Why am I telling him to use the word "try"? I'll assume that was just a very stupid mistake; however, you are flat-out wrong about where the period belongs. A period belongs inside of the quotation mark. A question mark does not.
@John11inch Have you come across any bootlegs of Pollini's performances of this piece? I've been hoping for so long that he'd release a recording of his Stockhausen repertoire.
@KhagarBalugrak, Your analogy is incomparable to art. I don't think you understand your argument. I don't think you understand artistic intent either.
So your one and only criticism is that Schoenberg, Stockhausen (and presumably everyone who wrote progressive classical music 1913 - 2011) wrote shit. Why do you think that? Why am I deluded for liking something that you don't?
Ignorance is shameful, not inquisitiveness. I play Bach daily and find strong links with his music and Schoenberg's.
@EdwardWhelanPiano Heh, I was really just joking about the "I take offense" part. I actually do like both Stockhausen and Manilow though. The work Stockhausen did with electronic music, particularly "Telemusik", is absolutely fascinating.
If you want to understand serial music like this i suggest you buy and read "Serialism (Cambridge Introductions to Music)" by Joseph Straus. If you don't wish to understand but wish to enjoy listen to Schoenberg's op 25 over and over again until your ear begins to make connections from consonance to dissonance not based on tonality. This music is beautiful it is just misunderstood by most people, not because it is difficult to understand but because escaping one's tonal ear is difficult.
Why wasn't he content with making "traditional" music? What values did he measure his music against while composing it? What is your understanding of this that allows you to enjoy it?
@John11inch true but this is the perspective of a listener and not the perspective of a musician....its difficult for me to enjoy something that i don't fully understant musically.....
The fact that people listen to this, say "I don't get it" and then follow up with "because IT is stupid" is a bit shortsighted but represents modern thought- if I can't understand it at first glance or perceive it within a few moments of taking it in, it either doesn't exist, makes no sense, or isn't worth my time, says modern man. No wonder divorce is on the rise and people cut down forests without a thought...
Either way, I'm glad that your eleven thumbs up, ten of which appeared in the span of a conspicuously short span of precisely 20 views to this video, pad your ego and sense of self-righteousness; for everyone else, they do little more than make all the more apparent how important you believe your opinions to be, unless we are to somehow come to the conclusion that your wisdom is truly that awe-inspiring.
"Thus" is a preposition. "Thusly" is an adverb. One is more common, but neither is incorrect, nor is "thusly" considered archaic. It appears quite commonly in technical writing, a subject which you may want to study, given the disparity between the effort that you placed into your syntax and the error-ridden end result.
I am not a graduate student at Princeton, studying philosophy. I *was* a graduate student studying philosophy at Princeton, as well as mathematics. Your jealousy is so apparent that it has physically manifested itself as a vile ooze, one which seeps through the computer screens of all who read your comment. "Thusly" is a different word than "thus"; thus it was correct. Alternatively, it was thusly correct. Or, it was correct thusly.
@VSV51 I sympathise. No doubt the apologists will claim "all sound is music", assuming (erroneously) that this is a logical consequence of "all music is sound".
@KurtBeekeeper At the very least, the apologists are liable to place their punctuation within their quotation marks.
Please define music. I want to reveal your stupidity, but your lack of any argument is not doing nearly as good a job as I can do if you give us your definition.
Henck's performance is great but the recording really sucks. You can buy Henck but you'll have to listen to it like a Schnabl recording of Beethoven. If you need perfect Hifi recordings Henck isn't for you.
@AustinLikesPepsi These composers are not interested in melodies. They are more interested in sounds. These are not pieces that you listen to them to relax or have fun. You listen to them to study upon! that's my opinion.
"Out of print now, unfortunately." - yeah, it seems like most of stockhausen's work is 'out of print' these days, and the only place to get the electronic works is the stockhausen verlag, who use this antiquated ordering system involving sending them your order on a piece of something called 'paper' contained within an 'envelope' (whatever that is) while wire-transferring the money separately. how ironic that such modern music is sold via such an old-fangled method
Henck's recording is crap, eh? That's really too bad. I really like his rendition of Cogluotobusisletmesi. It was taken off of youtube though... so shit. I'm trying hard to find it again, no such luck.
Given that Jamie Cullum is in your icon and your featured submission, I can't quantify how little I care about your opinions on music, given that "zero" would be too much of an overstatement.
@Keytaster Have you taken the time to listen to 10,000 pieces of abstract music? If you have, then I totally accept (although I disagree with your definition of Stockhausen's) your opinion. If you haven't familiarized yourself with the avant garde, atonal, abstract musics, then your opinion has no frame of reference and is therefore, shall we say, meaningless!
I wonder how this was scored.. Did he hear it in his head and pen it down? Or play it and then pen it down? Was it entirely theoretical? Or was it just written at random?
Not my cup of tea, personally, but still interesting to think that someone actually scored this. . .
One thing art has taught us in this century is that nothing not even old Scriabin and Rachmaninv are garbarge. . People can upload great music,film they may even have a sensibility . doesn't mean u would ever wanna meet 'em.BoulezI adore .Even his old crazy ideas of no repetition,no themes, no pulse all that is still interesting for people for whom it is newbut I'm not sure I'd want to meet him . Funny, my name is John & I am a black man so maybe my name...
Personally, I think anything written after the 12th Century is crap. hildegard of bingen was the last great composer. The last 900 years have been just pretentious, abstract, disonence written for people who couldn't appreciate it unless they studied it. Bach sounds like random notes to me. Beethoven sounds like the meanderings of a lunatic. As far as I'm concerned harmonies with more than 3 notes are devil's music. Pretentious and self-serving nonsense!
@muttushiama I really thought my sarcasm was pretty obvious. I really thought it was. I usually don't end my comments with "Well, I better go beat the cat now" either. That was sort of a monty python reference. Monty Python were a British comedy satire group from the 60's and 70's.
@InsertName125 then you should listen to rap and hildegard of bingen only, hahahhhahahahha. just because you are dump doesn't mean that beethoven or any composer after middle ages is crap. get some education or don't make this kind of idiotic comments or you sound ludicrously stupid which you are.
@TheEdgarvarese12 You may want to click "view all comments" at the bottom of the page. If you do, you'll note that I previously explained I was being sarcastic and thought it was obvious. It's interesting that no one's responded to me in a few months. Then, just today, I had two responses. One was from someone who got the joke. The other was from you.
I'm not going to start using emoticons and texting slang to make the obvious more obvious.
@bashoi1992 All the more reason to continue writing and performing music which speaks to your own heart and your own sense of aesthetic value. Kenny G didn't convert people into Jazz lovers. Dumning an art down NEVER accomplishes anything, other than compromising your principles. If you explain a joke it's no longer funny. The same applies to music. People either get it or they don't. If artists wait for the world to catch up, serious art will disappear off the face of the map.
This has nothing to do with the great classical and romantic piano composers. If you'd like to hear something remarkable with on the edge harmonies, that is still very listenable, beautiful and emotional, listen to Scriabin - Vers La Flamme played by Vladimir Horowitz. After supreme genius Scriabin, it seems like things started going downhill until piano music was reduced to something that sounds like random bashing of the keys.
Correct. This shares few of the aims that music from the Classical and/or Romantic Eras did. Hence why it's stupid of you to attempt to make an aesthetic evaluation of it based on the same parameters. Stupidity ---> blocked.
PS- Horowitz's Scriabin is garbage. Talk about bashing on the keys. Go listen to Laredo or Sofronitsky.
@John11inch Love your comments man, but why do you still bother fighting for the cause? You shut down one guy - but they a dime a dozen - another will just take his place with a yawningly predictable "i have no music education but post-tonal music is shit because of reasons a, b and c"...anyway - love your videos - thanks for posting them :)
@John11inch Love your comments man, but why do you still bother fighting for the cause? You shut down one guy - but they a dime a dozen - another will just take his place with a yawningly predictable "i have no music education but post-tonal music is shit because of reasons a, b and c"...anyway - love your videos - thanks for posting them :)
@RpianoV Does the "how" even matter? You've implicitly affirmed the piece's ability to elicit an emotional response by deeming it necessary to share your opinion on its inability to do so. And I would love to hear your conception of "concrete" music - is there any overlap with those of Russolo or Schaeffer?
HERP DERP I can't read ---> Ulysses is trash. If I have to STUDY how to READ before I can appreciate it, then it's just worthless (er, sorry: "worhtless." Forgive my inability to read, but what does that mean, exactly?). How can something as abstract as a random sundry of compacted squiggles on a page possibly evoke anything? Or, more specifically, "emotion." Hence why Ravel and Debussy are garbage; they evoked images, as opposed to emotions.
