Of course, there's no evidence one way or another. But it is clear that Sydney was listening and sharing his thoughts. And isn't music fundamentally a sonic experience?

Well, I'm continually aware the extent to which Stockhausen or other 'modernist' music is hugely a minority interest amongst the wider population, most of who reject it or other atonal work quite emphatically. And whilst a great fan of much modernist work, obviously, when I think about such work, such a phenomenon is part of it and I like to try and somehow incorporate or address it in discussions of it. Nearly all discussion of modernist music either completely sidelines such a question, or dismisses the work out of hand. And I simply believe there must be other alternatives. I post to here or elsewhere because I'm interested in debate, original perspectives, original information, rather than looking for like-minded people, necessarily. Sometimes the most stimulating and productive discussions can be with those with whom one most fervently disagrees, I find, as long as it doesn't get personal. In the case of modern music, I find the type of group think that accompanies discussion on all sides. here and elsewhere, to be very limiting and generally rather tedious. If that's an aggressive point of view, so be it.

Well, to be honest I think that such comments are interpreted as such does ultimately stem from a common Anglo-Saxon anti-intellectualism and over-fixation on the personal, whereby sometimes practically everything is interpreted as personal, in a way that can be very petty. I haven't found this to be anything like the same problem elsewhere (and debates have become far more heated in other forums), in discussions with primarily non-British people. The sort of rather surface, not rocking-the-boat, type of debate that is favoured in the genteel British tradition is not for me - if others don't like that, then don't bother with my posts.

Just supposing, that instead of this crowd this type of forum was populated by Pierre Boulez, Konrad Boehmer, György Ligeti, George Rochberg, Heinz-Klaus Metzger, Franco Donatoni, Helmut Lachenmann, Morton Feldman and Reinhard Oelschlagel. Do we think the debates would be anything less than hugely heated? I for one would nonetheless find such a forum hugely stimulating.

I would be interested to know the relationship that Sydney perceives between KS's own sartorial sense, and what are by any standards the rather garish costumes he requires the players of his later output to wear?  After all, the visual dimension of such works is integral to the whole experience....  

None, you’re right. I must have mixed my disappointment about the imbalance in the Stockhausen literature in general and as a whole into judging the freedom of people on this specific thread to discuss any way they want.

I just found the way the discussion developed symptomatic for the usual approach to Stockhausen. This does not take away from the fact that I greatly enjoyed reading the technical exchanges, and your contributions to them.


Point well taken.


I did in some posts on this thread, and I do in my essays, of course:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/stockhausenreviews.htm

***

I guess what got me going was the following remark:


This seemed to suggest that in objective actuality (as opposed to someone’s personal preferences of approach and discussion) the compositional processes in Stockhausen are more important than the sounding result. This, in my view, is just plain wrong.

I thought that in the ensuing discussion, Richard and I had come to a satisfying conclusion – I do not know if Richard feels the same way though.

In terms of Stockhausen literature, Al, do you (or anyone else) know Christoph von Blumroder's book? I haven't read it yet, but have heard good things about it, in terms of placing Stockhausen's earlier work in a wider cultural context.

That's one reason I'm rather interested in his views on Schenker.... 

Richard,

Yes, some processes are quite audible, and in particular I enjoy many of the large-scale processes that unfold in Stockhausen's later music -- at the moment (well, that moment has lasted for a few months now) I am really addicted to the multiple processes in Himmelfahrt, First Hour of KLANG. (Yesterday I first listened to Gruppen full blast, then to that work – gorgeous.)

Concrete examples of such large-scale processes:

- the rhythmic, timbral  and motional processes in Luzifers Tanz, see http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/luziferstanz.htm, “General characteristics of the music”
- the gradual development of a flood of music towards the end of Oktophonie
- the passage through the diverse stages of Inori

However, I do not know if this falls under what you mean by “compositional processes”, which you perceive to be tied to Stockhausen’s serialism. I have the feeling that these large-scale processes are overlaid on the serialistic procedures, rather than being part of it. Or are these processes one of the many possible solutions to Stockhausen’s efforts of evenly distributing (democratizing) the diverse parameters over the course of a work, which of course is essential to his serialism? But then, could such large-scale processes not just be simply composed outside of serialism as technique? What do you think?

Which things do you mean when you talk about the processes being immanent in the sound? I suppose you have in mind other things than just the explicitly composed large-scale processes in the later works?

Well hh did actually say "technique(s)" rather than "processes". I suppose he might well have meant things auch as the famous 'sound that becomes a rhythm' in Kontakte or the flinging of a chord around the room in Gruppen - passages where for me Stockhausen is clearly giving us a glimpse of a technical strategy in a fairly unadorned state, something that does contribute to the perception of the whole work for me.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I hasten to add. The tools he was coming up with then were awe-inspiring stuff (as were the pieces) and I don't mind being taken on a tour of the toolbox.