether it's good to dance to or not. Having said that, your words about Einstein gave me a bit to think about, but i still maintain my thoughts that Glass and others have sparked this "anyone can compose" idea.

[sequenzaVII]

That's all I have time to post right now...

[douglakl]

Hey, having music to dance to is something useful to the world! But I kid. Ok, then what did you mean when you said that art should be elitist? Why should it be? My point is that nobody chooses what is art or not. If it is the result of someone's creative imagination, it's art. Of course, we all have some genre of art or music that we claim is "the best", but really that just means that that's the art that speaks to us the most.

[douglakl]

Anyways, the definition of art doesn't say how much talent or profundity has to be involved. Nor does it say anything about being musically trained or how old you are or what clothes you wear. So, are you going to say that the definition of art that you gave is wrong, or are you going to admit that more things are art than just what is created by the musical elite?

[sequenzaVII]

"I think that when you say "Art should be elitist", what you imply is, "Elitists get to choose what is art and what is not."

Even better, although, that's not what I meant. I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing deciding what passes as art and what does not, instead of musically untrained, teenage fashion victims who only want to serve themselves instead of putting something useful into the world or giving listeners just the tiniest bit of credit.

[sequenzaVII]

"The defination doesn't say how much skill or imagination has to be involved to make art."

I once got a reply from someone on a ting tings video, i think the exact words were "who cares, it's good to dance to". I think that really says it all, don't you? It's entertainment. I agree with what you said about Mozart being entertaining, and I agree, but while art can be entertaining, that's not its main purpose.

[allegrettus]

houh;

un-well recording, no good balance for the cello, sorry!

[douglakl]

Debussy but not Glass?

It's not helpful to say something outrageous like the sentence beginning, "Glass and his disciples" without really supporting such a assertion. Glass' music is complex and for whatever it lacks in "traditional" melodic counterpoint, it makes up for in rhymthmic counterpoint and complexity.

Besides, to understand the minimalist movement, one has to understand how they came as a reaction to the 2nd Viennese school...a perfect excuse to study a book on music history!

[sequenzaVII]

This pathetic attempt to undermine me is laughable. Firstly, as i've said, I understand minimalism perfectly -- i just hate it. I understand the classical period -- I hate it too, but is there any question it takes genius to write "The Magic Flute"? It's only recently i've found Beethoven to be bearable, but i've always appreciated his music for the talent and creativity it took to compose. Now you tell me why repeating the same arpeggio for 40 years merits attention.

[douglakl]

My attempt couldn't have been that laughable, or you wouldn't have responded to it. I seriously doubt that you understand minimalism "perfectly". Or perhaps you didn't actually listen to the cello concerto? It's not minimalist. Hardly anything he's written in the last ten years is true minimalism, at all. His style has matured and become more complex, while retaining certain stylistic traits. You tell me what is so minimalist about this piece. At least it will get you to listen to it.

[douglakl]

We can argue about the merits of minimalism if you want, but maybe you should figure out what's minimalist and what's not. Just because Glass wrote it doesn't make it minimalist, this piece being a prime example. Did you know not everything Schoenberg wrote was 12-tone, or even atonal? Shocking.

[sequenzaVII]

I've heard these claims that Glass has moved out of minimalist territory, and I don't believe a word of it. Different ranges of minimalism, perhaps. His style has certainly matured from the primitivism of the tacky keyboard days, but even with an orchestra Glass manages to use as few musical devices as his talent will restrict him to. This Cello Concerto is minimalist compared to, say, a Mahler Symphony. It's like he's ignored everything that happened in music post-Schubert.

[sequenzaVII]

As far as my claims that it's lacking in any sort of harmonic counterpoint, I was specifically referring to his earlier works. The ones that many musicians are influenced by, and the ones he's known for best. You don't require talent to create this sort of stuff, yet Glass is heralded as a genius while lesser known composers such as Charles Wuorinen or Elliott Carter get totally ignored in favour for these cheap thrills.

