Rethinking the American Minimal Aesthetic:

Young, Riley, Reich, Glass?

Benjamin William Power

Dr. David Symons

The University of Western Australia, 2015.

Contents

Background 1

Case Studies

La Monte Young 7

Terry Riley 10

Steve Reich 13

Philip Glass 17

Research Findings 20

Conclusion 22

List of References Cited 23

 It is with supreme gratitude that I acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. David Symons.

His guidance and wisdom allowed me to pursue my ideas to their full potential. I also

acknowledge Ms. Maura Valenti and the academics who contribute to the Oral

History of American Music at Yale University for providing me with the tools to

challenge the accepted musicological scholarship.

Abstract

Esteemed musicological texts refer to La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich and

Philip Glass as ‘the minimalists’. This study brings into question the validity of this

grouping by exploring the ways that minimalism evolved from Cageian

experimentalism. Primary source documents are utilised to characterise the musical

philosophies and seminal works of Young, Riley, Reich and Glass according to the

divergent methods of the handling of musical process within the experimental and

minimal ideologies. Through this, it arises that Young continues the experimental

traditions that were championed by John Cage. It was found that Riley utilises both

Youngian experimental and more determinate minimal idioms, whereas Reich and

Glass exemplify the determinism which defines minimalism. Thus, the paper serves

as a challenge to the grouping of Young, Riley, Reich and Glass that pervades the

musicological literature.
Background

Minimalism is a term borrowed from visual art to describe a musical aesthetic which

exhibits an extreme reduction of musical means to produce compositions without

narrative or teleological intentions. 1 The minimal aesthetic emanated from the

Downtown region of New York in the 1960s, and is exemplified in the works of La

Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass. The notion of these

composers as a ‘school’ is communicated regularly within the scholarly literature.

This conception is common to the important texts: Four Musical Minimalists: La

Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass by Keith Potter2; Experimental

Music: Cage and Beyond by Michael Nyman3; American Minimal Music: La Monte

Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass by Wim Mertens; and Minimalism:

Origins by Edward Strickland4. The classification of these composers as a group has

to be qualified. It is possible a number of the compositions created by ‘the group’ are

classifiable as more experimental than minimal in terms of their aesthetic intention

and musical realisation. This leads to a sense of fracture within the common

classification of these composers. A definition of experimental music and minimalist

music must now be made clear.

Experimental music refers to those pieces that are ‘understood not as descriptive of an

act to be later judged in terms of success and failure, but simply as of an act the

outcome of which is unknown.’5 The most important aspect of this definition is the

                                                                                                               
1
Wim Mertens, American Minimal Music: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass,
trans. J. Hautekiet (London: Kahn & Averill, 1983), pp. 11, 17.
2
Keith Potter, Four Musical Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass
(Cambridge University Press, 2000).
3
Michael Nyman, Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999).
4
Edward Strickland, Minimalism: Origins (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1993).
5
Cage quoted in Nyman, p. 1

  1
notion that the results of the process that the composer puts in place are unknown and

uncontrollable; experimental compositions focus on the process, rather that the

product that the process creates. A quintessentially experimental piece is

Compositions 1960 #5 (1960) by La Monte Young. This piece is a set of instructions

telling the performer to:

Turn a butterfly (or any number of butterflies) loose in the performance area.
When the composition is over, be sure to allow the butterfly to fly away outside.
The composition may be of any length, but if an unlimited amount of time is available, the
doors and windows may be opened before the butterfly is turned loose and the composition
may be considered finished when the butterfly flies away.

This is clearly experimental; an occurrence of which the outcome is unknown is

engendered. Neither the composer nor the performer has any control over the flight

patterns of the butterfly, the sounds that may occur in the performance environment,

or the audience reaction. The piece has no indented product, or aural result.

Therefore, from a compositional point of view, the focus is on the process – letting

the butterfly free in the auditorium. For the current scholarship, it is important that the

notion of experimentalism is defined as clearly distinct from minimalism.

In musical terms, minimalism refers to compositions that exhibit an extreme reduction

of musical means and are bereft of narrative or teleological intentions.6 Similarly to

experimentalism, minimalism eminently involves the prominent focus on a process;

however the results of these processes are often foreseeable and controlled.

