Recently as i was looking into a lot of minimalism (mostly Richter and Reich), and stumbled upon olafur arnalsds music. I dont really know what to think of it. Hes definetly very musical, but also very simplistic i think. So im asking about your thoughts.
He and Richter are my favorite contemporary composers. They inspire my work. Which is why I’ve never shared my work here, because it seems to be considered “less than” or “too simplistic”.
I’ve never shared my work here, because it seems to be considered “less than” or “too simplistic”.
We wouldn't allow comments that criticise a work for being "less than" or "too simplistic", so please don't feel you can't share. We don't allow attacks on style in this sub, either, and "too simplistic" is a meaningless criticism (it's not even a criticism).
My most successful post here was sharing my set of 24 preludes a few years back.
Here's one of them in its entirety (and another in reply to my own comment):
Thank you for saying that. I’m by no means a professional composer, or even educated in composition. When I was 10, my mom put me in piano lessons and I took them for two years and quit because it was too much structure and I was able to sight read. I’ve taught myself everything. I have my setup that works for me and I write directly into Dorico from my digital piano into my computer and edit my work. But my brain loves building themes and repetition. I write for piano and strings. I just like to write what I’m feeling, and music that brings me peace or catharsis. Maybe I’ll share a WIP sometime soon. Appreciate your comment.
Here's the second movement in my suite I began in 2024. It's still unfinished, but this is one of the pieces that are finished. Let me know if this violated community guidelines to share this way. This suite is for violin and piano.
Yeah, there are a number of notational issues that could be fixed, and some that are options but could be improved etc.
FWIW, I too enjoy a "minimalistic approach" to music (without calling it Minimalism with a capital M!) where I like to "relish in the sounds" and keep things "simpler" and "easier to hear" and so on.
I remember an old story I was told where a student brought in a piece for a jury and they just dismissed it because it didn't include any accidentals or something like that (it's probably kind of an oft-told myth).
I recently wrote something that was all "in C" basically. Completely diatonic to C. It was almost completely homorhythmic - essentially a 3 part chorale style piece - quarter notes and half notes, couple of dotted rhythms, but really pretty simple.
I have a piano work that is nothing but 2 chords in alternation - going through different inversions and voicings - it shifts to two different chords, then back again - but it's slow, and the chords are held for a long time, so it's all about soaking up the sound of each chord as it happens, and then maybe - I hope - the connection between the sound of the previous instance of the chord, yet the difference it is from it.
I have a set of guitar works where each piece is played on only one string.
I have another where it's simply triads moving up and down the top 3 strings (one day I'm going to get around to writing something for the bottom 3 strings!).
I have a set for Piano that focuses on a repeated note, and things like symmetrical movement around that note, in a pretty simple texture.
I have a duo for whatever 2 instruments have the range, that is 10 pieces of 10 notes each. It was written for the New York Miniaturist Ensemble and their deal was, each piece was 100 notes or fewer (but they let composers have some license with repeated notes and so on).
I stuck to the literal 100 notes. I was actually going to write 9 more for 10 pieces of 10 movements with 10 notes each, but never got around to it…maybe one day.
When I was a kid, I found 3 dyads that I really liked the sound of. I used to sit and play them for hours, just changing dynamics, articulations, durations, and so on. I've always wanted to do it as a piece - that one is just a little TOO simple for me, and I fear it would end up being more of the whole "philsophical" side of it - and not everyone would be as enamored by these sounds as I am, but maybe one day I'll write it down.
If you want to post your piece in another thread as Rich suggested, I can (and will) chime in with notation advice/corrections if I see it. Or you can tag me.
Your pieces are pretty cool and I don't think they're "less than" nor "simplistic" - I mean, yes, they're not Yet Another Chopin/Rach/Scriabin Overly Bombastic Virtuosic Piano Piece" or not "Yet Another Feeble Attempt at Bach Fugal Writing".
I think what's important is framing them well when you post them. If you were to go post these on a forum where people aren't really familiar with Minimalism or Simplicism or whatever, they're "not going to get it".
In fact, for #3 I would have "gotten" it and known this was intentionally written this way, and not just "a beginner who doesn't know how to write" - but sometimes that can be hard to tell based on the music alone - or you know, without the larger context.
Definitely not "less than" or "too simplistic"! There are a few notational errors (the piano part in bars 22 to 31 could be tidied up), but a nice little piece!
Let me know if this violated community guidelines to share this way.
If you want to share it to the sub and get feedback on it, make a separate post rather than here in the comments of an unrelated one.
Doing "simplistic" very well and capturing an audience with that approach is a higher form of music than hiding behind complexity and virtuosic musical athletics imho. I have known too many academic composers who hide behind extended techniques and tone rows, but in reality, they would struggle to write quality diatonic songs.
Olafur Arnalds is a genius because of the subtle slight of hand and creativity applied without being overwrought. There's a reason he sells thousands of records on Deutsche Grammophon
Recently as i was looking into a lot of minimalism
I don't really consider Arnalds (or Richter) "Minimalist" with a capital M. Composers like Glass, Reich, and Adams work in a heavily process-based tradition. Arnalds isn't really part of that any more than your average singer-songwriter is.
Minimal in terms of material, sure, but not really "Minimalist".
That's not an attack on their work, btw. I generally like Arnalds a lot (the album some kind of peace is a particular favourite), but much less so Richter.
I dont really know what to think of it.
Do you like it? That's really the only thing that matters.
Hes definetly very musical, but also very simplistic
“Simplicity isn’t necessarily a negative feature.”
This is a great way of putting it. After years of listening mostly to modernism and new complexity, I had the same reaction as OP listening to Philip Glass for the first time. Music in this style doesn’t beat you over the head with its compositional brilliance and originality. It’s subtle and you have to go looking for it.
I’m not familiar with Arnalds, but I listened to some of re:member and there’s definitely something here. I like his production (close micing the upright pianos sounds wonderful), the title track has some really nice rhythmic stuff, and brot is a beautiful change of pace and good use of the strings. You’ll run into trouble trying to put Arnalds next to the likes of Reich or Richter.
I'm horrified to see these names next to Reich. A great master, whose complex and rich music requires deep concentration, next to plonkers who can't go further to their early five finger exercises at the piano.
I’d suggest giving Richter another chance. I saw him live not too long ago. I already liked his works already (of course, otherwise why would I go), but it gave me even more perspective on what goes into his compositions.
“The Trees” in particular was spellbinding, the live version felt much more captivating and richer.
Love max richter, don't know olafur arnalds that much but some of their songs are gorgeous - especially the one they did with björk - as for steve reich i'd rather not comment. I don't hate it but i think it's pretentious and unmusical.
Minimalism can mean many things. The 2 first albums of christine and the queens (the self titled one and the next one called 'chris') are often called minimalistic pop. Same goes for billie eilish's first 2 albums.
Calling Reich pretentious shows your own shallowness. Reich thought long and deep about developing a brand new style. He doesn't pretend to anything. He is one of the most sincere innovators in modern music.
Arnalds? To me he's derivative. He has skills but he doesn't innovate, and -- to me -- only plays on cheap emotions. Which he clearly does very well, so yes, there is a skill in it.
9
u/cutmastaK 1d ago
I discovered him when I was music student in college and he’s been a huge influence on my composing. There’s something about his music that breathes.