@John11inch Could you help me out? I'm trying to decipher the sarcasm. Its a lot harder with text. Are you saying that RpianoV would say Debussy and Ravel are trash because they only evoked images? I feel like both Debussy and Ravel evoke emotion. I definitely disagree with the ridiculous "If one needs to study it before one can appreciate it, then its worthless" statement. I'm just looking for some clarification on on your response. Thanks.
My comment was concerning the causality of intent in composition and its correlation to an acousmatic listening experience, i.e. that regardless of Stockhausen's intentions vis-a-vis the emotive vs. conceptual and/or intellectual content or implied connectivity between work and listener, one may have an emotional connection to it just as one may have an emotional connection to Chopin or Liszt, even if he personally fails to.
The comment regarding Ravel and Debussy dealt with the tableau/symbolist nature of their music in so much as that the intent in their writing was to disseminate the stigma of a "direct" connection between music and emotion, in that their music represented (or symbolized, as Debussy would put it) something intermediary that the listener would subsequently emotively relate to. The music was not absolute; it was evocative, but not of emotion. Of things.
@John11inch Ah, I see. Thanks so much for clarifying. I would still say they are evocative of emotion. Stockhausen too. At least for me. Thanks again.
@John11inch I've read Ulysses. Twice, the first time in Dublin. Enjoyed it both times. But not Finnegans Wake that I'm not sure is meant to be read at all. I also love a lot of XXth century musicians, classical and jazz, including Ligeti, Britten, Takemitsu, etc. But this is so random that no structure or progression can be seen (or heard). You could put two cats to play on your piano and publish the midifile pretending you've written the next masterpiece of "tomorrow's music". :-)
Considering your analytic abilities, I'm quite confident in saying that it was not only a waste of time for you to read Ulysses, but an insult to James Joyce for you to attempt to associate your perceived sophistication with his work. Nobody cares. You evade the whole point of my comment: that a work's quality is irrespective of its difficulty. Accessibility and quality are not related. Otherwise, Lady Gaga > "Ligeti, Britten, Takemitsu etc."
Your writing capabilities are a bit under par, as well. What is "structure"? What is "progression"? Are they synonymous? Can a lack of structure be a structure, and can a lack of progression be a structure? What type of structure and what type of progression? Brahmsian? Or like that in Britten, Ligeti and Takemitsu? Can you prove that "structure" and "progression" correlate to quality, and more importantly, correlate to quality in all types of music?
Perhaps your musical vocabulary is simply limited (i. fucking e. you haven't studied [or become acquainted with] this type of music and can't appreciate it), and you therefore fail to recognize the "structure" and "progression" of this piece, which most certainly does exist in almost every way that I can think to use the term. Just because you can't see it, or expect some *other type* of structure, doesn't mean that there *isn't* structure, nor does it mean that such a structure is inferior.
And just so we're clear, Britten, Takemitsu and Ligeti are the elevator music of good contemporary music, with Britten not even qualifying for that term. They are some of the most accessible composers of the era. There is nothing sophisticated or impressive about "getting" their music; every 13 year old on pianoforum wants to learn the Ligeti Etudes. Nor are they original choices, much like your "cats on a piano" comment, which is so juvenile I'm surprised that you can read at all.
@John11inch "Accessible"? I happen to think that Stockhausen and Britten are equally complex, just in different ways, dealing with different concepts. It's our idiotic obsession with "difficulty" and "inaccessibility," the idea that the more immediately unfamiliar something is, that therefore it's more "cerebral," that, in my opinion, often turns people off to modernist music in the first place. Don't tell someone they can't dance to serialism or closely study the simplest pop song.
If you believe that you are justified in thinking the music of Benjamin Britten is as "complex," a term which you do not define, as that of Stockhausen, then you must *necessarily* be able to tell us why. Otherwise your statement is purely intuitive (apart from being, frankly, wrong). You assume that "we" have an "obsession." You assume that "we" think that difficulty and "cerebral-ness" directly correlate, as opposed to causally. You are the only person to say these things.
I can study a Lady Gaga song as deeply as I wish, or a work of Babbitt as superficially as I wish. This statement is worthless. It says nothing of the expected degree of enjoyment and/or understanding of the work, within the capacity of the work's ability to imbue such things. Little understanding is necessary to appreciate Lady Gaga's song in its fullest capacity; the same can not be said of many contemporary classical works. Your argument is devoid of value.
@John11inch Well, it looks like we've got an old-fashioned case of artistic dogmatism here. First, I apologize for not defining "difficulty" - to be fair, in my definition, everything is in a sense infinitely complex and simplistic, because being art after all, it's infinitely open to interpretation. Britten and Stockhausen, Lady Gaga and Babbit, all have the ability to be analyzed musically to eternity if you want. But let's put that aside - not many people would argue that Stockhausen (con't)
@John11inch is less "intricate" than Britten. The idea, though, that therefore he is therefore, automatically, more artistically "accessible" is insane. Who are you to say that someone will automatically be more comfortable, will more readily understand Gaga than Babbitt? For the sake of argument, say someone grew up on dissonant, serial, modernist works all their life, they have an incredible ear, are able to pick apart any dissonant harmony, any complex rhythm. They understand Babbitt (con't)
Your argument is faulty on two grounds. First of all, you speak of something which is purely hypothetical: a situation in which the complex, formalized music of composers such as Stockhausen and Babbitt are the norm by which one relates other music to. This is a situation which does not exist. It is pure sophism. However, this is not the more serious offense.
@John11inch in a second. But when they hear Lady Gaga, they're unfamiliar with the conventions of modern pop. They don't know where to start analyzing it, it breaks all the rules of music they're familiar with. To them, they DO require more understanding to appreciate a Lady Gaga song "in its fullest capacity" (another highly subjective term) than Babbitt. All I'm saying is that nothing is absolute. All music is created equal. In a sense you're acting like the tonal fundamentalists you despise.
The primary deficiency of your thinking is this: the complex music of Stockhausen includes all elements necessary to understand more accessible music. If one has the intimate understanding of Stockhausen's music that you predicate your argument's conclusion upon, then one has an understanding of the elements of previous and/or popular/populist music. It will therefore be intellectually accessible; it may merely clash with their aesthetic preferences, which is of zero consequence.
However, contemporary music, as a "genre," also contains additional elements not present in older music. It is therefore more esoteric, and thus less accessible, regardless of any culturally relative argument you may wish to apply. Your argument is akin to saying that the alphabet is as easy to learn as Calculus: that it merely depends on which language one is more acquainted with. However, Calculus utilizes the alphabet. It can therefore not be easier to learn.
Again, to circumvent the purely hypothetical, one cannot evaluate "Poker Face" to the extent that one can evaluate "Klavierstuck X." Any sort of infinite evaluation would regress to nothing more than a series of catalogs of increasingly inane and minute relations between selected values of the work. "Poker Face" implements an array of values that is vastly limited, compared to "Klavierstuck X."
As such, investigation into the Lady Gaga song would become irrespective of that which could possibly considered intentional - at a much faster rate, and thus yield less useful information.
@John11inch I find it rather strange that you seem to take a personal affront to anything negative said about this piece or Stockhausen, or even this style of music in general. You appear to be under the impression that someone who expresses dislike of the piece, or compares it with a cat running on a keyboard (which I believe to be both rather humourous and somewhat accurate) means that said person is uneducated and has little appreciation of 'true' music.
@John11inch Perhaps you need to think on why this piece has attracted such a negative reaction from some people. Upon first hearing this piece, I also dislike it. It's not because I prefer Top 40 hits, but because it seems to go against pretty much everyone's traditional idea of what a piece of music sounds like--at least somewhat tuneful, and seems to progress logically. It's not that I don't understand that he was challenging the norms of music, I just don't find it pleasing to the ear.
Opinions can be stupid, especially if they're stated unequivocally. It is my opinion that the sky is made of bacon ---> stupid opinion. The sky is made of bacon ---> stupid statement. Your inability to understand that his opinion is stupid, the difference between opinion and statement, not to mention have no opinion of your own, or even be able to comment on the opinions already present, as well as disregard the majority of my response ---> you are stupid.
RpianoV possibly doesn't know too much about Stockhausen, his ideas and aesthetic concept and reacted spontaneously in a way very similar most people would do - but shouting at them "dumbasses, you don't know anything" will not make them eager to find out what that random bashing of keys is about and is possibly one of the reasons why contemporary music remains that unpopular till the present day.
However, RpianoV, of course Stockhausen wouldn't have put so much effort in writing down lots of random notes and clusters (look at the score - took him a while, I bet!) - there is a concept behind Klavierstück X which does not need intensive study, just understanding the general idea Stockhausen had for this piece, and "happy new ears" to follow the structures and their changes.
