# The world looses Karheinz Stockhausen



## LFcatface

Today I found out that Stockhausen died a few days ago. I am very sad because it seems as though with Berio, Xenakis and Ligeti gone a door has closed on that generation of composers.

I wasn't a huge fan,in fact I consider myself "a survivor" of a three day Stockhausen festival in Sweden where I listened to three incredibly long concerts of his music per day. The concerts took place in a gym with which was filled with very uncomfortable seats but still had the bleachers in the back. I reclined back on the bleachers for the first half of the festival and just let his wierd, formless sound compositions just wash over me along with some others that could not endure the long concerts on the uncomfortable chairs. 
But Stockhausen would not have it he wanted the audience upright and paying attention!

He was quite a charachter, always appearing in his white outfits like a mad German scientist, and introducing his concerts personally with "Ladies and gentleman , meine Dammen und Herren". He also seemed to be followed around with a Harem of women musicians in Harem pants....hmmmmmmm.

Anyway , "out there" crazy as he was, the world is much poorer without him, and it seems like there is no one around who can fill his shoes.


----------



## Frasier

LFcatface said:


> Today I found out that Stockhausen died a few days ago. I am very sad because it seems as though with Berio, Xenakis and Ligeti gone a door has closed on that generation of composers.


They may have passed on but their spirit remains. The more I listen to contemporary music, the more I'm aware of their influence, the mix of formal and intuitional threads in compositions. Certainly in their wake came much flotsam: imitators and charlatans who saw the avant garde as a way into making a name...they failed, naturally, leaving the real talent eventually to reach through.

Stockhausen was a great innovator and creator. With him we can bracket Pierre Henry and Schaeffer, also engaged in electroacoustic music (though Stockhausen was among the first to employ electronics in the live setting which he would dutifully control from his console some way up the auditorium, as you will know!) And yes, along with the composers you mention, plus Kagel, Nono, Boulez and maybe a few others, they were the avant garde. They broke the boundaries of music, paving the way for generations of younger composers, particularly in the fields of electronic/electroacoustic music.



> He was quite a charachter, always appearing in his white outfits like a mad German scientist, and introducing his concerts personally with "Ladies and gentleman , meine Dammen und Herren". He also seemed to be followed around with a Harem of women musicians in Harem pants....hmmmmmmm.
> 
> Anyway , "out there" crazy as he was, the world is much poorer without him, and it seems like there is no one around who can fill his shoes.


He had a magnanimous soul and worked tirelessly toward his aims. He aknowledged his debt to Webern. 
I'm a moderate fan, love his electronic/electroacoustic works: Kontakte, Telemusik, Gesang and some of the piano works. A great man. May he rest in peace.


----------



## Yosser

I'm resurrecting this brief thread because a) as an epitaph to Stockhausen it is a tad briefer than one might have expected and b) I did not spot Karl-Heinz on anyone's 'composers I intend to listen to' lists (apologies if someone did and I missed it). Is this because everyone has listened to as much Stockhausen as they wish to?

To declare myself, K-H does absolutely nothing for me and I'm genuinely puzzled how he came to have such a strong influence on so many musicians (apparently). Perhaps aficionados would care to clue me in.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, he needed to be loosened, anyway.


----------



## Scott Good

Yosser said:


> I'm resurrecting this brief thread because a) as an epitaph to Stockhausen it is a tad briefer than one might have expected and b) I did not spot Karl-Heinz on anyone's 'composers I intend to listen to' lists (apologies if someone did and I missed it). Is this because everyone has listened to as much Stockhausen as they wish to?
> 
> To declare myself, K-H does absolutely nothing for me and I'm genuinely puzzled how he came to have such a strong influence on so many musicians (apparently). Perhaps aficionados would care to clue me in.


I was surprised to see this thread topic pop up!

I think when approaching his repertoire, one must be prepared to not generalize. It is quite vast in it's expressiveness, quality and accessibility.

For me, Hymnen, Gruppen, Stimmung and Klavierstucke X are at the top of the list (Yosser, have you heard all of these?). Yet, each of these works are so very different, yet carry the undeniable spirit of creativity which is what I admire most in his music. Craft and creativity he has in plenty.

