|
oliver sudden
|
 |
« Reply #435 on: 14:04:07, 21-07-2007 » |
|
(he says, wriggling pathetically). Not too painful, as I've found on recent experience.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Al Moritz
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #436 on: 15:33:45, 21-07-2007 » |
|
I don't think I'm contradicting myself - the "distributions" of Momente (but not so much in Gruppen I think) are distributions of various stages in a process of differentiation, I think I now understand you better. what Xenakis would have called an "outside-time" process.
Could this be one manifestation of Stockhausen's effforts to "suspend time" in moment form? (Says Al who is fully aware that he is now roaming around in the realm of composer's intentions and technical processes...aarrgh...or not so bad?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #437 on: 15:54:49, 21-07-2007 » |
|
Xenakis would use the term "outside-time" structures to denote those aspects of composition (like scales, or formulae for statistical distributions) which aren't tied to a particular ordering in the music, and "in-time" structures (like melodies, or musical textures composed according to statistical formulae) to those which are. A piece like Momente would, in Xenakis' terms, stress the outside-time structure (the "family tree" of moments) over the in-time structure (the order in which they're played) so that the music should consist of a sequence of events related not by a "logical" or narrative sequence but by these "outside-time" relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Holter
|
|
« Reply #438 on: 16:55:58, 21-07-2007 » |
|
Not to be picky, but I want to ask for clarification about use of the words "process" and "structure." Reference has been made to both "outside-time structures" and "outside-time processes." I guess a structure is, in a sense, an abstraction of a process (and maybe vice versa), but doesn't the term "process" imply that time is the independent variable? To conceptualize an "outside-time process" requires us to dream up a kind of "metaphorical time" that behaves like time but doesn't actually correspond to the clock. We have to map some other thing onto the imaginary X axis that would ordinarily represent the passage of time, right?
In other words, in order to say that a piece is in "moment form," we have to acknowledge the existence of a time-like plane (in which the moments have some relationship to one another) that is analogous to–but not the same as–real time. Does that make any sense?
Again, not to hold up the discussion, but I think this is fascinating, and I want to make sure I understand it correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #440 on: 20:07:52, 21-07-2007 » |
|
It seems that an "outside time process" in Xenakis' universe doesn't mean too much more than that the logical succession of events is not adhered to, but rather the material (its structure) is presented at various stages of development in a non-chronological order. The order is then decided not according to making the process as clear as possible, but according to serial procedures or some kind of dramaturgical considerations. That's only speculation, since I've only heard the musics but not read the texts about them (does that make me a heretic?!  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #441 on: 20:38:22, 21-07-2007 » |
|
It seems that an "outside time process" in Xenakis' universe doesn't mean too much more than that the logical succession of events is not adhered to, but rather the material (its structure) is presented at various stages of development in a non-chronological order. No, that was my attempt to use Xenakis' term (which I thought I'd explained reasonably clearly using the example of scale/melody) to apply to Stockhausen's moment form (a comparison which neither of them would ever have made of course). Xenakis never used serial procedures, or for that matter anything that could be described as moment form. The in-time/outside-time distinction is one which really only comes into being in the 20th century with Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique; tonality, for example, is an inseparable mixture of the two - a harmonic object may be "consonant" but it's only "tonal" if it's embedded in a temporal sequence which is tonal. Xenakis developed the aforementioned idea as a result of studying modal musics such as Byzantine chant. The "moments" of Momente are related by a kind of family tree where the "ancestors" are clearly defined sound-forms while the "descendants" mix these original characters in various ways, and then the actual ordering of a performing version of the piece (of which there have been four to my knowledge, only the last two being complete) proceeds according to rules which also involve inserting bits of some "moments" into others as memories or premonitions. I don't think moment form implies the presence of a "time-like plane" at various points along which the moments are situated unless the definition of "time-like" is stretched so far that it has little to do with "time" as we otherwise define it. Which reminds me - I've just been reading Schiff's book on Elliott Carter and came across this: "Carter describes musical time as a special temporal condition which brings together the properties of objectively measured time and subjectively experienced time" - and, one might add, "outside-time properties" too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #442 on: 20:51:35, 21-07-2007 » |
|
Xenakis never used serial procedures, or for that matter anything that could be described as moment form. The in-time/outside-time distinction is one which really only comes into being in the 20th century with Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique; tonality, for example, is an inseparable mixture of the two - a harmonic object may be "consonant" but it's only "tonal" if it's embedded in a temporal sequence which is tonal. Xenakis developed the aforementioned idea as a result of studying modal musics such as Byzantine chant. How is tonality being defined in this context - as a very particular mode of musical organisation that dates from the 17th century onwards, based upon forms of functional harmony leading to modulation and the like, or in the broader sense of there being tonal centres of gravity within a piece of music (a definition which includes most of what is called modality. The latter may not necessarily be 'tonal' according to the more specific definition, but is hardly 'atonal' either. If the latter definition is used, a good deal of Xenakis's music (and that of numerous other contemporary composers) would be tonal. The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering whether a temporal sequence that features a consonant harmonic object, doesn't inevitably create some hierarchies which are thus in some sense 'tonal' (or at least 'not atonal')? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Colin Holter
|
|
« Reply #443 on: 21:27:49, 21-07-2007 » |
|
I understand the distinction between in-time and outside-time structures; what stymies me is whether we can reasonably assert that a process is really a process if it isn't time-dependent. For example: An unfolding melody may be an in-time process, and the composer's (pre)compositional assembly of a scale (for example) by stacking chains of intervals may be an outside-time process, but even though we use the word "process" to describe both phenomena, only one (i.e. the former) is perceivably time-dependent when we finally hear the piece. The "time" of the unfolding melody and the "time" (really just sequentiality) of the constructed scale are completely different animals.