You might not love him instantly (I love other contemporary composers more, too), but ...
... you might understand that pieces like this have a value of their one, and, if well-made, the concepts behind them really do work - of course not creating the same emotions you would expect listening to late 19th century music, but some different which I am not really able to describe, anyhow similar in depth and strength to those mentioned before.
@RpianoV i think its really dynamic and harmonically appealing. I very much like music that borders on sound. Its like a pollack painting there's a abstract but technical form of organization.
I may be ignorant in this matter, but could you explain how you came up with your username? Okay, no offense but the 11inch got me thinking. *if you know what i mean*
Boulez and Barraque sound so much less regular.The timings seem too ordinary rythms. Maybe a few listens & I will get the laws of this a bit more.The Boulez 2 is really amazing ! I cant get enough of the first movement.The Barraque I love even more .The points of pitches raining in the haze. I hope more in stock becomes apparent to me. Just learning tyhe first few pages of the Boulez seemes impossible so dense with movement and extreme precision.WOW WOW WOW WOW ! I must meet this man
@auerod I agree with you 100%, I am a composer, and I have 20 Euros in my Bank account. Nevertheless, I prefer that 10 people who are musically educated tell 'Well done" than a million who do not even know what a Cmajor triad consists of. Avant-Garde composers studied Classical composers as well, and more, but my opinion is that Music, which is the most Scientific and Abstract of all Arts, should represent its time. Cosmic Serenity to all, and thank you for the comment.
I am a composer of this genre of music (called The New Music or Avent-Garde), with 135 compositions to my credit. If certain people think that this music 'lacks' harmony, melody, counterpoint, etc then they should study music, from all over the world. Stockhausen was considered as the Arch-innovator , not only for continuosly change styles, but, also, notation. So please just remember what philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said, 'What we do not know about we must pass over in Silence'.
@johnzammitpace John, you & I understand this music because we studied it. What is the point of composing works that only musicians, music students & composers can understand & appreciate? What Wittgenstein said is correct & 99% of the classical music fans have passed over this genre of music. Classical music is dying in this country. Look at all of the orchestras that are going bankrupt. I know students of Cage et al who once had albums & concert careers who can't put food on the table now.
@johnzammitpace John, the state of classical music depresses me to no end. I'm tired of being the youngest guy at a concert. And the same warhorse r programmed which saddens me even more. Composers like Glass & Part have a big following w/ the general public for a reason. For ex, Part's Spiegel im Spiegel has millions of views on youtube. The real challenge is to compose works that r appreciated by BOTH professionals & general audience. Gorecki's Beatus Vir can be enjoyed by anyone.
Stockhausen, Babbitt, Boulez and the like are beyond my tastes. However, how many people have the training to appreciate this? I'm convinced that most composers and students detest works like this. Completely ignoring the listener has and will continue to alienate people away from classical music. This is Darwinism at hand and music like this will disappear because composers eventually will just have themselves as the audience. And I won't lose any sleep if it does.
however think about this: it is possible that in future commercial music will evolve into something completely different from what it is today(compare mozart and techno music or mozart and rock n roll) and it is possible that some elements of this music or even (although it is extreme) the whole of it will become significant
@auerod Thats the baddest shit, fuck an audience, play music for your self first. Thats what makes a peice drag you in, the soul put into the work. If your busy worrying about an audiance you must be in the Shakira, Justin Timberlake land. This was obviosuly an extention of a mans soul, and if you can't dig that, then I don't know what to tell you.
@GanjaGabe If this work moves u, I'm happy for u. While I love Bach, Schubert et al, Sorabji and Roslavets are 2 of my favorites & the audience for these 2? Very very small. But when u start getting into Babbitt, Bussotti, Cage, Stockhausen et al, it is even smaller & getting smaller everyday. There is a reason for that. U are incredibly naive if u always take the notion that u should never worry about the audience. Or else eventually the mirror will b your only audience.
Thanks for uploading. One tires of having to defend new approaches to music, so I just listen and make the effort to understand and appreciate the work on its own terms without preconceptions. It really is similar to listening to a language one doesn't know and gradually working ones way into it, rather than suggesting that because it doesn't sound like my native language it isn't worth the effort.
This piece, of course, has plenty of rhythm; it doesn't just drone in 4/4 all throughout. As well, there is certainly plenty of "color," regardless of whether or not it's a color you like. Melody and harmony? These things are not to be found in many types of music, such as Eastern music, most electronic music, new age music and much popular music.
A correct definition of music: purposefully organized or engineered sound done so with the intent of being aurally consumed.
Of course one could define things in such a way, but it's extremely misleading to do so, and is unnecessary. To say that this piece is "melodic" or that it is based on "harmonic progression" is a misnomer in the nearly universal sense of the words. One does not need to be able to apply the terms to a piece of music to defend it, so I don't see the point in it, particularly given the subsequent way in which analysis might occur based on such usage.
I didn't necessarily mean that one uses these terms to analyze this as if it was common practice music, but that I find these concepts useful when discussing any music. One still has to consider the music on its own terms, that is to say that it is wrong to approach a new kind of music expecting it to conform to a model provided by some other kind of music. This is the error of many people on these videos.
@John11inch I think your definition for music is half-truth, deficient. In my opinion, music is "purposefully organized or engineered sound done so with the intent of being aurally consumed [as you were saying], what is enjoyable", and this latter clause differentiates music from noise. For instance, I cannot enjoy this Klavierstück, therefore I consider it noise; but you can be greatly amused by it, thus for you it's music at its best. Just my 2 cents.
That makes the definitions of music and noise subjective, which by the definition of "definition" is inaccurate. Otherwise I could say that a piece by Mozart is "noise" because I do not find it enjoyable. I think the absurdity of such is quite apparent.
To aviod this absurdity I'd change "enjoyable" into "listenable" in the definition, thus separating noise and bad music. You're right about that an exact definition must be 100% objective, but as the example shows music, or more correctly, the border between music and noise cannot be defined exactly, because it depends on the person's taste who listens. Taking this into consideration, making the definition subjetive means making it adaptive for each listener - imperfect indeed, but truer.
Now your problem is somehow differentiating "listenable" and "enjoyable" in a way that doesn't, A- fall into the same pit hole, and B- allow noise in the definition. Can't be done. There's no need for an "imperfect" definition of music. The definition of music itself does not need to differentiate quality. You also run into the problem of talking about subjectivity while talking about "bad" music; the notions are incommensurate. Your idea is irreparably broken.
@John11inch The definition of music itself does need to defferentiate quality up to that point to separate noise and music. Otherwise I could say that construction noise from an air hammer is very bad music. I think the absurdity of such is quite apparent.
Would you mind letting me know why would "listenable" (let alone "enjoyable") allow noise in the definition? That's even more absurd.
Bad music is still music, noise is not. And - as I said - subjectivity in this definition is inevitable.
Your definition attempts to differentiate between good music and bad music with a roundabout term like "listenable." That is *your* term, not mine. Putting quotations around it as if it's stupid is exactly right, and it's your stupidity. Is construction noise "engineered" with "intent to be aurally consumed"? Do you need for me to explain what "intent" means? It is not accidental. It requires motive.
"Listenable" noise: bird song, waterfalls, ocean waves etc.
Wow dude, you've really made extremely valid arguments. I just may to borrow some for myself when I discuss posttonal music. I'm a tonalist myself, but your analysis on discerning noise and music is quite remarkable.
@John11inch You're over complicating something very simple. Music is clearly a very personal thing. If you want to talk about some definition of music I would say music as we know it is a system of categorization of frequencies of sound- a series of intervals. On the other hand music is a means of communication, a sort of "language" of emotion if you will.
Listenable vs. not listenable is just getting into purely subjective territory and is not productive to argue.
You are overcomplicating things by not reading that to which you are attempting to respond to. "Listenable vs. not listenable" is the idea of the other person I was speaking to, and not mine, an idea which I rejected.
But excuse me; music is "personal"? Is that to say that the definition of music is personal? That means there is subjectivity, which you allege to disagree with. Or are you not speaking about the definition of music? In which case you are off the point.
@John11inch Yes, there is subjectivity with regard to music. I never said there wasn't. The comment is right above for your reference.
Off the point? How about you leave me the task of deciding what point I want to make. Thanks.
Music functions on many levels and cannot be fully accurately defined in only one spectrum. You'd have to specifically define what constitutes a "definition" with regard to your own "personal" relationship with music. And then it would only be YOUR definition.
If there is subjectivity regarding music, then, while I don't agree with the argument, your assessment of the fragment "listenable vs. not listenable" is contradictory to your other statements. Simple as that.
