John R. Sisk wrote:

>Kevin, you're right - there is only so much you can do with an arpeggio,
>and if one were merely to repeat for long periods of time sequences of
>rapid arpeggios in various instruments, certainly one would not rise to
>fame as one of America's finest composers; no, one must have a special
>gift, a rare and otherworldly talent, to reach such heights as Glass has -

I think you are pushing it a bit to claim that Glass is one of America's
"finest composers." He is indeed a very popular composer, but he's a
one trick pony.  Sure, when I read his autobiography, I was inspired,
but by his tenacity to make it as a musician, not by the power of his
compositions.  To reach such heights as Glass, you don't really need
talent.  You need a gimmick and a good agent.  Take Andrea Bocelli, for
example.  He's a third rate singer who plays his handicap to the hilt to
take the money out of middle-american housewives' purses.

>that is to say, one must be able to combine sequences of rapid arpeggios
>in various instruments with the polyrhythm 2 against 3.  (See "Symphony No.
>5, Company, the Violin Concerto, Einstein on the Beach, Koyaanisquatsi,
>etc.) Then and only then can one claim to have attained Glass' level of
>achievement.

Please.  I can get a group of third graders to play two against three
polyrhythms in about ten minutes.  That's no great musical feat.  Now,
if Glass could keep up with Allah Raka and Ravi Shankar in the polyrhythm
department, then I would be impressed.

>There is stylistic diversity and variance within this pattern, but after
>hearing multiple Glass pieces, I can't but feel as if I've somehow been
>cheated: simply put, the musical materials Glass uses in his style do not
>reward repeated listenings, at least by these two ears.

Well, I can agree with you here, and perhaps I will learn to read an entire
post before I fire off responses.  But I will say that I did find Akhenaten
(did I spell that right?) to be pretty darned interesting music.  (Once or
twice)

>On the whole, however, I think that Glass, like Stockhausen, later Cage,
>or later Shoenberg, is someone who provides a useful extreme - one not
>everyone is very likely to imitate or emulate, especially given the current
>neo-conservative swing of the pendulum, but which provides an invaluable
>reference point.  They and artists like them delineate and define the
>topography of the musical world for later generations of musican/explorers.
>So what if some of us find Glass' music dreadfully boring? At the very
>least, his music defines one of the far edges of the map:  Here be dragons.

Well, John, that was very well said, and I think that I have to shut up
and agree with you!

Kevin