Early minimalist music underwent many changes shortly after its emergence, and many musicologists have observed these shifts. Musicologist Heisinger points out that minimalist music became an influential style in concert halls and opera houses around the world and can no longer be described as a reaction against abstract and complex music. Bernard argues that minimalist music became more complex in its first stage of change, paid more attention to its sonic resonance in the second, began to overtly produce harmonic sounds in the third, and in the fourth stage, began to use tonal, neo-tonal, or quasi-tonal sounds, emphasizing its harmonic aspect. Elements once considered essential to early minimalist music—its specific socio-political context, unique aesthetic characteristics, and distinct musical surface—have been partially maintained or discarded.
Heisinger classifies 1980s minimalist music into four groups: (1) works by famous composers such as Reich and Glass who use repetitive minimalist styles, (2) works by composers such as Rzewski and Lentz that incorporate minimalist techniques, (3) works like those of Adams that use minimalist techniques within dramatic progressions, and (4) works by Riley and Young, who are interested in Indian performance practices, unique tunings, and improvisation. These categories show that, even by the 1980s, a wide variety of music was included under the label of minimalism. Heisinger distinguishes Riley and Young from Glass and Reich, and refers to newer composers like Lentz and Rzewski as minimalists, focusing on minimalism as a style or technique. Similarly, Johnson sees the evolved minimalist music as a stylistic category and defines it accordingly.
He cites Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians as a representative example of minimalist music as a style, with consistent rhythm, a radiant tone, a simple harmonic palette, absence of extended melodies, and repetitive rhythmic patterns. Above all, it demonstrates goal-oriented movement through a pre-planned structure. Reich himself noted that the first five minutes of the piece contain more harmonic change than all of his previous compositions combined, indicating a significant shift in the harmonic dimension of minimalism.
Such evolved minimalist music, with its diverse harmonic changes and predetermined structures, moves away from the non-teleological aesthetics and reductionist elements of early minimalism. It becomes defined not by shared socio-political contexts but by its “stylistic similarity,” allowing a broader inclusion of music under the minimalist label.
Johnson also introduces the notion of minimalism “as a technique.” This concept retains some aspects of minimalist style but uses minimalist elements selectively or in modified forms. He argues that minimalist music has developed from an aesthetic to a style, and finally, to a technique over several decades.
As a technique, minimalist music does not need to be tied to a specific socio-political context, aesthetic traits, or unique musical form. If certain techniques derived from minimalism are present in a composition, it can be categorized as minimalist in technique—even if it no longer sounds “stylistically” minimalist. However, this kind of music is also referred to by some scholars as “postminimalism.”
Bernard defines postminimalist music as being tied to minimalist techniques that remain as a “residual organ.” He identifies music as postminimalist when its origins can be traced to minimalism, when it emerges as a response to minimalism, or even in opposition to it.
Gann also discusses postminimalism, emphasizing that it contains a response to minimalism. He argues that the decisive difference between minimalism and postminimalism lies in whether the structure of the music is apparent on its surface—minimalist music allows immediate understanding of structure, whereas postminimalist music does not.
While definitions of postminimalism vary, it is clear that transformed forms of minimalism are often called postminimalism, while also being labeled minimalist music in terms of technique.
Initially, 1960s Manhattan had a vital influence on early minimalism. But over time, compositions began to emerge that no longer reflected that geographical context or its associated resistance to tradition. This shift is often interpreted as a result of American minimalist music’s influence on Europe. Composers such as Pärt, Górecki, Tavener, Kancheli, and Vasks represent “spiritual minimalism,” where minimalist techniques—slow harmonic rhythm, simplicity, stasis, repetition—are combined with religious texts, rituals, and worship. This demonstrates the use of minimalism as a technique.
However, in spiritual minimalism, what matters more is that these composers are European and deeply rooted in Western traditions, unlike early minimalists who reacted against that tradition and were more influenced by non-Western music. The representational nature of spiritual minimalist music distances it from the non-representational aesthetics of early minimalism. Still, its meditative qualities—eternal temporality, stasis, and non-teleological flow—recall core minimalist concepts. The unique temporal experience of early minimalism is reinterpreted within a religious framework.
This broadening of the definition allows minimalist music to be identified based on stylistic similarity or the use of specific techniques, regardless of shared social or political context. The original four conditions used to define early minimalist music are insufficient to capture all music within the minimalist sphere. For example, Radigue’s music is better understood in relation to Buddhist music or French electronic music, while Glass’s post-1980s music is more clearly framed by its popularity.
Porter notes that minimalist music became increasingly popular in the U.S. and by the 1980s and 1990s, came to be associated primarily with Glass’s music. This shift was due to the growing accessibility of his music. John Adams defines minimalism by steady pulse, slow harmonic rhythm, and the construction of large-scale structures through small repetitive elements. Musicologist Gann sees this definition as aligning with how the public understands minimalism. By the 1980s, minimalist music had come to refer to a much broader musical territory.
Film music is a prime example of this expansion. Many film scores use only certain minimalist elements or techniques. For instance, Glass’s The Truman Show or Zimmer’s Interstellar employ arpeggiated accompaniment patterns characteristic of minimalism, rather than representing minimalism in its purest form. In this way, the term “minimalist music” now refers to a wider range of music, including New Age and semi-classical genres. Minimalist music has thus expanded into the realm of popular and applied music.
Minimalist music has evolved from a specific aesthetic rooted in 1960s Manhattan into a broad and diverse category. It is now understood variously as an aesthetic, a style, or a technique. These transformations allowed for the inclusion of postminimalist and spiritual minimalist works, and extended minimalist influence into popular music and film. Today, minimalist music is often defined not by ideology or context, but by stylistic similarity or the use of minimalist techniques.