Definition of "definition": a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol
A definition is not subjective. I can personally dislike the Hammerklavier, but the definition of the piece does not change.
In your example, the only objective way to define anything is to allow the object's own existence to be the definition itself. Any further description as to a definition becomes some sort of subjective interpretation.
If the real definition of something is that something, then your definition is wrong because it does not accurately capture the whole idea of music.
I was never attempting to define; only to describe from my own experience.
Well it doesn't matter, because if we're going to go down a road of skepticism that Wittgenstein and Kripke (and Popper, Tichy, Niiniluoto, etc.) have both challenged, you can take it up with them, because I'm not interested in pseudointellectual, evasive, garbage deflections as a means of trying to defend an idiotic stance. When you have to ask, "what is meaning," to attempt to bolster an argument, that's when you should know that it's irreparably broken.
Even if you define it as "Beethoven's Sonata Op. 106, which you may subsequently like or dislike," the clause that one may like or dislike it is objective. One's opinion that is formed within the constraints of such a clause in the definition is subjective, but the definition itself is objectively stating the fact that one may like or dislike it. Regardless of how music functions - a red herring - a definition functions specifically, and not in any way you seem to think.
@Intrets Music is purely the expression of emotion through sound....As a composer myself, I've come to find that people process music individually as with anything aesthetic. I'm a great fan of Stockhausen's work as well as tonal composers like Beethoven or Vivaldi, but neither should be or is better than the other. It doesn't lack or add anything extra in the comparisons. Simply listen objectively... And besides, There is no such thing as "Bad Art"
As a professional musician, i can tell that this is utter bullshit. Worthless acoustic creation. Unfortunately i've been tortured with this garbage whole fucking semester. Fuck Stockhausen, his accidental approach in art is a disgrace to music.
OH WOW!!! Hey everyone! Look! A "professional musician" has graced our humble slice of the internet! The first and only professional musician to render an opinion on Stockhausen! FINALLY. We have an opinion that's worth something more than all the others.
What kind of professional musician are you? Lemme guess: the imaginary kind.
@John11inch You're obviously an idiot, better response i didn't expect from you. I'm not in a mood for starting some verbal debates with smart-asses like you. Instead of trolling people here with this garbage, go study some real artists and appreciate good music, not this junk. Bye.
Oh definitely. I will look into good music, like that which I will find on your channel, right? Those piano covers of bands like "Bloodbath", "In Flames" and "Dark Tranquility" are the real art, right? Jeeze kid, at least listen to good metal if this is too complicated for you.
Je sent de la colère dans cette musique mais c'est quand meme intéressant a écouter.
1973giraffe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
10 justin bieber and 10 stockhausen song at the same time
/watch?v=xTiwpr7gcP8
andrewillis21 1 month ago
Comment removed
ThoughtsofaPerson 1 month ago
sounds soft and squishy
SB87JB 1 month ago
are you psyco?
skarlatospanagiotis 2 months ago
@skarlatospanagiotis
Are you illiterate? Try "psycho."
John11inch 1 month ago
@John11inch Try "Try psycho".".
EendjeKwak 1 month ago
@EendjeKwak
Why am I telling him to use the word "try"? I'll assume that was just a very stupid mistake; however, you are flat-out wrong about where the period belongs. A period belongs inside of the quotation mark. A question mark does not.
Stay in school.
John11inch 1 month ago
Comment removed
ThoughtsofaPerson 2 months ago
@John11inch Have you come across any bootlegs of Pollini's performances of this piece? I've been hoping for so long that he'd release a recording of his Stockhausen repertoire.
wee815 2 months ago
@wee815
Sorry, but I have never come across it.
John11inch 2 months ago
this make no sense.
blueman912 2 months ago
@EdwardWhelanPiano
Far and away, the most common comment involves cats. It's really uninteresting.
John11inch 2 months ago
@John11inch
I agree, cats have decidedly worse compositional processes than humans, no matter how beautiful their music is.
EdwardWhelanPiano 2 months ago
@KhagarBalugrak, Your analogy is incomparable to art. I don't think you understand your argument. I don't think you understand artistic intent either.
So your one and only criticism is that Schoenberg, Stockhausen (and presumably everyone who wrote progressive classical music 1913 - 2011) wrote shit. Why do you think that? Why am I deluded for liking something that you don't?
Ignorance is shameful, not inquisitiveness. I play Bach daily and find strong links with his music and Schoenberg's.
EdwardWhelanPiano 2 months ago
@EdwardWhelanPiano As a fan of both Stockhausen and Manilow, I take offense to that.
Coldwarmusic 2 months ago
@Coldwarmusic, I'm not saying it's a sin to enjoy predictable and inoffensive music. I'm just saying that it's the antithesis of Stockhausen!
EdwardWhelanPiano 2 months ago
@EdwardWhelanPiano Heh, I was really just joking about the "I take offense" part. I actually do like both Stockhausen and Manilow though. The work Stockhausen did with electronic music, particularly "Telemusik", is absolutely fascinating.
Coldwarmusic 2 months ago
My grandmother played it when she was younger^^
loboris1995 2 months ago
nice!
cherkassnoein 2 months ago
You know you've created great art when people argue endlessly whether or not it's art.
AesculapiusPiranha 2 months ago
If you want to understand serial music like this i suggest you buy and read "Serialism (Cambridge Introductions to Music)" by Joseph Straus. If you don't wish to understand but wish to enjoy listen to Schoenberg's op 25 over and over again until your ear begins to make connections from consonance to dissonance not based on tonality. This music is beautiful it is just misunderstood by most people, not because it is difficult to understand but because escaping one's tonal ear is difficult.
vantrifan 3 months ago
To quote the dickhead opera director off Amadeus, "Too many notes."
jaysonvalentine 3 months ago
Chuck Norris calls and tell that he wants his "Marry Had a Little Lamb" music sheet back.
timikm 3 months ago
Give me cage's 4.33 any day
derreth 3 months ago
Why wasn't he content with making "traditional" music? What values did he measure his music against while composing it? What is your understanding of this that allows you to enjoy it?
ForMakeComment 3 months ago
@ForMakeComment,
1 - There's nothing more to be done with traditional music. It's potential has been spent.
2 - His own technique and artistic intent. (Plus influences (Messiaen, Schoenberg, Varese))
3 - Just listen and discover for yourself. If you enjoy sound, you will enjoy this.
EdwardWhelanPiano 2 months ago
Would you explain the thought behind this music?
ForMakeComment 3 months ago
the real question is....are we too stupid to understant this music or this music is not worthy?
gjk200000 3 months ago
@gjk200000
You shouldn't use "we." You should use "I."
John11inch 3 months ago 2
@John11inch so you re telling me you ve already understand it?
gjk200000 3 months ago
@gjk200000
At least enough to enjoy it, which I think is all that's necessary.
John11inch 3 months ago 6
@John11inch true but this is the perspective of a listener and not the perspective of a musician....its difficult for me to enjoy something that i don't fully understant musically.....
gjk200000 3 months ago
@John11inch You know, although awkwardly phrased, that really is the question...
grampskvideo 3 months ago
@gjk200000 In asking that question: you have already answered it.
AfroDeezeeYak 2 months ago
@gjk200000 you don't need to understand music,juste feel it^^
loboris1995 2 months ago
Comment removed
ThoughtsofaPerson 4 months ago
Is this Egyptian hieroglyphics?
yoimer06 4 months ago
Finally some one who makes Béla Bartók sound like Muzak
kadag 5 months ago
So...this is the Finnegans Wake of piano music?
robhunsicker 5 months ago 4
@robhunsicker
Tim is so drunk, he's endlessly falling down the Escher's ladder.
SeanDeigh13 5 months ago
I'd say it's a mediocre performance at best. I'll try to listen again, but I don't think this is too terribly inspired considering the piece.
freq32 5 months ago
It's impressive that you can play what it reads unless what it reads is basically overdone randomness.
FordIsBestInTexas 5 months ago
i can't quite remember...someone please help...is the title of this piece "baby crawls over piano" or "my dog is chasing my cat all over my piano"?
duhhh86 5 months ago 2
@duhhh86
The subtitle of this work is "Make Uneducated People Leave Comments about Cats on Youtube Videos."
John11inch 5 months ago 16
@John11inch you torched his ass
zackvee 4 months ago
@duhhh86 no "you are a musical idiot and go listen to 50 cent"
TheEdgarvarese12 4 months ago
@duhhh86 What a virtuous and intelligent cat you have
oflodor45rodo 4 months ago
The fact that people listen to this, say "I don't get it" and then follow up with "because IT is stupid" is a bit shortsighted but represents modern thought- if I can't understand it at first glance or perceive it within a few moments of taking it in, it either doesn't exist, makes no sense, or isn't worth my time, says modern man. No wonder divorce is on the rise and people cut down forests without a thought...
