# Is Stockhausen an objectively great composer?



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

*Note: I myself do not believe in the objective greatness of Stockhausen, or any composer for that matter.

However, I would like to garner some responses from those who believe that objective greatness can be gathered from factors such as influence, consensus, and academic recognition.*

Stockhausen's inclusion as a "great" composer can be seen in the various canons of classical music, such as Dubal's _Essential Canon of Classical Music_, Dubal's _The Art of the Piano_, Schonberg's _Lives of the Great Composers_, and Thompson's _The Great Composers_.

Numerous books and analyses have already been written on his music, and renowned musicians and conductors have championed his works.

He has received the following academic and institutional awards:

1964 German Gramophone critics' award
1966 SIMC award for orchestral works
1968 Grand Art Prize for Music of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia
1968 Grand Prix du Disque (France)
1968 Member of the Free Academy of the Arts, Hamburg
1968, 1969, and 1971 Edison Prize (Netherlands)
1970 Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Music
1972 SIMC award for orchestral works
1973 Member of the Academy of Arts, Berlin
1974 Federal Cross of Merit, 1st class (Germany)
1977 Member of the Philharmonic Academy of Rome
1979 Honorary Member of the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters
1980 Member of the European Academy of Science, Arts and Letters
1981 Prize of the Italian music critics
1982 German gramophone prize (German Phonograph Academy)
1983 Diapason d'or (France)
1985 Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (France)
1986 Ernst von Siemens Music Prize
1987 Honorary Member of the Royal Academy of Music, London
1988 Honorary Citizen of the Kuerten community
1989 Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
1990 Prix Ars Electronica, Linz, Austria
1991 Honorary Fellow of the Royal Irish Academy of Music
1991 Accademico Onorario of the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Caecilia, Rome
1991 Honorary Patron of Sound Projects Weimar
1992 IMC-UNESCO Picasso Medal
1992 Distinguished Service Medal of the German state North Rhine-Westphalia
1992 German Music Publishers Society Award
1993 Patron of the European Flute Festival
1993 Diapason d'or
1994 German Music Publishers Society Award
1995 Honorary Member of the German Society for Electro-Acoustic Music
1995 Bach Award of the city of Hamburg
1996 Honorary doctorate (Dr. phil. h. c.) from the Freie Universität Berlin
1996 Composer of the European Cultural Capital Copenhagen
1996 Edison Prize (Netherlands)
1996 Member of the Free Academy of the Arts Leipzig
1996 Honorary Member of the Leipzig Opera
1996 Cologne Culture Prize
1997 German Music Publishers Society Award
1997 Honorary member of the music ensemble LIM (Laboratorio de Interpretación Musical), Madrid
1999 Entry in the Golden Book of the city of Cologne
2000 German Music Publishers Society Award
2000-2001 The film In Absentia made by the Quay Brothers (England) to concrete and electronic music by Karlheinz Stockhausen won the Golden Dove (first prize) at IFAF Leipzig.
2000 Special Jury Mention, Montreal, FCMM
2000 Special Jury Award, Tampere
2001 Special Mention, Golden Prague Awards
2001 Honorary Diploma Award, Cracow
2001 German Music Publishers Society Award
2001 Polar Music Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of the Arts
2002 Honorary Patron of the Sonic Arts Network, England
2003 German Music Publishers Society Award
2004 Associated member of the Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres & des Beaux-arts
2004 Honorary doctorate (Dr. phil. h. c.) of the Queen's University in Belfast
2004 German Music Publishers Society Award
2005 German Music Publishers Society Award
2006 Honorary member of the Accademia Filarmonica di Bologna
2008 On 22 August, Stockhausen's birthday, the Rathausplatz in his home town of Kürten was renamed Karlheinz-Stockhausen-Platz in his honour
2008 On 10 October, the Studio for Electronic Music of the Royal Conservatory of The Hague in the Netherlands changed its name to Karlheinz Stockhausen Studio
2009 German Music Publishers Society Award
2010 The municipality of Kürten adopts the designation "Stockhausengemeinde" (Stockhausen municipality) in honour of the late composer.

Even outside of classical music, he asserted massive influence, suggesting a transcendence of genre and era:

-The Beatles were inspired by Stockhausen. Paul McCartney introduced Stockhausen's works to the group, turning John Lennon into a fan; Lennon and Yoko Ono even sent the composer a Christmas card in 1969.

-Stockhausen appears on the Sgt. Pepper album cover, 5th from the left in the top row, between Lenny Bruce and W.C. Fields. In particular, "A Day in the Life" (1967) and "Revolution 9" (1968) were influenced by Stockhausen's electronic music.

-Miles Davis considered Stockhausen to be one of his big later-life influences and his album _On The Corner_ shows heavy evidence of Stockhausen-inspired stylistic choices.

-Cecil Taylor was influenced heavily by both Bartok and Stockhausen.

-Charles Mingus acknowledges Stockhausen as an influence, especially in his album _The Clown._

-Herbie Hancock recalls listening to Stockhausen for hours on end while in his tour bus with his group Mwandishi.

-Yusef Lateef actively studied Stockhausen's music during his developmental period.

-Anthony Braxton cites Stockhausen as an influence and dedicated_ Composition No.96_ to the composer.

-Frank Zappa acknowledges Stockhausen in the liner notes of Freak Out!, his 1966 debut with The Mothers of Invention.

-On the back of The Who's second LP released in the US, "Happy Jack", their primary composer and guitarist Pete Townshend, is said to have been inspired by Stockhausen.

-Rick Wright and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd also acknowledge Stockhausen as an influence.

-Emerson, Lake, and Palmer was heavily influenced by Stockhausen, among various other avant-garde composers.

-San Francisco psychedelic groups Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead are said to have done the same.

-Founding members of Cologne-based experimental band Can, Irmin Schmidt and Holger Czukay, both studied with Stockhausen at the Cologne Courses for New Music.

-German electronic pioneers Kraftwerk also say they studied with Stockhausen, and Icelandic vocalist Björk has acknowledged Stockhausen's influence.

Various articles on Stockhausen and his shadow over non-classical genres:

How Stockhausen made pop weird

Stockhausen had wide influence in pop circles

The influence of Karlheinz Stockhausen on pop


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Check back in about 50 years.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Check back in about 50 years.