[sequenzaVII]

As Charles Ives said, "awards are the badges of mediocrity", and I feel Glass is a perfect example of this. It requires no imagination or true musical ingenuity to write something like Metamorphosis two, so why is it praised and not Carter's first string quartet? Lest I forget that it's "un-P.C" to criticize anything these days, but where does put us? Standards have fallen, and now anyone can pass off as an artist but where they should be is in the realm of entertainment, not art.

[douglakl]

Why would you compare a Mahler symphony to the Glass cello concerto to see which is more minimalist? It's redundant. It's obvious Glass's goal in life is not to create music that closely approximates Mahler's. And besides, the minimalist movement didn't happen until decades after Mahler died, so why would anyone think Mahler would be more minimalist than the composer who practically started the movement?

[douglakl]

Mahler's symphonies are arguable the height of complexity, so if you compare his work to Glass's, obviously it's going to be less complex. So what piece would not be minimalist compared to a Mahler symphony? Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell me specifically what's so minimalist about this concerto. Or at least give me a definition of minimalism.

[douglakl]

Moving on to the Carter, Wuorinen objection. First of all, let's not be totally melodramatic about how they've been "ignored". From what I remember, Carter has two Pulitzer Prizes for music, for the String Quartets 2 and 3, and Wuorinen has also won at least one. And we don't need to even go into the fellowships, commissions, teaching posts, that each composer has been offered. They are not "ignored" composers, at least by the musical academy. How many Pulitzers does Glass have? Oh yeah, 0.

[douglakl]

The point is that people have recognized and praised the composers you want to pass off as "ignored" for the sake of your argument. But maybe we can agree that Glass has had more broad success than Carter, is more recognizable in the public. Can we?

[douglakl]

Glass is a quite popular composer and I'll simplify his popularity into two reasons. First of all, where Carter and Wuorinen are continuing and refining the great tradition started by Schoenberg and that general school of composing, Glass and the minimalists have basically started their own compositional school. This is inherently interesting! (not to mention the fact that it's a musical movements with a uniquely American origin, also interesting.)

[douglakl]

Secondly, people actually want to listen to Glass's music. You don't have to be a musical elitist to lget something out of listening to Glass's music. It's beautiful and interesting music that resonates with a large body of people, musicians and non-musicians alike.

[douglakl]

"Standards have fallen, and now anyone can pass off as an artist but where they should be is in the realm of entertainment, not art." I thought your last statement was very interesting, quite telling, and totally biased. It implies a strict division between art and entertainment, but the question that remains is 'who gets to decide what is art and what's not?' What exactly do you mean by "standards have fallen"? Can you cite examples and say exactly what you mean?

[sequenzaVII]

Ok, they haven't been "totally ignored" but bear in mind that Carter got those awards in the 50's and the 60's (although the third quartet was from 71', not sure if he got a pulitzer for that), and Wuorinen got his in 1970. Anyway, i was meaning that they're more popular with the general public, therefore there are a lot of composers like that who have to fight to get a place in concert programs, being challenged by minimalists, neo-romantics and that sickening pop oriented movie music.

[sequenzaVII]

Moving on to Art and entertainment. You say that "it doesn't take an elitist to appreciate Glass' works", well, to that I say Art should be elitist, but in no way does that mean that people who aren't musically literate can't appreciate it. I always say that you should enjoy music for what it communicates to you. Just because something is atonal, or dodecaphonic, or uses metric modulation or whatever, doesn't mean it can't be appreciated by your average Joe. It just needs more attention.

[sequenzaVII]

Art has always required some input from the receiver, but entertainment has always come to us, we enjoy it, then move on to the next entertaining thing. That's what I see in Glass, an immediate attempt to entertain, and not to create something that is enduring or artistically valuable."Einstein" now sounds rather out-dated, whereas Carter's first quartet still sounds as great as it ever did, and gets better with each new recording/performabce that's made of it. I just heard the new naxos release

[sequenzaVII]

For example, I do not accept bands like the Ting Tings as artists. The definition of art is "the expression of human creative skill and imagination". I'd rather bang my head against a brick wall than sit and endure an entire album of electronic bleeping and jaggy guitar playing, all of which takes no skill to do. If you put a piece of music in front of these guys, chances are they'll just freeze, give up, and continue their musical wanking in their stubbornly directionless manner.