MrNoelJMIS 5 months ago
@MisterSimnock
Either way, I'm glad that your eleven thumbs up, ten of which appeared in the span of a conspicuously short span of precisely 20 views to this video, pad your ego and sense of self-righteousness; for everyone else, they do little more than make all the more apparent how important you believe your opinions to be, unless we are to somehow come to the conclusion that your wisdom is truly that awe-inspiring.
John11inch 5 months ago
@MisterSimnock
"Thus" is a preposition. "Thusly" is an adverb. One is more common, but neither is incorrect, nor is "thusly" considered archaic. It appears quite commonly in technical writing, a subject which you may want to study, given the disparity between the effort that you placed into your syntax and the error-ridden end result.
John11inch 5 months ago
@MisterSimnock
I am not a graduate student at Princeton, studying philosophy. I *was* a graduate student studying philosophy at Princeton, as well as mathematics. Your jealousy is so apparent that it has physically manifested itself as a vile ooze, one which seeps through the computer screens of all who read your comment. "Thusly" is a different word than "thus"; thus it was correct. Alternatively, it was thusly correct. Or, it was correct thusly.
John11inch 5 months ago
@VSV51 I sympathise. No doubt the apologists will claim "all sound is music", assuming (erroneously) that this is a logical consequence of "all music is sound".
KurtBeekeeper 6 months ago
@KurtBeekeeper At the very least, the apologists are liable to place their punctuation within their quotation marks.
Please define music. I want to reveal your stupidity, but your lack of any argument is not doing nearly as good a job as I can do if you give us your definition.
John11inch 5 months ago
Henck's performance is great but the recording really sucks. You can buy Henck but you'll have to listen to it like a Schnabl recording of Beethoven. If you need perfect Hifi recordings Henck isn't for you.
jdbrown371 6 months ago
I'm not trying to say this is bad or anything. I'm just confused. There's no melody or tune to it. How did people react to this?
AustinLikesPepsi 6 months ago
@AustinLikesPepsi These composers are not interested in melodies. They are more interested in sounds. These are not pieces that you listen to them to relax or have fun. You listen to them to study upon! that's my opinion.
emagdali 6 months ago
@emagdali Either way, these pieces are HAAAAARD! Aloys Kontarsky is a talented man
AustinLikesPepsi 6 months ago
bueno
abcdecaca 7 months ago
gracias arte
abcdecaca 7 months ago
"Out of print now, unfortunately." - yeah, it seems like most of stockhausen's work is 'out of print' these days, and the only place to get the electronic works is the stockhausen verlag, who use this antiquated ordering system involving sending them your order on a piece of something called 'paper' contained within an 'envelope' (whatever that is) while wire-transferring the money separately. how ironic that such modern music is sold via such an old-fangled method
AntiProUltra 7 months ago 2
Ah, so nice that we are living in a time when practically no one takes this crap seriously anymore.
jaspernatchez 7 months ago
@jaspernatchez
100,000 views beg to differ.
John11inch 7 months ago 4
@John11inch John, I'm now gonna rock your world. I'm one of those 100,000 viewers. I don't beg to differ. Have a nice day.
jaspermatchez 7 months ago
@jaspermatchez
Don't worry; there are 101,564 viewers for this video. Yours is well covered under the "100k" umbrella.
John11inch 7 months ago 4
@jaspernatchez I quite like it, but it seems rather excessively difficult for how "moving" it is....
jezHB333 7 months ago
He GETS IT - check out at 6:17 - THE SPACE - this totally kills man! Yeah!!
guitarphunk 7 months ago
Tabs?
WazzooSam 7 months ago 6
Henck's recording is crap, eh? That's really too bad. I really like his rendition of Cogluotobusisletmesi. It was taken off of youtube though... so shit. I'm trying hard to find it again, no such luck.
DanMarcy1 8 months ago
Ah, Stockhausen...I always enjoy utter crap when I hear it...after that I can appreciate real music ;-)
Keytaster 8 months ago
@Keytaster
Given that Jamie Cullum is in your icon and your featured submission, I can't quantify how little I care about your opinions on music, given that "zero" would be too much of an overstatement.
John11inch 8 months ago
@Keytaster Have you taken the time to listen to 10,000 pieces of abstract music? If you have, then I totally accept (although I disagree with your definition of Stockhausen's) your opinion. If you haven't familiarized yourself with the avant garde, atonal, abstract musics, then your opinion has no frame of reference and is therefore, shall we say, meaningless!
guitarphunk 8 months ago
I rather like this, but the notation is ridiculous!
huzzzzzzahh 9 months ago
. . . interesting . . .
I wonder how this was scored.. Did he hear it in his head and pen it down? Or play it and then pen it down? Was it entirely theoretical? Or was it just written at random?
Not my cup of tea, personally, but still interesting to think that someone actually scored this. . .
seekerperson7 9 months ago
One thing art has taught us in this century is that nothing not even old Scriabin and Rachmaninv are garbarge. . People can upload great music,film they may even have a sensibility . doesn't mean u would ever wanna meet 'em.BoulezI adore .Even his old crazy ideas of no repetition,no themes, no pulse all that is still interesting for people for whom it is newbut I'm not sure I'd want to meet him . Funny, my name is John & I am a black man so maybe my name...
lovesGenet 9 months ago
Personally, I think anything written after the 12th Century is crap. hildegard of bingen was the last great composer. The last 900 years have been just pretentious, abstract, disonence written for people who couldn't appreciate it unless they studied it. Bach sounds like random notes to me. Beethoven sounds like the meanderings of a lunatic. As far as I'm concerned harmonies with more than 3 notes are devil's music. Pretentious and self-serving nonsense!
Well, I better go beat the cat now.
InsertName125 9 months ago 26
@InsertName125
poor you ! How much beauty you are unable to apreciate.
If you can't even find beauty in Bach's music your ear must have a serious problem.
I suggest you to go for a visit to a good ear Doc.
muttushiama 5 months ago
@muttushiama I really thought my sarcasm was pretty obvious. I really thought it was. I usually don't end my comments with "Well, I better go beat the cat now" either. That was sort of a monty python reference. Monty Python were a British comedy satire group from the 60's and 70's.
InsertName125 5 months ago
@InsertName125
yes I know Monty Python. Sorry if your sarcasm was not evident to me ! Am I geting too old ?
Cheers
muttushiama 5 months ago
@muttushiama Nobody is too old. Actually, I am, but nobody else is.
InsertName125 5 months ago
@InsertName125
Don't worry, your sarcasm WAS obvious. And hilarious.
MissPompousTwat 4 months ago
@InsertName125 then you should listen to rap and hildegard of bingen only, hahahhhahahahha. just because you are dump doesn't mean that beethoven or any composer after middle ages is crap. get some education or don't make this kind of idiotic comments or you sound ludicrously stupid which you are.
TheEdgarvarese12 4 months ago
@TheEdgarvarese12 You may want to click "view all comments" at the bottom of the page. If you do, you'll note that I previously explained I was being sarcastic and thought it was obvious. It's interesting that no one's responded to me in a few months. Then, just today, I had two responses. One was from someone who got the joke. The other was from you.
I'm not going to start using emoticons and texting slang to make the obvious more obvious.
InsertName125 4 months ago
@InsertName125 well actually most people are really like that! even a lot of musicians i know which makes me really sad..
bashoi1992 3 months ago
@bashoi1992 All the more reason to continue writing and performing music which speaks to your own heart and your own sense of aesthetic value. Kenny G didn't convert people into Jazz lovers. Dumning an art down NEVER accomplishes anything, other than compromising your principles. If you explain a joke it's no longer funny. The same applies to music. People either get it or they don't. If artists wait for the world to catch up, serious art will disappear off the face of the map.
InsertName125 3 months ago 2
This has nothing to do with the great classical and romantic piano composers. If you'd like to hear something remarkable with on the edge harmonies, that is still very listenable, beautiful and emotional, listen to Scriabin - Vers La Flamme played by Vladimir Horowitz. After supreme genius Scriabin, it seems like things started going downhill until piano music was reduced to something that sounds like random bashing of the keys.
RpianoV 9 months ago
@RpianoV
Correct. This shares few of the aims that music from the Classical and/or Romantic Eras did. Hence why it's stupid of you to attempt to make an aesthetic evaluation of it based on the same parameters. Stupidity ---> blocked.
PS- Horowitz's Scriabin is garbage. Talk about bashing on the keys. Go listen to Laredo or Sofronitsky.