So whether or not his music is great depends on how he is viewed by people in 50 years.

This seems a bit like an admission that the music itself has nothing inherently "great" about it, and any judgment is completely dependent on human perception. Therefore being subjective rather than objective.

If there were objectively great qualities to his music, you wouldn't be able to tell me right now? You truly have to rely on the opinions of those in the future?

(And yes, I am quite confident that Stockhausen will stay in the musical consciousness 50 years past. But who knows. Maybe we'll stop listening to Beethoven in the next century.)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> So whether or not his music is great depends on how he is viewed by people in 50 years.


In a large way, yes. A big ingredient of greatness is staying power. I couldn't care less what John Lennon and Miles Davis thought about him.


> Maybe we'll stop listening to Beethoven in the next century.


Wanna bet on who vanishes first?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> In a large way, yes. A big ingredient of greatness is staying power. I couldn't care less what John Lennon and Miles Davis thought about him.


A large part of your argument was transcendence over borders, genres, and cultures. Stockhausen fits that.

If you don't care about the opinions of Miles Davis, Lennon, etc., why is the opinion of a so-called "informed consensus" so important? Surely the opinions Miles Davis and John Lennon would fall under "informed"?



consuono said:


> Wanna bet on who vanishes first?


My best guess is that neither of them do, as long as people are still listening to music and have access to a hyperweb of recordings from all time periods.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> A large part of your argument was transcendence over borders, genres, and cultures. Stockhausen fits that.


I never said anything about genres. Stockhausen is extremely niche, which isn't exactly transcendence.


> If you don't care about the opinions of Miles Davis, Lennon, etc., why is the opinion of a so-called "informed consensus" so important? Surely the opinions Miles Davis and John Lennon would fall under "informed"?


What about the informed Joe Blows in the cheap seats? And heck, John Lennon himself is already starting to fade from memory.


> My best guess is that neither of them do.


I don't detect any great audience for Stockhausen right now. He mostly comes up when mentioned by avant garde fans and foes.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> I never said anything about genres. Stockhausen is extremely niche, which isn't exactly transcendence.


Wait, what? I just posted a huge list of people and groups outside of classical music who were influenced by Stockhausen. Surely within classical music the list is even more massive.

If that's not transcending his niche, then what is?



consuono said:


> What about the informed Joe Blows in the cheap seats?


It's your definition of "informed consensus", not mine. I'm just trying to figure out what the definition is exactly. Seems to me that it's a bit of a wishy-washy line between informed and not informed.



consuono said:


> And heck, John Lennon himself is already starting to fade from memory.


The stats say the opposite:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/26/the...culture-phenomenon-even-among-gen-z-fans.html



consuono said:


> I don't detect any great audience for Stockhausen right now.


It's interesting how audience size suddenly matters, even though you surely don't believe that the massive audiences for pop artists have much to do with their longevity.

In any case, I did a little bit of digging and it seems to me that he has an audience comparable to many composers that you'd consider great:

Gesang der Junglinge-377k views

Telemusik-200k views

Helicopter String Quartet-1.1m views

Stimmung-257k views

Oktophonie-502k views

Luzifers Abschied-352k views

Kontakte-290k views


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

There is no such thing as "objectively great" when it comes to composers. There is subjective greatness, and then there is "stand the test of time" greatness. How do you objectively measure greatness in terms of classical music composition? Technical skills? Popularity? A secret cabal naming you "objectively great?"

Who cares. I don't care for his work. But that doesn't matter one bit.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> There is no such thing as "objectively great" when it comes to composers.


I agree, but this thread is made for those who do believe in objective greatness.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If you have no tastes of your own by which to discern, adopt the tastes of others. That's all these people do, Nothing objective about it. Leave them alone in their simple ways.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

chu42 said:


> I agree, but this thread is made for those who do believe in objective greatness.


Unfortunately (or fortunately) we are part of a language community using words with conventional meanings.

If greatness refers to what is widely esteemed, who are you to say there are no great composers??


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Would I call a spade great? No, a spade is a spade. A historically acclaimed composer is just that. Whether that is scientifically great or not is a vague and irrelevant thing to discuss.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> Unfortunately (or fortunately) we are part of a language community using words with conventional meanings.
> 
> If greatness refers to what is widely esteemed, who are you to say there are no great composers??


The "if" is what matters here. Some people do think greatness is measured by human perception (which ironically makes it non-objective), and some people think greatness is something that is outside of human perception.

But if your "if" is true, then certainly Stockhausen is a great composer.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

chu42 said:


> The "if" is what matters here. Some people do think greatness is measured by human perception (which ironically makes it non-objective), and some people think greatness is something that is outside of human perception.
> 
> But if your "if" is true, then certainly Stockhausen is a great composer.


I can't see why it matters what people _think_ greatness means. What matters is the _conventional_ meaning of greatness, and it seems, from my google searches, that the conventional meaning includes esteem, preeminence, repute, etc.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Would vote yes. I think the majority of posters here, myself included, aren't able to judge and accordingly appreciate the variety of the purely technical level of his accomplishments, said to be groundbreaking and unique.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

RogerWaters said:


> What matters is the _conventional_ meaning of greatness, and it seems, from my google searches, that the conventional meaning includes esteem, preeminence, repute, etc.


No, we need to address how it's being used on this forum. That's simply not how people use the word normally. When someone for example says, "Beethoven was a great composer" they're usually using this statement to beef up their opinion, to deliver an _undertone_ to the term 'greatness = my subjective tastes,' not presenting an objective fact unbiasedly. If someone wanted to objectively present the fact "Beethoven was a great composer" it would in most circumstances be irrelevant to this forum's normal conversations. That's what you say when you're writing a documentary, not defending arguments on quality. In reality, when you debate your favorite composers' quality, you address the subject at hand, 'the music,' without reexplaining the composers historical greatness. Historical greatness is irrelevant to debating music skills! It holds no literal argument to the question of music composition. It's a dull way of changing the subject entirely, and when used this way, changes the meaning whether you notice it or not. I'll give you an example:

_"Explain how Beethoven to you is superior."

