This is a really long flame-fest below me. Bottom line: on paper, this is complex/badass/awesome/whatever, but when you listen to it, it sounds like shit.
Remember folks its perfectly acceptable for "New Complexity" freaks to strut around like arrogant peacocks consigning 90% of musical endeavour to the aesthetic gas chamber on spurious grounds, but do the same for their peculiar little fetishes and it upsets the ridiculous little tykes.
For those of you out there who have minimal musical talent but lots of academic ambition, you too can now be Brian Ferneyhough. Try googling "Dominic Irving Random Bullshit" and you can make your own programme notes sound like Ferneys. The wonders of computer technology.
@egapnala65 Of course, it's already happened to that great master Bach, so it must be simple for this poseur! Copying a style does not equate to copying a philosophy.
This *music* is absolute garbage and a prime example of why the general public will continue to stick with Mozart rather than waste any of their time on modern composers. I don't blame them.
@Horicert The "general public" hasn't been sticking with Mozart for the past few decades or so. They're not sticking with classical at all. And it's because too many people made the decision for them, that they won't like this, that they won't find an interest in "modern" composers (by the way, Ferneyhough is New Complexity, arguably more postmodern than modern). Stop assuming everyone has the same musical tastes as you and stop assuming that this is what every contemporary composer dreams of.
@wetuadjlv Mozart shifts more units than Ferneyhough so the comment is valid. Ferneyhough is a graphic designer who could make fabulous wallpaper for a company. "New Complexity" is bullshit, pure and simple. It's practitioners are charlatans who hide behind over elaborate notation and verbiage to get themselves noticed in the Academic marketplace. It will, of course, also sign their death warrents as nobody is going to bother to look at this shit and do all the maths it needs to play it.
@egapnala65 I wonder, would you say the same thing about Xenakis? His music is also incredibly dense and complicated in notation, but people will begin to play his pieces now more and more since he's finally being recognized as a force of the late 20th century. You alone can't consign anyone as controversial as F to obscurity, and I'd be amazed to see a coherent argument from you as to why this music has no emotive or cognitive content.
@wetuadjlv "But people will begin to play his pieces now more and more since he's finally being recognised "- recognised by who? The mainstream? A tiny band of academics who spend more time in electroacoustic labs than they should? This generation produced a couple of giants and a few important works. The rest made careers out of being wilfully obscurantist and their music will die with them. The joys of conforming to fashion rather than following your own star.
@wetuadjlv "You alone can't consign"- but I am not alone am I ? Ferney has consigned himself to obscurity has he not? Rather like putting up barbed wire fences, minefields, wild tigers etc around your house to keep people out and then complaining you don't get any visitors. And, of course, being controversial is far more important than actually being a genuine craftsman with something to say trying to shape musical material to suit his message isn't it.
@wetuadjlv As to content, well it is a pretty subjective area is it not? I find this just as engaging as an explosion in a special effects factory. About as exciting as free jazzers improvising, interesting for a couple of minutes but beyond that tedious, colourless and aesthetically worthless. You may beg to differ, of course, but what you hear here is not what you see but an approximation. That makes all comments as to the content doubly redundant.
@egapnala65 I can see you're both willfully ignorant and determined, to boot, so I'm not going to spend much more time on this. The "approximation" between the score and performance will always exist, since the two are factually two different entities. Even a "computer" performance of a score is not perfect - it uses a subjective sound library, and may use a robotic timing never used in performance. Of course, content is subjective, but judging it worthless or denying its existence is objective
@wetuadjlv Not to the extent when the performer is essentially having rewrite the piece because the composer cannot be arsed to make his meaning clear, rather similar to an author handing his reader a dictionary and telling them to find it for themselves.
A computer reading would be the worst thing that could happen though as it would expose the world of Ferney fandom for the heap of pretentious crap it is. It would provide an accurate version by which the composers intentions can be measured.
@muslit Probably because they are bullshitting. Do you really think they REALLY playing all those microtonal double-stops as written? At this tempo? Or are they simply improvising around the score thereby showing up the composer as a very poor one?
@egapnala65 The Arditti Quartet is arguably the best string quartet in the world for playing contemporary music. They put hundreds of hours into the Ferneyhough string quartets and they commissioned most of them. They even made a short little documentary about it. Yes, they are playing all the microtones as written, they go out of their way to make sure the microtones are accurate. There is no improvising I assure you.
@Shredlord12345 Given that Ferneyhough himself has declared his own music to be written and deliberately planned to be impossible to play with any degree of accuracy and that it is the tension between performer and impossible score he finds so utterly orgasmic (sadism?), I would say that a certain amount of bullshit on their part must play a role. The Arditti, of course, are the Kronos Quartet for pseuds.
@egapnala65 The sadomasochism argument is one that's been made countless times before and it's utterly insulting to both the performers and composers who enjoy this music. Would you call the tension that Beethoven or any other composer who believed in "Sturm und Drang" put the audience through "sadism"? You've obviously gotten your arguments second-hand or maybe even made them up, because you completely missed Ferneyhough's point.
@wetuadjlv But it is essentially a power relationship. Ferney deliberatly writes impossible to play music because he likes to watch the performers struggling to play something he knows they will never be able to with any accuracy. Beethoven et al used the conventional methods and extended them. This bears no relationship to anything beyond itself, it is simply graphic design designed to sell itself to people more impressed by how a score looks than the actual mechanics of playing it.
@egapnala65 Yes, I am aware the tension with F is music/performer/audience instead of music/audience, but that does not change the fact of a power relationship. The performers can enjoy the struggle without being masochistic, however. It's not paining them to work on the music and perform it, but it does challenge them and produce a state of wonderfully intense concentration. If you don't think that's a valid aesthetic then I can accept you opinion, but what you have said is unfair.
@wetuadjlv In order to perform this "music" you need first to actually rewrite it so as to make it possible to count. That means that the composer has failed in his primary task. The beat structures are so random and the key signatures utterly irrelevant that Ferney might just as well have programmed all these graphic designs into a computer and randomly generated it. It is a lot of needless hard work being undertaken for very little. He could get the same results with simpler notation.
@egapnala65 And both the Arditti and Kronos are perfectly world-class quartets. It's quite frankly not their fault if you can't comprehend their playing, because they do it quite well. So please get over your narcissism.