Accordingly, a clear degree of compositional control is applied to the process; the

process has no subjectivity, which ensures that its sonic result aligns closely with the

                                                                                                               
6
Mertens, p. 11, 17.

  2
musical intentions of the composer. The musical realisation of the process is generally

a sparsely orchestrated, highly repetitive, discrete musical piece. The term ‘discrete’

refers to the minimalist piece existing as a more traditional, stand-alone piece of

music with a clearly defined beginning and conclusion. The degree of control that the

composer exerts over the product of the process in minimalist music allows the

scholar to define the style as concerned more with this sonic product, rather than the

compositional process. Although the intricacies of the process are brought to the

forefront of the listener’s perception, nevertheless, minimalism sees the musical work

as a completely determined musical entity. This is in direct contrast to the

experimentalist aesthetic. Thus, minimalist music focuses on the product of the

process, which is divergent from the experimental aesthetic, which considers the

process more important than its musical product.

This study will expose the misleading nature of the titles such as Four Musical

Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass. It will draw

upon previous studies and primary source material to show the different

compositional philosophies and techniques that were employed by Young, Riley,

Reich and Glass respectively. In order to uncover the contradictions that are created

when these composers are grouped, the ways in which Young continued the traditions

of the experimentalists will be examined first. Following this, the compositional

aesthetics of Riley, Reich and Glass will be analysed in the context of Young’s

‘minimal’ precedent. By doing so, the concept of Young, Riley, Reich and Glass

existing as a minimalist ‘school’ will be revised. To construct a cogent alternative to

the common classification, the relevant literature must first be reviewed.

  3
The literature review will analyse the texts which consider the four composers as a

minimalist ‘school’. These will form the foundation upon which an analysis of

primary materials (interviews, essays and music) will be made in the consequent

sections of the exegesis. The texts that are to be reviewed will be done so according to

their publication date, with the earliest text being reviewed first. By analysing the

texts in this order, the literature review will show the subtle changes that occurred in

the scholarly canon as academics began to analyse the movement from contexts that

were increasingly further removed from the controversy it engendered.

Michael Nyman’s seminal volume, Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, 7 is

integral to the current research. First published in 1974, it is the first piece of

scholarly writing to prescribe the term ‘minimal’ to the aesthetic of the Downtown

New York composers.8 Nyman explains how the minimal ‘alternative’ grew out of

Cageian chance operations and other methods, such as indeterminacy. He specifies

Young as the main proponent of the ‘inevitable’ progression towards minimal idioms,

with Riley, Reich and Glass being ‘the three other American composers’ who

produced anything similar.9 The importance of this text to the current research lies in

its explanation of Young’s closer association with the experimental idioms in

comparison to the other ‘minimalists’.

Contrary to Nyman, who explains the minimal aesthetic as evolving from Cageian

experimentalism, Wim Mertens, in his esteemed American Minimal Music: La Monte

                                                                                                               
7
Nyman, Experimental Music, full citation in footnote 3.
8
Steve Reich, interview by Ev Grimes, 1987, transcription of recording, Oral History of American
Music, Yale University (OHV 186, side i), p. 124.  
9
Nyman, p. 139.

  4
Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass,10 outlines this progression in terms of

the methods of the European avant-garde. Mertens observes shared ‘ideological

connotations’11 in the works of Young, Riley, Reich and Glass. He justifies his

association of the composers as within a ‘school’ by drawing on these. Mertens does

identify a dichotomy which places Reich and Glass against Young and Riley through

an analysis of each composer’s attitude towards the aural result of the processes they

employ. 12 This segmentation is only briefly mentioned, and must therefore be

investigated further. Rather than expand on the philosophical fractures within the

‘school’, Mertens discusses the composers’ musical links to capitalist and libidinal

philosophy.

The concept, hinted in Mertens’ volume, that the grouping of the four composers is

flawed, is echoed in Minimalism: Origins by Edward Strickland.13 His study identifies

a number of links between minimal music, visual art and sculpture, including the

‘monochromaticism and all-over structure’ 14 that is seen in Frank Stella’s Black

Paintings (1958) and Reich’s Piano Phase (1967). Importantly, Strickland

acknowledges the ambiguous nature of the distinction between minimal and

concept/experimental art. For example, he outlines the inaccuracy of the common

conception of Young’s Compositions 1960 as minimalist.15 Although Strickland does

not make an outright challenge to the classification of the four composers as a

‘school’, his recognition of Young as a composer whose compositions are more

experimentally inclined is central to the current scholarship.

                                                                                                               
10
Mertens, American Minimal Music, full citation in footnote 1.
11
Ibid., p. 87.
12
Ibid., p. 90.
13
Strickland, Minimalism: Origins, full citation in footnote 4.
14
Ibid., p. 98.
15
Ibid., p. 262.  