John11inch 9 months ago 4
@John11inch Love your comments man, but why do you still bother fighting for the cause? You shut down one guy - but they a dime a dozen - another will just take his place with a yawningly predictable "i have no music education but post-tonal music is shit because of reasons a, b and c"...anyway - love your videos - thanks for posting them :)
bartoj03 9 months ago
@John11inch Love your comments man, but why do you still bother fighting for the cause? You shut down one guy - but they a dime a dozen - another will just take his place with a yawningly predictable "i have no music education but post-tonal music is shit because of reasons a, b and c"...anyway - love your videos - thanks for posting them :)
bartoj03 9 months ago
If one needs to study it before one can appreciate it, then it's just worhtless as music. How can something this abstract possibly evoke emotion?
RpianoV 9 months ago
@RpianoV Does the "how" even matter? You've implicitly affirmed the piece's ability to elicit an emotional response by deeming it necessary to share your opinion on its inability to do so. And I would love to hear your conception of "concrete" music - is there any overlap with those of Russolo or Schaeffer?
Nachtmarchen 9 months ago
@RpianoV
HERP DERP I can't read ---> Ulysses is trash. If I have to STUDY how to READ before I can appreciate it, then it's just worthless (er, sorry: "worhtless." Forgive my inability to read, but what does that mean, exactly?). How can something as abstract as a random sundry of compacted squiggles on a page possibly evoke anything? Or, more specifically, "emotion." Hence why Ravel and Debussy are garbage; they evoked images, as opposed to emotions.
Fucking idiot.
John11inch 9 months ago 4
@John11inch Could you help me out? I'm trying to decipher the sarcasm. Its a lot harder with text. Are you saying that RpianoV would say Debussy and Ravel are trash because they only evoked images? I feel like both Debussy and Ravel evoke emotion. I definitely disagree with the ridiculous "If one needs to study it before one can appreciate it, then its worthless" statement. I'm just looking for some clarification on on your response. Thanks.
mmobrowa 8 months ago
@mmobrowa
My comment was concerning the causality of intent in composition and its correlation to an acousmatic listening experience, i.e. that regardless of Stockhausen's intentions vis-a-vis the emotive vs. conceptual and/or intellectual content or implied connectivity between work and listener, one may have an emotional connection to it just as one may have an emotional connection to Chopin or Liszt, even if he personally fails to.
John11inch 7 months ago
@mmobrowa
The comment regarding Ravel and Debussy dealt with the tableau/symbolist nature of their music in so much as that the intent in their writing was to disseminate the stigma of a "direct" connection between music and emotion, in that their music represented (or symbolized, as Debussy would put it) something intermediary that the listener would subsequently emotively relate to. The music was not absolute; it was evocative, but not of emotion. Of things.
John11inch 7 months ago
@John11inch Ah, I see. Thanks so much for clarifying. I would still say they are evocative of emotion. Stockhausen too. At least for me. Thanks again.
mmobrowa 7 months ago
@John11inch I've read Ulysses. Twice, the first time in Dublin. Enjoyed it both times. But not Finnegans Wake that I'm not sure is meant to be read at all. I also love a lot of XXth century musicians, classical and jazz, including Ligeti, Britten, Takemitsu, etc. But this is so random that no structure or progression can be seen (or heard). You could put two cats to play on your piano and publish the midifile pretending you've written the next masterpiece of "tomorrow's music". :-)
yunkah95 6 months ago
@yunkah95
Considering your analytic abilities, I'm quite confident in saying that it was not only a waste of time for you to read Ulysses, but an insult to James Joyce for you to attempt to associate your perceived sophistication with his work. Nobody cares. You evade the whole point of my comment: that a work's quality is irrespective of its difficulty. Accessibility and quality are not related. Otherwise, Lady Gaga > "Ligeti, Britten, Takemitsu etc."
John11inch 6 months ago
@yunkah95
Your writing capabilities are a bit under par, as well. What is "structure"? What is "progression"? Are they synonymous? Can a lack of structure be a structure, and can a lack of progression be a structure? What type of structure and what type of progression? Brahmsian? Or like that in Britten, Ligeti and Takemitsu? Can you prove that "structure" and "progression" correlate to quality, and more importantly, correlate to quality in all types of music?
John11inch 6 months ago
Perhaps your musical vocabulary is simply limited (i. fucking e. you haven't studied [or become acquainted with] this type of music and can't appreciate it), and you therefore fail to recognize the "structure" and "progression" of this piece, which most certainly does exist in almost every way that I can think to use the term. Just because you can't see it, or expect some *other type* of structure, doesn't mean that there *isn't* structure, nor does it mean that such a structure is inferior.
John11inch 6 months ago
And just so we're clear, Britten, Takemitsu and Ligeti are the elevator music of good contemporary music, with Britten not even qualifying for that term. They are some of the most accessible composers of the era. There is nothing sophisticated or impressive about "getting" their music; every 13 year old on pianoforum wants to learn the Ligeti Etudes. Nor are they original choices, much like your "cats on a piano" comment, which is so juvenile I'm surprised that you can read at all.
John11inch 6 months ago
@John11inch "Accessible"? I happen to think that Stockhausen and Britten are equally complex, just in different ways, dealing with different concepts. It's our idiotic obsession with "difficulty" and "inaccessibility," the idea that the more immediately unfamiliar something is, that therefore it's more "cerebral," that, in my opinion, often turns people off to modernist music in the first place. Don't tell someone they can't dance to serialism or closely study the simplest pop song.
ArtD42 5 months ago
@ArtD42
If you believe that you are justified in thinking the music of Benjamin Britten is as "complex," a term which you do not define, as that of Stockhausen, then you must *necessarily* be able to tell us why. Otherwise your statement is purely intuitive (apart from being, frankly, wrong). You assume that "we" have an "obsession." You assume that "we" think that difficulty and "cerebral-ness" directly correlate, as opposed to causally. You are the only person to say these things.
John11inch 5 months ago
@ArtD42
I can study a Lady Gaga song as deeply as I wish, or a work of Babbitt as superficially as I wish. This statement is worthless. It says nothing of the expected degree of enjoyment and/or understanding of the work, within the capacity of the work's ability to imbue such things. Little understanding is necessary to appreciate Lady Gaga's song in its fullest capacity; the same can not be said of many contemporary classical works. Your argument is devoid of value.
John11inch 5 months ago
@John11inch Well, it looks like we've got an old-fashioned case of artistic dogmatism here. First, I apologize for not defining "difficulty" - to be fair, in my definition, everything is in a sense infinitely complex and simplistic, because being art after all, it's infinitely open to interpretation. Britten and Stockhausen, Lady Gaga and Babbit, all have the ability to be analyzed musically to eternity if you want. But let's put that aside - not many people would argue that Stockhausen (con't)
ArtD42 5 months ago
@John11inch is less "intricate" than Britten. The idea, though, that therefore he is therefore, automatically, more artistically "accessible" is insane. Who are you to say that someone will automatically be more comfortable, will more readily understand Gaga than Babbitt? For the sake of argument, say someone grew up on dissonant, serial, modernist works all their life, they have an incredible ear, are able to pick apart any dissonant harmony, any complex rhythm. They understand Babbitt (con't)
ArtD42 5 months ago
@ArtD42
Your argument is faulty on two grounds. First of all, you speak of something which is purely hypothetical: a situation in which the complex, formalized music of composers such as Stockhausen and Babbitt are the norm by which one relates other music to. This is a situation which does not exist. It is pure sophism. However, this is not the more serious offense.
John11inch 5 months ago
@John11inch in a second. But when they hear Lady Gaga, they're unfamiliar with the conventions of modern pop. They don't know where to start analyzing it, it breaks all the rules of music they're familiar with. To them, they DO require more understanding to appreciate a Lady Gaga song "in its fullest capacity" (another highly subjective term) than Babbitt. All I'm saying is that nothing is absolute. All music is created equal. In a sense you're acting like the tonal fundamentalists you despise.
ArtD42 5 months ago
@ArtD42
The primary deficiency of your thinking is this: the complex music of Stockhausen includes all elements necessary to understand more accessible music. If one has the intimate understanding of Stockhausen's music that you predicate your argument's conclusion upon, then one has an understanding of the elements of previous and/or popular/populist music. It will therefore be intellectually accessible; it may merely clash with their aesthetic preferences, which is of zero consequence.
John11inch 5 months ago
@ArtD42
However, contemporary music, as a "genre," also contains additional elements not present in older music. It is therefore more esoteric, and thus less accessible, regardless of any culturally relative argument you may wish to apply. Your argument is akin to saying that the alphabet is as easy to learn as Calculus: that it merely depends on which language one is more acquainted with. However, Calculus utilizes the alphabet. It can therefore not be easier to learn.
