Klavierstück IX (9:42)

[nocturnezero]

I'm only here because I wanted to know what 87/8 time sounds like.

[Lepretr0n]

This is going to be stuck in my head all day

[e30brian]

i just can't believe that anyone thought stockhousen was anything more that a nut.

[captaincanuck99]

it does have unusual time - and that time is for the waste bin - absolute tosh

[dillmon1]

so yeah this is dumb

[filasofi]

what the fuck ? I sort of understand what MUZAK about but what the fuck that is????

i think all the Modern composer getting DICK head ha...

such a crap piece..and i am learnig this shit for my MUSIC class..

what will world end up to?

[MrSubtle]

@filasofi Compared to this Muzak is heaven.

[sporkbinder1]

I guess experimenting with time doesn't always make for nice music....I think it sounded like a piano falling down a stairwell.

[MagicDolphinGO]

Contemporary classical music: a bunch of morons trying to sound original, but failing anyway.

[DCmar93]

Craziest. Time. Signature. EVER!

[fedepresti]

142/8.... lol

[Arachnidius]

@fedepresti ...'Nuff said :p

[pinkfloydrule27]

i only checked this out because it was rated as the wierdest time signature ever used, i understand that wow that was truly the strangest piece of music i've ever heard

[onionbuskut]

lmao, apperently the first bar is in 142/8 time...the second in 87/8....wtf

[NightmareGanon]

This indeed sounds like something by Cage. Don't know which was written first, though.

[DystoMysto]

this sounds horrible

[MrBatsneger]

this sucks

[nowayride]

I can respect the composition behind this piece and the technicality of it, but come on. If you closed your eyes and listened to it, could you not envision a cat trying to play the piano?

[darkoanton5]

@nowayride I agree.  If most people came up with this they wood say. That's crap. lol This work is experimental in my opinion.

[NoTealSweater]

i also.

[stuckinaboxhere]

The is just such a bad song

[lorezapocalypse]

The time signature might be weird but the piece sure isn't.

[Xike]

I looked it up because of the "works in unusual time signatures" article on wikipedia.

[CriesOfThePast522]

@Xike haha me too weird

[Thasablancas]

@CriesOfThePast522 lol same

[amarr1]

@Xike lol same.

[crazypaean999]

I did too, and this does suck... bad.

[sporkbinder1]

@Xike Haha me too! Just now!

[Angthor92]

@Xike

Me too, sounds... kind of weird.

[Arachnidius]

@Xike Same :)

[simonkramgo]

@Xike  Me too, lol XD

[Neechyou]

@Xike Same here

[Crispyconcerto]

@Xike didnt we all

[STOBMNT]

@Xike

Me too this was the most insane i think

[nichobert]

the time signatures arent that crazy. all the guy is doing is counting to 140 (or whatever)

[Johanyoutubis]

I see stokhausen klavier stuck sheets and this is sometshing amazing. What can play this all?

[drumstyx6464]

ughhh...this stuff is like john cage's work, honestly i only looked it up because wikipedia told me about it's WEIRD time signatures

[thegtalover]

LOL, me too! I read that bar 1 is in 142/8 time!

[MorkaGraven]

same here!

[bltsub]

@drumstyx6464 hahaha no way!

thats why iooked it up too :P

[Symphonion]

LoL! Me too :D

Well, with all respect for the man I could imagine that Stockhausen primarily made this music as an experiment, and probably didn't expect people to actually sit down and enjoy it like they do with more, ehh, "simple" music ;)

[camaysar222]

Pianists should be complimented for studying works like this. This performance may please, and it may have nice sounds, but it is not what Stockhausen wrote. He plays the opening chord 165 times instead of the indicated 140. He miscounts the following repetitions as well, disregards tempo indications, pedaling, and countless other subtleties. The performer apparently feels that accuracy "doesn't matter" in Stockhausen. This attitude makes for dishonest playing; surely the pianist knows this.

[peterviola528]

Should be 139 times anyway, not 140.

[camaysar222]

Actually that is not correct. The score indicates 140 times, but the last repetition is a dotted quarter, not an eighth, which is why Stockhausen says the diminuendo should continue through 139 chords; you cannot diminuendo on the last one!

[peterviola528]

My bad! Apologies

[MehMehBear]

Give him some credit, the time signature's are crazy in this composition.

[Nintendoman851]

"Klavierstück IX (195455/61) by Karlheinz Stockhausen. Bar 1 is in 142/8 time" thats from wikipedia. those are some fucking wierd ass time signatures.

[VIDE0DR0ME]

@camaysar222 : {142 + 87} times in the two opening bars actually.

[camaysar222]

@VIDE0DR0ME: You are confusing the time signature with the number of repetitions. The time sig is 142/8, but the last repetition of the first measure (which is obviously the measure I was referring to - the consecutive even repetitions) is a dotted quarter note. That makes 140 repetitions, not 142.

[VIDE0DR0ME]

@camaysar222 You are right. I missed the dotted quarter note at the end of bar 1.

[swazbuzzler]

This guy a competitor of yours? Counting the number of times he plays the opening chord is not high my to-do list. He is playing it a bit like Debussy, but I like his interpretation... for the most part, though it quite liberal.

[mardgn81]

@camaysar222 herpaderp

[franzliszt370]

I love the way he plays the run at 8:19... that was really fluid.

[n34t43v3r]

That sounds a little abstract, or minimalist.I love it.

[jameswiman]

Other than completely ignoring Stockhausen's pedal markings and dynamics here and there...a good performance.

[legnaaaa]

these studies are playable, what about the pieces by conlon nancarrow?

[musoto1]

Maybe Michail Goleminov...

[qtpipi]

Great performance. Who is the pianist?