  5
Minimalism: Origins is one of the most frequently referenced sources in Keith

Potter’s Four Musical Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip

Glass.16 Similarly to Strickland, Potter examines the biographies of Young, Riley,

Reich and Glass in order to explain the significance of their most important works in

terms of their personal careers. Potter begins by outlining his unease with the term

‘minimalist’, but no alternative term is explored.

A tentative acknowledgement of a contradiction in the grouping of Young, Riley,

Reich and Glass as ‘the minimalists’ thus becomes apparent through a review of the

relevant literature. Interestingly, this has not been explored in any significant detail.

This exegesis aims to investigate the validity of grouping La Monte Young, Terry

Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass as ‘the minimalists’ by engaging with primary

source materials and specific compositions. Young will be identified as an

experimentalist composer, who accordingly places stress on the process employed in

his compositions, rather than the product that is engendered. This will be achieved by

interpreting his work as an extension of earlier experimentalist paradigms. The degree

to which Riley, Reich and Glass continued these experimental procedures will then be

investigated. In doing so, a minimal aesthetic will be proposed that does not include

Young’s compositions, and aligns with only a selection of Riley’s works. The

proposed aesthetic will encompass the techniques employed by Reich and Glass.

                                                                                                               
16
Potter, Four Musical Minimalists, full citation in footnote 2.

  6
Case Studies

La Monte Young

Although widely regarded as a minimalist composer, La Monte Young’s

compositional philosophy and its musical result are clearly experimental. This is best

uncovered through an analysis of the lecture he ‘delivered’ to a contemporary music

class at the Anna Halprin Dancer’s Workshop in 1960. The term ‘delivered’ is in

inverted commas, as each section of the lecture comprised its own entity, and was

read to the class in a sequence determined by chance.17 This means that the lecture

was in fact an experimental performance, rather than a delivered speech. Within his

‘speech’, Young states that in his compositions he endeavours to ‘allow the sounds to

be sounds, instead of trying to force them to do things that are mainly pertinent to

human existence.’18 This is a clearly experimental attitude: sounds are not controlled

by the composer, they are merely the byproducts of the processes that are set in

motion. This has obvious links to John Cage’s definition of experimental music,

which sees the composer creating processes, ‘the outcome of which is unknown.’19

This philosophy is manifest in Young’s Piano Piece for David Tudor #1 (1960). Here,

the composer instructs the performer to:

Bring a bale of hay and a bucket of water onto the stage for the piano to eat and drink. The

performer may then feed the piano or leave it to eat by itself. If the former, the piece is over

after the piano has been fed. If the latter, it is over after the piano eats or decides not to.

The results of the process are unknown to the composer, performer, and audience.

None of these people are given instructions on how to determine whether or not the

                                                                                                               
17
La Monte Young and Marian Zazeela, Michael H. Tencer (ed.), Selected Writings (Munich: Heiner
Friedrich, 1969), p. 66. Available from UbuClassics. Accessed 24 September, 2014.
18
Ibid., p. 73.
19
Nyman, p. 1.

  7
piano will be fed, or how it will ingest or refuse the water and hay. Clearly, a process

has been set up, and the results are left to chance; the outcome of the piece is

unknown. The classification of this piece as minimalist is clearly inappropriate: there

is no sense of compositional control that creates repetitive music for an extended

period of time. This piece is in direct philosophical and musical contrast to Reich’s

pieces, which aim for a sense of ‘complete control’ on the behalf of the composer;20

Young’s aesthetic is conducive of sounds that are almost entirely unique to each

performance. Clearly, Young’s Compositions 1960, of which Piano Piece for David

Tudor comprises one of the final pieces, are experimental and do not align with the

prior definition of minimalism. In order to justify the classification of Young as a

predominantly experimental composer, his compositions which do exhibit degrees of

minimalist interest must also be analysed.

Young’s preference for experimentalism over minimalism is encapsulated in his

explanation of the drones used in his piece for the Theatre of Eternal Music, The

Tortoise, His Dreams and Journeys (1964 – present). Young explains that the long

held tones, which can last a number of hours, represent the piece’s nature as ‘a living

organism with a life and tradition of its own.’ 21 In this sense, the different

performances are not discrete pieces, but points within the life of The Tortoise that the

performers grasp to allow them to manifest musically. This means that the piece has

the ability to be played ‘for thousands of years’, guided by the propulsion of ‘its own

momentum.’22 Philosophically, this does not align with the later minimalism of Reich

and Glass, which saw compositional control create discrete pieces which exemplify a

                                                                                                               
20
Steve Reich, Writings About Music (New York: New York University Press, 1974), p. 10.
21
Ibid., p. 16.
22
Ibid.

  8
new determinism of highly precise, mechanised and synchnronised performances.23