How much of an influence he had is questionable, but certainly some. I am not an aficionado, though. I just have listened and enjoyed some pieces, not so much others. I have studied a few scores, and they have some, but not too much impact on how I approach my own compositions. But, the application of structuring around registration in Gruppen was particularly influential on my own thinking. He offers many techniques to ponder.


----------



## Yosser

Scott Good said:


> For me, Hymnen, Gruppen, Stimmung and Klavierstucke X are at the top of the list (Yosser, have you heard all of these?). Yet, each of these works are so very different, yet carry the undeniable spirit of creativity which is what I admire most in his music. Craft and creativity he has in plenty.


I first tried to make contact with Stockhausen many years ago and, quite honestly, I can't recall what I listened to back then and what not. Hymnen sounds familiar. Recently, however, I did listen to Klavierstueck X, twice. This was at a time when I was trying to understand why Finnissy's 'English Country Tunes' (which seems to me a derivative work of the Klavierstueck) is held in such high regard in certain quarters. I forced myself to listen to this twice also.

If by creative we mean 'new' and 'different', then I would have no quarrel with you. If we mean this, but require also invoking a visceral response, then not. I guess this is what I am missing. This music may be speaking to someone, but it does not seem to be speaking to me.

So, to start from somewhere concrete, where can I find a criticism/appreciation that explains what I should be listening for in Klavierstueck X?


----------



## yohji_nap

Robin Maconie's book on Stockhausen is available on Google Books - 
http://books.google.com/books?id=iuJP2gIDDJkC
There's a chapter there on every piece, including Klavierstueck X (pp. 216-218). Not sure if it qualifies as an explanation of what to listen to, though.

That said, may I recommend Klavierstueck VII instead? Find a good recording, i.e. Kontarsky (best, I think) or Corver and listen at high volume. The piece revolves around resonances created by holding some of the keys without sounding them; by sounding other notes, a spectrum of harmonics is created. (They're not too loud on some recordings, which is why I said what I said about the volume). It really is very beautiful, and the spectra are diverse, from gentle, mysterious things to rather violent stuff; I can't help being touched by the piece. It also showcases perfectly how Stockhausen could influence composers, for out of Klavierstueck VII emerged the entire spectral school, for instance. _And_ it introduced a new way of playing piano and composing for it (i.e. adding those harmonic spectra in the same category as melody, harmony, etc.).

I think Stockhausen is, in a way, a composer's composer; you really need a good melodic memory, a good ear for structure, etc., to appreciate his music. _Mantra_ sounds like random improvisation unless you at least recognize where sections start and end and link their sound (each has a distinctive one) to a section of the "mantra" in the beginning. Harlekin sounds like a random assortment of notes, unless you can read music and happen to have the formula in front of you all the time, or have a perfect memory and recognize the melody as it is built and varied. (I believe this was one of his ideas about music - I remember reading a short statement about the Klavierstuecke in which he recommended listening to them a lot and trying to play them, or move your hands and fingers as if you were playing, etc.) The only pieces I know by him that are easy to listen to are the short clarinet works in Amour (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amour_(Stockhausen) ).

Hope this helps.

(As for his ideas, for me as a composer, they're tremendously interesting; they're new and effective ways of organizing material. The one time I tried formula composition (albeit not knowing exactly what it was, but being influenced by what I've heard about it) I absolutely loved it, and the piece turned out extremely well.)


----------



## handlebar

RIP Stockhausen. There seem to be an awful lot of deaths in the entertainment/music area these last few weeks.

Jim


----------



## Scott Good

Yosser said:


> I first tried to make contact with Stockhausen many years ago and, quite honestly, I can't recall what I listened to back then and what not. Hymnen sounds familiar. Recently, however, I did listen to Klavierstueck X, twice. This was at a time when I was trying to understand why Finnissy's 'English Country Tunes' (which seems to me a derivative work of the Klavierstueck) is held in such high regard in certain quarters. I forced myself to listen to this twice also.


I listened to the Finnessy - what a joker - ha. That title must certainly have upset a few listeners.



Yosser said:


> If by creative we mean 'new' and 'different', then I would have no quarrel with you. If we mean this, but require also invoking a visceral response, then not. I guess this is what I am missing. This music may be speaking to someone, but it does not seem to be speaking to me.


