Customer Reviews

Terry Riley: In C; Liang: Music of a Thousand Springs; Zen (Ch'an) of Water

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Ting, ting, ting, ting, ting, ting, ting, ting...that's how this starts, with a drumming pulse on the top Cs on a piano. Then gradually, a whole tapestry of interlocking sounds starts to unfold, and you're slowly getting immersed in 'In C'. You don't really listen to this piece; the effect is much more like that aforementioned 'immersion', as the very gradual shifting of the patterns is more like organic growth, instead of the architectural jumps and skips found in Philip Glass or Steve Reich's works. How this is accomplished is by the use of a very selective variant on chance processes; since performers aren't given direct instructions on when to change from one ostinato to the next, this slow, 'oozing' shifting occurs, and it's quite fascinating (as opposed to what one reviewer here seems to think). It's certainly not an easy work to wrap your head around, unlike Glass, etc, but both the music and the ideas behind it are most rewarding. A critical work.

Minimalism has produced five masterpieces: Philip Glass' "Music in Twelve Parts" and "Einstein on the Beach," La Monte Young's "The Well-Tuned Piano" (good luck finding that one!), Steve Reich's "Music for 18 Musicians," and Terry Riley's "In C." Although there are several recordings of "In C", each with a different orchestration, this one is probably still the best recording after all is said and done. (I only wish Mr. Riley would make a much longer recording, AT LEAST two hours long.)

This is one of the first of the "minimalist" movement. Though it is hard to "HEAR" It is wonderful to "LISTEN" to. Every fan of the minimalist movement should atleast listen to this recording. I would say this recording is "essential". Highly recomended.

The first time I heard this recording, some twenty-five years ago, I was a bit shocked - it was utterly unlike anything I had experienced in "classical" music. But after a few listening sessions it began to grow on me. The repetitions and subtle pattern changes will either enthrall or bore you; one person's trance is another's monotony. Whatever the case, there is much to admire in Terry Riley's classic experiment with structure and instrumentation.

Since this landmark recording, there have been other noteworthy versions. I own an interesting one by the Shanghai Film Orchestra, which includes a number of Chinese instruments which create a uniquely shimmering texture. And the recent recording by the superb Bang on a Can All-Stars is not to be missed. But this one was the first, and has its own place in history.

Preamble - the wrong product description has snuck onto this page from a nearby alternative. Read for your own amusement.
I recommend to those who want to pursue the question of which "In C" to choose go over to the page for the Bang on a Can version, if only to read some other reviews that raise some significant issues. Among them: if one "learned" the piece in this version from 1968 (when major record companies were braver) and was like many others just bowled over by it, then you may consider it "definitive" -- and have kept it in your head -- much as your first exposure to a more traditionally notated piece that works for you may become frozen in the version you heard first.
Second, yes, I agree, this is first and foremost a performer's piece, a strangely introverted work that may seem to speak directly to its audience (the rules seem so simple), but still seems more about the interweaving of ensemble than aesthetic pleasure (as one reviewer says, one floats in and out while listening, i.e., is ruled by the trance element). "In C" is a improvisation within the tightest of boundaries, a pattern that happens to emulate the self-indulgence of bad soloing in jazz and popular music - audience thinks, come on, musicians, focusing on the movement to the next riff -- but the musicians think, wow, we've stayed in this cool riff combination for more than five seconds!
Someone also complained that the original sounds "too much like a gamelan." Well, that would make sense historically, wouldn't it, if you think of the principles behind Riley (and others' music), and the growing interest in "world music" in the 1960s, and the sheer coolness of the gamelan (well, I played in a few, so maybe I'm also coming from a limited viewpoint).
I haven't heard this transfer, and suspect that the weaknesses in the original recording are if anything more obvious -- the acoustic space always seemed noisy or cramped, and that high-pitched piano pulse never sounded too great. But maybe it just needs to be treated like a modern historical recording (that I happen to like, whatever the sound).
One disappointment, sadly - despite the all-star ensemble, the live recording on New Albion has strange balances, and the percussion really is too present at times. The breathing dropouts and articulation changes stick out as well; the relative murk of the original analog recording covers those moments better, and thus lends even more of a classic sheen to the 1968 recording. The Bang on a Can may end up in my player someday, I'll admit, however.

The compositional approach of Terry Riley and his pioneering minimalist work In C had a measurable impact on late 1960s and early 1970s musicians that wished to fuse more experimental styles with rock music. In fact, the Swedish group International Harvester is a pretty good example of this, not to mention some of the music of 1970-period Soft Machine.

Written in 1964 (Riley prepared a 53 figure score of sorts which is reproduced in the liner notes), In C is classified as an aleatoric composition; that is, the element of chance plays a significant role in determining what the musicians play. Based on what I have read, performances of In C can last from 15 minutes to two hours and the piece is intended for any number of performers; amateur and trained virtuoso alike.