Conversely, experimentalism considers the availability of any point in the musical

happening to be considered the beginning, continuation, or end of a piece. 24

Musically, Young’s experimentally inclined philosophy manifests as improvisations

over a long sine-tone. The frequency emitted by a turtle motor (210 Hz) is utilised as

a fundamental, and at times as the dominant, upon which the performers improvise

using certain frequencies. This allows for specific combinations of frequencies to

exist at one time.25 The improvisations that comprise The Tortoise, His Dreams and

Journeys clearly align with John Cage’s definition of experimental music; a process is

set in place which has an outcome which is not determined – the pitches that can exist

within the improvisations are specified, however, improvisation is, by nature, ‘an act,

the outcome of which is unknown’26. Here, Young is fusing indeterminate techniques

(improvisation) to achieve an experimental outcome (an outcome unknown). The only

minimal aspect of The Tortoise is the reduction of musical means; the drones decrease

the amount of harmonic movement within the piece and create a non-teleological

musical setting. However, in his compilation of essays, Writings about Music, Steve

Reich defines minimalism as the employment of musical processes which are ‘acts of

precision’, within which ‘nothing is left to chance’.27 This is completely divergent to

the aesthetic which Young presents in The Tortoise, which must therefore be regarded

as an experimental piece.

This analysis of Young’s philosophy and its musical results alongside the

experimental precedent set by Cage portrays Young as an experimental composer. By

                                                                                                               
23
Cecilia Sun, ‘Experimental Music’, in Grove Music Online. Available from: Oxford Music Online.
Accessed on 27 April, 2015.  
24
Nyman, p. 25.
25
Young et. al., pp. 51, 52.
26
Nyman, p. 1.
27
Reich, p. 49.

  9
reviewing Young’s primary material, it becomes clear that he continues the

experimental aesthetic that was shown to him by Cage in Darmstadt in 1959.28

Young’s compositions and philosophy clearly do not align with the later defined

minimalist aesthetic, which brings into question the validity of grouping him

alongside Riley, Reich and Glass in titles such as Four Musical Minimalists: La

Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass. In order to appropriately

challenge this classification, the compositional philosophies and works of the other

three composers need to be addressed in terms of their continuation of Young’s

experimental aesthetic.

Terry Riley

Terry Riley’s compositional philosophy and its various manifestations can be seen as

a bridge between the experimentalism that governed Young’s compositions, and the

stricter minimalism that characterised the later compositions that were constructed in

the Downtown New York area. This is easily explained through Riley’s depiction of

the influence that Young had on him in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Riley became acquainted with Young in the late 1950s at Berkeley College. The

opportunity for collaboration between the composers is explained by Riley as an

important stage in the development of his compositional self, he cites Young as ‘a big

influence’ who ‘steered all this activity in certain directions.’29 Riley explains that the

improvisations that the two men made together at Anna Halprin’s dance studio in

1960 were conducive to his first tape piece, Mescalin Mix (1962).30 It is important

that the experimental nature of this piece is highlighted. The piece repeats fragments

                                                                                                               
28
Young, p. 27.
29
Terry Riley, interview by Vivian Perlis, 1997, transcription of recording, Oral History of American
Music (OHV 251 a-d), pp. 12, 13.
30
Ibid., p. 15.

  10
of sounds that were sampled from around Halprin’s studio, including noise and

speech, but also instrumental improvisations. Improvisations are by nature

indeterminate, but share the experimentalist aesthetic which sees the musical outcome

as at a remove from the composer, and therefore unknown to him. The repetition of

the recorded fragments in the tape loop suggests minimalist control, since Riley was

able to determine the sound of the finished product. However, the piece lacks the

emphasis on the clear communication of the process within product, as seen in the

later minimalist aesthetic. Therefore, to this extent the piece must also be considered

experimental. Mescalin Mix is, however, of extreme historical importance, as it served

as the impetus for the creation of the time-lag accumulation system, which in turn

spawned Riley’s magnum (and most minimalist) opus, In C (1964).

As explained by Riley, the creation of a time-lag accumulator for his guidance of Chet

Baker’s improvisations in The Gift (1963) is a direct consequence of the repetitions

that occurred through his use of tape in Mescalin Mix.31 The ability to produce and

control repetitions, according to Riley ‘paved the way for In C and other pieces I was

to write during the sixties’.32 The importance of In C lies in its straddling of the

minimal and experimental aesthetics in a way that clearly leans towards the minimal.