@wetuadjlv The only narcissism on display here are those who are going "oh sublime Ferneyhough. Oh exquisite Arditti" covering over the fact that the performances are based on a complete rewriting of the scores by the performers because the composer is such an arrogant pretentious tosspot that he puts graphic design over actual compositional practice. If this were a computer rendering of the score as literally written then there would be some point to praising it. But its not, its bullshit.
@egapnala65 This is complicated notation, not graphic notation. The visual impact is just a side product of the relationship he wants to produce between performer and music. He's said several times before that he would give no value at all to computer perf.s of his scores, and of course that's because he doesn't want to hear the music effortlessly played, he wants to hear real sacrifice in the performance.
@wetuadjlv It is graphic design. What we hear is the result of a rewriting of the "score", not this score which is impossible to play as it stands as well he knows. He is doing because it gets him noticed and for no other reason. "He wants to hear real sacrifice"- he's a sadist getting his rocks off then isn't he.
@wetuadjlv Well, I do. That is the whole point of being a composer after all. Are you really suggesting that people improvising over the score of Beethoven 5 should be likewise acceptable? Totally random playing of what Mozart wrote? Either a composer has some responsibility to his performers or he doesn't. Anybody can write unplayable bullshit and then blame the performers. It isn't serious music though.
@egapnala65 Improvising, rearranging, and otherwise altering the score has been a common practice literally since the beginning of music history, and was only pushed aside with the rise of the deplorable "New Objectivity." F could be referencing any of those practices or working to create something new altogether. As the video shows, this shit is clearly performable, although maybe not to your or your interpretation of F's standards. You are indeed living under a philosophical rock.
@wetuadjlv Yeah yeah yeah. And there's also lots of imaginary instruments playing in the gaps as well, forming an implied countertexual dialectical interface where the metamusical entropy is negated geosonically by its own rhetorical substructure forming a bi-lateral metaphor which can be quasirationally applied to the next double stopped glissando doublestopped hexachordal superstructure. He could also be laughing all the way to the bank at the gullibility of academia.
@twooffour Have no issues with the SOUND at all.Merely the bullshit that surrounds it. These effects could equally have been generated using far less elaborate notation through aleatoric techniques etc. He is simply trying to present us with something that looks impressive but which cannot directly be played without being re-written substantially.
As is stands what you hear is actually the Arditti bullshitting and quasi improvising instead of what has been written here. Which is dishonest.
@twooffour The rhythms that are notated here are IMPOSSIBLE to play accurately at the tempo expected. Ferneyhough knows this but believes he is challenging performers by writing in such a ridiculous fashion.
The Arditti have to break every bar down into percentages of beat in order to make it countable and we are talking percentages of 1/20th of a given note value as the barlines and time signatures are also irrelevant. This is also complicated by the fact that the score also changes meter.../
@egapnala65 every couple of beats so there is no regular pattern that performers can actually latch onto. It is as if somebody has deliberately sat down and made it a ideal to write scores which nobody can play and which, in olden times, would simply have been laughed out of the academies as being totally opposed to both musical grammar and instrumental capabilities.
It works well though because people who can't read music will be impressed by the LOOK of the scores which creates a fan base.
@egapnala65 The very essence of having coherent atonality, is the lack of regular pulse or pattern which may emphasize a single pitch.
This being said, how often do you think people who cannot read music, may stumble upon a Ferneyhough score? ;)
Just to be clear: I'm not an avid Ferneyhough fan (though I do like the aesthetic quality of some of his pieces, especially his orchestral stuff). Though flawed notational justification: this is not the only aspect of his music worthy of discussion.
@egapnala65 But yes: I agree with your saying that some sort of controlled-aleatory would be a far more practical approach to accomplishing the same effect of aperiodicity (something I am exploring myself i.e. spatial notation within regular beats).
@wetuadjlv Difference between "fixing" and editing scores and effectively recomposing them because the composer is more interested in graphics than actually engaging with performers. You don't hear of Mendelssohn rewriting the St Matthew Passion so the first violins can count it do you. Or perhaps you do.
@Shredlord12345 If you actually sit and follow the score you will see quite plainly they are bullshitting their arses off. Several points here what is played is not what is written.
@Shredlord12345 And, of course, you have absolute perfect pitch to bear that out don't you? Able to tell a 1/4 from an 1/8th tone at that speed? I very much doubt, were this put through a computer, it would sound anything like this performance.
"Yes, there are forms of objective stupidity (not my word), objective reasons why some music is stupid". The only one you have stated has something to do with perceived indecipherability. But again, that is flummoxed by your comments re, Glass who's music is perfectly decipherable. Your just confused.
Pseudo intellectual bullshit. The performers are faking it, Ferneyhough is faking it and his admirers are faking it. You might just as well put a score by Cage in front of these players which simply requires them to improvise. The only thing that stands between Brian Ferneyhough and Michael Nyman is an enormous heap of bullshit. You can pretend that this represents the work of a profound intellectual or you can simply look at how prolifically he and his chums churn out this stuff .
@egapnala65 the result of improvisation would be very different from this in various ways, the most obvious being the absolute impossibility to coordinate all the homophonic actions ... I would suggest you ask yourself if you are really hearing, and I'm not implying you can't, rather that you don't want to ...
@ablocec How would you know? I think it would be perfectly easy to improvise this kind of nonsense (and have actually been at a concert where a group of people did so and fooled everybody that they were playing from a score and boy did the "New Complexity" freaks swoon dahling, "soooo chaotic dahling!!"Loved it!! Another Sherry!!"). You are only aware of the homophonic elements because you have a score in front of you. Beyond that you are blind.
After all you really need are a handful of sonic effects, a bit of careful preperation and the ability to write polysyllables in place of programme notes and the world is your oyster.
Respond to this video... And my "hearing" is perfectly ok by the way. I just prefer music of substance rather than a load of mere CGI effects supported by bourgoeis pseudo-intellectualism. Each to their own.
@egapnala65 I don't subscribe to your "each to their own", since I replied to your comment because I wanted to exchange opinions. I would like to add that you can be perfectly aware of some, maybe many, homophonic elements during the listening of the piece (and with each hearing all these elements are more and more perceptible), not just because you have the score in front of you. As I think you can see, I'm not defending this music, just pointing out what happens to me when I listen to it.