On this 1968 recording, Terry performs with ten individuals from the Center for Creative and Performing Arts at SUNY (Buffalo, New York) and the performance lasts for approximately 42 minutes. Instrumentation includes saxophone (played by Terry Riley), bassoon, clarinet, oboe, viola, flute, trumpet, trombone, vibraphone and marimbaphone. Central to the performance is a piano part referred to as the "pulse" which is provided by Margaret Hassell. As described in the liner notes, the "pulse" consists of even octave eighth notes played on the top two C notes of the piano, which can clearly be heard at the beginning of the piece. The ensemble plays in sync with this pulse.

The composition itself consists of a dense and subtly changing ostinato network. That is, each performer repeats a single part that is gradually changed, which in turn cues the other performers to also subtly alter what they are playing. As can be imagined, this music takes a great deal of skill and a highly developed ability to listen to the other players. Really good performances can get fairly complex and consist of a writhing mass of ever-shifting ostinati. Although several versions of In C are floating around out there (ranging from one by Japanese psychedelic rock outfit Acid Mothers Temple In C to a version by Bang on a Can Terry Riley: In C), I have not listened to them - as such I can not gage the relative quality of this 1968 performance. Suffice it to say that the changes within this version of In C are subtle (yet exciting), and listening to the entire work requires great concentration and patience on the part of the listener.

While it is difficult to remain still amidst the furious bustle of 21st century living, e.g. kids, work etc... (even for 45 minutes), I found that making the effort was worth it. This album is very highly recommended along with A Rainbow in Curved Air (1969). Other influential minimalist composers include Steve Reich, Philip Glass and Lamonte Young.

Terry Riley's In C is, if nothing else, one of the most epoch-making works of the twentieth century - whether it solehandedly instigated minimalism is a slightly different matter, but at least it changed the face of the musical world. It dates from 1964 and consists of 53 thematic patterns played in sequence; in unison or other alignment. The number of performers is optional, breaks for individual players are allowed, and the individual players themselves decide how many times to repeat a pattern. This, of course, means that every performance will give us a different resulting piece (and it sometimes feels wrong to play the same recording of it twice) - the sequence is specified, but the effect is that the tapestry of sound unfold differently, melding differently from one pattern to the other in a different manner, in each performance (in addition to the fact that different selections of instruments will, of course, create different textures).

The recording at hand is the work's world premiere recording from 1968, duly remastered. I guess there is no real point in comparing it with other performances except in overall character. In that respect this Buffalo performance is strikingly craggy and confrontational, probably due to the central use of wind instruments, though I am not sure I think of that as a positive or negative thing - it makes the music slightly harder on the ear, and could perhaps be a reason to choose a different recording as one's first encounter with the work. Another notable feature of this performance is the notable increase in speed approximately halfway through which interrupts the meditative, mesmerizing quality of the work with a sudden surge of urgency. The remastered sound is fine. I still cannot shake the feeling that detachedly listening to this essentially performers' music is somewhat misunderstanding the point (at least listening to it repeatedly), but the end result is nevertheless strikingly compelling.

I enjoyed listening to this work quite often in college and still replay it in my mind at times. Get lost in your imagination and add your own playing if your mind can handle it.

So...it seems that this record, along with Henry Cow's "Western Culture", sparks a lot of controversy among the crowd at amazon. But unlike some of my fellow reviewers, I am actually going to DESCRIBE the music insted of argue about it.

From the beginning you can tell that this recording has suffered from the ravages of age (either that or they're using a very cheap piano). That's really too bad, because this might have been a very good performance, were we only able to hear it better.

"In C" is a very hard piece to play, both mentally and physically. The subtle, ever-shifting patterns demand that you not "listen", to the music, but just play it in the background, "tuning in" from time to time. But I have a problem with Riley's instrumentation: he always uses way too many woodwinds and mallet percussion, making the piece sound like an indonesian gamelan orchestra. If you like the gamelan sound, then you won't have any problem with that, but if you find it somewhat annoying, then watch out.

Instead of this album, I would recommend the superb version recently released by Bang on a Can. They eliminate the gamelan effect and almost all of the wind instruments, using mostly strings such as Double Bass, Mandolin, and Electric Guitar.

Listen for Jon Hassel playing trumpet on this release (with the mouthpiece on, I presume), sixteen years before his collaboration with Eno on "Fourth World Possible Musics". Hmmm. Interesting.

I am not shure if any of the reviewers here are reffering to this recording... This is not the "original" recording of In C - this is a performance od Shanghai Film ORchestra, adding another two "eastern" compositions to the CD.

This performance is extraordinary, a flowing of soundscapes, real musical streams, In C sounds even more like some ethereal far-eastern music when played by all those chinese instruments and the other two compositions fit together with it perfectly. I think this is a really gorgeous contemporary music.