In C was Riley’s realisation of his ambition to produce the repetitions that are seen in

his tape pieces without using any electronic technology.33 This piece is crucially

important for the current research, as it has properties that align with the prior

definitions of both experimentalism and minimalism. The piece sees the construction

of a process that is left to occur within a clearly defined overall structure: any number

of performers on any instrument are given the same set of melodic cells in which they

progress through at their own pace. This seems to align with the Cageian definition of
                                                                                                               
31
Ibid., p. 20.
32
Ibid., p. 21
33
Ibid., p. 22.

  11
experimentalism which sees the outcome of the act ‘unknown’; the nature of the

process means that composer does not have control over the length of the piece, the

instrumentation of the ensemble, the counterpoint which occurs as the different

sections are repeated, and thus the overall sonorities which occur within the ‘C’ tonal

orbit. Thus, the piece can easily be identified as experimental: the composer sets up

the process and accepts all of the results as musically important. This creates a focus

on the process, which aligns In C with experimentalism. However, the piece also has

clear product-driven characteristics. The most obvious of these is the use of notated

music. By using traditional notation, Riley dictates the exact pitches which are to be

heard within each melodic cell. This is a degree of compositional control that is not

seen in pieces which engender an outcome which is completely unknown. By using a

clear structural paradigm, which sees certain pitches played within a defined musical

beginning and conclusion, Riley shifts the focus from experimental attention on the

process itself, to a more traditional emphasis on the product; the notation allows the

sonorous product to be somewhat predicted, and therefore accepted as a successful or

unsuccessful realisation of the process. Interestingly, the process becomes the focal

point within the product. The piece is a discrete musical entity, however its musical

interest is in the counterpoints that are created between the repeated cells. The process

generates intense repetition not only of the melodic cells, but also of a repeated

semiquaver C. This feature of the process, and its focus within the defined product,

align clearly with the prior definition of minimal music.

In summary, it can be asserted that Riley’s music embodies the trend which sees the

transformation of an experimental stance into the greater control of minimalism; his

compositional output evolved from pieces which focused on the process, towards the

more pluralistic focus that is within In C; an interest in both the process and the

  12
product. Therefore, it will be asserted that Riley is both an experimentalist and a

minimalist. The same may be asserted for Steve Reich; however his music is clearly

more product-driven that process inclined.

Steve Reich

The music of Steve Reich differs from that by Young and Riley to a considerable

extent due to the divergent nature of the composers’ philosophies. In a manner that is

contrary to Young’s continuation of Cageian experimentalism, Reich strives for a

sense of compositional control which cancels the possibility of any sense of

indeterminacy. This is encapsulated in his essay Music as a Gradual Process, where

he states that:

Musical processes can give one a direct contact with the impersonal and also a kind of

complete control. By “a kind” of complete control I mean that by running this material

through this process I completely control all the results, but also that I accept all results

without changes.34

Here, Reich explains that the type of processes that he includes in his compositional

strategy are conducive of a complete control in terms of the sounds that the composer

can predict. This is best explained through an analysis of his early tape piece, It’s

Gonna Rain (1965).

It’s Gonna Rain is a piece for two tape machines, which play the same segment of

speech at slightly different speeds. This results in the phasing of the musical material;

the two tapes create a counterpoint as the slower reel falls further and further out of

synchronism with the faster reel. The piece is finished when the two tapes are back in

                                                                                                               
34
Reich, Writings About Music, p. 10.

  13
phase, and thus once more playing the material at the same time. The musical results

can be somewhat predicted; it is known that both tapes will gradually fall out of phase

and create various counterpoints, and that eventually these will merge back into the

single sound that occurs when the two loops are in phase. The specific counterpoints

that are created between the voices cannot be completely foreseen, but the general

nature of the piece is determined; two loops are going to create sonic relationships as

a result to the phasing technique. Thus, by deciding to use the phasing process, Reich

exerts ‘a kind of complete control’, in which he determines ‘all the results’ to the

most significant degree possible; there are no chance operations or indeterminacy

within the piece. However, in his acknowledgement of the specific counterpoints

lying outside the realms of his ‘complete control’, merely ‘accepted without changes’,

Reich seems to create a sense of Youngian experimental acceptance. This creates a

juxtaposition; Reich seems to align with the experimental acceptance of the

‘outcomes unknown’, but also exerts a significant degree of compositional control

which sees processes set up to create sonic landscapes that are pre-determined. This

determinism seems to align with the prior definition of the minimalist aesthetic; the

composer exerts control within the clearly defined beginning and conclusion of the

piece. As per this definition, the sonic result of the process includes intense repetition.

