# Stockhausen, Karlheinz



## Stunt21

There was no guestbook for this great one 

We all know he is quite controversial, not just because his works are not easily understandable (let's say it that way  ), but also because of distorted press reviews about declarations on just a way to see 9/11, which costed him the celebration of a festival and a relationship with a daughter...

I'm quite addicted lately to, quite probably, his masterwork: LICHT.

What do you have to say about him?

Greetings.


----------



## yohji_nap

I think he is one of the greatest composers ever. Regardless of whether one likes his music or not, the sheer inventiveness and the astonishing work ethic are, well, beyond anyone. Also, as a composer I benefit enormously from studying his work; really inspiring stuff and teaches you tons.

Haven't listened to the entire LICHT yet, just three whole operas and a few fragments from others. Some of my favorite Stockhausen pieces are from LICHT - Kathinkas Gesang (Samstag), Klavierstueck XIV (Montag; probably the most accessible Stockhausen piece I know, apart from Amour), Orchester-Finalisten (Mittwoch), Donnerstags Abschied (Donnerstag), etc. I also like Mantra, Klavierstuecke VII and X, Freude and Harmonien from Klang, Mikrophonie I... eh. A lot of terrific stuff


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Absolutely love him, one of my top 5 or so favorite composers of the 20th century, creating some of the touchstone works in serialism and electronic composition. Too many good pieces to name, but a few personal standouts are _Kontakte_, _Gesang der Jünglinge_, _Stimmung_ and _Carré_.


----------



## Tapkaara

A charlatan and a performance artist more than a real composer, if you ask me. As a provocateur, perhaps one of the all-time greats, delivering a decisive slap in the face to the sometimes snooty classical music intellegentia. As an honest-to-goodness musician, I think he is a complete failure. Proof that technical knowledge of musical notation does not a great composer make. The only thing intruiging about his Helicopter Quartet is not the music itself (which is ugly and forgettable), is that it is being played in 4 different helicopters. Beethoven didn't need stunts like this to be noticed, he let the quality of his music bring him his fame.

Don't worry Stockhausen fans...it's just my opinion and do not let my comments get in the way of your enjoyment of this man's works. if it is meaningful to you, that's really all that matters, right?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Right. I find his sonic explorations and his approach to sound in a spatial sense to be exhilarating. His pioneering efforts in electronic music and subsequent influence speaks for itself. It's easy enough to throw around words like "charlatan", but Stockhausen was incredibly knowledgeable about composition, clear in his intentions, and groundbreaking in his techniques and with his results. But most of all, I just enjoy the fascinating worlds of sound that he created.


----------



## Tapkaara

Poppin' Fresh said:


> It's easy enough to throw around words like "charlatan"


In Stockhausen's case, yes, it is easy.



Poppin' Fresh said:


> but Stockhausen was incredibly knowledgeable about composition, clear in his intentions, and groundbreaking in his techniques and with his results.


That may all be true, but being clear in your intentions and knowledgeable about music does not justify the end result's of one's efforts. Being "groundbreaking" is not necessarily a good thing, either. As far as I'm concered, Stockhausen broke ground in his efforts to further the perversion of good music. Just my opinion.



Poppin' Fresh said:


> But most of all, I just enjoy the fascinating worlds of sound that he created.


Well, there you go. I cannot fault you for genuinly liking his sound. I respect your opinion, I really do, I just do not respect Stockhausen.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Tapkaara said:


> That may all be true, but being clear in your intentions and knowledgeable about music does not justify the end result's of one's efforts. Being "groundbreaking" is not necessarily a good thing, either. As far as I'm concered, Stockhausen broke ground in his efforts to further the perversion of good music. Just my opinion.


No, you're completely right. There's nothing inherent in being groundbreaking, unique, knowledgeable, etc. that guarantees good music, and being influential doesn't prove anything either in that regards. Because art is highly personal, and people bring their own feelings and assumptions and biases into how they judge it. Completely natural.

Those just aren't characteristics that one would expect to find in a so-called charlatan. That word can be thrown around to disparage anyone. I could call Beethoven a charlatan, and completely dismiss all the reasons he is venerated as irrelevant.

So what do we go on? What one person thinks is great, another thinks is crap, as proven by this thread. That's why we talk about an artist's influence, innovation, professionalism, and intentions in music. Things like that. Stockhausen rates highly in these categories, so I feel safe in saying he's in no way some kind of charlatan.


----------



## Sid James

Yes, he did produce some "stunts" like the _Helicopter Sonata_, but he also produced unquestionable masterpieces like _Gruppen_, _Stimmung_ & his solo piano works. I would doubt that you'd call him a charlatan if you heard these great pieces. I've only heard snippets and think they are great...


----------



## Tapkaara

Poppin' Fresh said:


> So what do we go on? What one person thinks is great, another thinks is crap, as proven by this thread. That's why we talk about an artist's influence, innovation, professionalism, and intentions in music. Things like that. Stockhausen rates highly in these categories, so I feel safe in saying he's in no way some kind of charlatan.


Indeed! One man's great composer is another's crap composer. We will just have to agree to disagree. By the way, thank you for obviously not taking my comments personally. We come to these forums because we like to express our opinions on music, positive or negative. Everyone should be allowed to praise their favorites and put down who they don't like.

Thank you for not saying "You don't understand Stockhausen" or anything like that. Why can't more people be like you, Poppin'Fresh?


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> ...put down who they don't like.


Your favorite thing to do!!

Here, I think, is what you don't understand, that some opinions are worth stating and some are not. The difference? Knowledge and understanding. An opinion based on knowledge and understanding is more valuable than one based on ignorance and intolerance. (I wonder if we could all agree that name-calling is out of bounds? "X is a charlatan" is an empty assertion; it's only purpose to anger X's proponents. "X is a charlatan because he does Y, Z, and Q" is of course far superior, though still kind of aggravating. Still not conducive of civilized conversation.)

Stockhausen was an important composer who synthesized the music of his immediate predecessors, who broke new ground, and who influenced (and continues to influence) many younger composers. His music is uneven (but whose isn't?), and his decades long work on LICHT certainly kept him from growing and developing his art, but he is a major player, regardless. Not liking is certainly a valid response. _Expressing_ dislike is where things get tricky. I think abuse is something best avoided.

I don't think "agree to disagree" is quite apropos here. If the contrast were "I like Stockhausen/I hate Stockhausen" then maybe so. But the contrast set up here is "Stockhausen is great/Stockhausen is crap," which is a contrast that (at least) pretends to be saying something about the music itself. And whether you like Stockhausen's music or not, its importance for composers and listeners and performers alike is inarguable.


----------



## Moldyoldie

_Gesang der Jünglinge_, _Stimmung_, and _Hymnen_ are personal favorites.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

The trouble with this conversation is that people are using the word "great" as if it meant one thing, but actually to mean something else. Use "great" for those composers you like, by all means, but don't then sideslip into implying that because composer X is "great" his or her music has some absolute value, because that's what great means. It's not a useful way of progressing the conversation.

If Tapkaara doesn't like Stockhausen's music, that is of vanishingly small relevance to its quality. About as much relevance as the fact that I do like his music. If we want to assess the quality of a composer's music we have to address the music, not individuals' varying responses to it.

Music is communication, and the message that people get from it is important - in fact I would argue that the message is the music. But the reaction to the message is not the message.


----------



## Sid James

I think that the problem with some listeners is that they judge C20th music by the standards of the C19th. On the face of it, this sounds insane, and they don't do this consciously, but in reality this is what they are doing. I think one has to have a degree of flexibility to enjoy post-WW2 music like that of Stockhausen. It may not give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but it may just hieghten your perception of art if you make yourself open to it.

I recently borrowed _Stimmung_ from my local library, and listened to it right through (80 minutes or so). While I only did that once, and don't intend to repeat that experience, I quite enjoyed it as a one-off. It was refreshingly different to most choral works that I know. Music (for me) is all about broadening my horizons and increasing my perception. Otherwise, it would just be boring, always listening to the same old cliches...


----------



## JMJ

A truly extraordinary figure in the entire pantheon of the western art music legacy, there is nothing quite like him - a true pioneer & visionary. I've been listening to a lot of his work since his death in 2007 ... re-visting old stuff and exploring the previously uncharted late works, Licht & Klang. Favorites include ...

Kontrapunkte
Kreuzspiel
Klavierstucke I-XIX
Gesang der Junglinge
Zeitmasze
Gruppen
Kontakte
Telemusik
Hymnen
Momente
Stimmung
Mantra
In Freundschaft
Michaels Reise
Luzifers Tanz
Der Kinderfanger
Oktophonie
Orchestral Finalists
Elektronische Musik mit Tonszenen vom Freitag
Sonntags Abschied
Freude
Cosmic Pulses
Star Signs


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Tapkaara said:


> A charlatan and a performance artist more than a real composer, if you ask me.


Even the most cursory review of the 25 works chronologically from Kreuzspiel to Momente will shown someone with any understanding of composition that Stockhausen was a remarkably gifted, innovative, inspiring - and probably great - composer.

Perhaps you could choose of one those works and supply a brief structural analysis to back up your assertion.


----------



## Sid James

Well, Tapkaara only seems to like the more conservative composers (for want of a better word) of the C20th. I think that for him, even someone like the relatively middle of the road Lutoslawski would be unacceptable. So Stockhausen for him is beyond the pale. I think people who have a bias toward disliking post WW2 music should probably avoid being negative. Of course, they have a right to post here like anyone else, but they should not be surprised that they will come up against some heavy opposition if they post some very extreme assertions like his ones above. Kind of reminds me of Mirror Image, but without the abuse. He was so closed-minded, it wasn't funny. Anyway, I agree with Some Guy on this matter...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Seriously, I think that dismissing the more "conservative" composers of the century is just as biased of closed-minded as dismissing those who are more "experimental"... especially if we are to be honest and admit that we cannot objectively discern just whom of either camp will prove themselves the most worthy over time... thus we can only listen to and support that which we enjoy... that which resonates with us. I wouldn't offer much of an opinion on Stockhausen either way, not having heard much of anything. The helicopter bit seems like a stupid conceptual art schtick, but then I have a recording of his _Stimmung_ which is in no way the work of a "charlatan"... indeed I quite enjoy it. Nevertheless... I somewhat imagine that claims as to Stockhausen being one of the "greatest composers ever" are more than slightly inflated.


----------



## Rasa

I had a shocking revelation yesterday.

I was sitting on the train, plagued by extreme boredom (ebook ran out of batteries), I was very annoyed, hot, hungry and not so pleased with my destination.

I decided to listen to some of Stockhausen's Klavierstücke, since I felt like I wanted to listen something I hated...

And suddenly, the music talked to me. Don't know why.... maybe it's music for people that are extremely bored. Bare passage of time, just events of sound...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Rasa said:


> I had a shocking revelation yesterday.
> 
> I was sitting on the train, plagued by extreme boredom (ebook ran out of batteries), I was very annoyed, hot, hungry and not so pleased with my destination.
> 
> I decided to listen to some of Stockhausen's Klavierstücke, since I felt like I wanted to listen something I hated...
> 
> And suddenly, the music talked to me. Don't know why.... maybe it's music for people that are extremely bored. *Bare passage of time, just events of sound...*


Maybe the piece sounded better than the train travelling on rails? That could be why.


----------



## Rasa

Perhaps Stockhausen's genius lies in creaing a piece that's extremely horrible, but still slightly better then boredom on purpose.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Rasa said:


> Perhaps Stockhausen's genius lies in creaing a piece that's extremely horrible, but still slightly better then boredom on purpose.


Sorry, Rasa, but I think your normal commonsense has eluded you here.
The Klavierstucke, of which even the first 12 are highly diverse, are all tightly composed, amenable to clear, cogent analysis, and, of course, expressive. For me they are far more successful realisations of a post-Webernian ethos than say the piano works of Barraque or Babbitt, which, to me, are dry and ascetic. Maybe not so much the Barraque. 
But don't you find Klavierstuck X viscerally exciting? 
It's entirely understandable that they didn't give up all their secrets on one listening - they require repeated listening to get to know them, but study repays the effort.


----------



## oto_oto

what i love about stockhausen and similar composers is how they open up my imagination and invite me to adventures... i often prefer these broken up bubbling soundscapes to the grand sweeping """emotional""" kind.


----------



## Conor71

I have been listening to Stockhausen's Gruppen lately - I find it quite an amusing work!
Im wondering if perhaps Im missing the point and do other people think there is a lot of humour in S's Music?
It would probably aid my appreciation of this Composer if I knew he had a sense of fun
Interested in others opinions on this one


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Conor71 said:


> I have been listening to Stockhausen's Gruppen lately - I find it quite an amusing work!
> Im wondering if perhaps Im missing the point and do other people think there is a lot of humour in S's Music?
> It would probably aid my appreciation of this Composer if I knew he had a sense of fun
> Interested in others opinions on this one


There is indeed a great deal of humour in Stockhausen's music, though it often shades into playfulness rather than outright jokes. I find the humour that permeates _Licht _can be a little laboured, but there is plenty elsewhere. _Harlekin _for solo clarinet is full of boisterousness and pranks while, in the 'choral opera' _Atmen gibt das Leben_... [_Breathing gives life._..], one of the choristers gets the hiccoughs.

I've always felt that the idea of a piece in which the players, one by one, get up and leave the platform while the music is still being performed, leaving just two violinists, to be a very Stockhausen-like joke, particlarly as this was meant as a message to the music's dedicatee. Such a work exists, of course, but it was written 200 years before Stockhausen.


----------



## DeepR

How do you listen to something like Klavierstück X? I have tried a few times.
I mostly hear harsh, loud and ugly tones coming out of the piano in a seemingly random order.
I'm sure the music is clever in some way, but I don't want to study music to be able to enjoy it. I want to feel it and get to know it from the heart purely by listening. Even if I understood the structure and compositional ideas behind the music, my ears would still hate it. Really, what is there to find in this music other than irritation?
Could you honestly listen to this in bed with headphones for example and expierence something that is remotely pleasant?
I am not attacking, I am seriously trying to understand, because I consider myself a fairly open-minded music listener.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Forgive me if I talk about your post point by point. I'd be interested to know which recording of _Klavierstück X _you heard.



DeepR said:


> How do you listen to something like Klavierstück X? I have tried a few times.
> I mostly hear harsh, loud and ugly tones coming out of the piano in a seemingly random order.


(1) "harsh, loud and ugly" - if you're using harsh as a synonym for dissonant, then I agree with you. Loud: I've just checked my copy of the score and, for sure, there are some ffs and fffs, but I suspect there are more pps and ppps. In fact, the whole compositional arc of the piece is like a comet with a dense 'head' and a protracted, quiet tail made up of the resonances of chords which are allowed to die away to inaudibility. Ugly is wholly your personal value judgement. Interesting, of course, but nothing to do with the music. Personally, my response to this music is that I find it exciting and exhilarating. Just my value judgements, of course.

(2) "seemingly random order" - there is indeed a complicated structure and rationale behind the music but I would have to admit that I need the score and an analysis of the work to guide me through it when I listen to it. I don't really think Stockhausen expects the listener to hear all the details of the structure, particularly in the first few listenings.



> I'm sure the music is clever in some way, but I don't want to study music to be able to enjoy it. I want to feel it and get to know it from the heart purely by listening.


(3) "I don't want to study music to be able to enjoy it" - that's an entirely acceptable standpoint but I think that, if you _were _to study music, you would enjoy particular pieces more. That applies as much to an appreciation of how Mozart varies the concerto form in his string of piano concertos from K413 onwards as it does to a particular piece of Stockhausen.

Each listener is entitled to approach a piece of music how he or she wishes, and every composer has to expect that that will be the attitude of his/her listeners. Composers of the baroque and classical periods _did _expect their audience to appreciate the structure which is why expositions were repeated in sonata form movements (so the first time listener could remember the material and so better appreciate what the composer did in the development section) and why Haydn's jokes aren't funny if you don't understand the way he subverted form, in order to be amusing, because you don't understand the form.



> Even if I understood the structure and compositional ideas behind the music, my ears would still hate it.
> Really, what is there to find in this music other than irritation?


(4) This sound suspiciously like someone determined not to enjoy this music. Which is fine, and I realise that there is nothing that I can say which will sway you because of your attachment to being right about this. Or tell me that I have got that wrong, please.

(5) Irritation is an emotion which we choose to have - it isn't in the music so it can't be found there. Once more, there's nothing wrong in finding it irritating - you wouldn't be the first! There is plenty of music which I find intensely irritating starting with almost everything Tchaikovsky wrote. But I accept that the irritation is in me, not the music.



> Could you honestly listen to this in bed with headphones for example and experience something that is remotely pleasant?


Yes.



> I am not attacking, I am seriously trying to understand, because I consider myself a fairly open-minded music listener.


I appreciate that and I hope you don't think I am attacking your position - in the sense of judging it or you for holding it. I think, if you want to remain open-minded you owe it to yourself to find out a little about how the music is put together but, if you don't like the idiom, you don't like the idiom and there's not a lot more to be said - except to reiterate that your response to the music is just that, it doesn't say anything at all about the music, so any suggestion, however disguised, that the music might be at fault should be let go of.

If you would like some harmonious Stockhausen, I recommend _Tierkreis_, twelve little tunes, one for each sign of the zodiac. It's available in a variety of instrumentations. Then there's the _Indianerlieder_, twelve songs for two people, based on a single tone row, admittedly, but a very benign one. Or _Stimmung _which is famously based on a single chord made up of B flat and five of its natural overtones (B♭, F, B♭, D, A↓♭, and C).


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Some Stockhausen tunes.

Four of the signs from _Tierkreis _arranged for a trio of flute/piccolo, clarinet, trumpet/piano - each is played three times, each time in different instrumentation and decoration.

This work was originally written for twelve music boxes and the first version of _Leo _is the closest to that sound.


----------



## Petwhac

I too struggle with this piece. Struggle that is, to _hear_ any reason why one 'phrase' or 'passage' should follow another. Struggle to _hear_ whether what goes on in the vertical dimension (ie. harmony) has any coherence or if it is irrelevant to the construction. If it is based on some sort of serial technique I'd like to know what rationale governs the composers choices.

Perhaps Jeremy or someone else has some of the answers and could explain.

You see for me, although some of KS's orchestral and ensemble pieces are fairly approachable if one sticks to reveling in exotic textures and their 'sound design', (Gruppen is an example of a piece that can excite on a purely sensuous level), I find piano music to be the great leveler. It exposes the composers bare musical thoughts without the 'window dressing' of novel timbre or instrumental colour. 
I am struggling to find the musical 'content' so to speak.

On another point Jeremy, relating to your earlier post. it is my firm conviction that the repeat of the exposition in the classical sonata has really nothing at all to do with the listener's memory and every thing to do with 'architecture'. Leave out the repeat and the whole edifice comes crashing down. Every concert goer knows Beethoven's 5th but no conductor is going to _not_ repeat the exposition, even if the audience is made up entirely of Beethoven biographers and no one present is hearing it for the first time. It would make a nonsense of the whole movement.
In Klavierstuck X, if a performer left out say, bars 50 - 60 (random choice to use as an example) would it matter? Would the piece suffer? 
This is not a wind up but a serious question. If you reversed the order of notes on one page would the piece lose something? Audibly?


----------



## Guest

I would love to be that someone else, but Jeremy's response to DeepR was so brilliant, all I want is to see his response to Petwhac as well.

I hope you don't mind, Jeremy!


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> I would love to be that someone else, but Jeremy's response to DeepR was so brilliant, all I want is to see his response to Petwhac as well.
> 
> I hope you don't mind, Jeremy!


I greatly look forward to it. Perhaps in return I can help Jeremy overcome the difficulty he has with Tchaikovsky. This can be mutually beneficial. And if I recall correctly you have a problem appreciating Chopin.
Maybe by the end of the process I will begin to enjoy KS, Jeremy will find more to enjoy in PT and you will 'get' FC.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Stockhausen is my favourite intergalactic composer. He said that he was born and educated on a planet orbiting Sirius and was brought to Earth to save music. And he did a great job too.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

some guy said:


> I would love to be that someone else, but Jeremy's response to DeepR was so brilliant, all I want is to see his response to Petwhac as well.
> 
> I hope you don't mind, Jeremy!


I'm on the case!


----------



## Guest

....


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Petwhac said:


> I too struggle with this piece. Struggle that is, to _hear_ any reason why one 'phrase' or 'passage' should follow another. Struggle to _hear_ whether what goes on in the vertical dimension (ie. harmony) has any coherence or if it is irrelevant to the construction. If it is based on some sort of serial technique I'd like to know what rationale governs the composers choices.
> 
> Perhaps Jeremy or someone else has some of the answers and could explain.
> 
> You see for me, although some of KS's orchestral and ensemble pieces are fairly approachable if one sticks to reveling in exotic textures and their 'sound design', (Gruppen is an example of a piece that can excite on a purely sensuous level), I find piano music to be the great leveler. It exposes the composers bare musical thoughts without the 'window dressing' of novel timbre or instrumental colour.
> I am struggling to find the musical 'content' so to speak...
> 
> In Klavierstuck X, if a performer left out say, bars 50 - 60 (random choice to use as an example) would it matter? Would the piece suffer?
> 
> This is not a wind up but a serious question. If you reversed the order of notes on one page would the piece lose something? Audibly?


Let me assure you that Stockhausen's _Klavierstück X _has a fully defined, fully worked out and tightly disciplined structure, just as much as has the _Hammerklavier _sonata. The differences are that (a) the KS piece is an order of magnitude more complex and (b) a twelve tone idiom is intrinsically (far) harder to understand aurally. Leaving out any part of the work would be as damaging as leaving out a chunk of the _Hammerklavier_.

I don't have the many hours it would take (and, in the absence of the necessary skills, access to enough analytical material) to respond adequately. But I don't want to shirk my task so I hope the following will help. I must acknowledge my debt to Jonathan Harvey for his 'bird's eye view' of the piece published in his book on the composer.









Harvey says "the main idea of the piece is a big gesture followed by tiny isolated vestiges or after-echoes of it". I hear that idea, at the macro level, in the overall arc of the work as I said in my earlier post: it's like a comet with a dense head followed by an extended, increasingly etiolated, tail. Of course, this is an entirely novel way to structure a piece so KS has a free hand to decide what the structure is going to be which means it cannot be assessed in relation to any preexisting works - the work stands or falls on whether you think this is an interesting idea to listen to someone playing with for half an hour.

I would suggest listening to the piece a few times without making any attempt to understand it, just to get a feel for how it works as an exercise in exploring this idea of gesture+vestiges.

Having said that _Klavierstück X_ is entirely novel at the macro and micro levels, it turns out to be somewhat conventional at an intermediary level: it is in a quasi-sonata form, in that there are four large parts: broadly fulfilling the roles of exposition, development, recapitulation and coda. Of course, the recapitulation is not at all a simplistic repeat of the exposition.

The first part - the exposition - is a big group of ideas followed by six isolated vestiges made up of more less single voice material, followed by six further vestiges characterised by clusters. The rest of the work proceeds similarly as a succession of gestures (formally, groups), each with vestiges.

Check out this YouTube video:






I suggest this one because it shows each page of the score, so you can see where the groups and vestiges are.

The first big group of ideas runs continuously to 3:13. You can hear and see that it is not one long rant, there are many short ideas differentiated by the type of playing used in each - for example, the change of soundworld at 0:31, from the highly decorated, single voice material (actually it's the exposition of the underlying tone row) to massive forearm clusters should be clear. (I'll come back to this.)

Holding notes and letting them reverberate is a big aspect of this piece and these fermata provide easy markers for the listener throughout the work, since every main group (gesture) and vestige is isolated in its sea of reverberation or silence. I think I am right in saying there is no group or vestige that includes a significant fermata, so, in fact, the structure is very simply laid out: every time there is a held note or a silence you know the next thing you hear is a new group or vestige.

At 3:13, the composer asks the pianist to hold four pitches from the material that's just been played and these are sustained to 3:27. The six 'single voice' vestiges are at 3:27, 3:38 (just E, then D sharp, E, with the first E held), 3:41, 3:44 (just one note, G), 3:46 and 4:11.

Then come the six chordal vestiges, at 4:17, 4:27, 4:40, 5:00, 5:48 and 6:00. This last ends at 6:25 and there is then a very long reverberation, broken only at 7:04 by a transitional passage (consisting of one fairly consonant seven part chord followed by a very high A), before the development section starts (in the manner of the opening of the exposition) at 7:31.

The second part has three increasingly long sections, each made up of increasingly short cluster and chord material (groups), each followed by five vestiges (the first long, the rest short, in each case). For the 'recapitulation' (third section) KS, typically, homes in on a previously insignificant idea (repeated notes) and makes a big number of them, followed by the vestiges, once again.

Finally, in the coda, there are three more groups, each with attendant vestiges, the groups becoming ever shorter and effecting "a general mixture and gentle disintegration or liquidation, as Schoenberg would say...".

I've mentioned that there is an underlying set and the thematic material is worked out from it serially. It is hard to hear the set because most of what you hear is material which is structurally decorative. The pitches of the set are shown in the score by larger noteheads (just about visible on the video). The cluster chords have precise start and end points and I would not be at all surprised if the width of the chords was also derived from the set. Nor would I be surprised if the durations of the pauses were also strictly derived from the set (there are plenty of example elsewhere where KS does both these things). A strict analysis of this is beyond me and I don't know of a published one.

Going back to the styles with which the ideas in the first big group are played. Stockhausen identifies 19 ways of playing the keys (he did similarly, later on, in Mantra). These are:
single-voice chromatic or semi chromatic darting fragments, terminating often in some goal note;
2 part chords pp; 3 part chords p; 4 part chords mf; 5 part chord f; 6 part chords ff; 7 part chords fff;
clusters played with the fingers; hands ; forearms;
glissandi: of finger clusters (gloves recommended); hand clusters;
arpeggios up; down;
rapidly repeated notes and chords; one trill;
half pedal; silent depression of forearm clusters in the bass to aid reverberation; silent depression of key immediately after attack ditto.

KS then develops seven "character types" out of this material and these characterise the elements of the groups and the vestiges. So, for example, the first and sixth of the chordal gestures (at 4:17 and 6:00) are made out of forearm clusters, while the inner four use hand and finger clusters (with glissandi). No doubt, you've found the one trill!

Petwhac refers to the sensuousness of _Gruppen_. Personally, I find _Klavierstück X_ just as sensuous in its own way. The violence, the extreme contrasts, those oh-so-long resonances, the deliberate 'information overload' of the first three minutes - and even the simple utter confidence of the composer - all work together for me. And I just love those cluster chord glissandi (I regret that the recording I've cited underplays them; Frederic Rzewski did a better job).