@ablocec You don't subscribe to "each to their own"? That's rather totalitarian of you isn't it? Oh yes. I forget we're dealing with Hegel freaks here. The whole of mankind's aesthetic evolutionary endeavour is reached by a hemidemisemiquaver quasi rest in the third linear substratum of the diachronic plenum of this very work. How silly of me. Shame that historicism is a heap of crap then isn't it? But thank for for clarifying that you are speaking subjectively. Needless to say I don't agree.
@egapnala65 No, I meant I don't subscribe to leave it to that, to each to their own and not exchanging opinions ... I didn't mean "you don't have the right "to your own"". I meant I care more for exchanging opinions than for sticking "to my own" ...
i used this in a piece of sound design for an adaptation of oedipus. i feel bad knowing that it was generally not appreciated as anything more than 'background' or 'sound effect' but i was happy to use it at least.
Don't mind the dissonance, it's the unsettling mix of precise notation and severe technical demands and a sense of utter chaos. If one of the players had his music upside down, how long would it be before any listener realised? If Ferneyhough had told these virutosi to play whatever random stuff they felt like, - glissandi, pizzicato, huge variations in pitch, volume etc, how different would the result be? How do we know this is not precisely what he did, and that this is a transcript?
@1234cottagedoor Finally, someone who can see the emperor has no clothes on. You are quite correct. But you should mind the dissonance, because it's brainless, random dissonance. Only *controlled* dissonance is expressive of anything.
Mozart, Beethoven et al are rolling in their graves. i can certainly appreciate the complexity, but there can only be so much dissonance in music before it stops being aesthetically enjoyable.
@MsKatzo Funny, because critics said the exact same thing about Beethoven's Grosse Fugue and Mozart's later symphonies. The threshold for tolerating dissonance is moveable.
@wetuadjlv And that, of course, has now surfeited itself. Let's face it the only thing the composers of this ilk can do is to vanish further and further up the harmonic series as well as up their own arses. Which is why tonality has reasserted itself and we have a new range of ideas to play with.
@egapnala65 I can't believe you still consider the harmonic series relevant to this music at all. It's no wonder you hate this. Where has tonality reasserted itself? Minimalism? Neo-romanticism? All nostalgic and intellectually vapid ideals. There are better ideas that that out there.
@wetuadjlv And by what grasp of logic do you come to that astonishing conclusion? The Harmonic series is all we have, it is the foundation of everything we have relating to sound generation.The further you go up the more microtonal it gets, that doesn't make it redundant, merely indicates thats that you are actually pretty ignorant of its function. Like declaring the Periodic Table irrelevant for scientists.
@wetuadjlv But then I suppose your head is all full of that hegelian bullshit about history as logical progress and that there only being one single way forward.Sadly, it isn't, It is random, as Schopenhauer points out. There is only taste.
And again there is this hilarious assumption that acceptance and looking positively at the works of this charlatan is compulsory. It isn't. Get over yourself.
@egapnala65 I don't subscribe to any of that actually. Schopenhauer was definitely not the last word on the subject, by the way. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wittgenstein or Kivy if you haven't already. And I wasn't asking for approval, I was asking for you to actually admit that perhaps you don't understand F's philosophy of music to begin with, and, given that, you are in no place to make a value judgment on his work.
@wetuadjlv Philosophy? There is no philosophy here. Just an arrogant pseudo intellectual non-entity expecting performers to kiss his arse and make sacrifices at his altar. An egotistical fraud.
@fremsley001 While I welcome legitimate and thoughtful criticism and questioning of the music I post, yours is neither, and your lack of inclination to even attempt to understand the music (and accompanying writings) whose alleged faults you so persistently declaim is all too evident. For that reason I'm blocking you and deleting your previous comments in the interest of whatever standard of public discourse youtube might be able to hope to enjoy. Goodbye.
A debate lingers in this thread concerning the validity of the level of complexity in Ferneyhough's general oeuvre.
If one is going to talk about Ferneyhough's method of composition, I strongly suggest one acquire and read his Collected Writings. I agree that the descriptions of many of his works are obfuscated in clumsy, "academic" English, but his compositional processes are in actuality fairly simply to grasp... and incredibly intuitive.
@MusicaRicercata Whole-heartedly agree with that recommendation. The Collected Writings are wonderful (and, whilst some of what's written in them may take a couple readings to understand -- for me, anyway --, I've found it very much worth the effort).
@MusicaRicercata Is it just me, or has his string music become much more accessible & dramatic since the early 2000s (the last time I studied him was around 2003)? One can almost perceive Neoromantic elements - to the phrasing, the melodic contours, the chordal stops, the "fuoco", abrupt dynamics, the cadenzas & trills (certainly not the pitches, though there are phantom snippets of tortured Romantic era chords, as well as a vague premonition of voice leading). What a welcome change!
@MusicaRicercata Who cares about Fh's "method of composition". It's not a listener's business whether the composer used a computer or listened to birds or feels the ghost of Bach visits him. All that matters is how much a listener can grasp of whether the pitches sound meaningful or not - do they tell a story. A chimpanzee has as good a chance as Fh to write meaningful pitches.
@MusicaRicercata Personally I'd rather read somebody of substance like Schopenhauer myself. You know simply written but profound and of universal interest. Far preferable to a textbook resembling an explosion in a dictionary factory trying to justify what is fairly limited in interest.
@fremsley001 Hey bloke; do you even know what IRCAM is? I suggest you refrain from entering debates until you are actually at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter. Does that sound like a fair proposition to you?
I have nothing against any level of complexity in music so long as it has some impact beyond being used for its own sake. Here you got additive time signatures all over the place that don't feel anything like their would be impact anyway because they are so obscured by the irregular tuplets, there is no grounding on which the complexity can effectivly manifest itself. Seems to me the aim with this was to write something complex over writing music regardless of the complexity - just me though.
@DogSeal0 @DogSeal0 It might help to note that Ferneyhough conceives meter more in terms of giving the composer/performer/listener a temporal space in which to create than in terms of a beat -- so such additive time signatures are acting more as a means to subdivide that space than to create the kind of steady beat that irregular tuplets would indeed obscure.
@p0lyph0nyXX by definition, meter is not only denoting pulse, but pulse hierarchy. Without the hierarchy, no measures are necessary. There are much simpler ways to notate "temporal space" - no measures, no meter, no pulse, just note values and perhaps adjectives or symbols denoting "faster" and "slower". That any performer would slave over this idiot's notation to realize such worthless sounds is nothing short of astounding.
