|
aaron cassidy
|
 |
« Reply #480 on: 21:35:12, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Hm. Maybe if he had bothered to measure the actual durations of the notes in performance he might have had more of a point. (Over to you perhaps, Aaron?  ) Except really that was his point. The Stockhausen reference (which started all of this, after all), was from an article by a linguist who'd written on Stockhausen Klavierstucke I, arguing that there wasn't a high enough degree of potential differentiation between rhythmic values. Without now copying the whole article out, I'll quote the salient passage ... One of Ruwet's examples of the way this rule operates is as follows:
"I can pronounce the 'a' in pat with greater or lesser clarity, harder or softer; but these differences are meaningless from a linguistic point of view, so long as the 'a' is distinguishable from an 'o' as in pot, for example (this is what makes pat and pot into two different words w/ different meanings).
Thus a proliferation of fine distinctions, hwvr organically derived, are unlikely to contribute significantly in linguistic terms, since the only meaningful oppositions are those which can be clearly perceived as such.
(this is then followed by the "barrage of undifferentiated drum fire" excerpt and comment cited above in the thread.) .... which is in fact why (he argues) a general, aural transcription is necessary. Besides which it might make a little more sense for him to have done that experiment with a passage that isn't in rhythmic unison, given that that involves its own compromises...
But, again, that was his point: There are occasions, however, when performer rationalisation (for it is this and not sloppiness which accounts for the discrepancies noted above) does appear to come perilously close to changing the music into something which the composer almost certainly did not intend or predict. Such is the case, in my view, w/ certain passages in the 2nd SQ, where, btw, the need to 'rationalise' (or simplify) rhythmic absurdities becomes greater, since there is a high proportion of rhythmic unison b/t two or more instruments.
Before the folks from MT come and chase me down for copyright infringement, I'll stop. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #481 on: 21:44:21, 24-07-2007 » |
|
One of Ruwet's examples of the way this rule operates is as follows:
"I can pronounce the 'a' in pat with greater or lesser clarity, harder or softer; but these differences are meaningless from a linguistic point of view, so long as the 'a' is distinguishable from an 'o' as in pot, for example (this is what makes pat and pot into two different words w/ different meanings).
But as a linguist Ruwet must have known that while this particular distinction is without semantic significance in English (though it will certainly serve to indicate dialect or register), those different "a" sounds could easily have semantic significance in some other language (which presumably English speakers could learn if they so chose). From a particular musical point of view I dare say the rhythmic differentiations in Piece 1 have little significance indeed, but from another they might well do, and these "points of view" are learned rather than innate. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 21:46:37, 24-07-2007 by richard barrett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #482 on: 21:44:44, 24-07-2007 » |
|
"I can pronounce the 'a' in pat with greater or lesser clarity, harder or softer; but these differences are meaningless from a linguistic point of view, so long as the 'a' is distinguishable from an 'o' as in pot, for example (this is what makes pat and pot into two different words w/ different meanings).
BUT THAT'S COMPLETE AND UTTER TOSH BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUSIC... and in any case it's not the sound that makes the words have two different meanings! Which witch is which? Was Ruwet French or did I imagine it? Every damn word in that language sounds like another one. S'en, c'en, cent, cents, sens, sent, sans, sang.  For that matter, Aaron you might well say pot the way I would say part. I can imagine a poem where someone managed to shoehorn some interesting nuance into precisely such a vowel ambiguity as he's talking about. Why shouldn't music be able to work that way, especially if it's not trying to fit into a preexisting rhythmic genre? Why the heck shouldn't it sound like a bucolic dance for a couple of seconds from time to time if the phrasing makes it appropriate? Sheesh, as Aaron might say. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 21:47:18, 24-07-2007 by oliver sudden »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #483 on: 21:45:57, 24-07-2007 » |
|
From a particular musical point of view I dare say the rhythmic differentiations in Piece 1 have little significance indeed
That would be the point of view of ignorance? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #484 on: 21:51:18, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Sheesh, as Aaron might say.