The recording on the YT video referred to above is by Aloys Kontarsky (still available on Sony?) and was produced by the composer (1965).









How irritating that only the first 'half' of the work has been uploaded by this poster in this form. The same performance (in three chunks not, of course, following the structure of the work) starts here:


----------



## Petwhac

I thank you Jeremy for your explanatory notes and for taking the time. It is much appreciated. I will need a few days to listen to and think about the piece some more in the light of what you have said and I will let you know when I have done so.
Thanks again.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Petwhac said:


> I thank you Jeremy for your explanatory notes and for taking the time. It is much appreciated. I will need a few days to listen to and think about the piece some more in the light of what you have said and I will let you know when I have done so.
> Thanks again.


My pleasure - I enjoyed doing it, I just wish I had the time to make it more comprehensive.

In terms of getting to grips with the work, perhaps focus on the first seven and a half minutes - the exposition. I'm sure that, if you play that half a dozen times, watching the score, you'll gain enough familiarity to go on to the rest.

A few points on reading the score.
It's very irritating in that there are no bar lines and no rehearsal marks to refer to.

(1) The smallest particles of the music have a relative duration indicated by the note stems at the top of each system. So the first particle lasts one crotchet (quarter note), the next a breve+quaver (two and one eighth notes, presumably), the third a quaver and so on. The overriding tempo is "as fast as possible" so the pianist has to choose an overall tempo which allows him (or her) to play all the notes within a particle clearly whilst conforming to the marking.

KS puts in tempo qualifiers just like any other composer. The fifth vestige is marked _sehr verlangsamen _[slowing down a lot]

(2) Notes connected by a thick beam to be played at constant tempo if the beam is horizontal, otherwise accelerando (beam rises), ritardando (beam falls)

(3) Cluster chords are indicated by thick vertical lines

(4) Solid triangles connected to cluster chords indicate they should be played as rapid arpeggios upwards (triangle points up) or downwards

(5) Pitches on stems connected by a slur sustain until the end of a slur.


----------



## Guest

Good stuff, Jeremy. I learned a lot myself about this piece from your (and Harvey's) exposition.

The idea I took away from all this was was more along the lines of a fireworks show than a single comet. Does that make sense? (I will have to check that for myself next time I listen to the piece, though since I don't usually do visuals when I listen, I probably won't be able to corroborate anything.)

I have a quibble with the assertion that twelve tone is intrinsically more difficult to understand. I don't, with my particular (and peculiar) experience, find it difficult at all, so I conclude that its putative difficulty is not intrinsic but extrinsic. (Though you might have just said that diplomatically to let novice listeners off the hook; in which case I've totally blown it here and must be punished. (Condignally, of course.))


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

some guy said:


> Good stuff, Jeremy. I learned a lot myself about this piece from your (and Harvey's) exposition.
> 
> The idea I took away from all this was was more along the lines of a fireworks show than a single comet. Does that make sense? (I will have to check that for myself next time I listen to the piece, though since I don't usually do visuals when I listen, I probably won't be able to corroborate anything.)


Thank you. I agree that the piece is a fireworks display. I am certain that Stockhausen's intention was to dazzle, to amaze and, yes, to show off. I find it exciting and exhilarating, as I've said before.



> I have a quibble with the assertion that twelve tone is intrinsically more difficult to understand. I don't, with my particular (and peculiar) experience, find it difficult at all, so I conclude that its putative difficulty is not intrinsic but extrinsic. (Though you might have just said that diplomatically to let novice listeners off the hook; in which case I've totally blown it here and must be punished. (Condignally, of course.))


I'm not convinced that one exception to the rule is enough! Show me some evidence that even just a few per cent of the population have no problem with serial compositional processes and I'll change my mind. I am not attached to this position!


----------



## tdc

I 'liked' Jeremy's post. I am not sure yet if I will like the Klavierstucke X, but from listening to some clips of it, I _might_ start liking it, and will give it some more focused attention this weekend. I can now include Gruppen and some different sections of Licht as Stockhausen compositions I rather enjoy, perhaps I will come to appreciate even more of this unique composers oeuvre. I do certainly appreciate all of Jeremy's information and enthusiasm about the work, so thanks!


----------



## Conor71

Jeremy Marchant said:


> There is indeed a great deal of humour in Stockhausen's music, though it often shades into playfulness rather than outright jokes. I find the humour that permeates _Licht _can be a little laboured, but there is plenty elsewhere. _Harlekin _for solo clarinet is full of boisterousness and pranks while, in the 'choral opera' _Atmen gibt das Leben_... [_Breathing gives life._..], one of the choristers gets the hiccoughs.
> 
> I've always felt that the idea of a piece in which the players, one by one, get up and leave the platform while the music is still being performed, leaving just two violinists, to be a very Stockhausen-like joke, particlarly as this was meant as a message to the music's dedicatee. Such a work exists, of course, but it was written 200 years before Stockhausen.


Thanks very much for your reply Jeremy  - I'm glad Im not missing the point with Stockhausen so far! :tiphat:


----------



## DeepR

Jeremy thanks for your insights. 
I've listened to this recording: 



I'm still having a hard time listening to it, or taking it seriously for that matter, but maybe, someday...


----------



## tdc

Jeremy Marchant said:


> My pleasure - I enjoyed doing it, I just wish I had the time to make it more comprehensive.
> 
> In terms of getting to grips with the work, perhaps focus on the first seven and a half minutes - the exposition. I'm sure that, if you play that half a dozen times, watching the score, you'll gain enough familiarity to go on to the rest.
> 
> A few points on reading the score.
> It's very irritating in that there are no bar lines and no rehearsal marks to refer to.
> 
> (1) The smallest particles of the music have a relative duration indicated by the note stems at the top of each system. So the first particle lasts one crotchet (quarter note), the next a breve+quaver (two and one eighth notes, presumably), the third a quaver and so on. The overriding tempo is "as fast as possible" so the pianist has to choose an overall tempo which allows him (or her) to play all the notes within a particle clearly whilst conforming to the marking.
> 
> KS puts in tempo qualifiers just like any other composer. The fifth vestige is marked _sehr verlangsamen _[slowing down a lot]
> 
> (2) Notes connected by a thick beam to be played at constant tempo if the beam is horizontal, otherwise accelerando (beam rises), ritardando (beam falls)
> 
> (3) Cluster chords are indicated by thick vertical lines
> 
> (4) Solid triangles connected to cluster chords indicate they should be played as rapid arpeggios upwards (triangle points up) or downwards
> 
> (5) Pitches on stems connected by a slur sustain until the end of a slur.


A further question if you have time - Why has Stockhausen used such a method to notate his score? Would it not be possible to notate using traditional methods?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

tdc said:


> A further question if you have time - Why has Stockhausen used such a method to notate his score? Would it not be possible to notate using traditional methods?


I don't know what KS's stated reasons are, however
(1) it would be even more complicated in traditional notation
(2) the notation is, to an extent, a reflection of the structure of the music, so it is "all of a piece"
(3) the notation is not especially unusual in contemporary music.

The absence of rehearsal marks to use when referring other people to specific events in the music _is _annoying.


----------



## Petwhac

Jeremy,
I have listened to the first part of Klavierstück X numerous times now, following the score on the youtube video and in conjunction with your very helpful notes. I also found some other interesting written material regarding the matrix/series associated with the piece.
I have been thinking a lot about this and if you will forgive the longwinded post I'll try and express my thoughts.

I'd like to go through some of your statements and discuss the issues they raise but let me first add that I am not here to defend a position but am genuinely interested in exploration.

I did a fair amount of analysis of serial music at university (a long time ago) and more than enough 'note counting' which I found to be neither instructive nor inspiring but I am fairly well versed in the various techniques of serialism.

You said: "Let me assure you that Stockhausen's Klavierstück X has a fully defined, fully worked out and tightly disciplined structure, just as much as has the Hammerklavier sonata. The differences are that (a) the KS piece is an order of magnitude more complex.."

The first part of your statement is undoubtedly true but I was struck by the notion that Klavierstück X might be considered more complex than Hammerklavier and was prompted to get out my score and reacquaint myself with that work at the same time as looking at the Stockhausen.
I cannot agree with your assertion and would say that the 'language' or 'system' that Beethoven inherited and developed can do everything that Stockhausen's language can do but with infinitely more layers of complexity and possibility. After all, it had been developing for hundreds of years before Beethoven and continues to develop to this day despite what Boulez et al may have believed. Serialism on the other hand had been around for only a few decades before Stockhausen's piece and as a method of composition has since rather been on the wane.
The idea of "gestures and vestiges" is interesting but each is only able to be recognized by very obvious changes of texture or articulation or dynamics or silence. When you go in deeper, to the pitches and harmony you find a soup of indefinable and purely mathematical connections. They may be highly organized according to the row but my ear can't pick out the reason one cluster is chosen over another. That they are determined by the particular row may be a conceptual justification but is of no help to me as a listener.
The Hammerklavier on the other hand is full of gestures too (perhaps not vestiges though I think one could classify certain passages so, if one wanted to). But in Beethoven's piece you can go deeper and find every note and chord plays a role in the scheme of things. The first eight bars of the Hammerklavier presents two very contrasting 'gestures' that have completely distinct characters. Many bars later when one of these gestures is restated in a varied form the ear can pick it out and it is imbued with huge significance both expressively and structurally. The reason this is possible is that these 'gestures' are retainable in the memory, in their details.
To me it seems like Stockhausen is forced to paint with a roller because the harmony offers no opportunity for subtle _audible_ variation whereas Beethoven can paint with large or tiny brushes.
In this way I find KS X to be far more limited in it's scope and indeed rather more superficial despite it's high degree of organization. It is loud or soft, busy or still, high or low, single line or chordal, long or short. The HK is all these things too but it is also so much more. Infinitely more in my opinion.
I do not find this is a problem with, for example works by Berio or Ligeti or many other 20C composers in case you are thinking I only like to hear 'classical' harmony. I think it's more about the nature of serialism.

I'm sorry but if I've gone on too long on the first point.

I'll just ask two questions related to the score.

Was that a typo where you said that at 3.38 the single note vestige is "just E, then D sharp, E, with the first E held." I was worried I was in the wrong part of the score because I hear the first E as a D. The youtube movie is a bit indistinct.
You said that 7.04 is a transitional passage (with the high A) but I'm not sure what makes it a transitionary.

I haven't finished looking at this work but I find my initial impressions to be unchanged although with your help I know more about the organization of it.
I'll post again when I have more orderly thoughts.
Once again,thanks.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

The last thing I wanted to suggest is that _Klavierstueck X_ is an echo of the _Hammerklavier_, or that Beethoven's work conforms to the model of gesture+vestiges. It doesn't. I just chose another great (long) piano work as a comparison.

Of course, you're right: the _Hammerklavier _builds on centuries of musical development whereas the KS piece only on decades. I hope I was careful not to suggest that the two works were of equal greatness (whatever that means) - they aren't. What I was trying to counter was the general standpoint (not yours) which goes "I don't understand how this is constructed/I can't be bothered to find out how this is constructed/I don't have the musical ability to work out how this is constructed - therefore it's crap".

The transitional passage at 7:04 is transitional because it is in between the exposition section and the development section. I'll get back to you on your other specific point.


----------



## Guest

There's another thing going in this situation besides Beethoven's "centuries of musical development" and Stockhausen's "decades," and that is the listeners's familiarity with this idiom.

Of course Beethoven is going to sound more familiar. His music has been around for centuries, too. Stockhausen's only decades. Petwhac has mentioned Ligeti and Berio, among others, as being less problematic than the Stockhausen, so it's not just a matter of time. One can become familiar with quite recent things quite well. So there's temperament, too. Perhaps you are just temperamentally unable to appreciate Stockhausen's Klavierstück X, or unable to appreciate it at this time. I was unable to appreciate anything by Scelsi at one time. And only the encouragement of a fellow music lover led me to trying his music again. And the changes in my life and in my listening in the dozen or so years between first hearing it and then hearing it again made it possible for me to appreciate it very much.

But, and this is key, Scelsi's music had not changed one whit in the intervening time. The only change had been in me. And that's why I too would say that Beethoven's Hammerklavier is not infinitely more [...] than Stockhausen's Klavierstück X but that you, when you listen to the Hammerklavier get infinitely more out of it than you get out of listening to Klavierstück X. (Others' mileage may vary, don't you know?)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Though Beethoven was a far greater composer than Scelsi, and Stockhausen too. Composers talent mileage _do_ vary too, don't you know?

Getting back to Stockhausen, I was listening to some parts of _Mantra, Work #32_. It's interesting how he "mixed" the use of electronics and dissonant piano (if I'm describing it appropriately as a layman), otherwise it didn't do too much else to me.


----------



## Petwhac

One small points before my next monster post.


some guy said:


> Of course Beethoven is going to sound more familiar. His music has been around for centuries, too. Stockhausen's only decades


Well_ I _haven't been around for centuries. In fact when I was young I was more into Jazz and Rock and found Debussy, Ravel and Stravinsky far, far more accessible than Mozart and Beethoven. Only by listening more did I come to appreciate the earlier composers' achievements and truly love their music too (on the whole).


----------



## Petwhac

It was Jeremy mentioning the relative complexity of the two works that started me thinking.
I didn’t mean to imply that he was directly comparing the two.
some_guy is right in that familiarity is important and we need time and repeated listenings to let the music penetrate but I believe that in some music you have accept that you may be looking for something that isn’t there. I don’t believe that Stockhausen hears the relationships between each and every note or cluster any more than I do. Or perhaps some people have superhuman powers of perception. The relationships may exist, do exist, but only conceptually. The Eb in the cluster in the right hand at bar such and such is there because it has to be there according to the logic of the tone-row. For me, as a listener, that is not a good enough reason. For Schoenberg, the row existed to supply an underlying unity in the absence of tonality but his music retains many other aspects of earlier practice.
I’m not saying there is anything intrinsically wrong with Stockhausen’s music. Only that I find it one dimensional or maybe two.

While it is true that Bach would have found Mahler’s music wildly complicated, discordant and incomprehensible on the larger scale of phrase and structure, if he went in with a ‘microscope’ he would find very familiar elements of key, harmony, modulation, melody, triads, suspensions and counterpoint etc. The fact is that Mahler’s music is a logical and directly traceable descendent of Bach’s.
Stockhausen’s music is directly descended from the 2nd Viennese School and in particular Webern. It is music which deliberately, consciously and ideologically seeks to break completely with the past. I do not believe that Bach would recognize anything familiar at all in Klavierstücke X. I do believe though that he would find familiarity in a lot of other 20C art music and popular music.

Many people dismiss different music from a position of casual and superficial listening without making the effort to understand- that is true. Equally, others may take it very seriously and listen over a period of decades. They may be composers and/or performers who spend everyday working in music. They may analyze, scrutinize listen repeatedly and yet still find listening to Klavierstück X an unsatisfying and rather empty experience. Yes, that is as much to do with them and their temperament as the music. But be assured the same can be said of not enjoying Techno, Rap, Metal, Justin Bieber or Lady GaGa.
You may hold most pop music to be ridden with cliché, hackneyed devices, unoriginal and derivative ideas and you would be right in a lot of cases. But many’s the time I’ve thought of taking a check list into a concert of ‘new’ piano music and ticking off as they arrive, the clusters, the glissandi, the contrary motion scale-like passages culminating in an almighty thump, the melodic leaps of a major 7th or minor 9th, the tremolos etc. New music has it’s clichés too.

Jeremy said- “What I was trying to counter was the general standpoint (not yours) which goes "I don't understand how this is constructed/I can't be bothered to find out how this is constructed/I don't have the musical ability to work out how this is constructed - therefore it's crap".

I would like to counter a commonly held standpoint that once you are familiar enough with anything you will appreciate it. 
For me, and this is purely personal, Klavierstück X just doesn’t contain that which holds any meaning or pleasure for me. Not because it is unfamiliar, I have been listening to serial music on and off for 30 years. I just don’t think this type of approach to composition is even attempting to appeal to the same part of me that loves Machaut and Charlie Parker, Chopin and Frank Zappa.


Lastly, and this is crucial. I’d like to know whether Stockhausen ever wrote any second rate music or at least any less ‘inspired’ or imaginative pieces. You see, we can look at Beethoven’s output and for example, his ‘Battle’ Symphony or March For Wind Ensemble in C and conclude they are not ‘up there’ with the ‘great’ works. With serial music and particularly total serialism, as long as there is a rationale behind the choice of pitch, duration etc, it seems you can fill up the mould with any notes that conform and that’s enough.
Would anyone care to state which of the Klavierstück are less successful or inspired or ground braking or are they all masterpieces of equal magnitude?

Take ‘conceptual’ art. 
Stand in front of a Canaletto or Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII, better known as The Bricks. 
There is so much going on in the Canaletto, the composition, the colour but above all, the detail which holds you there as your eye tries to take in all that is going on. Or a Picasso or a Lucien Freud in their own way equally full of detail and meaning.

A spokesperson for the Tate gallery said of the Andre, “The piece represents a pivotal moment in art and remains an iconic piece that highlights the trajectory of the history of art."
That may be true, and Stockhausen’s work is equally iconic and highlights the trajectory of the history of art music.
But at the end of the day when you stand in front of Equivalent VIII, you are still just looking at bricks.
It is not my goal to stop anyone liking Stockhausen’s piano work. And I am not going to question his undoubted importance. I accept that everyone has there own taste and temperament. But, it is equally acceptable to not like it. And it is better to not be patronized in the manner of...”there, there, I know the music is difficult for your poor befuddled brain but when you are as experienced and knowledgeable as me, or just as open-minded and un biased as I am, you too can have the kudos that comes from liking it. From being a pioneer, in the vanguard, a radical, cool and modern.


----------



## Petwhac

PS. That last paragraph wasn't directed at either JM or SG


----------



## mmsbls

I was thinking of suggesting Stockhausen's Gruppen for the TC Listening Club. I know that Gruppen benefits from a live performance where one can hear the spatial variation of the music in the 3 orchestras. I have never heard it live, and I wonder if those who are more familiar with the work feel that recorded versions suffer too much from losing that spatial variation.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Though Beethoven was a far greater composer than Scelsi, and Stockhausen too. Composers talent mileage _do_ vary too, don't you know?


I suppose one could argue this, though you could never prove it. And it's not very useful. That is, it doesn't help you listen any better or enjoy anything any more.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Getting back to Stockhausen, I was listening to some parts of _Mantra, Work #32_. It's interesting how he "mixed" the use of electronics and dissonant piano (if I'm describing it appropriately as a layman), otherwise it didn't do too much else to me.


But does the model implied in "do ... to me" really match what actually goes in when you listen to something? I don't think it does, but it does seem to be the prevailing idea whenever talking about aesthetics. What kind of situation is it, however, in which the listener disappears like this, not doing anything him or herself, simply being done to? No matter how "good" or how "bad" a piece of music has been judged to be (by _listeners,_ mind--the very people who then mysteriously disappear as participants, leaving only ineffable (and intrinsically(!) great) masterpieces or things that are clearly unworthy), it doesn't come to life, as it were, until someone is listening to it. And if person A listens to a piece of Stockhausen's and has a positive experience, and person B listens to a piece of Beethoven's and has a negative experience, then whatever you may be tempted to say about the pieces themselves, person A has come out ahead in the game, hein?



Petwhac said:


> I haven't been around for centuries.


That's true, but just having been born in the twentieth century means that your ears are attuned to different things than those of someone born in the 18th century.



Petwhac said:


> I believe that in some music you have accept that you may be looking for something that isn't there.


Happens all the time. And it's always a mistake. (And it's nothing to do with the music and everything to do with the looker.)



Petwhac said:


> I don't believe that Stockhausen hears the relationships between each and every note or cluster any more than I do.


No more than any other composer with any other piece of music. You've surely looked at scores before. Lots of stuff going on in all of them that you don't actually hear, at least as a separate thing. But everything contributes to the overall effect.



Petwhac said:


> The relationships may exist, do exist, but only conceptually


Practically. The Eb in a chord in the right hand at bar such and such in a nocturne by Chopin is there because it has to be there according to the logic of the key or of the modulation. For you, as a listener, that may not necessarily be audible, though you could analyze it, and your analysis will probably inform your next listening experience.



Petwhac said:


> I'm not saying there is anything intrinsically wrong with Stockhausen's music. Only that I find it one dimensional or maybe two.


And other listeners find it three dimensional. Some of those might easily find it more dimensional than a Beethoven sonata. So what?



Petwhac said:


> Stockhausen's music is directly descended from the 2nd Viennese School and in particular Webern. It is music which deliberately, consciously and ideologically seeks to break completely with the past.


No.



Petwhac said:


> Many people... may analyze, scrutinize listen repeatedly and yet still find listening to Klavierstück X an unsatisfying and rather empty experience.


I have certainly found that to be true with Chopin. Says nothing about Chopin and everything about me.



Petwhac said:


> I just don't think this type of approach to composition is even attempting to appeal to the same part of me that loves Machaut and Charlie Parker, Chopin and Frank Zappa.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Zappa does not appeal to the same part of you that Chopin does. (But because you're familiar with both, and because you enjoy both, you might not notice that they're appealing to very different parts of you. And so what? Different music appeals to different parts of you. OK.)



Petwhac said:


> I'd like to know whether Stockhausen ever wrote any second rate music or at least any less 'inspired' or imaginative pieces.


Lots. (But there may not be quite as much consensus about which pieces as there is for Beethoven's _Wellington's Victory._ Check back in a couple of hundred years.)



Petwhac said:


> With serial music and particularly total serialism, as long as there is a rationale behind the choice of pitch, duration etc, it seems you can fill up the mould with any notes that conform and that's enough.


With no music is filling up a mold--whether a modal mold or a tonal mold or a whole tone mold or a serial mold--enough. There's still choices to make. And there's still listeners to listen.



Petwhac said:


> [A]t the end of the day when you stand in front of Equivalent VIII, you are still just looking at bricks.


No.



Petwhac said:


> It is not my goal to stop anyone liking Stockhausen's piano work. And I am not going to question his undoubted importance. I accept that everyone has there own taste and temperament. But, it is equally acceptable to not like it. And it is better to not be patronized in the manner of..."there, there, I know the music is difficult for your poor befuddled brain but when you are as experienced and knowledgeable as me, or just as open-minded and un biased as I am, you too can have the kudos that comes from liking it. From being a pioneer, in the vanguard, a radical, cool and modern.


Is this at all a fair characterization? It is equally acceptable to not like it, true. But I don't think anyone has ever called anyone out for simply not liking something. For judging the work itself on the basis, merely, of not liking it, sure. For taking every opportunity (as many here have done) to slam pieces, composers, entire styles for why? Because they just don't like them. And what does any of that contribute, positively, to anyone's life? Nada.

As for "the kudos," listening to music is really and truly good enough all on its own. No kudos need apply. This business of being "radical, cool and modern" might apply to some people at a certain level of maturity. But generally? No. Truly, listening to music is good enough all on its own. And if you slam the music I love for no other reason than that you don't happen to like it, I might take up the handiest cudgel in its defense. Why should that be so surprising?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> I suppose one could argue this, though you could never prove it. And it's not very useful. That is, it doesn't help you listen any better or enjoy anything any more.


The usual line of defence! I agree it's not particularly helpful to rank Beethoven versus Stockhausen but even if there was ever a casual or academic discussion of this, I think most would unequivocally agree that Beethoven was greater than Stockhausen. And I also agree that it's doesn't help me any better to come to appreciate Stockhausen any better. But we all talk about weird things every now and then, and even listen to weird music (or noise), too for some enjoyment!


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> That's true, but just having been born in the twentieth century means that your ears are attuned to different things than those of someone born in the 18th century.


So what?



some guy said:


> Happens all the time. And it's always a mistake. (And it's nothing to do with the music and everything to do with the looker.)


Well, it's never a mistake for me to look into a piece such as Klavierstück X and learn about what makes it tick and what reason compositional choices may be made.



some guy said:


> No more than any other composer with any other piece of music. You've surely looked at scores before. Lots of stuff going on in all of them that you don't actually hear, at least as a separate thing. But everything contributes to the overall effect.


There's nothing going on in the Hammerklavier or anything by Chopin that I don't actually hear. Maybe some listeners can't but that's all about them. 'Overall effect' is a bit superficial for some music. In some music there is a journey, a narrative and the listener can participate in it and not just experience the 'overall effect'.



some guy said:


> Practically. The Eb in a chord in the right hand at bar such and such in a nocturne by Chopin is there because it has to be there according to the logic of the key or of the modulation. For you, as a listener, that may not necessarily be audible, though you could analyze it, and your analysis will probably inform your next listening experience.


Yeah? Please find me a passage in a Chopin composition where you could for example, replace an Eb with a D or an E natural without _hearing _it. There are copious examples of live recordings of Chopin piano works on youtube and when a pianist hit's a 'bum' note it is _audible._



some guy said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Zappa does not appeal to the same part of you that Chopin does. (But because you're familiar with both, and because you enjoy both, you might not notice that they're appealing to very different parts of you. And so what? Different music appeals to different parts of you. OK.)


You are so far out on a limb that it has snapped and you have fallen off. I'm not going into a long winded debate about the brain or psychology but I know my mind better that you do and you are 100% wrong. I'm a little tired of being told I'm not _familiar enough_ with something. What happens if I am familiar and still have a criticism or two. Does it count or will I never be familiar enough to have an opinion?



some guy said:


> Lots. (But there may not be quite as much consensus about which pieces as there is for Beethoven's _Wellington's Victory._ Check back in a couple of hundred years.)


That's usually my answer to the question of which music is 'good'. However, the serial techniques used in the Stockhausen piece seem to have run out of steam after half a decade. This is because as an approach it is very limited and limiting. And before you say "ah but the Baroque style or Classical era......"



some guy said:


> No.


You are referring to the Bricks. And your response begs the question, No? How so?



some guy said:


> Is this at all a fair characterization? It is equally acceptable to not like it, true. But I don't think anyone has ever called anyone out for simply not liking something. For judging the work itself on the basis, merely, of not liking it, sure. For taking every opportunity (as many here have done) to slam pieces, composers, entire styles for why? Because they just don't like them. And what does any of that contribute, positively, to anyone's life? Nada.
> 
> As for "the kudos," listening to music is really and truly good enough all on its own. No kudos need apply. This business of being "radical, cool and modern" might apply to some people at a certain level of maturity. But generally? No. Truly, listening to music is good enough all on its own. And if you slam the music I love for no other reason than that you don't happen to like it, I might take up the handiest cudgel in its defense. Why should that be so surprising?