@DogSeal0 -continued-: While the beat isn't irrelevant to Ferney (and he's certainly aware of it within his music -- to this end, there's a great video in which he conducts part of his newest flute piece, "Sysyphus Redux"), it also isn't the ultimate goal of meter -- in fact, he sees a situation in which beat is a central goal of meter as being somewhat inseparable from tonality. I can look up and send you the passage in which he discusses all this if you're interested.
@p0lyph0nyXX Ok, I'm going to bite on this one even though it's meant for DogSeal. I find Ferneyhough's stuff interesting for some reason but I can't say it's something I like listening to. Could I see the beat/meter/tonality passage or maybe a bit more?
@DogSeal0 There are two kinds of music - music with a pulse, and bad music. The reason is *relation* - notes that refer to a pulse immediately set up a relation with that pulse. Tonal music is full of relation - harmonic relation, melodic relation, formal relation. C-E-G are not 3 notes, they form a relation with each other that we do not hear as three notes, but as something greater than the sum of its parts. The problem with "music" such as Ferneyhough and his ilk is that all we get is notes.
@jaspernatchez It seems like you believe the existence of Ferneyhough is meant to undermine or devalue the art of tonal music not just exist as an alternative. Never mind all of the music without a pulse that originated in Eastern classical traditions, jaspernatchez knows that that is not "real music". You are so much more enlightened...anytime we go to do anything non-traditional we should always check with jaspernatchez to see if it is ok because he is the authority of "bad music" and art...
@Shredlord12345 Um, no, Ferneyhough is just one of many phonies (many of whom seem to be British). Calling Fh an "alternative" to tonal music is like calling belching an alternative to opera. One need not be enlightened to appreciate great music - it lasts although not many are enlightened. Tonal music is appreciated first non-cerebrally. You can read about why Fh and his ilk are fakers and why those who claim to like them are phonies by typing y9rclzt after
@jaspernatchez I love his music and you claim that I am a "phony". His music influences my own writing furthering my "phoniness". Its fascinating to me that not only do you believe that this isn't real music, but you actually believe that it is impossible for someone to enjoy it. I've read a great deal about Ferneyhough much of which from himself. I've even done a presentation on his music. You can tell me that I secretly don't like him and I laugh at your arrogance.
@Shredlord12345 Sorry if the url i posted was not clear - youtube has apparently deemed urls verboten in comments. it's at tiny url dot calm. Read it and you will discover that, unless you are an alien, you must be a phony. My guess is that you became a phony because you couldn't figure out what was so great about Bach and Schumann, but had it in your head that you wanted to be a musician, apparently a composer. Lack of aesthetic judgment has allowed all kinds of idiocy to masquerade as art.
@Shredlord12345 Sorry if the u r el i posted was not clear - they are apparently verboten in comments. it's at tiny u r el daht calm. Read it and you will discover that, unless you are an alien, you must be a phony. My guess is that you became a phony because you couldn't figure out what was so great about Bach and Schumann, but had it in your head that you wanted to be a musician, apparently a composer. Lack of aesthetic judgment has allowed all kinds of idiocy to masquerade as art.
@jaspernatchez Quite the contrary, I love Bach and I love Schumann and both are quite influential to me as well (Bach even more than Ferneyhough). I've "had it in my head" that I wanted to be a musician since I was 5 and have been studying composition for years. The only idiocy here is your inability to accept that some music works because of the interweaving of contrasting textures or by rhythm, not all music requires common practice tonality to function.
@Shredlord12345 As I said, tonal music is first appreciated non-cerebrally. You apparently haven't a clue as to the incredible richness and complexity of pitch and rhythmic relationships that make tonal music so incredibly versatile and meaningful. I won't bother putting you on the spot by asking you to cite why one event follows another in Fh - of course, there is no justification - it's random garbage.Composing must be so much fun when you don't have to worry about why one event follows nthr!
@jaspernatchez I would love to tell you why one event follows another but its much more complex in Ferneyhough than in traditional tonal music where events are so methodical that its shocking if a third theme is introduced in sonata form or if the soloist plays an introduction in a concerto. I know nothing of the form of his string quartets and honestly don't really like them that much but as I mentioned I did a presentation on the formal structure of "Cassandra's Dream Song".
@jaspernatchez and I would agree that music that has no purpose in why one event follows another is pretty stupid which is exactly why you don't understand Ferneyhough.
@Shredlord12345 Perhaps you are not familiar with the definition of "complex". OED says "consisting of many different and connected parts" The connections in tonal music are manifold and occur over many different time spans - note to note, chord to chord, phrase to phrase, section to section. Fh has no connections, therefore is not complex. Some complex things are difficult to understand, so mere incomprehensibility is often confused with complexity. You imply that you are unable to cite why
@jaspernatchez one event follows another in Fh, and you equate this knowledge to "form". Form is nothing more than a container. It is not important and not meant to be perceived as such. It is just a formula to keep a composer on track. Events follow each other in temporal art such as music or drama according to very basic principles - contrast and continuity. You then say that when the reason events proceed as they do is indecipherable, the music is "stupid". So you imply it is stupid for you.
@jaspernatchez Would you like to tell us about Philip Glass? About whether you regard his music as "stupid"? Or are you simply saying there are forms of objective stupidity which don't depend on the opinions of others? Or whether his music is simply stupid for you? Matters of taste? Or objective foundations for preferring one form of music to another.
@egapnala65 The only difference between Glass and a typical garage band "musician" is that Glass is a much slier businessman. And yes, there are "forms of objective 'stupidity' " (not my word), or more precisely, objective reasons why certain music is stupid - the rest of your question is redundant. There are also objective reasons why great music is not 'stupid', but many things that make great music great cannot be described objectively, and are thus subject to opinion.
@jaspernatchez Well that's rather an arrogant assumption is it not? You can only qualify the reasons you, personally, find such music "stupid". Like your pal Adorno did. Of course, he then went on to universalise his own prejudices and stupidity by covering them over in pretentious, high flown philosophical jargon. Such is the joy of bourgeois aesthetics. But please elaborate. What constitutes objectively "stupid" music. Specific forms, harmonies? If so tell us which ones.