I would have thought he'd say "Ugh." Roger Marsh and Mr Ruwet don't win the stupidity prize, so why don't we leave them for the Grumpy Old Rant Room? Or does someone wish to defend these positions? Deafening Silence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aaron cassidy
|
|
« Reply #485 on: 21:58:41, 24-07-2007 » |
|
(If you will all kindly slide your scroll bars up and have a look at #481, you'll clearly see my view on the article, (which, incidentally, mirrors my view on both Ruwet's linguistic and musical analysis).) ((I also sometimes say "sheesh." Also "Agh!" And  They are all linguistically distinct utterances.)) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #486 on: 22:04:01, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Changing the subject slightly, I've just been reading Schiff's book on Carter and found this: In his First Piano Piece, Karlheinz Stockhausen notates the music in a provocative jumble of polyrhythms. It was understood, however, that the mathematical relations implied by this notation were not to be strictly observed by the performer; the notation instead was a conceptual device, Augenmusik, to which the performer would respond intuitively. And does anyone know of any reference to this approach by Stockhausen? Well, no-one has mentioned the footnote to the first page of the score, which says 'The tempo of each piece, deermined by the smallest note-value, is "As fast as possible." When the player has found this tempo and determined it metronomically, all the more complicated time-proportions under the brackets [bracket signs] can be replaced by changes of tempo.' That may be what Schiff is referring to. |
|
|
|
|
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 #488 on: 22:21:28, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Well, no-one has mentioned the footnote to the first page of the score, which says 'The tempo of each piece, determined by the smallest note-value, is "As fast as possible." When the player has found this tempo and determined it metronomically, all the more complicated time-proportions under the brackets [bracket signs] can be replaced by changes of tempo.' That may be what Schiff is referring to. If that's the case, is Schiff then misinterpreting what seems to be a well-intentioned rehearsal suggestion? Crunching the numbers based on a certain tempo is a reasonable way to propose that players start looking at such an unprecedented notational situation (as in, think of the tuplets as tempo changes rather than "rhythms" per se). It still seems like a bit of a stretch to say that Stockhausen is giving the performer license to fudge the rhythms. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #489 on: 22:24:45, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Changing the subject slightly, I've just been reading Schiff's book on Carter and found this: In his First Piano Piece, Karlheinz Stockhausen notates the music in a provocative jumble of polyrhythms. It was understood, however, that the mathematical relations implied by this notation were not to be strictly observed by the performer; the notation instead was a conceptual device, Augenmusik, to which the performer would respond intuitively. And does anyone know of any reference to this approach by Stockhausen? Well, no-one has mentioned the footnote to the first page of the score, which says 'The tempo of each piece, determined by the smallest note-value, is "As fast as possible." When the player has found this tempo and determined it metronomically, all the more complicated time-proportions under the brackets [bracket signs] can be replaced by changes of tempo.' That may be what Schiff is referring to. Maybe it's just me but when I read that footnote I imagine someone engaged conscientiously in trying to get it right. When I read "a conceptual device, Augenmusik, to which the performer would respond intuitively" I imagine someone making it up as they go along... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #490 on: 22:26:44, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Well, I don't equate 'intuitively' with 'making something up as one goes along'. Intuition is a far more complex thing than that, and something used all the time when gauging various aspects of musical performance.
|
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #491 on: 22:32:47, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Whatever. It's certainly not calculation, which to me is completely unambiguously what Stockhausen is asking for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #492 on: 22:37:22, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Whatever. It's certainly not calculation, which to me is completely unambiguously what Stockhausen is asking for.
Well, I'm not sure that everyone who's worked with him (which I haven't, by the way) would necessarily agree, at least in a wider sense, about that. |
|
|
|
|
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 #493 on: 22:40:59, 24-07-2007 » |
|
Whatever. It's certainly not calculation, which to me is completely unambiguously what Stockhausen is asking for.
I wonder whether Stockhausen inserted that footnote in response to a performer, or whether it was there from the start. (Where's Toop when you need him?) At any rate it would tend to confirm that Schiff hadn't put sufficient thought (or score-reading) into his comment. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #494 on: 00:38:34, 25-07-2007 » |
|
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. If I could just pop up very briefly in my role as Naive Everyman, I wish someone had told me that before about Stockhausen and as concisely and clearly as that. It would have saved an awful lot of bemusement and wondering what on earth I should be doing when listening to him. Can I assume that general description doesn't apply only to Stockhausen but, to a greater or lesser extent, to many other composers of his generation and later? If that is what many(?) of you are doing, maybe it's because that (relatively easy to understand) message hasn't got across that there is so much puzzlement about what 'New Music' is on about. Or does it only fit Stockhausen? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