Instead of using emotive terms like 'slam', how about the term 'critique' or 'have reservations about'..
Tell me on what basis can anything in life be judged?

I would really be interested to know if you could rationalise what it is in the music of Chopin that you find 'difficult' to appreciate. Not that you _have _to like it any more than I _have_ to like Klavierstück X. But I'm interested to know if you just throw your disdain into the conversation to show that you don't just like everything equally or whether there is something particular in his music that you can point to.


----------



## millionrainbows

I have scanned this thread and would like to add my insights. 
In discussions of Stockhausen which I have seen, The Helicopter Quartet is frequently mentioned, and held up as an 'example' of the more radical and unpalatable aspects of Stockhausen or modern music in general. I am a more general 'art' aficionado, including visual and conceptual art works and ideas, so I consider some of the aspects of this piece in that 'art' context.
The Helicopter Quartet, a performance involving extra-musical elements (namely 4 helicopters), could be argued to be a 'performance art' statement as much as a musical statement. Anyone who bought the CD and read the liner notes would also be aware that Stockhausen was 'compelled' to create this work from a dream he had. These sorts of compulsions, which could be said to spring forth from the 'unconscious' or that part of the psyche which is 'uncensored' by the waking mind, are very much in line with the artistic mindset. In this case, Stockhausen is aligning himself with the French Surrealists, who did 'automatic' drawings and such. Boulez, I think, is influenced by this artistic tradition, with his fondness for Mallarme's poetry.
There is an inherent absurdity, for me, in comparing Stockhausen, or serialism in general, with other, older musical traditions and methods, such as Bach and Beethoven. For me, this shows a refusal or a failure to recognize, for whatever reasons, the appropriate criteria for approaching most modern music, especially that of the serial variety.
Firstly, one must be cognizant of, and accepting as musically and artistically valid, the true differences between tonality and serial methods. After this requirement, such "Beethoven vs. Stockhausen" comparisons are reveal to be inherently flawed, which results in 'absurdity' for anyone seeing all aspects of the forms. To like, or not like, is thus placed in its proper context---as merely opinion---without any attempts at trying to 'objectify' art or music. This is not rocket science, this is aesthetics and art.
In general, one must recognize the fact that serial music is, by its very nature, not 'ear' music in the same sense as tonal music. Generally speaking, in tonality, the relationships are recursive, all relating to a key note, thus the use of a recursive form, the circle, to show these relationships. C to G is a fifth, or a fourth, depending on whether one travels in a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction on the circle. This is known as 'inversion' of intervals in tonality. In serialism, the relations are better seen laid out on a straight number line, and thus is not recursive in the same way; relations become distances, or interval relations. Going from C to G is not invertible in the same way: C to G is seen as 7 tones, and counterclockwise from C, also going 7 tones, lands us on F. Thus, the basic notion of inversion is different in serialism: C-E-G in tonality is a C major chord, whether it is stacked as C-E-G, E-G-G, or G-C-E, because of the recursive nature of the system. In serial terms, C-E-G inverted becomes C-F-A flat, or an F minor chord. Our ears will immediately detect the difference between major and minor, but it is not as easy to hear the interval content of the two chords, and their inherent similarity, both being based on 4-tone (Ab) and 7-tone (G) intervals from C.
In this sense, "C" becomes a 'seed' or center for relations to and from the 'seed' of C (listen to Bartok). This is localized, i.e., it is not based on the tonal hierarchy which involves all the notes of a key center; so the perception will be harder to detect, or more 'hidden' from the ear.
Does this invalidate serial music, which is inherently less 'ear-friendly' in the same sense as tonality? I don't think so. The Greeks classified music in their "Quadrivium" as part of the group which included arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.
However, serialism and related non-tonal music has the 'sensual' aspect of music to deal with: harmony. I often wondered how Schoenberg, or Berg, pulled off what they did harmonically, since 12-tone rows are essentially contrapuntal in nature. How did Schoenberg control the harmonic aspects of his music? I suspect that he was able to do this in a general way, by his choice of row combinations; but I also suspect that Schoenberg enjoyed the dissonance and to a degree the uncontrolled harmonic aspects of this method. He was, after all, an "expressionist" artist, as Pierot lunaire shows.
As to tonal music being a more 'natural' system than serialism, this is only true in one primary aspect. The hierarchy of Western tonal music is derived from the vertical 'stacking' of harmonics, and the way we hear the overtones of a single fundamental note; but the horizontal 'moving-forward-in time' is an extrapolation of this idea, artificially spread-out over time. This horizontal 'tonal function' of tonality developed over time, and is the 'cerebral/cognitive' aspect of tonality, based as it is on perception of events in time, with expectation, rememberance, and other more cerebral activities. Western music did not 'spring out of the fundamental' fully-formed; it had to develop from plainchant into what we recognize today. Apologists for tonality never seem to recognize that tonality itself is a somewhat cerebrally derived system, in many ways as arbitrary as serialism. If you want 'natural,' listen to music which never modulates, such as North Indian ragas Terry Rily, or Lamont Young.
Also, we must recognize that 'tonality' can mean any harmonically-based music, and there are many different varieties of this. Howard Hanson's "Harmonic Materials of Modern Music" demonstrates all of the alternative ways of generating 'tonal' harmonic devices and musical ideas. Knowing this, one can see how Haydn and other traditional tonal music is just one way of realising the myriad possibilities of the 'harmonic' or 'tonal' paradigm, by applying ideas to this basic sensual premise.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> Anyone who bought the CD and read the liner notes would also be aware that Stockhausen was 'compelled' to create this work from a dream he had. These sorts of compulsions, which could be said to spring forth from the 'unconscious' or that part of the psyche which is 'uncensored' by the waking mind, are very much in line with the artistic mindset.


I'm sure KS had an 'artistic mindset' and that his dreams were perfectly 'in line' with it. I'm not sure however, if that has anything to do with anything.


millionrainbows said:


> There is an inherent absurdity, for me, in comparing Stockhausen, or serialism in general, with other, older musical traditions and methods, such as Bach and Beethoven. For me, this shows a refusal or a failure to recognize, for whatever reasons, the appropriate criteria for approaching most modern music, especially that of the serial variety.


Well, I don't think it is absurd to make comparisons between musical methods. It's not as if comparing Beethoven's and Stockhausen's approaches to musical composition which, in the case of this thread, are both for solo piano to be performed by a pianist for the benefit of listeners, aren't somehow related. When Boulez names a piece Sonata for Piano, one is entitled to view it as somehow related to the tradition from which it springs and to make comparisons, if one wishes to. Whether or not such comparisons are fruitful depends on many factors.
What then are the "appropriate criteria" for approaching modern music.?



millionrainbows said:


> Firstly, one must be cognizant of, and accepting as musically and artistically valid, the true differences between tonality and serial methods. After this requirement, such "Beethoven vs. Stockhausen" comparisons are reveal to be inherently flawed, which results in 'absurdity' for anyone seeing all aspects of the forms. To like, or not like, is thus placed in its proper context---as merely opinion---without any attempts at trying to 'objectify' art or music. This is not rocket science, this is aesthetics and art.


I can't speak for others but I don't question the validity of any method or approach to composition. For me, the proof is in the pudding. If I say that I find total or integral serial compositional techniques yield results that fall short in representing a sound world that is as rich in meaning for me as Bach or Berio, that_ is_ indeed 'merely opinion'. When Boulez expresses similar reservations about minimalism that too is 'merely opinion'. You may value his opinion higher than mine and that is _your_ opinion. You can try all you like to 'objectify' art or music but you will find it very problematic if not impossible. By what criteria would you make a judgement on the success or failure of Klavierstück X? Is it a good composition. If not, why not? If so, how so?



millionrainbows said:


> In general, one must recognize the fact that serial music is, by its very nature, not 'ear' music in the same sense as tonal music.


If true, I'd see that as a bit of a weakness in that the ears are really the main sensory organs we use to listen to music. Oh and I think memory plays a role too.


millionrainbows said:


> .... (listen to Bartok). This is localized, i.e., it is not based on the tonal hierarchy which involves all the notes of a key center; so the perception will be harder to detect, or more 'hidden' from the ear.


Bartok's music, like Ligeti's often pushes the rhythmic element to the fore. Regularity, periodicity, repetition, and implied pulse all help to aid comprehensibility even if the harmony is difficult to retain or recognize. If one subjects duration and dynamics as well as pitch to a pre determined mathematical construct, one is doing the listener no favours.


millionrainbows said:


> Does this invalidate serial music, which is inherently less 'ear-friendly' in the same sense as tonality? I don't think so.


Neither do I. I just don't respond to it in the same way.


millionrainbows said:


> Apologists for tonality never seem to recognize that tonality itself is a somewhat cerebrally derived system, in many ways as arbitrary as serialism. If you want 'natural,' listen to music which never modulates, such as North Indian ragas Terry Rily, or Lamont Young.


And apologists of serialism never seem to recognize that serialism is a lot more than _somewhat_ cerebrally derived. They must also recognize that it is a less flexible, less subtle, less complex and less variable a method of organizing musical material than a system that can produce music as diverse as Monteverdi, Brahms, Scriabin, Miles Davies, Steve Reich, and all European derived folk music and all the pop music of the world.
You see, like it or not we are born into our civilization and from day one we are exposed to music based on tonality. Even if we are born in Beijing or Mumbai. 
When listening to a piece of non tonal music, if we suddenly hear a major traid, our ears will hone in on it like a missile tracking system. This is a big problem for composers of serial music especially. Schoenberg was well aware of this. It means that forever, certain combinations of tones _must _be avoided if a unity of expressive experience is to be maintained.
Thus, serial music is always going to be limited. I really believe there is nothing you can 'say' with serial music that can't be said in other systems but the reverse is not true.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> You can try all you like to 'objectify' art or music but you will find it very problematic if not impossible.


True words. You however seem to have made an exception for yourself.



Petwhac said:


> For me, the proof is in the pudding.


Yes, for me, too. But I can't shake the nagging sense that you think your pudding is objectively better than mine.



Petwhac said:


> I don't question the validity of any method or approach to composition.


Except of course when you do.



Petwhac said:


> erialism... is a less flexible, less subtle, less complex and less variable a method of organizing musical material than a system that can produce music as diverse as Monteverdi, Brahms, Scriabin, Miles Davies, Steve Reich, and all European derived folk music and all the pop music of the world.






Petwhac said:


> erial music is always going to be limited. I really believe there is nothing you can 'say' with serial music that can't be said in other systems but the reverse is not true.




If you really believe that, I cannot believe that you have listened to very much serial music. I hear serial music doing all sorts of the same things that tonal music has also done. And I hear things in serial music that are not possible any other way. (I disagree here, by the way, with million's conclusion that serialism is not ear-friendly. It's certainly very friendly to _my_ ears. And speaking of my ears, there is no _the_ ear. There is no _the_ listener. There are many listeners and many ears. Some of them fall into groups of varying sizes, but they're all different.)



Petwhac said:


> By what criteria would you make a judgement on the success or failure of Klavierstück X? Is it a good composition. If not, why not? If so, how so?


Here's where we really get to the nub of things. Here and here: "What... are the 'appropriate criteria' for approaching modern music?"

I think that making judgments on the success or failure of _Klavierstück X_ is a futile exercise. I think that asking if it's a good composition is to ask the wrong question. (Though I rather enjoyed Jeremy's brilliant answer to that, which Petwhac is pretending never happened. It did happen, though. Petwhac has already asked the question and has even acknowledged the answer, what's more!)

All of these things assume that music is an object. What if we assume rather that it's a subject? What happens then? Then we get the listeners back into the situation, and not as the vague and passive "the" listener (who doesn't exist), but as active, involved individuals, with varying degrees of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy and blinkeredness. And each of those individuals will make varying connections with musical pieces, any pieces, including perhaps _Klavierstück X._ Some listeners will have valuable experiences with _Klavierstück X,_ some will not. Where does the responsibility lie? With _Klavierstück X_? I'd say not.

Whatever _Klavierstück X_ can be said to be, as an object, it's not until a listener engages with it in some way that you get anything to talk about. One thing you can say at that point is that some listeners succeed and some listeners fail. Since the objective qualities of _Klavierstück X_ are _identical_ in both the successes and the failures, perhaps those objective qualities are not the interesting (or valuable) parts of the situation.


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> If you really believe that, I cannot believe that you have listened to very much serial music.


You can believe whatever you wish. However, what I believe maybe the limitations of serial music is based on a certain amount of knowledge, study and thought where as what you believe about my listening experience is based on false deduction and assumptions.
Presumably you would say to Boulez, " I can't believe you have listened to very much minimalist music".



some guy said:


> I hear serial music doing all sorts of the same things that tonal music has also done. And I hear things in serial music that are not possible any other way.


Would you care to supply an example or two? Would you like to get specific? These sorts of generalised statements say only something about you and nothing about the music......wait a minute now I sound like you too! 


some guy said:


> (I disagree here, by the way, with million's conclusion that serialism is not ear-friendly. It's certainly very friendly to _my_ ears. And speaking of my ears, there is no _the_ ear. There is no _the_ listener. There are many listeners and many ears. Some of them fall into groups of varying sizes, but they're all different.)


It matters not a jot to me whether or not serialism is friendly to your ears or anyone else's. Likewise if somebody lives only to listen to Bone Thugs In Harmony or Travis Tritt that's fine by me.



some guy said:


> I think that making judgments on the success or failure of _Klavierstück X_ is a futile exercise. I think that asking if it's a good composition is to ask the wrong question. (Though I rather enjoyed Jeremy's brilliant answer to that, which Petwhac is pretending never happened. It did happen, though. Petwhac has already asked the question and has even acknowledged the answer, what's more!)


You lost me there. I remember Jeremy pointing out that it was highly organised and well thought out but did we agree that it was a 'good' composition? What question did I ask and acknowledge the "brilliant" answer for?



some guy said:


> All of these things assume that music is an object. What if we assume rather that it's a subject? What happens then? Then we get the listeners back into the situation, and not as the vague and passive "the" listener (who doesn't exist), but as active, involved individuals, *with varying degrees of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy and blinkeredness.* And each of those individuals will make varying connections with musical pieces, any pieces, including perhaps _Klavierstück X._ Some listeners will have valuable experiences with _Klavierstück X,_ some will not. Where does the responsibility lie? With _Klavierstück X_? I'd say not.


Are you saying that someone with a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy will necessarily acknowledge Klavierstück X to be what, great? Enjoyable? Beautiful? Such a refined and educated listener cannot possibly say something negative about Stockhausen but only about Chopin, Tchaikovsky or Britney Spears. Only the blinkered, conservative, reactionary, intolerant ignorant bufoon could possibly find the music you champion to be unsatisfactory on some level. For them that is. Is that really what you are saying?



some guy said:


> Whatever _Klavierstück X_ can be said to be, as an object, it's not until a listener engages with it in some way that you get anything to talk about. One thing you can say at that point is that some listeners succeed and some listeners fail. Since the objective qualities of _Klavierstück X_ are _identical_ in both the successes and the failures, perhaps those objective qualities are not the interesting (or valuable) parts of the situation.


 In which case we'd be better off in a psychology/sociology forum. 
With which music are you yourself a failure?


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Are you saying that someone with a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy will necessarily acknowledge Klavierstück X to be what, great? Enjoyable? Beautiful? Such a refined and educated listener cannot possibly say something negative about Stockhausen but only about Chopin, Tchaikovsky or Britney Spears. Only the blinkered, conservative, reactionary, intolerant ignorant bufoon could possibly find the music you champion to be unsatisfactory on some level. For them that is. Is that really what you are saying?


No.

.........................


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> I'm sure KS had an 'artistic mindset' and that his dreams were perfectly 'in line' with it. I'm not sure however, if that has anything to do with anything.


It tells me that Stockhausen & Boulez were artists in a more modern sense of the word since the days of Bach or Beethoven, and this is pretty much diametrically opposed to traditionalism. Of course, we could look at the similarities if you wish.



Petwhac said:


> Well, I don't think it is absurd to make comparisons between musical methods. It's not as if comparing Beethoven's and Stockhausen's approaches to musical composition which, in the case of this thread, are both for solo piano to be performed by a pianist for the benefit of listeners, aren't somehow related. When Boulez names a piece Sonata for Piano, one is entitled to view it as somehow related to the tradition from which it springs and to make comparisons, if one wishes to. Whether or not such comparisons are fruitful depends on many factors.
> What then are the "appropriate criteria" for approaching modern music.?


While it is true that both Boulez and Beethoven wrote piano sonatas, I think the approach to the musical 'language' or syntax or 'software' which results is quite different, and is obvious. Developing criteria which can deal with these differences become one's 'criteria' for experiencing it in a meaningful way.

Rembrant used paint and canvas, and so did Jackson Pollock. Yet, in many ways, I see an 'opposing dialectic' which pits one against the other to be somewhat absurd, and this dialectic is designed to emphasize differences or perceived deficiencies, rather than emphasize the more inclusive view that Boulez and Stockausen are positive additions to the Western tradition of classical music; thanks for pointing out that similarity.



Petwhac said:


> I can't speak for others but I don't question the validity of any method or approach to composition. For me, the proof is in the pudding. If I say that I find total or integral serial compositional techniques yield results that fall short in representing a sound world that is as rich in meaning for me as Bach or Berio, that_ is_ indeed 'merely opinion'. When Boulez expresses similar reservations about minimalism that too is 'merely opinion'. You may value his opinion higher than mine and that is _your_ opinion. You can try all you like to 'objectify' art or music but you will find it very problematic if not impossible. By what criteria would you make a judgement on the success or failure of Klavierstück X? Is it a good composition. If not, why not? If so, how so?


Music (and all art) is a two-way street. Music is, to a degree, a 'language' which conveys meaning. Although not as specific in meaning as spoken language, we must nonetheless be familiar enough with the elements involved to be able to decipher this meaning. If I pick up a book of Mallarme's poetry, and I cannot speak or read or understand French, then the failure for the poetry to convey meaning is due to my deficiency, not the French language or Mallarme's poetry.

"In general, one must recognize the fact that serial music is, by its very nature, not 'ear' music in the same sense as tonal music."



Petwhac said:


> If true, I'd see that as a bit of a weakness in that the ears are really the main sensory organs we use to listen to music. Oh and I think memory plays a role too.


We still *hear* serial music, but it is not based on the way our ears hear harmonics, so serial music is not as overtly sensual in that same harmonic sense; but in other ways it is sensual. Serialism is more about relations which are decentralized, so 'pitch' and its sensual harmonic effects are not its focus.



Petwhac said:


> Bartok's music, like Ligeti's often pushes the rhythmic element to the fore. Regularity, periodicity, repetition, and implied pulse all help to aid comprehensibility even if the harmony is difficult to retain or recognize. If one subjects duration and dynamics as well as pitch to a pre determined mathematical construct, one is doing the listener no favours.


Art or music should not always have to entertain or 'do favors' in the way opera or harmony-based music does.

"Does this invalidate serial music, which is inherently less 'ear-friendly' in the same sense as tonality? I don't think so."



Petwhac said:


> Neither do I. I just don't respond to it in the same way.


That's fine; like what you like. I will also like what I like, but I will not compare my response to Boulez up to my response to Bach, as if those responses were somehow indicative of some deficiency in the music other than my own subjectivity. I have developed different criteria for each.



Petwhac said:


> And apologists of serialism never seem to recognize that serialism is a lot more than _somewhat_ cerebrally derived. They must also recognize that it is a less flexible, less subtle, less complex and less variable a method of organizing musical material than a system that can produce music as diverse as Monteverdi, Brahms, Scriabin, Miles Davies, Steve Reich, and all European derived folk music and all the pop music of the world.
> You see, like it or not we are born into our civilization and from day one we are exposed to music based on tonality. Even if we are born in Beijing or Mumbai.


True, music has universal elements, like rhythm; and harmonic music is a large part of that. Of course, you may be overstating your case there, in that 'tonality' to me, means "Western tonality," while many folk musics can be non-harmonic and totally melodic (like our early plainchant). Thai music uses a 7-tone equal division of the octave, so it has no harmony, only melody & rhythm. Much "folk" music is "tone-centric," not 'tonal.' Even Miles Davis can be said to be "tone-centric" in much of his later music. Ornette Coleman is another example of jazz which has rejected harmony in favor of a purely melodic form.

So all music which is "non tonal" in the Western sense can nonetheless have 'harmonic' basis, North Indian Raga being a prime example. Debussy is in many cases "non-tonal," but still uses harmonic devices. I see "serialism" as being a term which started with Schoenberg and then expanded on those ideas. I see it as being an expansive idea, not limited and inflexible. I see Peter Schat, Theo Verbey, Charles Wuorinen, and the French Spectralists as all being exponents of serialism in this sense of the word, and this music has harmonic things happening in it which are more 'ear friendly' than perhaps Boulez' "Sonatine," but these were early experiments.



Petwhac said:


> When listening to a piece of non tonal music, if we suddenly hear a major traid, our ears will hone in on it like a missile tracking system. This is a big problem for composers of serial music especially. Schoenberg was well aware of this. It means that forever, certain combinations of tones _must _be avoided if a unity of expressive experience is to be maintained. Thus, serial music is always going to be limited. .


No, I think that's too limited a view of serialism. See the book http://amzn.com/0521682002


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If I pick up a book of Mallarme's poetry, and I cannot speak or read or understand French, then the failure for the poetry to convey meaning is due to my deficiency, not the French language or Mallarme's poetry.

But are you making an assumption that all those who dislike Mallarme (I actually quite like him) or Cage or Stockhausen do so because they do not understand their "language"?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_someguy- we get the listeners back into the situation, and not as the vague and passive "the" listener (who doesn't exist), but as active, involved individuals, with varying degrees of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy and blinkeredness. And each of those individuals will make varying connections with musical pieces, any pieces, including perhaps Klavierstück X. Some listeners will have valuable experiences with Klavierstück X, some will not. Where does the responsibility lie? With Klavierstück X? I'd say not._

petwhac- Are you saying that someone with a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy will necessarily acknowledge Klavierstück X to be what, great? Enjoyable? Beautiful? Such a refined and educated listener cannot possibly say something negative about Stockhausen but only about Chopin, Tchaikovsky or Britney Spears. Only the blinkered, conservative, reactionary, intolerant ignorant bufoon could possibly find the music you champion to be unsatisfactory on some level. For them that is. Is that really what you are saying?

Quite likely.


----------



## millionrainbows

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But are you making an assumption that all those who dislike Mallarme (I actually quite like him) or Cage or Stockhausen do so because they do not understand their "language"?


I would use the term 'understanding' very carefully. This is no way a refection on anyone's intelligence or taste, but reveals an unwillingness to acknowledge modern music on its own terms, which requires a different set of criteria than traditional music. When comparison is used to bolster an opinion, the logic breaks down for me, and the comparison becomes an attempt at 'objectification' of a subjective experience.


----------



## millionrainbows

StlukesguildOhio said:


> petwhac- Are you saying that someone with a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy will necessarily acknowledge Klavierstück X to be what, great? Enjoyable? Beautiful?


What I expect of a listener with "a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy" is that they approach Klavierstück X with a curious, open mind, as they should approach all art. Otherwise, I would not characterize them thusly.
Also, I'd like to explode the notion that we must "like or not like" certain art or music. In many cases, I am simply exploring something new, with a "suspended judgement" and a large degree of detachment and objectivity. I listen to all music I hear in this way, even Brittney Spears and pop music. After I immerse myself in it, whether I ignore it from that point on is based partly on my immediate visceral response, ranging from from negative, neutral, to positive (and this reaction has been held in check), an objective assessment of the (supposed) intended function of the music, and a conscious decision to further explore the music, if it presents itself as a 'mystery' or as somehow impenetrable. I always assume my own ignorance or inability to relate in approaching "art" music which is recognized to be viable in some way, even if this is only to understand its appeal in some objective way, like a musicologist would approach music. In this way, I learn more about music and expand my own paradigm.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> What I expect of a listener with "a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy" is that they approach Klavierstück X with a curious, open mind, as they should approach all art. Otherwise, I would not characterize them thusly.
> Also, I'd like to explode the notion that we must "like or not like" certain art or music. In many cases, I am simply exploring something new, with a "suspended judgement" and a large degree of detachment and objectivity. I listen to all music I hear in this way, even Brittney Spears and pop music. After I immerse myself in it, whether I ignore it from that point on is based partly on my immediate visceral response, ranging from from negative, neutral, to positive (and this reaction has been held in check), an objective assessment of the (supposed) intended function of the music, and a conscious decision to further explore the music, if it presents itself as a 'mystery' or as somehow impenetrable. I always assume my own ignorance or inability to relate in approaching "art" music which is recognized to be viable in some way, even if this is only to understand its appeal in some objective way, like a musicologist would approach music. In this way, I learn more about music and expand my own paradigm.


 I think I am beginning to understand your particular mindset but I am still very puzzled by some things you have said.

In an earlier post you said, "Art or music should not always have to entertain or 'do favors' in the way opera or harmony-based music does." Please explain what you mean by that. Do you mean that harmony based music has a different raison d'être to non harmony-based music?

You also said "It tells me that Stockhausen & Boulez were artists in a more modern sense of the word since the days of Bach or Beethoven, and this is pretty much diametrically opposed to traditionalism. Of course, we could look at the similarities if you wish" Please explain the modern senses of the word artist in as much as it differs from the traditional term.
And yes I would very much like to look at the similarities if you are referring to those between KS and PB on the one hand and JSB and LvB on the other.

One other thing from your last post puzzles me and that is the statement "I always assume my own ignorance or inability to relate in approaching "art" music which is recognized to be viable in some way, even if this is only to understand its appeal in some objective way, like a musicologist would approach music."
What music have you ever come across that is not "recognised as viable in some way". Surely the very fact that it has reached your ears proves that it is viable.