This repetition is the result of the minimalist interest in making the process the

primary interest within the larger product; the piece has a defined beginning and end,

and functions as a discrete musical piece – the process is merely the musical interest,

not the experimental creator of ‘outcomes unknown’. However, the piece does have a

degree of experimental acceptance in its use of process; the composer cannot

completely control the musical counterpoints created by the phasing. Therefore, It’s

Gonna Rain must be interpreted as a minimalist piece that still retains some degree of

  14
experimentalism. This sense of pluralism is analogous to that observed in Riley’s In

C, and is perhaps a remnant of earlier Younginan experimental procedures. However,

Reich’s compositional philosophy merged towards more a more strictly minimal

discipline, which changed the nature of his compositions accordingly.

Reich’s inclination towards minimalist applications of process rather than an

experimental method is best summarised in his attitudes towards John Cage and La

Monte Young. This was clearly stated in an interview with Ev Grimes in New York in

1987.

I totally disapproved of what Cage was doing, and still do, between 1950 and the present

time… Most people in my generation were totally, I think, victims of Cage. I think they were

literally destroyed by John Cage because they became little Cage imitators and basically

turned on their own musical backgrounds. Anything traditionally musical was scorned and

anything that was theatrical, chance orientated and so on, was grabbed up and without

mentioning names I think it really did destroy a number of people in my generation.35

The low notes that had been done by Riley and La Monte as drones, unmeasured long tones

that would go on je ne sais quoi… I found that very boring and I found it a mistake.36

It is stated clearly that the mature Reich has no intention of composing pieces that are

experimental in nature; he does not use process techniques to create music that has

any degree of theatrical chance, or Youngian droning. This is seen clearly in his piece

Music for Eighteen Musicians. The piece is constructed in a very traditional western

art manner so that ‘the people down at Bloomington could throw it on a stand and do

                                                                                                               
35
Reich, interview by Ev Grimes, 1987, side b, p. 19.
36
Ibid., side c, p. 54  

  15
it in two weeks’. 37 Importantly, the piece makes use of minimalist process and

repetition as musical interest, as per the prior definition of the style, however it is

Reich’s rejection of experimental modes that is of supreme importance to the current

scholarship. By opting for a traditionally notated score, rather than ‘a kind of 60s

shorthand score with lots and lots of description’,38 Reich is exerting complete control

over the sounds that are produced in each performance. He does imply that the

ensembles that play Music for Eighteen Musicians can ‘get a little looser about it’ and

interpret the music to a certain degree, but this is no different to the interpretation of

scores in the performance of traditional western art music. However, this is

fundamentally dissimilar to the interpretation of rules within earlier pieces which had

minimalist aspects, such as The Tortoise, which allowed for improvisation within its

non-discrete time structures. Thus, by the time he composed Music for Eighteen

Musicians, Reich extended the ‘complete control’ that he exerted in It’s Gonna Rain

to the extent that the exact pitches and the counterpoints that are created between the

instruments are pre-determined by the composer and translated via a traditional score.

This piece is clearly product-centred; it is the sonic product of the processes that

Reich employs that is of premier importance, not the interpretation of an experimental

process. Reflecting the earlier definition of minimalism, the processes that are

employed in Music for Eighteen Musicians are audible, but are not employed in an

experimental fashion to form the basis of a unique performance of the piece; they are

the musical interests in a piece that is performed in a traditional manner. Therefore, it

becomes clear that by the time he composed Music for Eighteen Musicians, Steve

Reich utilised solely minimalist philosophy and compositional styles. This is in direct

contrast to Young, who was experimental in his intentions, and Riley who drew from
                                                                                                               
37
Steve Reich, interview by Vivian Perlis, 1996, transcription of recording, Oral History of American
Music, Yale University (OHV 186, side l), p.4.
38
Ibid.

  16
both the experimental and minimal techniques. In order to complete the proposed

revision of the grouping of Young, Riley, Reich and Glass as a ‘school’, an analysis

of Glass’ philosophy and compositions must now occur.

Philip Glass

Philip Glass’ compositional philosophy and its musical manifestations present an

interesting contradiction for the scholar to investigate, as although Glass is rather

experimental in his musical philosophies, his music is clearly minimal in nature. This

is made clear through an analysis of his compositional aims alongside the importance

of chance procedures within Cage’s pieces.