@egapnala65 I have a better idea. Why don't you tell "us" specifically what you like about this Fh "piece" upon which we are supposed to be commenting? Use time markers so I can understand precisely what you are talking about. And don't bother with "this sounds really cool", etc. You need to specify the various connections and references produced by his pitch choices. You need to prove that the choices he makes are motivated in some way by what comes before or after. That is what music is about
@jaspernatchez The whole thing pal. So anyway about this objective stupidity in music of yours. What are your parameters ? Specific cadential formulae? Like a plagal cadence that goes a bit silly at weekends? Or some invertible counterpoint that tells jokes? Come on my dear little pseud tell us what objectively constitutes "stupid music", then we can go on from there. You are the one making these claims that something exists beyond your own perceptions. Prove it.
@egapnala65 LOL! Just as I figured - you're just another clueless pseudo who wants to feel special by claiming to comprehend nonsense. If you scan up this thread you'll see you have company.
@jaspernatchez Yes yes. Of course. It, of course being an eternal truism of an aural art form that textual analysis is the only way to appreciate it. Rather like one should read the screenplay of a film before seeing it. Sorry, but that is an entirely false position. Great music should not need textual analysis for it to be valid. It should validate itself in performance. The fact that you need to analyse the score of this kind of crap merely shows how deficient it really is.
@jaspernatchez So have you come to any clear decision as to what objectively defines stupid music. You seem to be very good at hurling abuse around without actually making any contributions. So please present me with some objective factors. Though I think music which only justifies itself through textual analysis and which dies on its arse otherwise might be a good start.
@egapnala65 If you glance up the thread, you'll see not only that the word "stupid" is not mine, but that I clearly state the conditions that another poster deemed stupid. Since it appears your ability to comprehend what you read is limited, I'll now repeat: when the reasons why events follow each other are indecipherable, the music is "stupid". Now, I trust you realize it's clear to all that your above bs is intended solely to distract from the fact that you have no idea why Fh is not "stupid".
@jaspernatchez By what objective criteria though? There's no point trying to bring personal impressions into the argument. What you find indecipherable may be perfectly clear to some other person. Please supply objective criteria. And are you referring to audio or textual criteria? You seem to hold that simply because textual analysis reveals hidden depths to this work makes it a masterpiece. On the contrary, if the piece fails on an audio level and need that analysis it is stupid. Bad music.
@egapnala65 When I asked you, "Why don't you tell "us" specifically what you like about this Fh "piece" ", you replied "the whole thing pal", yet, when I bothered to read some of you other comments in the thread, it seems clear that you don't like the whole thing at all. The only conclusion one can draw is that you're just a troll, probably very lonely and starved for conversation. And if the reasons for the procession of events in a piece are clear to someone, he ought to be able to explain.
@jaspernatchez You can draw whatever conclusions you want. You have not yet supplied any objective basis for any of your assertions. Again you rely on subjective opinions.
My opening comment is pretty clear where I stand in regard to this bullshit. Presumably you are too far up your own arse to have actually bothered to read that or you would not have put such a stupid question in the first place.
In the end its all taste you like CGI stuff I prefer substance.
@egapnala65 It would be interesting to analyze the "thought" process that led you to this conclusion. Probably similar to that which led you to believe that "criteria" is singular.
@DogSeal0 Totally agree. You only need to see the work of Charles Ives to see complexity being used in a clearly expressive way. The problem with the anally retentive Ferneyhough clique is they think that cramming as much layering into a single note constitutes some form of intellectual endeavour. Wrong, it signifies wasted effort and anal retentiveness. Layer enough levels and you end up with a wash. It all looks impressive on a blackboard but in performance its bullshit.
@egapnala65 You're confusing method with meaning, in the meanwhile coming dangerously close to actually figuring it out. "Layer enough levels and you end up with a wash." That's exactly what Xenakis did, and if you think he's out then we've got a whole other problem. It certainly wasn't wasted effort, and he very much did end up with something expressive, but it doesn't fit your rather shrunken idea of expressiveness, so you've rejected it. So close...
@wetuadjlv Ah yes Xenakis. I showed a mathematical friend of mine a copy of "Stochastic Music" and he commented that Xenakis couldn't even get the basic mathematical notation right. More bullshit? If all you want form music is to bliss out to white noise that is your prerogative and composers like Branca would love to know you. Just don't expect people who favour things like contrast and conflict to follow your one-dimensional lead though.
@egapnala65 I am sincerely perplexed by your comment. Disregarding your talk about the math (people on different continents in different decades are often taught different notations, the stochastic methods work, and his music (most of it) is excellently engaging. You're being genuinely ignorant here.
@wetuadjlv To you perhaps. But again, it is not compulsory. Your very keen to dismiss "neo-romanticism" and "Minimalism" as unworthy aesthetics and that also makes you very ignorant then does it not? Or merely a pretentious hypocrite?
@egapnala65 I disagree with minimalism and neo-ro (no need for the scare quotes), not on grounds of their being "incomprehensible" or "too darned complicated" or "boring" or any other low-level set of observations, but because I've engaged their theories of aesthetics and found them unsuitable and unrewarding. I dislike their founding principles because I believe they're ethically wrong, not just because they're "bullshit."
@wetuadjlv Yes yes of course. It all boils down to aesthetics does it not. That's all very well until people like me come along and start trashing the "aesthetics of bullshit" displayed here.
Other people would look for things like individual fingerprints, stylistic and nationalistic differences, the influence of native cultures etc. Ah yes, I forget all of that is not important is it? What matters is competing to see who reaches white noise status first is it not? It's your loss not mine.
@wetuadjlv I am just intrigued as to why you consider appreciation of this stuff to be compulsory. It isn't. I jog along quite merrily without it, it adds nothing to the musical world except a heap of polysyllabic gibberish. It isn't particularly mind shattering or important as the electronic and multi-directional sound explorations of the likes of Stockhausen and Nono. Giants like those mad a real contribution to music and their work repays study. This doesn't. Its music for anal retentives.
@egapnala65 I don't consider appreciation mandatory, but I would prefer a little respect for something you don't understand, as opposed to calling it bullshit. The Darmstadt school is dead, so of course the controversy surrounding their validity is over and you can easily cite them as important. This music, however, is somewhat more fresh and thus more "open" to your destructive, conservative criticism.
