First, the total duration of each subphase was determined, then the sound phase was divided from the pause phase. This is always according to serial criteria. However, I emphasize that the serial criteria themselves were arranged a priori according to the composer's intuition. His serial structures are always built with the aural effect in mind, to the furthest extent that that is possible. This is what I meant way back when I said that Stockhausen was one of the most remarkable abstract thinkers in history, at least among composers. (cf. my reply #67)

I believe it is a combination of the two things. However, intuition is not necessarily a wholly irrational category either, and it might be interesting to examine commonalities and consistencies in intuitive decisions, where they seem to be the case. But at the same time the very fact of using certain manifestations of serial and other techniques is itself an intuitive or at least subjective decision.

I wouldn't quite frame the question that way, though it may have come across in such a manner. Rather I'm interested in how Stockhausen's music impacts upon perception (which isn't something so subjective as to be unanalysable - if it were, which listeners respond to Stockhausen would surely be a wholly arbitrary affair), which might include such things as the production of pitch or rhythmic hierarchies and thus processes, whether intended in such a manner or not, and then the extent to which the types of perceptions it produces are dependent upon the serial techniques employed. As a non-negligible community of listeners (albeit a small minority) do respond to Stockhausen's music, and respond prior to knowledge of its detailed workings, what are the aspects that they respond to? There is of course the other question of why, as a larger number do not respond to this music (if they have heard it - but there are plenty of people who have heard works by Stockhausen and other modernist composers and either do not respond, or respond negatively), whether there might be some key minority interests and obsessions of the community of Stockhausen-likers that are not universal, or maybe do not really have the potential to be so? Or could it be the case that most listeners will hear similar things in Stockhausen, just some choose to valorise the experience positively, others negatively (rather than simply 'not getting it')? And how might that relate to the techniques employed? Huge questions, I know, but important ones for analysis.

About Richard’s Vanity:


I looked at it briefly, and it sounds interesting indeed. I will read it, but only after a few more listens to the work. Exploring by listening is so much more fun! (Especially when the music speaks to you on its own too. ) Obviously, when the listening has progressed sufficiently, I consider such essays useful for further deepening of perspective though.

Also all my theoretical considerations/questions about Klavierstück X had their origin in thinking about the work from my listening experience:

...and about Klavierstück X as well.

I don't believe so. It's to do with the music making a systematic exploration of its "parameter space" rather than rambling haphazardly around it. Which is another angle on the statements you quote at the end of your post.

If one perceives melodies, rhythms, and harmonies as such, then it is never inappropriate to mention them, and certainly one cannot help but listen for them... It is only inappropriate to assume that the traditional criteria of melody, harmony, and rhythm are being invoked, and should be applied as standards of quality here. The composer is trying to substitute pitch sequence, simultaneity, and duration, respectively, for these criteria. Qualitative terms such as melody etc have been substituted by quantitative terms. This doesn't mean the music lacks, or is meant to lack, dynamic and qualitative properties! The very fact that one is listening and judging it as a work of art "despite" its constructed-ness is exactly the point. There is a tension between the qualitative listening to which we're accustomed and the quantitative strategies of construction, resulting in a different set of qualities. Only question is whether that tension is interesting for you or not.

I hate to make things more confusing, but the serial structures do the opposite of "improving" the melodies etc.. instead, serialism is a strategy for trying to circumvent the traditional criteria of melody, not to build a better melody. After all, how can you improve on Jules Massenet?

Use the concepts and terms you are most comfortable with, and let them evolve as your listening experience broadens (as long as you can stand it, that is -- no one benefits from relentlessly forcing themselves to listen to anything). If the work is successful in its intent, you will eventually abandon the inclination to listen for melodies etc, and begin listening for structure (the marriage of qualitative and quantitative concerns alluded to above)

That is exactly the question that this music raises. Your answer of yes or no will surely determine whether the music continues to hold your interest.

Yes. If the term 'work of art' has meaning, then yes.

Might those two things not necessarily be mutually exclusive? Or, at least, might circumventing the traditional criteria of melody enable one to create a melody (defined in the broadest sense) that is at least equally good? After all, various earlier melodists have created fantastic melodies by working against previous melodic expectations.