Lastly, is it really _possible _to not like or dislike a work of art? Does that not mean indifference? Are we to be scientists just dissecting music that other people have created to see how it was put together. To what end?
I'd like to ask you is there any music that you have approached in the correct manner (with a curious, open mind) which you have disregarded or not liked or been bored by or felt to be poor quality. Please supply a specific example.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

millionrainbows said:


> What I expect of a listener with "a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy" is that they approach Klavierstück X with a curious, open mind, as they should approach all art. Otherwise, I would not characterize them thusly.
> Also, I'd like to explode the notion that we must "like or not like" certain art or music. In many cases, I am simply exploring something new, with a "suspended judgement" and a large degree of detachment and objectivity. I listen to all music I hear in this way, even Brittney Spears and pop music. After I immerse myself in it, whether I ignore it from that point on is based partly on my immediate visceral response, ranging from from negative, neutral, to positive (and this reaction has been held in check), an objective assessment of the (supposed) intended function of the music, and a conscious decision to further explore the music, if it presents itself as a 'mystery' or as somehow impenetrable. I always assume my own ignorance or inability to relate in approaching "art" music which is recognized to be viable in some way, even if this is only to understand its appeal in some objective way, like a musicologist would approach music. In this way, I learn more about music and expand my own paradigm.


Most of us here are not as inexperienced as your post implicilty assumes we are about "exploring something new". Stockhausen's music has been on my radar for many years, and it still often doesn't ring a bell. I would even go further that my willingness to explore art music expands just as far as music that could literally be about 1,000 years old to present years.


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> In an earlier post you said, "Art or music should not always have to entertain or 'do favors' in the way opera or harmony-based music does." Please explain what you mean by that. Do you mean that harmony based music has a different raison d'être to non harmony-based music?


That brings up an interesting point. Schoenberg was probably the most justified of any composer in using the twelve-tone method, since he himself invented it (if you discount Hauer) and he used it in a way which reinforced his strange, garish, green-and red expressionist aesthetic. The dissonant, strange harmonies, the angular melodies and leaps, the novel orchestral effects, the resultant "ugliness" of the harmony, and in many spots downright bizarre-sounding music. Then along comes World War Two, and after that, the atomic and hydrogen bombs; and the meetings at Darmstadt begin. The war obviously affected younger artists like Stockhausen and Boulez, because, in adopting Schoenberg's method, as well as ideas from Messiaen, and concentrating on Webern, a new, austere aesthetic arises. The old Europe was gone; the great age of Vienna which Schoenberg tried so hard to penetrate, was gone. Nationalism had proven itself, and bore its fruit, and nearly destroyed Germany. It's no wonder that Stockhausen and Boulez were skeptical of Western tradition; after all, its scars were still festering, and the ramifications still threatened the very existence of the planet, in the form of the hydrogen bomb. This was the "legacy of genius," of unchecked ego and hubris.
So, in this sense, Schoenberg can be seen as the last of the great "genius artists" of the Western era. Stockhausen, Boulez, and other young composers were after something altogether different, and this did not involve gloves and opera glasses, and catering to the whims of a Viennese audience. Stockhausen spoke of "splitting the musical atom" and breaking down music to its constituent elements, questioning everything, and putting music under a microscope. Read the liner notes to this CD: http://amzn.com/B004DDIYKI and its interesting to note that Cage & Boulez were both after the same thing: a dissolution of their own conscious, controlling "egos" and trying to create a "labyrinth," by which they would create something which subsumes all that, and they break totally with the idea of "artist as expressor" or genius or great creator, like Wagner was. So this all set the stage for the Serialism which followed; music became a new language, a thing to "expand on" and create new possibilities out of. So, in this sense, many of the 'modernist critics' I have encountered in these forums are correct in their aversion to serial music, because in many ways it is the antithesis of all tradition which preceded it. I admit that it takes a very flexible mindset, even after the 'history' is known, to begin to approach this new, austere music, music which does not cater to the white-gloved precious.
So, no, not all non harmony-based music has a different raison d'être than harmony-based or tonal music, but after WWII, and the growth of serialism, I'd say that this new modernist aesthetic was well-established.



Petwhac said:


> You also said "It tells me that Stockhausen & Boulez were artists in a more modern sense of the word since the days of Bach or Beethoven, and this is pretty much diametrically opposed to traditionalism. Of course, we could look at the similarities if you wish" Please explain the modern senses of the word artist in as much as it differs from the traditional term.


I think the preceding explains it.



Petwhac said:


> One other thing from your last post puzzles me and that is the statement "I always assume my own ignorance or inability to relate in approaching "art" music which is recognized to be viable in some way, even if this is only to understand its appeal in some objective way, like a musicologist would approach music."
> What music have you ever come across that is not "recognised as viable in some way". Surely the very fact that it has reached your ears proves that it is viable.


Well, all I mean by that is "viable as art" for my own purposes, and music which was intended as art or has transcended its ostensible function or genre to become "art". Other types of music, such as dance music, have implicit or overtly intended consumer purposes, or cater to certain age-groups or lifestyles. That's their function, and we should let people consume those forms if they want to, in peace, without our making absurd comparisons about how much better Beethoven is than Brittney Spears.



Petwhac said:


> Lastly, is it really _possible _to not like or dislike a work of art? Does that not mean indifference? Are we to be scientists just dissecting music that other people have created to see how it was put together. To what end?
> I'd like to ask you is there any music that you have approached in the correct manner (with a curious, open mind) which you have disregarded or not liked or been bored by or felt to be poor quality. Please supply a specific example.


All I'm saying is that I look at music as expressions of Humanity, and I approach it with tolerance. I do not invest myself in music which I can not relate to, which is obviously designed for social groups or people unlike myself. Like everyone, I want to "define" who I am by my music. In that way, I am no different than a Brittney Spears fan. However, I have a probably larger, and different set of criteria by which I embrace or reject music.


----------



## Jimm

Love Stockhausen, one of the all-time masters. I really wish I could be at the premiere of _Mittwoch aus LICHT_ this August in Birmingham.


----------



## DeepR

When I read this thread I get the idea that appreciation for Stockhausen comes from trying to understand the theory and ideas behind the music, the structure of a piece etc. The appreciation does not originate from stimulation/pleasure/emotion one gets directly from listening to the music. Or, this stimulation/pleasure/emotion only comes AFTER acquiring in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music. And that kind of artificial appreciation is exactly what I don't like about it. For me it is too disconnected from the heart and soul, too abstract and too intellectual.
There have been pieces of music I had to listen to 10-20 times before I could make sense of it, but at least the emotion I got from it then was honest and directly caused by listening to the music.


----------



## Petwhac

DeepR said:


> When I read this thread I get the idea that appreciation for Stockhausen comes from trying to understand the theory and ideas behind the music, the structure of a piece etc. The appreciation does not originate from stimulation/pleasure/emotion one gets directly from listening to the music. Or, this stimulation/pleasure/emotion only comes AFTER acquiring in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music. And that kind of artificial appreciation is exactly what I don't like about it. For me it is too disconnected from the heart and soul, too abstract and too intellectual.
> There have been pieces of music I had to listen to 10-20 times before I could make sense of it, but at least the emotion I got from it then was honest and directly caused by listening to the music.


You will get accused of 'not approaching the music correctly', of 'not having a flexible mindset', of 'not yet being familiar enough with the idiom' of being 'conservative' or unwilling to 'step outside your comfort zone'. All these accusations will of course be nonsense. Oh yeah let's not forget 'intolerant'.

I had written a long response to millionrainbow's last post but I'm not sure life is long enough to get into a debate about 'historical context' and the 'purpose of Art'

It's funny how Boulez the radical and the modernist, isn't accused of being reactionary or narrow minded for not embracing minimalism.


----------



## millionrainbows

[Could we please have a rethink of the old cliché "in the first decades after the war, all music was terribly austere, abstract, and autonomous, now we are all pluralist, diverse, good consumers in a global musical supermarket, and everything in the garden is rosy"?]
overheard from Ian Pace


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> _You will get accused of 'not approaching the music correctly', of 'not having a flexible mindset', of 'not yet being familiar enough with the idiom' of being 'conservative' or unwilling to 'step outside your comfort zone'. All these accusations will of course be nonsense. Oh yeah let's not forget 'intolerant'._


It's not about you, Petwhac. It's about art. Art is "out there," not inside your mind, if the rest of us to have access, that is.



Petwhac said:


> _I had written a long response to millionrainbow's last post but I'm not sure life is long enough to get into a debate about 'historical context' and the 'purpose of Art'_


Of _course_ you wouldn't want to go there. If we keep everything nice & subjective, then everything is valid. God forbid we should even *pretend* that there is such a thing as "objective history."



Petwhac said:


> _It's funny how Boulez the radical and the modernist, isn't accused of being reactionary or narrow minded for not embracing minimalism._


Minimalism is tone-centric music, and also involves much repetition, which is incompatible with Boulez' serial aesthetic. In that sense, Minimalism is reactionary, not Boulez, unless you consider post-modern to be "forward-looking." Minimalism, with Reich's interest in African drumming, Riley's study with Pandit Pran Nath, and Glass' study with Ravi Shankar, is definitely post-modern in its origins & outlook, and in its inclusive nature. I prefer to see each type of music as a product of its times & historical context. Now look at how much we've learned by eschewing the subjective and looking at things as they are!


----------



## millionrainbows

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> _Most of us here are not as inexperienced as your post implicilty assumes we are about "exploring something new". Stockhausen's music has been on my radar for many years, and it still often doesn't ring a bell. I would even go further that my willingness to explore art music expands just as far as music that could literally be about 1,000 years old to present years._


I don't require that Art should "ring a bell," but only that it exist, as it is, as a creation of sound. I'm exploring pre-Renaissance chant at present. The fact that Stockhausen does not ring your bell says everything about you, and nothing about the music. So, the point is...?


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> _When I read this thread I get the idea that appreciation for Stockhausen comes from trying to understand the theory and ideas behind the music, the structure of a piece etc. The appreciation does not originate from stimulation/pleasure/emotion one gets directly from listening to the music. Or, this stimulation/pleasure/emotion only comes AFTER acquiring in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music. And that kind of artificial appreciation is exactly what I don't like about it. For me it is too disconnected from the heart and soul, too abstract and too intellectual.
> There have been pieces of music I had to listen to 10-20 times before I could make sense of it, but at least the emotion I got from it then was honest and directly caused by listening to the music._


Then perhaps you are asking things from this music that it cannot, or was not designed to, provide. If you are after 'heart and soul' and not 'abstract intellectualism,' then you are absolutely justified in seeking your pleasures elsewhere. I just ask you to be considerate and tolerant of other views, or ignore them. To do otherwise comes across as being insecure and defensive. After all, modern music has not 'destroyed' any other music.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> It's not about you, Petwhac. It's about art. Art is "out there," not inside your mind, if the rest of us to have access, that is.
> 
> Of _course_ you wouldn't want to go there. If we keep everything nice & subjective, then everything is valid. God forbid we should even *pretend* that there is such a thing as "objective history."
> 
> Minimalism is tone-centric music, and also involves much repetition, which is incompatible with Boulez' serial aesthetic. In that sense, Minimalism is reactionary, not Boulez, unless you consider post-modern to be "forward-looking." Minimalism, with Reich's interest in African drumming, Riley's study with Pandit Pran Nath, and Glass' study with Ravi Shankar, is definitely post-modern in its origins & outlook, and in its inclusive nature. I prefer to see each type of music as a product of its times & historical context. Now look at how much we've learned by eschewing the subjective and looking at things as they are!


Well firstly, there is no such thing as 'objective history'. Only one's interpretation of events and the causes of those events. 
You cannot possibly know what is 'forward looking' without a supernatural ability to see into the future. If knowing the historical context of a work helps you to appreciate or understand it better, that's fine. It is not a prerequisite of either appreciation of or deriving pleasure from such a work. The work simply exists. Listening to it will either prove to be a meaningful experience with resonance or it won't be. There is no correct response.
That minimalism is 'incompatible with Boulez's serial aesthetic' is _his_ problem. That serialism is incompatible with my aesthetic is _my_ problem. The trouble arises when people think my problem is less justifiable or defensible than Boulez's problem.
Please let me know what music you 'reject' and on what grounds. Baring in mind that your answer will say nothing about the music and everything about you. I never seem to get an answer to this question which I have asked others.

Every generation comes to Shakespeare afresh. Not because his plays are seen as a product of their times and historical context (which they are too) but because they *say something *deep and meaningful that speaks across continents and centuries.

You said to DeepR "Then perhaps you are asking things from this music that it cannot, or was not designed to, provide. If you are after 'heart and soul' and not 'abstract intellectualism,' then you are absolutely justified in seeking your pleasures elsewhere. I just ask you to be considerate and tolerant of other views, or ignore them. To do otherwise comes across as being insecure and defensive. After all, modern music has not 'destroyed' any other music"

I'd like to know what _is _the point of the music? Surely we don't need humans to create 'abstract or intellectual' music if that's what you are _really _agreeing that Klavierstück X is. Apart form the fact that all art music is both abstract and somewhat intellectual, if that's _all_ we want from music then we have plenty of computers that can make a pretty good job of it. I'd suggest that is not all.
And as for your plea for him to be considerate and tolerant, I saw nothing in his comment to suggest he was otherwise. I'd say in general it is the serial apologists who bandy around words like blinkered and inflexible.


----------



## Jimm

Petwhac said:


> You will get accused of 'not approaching the music correctly', of 'not having a flexible mindset', of 'not yet being familiar enough with the idiom' of being 'conservative' or unwilling to 'step outside your comfort zone'. All these accusations will of course be nonsense. Oh yeah let's not forget 'intolerant'.
> 
> I had written a long response to millionrainbow's last post but I'm not sure life is long enough to get into a debate about 'historical context' and the 'purpose of Art'
> 
> It's funny how Boulez the radical and the modernist, isn't accused of being reactionary or narrow minded for not embracing minimalism.


If _Piano Piece X_ doesn't speak to you, then perhaps try other music he composed; Stockhausen is one of the most prolific composers of all time. The range & diversity in his galaxy sized oeuvre is extremely wide, rich and varied; so jump in and just explore,have fun .. there is bound to be something for everyone. And whether you particularly like it all or not, you'll definitely come away from the experience "changed" for the better, and with a whole new perspective & appreciation.


----------



## Petwhac

Jimm said:


> If _Piano Piece X_ doesn't speak to you, then perhaps try other music he composed; Stockhausen is one of the most prolific composers of all time. The range & diversity in his galaxy sized oeuvre is extremely wide, rich and varied; so jump in and just explore,have fun .. there is bound to be something for everyone. And whether you particularly like it all or not, you'll definitely come away from the experience "changed" for the better, and with a whole new perspective & appreciation.


Yes thank you, I am quite familiar with much of his output. I applaud your enthusiasm and respect your opinion. However once again it is _assumed_ that I am a novice or that I haven't explored or 'jumped in'. I can assure you I have and after many years of listening I have realized that Stockhaüsen's music is *for me*, at best, with one or two exceptions, a rather underwhelming experience. Why can't people accept that that does not _have_ to make me in some way deficient or inexperienced as a listener anymore than if Boulez is underwhelmed by minimalism (which I often am too) make him likewise.


----------



## Jimm

Petwhac said:


> Yes thank you, I am quite familiar with much of his output. I applaud your enthusiasm and respect your opinion. However once again it is _assumed_ that I am a novice or that I haven't explored or 'jumped in'. I can assure you I have and after many years of listening I have realized that Stockhaüsen's music is *for me*, at best, with one or two exceptions, a rather underwhelming experience. Why can't people accept that that does not _have_ to make me in some way deficient or inexperienced as a listener anymore than if Boulez is underwhelmed by minimalism (which I often am too) make him likewise.


I haven't read through the thread, so I must have missed the point made of your serious familiarity with the wide range of 360 or so works in his canon. Just curious .. what were the "one or two" exceptions for you? I realize that not all of "the masters" can speak to everyone. I, for instance, don't care much for Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven .. though I do regard their historical significance & appreciate the formal innovations.


----------



## Petwhac

Jimm said:


> I haven't read through the thread, so I must have missed the point made of your serious familiarity with the wide range of 360 or so works in his canon. Just curious .. what were the "one or two" exceptions for you? I realize that not all of "the masters" can speak to everyone. I, for instance, don't care much for Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven .. though I do regard their historical significance & appreciate the formal innovations.


Actually I said I was familiar with much of his music. I do not know all of his works but in order for me to spend the considerable listening hours required to get to know more of them and in detail I would have to be confident that the personal rewards would be sufficient. I am not confident of that. Just as you probably know very little of the complete music of the three composers you mentioned.
The historical significance and appreciation of the formal innovations you speak of. Did you come to those opinions through exploration of their scores or did you just 'receive' your assessment from a text book or history book? 
I rather suspect that your statement is just a posture you are adopting to make a point. However, since elsewhere in this thread I have tried to rationalize my own particular reasons for not deriving pleasure from Klavierstück X in particular and by extrapolation other examples of integral serialsm, I wonder if you could provide me with a critique of any one of the significant works of Haydn Mozart or Beethoven. Or just try and rationalize what it is that you don't 'care' for.


----------



## Jimm

Petwhac said:


> Actually I said I was familiar with much of his music. I do not know all of his works but in order for me to spend the considerable listening hours required to get to know more of them and in detail I would have to be confident that the personal rewards would be sufficient. I am not confident of that.


Ok, but what were the "one or two exceptions" in his output ..? I'm very interested in that ..



Petwhac said:


> Just as you probably know very little of the complete music of the three composers you mentioned.
> The historical significance and appreciation of the formal innovations you speak of. Did you come to those opinions through exploration of their scores or did you just 'receive' your assessment from a text book or history book? I rather suspect that your statement is just a posture you are adopting to make a point.


I simply collected & listened to A LOT of that older traditional music first & foremost (Classical Era) and it just doesn't speak to me as a person living in today's world; whereas other masters from other periods & eras do. It's just my personal preference.


----------



## Jimm

DeepR said:


> When I read this thread I get the idea that appreciation for Stockhausen comes from trying to understand the theory and ideas behind the music, the structure of a piece etc. The appreciation does not originate from stimulation/pleasure/emotion one gets directly from listening to the music. Or, this stimulation/pleasure/emotion only comes AFTER acquiring in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music. And that kind of artificial appreciation is exactly what I don't like about it. For me it is too disconnected from the heart and soul, too abstract and too intellectual.
> There have been pieces of music I had to listen to 10-20 times before I could make sense of it, but at least the emotion I got from it then was honest and directly caused by listening to the music.


Approaching pieces & composers from different vantage points & angles is a healthy thing though, and this is apart of what makes the art of music so enjoyable; and it's not only applicable to Stockhausen. Even if you don't end up loving it, at least you learn something and grow. From my experience as it applies to Stockhausen in particular, .. my love for his music is purely visceral; it moved me and stirred my imagination first & foremost; and I was drawn in to the many, many qualities it had, .. and on top of this .. I do love solving puzzles, I love challenges, the unexpected, I love those who think outside of the box, and I seem to find the tougher nuts to crack more rewarding and intriguing overall in my experience .. once his art had my imagination compelled, my innate curiosity took over and I dug deeper and this in turn deepened & widened my appreciation of what he was doing and the art of composition in general. I wouldn't describe any of that as "artificial", but as an "epiphany" - it was very real and profound.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> You will get accused of 'not approaching the music correctly', of 'not having a flexible mindset', of 'not yet being familiar enough with the idiom' of being 'conservative' or unwilling to 'step outside your comfort zone'. All these accusations will of course be nonsense. Oh yeah let's not forget 'intolerant'.


Petwhac, be a dear and let people speak for themselves.



DeepR said:


> When I read this thread I get the idea that appreciation for Stockhausen comes from trying to understand the theory and ideas behind the music, the structure of a piece etc. The appreciation does not originate from stimulation/pleasure/emotion one gets directly from listening to the music. Or, this stimulation/pleasure/emotion only comes AFTER acquiring in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music. And that kind of artificial appreciation is exactly what I don't like about it. For me it is too disconnected from the heart and soul, too abstract and too intellectual.
> There have been pieces of music I had to listen to 10-20 times before I could make sense of it, but at least the emotion I got from it then was honest and directly caused by listening to the music.


When I read this post, I get the idea that DeepR's dislike of music comes from reacting to how people talk about music, not from directly listening to it and disliking it. Seems a trifle disconnected from experiencing the music.

My appreciation for the musics you refer to as "too abstract and too intellectual" comes from the "stimulation/pleasure/emotion I get directly from listening to the music and always has. I like or dislike music that I have listened to. And I don't confuse anyone else's appreciation of music--artificial or not--with the music itself. ("And that kind of artificial appreciation is exactly what I don't like about [the music]"?)

In any case, "stimulation/pleasure/emotion" from art often comes AFTER acquiring knowledge about it. Your "listening 10-20 times" before you could "make sense" of certain things is a good example of that. Perhaps your knowledge after the 20th listen is not exactly "in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music," but that phrase is perhaps not the fairest description of the situation going.

And lastly, in this particular thread, the high-powered discussion of theory has not come about because that's how Stockhausen's admirers explain their admiration, but because that's what Petwhac challenged them to do--explain why they thought _Klavierstück X_ was worthwhile.

Much as I enjoyed reading Jeremy's responses to that challenge, in retrospect allowing Petwhac to manage the terms of the discussion was perhaps not quite the thing. Anyway, if you have a beef with anyone, seems to me your beef is with Petwhac, not with either Jeremy or Million. (Or myself or Jimm.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> Well firstly, there is no such thing as 'objective history'. Only one's interpretation of events and the causes of those events.


_That's true, to a large extent. If there's a car wreck, and 15 minutes later you ask ten witnesses what happened, you'll get ten different answers. So history is not science. However, its verities are based on an accumulation of data, and the methods of historians. So who am I gonna believe, the consensus of history or you?_



Petwhac said:


> If knowing the historical context of a work helps you to appreciate or understand it better, that's fine. It is not a prerequisite of either appreciation of or deriving pleasure from such a work. The work simply exists. Listening to it will either prove to be a meaningful experience with resonance or it won't be. There is no correct response.


_"Listening to (a work) will either prove to be a meaningful experience with resonance or it won't be" implies that all art should "resonate" with the subject, and I don't think that has to be true. As you said, "The work simply exists."

Other people's subjective opinions must pass certain criteria for them to actually hold water for me. Other people's subjective opinions can be biased in all sorts of ways, or uninformed, or incorrect. That doesn't make their opinions "correct or incorrect" per se, but they must 'resonate' with my criteria for them to be meaningful to me.
_



Petwhac said:


> That minimalism is 'incompatible with Boulez's serial aesthetic' is _his_ problem. That serialism is incompatible with my aesthetic is _my_ problem. The trouble arises when people think my problem is less justifiable or defensible than Boulez's problem.
> Please let me know what music you 'reject' and on what grounds. Baring in mind that your answer will say nothing about the music and everything about you. I never seem to get an answer to this question which I have asked others.


_I really don't think too much about music I have "rejected." Let's see, as far as rock music goes, I have never cared too much for REO Speedwagon, Lynrd Skynrd, or Styx. But I support the right of whoever wants to consume that music.
_



Petwhac said:


> Every generation comes to Shakespeare afresh. Not because his plays are seen as a product of their times and historical context (which they are too) but because they *say something *deep and meaningful that speaks across continents and centuries....You said to DeepR "Then perhaps you are asking things from this music that it cannot, or was not designed to, provide. If you are after 'heart and soul' and not 'abstract intellectualism,' then you are absolutely justified in seeking your pleasures elsewhere. I just ask you to be considerate and tolerant of other views, or ignore them. To do otherwise comes across as being insecure and defensive. After all, modern music has not 'destroyed' any other music."
> 
> I'd like to know what _is _the point of the music? Surely we don't need humans to create 'abstract or intellectual' music if that's what you are _really _agreeing that Klavierstück X is. Apart form the fact that all art music is both abstract and somewhat intellectual, if that's _all_ we want from music then we have plenty of computers that can make a pretty good job of it.


_Remember the "Iliac Suite" for string quartet by Lejaren Hiller (1957)? That's a classic example of computer music which has held up well as music after all these years. You have to understand and acknowledge as valid the aesthetic aims of these artists in order to really see the purpose of it. 
With each new work, Stockhausen was exploring some aspect of music and sound. In "Zeitmass," he was exploring how long phases could be held by woodwind players, and how instructions like "as fast as possible" would sound. In "Mikrophonie" he explored the separate harmonics produced by a gong, by isolating each harmonic with a microphone held very close to the gong's surface. Also, much of Stockhausen's work was concerned in a big way with how we subjectively experience time.
Milton Babbitt (author of the infamous "Who Cares If You Listen" essay, which he did not title) was concerned with the actual materials he was working with, tone rows, and how they could be permutated. He used matrixes and set theory to further the ideas of serialism. I happen to *love* his piano music, and his "Philomel" for soprano and electronic sound is good art, if you ask me. But Babbitt was exploring this territory to expand the language of serialism, not just to entertain me, but I am entertained nonetheless. This is called "going to art because it won't come to you." If I want to be merely entertained, I'll watch TV.
Also, I have always seen a religious paradigm at play here. The "subjective" is Man and God at the center of things, while the "objective," science, is the acknowledgment that Man is small in the overall scheme of the universe at large.
_



Petwhac said:


> And as for your plea for him to be considerate and tolerant, I saw nothing in his comment to suggest he was otherwise.


_Well, he did say "The appreciation does not originate from stimulation/pleasure/emotion one gets directly from listening to the music," which might be true for him, but not for everyone. Generally speaking, with modern music, the "payoff" comes later. Generally speaking, harmonically based tonal music is a more visceral, immediate experience.
_


Petwhac said:


> I'd say in general it is the serial apologists who bandy around words like blinkered and inflexible.


_I'm not commenting on any specific opinions anyone has; I'm simply saying that "subjectivity" can hide a multitude of irrelevancies about music itself, which exists "out there."_


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> Petwhac, be a dear and let people speak for themselves.


Just an observation dear fellow.


some guy said:


> When I read this post, I get the idea that DeepR's dislike of music comes from reacting to how people talk about music, not from directly listening to it and disliking it. Seems a trifle disconnected from experiencing the music.


I didn't get the idea that DeepR disliked music.



some guy said:


> In any case, "stimulation/pleasure/emotion" from art often comes AFTER acquiring knowledge about it. Your "listening 10-20 times" before you could "make sense" of certain things is a good example of that. Perhaps your knowledge after the 20th listen is not exactly "in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music," but that phrase is perhaps not the fairest description of the situation going.


