Laeth MacLaurie said:
Theoretically I suppose, but all of his music is essentially soundtrack music, both in feel and basic approach.
Of course there are, and it's worth pointing out when the combinations are unusual. But when dealing with symphonic works by symphonic composers, you're not imparting any inside information by announcing that pianos, brass and woodwinds are being used.
It could be, but with classical music, this is almost always denoted in the album and/or track titles themselves (i.e. "for solo piano" or "wind concerto").
And now that you know, you still know nothing of consequence about the sound of the music.
You know, kind of like my references to "Det som engang var." Too bad you couldn't be bothered to actually read (much less comprehend) what I wrote before chiming in and cluttering the thread with Engrish.
No, it says that Glass is a minimalist (which anyone could find out without reference to a single review of any sort, it's as useful as telling folks that Burzum played black metal, it's a fucking given).
The actual quote is, "The usual stuff is here: arpeggio versus ostinato, ostinato versus arpeggio," which is like introducing a metal album by saying "there are distorted guitars," or referencing blastbeats in an Incantation review. Sure, they're there, but you're not telling anyone anything they didn't already know. It's a space filler and nothing else. The counterpoint reference likewise; what classical composer of the last 500 years HASN'T used counterpoint? You might as well note that Glass uses chords. This doesn't tell you anything that would distinguish the sound from any other composer of the last century, it's there to ensure that the review takes up the allotted column space. The truth is that what you've managed to do is dig up a mediocre review and re-define it as normative.
ALLMUSIC is noted for some of the least accurate reviews in the world (seriously, read some of their metal reviews sometime, some of them appear to be based on albums they heard from the bleed through of a fellow commuter's headphones on the 7 train during morning rush), besides which, ALLMUSIC is a consumerist buyer's guide and nothing more. These aren't serious, intellectual reviews, they're blurbs meant to advertise shit for the people that fund them.
i agree allmusic sucks, but they are actually pretty good in the classical reviews, just type beethoven for instance, and you will have discriptions of each of his works.
i think the usual stuff they mention is "usual glass music" which is full of those arpegiatted patterns.
about the tecnical aspects, well , yes many classical works use those tecniques , like every other style of music, but at least gave you an idea of whats present in that work, not all classical pieces have countepoint(if it was a bach review then it would not be necessary) , not all pieces are filled with arpeggios (of course if its a symphony or a big piece most likely it will use them). and even chords, not all pieces have chords, it could be a solo lead instrument without chords like a violin partita( and theres many ways of using chords...)
and usually when they mention aspects like that counterpoint or arpeggios in a review, is when they are very important in the piece, and stand out in the parts that are used. most music are filled with little arpeggios and most of the times you dont even notice, but if you hear a minor 7th chord arpeggiated for instance you know right there, its like listening to necrophagist and not mention that they abuse sweep arpeggios, its a definition of their sound.
"the description of the music is as cursory as that in my own review". well if this review is mediocre. maybe your review is mediocre aswell hein?
here is an example of a good classical review (from allmusic)
Belá Bartok - Music For Strings, percussion and celesta
Bartók wrote some of his finest music for the Swiss conductor
Paul Sacher, in whom he found a particularly sympathetic champion. Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, written for
Sacher in 1936, explores with great refinement and mastery the musical concepts that Bartók had been developing since the mid-'20s. In the
Piano Concerto No. 1, Bartók explored the percussive elements of the piano, coupling it effectively with percussion only in the introduction to the concerto's slow movement. In Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, Bartók ingeniously sets the piano with the percussion instruments, where its melodic and harmonic material functions in support of the two string choirs.
Since the early '30s, Bartók had also incorporated elements of Baroque music into his compositions, inspired partly by his exploration of pre-Classical keyboard composers such as
Scarlatti,
Rameau and
Couperin. In reflection of this, Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta evokes the Baroque concerto grosso, with its two antiphonal string orchestras separated by a battery of tuned and untuned percussion instruments. The work's prosaic title was actually just a working title which was subsequently allowed to stand.
The opening movement, Andante tranquillo, is a slow fugue on a chromatic melody that springs from a five-note cell, each subsequent phrase growing in length and elaborating on its predecessor. At this point, the two string orchestras play together. As the string voices accumulate, the fugue's texture increases in complexity and the chromatic implications of the theme are brought to a rigorously dissonant fulfillment. The fugue climaxes at its apogee with an ominous rumble from the timpani and a loud stroke on the tam-tam. As the fugue folds in upon itself the celesta makes its first entrance with an arpeggiated chord, mysterious and remote. The work subsequently grows from the motivic material explored in this first movement.
Bartók deploys antiphonal string choirs for the second movement, a fast, fugitive piece in which the two orchestras chase each other through a breathtaking series of elaborations on the main theme. In the percussion section, piano, xylophone, and harp take the lead while two side drums (with and without snares) provide emphatic punctuation. The third movement is one of Bartók's most accomplished "night music" pieces, with cricket-like notes from the xylophone, eerie timpani glissandi, fragmentary murmurs, and frightened exclamations from the strings, along with the always-mysterious notes of the celesta floating clear and sphinx-like over the nocturnal weft.
The finale, a dance of energy and abandon, restores the antiphonal deployment of the strings and juxtaposes the diatonic aspects of the work's main theme with its chromatic elements. There are also some striking touches like the furious, strummed four-note chords in the violins, violas and cellos that opens the movement, a theme midway through that is based on a repeated note first hammered out on piano and xylophone, and then a grand peroration of the initial fugue theme, now with its intervals doubled and richly harmonized. In the quick coda there is a brief, suspended moment ("a tempo allargando") before the work tumbles to a conclusion in unabashed A major.
i dont think a review(like i said before this is more like a discription but i like it ) like this is trying to "sell" the product.