I know I'm only validating Member Grew's allegation that we Americans demand explanations for things right in front of our noses, but I think this is an important point in the context of a discussion of Stockhausen's music, both "moment form" and otherwise. Is the composer exposing and concealing (in time) certain material from a system (outside time) of possible material? If so, 63X in Gruppen is an instance of dissonance between the "in-time time," which marches on, and "outside-time time," which stands still. Obviously this is a cherry-picked example; I intend to listen back to some other Stockhausen pieces from this era in search of other such momente whose impact might be articulated with this model.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #444 on: 21:39:31, 21-07-2007 » |
|
I know I'm only validating Member Grew's allegation that we Americans demand explanations for things right in front of our noses I was rather more concerned by the implications of the term 'long noses' - I hope Member Grew will clarify that this term did not mean what it could be interpreted to mean. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #445 on: 22:24:11, 21-07-2007 » |
|
whether we can reasonably assert that a process is really a process if it isn't time-dependent No, I don't think we can, and moreover I've now altered my previous sloppy use of the word "process"... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Al Moritz
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #446 on: 01:02:43, 22-07-2007 » |
|
Richard,
so when you confirmed my observation that in your Vanity processes play an important role, did you mean, like I did, time-dependent processes? From your wording I would think so, but I just wanted to make sure.
I just listened to it again: powerful. It really captivates me, and I plan to spend more time with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #448 on: 02:47:36, 22-07-2007 » |
|
Xenakis never used serial procedures, or for that matter anything that could be described as moment form. The in-time/outside-time distinction is one which really only comes into being in the 20th century with Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique; tonality, for example, is an inseparable mixture of the two - a harmonic object may be "consonant" but it's only "tonal" if it's embedded in a temporal sequence which is tonal. Xenakis developed the aforementioned idea as a result of studying modal musics such as Byzantine chant.
For the record, I know Xenakis never used serial procedures, but since we were trying to make connections with Stockhausen, who was a kind of serial maximalist, I chose that formulation of "serial procedures or dramatic considerations." Not that these are exclusive of one another... I do think that Xenakis employed his stochastic/probabilistic structures with an eye toward their dramatic potential, rather than in order to highlight the constructed nature of the structures themselves. I realize this is all dross until accompanied by actual examples, but then I'm not the only culprit, eh? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Al Moritz
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #449 on: 03:28:45, 22-07-2007 » |
|
Richard, we had discussed before what you said: I'm sure I can speak for many contributors here by saying that the reason I'm interested in the workings of Stockhausen's music is precisely the fact that I'm so attracted by and involved in the sound of them, and also the fact that the processes are immanent in the sound to a greater extent than with many if not most other *) composers. The sound is always the starting point. *) as we saw, you meant: serial OK, let’s try again: so you obviously meant also distributions when you were talking about processes (is that right?), which in Stockhausen’s case, of course, appear to be governed by serialism. This evening I listened again to Klavierstück X, and I would have to say that, if the serialism indeed governs the distribution of the diverse parameters in the work, then it is responsible for the good proportions in the work. Then of course, the manifestations of serialism are very well audible! Fascinating contributions from Mr. Pace, especially number 76 with its lengthy description of this Tenth Piano Piece. […]
The only other reference we might make here is to the lengthy pauses. When we hear the first one we think it signifies the end of the first movement. But as the pauses become more and more frequent and we are forced to listen to all those long faint reverberations (for anything up to six seconds) we must needs ask ourselves "Why?" They are not in any way effective and constitute the work's greatest mistake we find. And here are related observations one the Sixth Piano Piece: Nevertheless let us here submit a few impressions observations and notes:
1) The work is like a ballet suite, in that it consists of about fifty short movements separated by lengthy pauses. The composer evidently did not have much staying power! He was unable to develop his ideas at all and make anything out of his germs. Something else Terry said seems relevant here: "In modern music the object is to increase and stimulate interest until the cadence, and to have as few Perfect Cadences or Full Closes, as possible, if the composer would avoid puerility." (Certainly one would wish to avoid that would not one?) "The opposite is the case in Plainsong;" he continues, "the more points of repose one had the better. The repose of meditation is the essence of Plainsong." So Stockhausen's music with its many points of repose is as is Plainsong intended to convey a meditative mood. Klavierstück X: To me, the distributions and lengths of the pauses, the length of the durations of the segments separated by the pauses, and the diverse contrasts of similarity or dissimilarity of the event after a given pause to the event before the pause provide an almost unbearable tension that glues all the music together. And, the tension makes up a substantial part of the music’s excitement. I guess all this could not be any more different from member Grew’s listening experience. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