Knowledge of 'theory' is an irrelevance. It is not necessary to know music theory to be stimulated, pleased or moved by a piece but of course you know that and so does everyone for whom music is a vital part of what makes their lives worth living. Forgive me for speaking for DeepR but after the 20th listen it is not knowledge that is gained so much as recognition. As for stimulation/pleasure/emotion from art coming AFTER acquiring knowledge about it. Nope! A greater understanding and a fuller appreciation of it, yes but the other three come first. If a work of art had no positive impact on us why would we bother to seek knowledge about it.



some guy said:


> And lastly, in this particular thread, the high-powered discussion of theory has not come about because that's how Stockhausen's admirers explain their admiration, but because that's what Petwhac challenged them to do--explain why they thought _Klavierstück X_ was worthwhile.
> 
> Much as I enjoyed reading Jeremy's responses to that challenge, in retrospect allowing Petwhac to manage the terms of the discussion was perhaps not quite the thing. Anyway, if you have a beef with anyone, seems to me your beef is with Petwhac, not with either Jeremy or Million. (Or myself or Jimm.)


Why would anyone have a _beef _with me, especially DeepR? I was not challenging Jeremy in an aggressive manner but I am genuinely interested to know what an obviously knowledgable admirer of Klavierstück X thinks are it's merits. Anyone can, and we all do say "I like X and I don't like Y." But some of us think that the answer lies in the music as well as the mind. I know exactly why I believe the Hammerklavier to be far a more complex, layered and profound work than Mr S's and I think that the assertion that they are completely different animals and can't be compared is just plain wrong.(Million's assertion, not yours)


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> _That's true, to a large extent. If there's a car wreck, and 15 minutes later you ask ten witnesses what happened, you'll get ten different answers. So history is not science. However, its verities are based on an accumulation of data, and the methods of historians. So who am I gonna believe, the consensus of history or you?_


I'm not asking you to believe me. But remember that what may once be held to be true by consensus, later may be found to be false. I'd be wary of following the crowd and make up your own mind.



millionrainbows said:


> "Listening to (a work) will either prove to be a meaningful experience with resonance or it won't be" implies that all art should "resonate" with the subject, and I don't think that has to be true. As you said, "The work simply exists."


And it may as well not exist. If I pluck out a nose hair, glue it to a piece of card and call it art I hope you will afford it the respect it deserves. I'm not accusing KS of that kind of charlatanism but I don't think 'existing' is quite enough.



millionrainbows said:


> Other people's subjective opinions must pass certain criteria for them to actually hold water for me.


And for me.



millionrainbows said:


> Other people's subjective opinions can be biased in all sorts of ways, or uninformed, or incorrect. That doesn't make their opinions "correct or incorrect" per se, but they must 'resonate' with my criteria for them to be meaningful to me.
> [/I]


And for me.



millionrainbows said:


> I really don't think too much about music I have "rejected." Let's see, as far as rock music goes, I have never cared too much for REO Speedwagon, Lynrd Skynrd, or Styx.


Maybe if you had a more flexible approach, learned about the historical context and examined the aims and methods of those 3 masters of contemporary popular music (by overwhelming consensus) you may come to appreciate them more.:lol:



millionrainbows said:


> But I support the right of whoever wants to consume that music.


Of course, and I support the right of anyone who wants to consume any music including Stockhausen.



millionrainbows said:


> Milton Babbitt (author of the infamous "Who Cares If You Listen" essay, which he did not title) was concerned with the actual materials he was working with, tone rows, and how they could be permutated. He used matrixes and set theory to further the ideas of serialism. I happen to *love* his piano music, and his "Philomel" for soprano and electronic sound is good art, if you ask me. *But Babbitt was exploring this territory to expand the language of serialism, not just to entertain me, but I am entertained nonetheless. This is called "going to art because it won't come to you." If I want to be merely entertained, I'll watch TV.*
> Also, I have always seen a religious paradigm at play here. The "subjective" is Man and God at the center of things, while the "objective," science, is the acknowledgment that Man is small in the overall scheme of the universe at large.


Sorry, but I find that (in bold) the most pretentious and snobbish thing I've read in this forum to date. No offence intended.
What is the point of 'expanding the language of serialism'? Surely language is a means to an end not the end in itself.
Imagine if literature was handled like music. Only 26 letters in English yet so much can be said. Joyce excepted, how many writers have wanted to or felt the need to expand, in a scientific and mathematical manner the syntax, grammar and alphabet of the language. The only justification I can see for doing so would be to better communicate.

I respect your love of Babbit's piano music but reserve the right to not share it.



millionrainbows said:


> Generally speaking, with modern music, the "payoff" comes later.


What is this payoff you speak of?


millionrainbows said:


> Generally speaking, harmonically based tonal music is a more visceral, immediate experience.


Why?


----------



## Jimm

Hey Petwhac ... what were the "one or two exceptions" for you in Stockhausen's output?


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> Then perhaps you are asking things from this music that it cannot, or was not designed to, provide. If you are after 'heart and soul' and not 'abstract intellectualism,' then you are absolutely justified in seeking your pleasures elsewhere. I just ask you to be considerate and tolerant of other views, or ignore them. To do otherwise comes across as being insecure and defensive. After all, modern music has not 'destroyed' any other music.


I agree with the first part of your reply. I'm looking for things in this music that aren't there.
But I don't think I've said anything intolerant. I respect other people's tastes. I think it's great and fascinating that people get something from this music. 
I just tried to put into words why I personally don't like it, so far. They are my initial impressions really. I did generalize, because I should've referred to Klavierstück X and not Stockhausen in general because I've barely listened to anything else from him (only some electronic music and I liked what I heard, for whole different reasons.. I have a thing for synhesizers and electronic sounds).


----------



## Jimm

Petwhac said:


> I am genuinely interested to know what an obviously knowledgable admirer of Klavierstück X thinks are it's merits.


If you're looking for dense academia on encoding & making a case for the validity of this coded music (historical &-or intellectual) you can find mountains of it. But his music defies convention, and he often muddied the waters so intellectuals wouldn't be able to come along and merely go .. "oh this is how it's done, how simple, how banal, etc. .. " . .. and hence standard analytical techniques are not enough to approach a full understanding of this colorful and profound repertory. A repertoire that once you've been listening to it over a period of years it's always changing, the more absorbed you become, you discover more.

But we try to explain too much, and the explanations are for academics and intellectuals who have to find reasons for things, but the whole point about music and contemporary music in particular, is that you have to immerse yourself in it _first of all_ and NOT worry about explanations, but observe your reactions to the music.

But like most people, we like music initially because of the feeling it gives us .. approaching Stockhausen in a more holistic, less uptight manor .. makes it less intimidating and more accessible, rather than trying to wade through the mountains of dense academic critique and analysis of it (very intimidating); and with a rigid academic approach you'll overlook the more playful, even comical aspects of his music .. I was attracted to _Piano Piece X_ straight off because of it's piercing dynamic energy; volatile, highly explosive & resonant qualities. It was a memorable experience, and an earth shattering solo .. and I wanted to listen to it more and more. I love Stockhausen's _Klavierstücke_, they are essential piano music and an essential part of his output.


----------



## Jimm

DeepR said:


> (only some electronic music and I liked what I heard, for whole different reasons.. I have a thing for synhesizers and electronic sounds).


Stockhausen was one of the seminal figures of the 20th century, and certainly one of the greatest within the electronic music scene. For many, the foremost leading composer of electronic music, the one who really brought it to maturity with brilliant pieces of genius. He published the very first score of electronic music (Studie II, 1954), his famous _Gesang der Junglinge_ (1955-1957) was the first ever electronic composition to use surround-sound, and with _Gesang der Junglinge_, Stockhausen is credited with developing such techniques of overdubbing and multi-tracking, as well as other studio techniques, which, while entirely new at the time, are now considered standard fare for studio engineers. etc., etc.

One could write several doctoral theses on the significance of Stockhausen in different areas of music, but suffice it to say that he made break-through after break-through, revolutionizing the worlds of aleatoric music, spatial elements (again, one of he pioneers of the surround-sound we're all now so accustomed to, for one small example), formula composition, instrumental theater, etc. _LICHT_ alone solidifies his genius to just about anyone who has taken the time to get to know it.


----------



## tdc

Jimm said:


> *Gesang der Junglinge* (*1955-1957*) was the first ever electronic composition to use surround-sound, and with _Gesang der Junglinge_, Stockhausen is *credited with developing such techniques* of *overdubbing and multi-tracking*, as well as other studio techniques, which, while entirely new at the time, are now considered standard fare for studio engineers. etc., etc.


I find it quite surprising that by 1955-1957, no one else had ever used over-dubbing or multi-tracking in a studio recording. Do you have any references for this?


----------



## Jimm

tdc said:


> I find it quite surprising that by 1955-1957, no one else had ever used over-dubbing or multi-tracking in a studio recording. Do you have any references for this?


Hi there .. never said "no one else ever" .. said "is credited with _developing_" which is different. If you google around, you'll find plenty on Stockhausen's overall technical brilliance.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I would use the term 'understanding' very carefully. This is no way a refection on anyone's intelligence or taste, but reveals an unwillingness to acknowledge modern music on its own terms, which requires a different set of criteria than traditional music.

The problem with this idea is that there are a great many Modern and Contemporary works of music that can be fully appreciated on the same terms as "traditional" classical music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

What I expect of a listener with "a very high degree of experience and intelligence and insight and capacity and sympathy" is that they approach Klavierstück X with a curious, open mind, as they should approach all art.

I don't think you should underestimate the broader audience of "classical music." Certainly there are those who are limited in their tastes... specializing in the Baroque or Romanticism over everything else. But there are a great many classical listeners who have broad musical tastes and interests and approach anything new with a sense of curiosity and open mind... and still some music fails to give them a degree of pleasure that makes it worth further exploration.

Also, I'd like to explode the notion that we must "like or not like" certain art or music. In many cases, I am simply exploring something new, with a "suspended judgement" and a large degree of detachment and objectivity. I listen to all music I hear in this way, even Brittney Spears and pop music. After I immerse myself in it, whether I ignore it from that point on is based partly on my immediate visceral response, ranging from from negative, neutral, to positive (and this reaction has been held in check), an objective assessment of the (supposed) intended function of the music, and a conscious decision to further explore the music, if it presents itself as a 'mystery' or as somehow impenetrable.

I think most of us realize that exploring an art or music that is new demands a degree of effort on our part. The decision that must be made by the individual is: "Does the reward seem worth the effort?"

I always assume my own ignorance or inability to relate in approaching "art" music which is recognized to be viable in some way, even if this is only to understand its appeal in some objective way, like a musicologist would approach music. In this way, I learn more about music and expand my own paradigm.

I'm not so quick to assume that every bit of music that I dislike... or that fails to resonate with me... and yet has been deemed "important" by someone... is a "failing" on my part. I am too aware of the endless examples of art/music/literature that has been critically acclaimed in its time, only to disappear shortly thereafter as later audiences/critics/artists reassessed its merits and found it greatly lacking. Nor am I of the mindset that I believe that our time has somehow risen above the ability to be seduced by art that is vacuous and pretentious.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

That minimalism is 'incompatible with Boulez's serial aesthetic' is his problem. That serialism is incompatible with my aesthetic is my problem. The trouble arises when people think my problem is less justifiable or defensible than Boulez's problem.

Bingo!:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> If I pluck out a nose hair, glue it to a piece of card and call it art I hope you will afford it the respect it deserves. I'm not accusing KS of that kind of charlatanism but I don't think 'existing' is quite enough.


_A nose hair? Ewww, gross! Uh-oh, wait...I forgot about "**** christ" and Robert Mapplethorpe's erotic photos. I'd better examine my ideas of grossness._



Petwhac said:


> Maybe if you had a more flexible approach, learned about the historical context and examined the aims and methods of those 3 masters of contemporary popular music (REO Speedwagon, Lynrd Skynrd, & Styx) (by overwhelming consensus) you may come to appreciate them more.:lol:


_My criteria take consensus opinion into consideration, but these groups fail to meet my other criteria. As you said, "...remember that what may once be held to be true by consensus, later may be found to be false. I'd be wary of following the crowd and make up your own mind." So true!
_



Petwhac said:


> What is the point of 'expanding the language of serialism'? Surely language is a means to an end not the end in itself....Imagine if literature was handled like music.


_Imagine if science and physics was handled in the way you suggest, with no intent of expanding its technical boundaries or paradigms. This would be a good time to remind everyone that music was considered by the Greeks (including Pythagoras, to whom we owe our 12-note scale) to be a part of the *Quadrivium,* which consisted of Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic, and Music.
_



Petwhac said:


> Only 26 letters in English yet so much can be said. Joyce excepted, how many writers have wanted to or felt the need to expand, in a scientific and mathematical manner the syntax, grammar and alphabet of the language. The only justification I can see for doing so would be to better communicate.


_ That analogy is not missed by me, but irrelevant to what I said, since I speak of expanding combinations and relations, not expanding the number of elements per se. There are only 12 pitches in Western music. I think Mallarme was as innovative as Joyce. The point is combinatoriality, or how these 12 elements are seen in *relations* not quantities. Art is relations and proportion, not quantity. There is, however, a possibilty that the actual quantity will expand, if a greater-than-12 division of the octave is employed.

To say "...the only justification I can see for (expanding the language of music) would be to better communicate..." seems in a way selfish, as if all art was created with the sole purpose of 'resonating' with you, as a spectator.

Modern artists have their own agendas, and it's up to us to get up out of our seats and go to them, unless, like most opera, the music is intended to entertain and titillate an audience. This "entertainment" requirement of yours has the faint ring of commercialism and of filling theatre seats in an effort to gain popular appeal. To call me 'snobbish' because I wish to see art that is produced for purely non-utilitarian purposes seems short-sighted to me.

Bear in mind that Western music's earliest works had a similar purity of intent, made & performed without an "audience" in mind, but for Church purposes. Also recall J.S. Bach's famous quote, "The purpose of all my music is to glorify God," not to entertain the masses. Popular music was always there to provide dance music and entertaining love songs. In this sense, popular music could be said to have always held more appeal to people than Church music, which was not as rhythmic or varied.

Do you want *real *snobbery? Here you go: In this sense, I consider the modern "secular" era of "pure" or ideal fine art, non-profit in nature and produced in university settings (the secular versions of Church monasteries as places of higher learning) or enabled to exist and be funded by corporations and government grants and wealthy benefactors, to be the new "sacred" art: art which is essentially "useless" in a utilitarian sense, without intent of profit, but exists only for art's sake.
_



Petwhac said:


> What is this payoff you speak of?...Why (is tonal music more immediately gratifying)?


_Tonal music is "ear" music. Its technical constructs and principles are all derived from the model of a single fundamental "key" or root note, and its overtones, and how our ears hear these overtones as derived from this one fundamental note, always referring all elements, everything, back to this reference note. Our eardrums are physical membranes, which vibrate and ripple in sympathy with these sound vibrations.

Serialism has largely removed this hierarchical preference, and replaced it with "floating" interval relations, for more cerebral, less visceral reasons; reasons not based on the immediate visceral response of the ear to these intervals.

In serial music, our ears will still respond immediately and viscerally to consonance/dissonance sounds, as they do in tonality, but these intervals exist independently, as certain sets of ordered relations, without being always in reference to a "root" note, but only to each other. Thus, the complexity of relations has increased; and the difference between "consonance/dissonance" (expressed as ratios in fractional reference to "1") becomes somewhat negated in this sense, since these terms are derived from reference of *unordered sets* of notes (scales) to a "key" note, and tone rows are derived from *ordered sets.* I have a chart shows the different degrees of consonance/dissonance:
_
*
Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1*

_The steps of our tonal scales, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.
Thus, in serialism, all traditional harmonic functions have disappeared, since these functions depend, on the elaboration through time, to reference to a root note; but the consonance/dissonance "flavorings" of interval sounds, listed in the chart, still affect our ears immediately and viscerally. Our ears have not changed in this regard; but the more *cerebral aspects* of tonality, namely 'harmonic function through time,' have been replaced by another cerebral construct, that of ordered sets, or any construct which displaces the hierarchy of tonality._


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Petwhac said:


> I would like to counter a commonly held standpoint that once you are familiar enough with anything you will appreciate it.


This is an important point which resets on the multiple - and to an extent conflicting - meanings of the word _appreciate_. There is a sense in which appreciate means to understand, to 'get', and that understanding must require familiarity (amongst other things).



> Lastly, and this is crucial. I'd like to know whether Stockhausen ever wrote any second rate music or at least any less 'inspired' or imaginative pieces... Would anyone care to state which of the Klavierstück are less successful or inspired or ground braking or are they all masterpieces of equal magnitude?


Yes, Stockhausen certainly wrote music that is a lot less good than his best, and second rate by anybody's standards. That's why I was careful in my first reply in this thread, over two years ago, to identify the works up to and including _Momente _(1964) as the unambiguous masterpieces. The rest of the output is patchy. As I said in the _Mittwoch _thread, there is plenty in _Mittwoch _and _Sonntag _- and more generally in _Licht _- which tries the patience of even the most diehard enthusiasts. Some pieces are intentionally simplistic (eg, _Tierkreis _and _In the sky I am walking_...), the reach of some exceeds their grasp (eg,_ Atmen gibt das Leben..._, much as I personally like it). Then there are the pieces, like _Plus-minus_ which are 'just' instructions to each player on how to respond at every moment to the other player(s), to say nothing of the intuitive pieces which are just texts (most notoriously perhaps "Play a vibration in the rhythm of your atoms" etc).

As for the _Klavierstücke_, these were originally projected in the fifties to be a cycle of six "books" containing a total of 21 pieces. As it was, by 1956, he had written three books (the first eleven pieces) and he then seemed to have abandoned the idea. One minor aspect of _Licht_, however, turns out to be that each opera contains a _Klavierstück_, and the next book is those pieces in _Donnerstag_, _Samstag _and _Montag _(1979-84). These three pieces are at an intellectually lower level than I-XI, in keeping with the whole of _Licht_, compared with the early works. However, they are perfectly serviceable pieces and XIII is substantial, running at half an hour or so. It is with XV-XIX (which comprise the next book) that one could reasonably argue that quality control suffers. They are all scored for synthesisers, often with further instruments and electronic music backing. Of course, they are, at one level, excerpts from a theatrical drama and perhaps don't work so well out of context, though one started life as an commission for a piano competition.



> Take 'conceptual' art.
> Stand in front of a Canaletto or Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII, better known as The Bricks...
> A spokesperson for the Tate gallery said of the Andre, "The piece represents a pivotal moment in art and remains an iconic piece that highlights the trajectory of the history of art."
> That may be true, and Stockhausen's work is equally iconic and highlights the trajectory of the history of art music.
> But at the end of the day when you stand in front of Equivalent VIII, you are still just looking at bricks.


The difference between Andre's pile of bricks and most of Stockhausen's music is that the former is a pile of bricks and the latter is made up of multi-layered, well organised, works of art. Even the intuitive pieces rely on the musicianship of the performers to bring them alive, which brings an experience for the listener several orders of magnitude greater than what the view of the bricks gets.

Mr Andre's pile of bricks is an idea made concrete. It is a rather simple idea. The quotation from the person at the Tate is about his/her interpretation fo the pile of bricks, not the pile of bricks itself.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

DeepR said:


> When I read this thread I get the idea that appreciation for Stockhausen comes from trying to understand the theory and ideas behind the music, the structure of a piece etc. The appreciation does not originate from stimulation/pleasure/emotion one gets directly from listening to the music. Or, this stimulation/pleasure/emotion only comes AFTER acquiring in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music. And that kind of artificial appreciation is exactly what I don't like about it. For me it is too disconnected from the heart and soul, too abstract and too intellectual.
> There have been pieces of music I had to listen to 10-20 times before I could make sense of it, but at least the emotion I got from it then was honest and directly caused by listening to the music.


That is to require of Stockhausen's music something that he rarely intends to give you, namely explicit descriptions of human emotions. Before _Licht_, and apart from _Momente_, there is very little (someone will correct me if I am wrong!).

You say that the "stimulation/pleasure/emotion" you seek from music generally "only comes AFTER acquiring in-depth knowledge of the theory behind the music [of Stockhausen]". Well, apart from quibbling with the word "theory" (surely structure, rationale, words like those, would be better), there is clearly a subset of the audience who gain their "stimulation/pleasure/emotion" during the acquisition of some (not necessarily in-depth) knowledge of the music.

You call that sort of appreciation "artificial" as if people never got pleasure from understanding how a Bach fugue was put together or how the leitmotifs work in _The Ring_. Far from being artificial it is a fundamental component of the appreciation and enjoyment of music. And, by the way, it's the approach expected by most composers of their listeners.


----------



## Jimm

Most, if not all, of his music has a _poetic dimension_ to it that relates to some aspect of the human condition or spirit. From the earliest works to the very latest ones. And the emotions one feels when listening to music aren't hard coded into the score, people will react differently and feel differently to what they are experiencing, even the same person will have a changing relationship with a piece .. it's never truly static or always the same and this depends on numerous factors.

And Jeremy, how do you come to the conclusion that _Mittwoch_ & _Sonntag_ .. "tries the patience of the most diehard enthusiasts"? Is this just your own experience for the most part and you're projecting it to everyone else? _I love those pieces_, and many do. I love most, if not all of the fractals of _Licht_, which of course is 1 musical world (composition) if viewed at a distance (macroscopic view) .. or 100s or smaller pieces (microscopic view) .. all with the same musical DNA. It's truly extraordinary.

Much of his music since the late 1970s has a melodic, tonal feel .. contrasting the jagged, angular,disrupted sound-world of the 1950s. And this comes from his experiences as a composer. But Stockhausen's lifelong commitment to serialism is never far below this deceptive surface. The rhythms, tempos,distribution of register, as well as many other aspects the music, are all related to each other, thereby conforming to the concept of serial unity.

Most of the music Stockhausen wrote is fantastic. He tried his very best to make each composition special, and was incredibly inventive .. a major achiever; though they often explore ideas that regularly occur throughout his body of work as a whole. There are definite links. Stockhausen's canon has a wide range. It's far more expansive than most, and it's a sort-of microcosm of the 2nd half of the 20th century... From the most intricate, rigorous determined music, to music that is completely undeterminate; from uber-complex to simple or minimal, traditional sounds & instruments; to using the entire firmament of sound; world music and culture; electronics & technology; mixing & combining all these; phonetics, physical acoustics, the science of sound etc., etc., etc. ..


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'm not so quick to assume that every bit of music that I dislike... or that fails to resonate with me... and yet has been deemed "important" by someone... is a "failing" on my part.


Except that it's not an assumption; it's just simple logic.

If persons A, B, and C listen to the same performance of the same piece, and A loves it, B is indifferent, and C hates it, then the reasons for those differences cannot be found in the piece itself (its characteristics are the same in all three cases) but in the receivers, who have different tastes, experiences, knowledge.

I think it's a mistake to characterize music according to ideas like beauty or accessibility. Those ideas make for different experiences of identical pieces by different people. Xenakis was always accessible to me. Scelsi was not (though he became so). Bax and Chopin have always been inaccessible to me. I can't imagine anyone actually liking those two, but I cannot argue that no one does. Many people do.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I am too aware of the endless examples of art/music/literature that has been critically acclaimed in its time, only to disappear shortly thereafter as later audiences/critics/artists reassessed its merits and found it greatly lacking.


Or as later audiences/critics/artists themselves changed and were no longer pleased with it. (The word "some" should be placed before "later." As record companies rediscover some of those reassessed pieces from the past, they find that there are people who reassess the reassessment and find IT lacking.)



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Nor am I of the mindset that I believe that our time has somehow risen above the ability to be seduced by art that is vacuous and pretentious.


Here's another reason for not using subjective, experiential language to "describe" the art itself. Who gets to decide? St doubtless feels that he gets to decide. What he deems vacuous and pretentious IS vacuous and pretentious. It's not his judgment; it's an objective description of the thing. And anyone who has the temerity to offer a different judgment is obviously wrong.

Different people with different needs and different backgrounds and different tastes will react differently to the same piece of music. Any conclusions about the quality or value of each person's reaction can best come from that person and no one else. Any conclusions about the quality or value of the piece will probably be simply wrong!


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Jimm said:


> And Jeremy, how do you come to the conclusion that _Mittwoch_ & _Sonntag_ .. "tries the patience of the most diehard enthusiasts"? Is this just your own experience for the most part and you're projecting it to everyone else?


Certainly not. My opinion is derived from personal conversations with people who know more about KS's music than I do, and through reading trusted writers in print and on the web.


----------



## tdc

Jimm said:


> Hi there .. never said "no one else ever" .. said "is credited with _developing_" which is different. If you google around, you'll find plenty on Stockhausen's overall technical brilliance.


Well I did look up the work you mentioned and it doesn't seem to credit Stockhausen with developing those ideas in the way you suggested. To be specific over-dubbing and multi-tracking - you said Stockhausen developed these ideas in completely new ways in this work, and that those innovations are now commonly used studio techniques.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesang_der_Jünglinge


----------



## Jimm

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Certainly not. My opinion is derived from personal conversations with people who know more about KS's music than I do, and through reading trusted writers in print and on the web.


This is even worse Jeremy. The key word being "derived", so it's not your own, your taking it out of trust in this so-called select group of "other people" who "know more than you do", rather than your own personal experience to come to your own conclusions and honest feelings & thoughts about it; ... let me assure you; there are many folks that love & experience this music in a more genuine, visceral and sincere way. You really should avoid blanket generalizations.


----------



## Jimm

tdc said:


> Well I did look up the work you mentioned and it doesn't seem to credit Stockhausen with developing those ideas in the way you suggested. To be specific over-dubbing and multi-tracking - you said Stockhausen developed these ideas in completely new ways in this work, and that those innovations are now commonly used studio techniques.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesang_der_Jünglinge


What i'm saying isn't new, it's widely known & documented stuff btw; where have you been? Anyway, you'll have to look at better sources than that brief wiki overview.


----------



## tdc

Jimm said:


> What i'm saying isn't new, *it's widely known & documented stuff* btw; where have you been? Anyway, you'll have to look at better sources than that brief wiki overview.


I'm not saying I don't believe you, its a subject of interest. If you are aware of a link or a book that describes Stockhausen's influence on later common recording techniques please let me know where I can find that information, I'd love to read up on it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jeremy Marchant said:


> The difference between Andre's pile of bricks and most of Stockhausen's music is that the former is a pile of bricks and the latter is made up of multi-layered, well organised, works of art. Even the intuitive pieces rely on the musicianship of the performers to bring them alive, which brings an experience for the listener several orders of magnitude greater than what the view of the bricks gets....Mr Andre's pile of bricks is an idea made concrete. It is a rather simple idea.