@wetuadjlv It is not "fresh", its part of the 1970's "modernism for modernism's" sake which did much to tarnish the UK then. It is merely an attempt to recreate the aesthetics of 1950's Darmstadt which for anal retentive academics is seen as the high point. Composers like Segerstam are far more interesting and relevant now.
@wetuadjlv "A shrunken idea of expressiveness" of course, if John Cage were to have recorded himself pissing in a bucket you would, no doubt, declare appreciation of that to be compulsory as well. Sorry to disappoint.
@egapnala65 To be honest I don't listen much to Cage, and I still have no idea where you getting the idea that this music must be appreciated, as opposed to understood.
@wetuadjlv I understand it fully. Your arrogant assumption that understanding something automatically has to generate approval is ridiculous. Try another cliche.
@egapnala65 I have been exceedingly careful not to make that assumption, and you must have been reading it into my statements if you felt that. I have found throughout this discussion that it is you, not me, who insists on using worn-out cliches when discussing this music, and I will not be returning to this video to comment. If you had given a ref to some outside source that could explain your distaste in fuller times, I might listen. Alas, you've gone too far for me to take you seriously.
THANK YOU!!, I didn't even know there was a Fifth. I had the honour of hearing the Arditti perform the Third a few years ago. All praise to anyone to the left of John Adams, from a benighted U. S. resident.
It's great to see the score as well-when i fist heard the quartet a few years ago i was more awe struck by Ferneyhough's verbal description, than the piece itslelf- -now,with the aid of the score,it is becoming more clear to me.
This is a really long flame-fest below me. Bottom line: on paper, this is complex/badass/awesome/whatever, but when you listen to it, it sounds like shit.
ddrvnn7 2 weeks ago
@ddrvnn7 Why does it sound like shit?
AfroDeezeeYak 5 days ago
@AfroDeezeeYak Well, listen to it...
meddelhed 2 days ago
@meddelhed ....and?
AfroDeezeeYak 2 days ago
Remember folks its perfectly acceptable for "New Complexity" freaks to strut around like arrogant peacocks consigning 90% of musical endeavour to the aesthetic gas chamber on spurious grounds, but do the same for their peculiar little fetishes and it upsets the ridiculous little tykes.
egapnala65 3 months ago
For those of you out there who have minimal musical talent but lots of academic ambition, you too can now be Brian Ferneyhough. Try googling "Dominic Irving Random Bullshit" and you can make your own programme notes sound like Ferneys. The wonders of computer technology.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 All we need now is for the same thing to happen with his scores. Surely that can be done.
egapnala65 3 months ago
Comment removed
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@egapnala65 Of course, it's already happened to that great master Bach, so it must be simple for this poseur! Copying a style does not equate to copying a philosophy.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
This *music* is absolute garbage and a prime example of why the general public will continue to stick with Mozart rather than waste any of their time on modern composers. I don't blame them.
Horicert 3 months ago
@Horicert The "general public" hasn't been sticking with Mozart for the past few decades or so. They're not sticking with classical at all. And it's because too many people made the decision for them, that they won't like this, that they won't find an interest in "modern" composers (by the way, Ferneyhough is New Complexity, arguably more postmodern than modern). Stop assuming everyone has the same musical tastes as you and stop assuming that this is what every contemporary composer dreams of.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv Mozart shifts more units than Ferneyhough so the comment is valid. Ferneyhough is a graphic designer who could make fabulous wallpaper for a company. "New Complexity" is bullshit, pure and simple. It's practitioners are charlatans who hide behind over elaborate notation and verbiage to get themselves noticed in the Academic marketplace. It will, of course, also sign their death warrents as nobody is going to bother to look at this shit and do all the maths it needs to play it.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 ...when they die.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I wonder, would you say the same thing about Xenakis? His music is also incredibly dense and complicated in notation, but people will begin to play his pieces now more and more since he's finally being recognized as a force of the late 20th century. You alone can't consign anyone as controversial as F to obscurity, and I'd be amazed to see a coherent argument from you as to why this music has no emotive or cognitive content.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv "But people will begin to play his pieces now more and more since he's finally being recognised "- recognised by who? The mainstream? A tiny band of academics who spend more time in electroacoustic labs than they should? This generation produced a couple of giants and a few important works. The rest made careers out of being wilfully obscurantist and their music will die with them. The joys of conforming to fashion rather than following your own star.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv "You alone can't consign"- but I am not alone am I ? Ferney has consigned himself to obscurity has he not? Rather like putting up barbed wire fences, minefields, wild tigers etc around your house to keep people out and then complaining you don't get any visitors. And, of course, being controversial is far more important than actually being a genuine craftsman with something to say trying to shape musical material to suit his message isn't it.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv As to content, well it is a pretty subjective area is it not? I find this just as engaging as an explosion in a special effects factory. About as exciting as free jazzers improvising, interesting for a couple of minutes but beyond that tedious, colourless and aesthetically worthless. You may beg to differ, of course, but what you hear here is not what you see but an approximation. That makes all comments as to the content doubly redundant.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I can see you're both willfully ignorant and determined, to boot, so I'm not going to spend much more time on this. The "approximation" between the score and performance will always exist, since the two are factually two different entities. Even a "computer" performance of a score is not perfect - it uses a subjective sound library, and may use a robotic timing never used in performance. Of course, content is subjective, but judging it worthless or denying its existence is objective
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv Not to the extent when the performer is essentially having rewrite the piece because the composer cannot be arsed to make his meaning clear, rather similar to an author handing his reader a dictionary and telling them to find it for themselves.
A computer reading would be the worst thing that could happen though as it would expose the world of Ferney fandom for the heap of pretentious crap it is. It would provide an accurate version by which the composers intentions can be measured.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@Horicert There are important modern composers who's work is genuinley interesting and worth exploring. This is just the lunatic fringe though.
egapnala65 3 months ago
this music sounds amazingly dated. in the worst kind of way, because it's quite poor.
muslit 4 months ago
interesting thing is that this music doesn't 'sound' nearly as complex as it looks on paper
muslit 4 months ago
@muslit Probably because they are bullshitting. Do you really think they REALLY playing all those microtonal double-stops as written? At this tempo? Or are they simply improvising around the score thereby showing up the composer as a very poor one?
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 The Arditti Quartet is arguably the best string quartet in the world for playing contemporary music. They put hundreds of hours into the Ferneyhough string quartets and they commissioned most of them. They even made a short little documentary about it. Yes, they are playing all the microtones as written, they go out of their way to make sure the microtones are accurate. There is no improvising I assure you.