[sequenzaVII]

Minimalism, to me, is basically a return to simplicity, and non-complex musical textures. One can understand this within the context of the serialist days, when Glass, Reich, Young etc. were getting bored out their minds studying this rigid serial technique. I can understand that totally, but there is a difference between the serial works that were known then, and what serialism has now become, demonstrated by guys like Wuorinen and Babbitt.

[sequenzaVII]

"Why would you compare a Mahler symphony to the Glass cello concerto to see which is more minimalist?"

People try and pass minimalism off as a progression of western art music, I don't think it merits a place in the contemporary classical repertoire for the reason that it seems to be lacking in what made the music of the past so great. If anything it's regression, not evolution.

[douglakl]

Well, actually Carter's Pulitzer's are from 1973 (the 3rd quartet) and 1960. And he did get a Pulitzer for the 3rd q-tet. Anyways, when you say general public, I assume you mean people who frequent classical musical concerts. There are of course "ear-candy" composers, but I don't think you should necessily lump the minimalists in with them, at least the "big four." FYI, I think you screwed up the pronouns in your sentence "anyway, I was meaning...", although I think I know what you mean to say.

[douglakl]

"Art should be elitist". I don't think art should be delibrately elitist (or spelled with a rediculous capital a) to be considered art. I think that just because something is elitist doesn't make it art. Historically, the things we consider art nowadays were not always "elitist" in the time they were written, nore were they always written by members of the elite. I think that when you say "Art should be elitist", what you imply is, "Elitists get to choose what is art and what is not."

[douglakl]

I don't think many are entertained by sitting through 5 hour long operas that have no plot and unconventional melodies, orchestrations, and librettos. And I don't think someone who was trying to be "entertaining" would produce that. I know Glass' primary focus is not entertainment or meditation because he's addressed it in interviews. Glass' music takes attention and listening to really understand. It's a fallacy to assume that music that is repetive is inherently trying to be entertaining.

[douglakl]

I first heard Einstein about five years ago and I still think it sounds great. I listen to Glass all the time (really listen, not just background) and I always feel it in different ways and get new things out of the experience, just like one would expect from a great work of art. There is a lot of beauty in simplicity and simplistic art. Things don't have to be complicated to be meaningful. It's just your opinion that Einstein sounds out-dated, but it doesn't really bring much to the discussion.

[douglakl]

"Art has always required some input from the receiver..."

I'd say there was some truth to this statement, but it simplifies the matter. There is plenty of art that is entertaining, but not nessecarily demanding on the listener/viewer.Many operas can be this way. I can go see a Mozart opera, be entertained for a couple hours, leave, and think no more about it. Of course, if I was to study the score of the opera, I would find lots of artistry.Art and entertainment are two sides of the same coin.

[douglakl]

I'll accept your defination of art. I'm not really a fan of the Ting Tings, so it's kind of weird to be defending them as artists, but I thought there wasn't a lot of substance to what you said about them.

[douglakl]

It actually doesn't matter what you'd rather do than listen to them when deciding whether or not what they do is art. It also doesn't matter whether or not they can read music. It obviously took some skill to write a whole album of songs and lyrics, though we can dispute how much skill was involved, it doesn't matter. The defination doesn't say how much skill or imagination has to be involved to make art.

[douglakl]

"One can understand this within the context of the serialist days, when Glass, Reich, Young were getting bored out their minds studying this rigid serial technique."

Um, well actually, no.

[douglakl]

Young's early pieces were 12-tone. And one of Glass' earliest pieces is a 12-tone string trio composed in his teens after discovering and being inspired by Webern's music. Besides, his composition prof at Juliard was Persichetti, who composed in a varity of styles, from diatonic to atonal. So, I don't think you know what your talking about when you say they were "bored out their minds" studying serialism.

[sequenzaVII]

Well then Mr. Glass is contradicting himself because i've heard him say in many interviews that serialism is "just so...so boring"

[sequenzaVII]

Not to mention "creepy".