_No. *Carl Andre's* brick pieces are not just 'piles of bricks.' I also remember seeing a British tabloid headline saying that Andre's art was just a "pile of rubbish." Ha ha! Now, if anyone wants to take this art seriously, as I do, then we can discuss the details; but a comedy club is probably not the best place. Uhh, and *Donald Judd's* art is not just 'pieces of metal stuck on a wall.'_



Jeremy Marchant said:


> The quotation from the person at the Tate is about his/her interpretation for the pile of bricks, not the pile of bricks itself.


_Ha ha, "...interpretation...not the pile of bricks itself." Do I detect some subtle sarcasm here? It's hard to tell on-line, so my policy is to just directly say what I think. But Jeremy, you yourself said "...Mr Andre's pile of bricks is an idea made concrete..." So which is it? I think you might be on to something there.

I think *John Cage *might be offended if you called his "Atlas Eclipticalis" a "multi-layered, well organised work of art." I'm sure he would tell you that it's "just a pile of bricks." Ha ha!_


----------



## Guest

I just love multi-layered, well organised piles of bricks.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_Originally Posted by Petwhac 
If I pluck out a nose hair, glue it to a piece of card and call it art I hope you will afford it the respect it deserves. I'm not accusing KS of that kind of charlatanism but I don't think 'existing' is quite enough._

A nose hair? Ewww, gross! Uh-oh, wait...I forgot about "**** christ" and Robert Mapplethorpe's erotic photos. I'd better examine my ideas of grossness.

More importantly, you've forgotten Manzoni's can of artists "merde".:lol:


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> I just love multi-layered, well organised piles of bricks.


I prefer mine to have at least _one _window.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_Petwhac- What is this payoff you speak of?...Why (is tonal music more immediately gratifying)?_

Tonal music is "ear" music. Its technical constructs and principles are all derived from the model of a single fundamental "key" or root note, and its overtones, and how our ears hear these overtones as derived from this one fundamental note, always referring all elements, everything, back to this reference note. Our eardrums are physical membranes, which vibrate and ripple in sympathy with these sound vibrations.

Serialism has largely removed this hierarchical preference, and replaced it with "floating" interval relations, for more cerebral, less visceral reasons; reasons not based on the immediate visceral response of the ear to these intervals.

Now this is a definition that is close to some that I have heard put forth in defense of "Conceptual Art." One critic argued, in relation to the artist Sol Lewitt, that the visual aesthetic was no longer a concern. Another leading critic, Arthur C. Danto, reiterated this notion, suggesting that the notion that a work of visual art must be aesthetically pleasing... or even merely "visual interesting" was a dated concept. Now by the same token you are suggesting that atonal music... as opposed to music that employs the traditional concept of tonality... is not "ear music"... not music that conveys pleasure immediately through the act of listening.

I largely agree with this notion... which suggests that there is something of a paradigm shift or break between Atonalism and the music that went before that is as great as the paradigm shift between conceptual art and traditional notions of visual art (painting, sculpture, etc...), so as to nearly amount to a new art-form altogether. The question some may ask, is why should a lover of "ear music" or "visual art" be at all interested or tolerant of these new works?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Gesang der Junglinge (1955-1957) was the first ever electronic composition to use surround-sound, and with Gesang der Junglinge, Stockhausen is credited with developing such techniques of overdubbing and multi-tracking, as well as other studio techniques, which, while entirely new at the time, are now considered standard fare for studio engineers. etc., etc.

Not exactly:

_Perhaps the earliest commercial issue of recordings with overdubs was by RCA Victor in the late 1920s, not long after the introduction of electric microphones into the recording studio. Recordings by the late Enrico Caruso still sold well, so RCA took some of his early records made with only piano accompaniment, added a studio orchestra, and reissued the recordings.

Sidney Bechet made a pair of famous overdubbed sides in 1941, "The Sheik of Araby" and "Blues of Bechet". Multi-instrumentalist Bechet recorded on six different instruments; each version had to be recorded onto a new master disc along with the preceding performance, with consequent loss of audio quality. The novelty was issued as "Sidney Bechet's One Man Band". The American Federation of Musicians protested the recording, putting an end to experiments with commercial overdubbing in the United States for years.

The invention of magnetic tape opened up new possibilities for overdubbing, particularly with the development of multitrack recording with sel-sync. The first commercially released overdubbed recording made on multitrack magnetic tape was by guitarist Les Paul, whose 1947 record "Lover (When You're Near Me)", featured eight different electric guitar parts. His later work would be seminal in the popularization of multitrack recording._


----------



## millionrainbows

some guy said:


> Except that it's not an assumption; it's just simple logic...If persons A, B, and C listen to the same performance of the same piece, and A loves it, B is indifferent, and C hates it, then the reasons for those differences cannot be found in the piece itself (its characteristics are the same in all three cases) but in the receivers, who have different tastes, experiences, knowledge.


I largely agree with this, but I am dismissing subjective opinions in order to clear the way for "normal" discourse about productive, serious interactions to these works of art, not to invalidate the subjective realm. "Resonance" is a two-way street, and this is a valid way to see art, as a two-way interaction. I think that even Milton Babbitt "cared" if we listened, despite the botched title placed by his editor on that now infamous essay.

Of course, "resonance" is like the doppler effect, or Moiré patterns, hard to pin down. 
Neither a fully subjective response, nor an objective "pile of bricks itself" can fully define an art work's possible meanings. It seems that the terms are used more as conveniences and postures in argumentation, rather than being seen as inseparable from the experience of art.

Subjectivity must play its proper role, and not "take over" our experience of music or art by becoming biased or closed-off to possibilities. I guess I took that music appreciation textbook seriously. Subjectivity is ideally well-informed. Subjectivity ideally should have intuitively logical, well-defined criteria which stop us from making absurd comparisons, or demanding from art that which it was not designed to provide.

Sooner or later, we come to realize that all forms of human expression, whether we deem them "art" or not, are valuable, and deserve to exist, especially as we see the world becoming more and more dehumanized, hybridized, domesticated, and homogenized.


----------



## Petwhac

Imagine if science and physics was handled in the way you suggest, with no intent of expanding its technical boundaries or paradigms. This would be a good time to remind everyone that music was considered by the Greeks (including Pythagoras, to whom we owe our 12-note scale) to be a part of the Quadrivium, which consisted of Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic, and Music.
The Greeks were wrong about very many things! I believe certain modes were frowned upon because they were believed to lead the listener to inappropriate thoughts and behaviour. Must have been their Rock and Roll.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The difference between Andre's pile of bricks and most of Stockhausen's music is that the former is a pile of bricks and the latter is made up of multi-layered, well organised, works of art. Even the intuitive pieces rely on the musicianship of the performers to bring them alive, which brings an experience for the listener several orders of magnitude greater than what the view of the bricks gets.

Mr Andre's pile of bricks is an idea made concrete. It is a rather simple idea. The quotation from the person at the Tate is about his/her interpretation fo the pile of bricks, not the pile of bricks itself.

I have long found it interesting that defenders of the extremes of the _avant garde_ in one art form or another are so frequently willing to dismiss similar efforts in another art form. I have seen this with artist friends/acquaintances who are quick to suggest that those who cannot appreciate have simply failed to put forth the proper effort, are approaching the work in the wrong manner... or are simply bourgeoisie Philistines. When confronted with the similar extremes of the _avant garde_ in music of literature, however, they are quick to suggest intellectual fraud. It should not be surprising, in consequence, if some suspect that there are more than a few instances in every art form in which the cliche of the Emperor's New Clothes might be suspected of having some merit.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_StlukesguildOhio- I'm not so quick to assume that every bit of music that I dislike... or that fails to resonate with me... and yet has been deemed "important" by someone... is a "failing" on my part._

someguy- Except that it's not an assumption; it's just simple logic.

As in logic of a simpleton.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> Subjectivity ideally should have intuitively logical, well-defined criteria which stop us from making absurd comparisons, or demanding from art that which it was not designed to provide.


What is absurd or not absurd is itself a subjective opinion. How do you know what any particular art was 'designed to provide' unless you actually ask the artist. And even then the artist might not be fully aware of the effect their art has. This is because artists are *the most subjective of all*.



millionrainbows said:


> or later, we come to realize that all forms of human expression, whether we deem them "art" or not, are valuable, and deserve to exist, especially as we see the world becoming more and more dehumanized, hybridized, domesticated, and homogenized.


I'm beginning to get a handle on your mindset and it's a little bit alarming.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Jimm said:


> This is even worse Jeremy. The key word being "derived", so it's not your own, your taking it out of trust in this so-called select group of "other people" who "know more than you do", rather than your own personal experience to come to your own conclusions and honest feelings & thoughts about it; ... let me assure you; there are many folks that love & experience this music in a more genuine, visceral and sincere way. You really should avoid blanket generalizations.


Let go of your need to be right.
My opinion is my opinion. It is not for you or anyone else to judge whether it is bad or worse. The fact that I hold a slightly different opinion from you should be welcomed by both of us a way for us both to learn and grow. I will not be judged by you.


----------



## Jimm

tdc said:


> I'm not saying I don't believe you, its a subject of interest. If you are aware of a link or a book that describes Stockhausen's influence on later common recording techniques please let me know where I can find that information, I'd love to read up on it.


I take it your not that familiar with his pioneering multi-layered work .. that pieces polyphony is associated with multichannel/multi-track sound reproduction. It was conceived for a 5 channel multi-track when a 5 channel playback system didn't even exist .. and his first thoughts were for six channels! He was always thinking about technology in much deeper ways, rather just playing with it .. and he often pushed things to the limits. A quick search reveals ..

http://www.stockhausen.org/tape_loops.html
http://www.music.columbia.edu/masterpieces/notes/stockhausen/GesangHistoryandAnalysis.pdf

But there are mountains of material on electronic music and it's history & development, and Stockhausen is a crucial figure in the history of it and remains one of its most accomplished exponents.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

No. Carl Andre's brick pieces are not just 'piles of bricks.' I also remember seeing a British tabloid headline saying that Andre's art was just a "pile of rubbish." Ha ha! Now, if anyone wants to take this art seriously, as I do, then we can discuss the details...

The question one might ask is why is it even necessary at all that you... or anyone else... should need to explain why Carl Andre's piles of bricks art Art... and Art that must be taken seriously at that? Does anyone need to read a book on art theory to recognize that this...










or this...










... are clearly works of art? I can recognize them as such and appreciate them in aesthetic terms based solely upon what I see. Certainly, if I wish to delve deeper, I can read up on the history and theory behind such art... but it would seem to me that I need to be visually intrigued... to have gleaned some degree of visual pleasure... before I am likely to wish to put forth further effort.

some guy- I just love multi-layered, well organised piles of bricks.

So do I:


----------



## Petwhac

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have long found it interesting that defenders of the extremes of the _avant garde_ in one art form or another are so frequently willing to dismiss similar efforts in another art form. I have seen this with artist friends/acquaintances who are quick to suggest that those who cannot appreciate have simply failed to put forth the proper effort, are approaching the work in the wrong manner... or are simply bourgeoisie Philistines. When confronted with the similar extremes of the _avant garde_ in music of literature, however, they are quick to suggest intellectual fraud. It should not be surprising, in consequence, if some suspect that there are more than a few instances in every art form in which the cliche of the Emperor's New Clothes might be suspected of having some merit.


Here in England we have a serious current affairs program on the BBC called 'Newsnight' It contains an arts review segment for which various critics and commentators are given books to read, galleries to visit and concerts to attend. They then gather to discuss and critique these. I am often struck by how well read and well informed they are when it comes to everything except contemporary classical music of which they are so ignorant it is embarrassing. Give them Bjork or Radiohead and off they go but anything without lyrics and they are all at sea. Is it any wonder that if these arbiters of taste and culture are incapable of informed opinion that many people too easily accept something as valid because someone with a very high brow tells them it is?


----------



## Jimm

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Let go of your need to be right.
> My opinion is my opinion. It is not for you or anyone else to judge whether it is bad or worse. The fact that I hold a slightly different opinion from you should be welcomed by both of us a way for us both to learn and grow. I will not be judged by you.


But is it your opinion .. ? I just was questioning that .. because what you were saying was that it's 'derived' from "what you read from others" as opposed to you own immersion of the work itself. You know, reading other peoples views is nice & all, but those opinions aren't set in stone, or scripture - and will most likely change over time. All I was trying to get at is that its better to formulate your own ideas & conclusions based on what you experience first-hand, its more meaningful (& enjoyable) that way.


----------



## tdc

Jimm said:


> I take it your not that familiar with his pioneering multi-layered work .. that pieces polyphony is associated with multichannel/multi-track sound reproduction. It was conceived for a 5 channel multi-track when a 5 channel playback system didn't even exist .. and his first thoughts were for six channels! He was always thinking about technology in much deeper ways, rather just playing with it .. and he often pushed things to the limits. A quick search reveals ..
> 
> http://www.stockhausen.org/tape_loops.html
> http://www.music.columbia.edu/masterpieces/notes/stockhausen/GesangHistoryandAnalysis.pdf
> 
> But there are mountains of material on electronic music and it's history & development, and Stockhausen is a crucial figure in the history of it and remains one of its most accomplished exponents.


Well, I realized that Stockhausen had many of these types of electronic music innovations from the wiki article, I just wasn't aware that any of them ended up influencing _common recording techniques_ outside of avante-garde music circles. I did know about him being on a Beatles album cover, though that says nothing about him influencing their recording techniques, the first link states that *Gesang der Junglinge* "_established important esthetic criteria that seem to be in use even today among the electronic and computer music mainstream_". Which is a little bit of a vague description for a recording technique, but is interesting to me, and vague as it is, was something I was unaware of, so thanks for the info and link. :tiphat:


----------



## Jimm

Petwhac said:


> I can assure you I have and after many years of listening I have realized that Stockhaüsen's music is *for me*, at best, *with one or two exceptions*, a rather underwhelming experience.


Hey Petwhac, what were the 1 or 2 exceptions in his output? I'd love to know!


----------



## Petwhac

Jimm said:


> Hey Petwhac, what were the 1 or 2 exceptions in his output? I'd love to know!


Gruppen is good for it's colours and textures in instrumentation and Cosmic Pulses from Klang is fairly engaging.
I know that I have now opened the floodgates for a torrent of lectures and sermonising on what I should and should not hold to be important, significant or meaningful.


----------



## Jimm

Petwhac said:


> Gruppen is good for it's colours and textures in instrumentation and Cosmic Pulses from Klang is fairly engaging. I know that I have now opened the floodgates for a torrent of lectures and sermonising on what I should and should not hold to be important, significant or meaningful.


Nope. No lectures etc. Thanks!


----------



## Petwhac

Jimm said:


> Nope. No lectures etc. Thanks!


Phew! I can go to bed without a spinning head.


----------



## Petwhac

Some-guy, you stated that "Any conclusions about the quality or value of [a] piece will probably be simply wrong!"

Surely you have listened to some TC members' own compositions posted in the forum. Call me a an old grump but I've heard some that are quite simply terrible. Badly conceived and/or badly executed, amateurish, unimaginative, lacking in invention etc. I can recognise that and probably so can you and I'm sure most of the contributors to this thread can except for the ones who see _all _work as equally valid and valuable contributions to humanity.


----------



## Jimm

tdc said:


> Well, I realized that Stockhausen had many of these types of electronic music innovations from the wiki article, I just wasn't aware that any of them ended up influencing _common recording techniques_ outside of avante-garde music circles. I did know about him being on a Beatles album cover, though that says nothing about him influencing their recording techniques, the first link states that *Gesang der Junglinge* "_established important esthetic criteria that seem to be in use even today among the electronic and computer music mainstream_". Which is a little bit of a vague description for a recording technique, but is interesting to me, and vague as it is, was something I was unaware of, so thanks for the info and link. :tiphat:


No problem .. but I said _developed_ (not influenced) _He developed_ studio techniques which were new at the time but are 'now' considered standard fare. His pioneering work also set the stage not just for computerized art music but also for the sampling techniques central to much of today's pop, rock, hip-hop & electronica. People who are studio engineers etc. today (or after those earlier days) probably don't know much about _the history of electronic music_ .. they simply do their thing, BUT if they were to trace things back to _the roots_ of what they are doing they'd realize where it came from and were it was _developed_, and then understand Stockhausen's crucial role in those developments.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar08/articles/stockhausen.htm


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Petwhac said:


> Some-guy, you stated that "Any conclusions about the quality or value of [a] piece will probably be simply wrong!"
> 
> Surely you have listened to some TC members' own compositions posted in the forum. Call me a an old grump but I've heard some that are quite simply terrible. Badly conceived and/or badly executed, amateurish, unimaginative, lacking in invention etc. I can recognise that and probably so can you and I'm sure most of the contributors to this thread can except for the ones who see _all _work as equally valid and valuable contributions to humanity.


I hope you are talking about Aleazk's.


----------



## Petwhac

million, you said- "Modern artists have their own agendas, and it's up to us to get up out of our seats and go to them, unless, like most opera, the music is intended to entertain and titillate an audience. This "entertainment" requirement of yours has the faint ring of commercialism and of filling theatre seats in an effort to gain popular appeal. To call me 'snobbish' because I wish to see art that is produced for purely non-utilitarian purposes seems short-sighted to me.

Bear in mind that Western music's earliest works had a similar purity of intent, made & performed without an "audience" in mind, but for Church purposes. Also recall J.S. Bach's famous quote, "The purpose of all my music is to glorify God," not to entertain the masses.

Wait a minute there. Isn't there anything in between the purity of intent with no audience in mind and titillating entertainment. Oh yeah Beethoven Mozart, Haydn to name 3 examples.
And Bach had a *JOB*. He wrote for his employer and if he started sawing organs in half and sticking things down the pipes to make novel effects he'd have got the sack.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jimm said:


> People who are studio engineers etc. today (or after those earlier days) probably don't know much about _the history of electronic music_ .. they simply do their thing, BUT if they were to trace things back to _the roots_ of what they are doing they'd realize where it came from and where it was _developed_, and then understand Stockhausen's crucial role in those developments.


_I agree with this. It is well known that during the time of Stockhausen's early electronic works, Studie Nr. 1 &2, that the only devices capable of producing electronic sounds were signal generators, which produced only sine waves, mainly used for testing distortion in radio signals & broadcast equipment. Sine waves are a pure wave, a fundamental tone with no overtones or harmonic content, hence their value in testing equipment for distortion, or any spurious harmonic content.

In order to get any timbre of interest, Stockhausen proceeded to "stack" and layer sine-tones at different frequencies and amplitudes, to create richer, more interesting timbres with richer harmonic content than only a single sine wave could provide. Thus was born "additive synthesis." Talk about a laborious process!

Since the development of FM synthesis, which is "subtractive" and filters-out harmonics from a white noise source, or creates frequencies by modulating them, additive synthesis has been largely abandoned, except for a few purists who were there from the beginning, like Wendy Carlos. She uses a synth which "builds up" sounds overtone-by-overtone. This is why I much prefer her work to other "synth" imitators. "Digital Moonscapes" contains some of her virtual instruments created in this additive way.

One of the few commercially produced "additive" synthesizers was the Kawai K5, available as a keyboard or as a module.
_


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> Wait a minute there. Isn't there anything in between the purity of intent with no audience in mind and titillating entertainment. Oh yeah Beethoven Mozart, Haydn to name 3 examples.
> And Bach had a *JOB*. He wrote for his employer and if he started sawing organs in half and sticking things down the pipes to make novel effects he'd have got the sack.


That's missing the point. Although Bach saw himself as merely a craftsman, his talent was able to transcend its utiltarian purpose, and now we call it "art" because of its obvious quality. Also, Bach's "utilitarian" job was closely associated with religion, which makes its essential nature closer to "non-utilitarian" art music than if he had written secular music. But with the Church, we have somewhat of a paradox, since it was the main power base at one time, yet it represented the higher "spiritual" realm which was eventually replaced by art.

Mozart and Haydn were funded by wealthy royalty, which was the "power base" that replaced the Church.

Now, power is concentrated in wealthy industries and consumer outlets, like the movie industry.

The point is, the purity of intent of "fine art" is usually not associated with consumer industries and their intents.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> That's missing the point. Although Bach saw himself as merely a craftsman, his talent was able to transcend its utiltarian purpose, and now we call it "art" because of its obvious quality. Also, Bach's "utilitarian" job was closely associated with religion, which makes its essential nature closer to "non-utilitarian" art music than if he had written secular music. But with the Church, we have somewhat of a paradox, since it was the main power base at one time, yet it represented the higher "spiritual" realm which was eventually replaced by art.
> 
> Mozart and Haydn were funded by wealthy royalty, which was the "power base" that replaced the Church.
> 
> Now, power is concentrated in wealthy industries and consumer outlets, like the movie industry.
> 
> The point is, the purity of intent of "fine art" is usually not associated with consumer industries and their intents.


My point was that Bach did not right _purely_ for non-utilitarian purposes as you say. He was able to satisfy fine art and function. He could do both at the same time. Boulez, Babbitt, Xenakis et al cannot. Their music cannot be functional at all.


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> My point was that Bach did not right _purely_ for non-utilitarian purposes as you say. He was able to satisfy fine art and function. He could do both at the same time. Boulez, Babbitt, Xenakis et al cannot. Their music cannot be functional at all.


It's counter-intuitive to my argument to bring up earlier examples like Bach, which only muddies the water. In Bach's time, "art" as we now know it had not been invented. Bach considered himself to be a craftsman. See this tome:









In retrospect, we look at music produced for the ceremonies and rituals of the Church as being "fine art," because they were produced for spiritual ends. But seeing as the Church was the "only game in town" back then, the music produced for it was "utilitarian" in that sense, as well. We now see it as art because of its "serious" nature, among other factors.

Conversely, the "popular" music (during his time) of John Dowland is now considered to be "art music."

The infiltration of rhythmic elements of popular music, and of individual expression, was what expanded the anonymous, serious, often un-exciting aspects of Church music. 
In its earliest forms, Church music was totally anonymous in nature. Thus, early composers ("artists") began to emerge as individuals; figures like Hldegard von Bingen, Machaut, Leonin, Perotin, Tallis, Palestrina, Frescobaldi, and others.

I want to emphasize that _any_ music in _any genre_ can transcend its ostensibly utilitarian context, such as pop music.

Today, The Beatles song "I Am the Walrus" can be considered to be art, and in fact was admired by Samuel Beckett, who wanted to meet Lennon. In this instance, a "pop" song has transcended its original function of profit (selling records) and entertainment (music for teenagers?) to be considered as "fine art" by many.

Of course, this attitude is the result of my "post-modern" criteria for art, which is flexible enough to include genres other than "art" music.

There are isolated instances of "art" music becoming "functional" when placed in a different context. Ligeti's music was used by Stanley Kubrick in "2001," for example. Who knows? Xenakis has already collaborated with "DJ Spooky," a.k.a. Paul D. Miller.

Chant as artifact: The "Chant" CD becoming a huge seller in the consumer record industry. Who knew?


----------



## Jimm

Music was always an art form and can serve many purposes & hungers. The world isn't one of rigid hierarchies like it used to be, and the language of music in the modern zeitgeist reflects that in part. There are polarities but not obvious rigid tonal ones. Stockhausen, Ligeti, Xenakis etc. had multi-faceted _musical careers_ of international & historic distinction in the FIELD of music. Stockhausen's music is definitely high art and functional on numerous levels. Ritual, pedagogy, theatre, technology etc. There is a oneness .. an austere hieratical church like ritualistic dimension throughout his music that cannot be denied .. exactly like Bach and earlier composers which he knew intimately. But also derived from his singularity, path, and deep catholic roots. He also synchronized various world & religious sources, result/reflection of today's global village of information super-highways and cultural cross-pollination in which Stockhausen occupies such a pivotal place ... the unification of things, one of the principle ideas behind LICHT for instance. His music is of our time and the future; new forms and a recontextualization of time & space. One of the big beasts.


----------



## millionrainbows

This was released earlier this year. It's got Robert Craft's recording of "Nr. 5 Zeitmasse" for woodwinds, released originally on a Columbia Odyssey LP. Also is a very early Stockhausen tape work, "Étude Concrète."


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

millionrainbows said:


> In retrospect, we look at music produced for the ceremonies and rituals of the Church as being "fine art," because they were produced for spiritual ends. But seeing as the Church was the "only game in town" back then, the music produced for it was "utilitarian" in that sense, as well. We now see it as art because of its "serious" nature, among other factors.
> 
> Conversely, the "popular" music (during his time) of John Dowland is now considered to be "art music."


I'm not sure it's as simple as that. People (a vanishingly small percentage of the music-consuming population) recognise the *quality *of the music in a mass by Josquin or a motet by Frescobaldi and thereby assign it the label art: it's the _quality _not the seriousness that marks it out as "art".

Exactly how popular was John Dowland's music in his day? He may have been played and appreciated by an elite amongst middle and upper class people (and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the word 'elite'), at a time when it was usual for such people to be able to read, sing and play instruments, but would you have expected to hear the majority of the population whistling_ Flow my tears_? In the C20 and C21, we choose to call Dowland's songs art, again, because of the quality of the music, much as we call Schumann Lieder art. After all, _Im wunderschoenen Monat Mai _is hardly a complicated song. The fact that the two songs mentioned are simple neither invalidates nor validates them as artworks.



> I want to emphasize that _any_ music in _any genre_ can transcend its ostensibly utilitarian context, such as pop music.
> 
> Today, The Beatles song "I Am the Walrus" can be considered to be art, and in fact was admired by Samuel Beckett, who wanted to meet Lennon.


Poor example, surely. There are self-evidently great art-songs by Lennon and McCartney of which I would have thought _Walrus _was not one. (Beckett's enthusiasm, whilst touching, is hardly evidence of quality in itself. And could it have been he was taken with the words, anyway?) For example, _Eleanor Rigby_, _Here, there and everywhere_ and _And your bird can sing_, to name just three form _Revolver _alone. And I must make a case for Brian Wilson (_God only knows_ for a start).



> In this instance, a "pop" song has transcended its original function of profit (selling records) and entertainment (music for teenagers?) to be considered as "fine art" by many.


I'm not really disagreeing with you, I just think some pop songs always were art works, they didn't transcend anything, they always were. The fact they fitted some people's agendas of making money was a useful byproduct.



> There are isolated instances of "art" music becoming "functional" when placed in a different context. Ligeti's music was used by Stanley Kubrick in "2001," for example.


Not with Ligeti's prior permission and against his express wishes. Far from being isolated, the abuse of art music in the media is prevalent and wideranging and is actually encouraged by the publishers.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jeremy Marchant said:


> I'm not sure it's as simple as that. People (a vanishingly small percentage of the music-consuming population) recognise the *quality *of the music in a mass by Josquin or a motet by Frescobaldi and thereby assign it the label art: it's the _quality _not the seriousness that marks it out as "art".


