Now who might that be? I simply cannot imagine (so answers - or rather the answer - in a PM, s'il vous plaît). As a matter of fact, I did make a remark perhaps not entirely unconnected with this when I referred, some time ago, to "the Member Grew" in a way that I think raised John W.'s temporary consternation...

Best,

Alistair

Well we are frightfully sorry about that. Jolly old Staukissen can take all his bits and pieces back whenever he likes!


We have never managed to bring ourselves to believe this sinister totalitarian theory of a work's necessarily being "of its time" - or it seems we should say "of its weather." It flies against all our finer instincts. It really has reference only to second-rate productions concerned more with style than with ideas - the old story of poorish performers' wanting not to be left out more than of anything much else. Of late it was principally put about by that American upstart poet Eliot was it not? How awfully authoritarian and anti-lyrical he was! But well before him it was one of the great points of difference between Schelling and his imitator Hegel. When with true æsthetic sense and discernment we closely examine the music of great masters such as Bach and Mozart we find that they wrote "twenty-first century music" in the eighteenth and in the process thoroughly debunked all unnecessary and misleading historical constructions of that kind before they came into being, even.

I have felt repeatedly under attack on this thread for wanting to discuss compositional process and the cultural and compositional climate around Stockhausen as well as the way it sounds and it was this attitude that actually stopped me posting here. Some of us actually want to discuss these things without being bullied into some kind of public service to the music of Stockhausen. We just find them interesting. Is that ok?

Might be able to strike a deal with herbal essences....

Couldn't we just agree to talk about those aspects of the music or compositional practice of Karlheinz Stockhausen that we find interesting without feeling the need to tell other people what to post (and that applies, I'm afraid, to people on both sides of the potential argument)?
Communities like this don't tend to work very well with agendas IMO.
I'd like to see you post here more Al, don't get me wrong on that.

Of course it is ok. I specifically talked about overemphasis of the compositional process at the expense of the audible result, not about the interest of this compositional process per se, which can be very high (and not about the interest of the cultural and compositional climate per se, either, which can be very high as well). See also my view expressed to Richard earlier:

After re-reading the exchange I realized that Sidney’s statement may have come from a skewed interpretation of what Biroc wanted to say about the “cultural and compositional climate”. For example, if Biroc implied that it is is necessary to recognize that Stockhausen, among other modern composers, emphasized gestural language over melodic aspects, just like it is necessary to recognize the principles of thematic and harmonic development in older music, I would concur with him.

That said, I do agree with Sidney’s statement in itself,  under all the qualifications made now and in my two previous posts.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to discuss compositional processes in Stockhausen's work if that lights one's fire. When you get dismissive statements directed towards those who believe the music should be able to stand up for itself without prior knowledge of such things, arguing that those unaware or unconcerned of such processes somehow have a lesser appreciation of the work, then it's quite natural to defend the primary importance of the sonic result. The sidelining of what can be heard in Stockhausen's music (and, by implication, the patronising sidelining of those who approach it on that level), in favour of the elaborate procedures made into a fetish all of their own, is mystification pure and simple, as I'm sure I've said elsewhere in this thread. It is a way of rendering the music the exclusive property of an elite. Even comments dismissing discussion of the sonic result as being about 'how good it makes me feel to listen to' are, alas, of a similar nature.

All I'll ask those who want discussion of Stockhausen's music to remain on the level of compositional process is: if that's the primary interest, does one really need to listen to the music at all? Or is it music to be analysed first, listened to second?