John11inch 5 months ago
@ArtD42
Again, to circumvent the purely hypothetical, one cannot evaluate "Poker Face" to the extent that one can evaluate "Klavierstuck X." Any sort of infinite evaluation would regress to nothing more than a series of catalogs of increasingly inane and minute relations between selected values of the work. "Poker Face" implements an array of values that is vastly limited, compared to "Klavierstuck X."
John11inch 5 months ago
@ArtD42
As such, investigation into the Lady Gaga song would become irrespective of that which could possibly considered intentional - at a much faster rate, and thus yield less useful information.
John11inch 5 months ago
@John11inch I find it rather strange that you seem to take a personal affront to anything negative said about this piece or Stockhausen, or even this style of music in general. You appear to be under the impression that someone who expresses dislike of the piece, or compares it with a cat running on a keyboard (which I believe to be both rather humourous and somewhat accurate) means that said person is uneducated and has little appreciation of 'true' music.
lolspiderz39 5 months ago
@John11inch Perhaps you need to think on why this piece has attracted such a negative reaction from some people. Upon first hearing this piece, I also dislike it. It's not because I prefer Top 40 hits, but because it seems to go against pretty much everyone's traditional idea of what a piece of music sounds like--at least somewhat tuneful, and seems to progress logically. It's not that I don't understand that he was challenging the norms of music, I just don't find it pleasing to the ear.
lolspiderz39 5 months ago
@RpianoV
You voiced an opinion that is not the same as mine. You are an idiot for that reason.
otsenrah 9 months ago
@otsenrah
Opinions can be stupid, especially if they're stated unequivocally. It is my opinion that the sky is made of bacon ---> stupid opinion. The sky is made of bacon ---> stupid statement. Your inability to understand that his opinion is stupid, the difference between opinion and statement, not to mention have no opinion of your own, or even be able to comment on the opinions already present, as well as disregard the majority of my response ---> you are stupid.
John11inch 9 months ago 3
@John11inch
Holy crap, why so aggressive?
RpianoV possibly doesn't know too much about Stockhausen, his ideas and aesthetic concept and reacted spontaneously in a way very similar most people would do - but shouting at them "dumbasses, you don't know anything" will not make them eager to find out what that random bashing of keys is about and is possibly one of the reasons why contemporary music remains that unpopular till the present day.
ShartanX 9 months ago
@RpianoV
However, RpianoV, of course Stockhausen wouldn't have put so much effort in writing down lots of random notes and clusters (look at the score - took him a while, I bet!) - there is a concept behind Klavierstück X which does not need intensive study, just understanding the general idea Stockhausen had for this piece, and "happy new ears" to follow the structures and their changes.
You might not love him instantly (I love other contemporary composers more, too), but ...
ShartanX 9 months ago
@ShartanX
... you might understand that pieces like this have a value of their one, and, if well-made, the concepts behind them really do work - of course not creating the same emotions you would expect listening to late 19th century music, but some different which I am not really able to describe, anyhow similar in depth and strength to those mentioned before.
ShartanX 9 months ago
@RpianoV i think its really dynamic and harmonically appealing. I very much like music that borders on sound. Its like a pollack painting there's a abstract but technical form of organization.
edcerc 8 months ago
@RpianoV Music does many things for the listener, evoke emotion is just one of them. If it doesn't do it for you, then go find something you like! :)
Jshaw1ful 8 months ago
I may be ignorant in this matter, but could you explain how you came up with your username? Okay, no offense but the 11inch got me thinking. *if you know what i mean*
divinetriangle763 9 months ago
Hello there! Is this the whole score?
toquepiano 9 months ago
Boulez and Barraque sound so much less regular.The timings seem too ordinary rythms. Maybe a few listens & I will get the laws of this a bit more.The Boulez 2 is really amazing ! I cant get enough of the first movement.The Barraque I love even more .The points of pitches raining in the haze. I hope more in stock becomes apparent to me. Just learning tyhe first few pages of the Boulez seemes impossible so dense with movement and extreme precision.WOW WOW WOW WOW ! I must meet this man
lovesGenet 10 months ago
@auerod I agree with you 100%, I am a composer, and I have 20 Euros in my Bank account. Nevertheless, I prefer that 10 people who are musically educated tell 'Well done" than a million who do not even know what a Cmajor triad consists of. Avant-Garde composers studied Classical composers as well, and more, but my opinion is that Music, which is the most Scientific and Abstract of all Arts, should represent its time. Cosmic Serenity to all, and thank you for the comment.
johnzammitpace 10 months ago
I am a composer of this genre of music (called The New Music or Avent-Garde), with 135 compositions to my credit. If certain people think that this music 'lacks' harmony, melody, counterpoint, etc then they should study music, from all over the world. Stockhausen was considered as the Arch-innovator , not only for continuosly change styles, but, also, notation. So please just remember what philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said, 'What we do not know about we must pass over in Silence'.
johnzammitpace 10 months ago
@johnzammitpace John, you & I understand this music because we studied it. What is the point of composing works that only musicians, music students & composers can understand & appreciate? What Wittgenstein said is correct & 99% of the classical music fans have passed over this genre of music. Classical music is dying in this country. Look at all of the orchestras that are going bankrupt. I know students of Cage et al who once had albums & concert careers who can't put food on the table now.
auerod 10 months ago
@johnzammitpace John, the state of classical music depresses me to no end. I'm tired of being the youngest guy at a concert. And the same warhorse r programmed which saddens me even more. Composers like Glass & Part have a big following w/ the general public for a reason. For ex, Part's Spiegel im Spiegel has millions of views on youtube. The real challenge is to compose works that r appreciated by BOTH professionals & general audience. Gorecki's Beatus Vir can be enjoyed by anyone.
auerod 10 months ago
Stockhausen, Babbitt, Boulez and the like are beyond my tastes. However, how many people have the training to appreciate this? I'm convinced that most composers and students detest works like this. Completely ignoring the listener has and will continue to alienate people away from classical music. This is Darwinism at hand and music like this will disappear because composers eventually will just have themselves as the audience. And I won't lose any sleep if it does.
auerod 10 months ago
@auerod
maybe you are right
however think about this: it is possible that in future commercial music will evolve into something completely different from what it is today(compare mozart and techno music or mozart and rock n roll) and it is possible that some elements of this music or even (although it is extreme) the whole of it will become significant
vkoracx 10 months ago
@auerod
significant in the way we can not comprehend today
vkoracx 10 months ago
@auerod
you can ask me: where is mozart in techno or rock n roll ..it is less obvious but look at Bach and you will find the elements
vkoracx 10 months ago
@auerod Thats the baddest shit, fuck an audience, play music for your self first. Thats what makes a peice drag you in, the soul put into the work. If your busy worrying about an audiance you must be in the Shakira, Justin Timberlake land. This was obviosuly an extention of a mans soul, and if you can't dig that, then I don't know what to tell you.
GanjaGabe 10 months ago
@GanjaGabe If this work moves u, I'm happy for u. While I love Bach, Schubert et al, Sorabji and Roslavets are 2 of my favorites & the audience for these 2? Very very small. But when u start getting into Babbitt, Bussotti, Cage, Stockhausen et al, it is even smaller & getting smaller everyday. There is a reason for that. U are incredibly naive if u always take the notion that u should never worry about the audience. Or else eventually the mirror will b your only audience.
auerod 10 months ago
Blah blah blah. I kinda like it. I a way.
voxhunden 10 months ago
Thanks for uploading. One tires of having to defend new approaches to music, so I just listen and make the effort to understand and appreciate the work on its own terms without preconceptions. It really is similar to listening to a language one doesn't know and gradually working ones way into it, rather than suggesting that because it doesn't sound like my native language it isn't worth the effort.
Varese13 10 months ago
does he really writes it or simple hits his head against the keyboard? OMFG! I want to be his friend!
renangoncalvesflores 10 months ago
Music -an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
This lacks everything.
Intrets 10 months ago
@Intrets
This piece, of course, has plenty of rhythm; it doesn't just drone in 4/4 all throughout. As well, there is certainly plenty of "color," regardless of whether or not it's a color you like. Melody and harmony? These things are not to be found in many types of music, such as Eastern music, most electronic music, new age music and much popular music.
A correct definition of music: purposefully organized or engineered sound done so with the intent of being aurally consumed.
John11inch 10 months ago
@John11inch
excellent reply!
vkoracx 10 months ago
@John11inch
The second definition does not exclude the first, humor me for a moment...
Harmony: The relationships between two or more tangibly different sounds heard at the same time.
Melody: The relationships between two or more sounds heard in succession.
Rhythm: The relationships between points in time defined by sounds placed within them.
Color: The characteristic arrangement of frequencies perceived as a single sound.