Shredlord12345 3 months ago 2
@Shredlord12345 Given that Ferneyhough himself has declared his own music to be written and deliberately planned to be impossible to play with any degree of accuracy and that it is the tension between performer and impossible score he finds so utterly orgasmic (sadism?), I would say that a certain amount of bullshit on their part must play a role. The Arditti, of course, are the Kronos Quartet for pseuds.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 The sadomasochism argument is one that's been made countless times before and it's utterly insulting to both the performers and composers who enjoy this music. Would you call the tension that Beethoven or any other composer who believed in "Sturm und Drang" put the audience through "sadism"? You've obviously gotten your arguments second-hand or maybe even made them up, because you completely missed Ferneyhough's point.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv But it is essentially a power relationship. Ferney deliberatly writes impossible to play music because he likes to watch the performers struggling to play something he knows they will never be able to with any accuracy. Beethoven et al used the conventional methods and extended them. This bears no relationship to anything beyond itself, it is simply graphic design designed to sell itself to people more impressed by how a score looks than the actual mechanics of playing it.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 Yes, I am aware the tension with F is music/performer/audience instead of music/audience, but that does not change the fact of a power relationship. The performers can enjoy the struggle without being masochistic, however. It's not paining them to work on the music and perform it, but it does challenge them and produce a state of wonderfully intense concentration. If you don't think that's a valid aesthetic then I can accept you opinion, but what you have said is unfair.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv In order to perform this "music" you need first to actually rewrite it so as to make it possible to count. That means that the composer has failed in his primary task. The beat structures are so random and the key signatures utterly irrelevant that Ferney might just as well have programmed all these graphic designs into a computer and randomly generated it. It is a lot of needless hard work being undertaken for very little. He could get the same results with simpler notation.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 Objective statements about the purpose of the composer again? You must be a music performance major...
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv I have a Masters degree, what is your qualification? You sound like an overenthusiastic undergrad.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 And both the Arditti and Kronos are perfectly world-class quartets. It's quite frankly not their fault if you can't comprehend their playing, because they do it quite well. So please get over your narcissism.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv The only narcissism on display here are those who are going "oh sublime Ferneyhough. Oh exquisite Arditti" covering over the fact that the performances are based on a complete rewriting of the scores by the performers because the composer is such an arrogant pretentious tosspot that he puts graphic design over actual compositional practice. If this were a computer rendering of the score as literally written then there would be some point to praising it. But its not, its bullshit.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 This is complicated notation, not graphic notation. The visual impact is just a side product of the relationship he wants to produce between performer and music. He's said several times before that he would give no value at all to computer perf.s of his scores, and of course that's because he doesn't want to hear the music effortlessly played, he wants to hear real sacrifice in the performance.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv It is graphic design. What we hear is the result of a rewriting of the "score", not this score which is impossible to play as it stands as well he knows. He is doing because it gets him noticed and for no other reason. "He wants to hear real sacrifice"- he's a sadist getting his rocks off then isn't he.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 And you're rather sheltered to believe that anyone even wants a "perfect" rendering of the score.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv Well, I do. That is the whole point of being a composer after all. Are you really suggesting that people improvising over the score of Beethoven 5 should be likewise acceptable? Totally random playing of what Mozart wrote? Either a composer has some responsibility to his performers or he doesn't. Anybody can write unplayable bullshit and then blame the performers. It isn't serious music though.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 Improvising, rearranging, and otherwise altering the score has been a common practice literally since the beginning of music history, and was only pushed aside with the rise of the deplorable "New Objectivity." F could be referencing any of those practices or working to create something new altogether. As the video shows, this shit is clearly performable, although maybe not to your or your interpretation of F's standards. You are indeed living under a philosophical rock.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv Yeah yeah yeah. And there's also lots of imaginary instruments playing in the gaps as well, forming an implied countertexual dialectical interface where the metamusical entropy is negated geosonically by its own rhetorical substructure forming a bi-lateral metaphor which can be quasirationally applied to the next double stopped glissando doublestopped hexachordal superstructure. He could also be laughing all the way to the bank at the gullibility of academia.
egapnala65 3 months ago 3
@egapnala65
It sounds absolutely midblowingly awesome, though - very glad music like this exists! :)
twooffour 3 months ago 5
@twooffour Have no issues with the SOUND at all.Merely the bullshit that surrounds it. These effects could equally have been generated using far less elaborate notation through aleatoric techniques etc. He is simply trying to present us with something that looks impressive but which cannot directly be played without being re-written substantially.
As is stands what you hear is actually the Arditti bullshitting and quasi improvising instead of what has been written here. Which is dishonest.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65
Ah, ok, sorry I guess I didn't read you carefully :)
twooffour 3 months ago
@egapnala65
Although, why do the performers "improvise"? Haven't they studied the piece before? It's not like they were sight reading this...
just curious.
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour The rhythms that are notated here are IMPOSSIBLE to play accurately at the tempo expected. Ferneyhough knows this but believes he is challenging performers by writing in such a ridiculous fashion.
The Arditti have to break every bar down into percentages of beat in order to make it countable and we are talking percentages of 1/20th of a given note value as the barlines and time signatures are also irrelevant. This is also complicated by the fact that the score also changes meter.../
egapnala65 3 months ago 3
@egapnala65 every couple of beats so there is no regular pattern that performers can actually latch onto. It is as if somebody has deliberately sat down and made it a ideal to write scores which nobody can play and which, in olden times, would simply have been laughed out of the academies as being totally opposed to both musical grammar and instrumental capabilities.
It works well though because people who can't read music will be impressed by the LOOK of the scores which creates a fan base.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 The very essence of having coherent atonality, is the lack of regular pulse or pattern which may emphasize a single pitch.
This being said, how often do you think people who cannot read music, may stumble upon a Ferneyhough score? ;)
Just to be clear: I'm not an avid Ferneyhough fan (though I do like the aesthetic quality of some of his pieces, especially his orchestral stuff). Though flawed notational justification: this is not the only aspect of his music worthy of discussion.
AfroDeezeeYak 3 weeks ago
@AfroDeezeeYak It all stems from the works done in electronic studios during the 60's where the focus shifted from tonality to pitch frequencies.
egapnala65 3 weeks ago
@egapnala65 But yes: I agree with your saying that some sort of controlled-aleatory would be a far more practical approach to accomplishing the same effect of aperiodicity (something I am exploring myself i.e. spatial notation within regular beats).