I’ve always favoured a way of working in which I try to create situations which weren’t

familiar to me, to put myself in relationships that I didn’t understand, to create musical

environments or theatrical environments where there was something that was not known. It

seemed to me that was the only way in which the unexpected could happen. In other words, I

arranged for unexpected things to happen by putting myself in places where I couldn’t

anticipate what was going to happen.39

Chance procedures have so strong an ethical value for Cage that they are seen not simply as

generators (or disorganizers) of sounds, but as quasi-natural forces whose results are accepted

totally and unquestioningly, without any adjustment being made.40

There is a clear connection here between Cageian chance procedures, and Glass’

acceptance of the ‘unexpected’. By creating musical situations that are unfamiliar in

which ‘something was not known’, it seems cogent to assume that Glass’

                                                                                                               
39
Philip Glass, interview by Ingram Marshall, 1999 (1), transcription of recording, Oral History of
American Music, Yale University (OHV 218, side f), p. 6.
40  Nyman,  p.  17.  

  17
compositions would have the same aesthetic principles as Cage’s chance pieces which

similarly accepted process results ‘totally and unquestioningly’. However, Glass did

not use Cageian chance procedures in the composition of his works, so there is a

considerable amount of disparity between the degree to which ‘the unknown’ is really

‘unknown’. Glass’ ‘unknown’ manifests itself musically in his early composition 1+1

(1967) for one player and amplified tabletop. The score presents two simple rhythms,

which the performer is to play by knocking the table with his/her knuckles. The two

rhythms, 1 and 2, are to be combined ‘in continuous, regular arithmetic progressions’,

an example of which is provided by Glass:

1 + 2; 1 + 2 + 2; 1 + 2 + 2 + 2; 1 + 2 + 2; 1 + 2.41

Apart from notating the rhythm of the two units (1 denotes a semiquaver, semiquaver,

quaver rhythm; 2 denotes a singular quaver), the composer gives no more instruction

other than stating that ‘the tempo is fast.’42 Thus, the performer decides the length of

the piece, the precise tempo, and the arithmetic progression that is used. 1+1 is not

strictly experimental: the composer does allow the process to occur on an

uncontrolled, natural basis; but there is a degree of indeterminacy due to the

performance decisions made by the soloist. However, the focus within 1+1 is clearly

on the process; the lack of musical instruction places the interest in the soloist’s

construction of a process. Therefore, the piece is process-orientated, rather than

having minimalist product intentions. Thus, in his early works, Glass’ musical

philosophy manifests itself in rather experimentalist pieces.

                                                                                                               
41
Potter, p. 270.
42
Ibid.

  18
 However, there is a fundamental point at which Glass’ philosophy departs from

Cageian process-inclined experimentalism, towards a clearly product-inclined

minimal intention. This occurs in Glass’s interest in precise, rehearsed performance.

Glass stresses the importance of the completion of a cycle; each piece of his must be

written and practiced thoroughly before it is performed.

I’ve written the piece, I’ve learned the piece, and now I’m playing it in front of an audience.
And so the whole cycle of creativity to me has been completed.43

The intense practice of a piece of notated music diminishes the opportunity for the

spontaneity associated with the experimental unwrapping of a process. By combining

intense rehearsal with the specificity of traditionally notated scores in his later works,

Glass’ suitability for categorisation as a minimalist becomes clear. This best

explained through an analysis of Einstein on the Beach (1975).

Einstein, described as an opera solely because the opera house provided the technical

means of performance,44 satisfies all of the requirements of a minimalist piece as per

the definition outlined at the beginning of this paper. Most importantly, it has a clear

focus on the product. This conclusion is derived from the traditional notation that is

used in the score, and the subsequent clarity of the beginning and conclusion of the

piece. Aligning Einstein further with the prior definition of a minimalist piece, Glass’

application of process within the product yields a focus on the progression of the

process within the discrete musical piece; the process becomes the musical interest

within the structures that are controlled by the composer; not the catalyst of

‘outcomes unknown’. This minimalist application of process manifests musically in

the passages of intense repetition that continue for extended periods of time. For
                                                                                                               
43
Glass (1), p. 17.
44
Philip Glass, interview by Ingram Marshall, 1999 (2), transcription of recording, Oral History of
American Music, Yale University, (OHV 218, side i), p.5.

  19
example, the first movement, Knee Play 1, sees the same harmonic progression

repeated for nearly four minutes. Over this, the chorus repeats the numbers 1-8, while

a soloist repeats spoken words. The listener follows the progression of the repetitions

within the process, but the process is not handled here in an experimental fashion; the

process is a feature within the overall structure of the Knee Play. Thus, Glass’ mature

works, such as Einstein on the Beach, have a clear focus on the product as well as the

process. Process compositional practices are used, but there is no opportunity for the

process to unfold ‘according to quasi-natural factors’45 during the performance and

thus create the differences within each performance, as per the experimental aesthetic.