"Beethoven is of the greatest composers with the highest critical esteem. That's the end of discussion."_

As frequent are theses replies, they've answered a question intended for subjective analysis, with a term normally referring to something outside individual opinion. They've _changed_ the definition of the word great in light of how they've paired its answer to the question.

Another example:

_"Who is the greatest composer?"

*People proceed each naming dozens of their own favorite composers, from Josquin to Szymanowski*_

Normal usage? Depends entirely on the place. At Talk Classical people are being _very_ subjective in tone, even though the words used are objective.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I don't think Stockhausen is a great composer because there are many compositions of his that have been around for more than about fifty years, yet these are hardly accepted by the classical community except for lovers of avant-garde music (a term that is itself beginning to wear).

Classroom experiments have been done using _Kontakte_ whereby listeners (students of music) were blind folded and exposed to the composition. Nearly all out of over 10 thought these were just noise, not composed art music. The work itself exhibit non-conducive sounds that the human ear won't normally process as music unless being told being hand that it was a Stockhausen composition. You can therefore based on this experiment alone to show that such music is really just confused sounds, not really artistic endeavors based on western classical music heritage. (Similar experiments have also been done in the visual arts using random brush strokes purporting to be avant-garde paintings by Mark Rothko).

Now many will reject the experiment's results. But it is an experiment to show that objective confusion can be triggered without prejudice, so questioning whether the composition is even music to begin with.


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

All I can say is that the Stockhausen pieces I have heard so far, possibly 10 or so, I have found engaging, interesting, and surprisingly, full of joy. He has always struck me as someone gleefully exploring the potentials and possibilities of sound in ways that I find delightful. I certainly don't wish for all music to sound like Stockhausen, and I don't give a toss whether he's great or not.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

If your criterion for greatness is influence and "canonicity", I agree that it's impossible to tell now, and can only be determined in retrospect. Cheating answer but hey.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't think Stockhausen is a great composer because there are many compositions of his that have been around for more than about fifty years, yet these are hardly accepted by the classical community


This is a weak argument and you know it. There are works by Beethoven and Brahms that have been around for far longer yet are hardly accepted by the classical community.



ArtMusic said:


> except for lovers of avant-garde music (a term that is itself beginning to wear).


The classical community, in terms of those who have an academic profession in it, are by and large lovers of avant-garde music. In my years at various music schools, I have never met a single professional musician or professor who disliked Stockhausen, or disliked modern classical in general. Avant-garde is in the curriculum at every music school I know of, and the major piano programs all require modern music in their jury performances.

More proof of this can be seen in Stockhausen's massive list of honorary degrees-surely if these universities were not in favor of modern music, so many of them would not have awarded Stockhausen an honorary doctorate.

Truly, the only classical fans I've met who did not like the avant-garde were either very young, or on this forum.



ArtMusic said:


> Classroom experiments have been done using Kontakte whereby listeners (students of music) were blind folded and exposed to the composition. Nearly all out of over 10 thought these were just noise, not composed art music. The work itself exhibit non-conducive sounds that the human ear won't normally process as music unless being told being hand that it was a Stockhausen composition. You can therefore based on this experiment alone to show that such music is really just confused sounds, not really artistic endeavors based on western classical music heritage. (Similar experiments have also been done in the visual arts using random brush strokes purporting to be avant-garde paintings by Mark Rothko).


That's a single Stockhausen work. It doesn't say much about his entire oeuvre.

If you judge Beethoven by Wellington's Victory, many will say he isn't a great composer.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

IMO, Stockhausen is "great" (not my word) simply because his name appears on every list of important and influential composers of the 20th century. A number of books have been devoted to his music and career, festivals have been put on featuring his music, and he has written several large scale works which have been landmark expressions. He has captured the imagination of a wide variety of other important musicians, artists and composers from a variety of genres. 

Despite what you may think of his music, his impact and importance cannot be ignored.

Speculation about what people in 50 years may or may not think about Stockhausen (or John Lennon for that matter) is irrelevant since that is unknown. What is known is that as of now, Stockhausen remains a very important composer.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> ...
> 
> Speculation about what people in 50 years may or may not think about Stockhausen (or John Lennon for that matter) is irrelevant since that is unknown. What is known is that as of now, Stockhausen remains a very important composer.


I agree, which is why I say check back in 50 years. A hundred years ago someone like Anton Rubinstein was similarly highly influential and important.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> I agree, which is why I say check back in 50 years. A hundred years ago someone like Anton Rubinstein was similarly highly influential and important.


Again, this points to subjectivity in music since by your metric, it is the people's _opinions_ that decide whether or not music is great.

If there was an objective standard, you would be able to discern greatness the second it was conceived.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Again, this points to subjectivity in music since by your metric, it is the people's _opinions_ that decide whether or not music is great.
> ...


Well at one time people's opinions decided that Salieri is great. And that Handel is "more important than" Bach. Or that Glazunov is "more important than" Stravinsky.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well at one time people's opinions decided that Salieri is great. And that Handel is "more important than" Bach. Or that Glazunov is "more important than" Stravinsky.


Exactly.

So again, tell me how people's opinions define anything objective?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> So again, tell me how people's opinions define anything objective?


So tell me, was the "rediscovery" of Bach completely arbitrary, or was it stimulated by Bach's music?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> So tell me, was the "rediscovery" of Bach completely arbitrary, or was it stimulated by Bach's music?


So tell me, how is it that people slip into this interrogative role? Did you beat your wife last night?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> So tell me, did you beat your wife last night?


That's a cute attempt at diversion, but no cigar. If it was completely arbitrary as you said at first, then there is absolutely nothing in Bach's music that would keep opinion from stating next week or even tomorrow that Telemann is much "greater" and "more important". Is Bach *objectively* different from Telemann? In what way? Or is any difference between them completely subjective?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> That's a cute attempt at diversion, but no cigar. If it was completely arbitrary as you said at first, then there is absolutely nothing in Bach's music that would keep opinion from stating next week or even tomorrow that Telemann is much "greater" and "more important".