The word "quality" is just as inadequate as "serious." Quality can be independent of criteria; a "fine quality" trance-disco song may be well-crafted, but not fit a reasonable definition of "fine art."



Jeremy Marchant said:


> Exactly how popular was John Dowland's music in his day? He may have been played and appreciated by an elite amongst middle and upper class people (and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the word 'elite'), at a time when it was usual for such people to be able to read, sing and play instruments, but would you have expected to hear the majority of the population whistling_ Flow my tears_? In the C20 and C21, we choose to call Dowland's songs art, again, because of the quality of the music, much as we call Schumann Lieder art. After all, _Im wunderschoenen Monat Mai _is hardly a complicated song. The fact that the two songs mentioned are simple neither invalidates nor validates them as artworks.


Again, this depends on utilitarian purpose to a large degree. For example, despite the fact that popular dance music is successful because it fulfills its intended function, it must nonetheless fulfill other criteria in order for it to qualify as art, according to a reasonable definition of "fine art."

The absence of a large middle class and mass media does not automatically put Dowland into an "elite," or invalidate the description of his music as "popular music." I speak of Dowland as "popular" music because of its qualities, subject matter, and intents, to distinguish it from "sacred" music.



Jeremy Marchant said:


> (re: "I Am the Walrus") Poor example, surely. There are self-evidently great art-songs by Lennon and McCartney of which I would have thought _Walrus _was not one. (Beckett's enthusiasm, whilst touching, is hardly evidence of quality in itself. And could it have been he was taken with the words, anyway?) For example, _Eleanor Rigby_, _Here, there and everywhere_ and _And your bird can sing_, to name just three form _Revolver _alone. And I must make a case for Brian Wilson (_God only knows_ for a start).


I'm relieved that you did not mention "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da."



Jeremy Marchant said:


> I'm not really disagreeing with you, I just think some pop songs always were art works, they didn't transcend anything, they always were. The fact they fitted some people's agendas of making money was a useful byproduct.


When I say "transcend," I'm speaking of some passage of time. I suppose 50 years is time enough. There's only two left, Paul and Ringo.



Jeremy Marchant said:


> Not with Ligeti's prior permission and against his express wishes. Far from being isolated, the abuse of art music in the media is prevalent and wideranging and is actually encouraged by the publishers.


True, but I cite this phenomenon simply to show that a lot of what gets called "art" is dependent on context; and also, it shows the power and influence of mass media.

Still, one of my major criterions for art is its "seriousness of purpose," and this usually involves "spritual" or sacred intents, rather than "divertissement."


----------



## Jimm

millionrainbows said:


> View attachment 7555
> 
> 
> This was released earlier this year. It's got Robert Craft's recording of "Nr. 5 Zeitmasse" for woodwinds, released originally on a Columbia Odyssey LP. Also is a very early Stockhausen tape work, "Étude Concrète."


Got that .. it also contains 4 versions of Piano Piece no. 9 played by David Tudor. A brand new recording of _Zeitmasze_ has just been released this month, along with a few new re-issues of classic recordings in remastered sound of _Cycle, Piano Piece no. 10_ (Wergo) and Stockhausen conducting Haydn & Mozart (cadenzas Stockhausen).


























Another new recording of _Zeitmasze_ is on this fab disc as well ..


----------



## millionrainbows

Jimm said:


> Got that .. it also contains 4 versions of Piano Piece no. 9 played by David Tudor. A brand new recording of _Zeitmasze_ has just been released this month, along with a few new re-issues of classic recordings in remastered sound of _Cycle, Piano Piece no. 10_ (Wergo) and Stockhausen conducting Haydn & Mozart (cadenzas Stockhausen).


Thanks, Jimm! I have that last one, but did not know about the other three. In fact, I can't locate that Wergo/Zyklus except on vinyl. Can you provide a link?


----------



## Jimm

millionrainbows said:


> Thanks, Jimm! I have that last one, but did not know about the other three. In fact, I can't locate that Wergo/Zyklus except on vinyl. Can you provide a link?


It's on the German Amazon site (Wergo releases usually show up there first) .. and if you check Wergo's offical site you'll get more info there. I'm sure like all other Wergo releases .. it will start to show up in a more wide spread way elsewhere.

On the horizon ..

Look out for a new MODE DVD in the first quarter of 2013 that will feature the early percussion works of Stockhausen (i.e. _Mikrophonie I_ etc).

And with the resounding critical success of _Mittwoch aus LICHT_ .. we can look forward to it's 4th scene being released soon/finally (it's being mixed down at the end of this month). The Libretto for the opera was just released .. both through Stockhausen's label/site.

June 2013, _Samstag aus LICHT_ will get it's German premiere in quasi concert performances.

And in 2013, 2 other DVDs, both documentaries .. 1 on _Sonntag aus LICHT_, and the other on the _KLANG_ cycle, world wide distribution.

So lots to look forward to.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jimm said:


> Look out for a new MODE DVD in the first quarter of 2013 that will feature the early percussion works of Stockhausen (i.e. _Mikrophonie I_ etc).


An interesting composition. In this, Stockhausen moves a microphone over the surface of a gong which has been struck; the "noise" of the gong is actually a collection of pure tones, and the microphone isolates these various single tones. The result is very electronic-sounding, although it is done acoustically.


----------



## Jimm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikrophonie_(Stockhausen)


----------



## Renaissance

OMG...what's wrong with these people ?


----------



## millionrainbows

Renaissance said:


> OMG...what's wrong with these people ?


Oh, come on, Renaissance, he's an artist. What did you expect, a Mitt Romney type of person?

Well, maybe that's not a good comparison, since Romney is a Mormon and believes that we came from Gods reproducing on another planet.


----------



## KenOC

Renaissance said:


> OMG...what's wrong with these people ?


That video reminds me, irrestibly, of Glenn Gould's introduction of a certain Karlheinz Kloppweisser.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Renaissance said:


> OMG...what's wrong with these people ?


Some would say artists have the "artistic license" to talk ****.


----------



## Renaissance

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, come on, Renaissance, he's an artist. What did you expect, a Mitt Romney type of person?
> 
> Well, maybe that's not a good comparison, since Romney is a Mormon and believes that we came from Gods reproducing on another planet.


I think I prefer a Bach-type artist :lol: Seriously, if this guy had talked about religions, who would have listened to him ? It is allowable and even cool to speak non-senses as an "artist" but if you speak about peace, love, harmony, God you are a naive hippie ? How is that ? We accept only some types of ********* and others not ?


----------



## Renaissance

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Some would say artists have the "artistic license" to talk ****.


And it's even funnier that everyone can consider himself an artist :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Renaissance said:


> I think I prefer a Bach-type artist :lol:


Glenn Gould was not exactly "normal" either; he never married, and in the documentary, the one woman he was interested in (Ned Rorem's wife, as I recall), rejected his advances, because she knew he was a nerd on the fringe; and he got worse as he got older. 
Don't get me wrong, I love Glenn Gould, but I love Stockhausen as well, and I accept their quirks because they produced great art.
BTW, it's inappropriate to say these sorts of things about Stockhausen on a composer's thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Renaissance said:


> And it's even funnier that everyone can consider himself an artist :lol:


I'm laughing at this moment, but not about that.:lol:


----------



## Renaissance

OK, I think I told everything I could about modern vs. traditional debate. More than that, would be useless. I am back to calmness.
_________________

Don't laugh too much, Million, you never know.


----------



## millionrainbows

Renaissance said:


> OK, I think I told everything I could about modern vs. traditional debate. More than that, would be useless. I am back to calmness.
> _________________
> 
> Don't laugh too much, Million, you never know.


Yes, it tends to sneak up on you by surprise, but your secret is safe with me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Here are two excellent Stockhausen recordings. The one by David Tudor is also of historical interest, in that it is the premier performance at Darmstadt, in the composer's presence. Tudor is probably the only pianist at that time who could have pulled this off.

As much as I love Stockhausen's music, it pains me to see him disparaged like we have seen in the recent posts.

However, this is not nearly as bad as hearing the news of his death on that "other" forum, with an "I'm glad he's dead" thread.


----------



## Jimm

*Hanging In With a Demanding Composer*
Stockhausen's Work Flourishes Five Years After His Death








Marco Blaauw on trumpet in"Michaels Reise um die Erde."

By STEVE SMITH
Published: July 12, 2013 
nytimes.com

Over the course of his prominent career, the German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen took on myriad guises. To the European postwar establishment, he was an enfant terrible, embracing the objective rigor of total serialism and the uncharted vistas of electronic music and happenings. For adventurous jazz and rock musicians like Miles Davis, the Beatles and Frank Zappa, he was a Promethean figure who delivered unto the world techniques for fashioning mind-altering sounds.

From the '80s onward, as Stockhausen obsessively devoted his time and labor to the seven-day opera cycle "Licht" ("Light") and the 24-part series "Klang" ("Sound"), he was a mystic and a narcissist, making eccentric, unrealistic demands - a string quartet for players aloft in four separate helicopters, for example. That he might have lost his grip on reality altogether seemed possible when, in 2001, he referred to the Sept. 11 attacks as "the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos" - a statement taken out of context, he strenuously insisted.

Now, just over five years after his death - and with an acclaimed staging of "Michaels Reise um die Erde" ("Michael's Journey Around the World"), the second act of the opera "Donnerstag aus Licht" ("Thursday From Light"), opening at the Lincoln Center Festival on Thursday - Stockhausen appears to have assumed his least-likely status of all: surefire box-office hit.

"He was always the one composer who was the icon of contemporary music," said Thomas Oesterdiekhoff, the chief executive director of Ensemble musikFabrik, the German new-music group that is mounting "Michaels Reise um die Erde" in its North American premiere.

Contemporary music has become a standard part of normal concert life, he asserted, so audiences naturally are drawn to Stockhausen. "If they want to know something new, they can get it now through Stockhausen," he said.

Certainly, nothing fundamental has changed about compositions like "Gruppen," the complex work for three orchestras mounted by the New York Philharmonic and the Park Avenue Armory in 2012, or the electronic piece "Oktophonie," a segment of "Dienstag aus Licht" ("Tuesday From Light"), presented by the Armory in March. But the Philharmonic concerts sold out, and the Armory had to add extra performances of "Oktophonie" to satisfy the demand for tickets.

Even before those large-scale, attention-grabbing productions, a Stockhausen boomlet was under way in New York. "Stimmung," a 1968 vocal work, mesmerized an audience at 5:30 a.m. during the 2008 Bang on a Can Marathon, held just yards away from ground zero. And the grass-roots concert organizers of Darmstadt: Classics of the Avant-Garde attracted capacity audiences to the Issue Project Room in Brooklyn with seminal older works like "Gesang der Jünglinge" and "Kontakte" in 2010, and with the New York premiere of "Cosmic Pulses" (from "Klang") in 2011.

The phenomenon is not limited to New York. A 2012 Birmingham Opera Company production of the opera "Mittwoch aus Licht" ("Wednesday From Light"), including the notorious "Helicopter String Quartet," earned a prestigious award from the Royal Philharmonic Society. At the same time, musikFabrik has successfully mounted "Michaels Reise" in Vienna, Cologne, Dresden, Warsaw, Venice and Paris.

Speaking by telephone from Cologne, where musikFabrik was presenting Stockhausen's "Samstag aus Licht" ("Saturday From Light") with the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Mr. Oesterdiekhoff said that the composer's death emboldened some institutions previously reluctant to take on his works. "When he was alive, to be honest, he was quite demanding," he said. "There were a lot of presenters who were really afraid of Stockhausen, because, they said, when we want to do something by Stockhausen, it will cost a fortune, and that will be our ruin."

Ensembles and institutions are willing to offer interpretations that might deviate from the composer's explicit intentions, Mr. Oesterdiekhoff said, adding, "Now, people are more free to do it in the way they think it should be done." After musikFabrik introduced its elaborate, appealing staging of "Michaels Reise," directed by Carlus Padrissa of the innovative Catalan street-theater company La Fura dels Baus, in 2008, the group went on to mount the first complete traversal of "Klang" in 2010, then joined Opera Cologne in the world premiere of "Sonntag aus Licht" ("Sunday From Light") in 2011.

"After that, everything is now workable, everything is possible and accessible," Mr. Oesterdiekhoff said. He added that while the two musicians who manage Stockhausen's legacy, Kathinka Pasveer and Suzanne Stephens, don't agree with every interpretive departure, they have eagerly cooperated in the promulgation of his works and even performed with musikFabrik in some instances.

Of course, accessible is a relative term when it comes to Stockhausen, in whose operas sacred, mundane, autobiographical and absurd elements collide. The wholly instrumental "Michaels Reise" concerns a voyage of discovery undertaken by the angel Michael, one of three characters featured throughout "Licht." The others are the rebel angel Lucifer and the earth mother Eve. All come from "The Urantia Book," a volume of quasi-Christian mysticism that Stockhausen said he bought from a mysterious stranger after the composer conducted the New York Philharmonic at Avery Fisher Hall in 1971.

Effectively a staged concerto in which the trumpeter Marco Blaauw portrays Michael while suspended from a crane onstage, "Michaels Reise" is saturated with mystery, whimsy, eros and spirituality: elements echoed in Mr. Padrissa's imaginative stage conception. The Lincoln Center Festival director Nigel Redden, who was inspired to bring the work to New York after seeing musikFabrik's collaboration with Mr. Padrissa in "Sonntag aus Licht" in Cologne, said that a mix of spirituality and absurdity is a key aspect of Stockhausen's work.

"There's almost a ridiculous aspect to some of the requirements, and somehow that is also part of what makes these performances extremely strong," Mr. Redden said. "They could become pretentious if they didn't have this element of the absurd." Inviting audience members to embrace Stockhausen's conceits, he said, Lincoln Center is encouraging those attending "Michaels Reise" to wear bright blue, designated by the composer as the "exoteric" color of "Donnerstag aus Licht."

In a sense, such notions seem to bring audience members closer to Stockhausen's work rather than alienating them. For "Oktophonie" at the Armory, all who attended were offered white robes to wear as they reclined on a circular carpet meant to suggest a lunar surface. "I think it's finding the strings, the pieces that make it relate to people, that works," said Rebecca Robertson, the Armory's president and executive producer. "There is something about Stockhausen's music that fit well with that sense of ritual, that sense of being in a community, being in that sort of sonic box together. So I think maybe those things move that experience along, and people really like that."

For Nick Hallett and Zach Layton, the composers and performers who operate Darmstadt: Classics of the Avant-Garde, spectacle has played a lesser role - though not for lack of ambition. Mr. Hallett said that he and Mr. Layton had tried to coordinate a performance of "Helicopter String Quartet" for Make Music New York recently but could not secure the necessary permits. Undaunted, they are planning a 50th-anniversary resurrection of another major Stockhausen work, "Originale," for 2014.

"New York loves spectacle, and I think that that's what makes these works so exciting, that they offer this spectacle," he said. "That's not ultimately what I think makes Stockhausen's music so compelling. I think he was obviously a unique composer with a unique approach, and a sound that no one could really touch on."

Mr. Layton speculated that Stockhausen's early electronic innovations could account for broadening interest among younger listeners. "Stockhausen's work in the '60s, when he was working at the radio studios in Cologne, involved a new investigation into electronic music," he said. "There was something about his investment with oscillations and broadcast, and the idea of electromagnetic radiation, that got him interested in thinking about kinds of cosmic radiation. These old broadcasts are still emanating into outer space, and those radio waves are just going to go on infinitely."

Those interests, Mr. Layton said, predicted a fascination with cosmic vibrations and resonant frequencies among early New Age performers of the 1970s who are now enjoying an unexpected resurgence among a new generation, "people who have come up listening to music on blogs and file-trading and cassette-tape culture."

"There is definitely a sort of wink and a nod: Yes, we acknowledge that this stuff is maybe a little cheesy, but, actually, there is something to it," Mr. Layton explained. "And I think that Stockhausen in some ways was one of the first people in the European avant-garde, the postwar serial heavyweights, that also took it seriously."


----------



## Rehydration

I just found out about Klang (surprised I didn't before) and I'm starting to appreciate the contemporary works of this century and the last.


----------



## GiulioCesare

I once enjoyed a Stockhausen piece.





Nah I'm just kidding.


----------



## WavesOfParadox

I once enjoyed a Stockhausen piece.




JK, I've enjoyed way more than one Stockhausen piece way more than once.


----------



## ptr

GiulioCesare said:


> I once enjoyed a Stockhausen piece. ~ Nah I'm just kidding.


Caesar! Scitis quod mundus bella proficiscitur minus stupidi loquantur!

Brutus tuus


----------



## neoshredder

GiulioCesare said:


> I once enjoyed a Stockhausen piece.
> 
> Nah I'm just kidding.


You got me nervous for a second.


----------



## Oreb

No expert at all, but I have to admit to finding the version of _Kontakte_ without soloists to be astoundingly beautiful.

And I think _Gesang der Junglinge_ and _Mantra_ are masterpieces, if less immediately enticing, at least to my ears.


----------



## Crudblud

Oreb said:


> No expert at all, but I have to admit to finding the version of _Kontakte_ without soloists to be astoundingly beautiful.
> 
> And I think _Gesang der Junglinge_ and _Mantra_ are masterpieces, if less immediately enticing, at least to my ears.


Fine choices! _Tierkreis_ is a quality piece of work, too. I highly recommend the 2003 ensemble recording on Wergo.


----------



## gpaulot

I am nor sure to know why music should be 'understandable'.
It's sounding good or it is not.
I believe it as simple as this.


----------



## Itullian

What's "sounding good?"..............


----------



## Oreb

gpaulot said:


> I am nor sure to know why music should be 'understandable'.
> It's sounding good or it is not.
> I believe it as simple as this.


 I don't personally agree with this. I like music to have a form (which is as close to 'understandable' as I can come), by which I mean a structure that I can follow once I have become familiar with the piece.

For me, if something *just* sounds good then the pleasure it gives me can wear off quickly as the surface level gets more and more familiar.


----------



## Oreb

Crudblud said:


> Fine choices! _Tierkreis_ is a quality piece of work, too. I highly recommend the 2003 ensemble recording on Wergo.


Thanks - I'll give it a try!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I haven they're much of Stockhausen's vast output, probably about 0.5% overall....what is a really really good Stockhausen piece I can listen to?


----------



## neoshredder

Try selections off this cd. Looks like a good one. It is EMI Classics after all.


----------



## SimonNZ

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I haven they're much of Stockhausen's vast output, probably about 0.5% overall....what is a really really good Stockhausen piece I can listen to?


I'm no expert, but this is the work and recording that showed me everything I thought I knew about Stocky was wrong, and I needed to start again with fresh ears:


----------



## Crudblud

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I haven they're much of Stockhausen's vast output, probably about 0.5% overall....what is a really really good Stockhausen piece I can listen to?


I refer you to the 2003 _Tierkreis_ on Wergo. I think it's magical.

The album neo posted is also not a bad compilation, Zyklus would be my personal highlight from that bunch.


----------



## SimonNZ

Which of the Wergo Tierkreis discs is the one you'd recommend, Crudblud?:


----------



## Crudblud

SimonNZ said:


> Which of the Wergo Tierkreis discs is the one you'd recommend, Crudblud?:


The rightmost one, with the ornate wooden box on the cover. Until now it was the only Wergo Tierkreis I was aware of, I shall have to look up the others.


----------



## Oreb

That's a relief, because taking your advice from earlier today that's the one I ordered


----------



## Oreb

I bought this on mail order years ago and it's been a constant source of beauty and awe ever since:









Stockhausen-Verlag were a pain in the a*se to deal with, however (no credit cards accepted, very inflated prices) but I don't know that you can get it any other way.


----------



## violadude

SimonNZ said:


> I'm no expert, but this is the work and recording that showed me everything I thought I knew about Stocky was wrong, and I needed to start again with fresh ears:


This was my first Stockhausen piece too.


----------



## Oreb

SimonNZ said:


> I'm no expert, but this is the work and recording that showed me everything I thought I knew about Stocky was wrong, and I needed to start again with fresh ears:


I have this as well, but I struggle with KS's vocal stuff. Many of you may be too young (or on the wrong continent) to remember The Goon Show, but for those who do - can you listen to this and NOT think of Neddy Seagoon, Eccles and the redoubtable Bluebottle? I can't, sadly, which sort of detracts from any sense of transcendence the music may be trying for!


----------



## GioCar

This is a pic from an old agenda of mine, dated 1984









Just a few days before the premiere of Samstag aus Licht (25 May 1984), I had the chance to meet the composer at a presentation conference held at ADL "Amici Del Loggione" (maybe the correct translation is Friends of the Gallery Society) of La Scala.
Above my handwriting.
Below the composer's autograph.

Then, on May 25 I went to the premiere. I was 22 years old. Good old memories.

I am keeping this agenda very carefully...


----------



## millionrainbows

To me, they key works by Stockhausen are the ones which came out as vinyl LPs on DG (and other labels earlier), which included performances by him and his own ensemble. These works are Prozession (Vox LP), Kurzwellen (Shortwaves), Hymnen (DG 2-LP), Song of the Youths (originally on on DG LP, but now available on CD from Cherry Red distribution), Mantra (Aloys & Alons Kontarsky), Kontakte (available on CD from WERGO), Stimmung (orig. on DG, this version not on CD that I've seen).

The last time I looked, Stockhausen had his own label, and all this stuff was available on CD from his website, but you had to order in Deutschmarks, with no PayPal. This may have changed.


----------



## chalkpie

Ha - I just read through most of this "entertaining" thread and I feel a slight headache coming on - but it's not from the music 

I can keep my opinion quite simple - there is only one Beethoven, there is only one Stockhausen. Therein lies his genius. 

If I were a wealthy man, I would own the complete Verlag catalog, but unfortunately I am not, so most of his brilliant ideas will never make their way into my brain. Too bad.


----------



## millionrainbows

Stockhausen had a lot of hippie cred back in the day, because he was so intuitive and improvisatory. There is the distinction between him ans someone like john Cage. Stockhausen demanded total awareness and listening from his ensembles, not unlike a finely-tuned jazz group. This made it quite different than purely 'random' music like Cage was doing.


----------



## Dim7

I'm listening to his "Oktophonie" and I find it kinda cool. Is it wrong to approach Stockhausen from some kind of horror/psychedelia aesthetic or is that too superficial and completely missing the point?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

*Stimmung is not for everyone* (certainly not for me, works like that actually put me away from the composer for long) and doesn't really 'connect' with any previous classical piece, wouldn't recommend it to start with. I recommend his early, rather conventional work for chamber orchestra Formel.


----------



## Weston

Today I enjoyed my first Stockhausen work, probably because it's the first one I let play in my headphones more or less as background music while I worked and not really knowing what it was until halfway into it. There are quite intriguing stereo effects toward the end in this recording and I found the vocal jabs, or whatever one would call them, to be very entertaining.

So I now have yet another "difficult" 20th century composer to enjoy, and why not?


----------



## Guest

My first Stockhausen vinyl. Bought it my junior year in high school--long, long ago.


----------



## Albert7

I heard Sirius off YouTube (since there is no in-print recording of it) and it was marvelous last month. I plan to feature it again later on this summer to others when more people are around. It definitely feels so operatic to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Dim7 said:


> I'm listening to his "Oktophonie" and I find it kinda cool. Is it wrong to approach Stockhausen from some kind of horror/psychedelia aesthetic or is that too superficial and completely missing the point?


No, any way in is good.


----------



## Albert7

Actually what is fascinating is that Stockhausen is quite accessible and not as forbidding to listen to as many people would think... if you are familiar with electronic music for me, it's easier to enjoy Stockhausen than say someone more left of left field like Ferneyhough.


----------



## Morimur

Albert7 said:


> Actually what is fascinating is that Stockhausen is quite accessible and not as forbidding to listen to as many people would think... if you are familiar with electronic music for me, it's easier to enjoy Stockhausen than say someone more left of left field like Ferneyhough.


Interesting. I don't find Ferneyhough's music "left-field" at all-his music, while complex, is based on traditional, recognizable forms. Stockhausen redefined the parameters of what one traditionally thinks of as music, much like Xenakis, Ligeti, Nono, Berio, etc. He was perhaps the last truly great musical revolutionary . . . _and he loved Debussy!_


----------



## TradeMark

I really like gruppen, gesang der jünglinge, and kontakte. Stimmung kind of bored me.


----------



## Mandryka

TradeMark said:


> I really like gruppen.


either you've seen it or you must have an amazing hi fi. To me it sounds nothing special at home because I can't hear the interplay between the orchestras.


----------



## Mandryka

Albert7 said:


> Actually what is fascinating is that Stockhausen is quite accessible and not as forbidding to listen to as many people would think.


This is certainly true of his later music, Klang. Stockhausen turned into an old romantic.


----------



## Mandryka

Richannes Wrahms said:


> *Stimmung is not for everyone* (certainly not for me, works like that actually put me away from the composer for long) and doesn't really 'connect' with any previous classical piece, wouldn't recommend it to start with. I recommend his early, rather conventional work for chamber orchestra Formel.


I find Stimmung really funny. It makes me think of hippie cults in the 1970s -- like in the last novel of Anthony Powell's Dance for the Music of Time.


----------



## TradeMark

Mandryka said:


> either you've seen it or you must have an amazing hi fi. To me it sounds nothing special at home because I can't hear the interplay between the orchestras.



I just liked the music I was hearing. I listened to it through headphones.


----------



## Mandryka

TradeMark said:


> I just liked the music I was hearing. I listened to it through headphones.


Yes I can imagine that headphones work well for it.


----------



## millionrainbows

If you like Stimmung, then this piece is very similar;* The Flow of (u) *uses overtones of voices.


----------



## millionrainbows

Morimur said:


> Interesting. I don't find Ferneyhough's music "left-field" at all-his music, while complex, is based on traditional, recognizable forms. Stockhausen redefined the parameters of what one traditionally thinks of as music, much like Xenakis, Ligeti, Nono, Berio, etc. He was perhaps the last truly great musical revolutionary . . . _and he loved Debussy!_


I saw that Stockhausen Edition disc of yours, and I'm jealous. I'd like to get _*Hymnen.*_


----------



## millionrainbows

Weston said:


> Today I enjoyed my first Stockhausen work, probably because it's the first one I let play in my headphones more or less as background music while I worked and not really knowing what it was until halfway into it. There are quite intriguing stereo effects toward the end in this recording and I found the vocal jabs, or whatever one would call them, to be very entertaining.
> 
> So I now have yet another "difficult" 20th century composer to enjoy, and why not?