[sequenzaVII]

"It's just your opinion that Einstein sounds out-dated, but it doesn't really bring much to the discussion."

So, what does? Picking on grammar? I've always thought Art (forgive my use of the capital A once again) deserved a capital, maybe i've just always (just always; is that right?) seen it at the start of sentences. (full stop, right?)

*(or is it a capital I for "i've"?)

**("just always..."; is *that* right?)

[douglakl]

Uh oh, someone's a little sensitive about grammar. I wasn't picking on you, I mess up grammar too, it's just that the sentence I was refering to didn't make sense and so I was not sure how to respond to an ambigious statement. Some people like to know when they are not making sense. But hey, some don't...

[douglakl]

And as for Glass, I'm not surprised his opinions have changed since his student days. I mean, it's sort of obvious he isn't writing any serialist music any longer. But he used to be interested in it, that was my point. The reason we are talking about this is that I think you were implying that the minimalist movement started because a bunch of lazy composers were bored of studying serialism. To say that is to spin the real story to make minimalism look bad.

[douglakl]

You can spell art with a capital A if you like, but to me "Art" conotes something different from "art". This is what my whole paragraph was about. And the actual arguments of this paragraph, like some of the others, you completely ignored in your sarcastic response. I was sort of disapointed in your post, that you couldn't look past the trival things and say something interesting at least about the things that mattered.

[sequenzaVII]

I'm not particularly sensitive about grammar as i am with people who try to sway arguments into a million and one things than what it started off as. Since then, i've had some sleep, so i'm in more of a mood to debate.

"...a bunch of lazy composers were bored of studying serialism"

The reason I brought it up wasn't really to do with trying to make minimalism look bad, i was just trying to put things in perspective. It's a lot like when Haydn came along after Bach, to me.

[proman84]

I agree with you on one count though. Some of the artists who try so-called "minimalism" really suck in it. They are lazy, and don't know what they are doing. The genre you describing (and doesn't apply to Glass' post 74 works) was never about simplicity or lazyness. It was about complexity and depth. Patterns building on on top of themselves. Granted, it's usually not easy listening as some his earlier take an effort.However, Einstein works perfectly for me and I don't consider it minimalism.

[sequenzaVII]

The problem is minimalism will never express the beauty demonstrated in a piece such as Debussy's "La cathédrale engloutie". And of course, it takes a heck of a lot more talent to create something as spectacular as Debussy or Stravinsky did. Glass and his disciples have essentially destroyed western classical music, not only spiritually, but they've lowered standards to the point where you get deliberate "minimalist" efforts -- the perfect excuse not to study a a book on theory and counterpoint.

[TheArthen]

But Glass did thousands and thousands of counterpoint and 4 voice part writing every day in his days....

[sequenzaVII]

I know, he's very well educated. I just don't see much evidence of that in his work.

[FlowersInHisHair]

This isn't minimalism though. By the time mimalism first hit the mainstream, Glass had already decided it wasn't what he wanted to do anymore, and moved on.

[flammesombres]

I still think this is minimal music, though. Glass' music has certainly grown in terms of orchestration, but that's the limit. He's still working with very basic harmonic and rhythmic ideas -- which would be fine, only it's not backed up by any interesting counterpoint or dialogue between the instruments.

[samsuel15]

So powerful! The first mouvement is juste amazing! Bravo!

[proman84]

"Songs and Poems", especially parts from Naqoyqatsi is some of the best music written in this millenium. In fact, "Primacy of Number" may be THE best piece.

[sequenzaVII]

I listened to that recording, what exactly is so great about it? Vibrato? Certainly not much invention involved, wouldn't you say? Rather conservative and dry, just like his entire output over the last 40 years. Perhaps we could build him a time machine, so he can go back to a time when his ideas about music might have been slightly innovative.

[proman84]

To each his own. If you don't get it , I can't help you.I think the entire record is groundbreaking from start to finihsh, especially in the contxt of the movie.