There is something in every composer whose music has survived which could cause an assessment by a conductor or critic that his music is greater than his peers. It is not arbitrary, it is the result of *informed subjectivity*: those with the relevant education, experience and skill can better appreciate and assess the music.

But they are still using their subjective judgment. It just happens that their their subjective judgment is grounded in knowledge of the period, the peer composers, the stylistic components, the skill and creative gifts required to write music far above average.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> That's a cute attempt at diversion, but no cigar. If it was completely arbitrary as you said at first, then there is absolutely nothing in Bach's music that would keep opinion from stating next week or even tomorrow that Telemann is much "greater" and "more important". Is Bach *objectively* different from Telemann? In what way? Or is any difference between them completely subjective?


I think my view is that it is perfectly possible for public opinion to change and to value Telemann more highly than Bach. In fact, this seems to me so obvious I can't imagine how anyone could deny it.

Bach's music is different from everyone else's, objectively so I suppose, but that doesn't determine the public's opinions about them.

Hair styles, wallpaper, dress design, dances & co. go in and out of fashion, the same for music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I think my view is that it is perfectly possible for public opinion to change and to value Telemann more highly than Bach. In fact, this seems to me so obvious I can't imagine how anyone could deny it.


I don't see it happening. This "rediscovery" of Bach has been going on for nearly 200 years now with new recordings of the Goldbergs being released hourly, it seems.


> Bach's music is different from everyone else's, objectively so I suppose...


Really? In what way?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> I don't see it happening.


Oh for goodness sake, make an effort, use your imagination!



consuono said:


> Really? In what way?


No idea, but I'm sure someone whose looked at the scores can explain - it'll be something technical to do with cadences and rhythms and that sort of boring stuff.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Oh for goodness sake, make an effort, use your imagination!


I can imagine myself being president, which doesn't make it at all likely.


> No idea, but I'm sure someone whose looked at the scores can explain - it'll be something technical to do with cadences and rhythms and that sort of boring stuff.


That "boring stuff" is called "music".


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So tell me, was the "rediscovery" of Bach completely arbitrary, or was it stimulated by Bach's music?


It was stimulated by the fact that the Romantic era listeners resonated more with Bach than the Classical/Gallant era listeners. And Romantic era pathos has carried over to the modern age, and shaped our understanding and beliefs about "great music".

On the other hand, if Europe never left the Gallant era, we may never have considered Bach great.

Again, depends on the people. Not the music.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

I’m more interested in how I can relate to Stockhausen or Cage. How I can be as open as possible, what should I be aware of, what can I listen for? 
I was listening to mantra tonight and at first I thought it was just a lot of bleep, blips and bloops through a cheap guitar pedal. However, after listening for a while, I began to like things about it. But I don’t know if that’s enough for me to put time into it. Maybe. I feel even more perplexed by John Cage’s later works. And, honestly, the way enthusiasts write about Stockhausen and Cage doesn’t help the situation. They speak in hopped up vagaries. I am interested in understanding better though and listening more.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mendelssohn led the Bach revival. Bernstein led the Mahler revival. Often it is an "opinion influencer" who brings a composer's music into the spotlight. Audiences follow.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think Nielsen becoming part of the repertoire was a Bernstein thing too. Vivaldi almost randomly stumbled into the repertoire so quickly it seems like he's been there forever. It seems like there's a CPE Bach revival taking place too. Lots of things about canonicity are more products of chance and circumstance than anything.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

fbjim said:


> I think Nielsen becoming part of the repertoire was a Bernstein thing too. Vivaldi almost randomly stumbled into the repertoire so quickly it seems like he's been there forever. It seems like there's a CPE Bach revival taking place too. Lots of things about canonicity are more products of chance and circumstance than anything.


Nielsen was relatively big in the UK from earlier on.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

I am utterly unimpressed with the music of Stockhausen. That is the most generous way to put my feelings on his music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

milk said:


> I was listening to mantra tonight and at first I thought it was just a lot of bleep, blips and bloops through a cheap guitar pedal. However, after listening for a while, I began to like things about it. But I don't know if that's enough for me to put time into it.


Listen to Stockhausen's lectures on Mantra, they're on youtube. I thought they were inspiring.



milk said:


> Maybe. I feel even more perplexed by John Cage's later works.


You have to be in the mood, and find a performance which fits that mood. The music is indeterminate, and static.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Audiences follow.


I really wonder how much of an audience there is for Bach in fact. Even all those recordings of the Goldberg Variations which sell, how many of them are listened to? In Holland I believe there's a popular Bach cult, but it may not in fact be much more than in England -- St Matthew Passion at Easter and Messiah at Christmas, both seen as ritual ordeals, like going to mass.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> Check back in about 50 years.





chu42 said:


> Again, this points to subjectivity in music since by your metric, it is the people's _opinions_ that decide whether or not music is great.
> 
> If there was an objective standard, you would be able to discern greatness the second it was conceived.


Indeed. Given that Stockhausen's been dead 14 years, and we have to check back in another 50, does that imply that Beethoven couldn't have been correctly judged a great composer until [consults calculator] 1891? And that we still can't say whether Stravinsky or Shostakovich are great composers?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I was quite taken with Stockhausen's music at one point, but am now quite indifferent to it. His work doesn't move me as, say, Bach's or Bartok's. Maybe I just don't understand Stockhausen. I should add that my taste in music, save for a few key composers, certainly leans toward the modern and contemporary eras.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Red Terror said:


> I was quite taken with Stockhausen's music at one point, but am now quite indifferent to it. His work doesn't move me as, say, Bach's or Bartok's. Maybe I just don't understand Stockhausen. I should add that my taste in music, save for a few key composers, certainly leans toward the modern and contemporary eras.





Littlephrase said:


> I am utterly unimpressed with the music of Stockhausen. That is the most generous way to put my feelings on his music.


Note that this isn't a "do you like Stockhausen" thread. This is a "is Stockhausen _objectively_ great" thread, which means that any response should be detached from your personal feelings for his music.

You will notice that in my original post, there is not a single argument for Stockhausen's greatness that can be contrived as being subjective or personal in any way.