Lucky you, Weston! This is an excellent introduction to his music!

Yes, this is a very good sampling of Stockhausen's early serial music. Zeitmasze is based on some very novel concepts of timing, and how fast the players can play. It sounds wonderful to me in every version (all 2) that I have heard. Zappa mentioned it once, too.


----------



## The nose

Someone knows if there is a complete works box of Karlheinz Stockhausen?


----------



## Guest

Nope, but browse the 'Verlag for just about everything.


----------



## Morimur

The nose said:


> Someone knows if there is a complete works box of Karlheinz Stockhausen?


You can purchase his complete oeuvre directly from the Stockhausen foundation: http://www.karlheinzstockhausen.org


----------



## Crudblud

The nose said:


> Someone knows if there is a complete works box of Karlheinz Stockhausen?


Not all his works have even been recorded yet.


----------



## millionrainbows

How about his greatest hits?









_

__Karlheinz Stockhausen ‎- Greatest Hits __

_


----------



## SimonNZ

More hits!:










including such audience-pandering crossover favorites as the middle part of Kontakte and the middle part of Hymnen (sellout!)


----------



## Autocrat

Morimur said:


> You can purchase his complete oeuvre directly from the Stockhausen foundation: http://www.karlheinzstockhausen.org


The princely sum of 3,500 Euros will get you the lot.


----------



## Morimur

SimonNZ said:


> More hits!:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> including such audience-pandering crossover favorites as the middle part of Kontakte and the middle part of Hymnen (sellout!)


Is Stockie's duet with Streisand included in this set? I lost my virginity to that song . . . _Mem'ries, light the corners of my mind_ . . .


----------



## KenOC

Anybody who loses their virginity to Stockhausen deserves a special entry in Krafft-Ebing's book.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

If I got three and a half virginity and convert them to dolars, How many cowslips can I buy assuming it was a good year for the crop?


----------



## Morimur

Richannes Wrahms said:


> If I got three and a half virginity and convert them to dolars, How many cowslips can I buy assuming it was a good year for the crop?


What?
*****
*****


----------



## millionrainbows

morimur said:


> is stockie's duet with streisand included in this set? I lost my virginity to that song . . . _mem'ries, light the corners of my mind_ . . .


roflol! ~~...............


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Anybody who loses their virginity to Stockhausen deserves a special entry in Krafft-Ebing's book.


Aha, now we know what you've been reading.


----------



## millionrainbows

Is there a better version than this of the Klavierstucke? I love this one. I have Herbert Henck also.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> How about his greatest hits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> __Karlheinz Stockhausen ‎- Greatest Hits __
> 
> _


Has the man really had any "hits"?


----------



## brotagonist

Bulldog said:


> Has the man really had any "hits"?


It depends on how you take that  Not on the top 40 charts, of course, but with lovers of modern classical music, certainly! There are some works that have become iconic.


----------



## Vaneyes

A slow newsday, Stockhausen and Beatles.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/26/beatles-revolution-9-stockhausen-hymnen-avant-garde-pop


----------



## Klassic

For all those who enjoy Stockhausen I think you might appreciate my exchange with Woodduck, wherein I deal with the fascist-reactionary Roger Scruton: http://www.talkclassical.com/25854-random-thoughts-discoveries-dont-129.html


----------



## Guest

- not guestbook material -


----------



## Guest

So, Stockhausen fans, what are your favorite versions of the ever flexible _Tierkreis_ and _In Freundschaft_? I want them all


----------



## Myriadi

I'll be the boring person and say that my favorite _Tierkreis_ is the musicbox original, as recorded on that CD with _Musik am Bauch_... And I just don't like _In Freundschaft_, I much prefer the _Harlekin_ pieces, or even _Amour_.

I'll also say that those late orchestral versions of _Tierkreis_ Stockhausen composed himself are extremely bizzare. Couldn't wrap my ears around those at all


----------



## Guest

Myriadi said:


> I'll be the boring person and say that my favorite _Tierkreis_ is the musicbox original, as recorded on that CD with _Musik am Bauch_... And I just don't like _In Freundschaft_, I much prefer the _Harlekin_ pieces, or even _Amour_.
> 
> I'll also say that those late orchestral versions of _Tierkreis_ Stockhausen composed himself are extremely bizzare. Couldn't wrap my ears around those at all


My favorite _Tierkreis_ is still the original as well, but I also have versions, off the top of my head, for clarinet/piano, trio, bass clarinet/piano, organ, carillon, ensemble, orchestra, and fragments for both piano and piano duo. I will purchase MP3's of the voice/piano version on Wergo w/ Berio very soon as well. The carillon version, of course, has a chiming quality that puts it near (but not quite on the level of) the music box version. The organ version uses some very interesting techniques.

I also generally prefer _Harlekin_ and _Amour_ as clarinet pieces, but I simply mentioned _In Freundschaft_ as another one of those works with a billion versions that can be fun to collect. I have versions for clarinet, flute, basset horn, trumpet, trombone (x2), tuba, saxophone, violin, viola, and cello thus far, with Christian Lindberg's trombone being hard to beat.


----------



## SilverSurfer

You can also find in Soundcloud two performances of Tierkreis ("revisited") by Le Cabaret Contemporain, for Ondes Martenot and rock band.


----------



## dieter

I met Karl Heinz when my bosses, the owners of a record shop called Discurio, the Mann family, brought him to Australia in 1971. When he got to his hotel and was asked what he required he said he needed a woman to keep him company. I almost got sacked for calling him Karl Heinz Scheizenhausen. My view hasn't altered much.
I'm sure it isn't just an unpleasant by product of getting old - I'm 66, almost 67 - that regards the new as being inferior to the old. But when I hear the noises made by the likes of Karl Heinz and Lutoslawski, especially during Lutoslawski's aleatoric phase, I say to myself, this simply sounds banal, simply, absolutely banal. It may well be symptoms of Zeitgeist, but zeitgeist is ephemeral, quality isn't. Josquin is still relevant, as is Monteverdi, as is Bach, Beethoven, Shostakovich, Britten etc etc.
Now, I have an 18 year old daughter who played violin under the Suzuki regime from the age of 4 till last year. The girl can play, she has impeccable intonation. She, however, has defected to the here and now phase of music, and all power to her. It's her world, it's her future.I totally accept where she is and where she comes from - she claims to hate 'Classical Music' .
My point is that I am positive that there will come a time when Kreisler's transcription of Gluck's 'Melodie' from Orpheus and Eurydice will mean much more to her than the expletive laden rapsters who fill the air with a lot of sound and fury, the main music she listens to now.
I really wonder how many people will be listening to Karl Heinz one hundred years from now.


----------



## dieter

dieter said:


> I met Karl Heinz when my bosses, the owners of a record shop called Discurio, the Mann family, brought him to Australia in 1971. When he got to his hotel and was asked what he required he said he needed a woman to keep him company. I almost got sacked for calling him Karl Heinz Scheizenhausen. My view hasn't altered much.
> I'm sure it isn't just an unpleasant by product of getting old - I'm 66, almost 67 - that regards the new as being inferior to the old. But when I hear the noises made by the likes of Karl Heinz and Lutoslawski, especially during Lutoslawski's aleatoric phase, I say to myself, this simply sounds banal, simply, absolutely banal. It may well be symptoms of Zeitgeist, but zeitgeist is ephemeral, quality isn't. Josquin is still relevant, as is Monteverdi, as is Bach, Beethoven, Shostakovich, Britten etc etc.
> Now, I have an 18 year old daughter who played violin under the Suzuki regime from the age of 4 till last year. The girl can play, she has impeccable intonation. She, however, has defected to the here and now phase of music, and all power to her. It's her world, it's her future.I totally accept where she is and where she comes from - she claims to hate 'Classical Music' .
> My point is that I am positive that there will come a time when Kreisler's transcription of Gluck's 'Melodie' from Orpheus and Eurydice will mean much more to her than the expletive laden rapsters who fill the air with a lot of sound and fury, the main music she listens to now.
> I really wonder how many people will be listening to Karl Heinz one hundred years from now.


I guess, in summary, great music taps into values that don't change. They are to do with love, respect, transience, the unalterable fact that things do change, but that basic human core values don't change. It accounts for the fact that we can send people to the moon and back but we still can't sort out the basic facts of life, I.E. that we have not found out a way to live together without one 'side' wanting to bomb the bejaysus out of the other. That lies at the core of the 9 very great composers, this obsession with wanting truth and justice for all of us, not just the privileged few.


----------



## SilverSurfer

Hello, dieter, but, then, speaking of Lutoslawsk's banality, do you also consider banal, for instance, "Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima" by his fellow Penderecki? doesn't show that shocking music an "obsession with wanting truth and justice for all of us"?


----------



## dieter

SilverSurfer said:


> Hello, dieter, but, then, speaking of Lutoslawsk's banality, do you also consider banal, for instance, "Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima" by his fellow Penderecki? doesn't show that shocking music an "obsession with wanting truth and justice for all of us"?


I find Penderecki more interesting than Lutoslawski. I heard the latter's 3rd symphony again the other day and I decided I didn't like it: it is full of banal themes, dated gestures from the sixties and seventies - Bernstein went though that phase as well - and in the end was a waste of my time. 
I guess you can shock for the sake of it - banality- or, you can write something that shocks that comes from the heart.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Hello, dieter, but, then, speaking of Lutoslawsk's banality, do you also consider banal, for instance, "Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima" by his fellow Penderecki? doesn't show that shocking music an "obsession with wanting truth and justice for all of us"?

You do know that the Threnody was originally entitled 8'37 and had absolutely nothing to do with the victims of the Hiroshima bombing?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Don't think Shostakovich or Britten are really relevant at all.


----------



## Myriadi

If only critics of Stockhausen knew more of his music, they'd find him an *exceptionally* easy target. You always hear, "this isn't music", "this is done just to provoke", and so on. You never hear things like "the erotic poems in _Stimmung_ had me split my sides from laughter", or "I condemn the practice of playing the piano with one's buttocks", or "have you actually seen those clarinet pieces performed? don't you think those costumes are ridiculous?", or even "was that a camel the trombonist was playing for? And did people just come out of him? What kind of opera is that?"

If nothing else, this would've made for much more entertaining reading.


----------



## dieter

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hello, dieter, but, then, speaking of Lutoslawsk's banality, do you also consider banal, for instance, "Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima" by his fellow Penderecki? doesn't show that shocking music an "obsession with wanting truth and justice for all of us"?
> 
> You do know that the Threnody was originally entitled 8'37 and had absolutely nothing to do with the victims of the Hiroshima bombing?


Interesting. And the Eroica was originally dedicated to Napoleon, a mass murderer.


----------



## Morimur

dieter said:


> I find Penerecki more interesting than Lutoslawski. I headr the latter's 3rd symphony again the other day and I decided I didn't like it: it is full of banal themes, dated gestures from the sixties and seventies - Bernstein went though that phase as well - and in the end was a waste of my time.
> I guess you can shock for the sake of it - banality- or, you can write something that shocks that comes from the heart.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're also certainly wrong in your condemnation of Lutosławski's music. His work is anything but dated and/or banal - "Whoever has ears, let them hear."


----------



## hpowders

dieter said:


> I find Penderecki more interesting than Lutoslawski. I heard the latter's 3rd symphony again the other day and I decided I didn't like it: it is full of banal themes, dated gestures from the sixties and seventies - Bernstein went though that phase as well - and in the end was a waste of my time.
> I guess you can shock for the sake of it - banality- or, you can write something that shocks that comes from the heart.


I completely agree with you. I bought Lutoslawski's Third Symphony and found the opening unprofound and dull and slept through most of the rest of it. I heard another Lutoslawski symphony on the CD and it was the worst most boring symphony I had ever heard.

Most over-rated "in" composer ever must be Lutoslawski. How he got such renown is beyond me.


----------



## starthrower

hpowders said:


> Most over-rated "in" composer ever must be Lutoslawski. How he got such renown is beyond me.


That's stating the obvious! Now back to Stockhausen.


----------



## hpowders

I believe the "moderns" were so starved for a symphonic masterpiece in the 1970's-1980's after such wonderful symphonies written in the 1930's-1960's, that they brainwashed themselves into believing the Lutoslawski Third Symphony was "The One". Power of suggestion.

Shostakovich 4 vs. Lutoslawski 3. Gimme a break!


----------



## Chronochromie

I believe Lutoslawski was a great composer and his 3rd symphony is a great work, now let's get back to Stockhausen. :tiphat:


----------



## Morimur

hpowders said:


> I believe the "moderns" were so starved for a synmphonic masterpiece in the 1970's-1980's after such wonderful symphonies written in the 1930's-1960's, that they brainwashed themselves into believing the Lutoslawski Third Symphony was "The One". Power of suggestion.
> 
> Shostakovich 4 vs. Lutoslawski 3. Oh please!!!


You too, hpowders?

Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war!


----------



## dieter

Chronochromie said:


> I believe Lutoslawski was a great composer and his 3rd symphony is a great work, now let's get back to Stockhausen. :tiphat:


Stockhausen who?


----------



## dieter

Morimur said:


> You're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're also certainly wrong in your condemnation of Lutosławski's music. The man's music is anything but dated and/or banal - "Whoever has ears, let them hear."


Ah, you know, I admit I like some of Lutoslawski, but NOT the third!


----------



## Xenakiboy

Anybody seen read this blog:

http://stockhausenspace.blogspot.co.nz/

I've been reading it from time to time for a while and it's an excellent look at Stockhausen's creative process and sound world!


----------



## Larkenfield

I like it. It's delightful and playful rather than 20th century neurotic. If chickens could play instruments, the henhouse might sound like this... very conversational and chatty... and skillfully well written... colorful! I like it on the basis of pure sound without the need for meaning, like Mozart.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Larkenfield said:


> I like it. It's delightful and playful rather than 20th century neurotic. If chickens could play instruments, the henhouse might sound like this... very conversational and chatty... and skillfully well written... colorful! I like it on the basis of pure sound without the need for meaning, like Mozart.


You might like _Adieu_ and _Kontra-Punkte_ for the same reasons. I've got them on CD, but I just found some nice performances/recordings on YouTube:


----------



## Janspe

hpowders said:


> Most over-rated "in" composer ever must be Lutoslawski. How he got such renown is beyond me.


Wow. Just, _wow_. To each their own, I guess...

Staying on the topic of Stockhausen, I find it so frustrating that the majority of the recordings are only available through the official Stockhausen website - no streaming! I'm really interested in the composer's work, but as a student I'm not very keen to spend loads and loads of money just to get to know something. And this comes from someone who regularly buys CD's in addition to using Spotify!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Janspe said:


> Staying on the topic of Stockhausen, I find it so frustrating that the majority of the recordings are only available through the official Stockhausen website - no streaming!


I understand your frustration! I also find it ironic that the works of a composer who was so innovative with electronics aren't available electronically, and I do hope that Stockhausen Verlag are considering addressing the matter. I managed to acquire all the CDs over a period of years, a slow but worthwhile process, which makes me keen that Stockhausen's remarkable music should be more easily available. Until that happens, I guess YouTube will have to do.


----------



## Janspe

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I managed to acquire all the CDs over a period of years, a slow but worthwhile process --


Oh my, that makes me very jealous! Stockhausen isn't even a composer that I connect with very much, at least for now, but just the thought of having all of that music available feels baffling. I'm tremendously _interested_ in his music, and a lot of the stuff I've heard has kept me on my toes. Let's hope that the Verlag realizes the need to adapt to the needs of the modern day...


----------



## Janspe

Decided to wake up this thread since...

...I just heard _MANTRA_ for the first time. Oh my *god*. What an absolute marvel of a piece! I need to hear it again and fast.

Any news on the Stockie front? Any interesting recordings or concerts coming up? I know Pierre-Laurent Aimard is currently doing a lot of his music, I wish I could see one of those concerts.


----------



## Mandryka

Big Stockhausen festival in London very soon

https://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/festivals-series/classical-season/stockhausen


----------



## Flutter

I remember hearing a few years about Stockhausen's awesome Licht Cycle being performed in it's entirety, planned for 2019 or perhaps next year, is that still in the cards? (or has it already happened?)


----------



## flamencosketches

I've never heard a Stockhausen piece in my life, or indeed know anything about him. From what I understand, he made early electronic music? Sound collages, maybe? All I know is I saw a big vinyl box set of Stockhausen's complete works for piano at a record store in Ann Arbor last month, and it blew my mind. I didn't know he wrote any piano music. 

What would be the place to start?


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I've never heard a Stockhausen piece in my life, or indeed know anything about him. From what I understand, he made early electronic music? Sound collages, maybe? All I know is I saw a big vinyl box set of Stockhausen's complete works for piano at a record store in Ann Arbor last month, and it blew my mind. I didn't know he wrote any piano music.
> 
> What would be the place to start?


Mantra

Nfcr n can ecmn e


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Nfcr n can ecmn e


I would totally believe that that's really the name of a Stockhausen work. But my Google search returns nothing :lol:

I will look into Mantra.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamenco, these are my suggestions:


----------



## flamencosketches

Thank you, sir. I'll look into at least one of em, quickly, before my interest in this era and style of music cycles out again :lol:


----------



## starthrower

Eotvos Conducts Stockhausen

This CD is absolutely superb, imo. Some of the most satisfying and brilliantly conceived atonal music I've ever heard. The recording is stellar in its fidelity and detail. And the music is beautifully balanced and orchestrated leaving enough space between the notes as not to cause fatigue in the listener. It deserves my highest recommendation.


----------



## Mandryka

Strange that this thread should come up because all this week I’ve been listening to Naturliche Dauern, from Klang, with great pleasure, I’m now convinced it’s a really special piano cycle.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> Eotvos Conducts Stockhausen
> 
> This CD is absolutely superb, imo. Some of the most satisfying and brilliantly conceived atonal music I've ever heard. The recording is stellar in its fidelity and detail. And the music is beautifully balanced and orchestrated leaving enough space between the notes as not to cause fatigue in the listener. It deserves my highest recommendation.


Going to check it out. Thanks. I have zero Stockhausen in my library.


----------



## Bourdon

starthrower said:


> Eotvos Conducts Stockhausen
> 
> This CD is absolutely superb, imo. Some of the most satisfying and brilliantly conceived atonal music I've ever heard. The recording is stellar in its fidelity and detail. And the music is beautifully balanced and orchestrated leaving enough space between the notes as not to cause fatigue in the listener. It deserves my highest recommendation.


I'm goiing after this one ! thank you for the advice


----------



## starthrower

If you get one Stockhausen CD the Eotvos is tops on the list. I know Presto Classical carries it.


----------



## Bourdon

starthrower said:


> If you get one Stockhausen CD the Eotvos is tops on the list. I know Presto Classical carries it.


I have found one and the Xenakis twofer too:tiphat:


----------



## soni

flamencosketches said:


> I would totally believe that that's really the name of a Stockhausen work. But my Google search returns nothing :lol:
> 
> I will look into Mantra.


I'm in the same situation and am looking up Mantra now. So far so good!


----------



## soni

Oh my...

That was legendary


----------



## Mandryka

This is the recording that Stockhausen endorsed. It's been very hard to obtain until recently, now it's on various streaming and download sites. I heard them play it in London and it was a great concert -- the recording is beautiful I think.

Another piece which I remember really loving when I first started to explore Stockhausen is _Momente_, it's a but dated (it reminds me of those experiments that Peter Brook and Ted Hughes did), but is still wonderful nonetheless. There are a couple of versions and I remember thinking one was better than the other, I can't remember the details though. This is the one I like I think









And then there's _Stimmung_, which always makes me laugh because it's like a bunch of stoned hippies trying to chant a mantra -- this is a goody









But maybe my favourite thing by Stockhausen is this, Freude






Vol. 84 of The Stockhausen Edition is, I think, the only commercial recording.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> ..And then there's _Stimmung_, which always makes me laugh because it's like a bunch of stoned hippies trying to chant a mantra --


That's a very "Catholic" reading, revealing, and probably why La Monte Young's _The Well Tuned Piano_ is often written-off by orthodox Westerners.

Stimmung is about singing: overtones emphasized by positions of the singer's mouths. I hope you can take it seriously from that aspect.


----------



## starthrower

Welcome back, million. I hope the food was okay in the TC detention center. I ordered that Wergo CD with Kontra-Punkte, and Seitmasze.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Welcome back, million. I hope the food was okay in the TC detention center. I ordered that Wergo CD with Kontra-Punkte, and Seitmasze.


Thank you, star thrower! If I get permanently banned, like Paul Best was, you will be one of the few members I will miss. In case that happens, I will send you my e-mail in a PM.

{later edit}

I get no confirmation, I guess you have PM turned off, and I fully understand that.


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> Thank you, star thrower! If I get permanently banned, like Paul Best was, you will be one of the few members I will miss. In case that happens, I will send you my e-mail in a PM.
> 
> {later edit}
> 
> I get no confirmation, I guess you have PM turned off, and I fully understand that.


It's the other way around. I attempted to acknowledge your PM but received a message stating you can not be reached via PM.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> It's the other way around. I attempted to acknowledge your PM but received a message stating you can not be reached via PM.


As long as you got my e-mail address, it doesn't matter. For understandable reasons, I have turned off my private messaging.

I assumed that the reason you publicly welcomed me back is because you did not want to send it as a PM; that makes it an even more gracious gesture!

I'm not getting "message sent" acknowledgements on my end, and due to the tense atmosphere around here concerning the Wagner issue and my recent month-and-a half banning, I am somewhat suspicious of such things.

BTW, found "The Messiaen Companion" in softcover. Excellent book! I will comment on it in the Messiaen guestbook.


----------



## starthrower

When it comes to Wagner I just listen to the music. I don't care about left/right politics or any of that extraneous stuff.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> When it comes to Wagner I just listen to the music. I don't care about left/right politics or any of that extraneous stuff.


Yesh shir, you're my good ol' palsy-walsy, ain'tcha, starrie?


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> Yesh shir, you're my good ol' palsy-walsy, ain'tcha, starrie?


Whatever? I'm just a participant on a forum. I'm not interested in any drama with people and their hangups including you.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Whatever? I'm just a participant on a forum. I'm not interested in any drama with people and their hangups including you.


Who posted a message to my very dramatic "nemesis" as you characterized it. Sure, you don't want to get involved...I believe you...


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> Who posted a message to my very dramatic "nemesis" as you characterized it. Sure, you don't want to get involved...I believe you...


You could learn something from Woodduck but you seem intent on being argumentative and trying to push his buttons which isn't working. But concerning this thread I'm just looking for a few more interesting Stockhausen CDs. Mainly orchestral stuff as I am not that interested in percussion or piano. The electronic stuff can be interesting but I haven't heard that much.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> You could learn something from Woodduck but you seem intent on being argumentative and trying to push his buttons which isn't working.


I have my views on Wagner and German culture which don't concern the music per se except as the overall "art": only the content of the operatic imagery, and Wagner's own views on Jews. I think these factors need to be remembered and restated as "maintenance."

We come to these forums because we like to express our opinions on music, positive or negative. Everyone should be allowed to praise their favorites and put down who they don't like.

I think the reason the Wagner threads tend to derail is _just as much attributable_ to the reaction and defensiveness to negative comments.

Some opinions are worth stating and some are not. The difference? Knowledge and understanding. An opinion based on knowledge and understanding is more valuable than one based on ignorance and intolerance.

I originally responded to the "warning" thread in Area 51 about this to clarify my intent and position. I don't like to see discussion content restricted; other members also expressed concerns about restrictions on content.

If my views upset any pro-Wagnerians it's not my problem. I'm through commenting about it. You will notice that I withdrew from the "politics and religion" thread after I was challenged to continue the conflict; and the truth is, I'm not that heavily invested in Wagner.

I haven't "barged in" to any Wagner threads. It's unfortunate that I am seen by some as an antagonist in the matter.



> But concerning this thread I'm just looking for a few more interesting Stockhausen CDs. Mainly orchestral stuff as I am not that interested in percussion or piano. The electronic stuff can be interesting but I haven't heard that much.


I hope you can find something; I've already made my recommendations.


----------



## millionrainbows

I saw it too, but it has apparently been removed. I didn't take the bait. There were several of these posts in "Latest Purchases" which were supposedly giving "free music files" for download.

The last time I experienced an attempt like this was on a site which offered "free software downloads" related to some software updates I was interested in. It "took over" my computer and would not allow me to exit. I had to cut the power and disconnect from the internet. Also, I had to delete some apps that were put in.

He was probably Russian or Czeck, because the sites were in Czeck language.


----------



## starthrower

> I hope you can find something; I've already made my recommendations.


I ordered one of the Wergo CDs. It's on its way from Presto Classical.


----------



## soni

Hymnen and Kontakte are incredible. Also Kontra-Punkte is now one of my favourite chamber works, so unexpectedly emotional!


----------



## Mandryka

I am very much enjoying these lectures on youtube


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Mandryka said:


> I am very much enjoying these lectures on youtube


They're very enjoyable, and Stockhausen is quite a witty communicator! There's a "Text CD" I got from the Stockhausen-Verlag, on which Stockhausen discusses Beethoven's late string quartets at some length. Not "lectures" as such, but they make for interesting listening, not least because they demonstrate Stockhausen's enthusiasm for the quartets themselves.


----------



## Mandryka

What I’m impressed by is his grasp of fundamental concepts, his clear vision of the relation between the new music and the tradition. The man is obviously a genius!


----------



## sstucky

I once went to a performance of one of Stockhausen’s electronic pieces at the New England Conservatory. This was 1971 or 1972. The audience sat before an array of speakers. The piece consisted of endless squeaks, beeps, whistles, and what have you. After about 15 minutes, people started leaving. I sat there for about an hour, looking for any bit of form, and finally left. At that time, perhaps one-third of the audience was left.


----------



## Mandryka

sstucky said:


> I once went to a performance of one of Stockhausen's electronic pieces at the New England Conservatory. This was 1971 or 1972. The audience sat before an array of speakers. The piece consisted of endless squeaks, beeps, whistles, and what have you. After about 15 minutes, people started leaving. I sat there for about an hour, looking for any bit of form, and finally left. At that time, perhaps one-third of the audience was left.


Yes I'm not at all surprised, American conservatory audiences are notoriously backwards and conservative. That's one of the reasons why Cage and Feldman spent so much time in Europe.


----------