Thus, Glass’ mature works are easily characterised as minimalist. His evolution

towards this aesthetic echoes Reich’s move towards stricter minimalist idioms, and

ultimately, the classification of his mature works as minimalist.

Research Findings

From these case studies it becomes clear that there are fundamental differences in the

compositional philosophies and their application within the ‘Young, Riley, Reich,

Glass’ grouping. It is clear that La Monte Young continued the experimental aesthetic

that was championed by John Cage, and must therefore be classified as an

experimental composer; his works focus on the behaviour of the process, not the

performance of its product. Similarly, Terry Riley can be said to provide a

continuation of some of Young’s philosophical characteristics: even his most

celebrated ‘minimal’ work contains an indeterminate method of realising the process,

and therefore retains a degree of experimental interest in the essentially unknown

outcome of the counterpoints created. However, his use of the process as a musical

                                                                                                               
45
Nyman, p. 17.

  20
feature of the larger product lends a sense of minimalist discipline to his oeuvre.

Thus, Riley continued the experimentalist aesthetic that was seen in Young’s works,

but also showed signs of the complete determinism that is seen in later minimalism.

Conversely, both Reich and Glass must be considered minimalists. In the composition

of their more mature pieces, appreciation of the performance of the product of the

process was paramount. Music for Eighteen Musicians and Einstein on the Beach are

more traditional in terms of their existence as stand-alone pieces of music; they have

traditionally notated scores, and therefore no areas where the process can unfold

naturally in a given performance; each performance is generally the same. This shows

a focus on the product, and not the ability of the process to create outcomes that are

unplanned. This depicts their inclination towards the complete determinism which

characterises minimalism.

Thus, there is a substantial amount of assumption in the grouping of Young, Riley,

Reich and Glass as ‘the minimalists’. Titles such as Four Musical Minimalists: La

Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass are misleading; there are

fundamental differences in the compositional philosophy and aesthetics when those

held by Young are contrasted against those of Reich and Glass. The four composers

cannot be grouped together as minimalists; Reich and Glass are the only ‘true’

minimalists; Young is an experimental composer, whereas Riley’s compositions fall

somewhere between either definition. Indeed, each of the composers share musical

traits with one another, however, an accurate description of the Downtown musical

aesthetic needs to acknowledge the steep divergences that are outlined above.

  21
Conclusion

This research has challenged the assumption within the scholarly literature that there

is aesthetic unity between ‘the minimalists’; La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve

Reich and Philip Glass. The research defined experimentalism and minimalism to

allow for the exploration of each composer’s utilisation of the techniques that are

attributed to either style. It was determined that La Monte Young continued the

experimental idioms that were pioneered by John Cage. Riley was defined as a

composer who was neither solely experimental nor solely minimal. Reich and Glass

were defined as minimalist. This serves as a direct challenge to the assumptions of

connectivity between the composers that are seen in the titles such as Four Musical

Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass. The research

should now be extended to include an analysis of the connections between the

minimal composers, Reich and Glass, and those who are most commonly associated

with post-minimalism, namely Ingram Marshall, John Adams and Arvo Pärt.

  22
List of References Cited

Glass, Philip, interview by Ingram Marshall, 1999, transcription of recording, Oral

History of American Music, Yale University (1: OHV 218, f), (2: OHV218, i).

Mertens, Wim, American Minimal Music: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich,

Philip Glass, trans. J. Hautekiet (London: Kahn & Averill, 1983).

Nyman, Michael, Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, 2nd edn (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Potter, Keith, Four Musical Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich,

Philip Glass (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Reich, Steve, interview by Ev Grimes, 1987, transcription of recording, Oral History

of American Music, Yale University (OHV 186, a-i).

Reich, Steve, interview by Vivian Perlis, 1996, transcription of recording, Oral

History of American Music, Yale University (OHV 186, l).

Reich, Steve, Writings About Music (New York: New York University Press, 1974).

Riley, Terry, interview by Vivian Perlis, 1997, transcription of recording, Oral

History of American Music (OHV 251 a-d).

  23
Strickland, Edward, Minimalism: Origins (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1993).

Sun, Celilia, ‘Experimental Music’, in Grove Music Online. Available from: Oxford

Music Online. Accessed on 27 April, 2015.

Young, La Monte and Marian Zazeela, Michael H. Tencer (ed.), Selected Writings

(Munich: Heiner Friedrich, 1969). Available from UbuClassics. Accessed on 24

September, 2014.

  24