You will also notice that I don't believe in objective greatness, so I will have to leave it up to those who do believe in objective greatness to evaluate my argument for Stockhausen's inclusion as an "objectively great" composer.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I really wonder how much of an audience there is for Bach in fact. Even all those recordings of the Goldberg Variations which sell, how many of them are listened to?


You could say that about any work that sells well. In the end, what plays or doesn't play in the home stays in the home.


----------



## julide (Jul 24, 2020)

Here we go with the completely useles objectivity and subjectivity debates... Is it great music that is performed all the time... NO


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> I was quite taken with Stockhausen's music at one point, but am now quite indifferent to it. His work doesn't move me as, say, Bach's or Bartok's.


That's how I feel about Beethoven and Monteverdi and Verdi and Liszt and Mahler and Bruckner.



Red Terror said:


> Maybe I just don't understand Stockhausen. I should add that my taste in music, save for a few key composers, certainly leans toward the modern and contemporary eras.


It's quite common to meet people who rate the Darmstadt music, Kontakte, Zyklus etc, very highly but who feel that the later music is too lyrical to be interesting. I feel the opposite! I love parts of Licht and I love Hymnen, Oktophonie, Stimmung, Mantra, the first half of Klang but, apart from one very unusual recording of the first 11 Klavierstucke, Sabine Liebner's, I'm much less interested in his music from the 1950s and early 1960s.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I really wonder how much of an audience there is for Bach in fact. Even all those recordings of the Goldberg Variations which sell, how many of them are listened to? In Holland I believe there's a popular Bach cult, but it may not in fact be much more than in England -- St Matthew Passion at Easter and Messiah at Christmas, both seen as ritual ordeals, like going to mass.


It is an odd question. You admit that the GV recordings sell but ask if they are listened to. The cello suites are regularly recorded as are the solo violin sonatas and partitas. The WTC ... these are basic Bach - and I think that we must assume that the people buying them do listen to them.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

chu42 said:


> *Note: I myself do not believe in the objective greatness of Stockhausen, or any composer for that matter.*


+1.000.000 :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> - and I think that we must assume that the people buying them do listen to them.


Don't forget that music is a disposable commodity and a lifestyle statement. People have the CD on the shelves for all sorts of reasons other than to listen to music.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Classroom experiments have been done using _Kontakte_ whereby listeners (students of music) were blind folded and exposed to the composition. Nearly all out of over 10 thought these were just noise, not composed art music. The work itself exhibit non-conducive sounds that the human ear won't normally process as music unless being told being hand that it was a Stockhausen composition.





chu42 said:


> That's a single Stockhausen work. It doesn't say much about his entire oeuvre.
> 
> If you judge Beethoven by Wellington's Victory, many will say he isn't a great composer.


Just wanted to point out that Stockhausen's Kontakte isn't some throw-away Wellington's Victory piece, but an important composition for electronic sounds and instruments in his early career - I think it's one of the first pieces where he incorporated both. He clearly demonstrates control of a wide variety of timbres, pitch-noise interplay, and non-repeating motivic gestures here. It's a good one.

There may, in fact, be a lot of people who would think that it's "just" noise, to which I say - I would hope that those interested would broaden their artistic horizons and more carefully listen and get into the music. This kind of statement is similar to those who say Schoenberg's op 25 sounds "random" or "like a cat running on a piano" - a lot of people might think this, and it may even be a common response among laypeople, but the quality, intricacy, structure, and emotional impact (!) are all there.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The author of this thread says '_it is made for those who do believe in objective greatness.'_

I think it's flypaper for those who believe in objective greatness so the author and others can shoot down the premise.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Classroom experiments have been done using _Kontakte_ whereby listeners (students of music) were blind folded and exposed to the composition. Nearly all out of over 10 thought these were just noise, not composed art music.


What classrooms? Do you have a cite for this "experiment"?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Don't forget that music is a disposable commodity and a lifestyle statement. People have the CD on the shelves for all sorts of reasons other than to listen to music.


Pure speculation. I don't look for ulterior motives as to why someone purchases a CD. I assume the most obvious reason, which is to listen to it.


----------



## StDior (May 28, 2015)

milk said:


> I'm more interested in how I can relate to Stockhausen or Cage. How can be as open as possible, what should I be aware of, what can I listen for?
> I was listening to mantra tonight and at first I thought it was just a lot of bleep, blips and bloops through a cheap guitar pedal. However, after listening for a while, I began to like things about it. But I don't know if that's enough for me to put time into it. Maybe. I feel even more perplexed by John Cage's later works. And, honestly, the way enthusiasts write about Stockhausen and Cage doesn't help the situation. They speak in hopped up vagaries. I am interested in understanding better though and listening more.


I recommend listening to the Gesang der Jünglinge from Stockhausen at start. It can be imagined what a revolutionary work was that back in 1955.






I suggest the listening definitely in some very good sound quality, preferably with headphone. Listening to Stockhausen in car or in a computer speaker is not so effective (But this is almost generally can be advised in case of avant-garde music starting from Schoenberg).
If the Gesang der Jünglinge is ok for you, then furthermore I would suggest the Licht opera cycle. Ok, it is very long. Personally I prefer the Dienstag aus Licht. Check the Jahreslauf of it at first.






And answering the original question, yes, Stockhausen is a great composer imho.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's Christopher Fox on Stockhausen, from his review of the second edition of Maconie's book. My feeling is that Fox's sentiment is not uncommon in the UK at least, I leave it to others to say whether it has any bearing on Stockhausen's greatness



> Few composers have been able to maintain such groundbreaking progress and it was perhaps inevitable that the achievements of the young avant-garde composer would consolidate into a more pedestrian later career.
> 
> Yet for me Stockhausen's most remarkable gifts are displayed in these works of the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in the timbral, textural and harmonic domain. The voicing of chords in Kloviersruck X, the massing of brass figurations in Gruppen, the pungency of the amplified sonorities of Mikrophonie I, all are uniquely, vividly imagined. My central frustration with latter-day Stockhausen is that a composer capable of such greatness should instead have concentrated his attention on a compositional world based around the exhaustive manipulation of melodic formulae. Invention rather than development, succession rather than counterpoint are his strengths, yet the works since 1973 are all straitjacketed within the formula-based technique which Stockhausen has come to regard as his inspired extension of the serial method. So a new book about Stockhausen, even when it is as well done as Robin Maconie's Other planets, is a mixed blessing: on the one hand there is the opportunity to learn more about those astonishing early works, on the other hand there is the reminder of the laboured later production.