[sequenzaVII]

Well, if it being greater within a certain context, like a movie, then surely it's good "movie music". I'll admit that Glass works well in a lot of movies, especially in things like the Truman Show, but on its own it seems lacking in substance. This is someone who gets put on the same level as Stravinsky. I wouldn't even put him up with pop artists, never mind geniuses like that.

[proman84]

It's pretty obvious to me that you simply don't get his type of music. I know it's a cliche to say that but it's true. I dare you to listen to something like Anima Mundi, Music in Twelve Parts, Koyaanisqatsi and then his 8th Symphony and tell me that it all sounds the same. I think his music is astonishing. I've been listening to it daily for many years not and I still can't get enough.

[proman84]

That doesn't mean that I don't like other artists, or artists working in the different styles. In fact, my tastes are extremely broad and cover prety much everything but hardcode rap and country.

What it all comes down to is that different people have different tastes and I honestly think that yes, Glass' best work does deserve to be comapred with all time greates. Also think that Stravisnky is overrated (and uneven).It's hard to put work like "Rite of Spring"in context.P.S.I was born in Russia

[sequenzaVII]

And as far as the idea of Stravinsky being overrated, well, I think for as much as he's done, he isn't praised enough! Inspiring about 4 different movements in music is something no other composer has ever achieved. From Frank Zappa to Philip Glass, and from Elliott Carter to Steve Reich, you cannot deny the enormous influence Stravinsky had, and still has on composition.

[sequenzaVII]

I'm glad you can find enjoyment from this music. My problem isn't with people enjoying it, but the aesthetics of the composers who write it. I've heard everything you mentioned except Anima Mundi, and granted, there is a big difference between Koyaanisqatsi and the 8th, but both are just as lousy as each other, in my opinion.

[sequenzaVII]

Are you kidding? This has to be the worst piece of "classical" music i've ever heard.

[ecwaufisxtreme]

Really?! You do make a bit of a point there. It is pretty sedate.

[sequenzaVII]

I just think it's really bland and sterile. There's nothing interesting about it. It's like as if it was written by a 14 year old in the 19th century with an obsession for arpeggios. I can respect Glass a little bit for those early keyboard pieces, but he loses all credibility when he writes complete shit like this.

[sequenzaVII]

I can't stand it when people call him the greatest composer. It's preposterous! Especially when you still have guys like Carter, Wuorinen, Babbitt & Boulez around.

Everyone should forget about Glass before his inherent arpeggios knock all the brain cells out of your head. If you want to hear a cello concerto written by a true genius, listen to Elliott Carter's. Written (funnily enough) in the same year as this one.

[Bartolomeus9]

Thank you for posting about Elliott Carter, I'm curious, I will go find that concerto, could you tell me the name, is it the one from 2001?

[sequenzaVII]

Hi Bartolomeus9! Yes it's the Cello Concerto from 2001. There's a terrific recording available with a few other pieces on the CD, "Dialogues", "ASKO Concerto" and "Boston Concerto". He really is a terrific composer I feel, one worthy of more attention than Glass..

[Bartolomeus9]

Thank you very much, I'm going after the recording on that CD! I've already found some beautiful pieces of Elliott Carter here on YouTube, so I'm very curious and forward-looking to it indeed!

[josetato]

what!? you dumbass,how in the hell this is the worst classical music,are you freaking crazy?or so you dont have ANY FUCKING EARS...yes!! maybe is that....sorry mr.def

[sequenzaVII]

Lol

[CasaTchucks]

Bravo!!

[ecwaufisxtreme]

Great performance. Schick is a good conductor with the orchestra. Finally a conductor who does not mirror his arms 99.99% of the time. Schick has better technique and interpretation than his predecessor. Plus he is a lot more personable, very collaborative and also very funny. He also has a very slick wardrobe.

[silentnocturne]

what cello is she using? it looks like the top is rotting

[proman84]

This is a very very old Cello that they bought for $600K

[silentnocturne]

yeah i can tell. bravo!

[nkip9230]

her cello is a Stradivarius.

He originally made it as a Viola de gamba, but then transformed it into a cello.

[barshai123]

THANK YOU!

[MisterTrilby]

Wow, thank you for posting this. Amazing.

[novostendhal]

Merci!!!