Well, I do like to separate creative from quality - yes, new a different are my criterion.



Yosser said:


> So, to start from somewhere concrete, where can I find a criticism/appreciation that explains what I should be listening for in Klavierstueck X?


I don't know about any reading material to appreciate this music.

Here is what I like in this piece. The language of it is density and register. He shapes the music using these forces rather than harmony or melody. It has been quite a few years since hearing this piece, but I remember thinking that he does an exceptional job of setting up expectations, and then either fulfilling them or not. The silences are not entirely predictable.

Honestly, for me the best way to appreciate his music is viscerally, not intellectually. One should not think, but simply experience. Honestly, there is far too much information to be thinking about. So, this piece is simply chaos to calm, and it's shape is defined by sound mass and silence.

But, this is just the way I hear it.


----------



## Yosser

yohji_nap said:


> I think Stockhausen is, in a way, a composer's composer; you really need a good melodic memory, a good ear for structure, etc., to appreciate his music.


That would account for the strong influence he has had on other composers, while appearing impossibly difficult, even absurd, to the lay listener. I am not a composer, but I think I have a reasonably attentive ear for melody and structure. So if I cannot see where K-H is headed, I believe most other lay listeners will have trouble too.

Perhaps there is an analogy with Schoenberg (full-blown serial phase) and his student Alban Berg. Revolutionary ideas take time to ripen.

On Scott_Good's recommendation, I listened to 'Gruppen'. I can imagine a live performance would sound quite interesting.

Thanks very much for your post which I enjoyed reading. I'll listen to Klavierstueck VII and see if I can pick up what you refer to.


----------



## Sid James

I've only heard his _Helicopter Sonata_, on radio, which was interesting, if a bit wierd...


----------



## Yosser

Scott Good said:


> I listened to the Finnessy - what a joker - ha. That title must certainly have upset a few listeners.


This one, for sure. Not clear to me whether you approve of Finnissy's 'little joke', or not!
Do you think this is a substantial piece?



Scott Good said:


> Well, I do like to separate creative from quality


Have to confess, I do not know quite what you mean. I would have thought that the combination 'creativity+quality' goes quite far in describing an interesting piece of music.
Perhaps it depends what one means by 'creativity'.



Scott Good said:


> Here is what I like in this piece. The language of it is density and register. He shapes the music using these forces rather than harmony or melody. It has been quite a few years since hearing this piece, but I remember thinking that he does an exceptional job of setting up expectations, and then either fulfilling them or not. The silences are not entirely predictable.


Absolutely not. Are you implying that a random number generator is 'creative'?



Scott Good said:


> Honestly, for me the best way to appreciate his music is viscerally, not intellectually. One should not think, but simply experience. Honestly, there is far too much information to be thinking about. So, this piece is simply chaos to calm, and it's shape is defined by sound mass and silence.


We agree, then, that music needs to have visceral appeal. This piece speaks to you the way a musical composition should speak to the listener. Perhaps I need to listen to a live performance, or try to play the piece myself.

As I noted in my previous post, I did listen to 'Gruppen', following your recommendation. Simon Rattle et al on the web, so I got only a bit of the effect. However, I could recognize it would be well worth attending a live performance.


----------



## Stunt21

Hi.

I'm bringing this up, as I'm quite surprised that such an influential composer didn't have more dedicated posts in this forum...

Ok, his style is not pleasant to everyone, but as someone said he was a "composer's composer", whether in "classical" environments (we know some good quotes that some of those we (all) know as good composers wrote about him), and in not classical ones (Frank Zappa started making music after listening to Stockhausen, and he was even in a Beatles cover).

I'm currently amazed about Samtag, from Licht. I'm looking forward to end the exams I'm currently having and give Licht a lot of time and high volume. 

Greetings!


----------



## Stunt21

Ok, I confused the Zappa fact, this one was Varèse...Sorry.

But anyway, Zappa is quite in debt with Stockhausen, as well as many others including people from Pink Floyd...


----------



## Romantic Geek

There is a composers guestbook now...why don't you post there. This is for composers among us in the forums


----------



## Stunt21

Oh, I just used the finder and posted here, you're right, should have noticed, thanks 

Greetings!


----------