I think these expanded definitions are common to all music...?
Nightwatchman2792796 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@John11inch
The second definition does not exclude the first, humor me for a moment...
Harmony: The relationships between two or more tangibly different sounds heard at the same time.
Melody: The relationships between two or more sounds heard in succession.
Rhythm: The relationships between points in time defined by sounds placed within them.
Color: The characteristic arrangement of frequencies perceived as a single sound.
I think these expanded definitions are common to all music..?
Nightwatchman2792796 10 months ago
@John11inch
These definitions don't exclude eachother,
Rhythm: The relationships between points in time defined by sonic events.
Harmony: The relationships between two or more sounds occurring simultaneously.
Melody: The relationships between two or more sounds occurring in succession.
Color: The relationships between frequencies perceived as a single sound.
These expanded definitions allow for aesthetic comparisons between the most varied kinds of music.
Nightwatchman2792796 10 months ago
@Nightwatchman2792796
Of course one could define things in such a way, but it's extremely misleading to do so, and is unnecessary. To say that this piece is "melodic" or that it is based on "harmonic progression" is a misnomer in the nearly universal sense of the words. One does not need to be able to apply the terms to a piece of music to defend it, so I don't see the point in it, particularly given the subsequent way in which analysis might occur based on such usage.
John11inch 10 months ago
@John11inch
I didn't necessarily mean that one uses these terms to analyze this as if it was common practice music, but that I find these concepts useful when discussing any music. One still has to consider the music on its own terms, that is to say that it is wrong to approach a new kind of music expecting it to conform to a model provided by some other kind of music. This is the error of many people on these videos.
Nightwatchman2792796 10 months ago
Comment removed
madlovba2 10 months ago
Comment removed
madlovba2 10 months ago
@John11inch I think your definition for music is half-truth, deficient. In my opinion, music is "purposefully organized or engineered sound done so with the intent of being aurally consumed [as you were saying], what is enjoyable", and this latter clause differentiates music from noise. For instance, I cannot enjoy this Klavierstück, therefore I consider it noise; but you can be greatly amused by it, thus for you it's music at its best. Just my 2 cents.
madlovba2 10 months ago
That makes the definitions of music and noise subjective, which by the definition of "definition" is inaccurate. Otherwise I could say that a piece by Mozart is "noise" because I do not find it enjoyable. I think the absurdity of such is quite apparent.
John11inch 10 months ago
To aviod this absurdity I'd change "enjoyable" into "listenable" in the definition, thus separating noise and bad music. You're right about that an exact definition must be 100% objective, but as the example shows music, or more correctly, the border between music and noise cannot be defined exactly, because it depends on the person's taste who listens. Taking this into consideration, making the definition subjetive means making it adaptive for each listener - imperfect indeed, but truer.
madlovba2 10 months ago
Now your problem is somehow differentiating "listenable" and "enjoyable" in a way that doesn't, A- fall into the same pit hole, and B- allow noise in the definition. Can't be done. There's no need for an "imperfect" definition of music. The definition of music itself does not need to differentiate quality. You also run into the problem of talking about subjectivity while talking about "bad" music; the notions are incommensurate. Your idea is irreparably broken.
John11inch 10 months ago
@John11inch The definition of music itself does need to defferentiate quality up to that point to separate noise and music. Otherwise I could say that construction noise from an air hammer is very bad music. I think the absurdity of such is quite apparent.
Would you mind letting me know why would "listenable" (let alone "enjoyable") allow noise in the definition? That's even more absurd.
Bad music is still music, noise is not. And - as I said - subjectivity in this definition is inevitable.
madlovba2 9 months ago
@madlovba2 *differentiate (typo)
madlovba2 9 months ago
Your definition attempts to differentiate between good music and bad music with a roundabout term like "listenable." That is *your* term, not mine. Putting quotations around it as if it's stupid is exactly right, and it's your stupidity. Is construction noise "engineered" with "intent to be aurally consumed"? Do you need for me to explain what "intent" means? It is not accidental. It requires motive.
"Listenable" noise: bird song, waterfalls, ocean waves etc.
Blocked 4 doing dumb.
John11inch 9 months ago
@John11inch
Wow dude, you've really made extremely valid arguments. I just may to borrow some for myself when I discuss posttonal music. I'm a tonalist myself, but your analysis on discerning noise and music is quite remarkable.
nickmaestro 9 months ago
@John11inch You're over complicating something very simple. Music is clearly a very personal thing. If you want to talk about some definition of music I would say music as we know it is a system of categorization of frequencies of sound- a series of intervals. On the other hand music is a means of communication, a sort of "language" of emotion if you will.
Listenable vs. not listenable is just getting into purely subjective territory and is not productive to argue.
Webarton 9 months ago
@Webarton
You are overcomplicating things by not reading that to which you are attempting to respond to. "Listenable vs. not listenable" is the idea of the other person I was speaking to, and not mine, an idea which I rejected.
But excuse me; music is "personal"? Is that to say that the definition of music is personal? That means there is subjectivity, which you allege to disagree with. Or are you not speaking about the definition of music? In which case you are off the point.
John11inch 9 months ago
@John11inch Yes, there is subjectivity with regard to music. I never said there wasn't. The comment is right above for your reference.
Off the point? How about you leave me the task of deciding what point I want to make. Thanks.
Music functions on many levels and cannot be fully accurately defined in only one spectrum. You'd have to specifically define what constitutes a "definition" with regard to your own "personal" relationship with music. And then it would only be YOUR definition.
Webarton 9 months ago
If there is subjectivity regarding music, then, while I don't agree with the argument, your assessment of the fragment "listenable vs. not listenable" is contradictory to your other statements. Simple as that.
Definition of "definition": a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol
A definition is not subjective. I can personally dislike the Hammerklavier, but the definition of the piece does not change.
John11inch 9 months ago
@John11inch Then I would ask, "what is meaning"?
In your example, the only objective way to define anything is to allow the object's own existence to be the definition itself. Any further description as to a definition becomes some sort of subjective interpretation.
If the real definition of something is that something, then your definition is wrong because it does not accurately capture the whole idea of music.
I was never attempting to define; only to describe from my own experience.
Webarton 9 months ago
Well it doesn't matter, because if we're going to go down a road of skepticism that Wittgenstein and Kripke (and Popper, Tichy, Niiniluoto, etc.) have both challenged, you can take it up with them, because I'm not interested in pseudointellectual, evasive, garbage deflections as a means of trying to defend an idiotic stance. When you have to ask, "what is meaning," to attempt to bolster an argument, that's when you should know that it's irreparably broken.
John11inch 9 months ago
@Webarton
Even if you define it as "Beethoven's Sonata Op. 106, which you may subsequently like or dislike," the clause that one may like or dislike it is objective. One's opinion that is formed within the constraints of such a clause in the definition is subjective, but the definition itself is objectively stating the fact that one may like or dislike it. Regardless of how music functions - a red herring - a definition functions specifically, and not in any way you seem to think.
John11inch 9 months ago
@Intrets Music is purely the expression of emotion through sound....As a composer myself, I've come to find that people process music individually as with anything aesthetic. I'm a great fan of Stockhausen's work as well as tonal composers like Beethoven or Vivaldi, but neither should be or is better than the other. It doesn't lack or add anything extra in the comparisons. Simply listen objectively... And besides, There is no such thing as "Bad Art"
folk89 10 months ago
@Intrets Actually, by your own definition this HAS everything in abundance.
InsertName125 10 months ago
As a professional musician, i can tell that this is utter bullshit. Worthless acoustic creation. Unfortunately i've been tortured with this garbage whole fucking semester. Fuck Stockhausen, his accidental approach in art is a disgrace to music.
dicamillo686 10 months ago
@dicamillo686
OH WOW!!! Hey everyone! Look! A "professional musician" has graced our humble slice of the internet! The first and only professional musician to render an opinion on Stockhausen! FINALLY. We have an opinion that's worth something more than all the others.
What kind of professional musician are you? Lemme guess: the imaginary kind.
John11inch 10 months ago 4
@John11inch You're obviously an idiot, better response i didn't expect from you. I'm not in a mood for starting some verbal debates with smart-asses like you. Instead of trolling people here with this garbage, go study some real artists and appreciate good music, not this junk. Bye.
dicamillo686 10 months ago
@dicamillo686
Oh definitely. I will look into good music, like that which I will find on your channel, right? Those piano covers of bands like "Bloodbath", "In Flames" and "Dark Tranquility" are the real art, right? Jeeze kid, at least listen to good metal if this is too complicated for you.
John11inch 10 months ago 17
@John11inch
Now I want to know your definition of good metal.
V0idslime 9 months ago