My own view is that Fox is not fair to Stockhausen, that his long held interest in total serialism was not a hinderance to invention -- he is creative within the framework which governs the music, and allows himself deviations from it when he feels that it is poetically justified.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> It is an odd question. You admit that the GV recordings sell but ask if they are listened to. The cello suites are regularly recorded as are the solo violin sonatas and partitas. The WTC ... these are basic Bach - and I think that we must assume that the people buying them do listen to them.


Indeed. I do. Especially as most of what I buy these days is downloads. Recently got the later Schiff WTC (someone's recommendation, was it you?). Really good, and no shelf to display the download on that people can look at.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

DaveM said:


> The author of this thread says '_it is made for those who do believe in objective greatness.'_
> 
> I think it's flypaper for those who believe in objective greatness so the author and others can shoot down the premise.


If you think that your premise can be shot down so easily, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate why you believe in your premise at all.

Certainly every time you're met with a difficult question, you seem to avoid answering it and instead complain that I'm trying to bait you with some form of mental trickery.

You must realize that these kinds of statements make your premise look very weak indeed. Putting up a shaky argument is one thing, not being able to provide any argument is another.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Nereffid said:


> Indeed. Given that Stockhausen's been dead 14 years, and we have to check back in another 50, does that imply that Beethoven couldn't have been correctly judged a great composer until [consults calculator] 1891? And that we still can't say whether Stravinsky or Shostakovich are great composers?


No, it means his work was still held in high regard in [consults calculator] 1891.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> It was stimulated by the fact that the Romantic era listeners resonated more with Bach than the Classical/Gallant era listeners. And Romantic era pathos has carried over to the modern age, and shaped our understanding and beliefs about "great music".
> 
> On the other hand, if Europe never left the Gallant era, we may never have considered Bach great.
> 
> Again, depends on the people. Not the music.


It wasn't exclusively the Romantic era, and in any case why do you think that would be? And it intensified if anything after the Romantic era was long gone. Why would that be?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> It wasn't exclusively the Romantic era, and in any case why do you think that would be? And it intensified if anything after the Romantic era was long gone. Why would that be?


It was stimulated by the fact that the Romantic era listeners resonated more with Bach than the Classical/Gallant era listeners. And Romantic era pathos has carried over to the modern age, and shaped our understanding and beliefs about "great music".

You will note that this is a copy and paste of the post you quoted, since you didn't ask anything that wasn't answered by this post.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> It was stimulated by the fact that the Romantic era listeners resonated more with Bach than the Classical/Gallant era listeners. And Romantic era pathos has carried over to the modern age, and shaped our understanding and beliefs about "great music".
> 
> You will note that this is a copy and paste of the post you quoted.


Romantic era listeners like Mozart and Haydn? Or Stravinsky? Are the differences between Bach and Vivaldi totally subjective?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Romantic era listeners like Mozart and Haydn? Or Stravinsky?


Considering that Mozart and Haydn were both held in great esteem in the Romantic era, I don't see why this is a question that needs answering.

And as for Stravinsky, this is quite a poor point to make because there are far more Bach listeners than Stravinsky listeners. As a whole, the general listening populace does _not_ listen to Stravinsky and really still has half a foot inside the Romantic era.

After all, John Williams is one of the most popular living composers. Much more so than Stravinsky.

I am not afraid to admit that it is only the classical connoisseurs who enjoy 20th century avant-garde, just like how Bach was appreciated by only a small group of connoisseurs in the Classical era.



consuono said:


> Are the differences between Bach and Vivaldi totally subjective?


Compositional differences? No.

Difference in "value" or "greatness"? Yes.

It's funny that you bring up Vivaldi because for a very long time he was assessed by experts as a 2nd or even 3rd rate composer.

Today, there are experts who put him in the same echelon as Bach and Handel, and he is already one of the most popular composers in general.

So yes, a comparison of Bach and Vivaldi will indeed tell you that how a composer is perceived can radically change over time. You've already brought up Rubinstein and Salieri as further proof of this, although in terms of declining critical assessment rather than ascending.

What further proof do you need that "greatness" is an invention of subjective human perception?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Considering that Mozart and Haydn were both held in great esteem in the Romantic era, I...


Uh-uh. They were not Romantic era listeners and they knew nothing of Mendelssohn.


> Today, there are experts who put him in the same echelon as Bach and Handel, and he is already one of the most popular composers in general.


I could probably find an expert or two that would put Zelenka above all, but those experts would be in a tiny minority. So? Are all three or four of exactly the same quality?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> What classrooms? Do you have a cite for this "experiment"?


It was a simple classroom experiment conducted by students concerned about noise music and its non-aural cognitive recognition.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

chu42 said:


> If you judge Beethoven by Wellington's Victory, many will say he isn't a great composer.


Beethoven is a great composer. Pure and simple.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven is a great composer. Pure and simple.


So Stockhausen isn't great because he composed Kontakte, yet Beethoven is still great even though he composed Wellington's Victory.

Quite a two-faced argument, may I say.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

chu42 said:


> So Stockhausen isn't great because he composed Kontakte, yet Beethoven is still great even though he composed Wellington's Victory.
> 
> Quite a two-faced argument, may I say.


I used the Stockhausen's composition as one example of the 300 or so works that he composed.

Beethoven is hardly in that league. There is overwhelming appreciation of the vast bulk if not every note that Louis wrote. Good old Louis is a great friend to many listeners.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Uh-uh. They were not Romantic era listeners and they knew nothing of Mendelssohn.


Oh, I now see what you were saying. You were wondering why Mozart and Haydn appreciated Bach even though they weren't Romantic era listeners. I thought you were wondering if Romantic-era listeners liked Mozart or Haydn.

As for why Mozart/Haydn liked Bach, I will refer to this post:



> I am not afraid to admit that it is only the classical connoisseurs who enjoy 20th century avant-garde, just like how Bach was appreciated by only a small group of connoisseurs in the Classical era.


