This is perhaps the start of an interesting debate. “What defines Minimal Music?” and I use the term Music carefully. It maybe that this has been debated many times but I am interested to here different opinions anyway.
So here goes…...
Obviously it doesn’t have to be Electronic, although in this forum, I guess it would help.
Is it the number or type of instruments used? E.g. Monophonic verses Polyphonic or quantity?
Is it the structure of the song itself and the song writers approach?
Is it a combination of the above or none of the above.
Is it something entirely?
I have puzzled over this for sometime. An example of what I mean could be Kenji Kawia’s Reincarnation from GitS. It sounds both sparse and yet full, it could be all synth and vocal based using very little equipment and yet I know it was recorded with a full orchestra and choir. So in its execution it cannot be Minimal but it just sounds like it is,, so is it?
The first thing that sprung to my mind as an example of minimal music was the human voice i.e. Acapella groups like The Flying Pickets. In my mind that would be the simplest form but wait what about John Cage’s 4’33”...
Just a simple search shows how complex the definition of minimal music can be:
“The idea of minimalism is much larger than most people realise. It includes, by definition, any music that works with limited or minimal materials: pieces that use only a few notes, pieces that use only a few words of text, or pieces written for very limited instruments, such as antique cymbals, bicycle wheels, or whiskey glasses. It includes pieces that sustain one basic electronic rumble for a long time. It includes pieces made exclusively from recordings of rivers and streams. It includes pieces that move in endless circles. It includes pieces that set up an unmoving wall of saxophone sound. It includes pieces that take a very long time to move gradually from one kind of music to another kind. It includes pieces that permit all possible pitches, as long as they fall between C and D. It includes pieces that slow the tempo down to two or three notes per minute” - Tom Johnson, Composer and Minimalist
Pop tracks such as “Tomorrow Never Knows” by The Beatles is also described as minimal; written only in C, making a collage from a drone played on an Indian tambura, a modal tune, bluesy instrumental figures, tape loops, ADT, vocals played through Leslie speakers, distorted close-up miking of instruments, and a psychedelically mystical “outlook.” Psychedelic rock acts of the 1960s and 70s used repetitive structures and droning techniques to express the hallucinations of LSD and other drugs in a musical language. Another well-known minimal music example is Pink Floyd’s album A Saucerful of Secrets, with the minimal pieces “Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun”, “Careful with That Axe, Eugene”, and “A Saucerful of Secrets”. Yet I don’t see these bands being listed on ‘minimal fansites (my limited experience may be at fault here)
The later progressive rock, experimental rock, art rock, krautrock and avant-prog genres also began exploring minimal music techniqus as a musical expression e.g. The Soft Machine, King Crimson, Brian Eno. Nu Wave artists like Rhys Chatham and Glenn Branca through to bands like Spacemen 3, Spiritualized, Yo La Tengo, Sonic Youth, Mogwai, Explosions in the Sky. In the 90’s electronic dance music was largely influenced by minimal music and based on instrumental repetitive structures. Genres like Trance, Minimal techno, ambient e.g. The Orb, Orbital and Aphex Twin. Again I don’t tend to classify these as minimal but by definition do they belong here?
Jimi Smith describes Minimal Music as “a striped-down form of techno originating in Detroit. Sometimes called Detroit minimal, this form is basically just a simple persistent percussion track with very little embellishment.” - exerpt from Rave Culture: an Insiders Overview
Yet else where the origins are described as “Minimalist music is an originally American genre of experimental or Downtown music named in the 1960s based mostly in consonant harmony, steady pulse (if not immobile drones), stasis and slow transformation, and often reiteration of musical phrases or smaller units such as figures, motifs, and cells.” Which is closer to my thinking however George Antheil, 1924 Ballet Mecanique is characterized by much use of motoric and repetitive patterns, as well as an instrumentation made up of multiple player pianos and mallet percussion…so what was the true origin?
So how do we define ‘minimal’ then…movements where the work is stripped down to its most fundamental features...well we know it isn’t as simple as that, more like: “a mode of contemporary music marked by extreme simplification of rhythms, patterns, and harmonies, prolonged chordal or melodic repetitions, and often a trancelike effect.” Anyone else care to comment :?
OK here’s a thought…what makes a band minimalist is it by design i.e. deliberate or due to limitations i.e. lack of budget (studio time, limited instrumentation etc)?
I don’t see the minimalist movement (modern classical, including some electronics, John Cage etc) as anything to do with “minimal wave” or “minimal electronics” at all.
Personally, the only way I’ve made the word “minimal” make sense as a description, is to make it refer to sales. Privately pressed underground new wave electronic music…
Personally, the only way I’ve made the word “minimal” make sense as a description, is to make it refer to sales. Privately pressed underground new wave electronic music…
Ok that’s a deffinition that I had not thought of “Minimal due to low production numbers and low exposure”. Musically then it could be anything on this basis.
I also have a great deal of difficulty in working out what all the additional label words mean.
For instance what really is the difference between Minimal Wave and Minimal Electronic? Is one just a sub set of the other?
For me, the word “wave”, referring to new wave/ dark wave/ cold wave etc, means that there may be guitars, while minimal electronics should be just that - electronics.
