Musical Mysticism & Intellect

It is altogether too easy for students to acquire the prejudices of their teachers. This is particularly true in terms of taste, which is mostly (though not entirely) subjective. Why, I still have a bias against the music of Bruckner, one I am working halfheartedly to cast aside, acquired from the same orchestra conductor who instilled in me my love of Mahler. I remember clearly the opinion of my piano teacher regarding Philip Glass, whom she regarded as "prodigiously untalented". This appears to be a general consensus. Even now, in his venerable old age, critics must carefully mete out their praise of Glass lest it be construed as endorsement. Consider this recent article by Terry Teachout: while Glass is acknowledged as "the only American classical composer whose name is reasonably well known outside musical circles" and "something of an elder statesman of American music", the author cannot bring himself to claim that Glass's music is particularly memorable, well-crafted, or enduring: in short, it isn't very good. The real interesting part of the article comes at the very end, when Teachout acknowledges the very different telos of Glass's music:

Part of the continuing resistance to Glass's music lies in the fact that it raises the question of what one thinks music is for, and answers it in a way that many concertgoers find unsatisfactory. Is music a means to an end, or the end in itself? Do you, the listener, use it in order to induce in yourself an ecstatic state of consciousness, or do you engage with it, as you might engage with, say, the "Unfinished" Symphony or The Brothers Karamazov? Most listeners opt for engagement over functionality. But it is necessary to remember that they are both legitimate goals of art, just as the narrative-based organization of Western classical music is neither innately natural nor historically inevitable. The mere fact that Glass writes music for a reason different from Schubert's does not invalidate the results.

This is the crux of the difference between minimalist music and that which came before it, and it is important to recall that not all minimalist music is content (as Glass's) to remain airy persiflage. Bach's Johannes-Passion demands spiritual, emotional, and intellectual attention, while Pärt's Passio secundem Joannem instills in the listener, perhaps, a mystical state of consciousness. The huge difference between Pärt — an unequivocally good composer — and Glass — a bad one — is that Pärt, for all his mysticism, provides countless structures within his music that we can engage with, in addition to the numinous qualities of his music. Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't: Pärt's tintinnabuli technique is the product of a rigorous mind, and its results, though deceptively simple-sounding, are rich indeed.

Arvo Pärt: Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem

Passio text & translation
A good 2010 article on Pärt in the Gray Lady

(It should be mentioned, as well, that my current favorite recording of the Bach St. John Passion is that of John Butt and the Dunedin consort, which is an attempt to reconstruct the entire Good Friday liturgy of its first performance in 1724. It is especially interesting to hear how organ music might have figured into the liturgy.)