Bach was too contrapuntally complex for the Classical era audiences, but he was right at home with academics.

You will also have to note that Mozart said "Bach is the father, and we are the children."

In reference to CPE Bach.



consuono said:


> I could probably find an expert or two that would put Zelenka above all, but those experts would be in a tiny minority. So? Are all three or four of exactly the same quality?


We are having a discussion that we've had many times before.

The three composers are not the same quality to me, because even though I enjoy Vivaldi, I still prefer Bach and Handel over Vivaldi.

And since artistic "quality" has no meaning outside of human perception, I won't bother with wondering if the cosmos perceives Bach and Handel and Vivaldi as being equal. It's a moot discussion.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I am not afraid to admit that it is only the classical connoisseurs who enjoy 20th century avant-garde, just like how Bach was appreciated by only a small group of connoisseurs in the Classical era.


Are there any data to back that up?


> The three composers are not the same quality to me, because even though I enjoy Vivaldi, I still prefer Bach and Handel over Vivaldi.


So are the differences totally subjective or not?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> I used the Stockhausen's composition as one example of the 300 or so works that he composed.
> 
> Beethoven is hardly in that league. There is overwhelming appreciation of the vast bulk if not every note that Louis wrote.


This is a ridiculous idea that suggests to me that you have very little knowledge of Beethoven's compositions in general.

Beethoven wrote hundreds of works that are hardly ever performed today. You just don't know of them because they are....not performed. Take a look at this list:

List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven

Out of 18 overtures/incidental works, only 2 of them are performed regularly and none of them are highly acclaimed.

Out of 31 solo chamber works, only several violin and cello sonatas receive regular performance.

His 12 chamber music for winds are not very well known at all.

Out of 21 variation works for piano, only the Diabelli is highly acclaimed and only the Diabelli and Wo0 80 are performed often.

Out of 51 waltzes, polonaises, bagatelles, and rondos, only _Fur Elise_ and _Rage over a Lost Penny_ are known at all.

Hardly anyone touches his 5 works for piano 4 hands.

His 17 choral works are all forgotten except for the Choral Fantasy, which is criticized for its poor writing.

His 8 songs for voice and orchestra do not receive very much attention.

His ~100 lieder are almost completely forgotten today, except for the occasional performance of An die ferne Geliebte.

His ~170 folk songs are quite unseen on stage. I have to admit that I did not even know they existed until today.

His 11 works for wind band are not played often.

His 96 dances for various instruments do not see any recognition.

So something close to 500 works don't see critical or audience "appreciation", along with his canons, musical jokes, and dozens of other miscellaneous works that do not see much performance.

But that is all besides the point. Not very many academics consider Stockhausen to be greater than Beethoven. However, academics do consider Stockhausen to be a great composer.

By citing Kontakte, you have not proven to me that Stockhausen is not great by the standards of academics and canons. Comparing Stockhausen to Beethoven is irrelevant here. Like I just proved, many composers considered "great" have a large bulk of works that go unperformed.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

chu42 said:


> This is a ridiculous idea that suggests to me that you have very little knowledge of Beethoven's compositions in general.
> 
> Beethoven wrote hundreds of works that are hardly ever performed today. You just don't know of them because they are....not performed. Take a look at this list:


People appreciate them without hearing them or even knowing they exist.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> Are there any data to back that up?


Any data to back up the idea that Bach wasn't very popular in the Classical era? Or data to back up the idea that 20th century avant-garde isn't very popular except among connoisseurs?



consuono said:


> So are the differences totally subjective or not?


I feel like we've been through this.

Yes, the differences to me are subjective. After all, I am the one judging them.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> People appreciate them without hearing them or even knowing they exist.


This is a bit of your humor, correct?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Yes, the differences to me are subjective. After all, I am the one judging them.


So what objective differences are there between them? None?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So what objective differences are there between them? None?


In terms of value judgment or "greatness", there are none.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

chu42 said:


> If you think that your premise can be shot down so easily, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate why you believe in your premise at all.
> 
> Certainly every time you're met with a difficult question, you seem to avoid answering it and instead complain that I'm trying to bait you with some form of mental trickery.
> 
> You must realize that these kinds of statements make your premise look very weak indeed. Putting up a shaky argument is one thing, not being able to provide any argument is another.


Judging from your posts to others above, my flypaper analogy appears to fit. In this thread, you're not interested in an interesting discussion where various opinions are respected. And the thing is, you know that I know it.

Btw, the very thought about mental trickery from you is humorous.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Judging from your posts to others above, my flypaper analogy appears to fit.


Perhaps the flies wouldn't get stuck on the paper if they were epistemologically prepared. You only know you will get stuck because you know lack the rationale to engage effectively-in this sense, I encourage you to reevaluate your stances.



DaveM said:


> In this thread, you're not interested in an interesting discussion where various opinions are respected. And the thing is, you know that I know it.


It's not that I don't respect your opinion. It's that opinions don't have much bearing in the scope of this discussion. You're either syllogistically right or you're syllogistically wrong.

At times, it's very much like a bunch of people constantly telling me that unicorns exist while providing no evidence or reasoning whatsoever. What opinion is there to respect?



DaveM said:


> Btw, the very thought about mental trickery from you is humorous.


Indeed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

chu42 said:


> ..It's not that I don't respect your opinion. *It's that opinions don't have much bearing in the scope of this discussion. *You're either syllogistically right or you're syllogistically wrong.
> 
> At times, it's very much like a bunch of people constantly telling me that unicorns exist while providing no evidence or reasoning whatsoever. *What opinion is there to respect? *


I rest my case.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The line of reasoning used here on subjectivity and "lack of proof" (when history itself is proof) come down to the mid-20th century ideology of egalitarianism in the arts, that anything can be art. It is an abused ideology that lends itself to defend the avant-garde movement on the arts (both visual and aural), when classical art heritage have already been evaluating art's aesthetics based on criteria of beauty, craftsmanship, power of communication consistently over time. It really is the last (and only) line of defense for the avant-garde movement.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> The line of reasoning used here on subjectivity and "lack of proof" (when history itself is proof) come down to the mid-20th century ideology of egalitarianism in the arts, that anything can be art. ...