Others may not agree of course, I’ve seen sellers list rarities as “minimal electronics” where the only electronics I hear is a drum machine. I’ve also seen sellers list unknown records on ebay with the blurbs like “you won’t believe the minimal synths on this one!!!” so the jury is still out on this one.
[quote author=“reactorlgtn”]For me, the word “wave”, referring to new wave/ dark wave/ cold wave etc, means that there may be guitars, while minimal electronics should be just that - electronics.
Others may not agree of course, I’ve seen sellers list rarities as “minimal electronics” where the only electronics I hear is a drum machine. I’ve also seen sellers list unknown records on ebay with the blurbs like “you won’t believe the minimal synths on this one!!!” so the jury is still out on this one.
That’s a very limited definition of (new) wave I definately do not subscribe to…
in general new wave is considered a music genre with styles like synthpop, electropop, darkwave, minimal electronics etc. as subsets to it.
minimal (electronics NOT music!) has definately been overused way out of the original context for a style of music that was influenced by the abstractions of steve reich, the social relevance of joy division and the conceptualism of kraftwerk. I’m not sure how it’s been abroad but in the netherlands a whole magazine was devoted to everything in between, with countless of reviews of labels like vanity and bands like van kaye & ignit, mr. andrew, fall of saigon and dark day in which the link found between minimal music, synthpop and / or postpunk is being discussed.
Not sure who mentioned it before (was it you falck?) but i agree by far the most english stuff is merely obscure DIY synthpop. I think minimal electronics as a deliberate field as mentioned by the reviewers was far more present in dutch & american releases from the time than f.i. english or scandinavian.
To me it’s become a shallow word as it doesnt fully cover the essence of the music i like. I even saw a wikipedia entry for “minimal wave”, a name that afaik never has been (broadly) used and is just a contraction of minimal electronics & coldwave. But it does show the succes of this site and everything attached. :wink:
it wont take long before, after synthpop, everything new wave will be presented as minimal
And I had already been wondering where this post had gone…. :wink:
There have been discussions about terms here aplenty, and both minimal synth and minimal wave are of course new terms as in “not used in the 80s”.
As Reactorlgtn already pointed out, the scientific approach on this forum is “if it has got guitars, it’s minimal wave, otherwise it’s minimal synth”.
But in the world out there, as so minutely described by KistyW, the term minmal is indeed a lot wider and people also confuse “our” minimal with the mentioned minimal found in “techno/house/minimal”.
So what makes a song minimal in a nutshell? Well, I’d say it all comes down to a relatively clear repetitve structure and - don’t know how to put it differently - not too much sound. The listener is being offered clarity as opposed to diffusion.
KirstyW, where I beg to differ here is the “simplification” bit, as this implies that the starting point is something complex and complicated. However, in real life this is hardly the case. In evolution, you start off with cells or bacteria or whatever and then it starts to evolve all the way to the top and you get the naked mole rat.
So as a minimal lover I’d be more inclined to take the view that diffuse music is an unnecessary complication and dillution of minimal music. :wink:
And if we take the case of musicians who want to sound minimal, and not the one’s who the lack the dosh to get in more gear, this approach of course entails a greater risk for them as it kinda becomes more obvious when you get 1 element out of 3 wrong as opposed to maybe 1 out of 10 or 20.
[quote author=“Spartak”]
Not sure who mentioned it before (was it you falck?) but i agree by far the most english stuff is merely obscure DIY synthpop.
...
it wont take long before, after synthpop, everything new wave will be presented as minimal
Hi Spart,
Didn’t want to exclude you, seems like we posted in parallel. :wink:
Well to answer your question: nope, it wasn’t me, and I’m not sure I agree with that. Does that mean Inertia, Neural Circus, Stranger Station etc etc in reality wanted to make happy produced synthpop but didn’t manage to for lack of better instruments and studio time?
And re. the tendency to call all things minimal I’d say it’s mostly greedy ebay sellers who are to blame. Outside the scene, the man (or woman) on the street is still clueless as to what exactly your are listening to when you say “minimal synth” or “minimal wave”.
[quote author=“falck”][quote author=“Spartak”]
Not sure who mentioned it before (was it you falck?) but i agree by far the most english stuff is merely obscure DIY synthpop.
...
it wont take long before, after synthpop, everything new wave will be presented as minimal
Hi Spart,
Didn’t want to exclude you, seems like we posted in parallel. :wink:
Well to answer your question: nope, it wasn’t me, and I’m not sure I agree with that. Does that mean Inertia, Neural Circus, Stranger Station etc etc in reality wanted to make happy produced synthpop but didn’t manage to for lack of better instruments and studio time?
well i’m fairly sure someone mentioned it…anyways the bands you mention of course not, but i wonder how large of an influence minimal music really was on their music. Most of them from what i recall regarded their music primarily as exp electronics or industrial. Perhaps i should ask ed van kaye as he and ignit stood very close to those VPRO / VINYL circles in which minimal and it’s influence on pop culture was The Big Thing to discuss at birthday parties. Oh! How visionary they were 8)
And re. the tendency to call all things minimal I’d say it’s mostly greedy ebay sellers who are to blame. Outside the scene, the man (or woman) on the street is still clueless as to what exactly your are listening to when you say “minimal synth” or “minimal wave”.
perhaps to some extent, but it’s not just an ebay invention to make more money. First there needs to be a “label” that’s being identified by the audience before there can be a market. We’re not using other words to describe the same music on this forum (unfortunately), are we?