AKA "postmodernism" and its various and sundry offshoots. Anyone who's gone to college or maybe even high school since the 1960s was subjected to a wallow in it, at least in terms of liberal arts.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I like a lot of Stockhausen, but I can't find any basis on calling him great. He can be a subjectively great composer, for what it's worth.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I like a lot of Stockhausen, but I can't find any basis on calling him great. *He can be a subjectively great composer*, for what it's worth.


That's the only kind there is.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Stockhausen wrote about 300 works. His most important compositions are the ones exploring electronic sounds, which I think has more exploratory value than artistic ones. He was opening up to the possibility of utilizing electronic equipment in development soundscapes. I think legacy will remember him for this part.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Stockhausen wrote about 300 works. His most important compositions are the ones exploring electronic sounds, which I think has more exploratory value than artistic ones. He was opening up to the possibility of utilizing electronic equipment in development soundscapes. I think legacy will remember him for this part.


You don't rate the piano music then? He wrote a lot of piano music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> You don't rate the piano music then? He wrote a lot of piano music.


I have not listened to all but of the few I have listened to, I did not enjoy it.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> I have not listened to all but of the few I have listened to, I did not enjoy it.


Have you tried this one? It's fairly accessible as far as Stockhausen goes.






Maybe try _Inori_ as well, though that piece bores me to death.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^The first video was listenable but I doubt I would listen to it again anytime soon. I have listened to parts of the second video and it doesn't do much. Thank you for sharing, your post is appreciated.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

No, he was not a great composer, at least not for humans overall. His music seems to follow a different philosophy that doesn't work for normal musical humans. Maybe it would work for aliens. And it seems to works for some humans too. But the number of people for which his music has the potential to be attraktive is too low. There are also some pyromaniac humans who find it great to burn things. But that doesn't mean burning things is great. Music doesn't have to be mainstream but at least a minimum of the common human taste needs to be defended against abnormal dysfunctionalism. What are Stockhausens melodies, what are his rhythms? There is nothing rememberable. Just random tones. Sounds like a seven year old pressing random keys on a keyboard.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> ^The first video was listenable but I doubt I would listen to it again anytime soon. I have listened to parts of the second video and it doesn't do much. Thank you for sharing, your post is appreciated.


I think his piano music is ok. It doesn't really interest me much, except for Mantra.

But if you want to know what Stockhausen is really about, and why so many academics rave about him, you must sample some of this:






An entirely new tonal soundscape. Unheard of ideas, innovative harmonies, a cosmic ambience.

I just bought a new pair of headphones just so I could listen to this in higher fidelity.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> ^The first video was listenable but I doubt I would listen to it again anytime soon. I have listened to parts of the second video and it doesn't do much. Thank you for sharing, your post is appreciated.


You need to see Inori really, it is dance music. Be warned: there are some wonderfully kitsch pastiches of Girshwin/Hollywood in the middle. It is a piece of music which contains the whole of music -- sections oriented to rhythm, dynamics, melody and polyphony.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

chu42 said:


> I think his piano music is ok. It doesn't really interest me much, except for Mantra.


I think Liebner is a revelation in the longer klavierstucke, and I'd say that Klavierstuck X is a major highpoint of all piano music. She does that one exceptionally well.



chu42 said:


> But if you want to know what Stockhausen is really about, and why so many academics rave about him, you must sample some of this:


Yes, I like that very much. If I had to choose one thing by Stockhausen it would probably be the second half of Hymnen


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

chu42 said:


> Considering that Mozart and Haydn were both held in great esteem in the Romantic era


Just so you know:
"Most revealing in this respect are the passages in Berlioz's criticism that compare Mozart to Haydn. For Berlioz, Haydn is manifestly beneath the level of the 'Great Masters'. He is treated as 'outdated' and someone whose 'boring … phrases … have tired rather than interested the public'. In his earlier critiques he takes care to stress the difference between the two: after commenting on Haydn's obsolete style he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'. But later he tends to amalgamate the two into one entity, embodying all those features of scholarly Classicism that the Romantic spirit of Berlioz had sworn to overcome and to surpass." <
View attachment 130858
>


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

chu42 said:


> Bach was too contrapuntally complex for the Classical era audiences, but he was right at home with academics.
> You will also have to note that Mozart said "Bach is the father, and we are the children."
> In reference to CPE Bach.


Do you know how long Vivaldi was forgotten? 
Classical era audiences loved this stuff:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Just so you know:
> "Most revealing in this respect are the passages in Berlioz's criticism that compare Mozart to Haydn. For Berlioz, Haydn is manifestly beneath the level of the 'Great Masters'. He is treated as 'outdated' and someone whose 'boring … phrases … have tired rather than interested the public'. In his earlier critiques he takes care to stress the difference between the two: after commenting on Haydn's obsolete style he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'. But later he tends to amalgamate the two into one entity, embodying all those features of scholarly Classicism that the Romantic spirit of Berlioz had sworn to overcome and to surpass." <
> View attachment 130858
> >


Hey chu42, don't bring a knife to gunfight with hammered when it comes to Classical-era stuff. He's got references. :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Vivaldi was not forgotten ins any sense. The three movement concerto format is Vivaldian. It is adopted and admired by Bach and his sons, and all the Classical composers. This is historical fact.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> Vivaldi was not forgotten ins any sense. The three movement concerto format is Vivaldian. It is adopted and admired by Bach and his sons, and all the Classical composers. This is historical fact.


Vivaldi was absolutely forgotten, and for a very long time. Just because he pioneered a certain structure does not mean that musicians consistently performed his works.

Take Johann Stamitz for example:



> The chief innovation in Stamitz's symphonic works is their four-movement structure: fast - slow - minuet and trio - dashing presto or prestissimo finale. While prior isolated four-movement symphonies exist, Stamitz was the first composer to use it consistently: well over half his symphonies and nine of his ten orchestral trios are in four movements. He also contributed to the development of sonata form, most often used in symphonic first movements but occasionally in finales (when not in rondo form) and even slow movements (when not in ABA ternary form) as well.


Despite all this, Stamitz is obscure and rarely performed today.


----------