But the fact that bands like transparent Illusion, neural circus etc. nowadays are being regarded as “pure minimal” says something about the cognitive shift that the label itself has undergone through the years from a referential to a descriptive word.
Well I am not sure about every UK minimal synth/Electro/Wave band as I have not heard all of them but I would tend to agree that, of the ones I have heard, ‘SynthPop’ is probably correct.
Although may we have to allow that some tracks might fit the “Minimal something” description and some do not. So maybe the bands are really difficult to place into categories whereas the songs could be more easily defined?
It seem to me quite hard to come up with hard and fast rules that can be uniformly applied.
the synth pop ghost again rearing its ugly, commercial head on this forum for appreciaters of the fine arts…
Y’know, Van Kaye & Ignit had synth pop tracks. To me, “Negroes in NY” sounds like it could have been a chart contender. The Actor were synth pop, just not popular on a mass market level. The best thing about Transparent Illution is the ‘apparent delusion’ (sorry, I couldn’t resist) that he’s making pop music, not unlike the stuff he heard on the radio. The Residents tried once to make music which was not supposed to be released, the album “Not Available” - and they later described the process as difficult and unrewarding. The music should be heard, and by as many people as possible.
so anyway, whether “minimal electronics” means underground fine-arts for the chosen few or simply flawed commercial music may be a matter of opinion.
Well I don’t think Minimal (anything) is ‘flawed commercial music” because it is not commercial music i.e it dosn’t have a broad appeal. Whereas Synth Pop is mostly aimed at being commercial even if it didn’t succeed. But it is probably a mistake for any band to deliberately try to produce commercially successful songs if their talent lies elsewhere. I think it is very difficult to be both experimental, and ground-breaking as well as commercial. There are not many who achieve this.
It is only my opinion but I think commercial success comes after the experimental and is usually done by those who take the new ideas and then re-use them in a commercial context. So then SynthPop would be what happens after Minimal Synth has ceased to be original.
I guess it’s safe to say that the idea that minimal synth is music for some kind of elite is somewhat newer than the music itself.
As discussed in earlier threads, there wasn’t even a specific genre called minimal synth or minimal electronics at the time that the music appeared on the radar for the first time.
Also, many musicians were quite young, had just started making music and possibly were rather happy that they could get anything music-like out of their gear at all.
So maybe at the beginning, they were neither trying to make commercially successful, nor commercially unsuccessful music, but just music?
Cause at times you get that with young people, no ulterior motives and no hidden agendas…....yet. 8)
“I guess it’s safe to say that the idea that minimal synth is music for some kind of elite is somewhat newer than the music itself. “
I had assumed that this was said as humour. However I can see that some might think it true.
“As discussed in earlier threads, there wasn’t even a specific genre called minimal synth or minimal electronics at the time that the music appeared on the radar for the first time.”
Absolutely correct. I never heard this these terms spoken of at the time. It would be interesting to know when and who first came up with these descriptive phrases.
“Also, many musicians were quite young, had just started making music and possibly were rather happy that they could get anything music-like out of their gear at all. “
Around 1980 a few things came together, Synths (cheap Japanese ones) became less expensive than some guitars. Simple rhythm boxes became available and home recording using machines like the Akai 4000D also became affordable. This made simple home multitrack recording possible. This sort of limited you to about 4 tracks (before bouncing introduced too much noise). This sort of limited you to Vocal, Rhythm (Drums), Bass and Mid range and probably gives rise to this sparse, open sounds that isn’t over filled, layered or over produced.
As said elsewhere, the synths had good powerful base sounds and could be played without years of lessons. Some went as far as writing simple sequencers using the Micro Computers available at the time. The BBC Micro was almost everywhere as was the Spectrum and Commadore 64 etc.
If think it also significant that many of these bands were duos. The available and affordable technology also allowed small bands appear that didn’t need 4 musicians to play live as tape backing tracks could be used or programmed sequencers and rhythm machines. It shouldn’t be underestimated how much easier it is for 2 people to work together and perform compared to 4 or 5 people, the dynamics are very different.
Also, given the fact that youngsters and older musicians had to play or programme all the parts even if they didn’t know how to play base, or a keyboard tended to produce simpler parts to songs. A skilled basist or rhythm player would have filled the parts out as would a drummer. A good example of this can be heard in Gary Numan’s Old Grey Whistle Test’s performance of Are Friends Electric where the basist can clearly be heard filling in.
“So maybe at the beginning, they were neither trying to make commercially successful, nor commercially unsuccessful music, but just music? “
I think they pressed keys, heard sounds they liked, found rhythms and wrote songs based on simple ideas. Like Mozart’s twinkle twinkle little star, they were simple beginnings that would become more complex as they learned and understood more.