AfroDeezeeYak 3 weeks ago
@AfroDeezeeYak Suggest you look into Segerstam them.
egapnala65 3 weeks ago
@twooffour But you'd get the same result through jamming though. That's the point.
egapnala65 3 weeks ago
@wetuadjlv Difference between "fixing" and editing scores and effectively recomposing them because the composer is more interested in graphics than actually engaging with performers. You don't hear of Mendelssohn rewriting the St Matthew Passion so the first violins can count it do you. Or perhaps you do.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@Shredlord12345 If you actually sit and follow the score you will see quite plainly they are bullshitting their arses off. Several points here what is played is not what is written.
egapnala65 3 months ago
Comment removed
egapnala65 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shredlord12345 And, of course, you have absolute perfect pitch to bear that out don't you? Able to tell a 1/4 from an 1/8th tone at that speed? I very much doubt, were this put through a computer, it would sound anything like this performance.
egapnala65 3 months ago
all you need to know about Ferneyhough's 6th string quartet is to listen to it.
it sucks.
muslit 4 months ago
REALLY engaging. The more I listen to this guys music the more I love it.
FederersL1ama 4 months ago
"Yes, there are forms of objective stupidity (not my word), objective reasons why some music is stupid". The only one you have stated has something to do with perceived indecipherability. But again, that is flummoxed by your comments re, Glass who's music is perfectly decipherable. Your just confused.
egapnala65 4 months ago
Pseudo intellectual bullshit. The performers are faking it, Ferneyhough is faking it and his admirers are faking it. You might just as well put a score by Cage in front of these players which simply requires them to improvise. The only thing that stands between Brian Ferneyhough and Michael Nyman is an enormous heap of bullshit. You can pretend that this represents the work of a profound intellectual or you can simply look at how prolifically he and his chums churn out this stuff .
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 and marvel at their commercial nous in creating their own little niche market.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 the result of improvisation would be very different from this in various ways, the most obvious being the absolute impossibility to coordinate all the homophonic actions ... I would suggest you ask yourself if you are really hearing, and I'm not implying you can't, rather that you don't want to ...
ablocec 5 months ago
@ablocec How would you know? I think it would be perfectly easy to improvise this kind of nonsense (and have actually been at a concert where a group of people did so and fooled everybody that they were playing from a score and boy did the "New Complexity" freaks swoon dahling, "soooo chaotic dahling!!"Loved it!! Another Sherry!!"). You are only aware of the homophonic elements because you have a score in front of you. Beyond that you are blind.
egapnala65 5 months ago
After all you really need are a handful of sonic effects, a bit of careful preperation and the ability to write polysyllables in place of programme notes and the world is your oyster.
egapnala65 5 months ago
Respond to this video... And my "hearing" is perfectly ok by the way. I just prefer music of substance rather than a load of mere CGI effects supported by bourgoeis pseudo-intellectualism. Each to their own.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 I don't subscribe to your "each to their own", since I replied to your comment because I wanted to exchange opinions. I would like to add that you can be perfectly aware of some, maybe many, homophonic elements during the listening of the piece (and with each hearing all these elements are more and more perceptible), not just because you have the score in front of you. As I think you can see, I'm not defending this music, just pointing out what happens to me when I listen to it.
ablocec 5 months ago
@ablocec You don't subscribe to "each to their own"? That's rather totalitarian of you isn't it? Oh yes. I forget we're dealing with Hegel freaks here. The whole of mankind's aesthetic evolutionary endeavour is reached by a hemidemisemiquaver quasi rest in the third linear substratum of the diachronic plenum of this very work. How silly of me. Shame that historicism is a heap of crap then isn't it? But thank for for clarifying that you are speaking subjectively. Needless to say I don't agree.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 No, I meant I don't subscribe to leave it to that, to each to their own and not exchanging opinions ... I didn't mean "you don't have the right "to your own"". I meant I care more for exchanging opinions than for sticking "to my own" ...
ablocec 5 months ago
@ablocec Well, we have exchanged opinions. Each to their own.
egapnala65 5 months ago
THIS IS AWESOME!!!
:D
AEFic 5 months ago
well, err... wow, it is inter-....er.... new... er... wait... no sorry, just pure and utter nonsense!
Keytaster 5 months ago
i used this in a piece of sound design for an adaptation of oedipus. i feel bad knowing that it was generally not appreciated as anything more than 'background' or 'sound effect' but i was happy to use it at least.
albachteng 6 months ago in playlist albachteng's Favorited Videos
Kinda neat. It's chaotic and full of tension at least.
MrTanookiMario 7 months ago
in spite of the fact that it was written in 2006, this quartet is a relic from the distant modernist ideal, albeit with romantic tendencies.
muslit 9 months ago
Don't mind the dissonance, it's the unsettling mix of precise notation and severe technical demands and a sense of utter chaos. If one of the players had his music upside down, how long would it be before any listener realised? If Ferneyhough had told these virutosi to play whatever random stuff they felt like, - glissandi, pizzicato, huge variations in pitch, volume etc, how different would the result be? How do we know this is not precisely what he did, and that this is a transcript?
1234cottagedoor 9 months ago
@1234cottagedoor Finally, someone who can see the emperor has no clothes on. You are quite correct. But you should mind the dissonance, because it's brainless, random dissonance. Only *controlled* dissonance is expressive of anything.
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
Comment removed
albachteng 6 months ago in playlist albachteng's Favorited Videos
@1234cottagedoor Exactly correct.
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
this is only mathmatical and has no emotion, should not be considered art nor science.....it should be considered dog shit!
deblimp 9 months ago
This is crap.
CrackSnortingSailor 10 months ago
Thanks for posting this with the score. Your work is much appreciated.
jibif 1 year ago
Mozart, Beethoven et al are rolling in their graves. i can certainly appreciate the complexity, but there can only be so much dissonance in music before it stops being aesthetically enjoyable.
MsKatzo 1 year ago 3
@MsKatzo Funny, because critics said the exact same thing about Beethoven's Grosse Fugue and Mozart's later symphonies. The threshold for tolerating dissonance is moveable.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv And that, of course, has now surfeited itself. Let's face it the only thing the composers of this ilk can do is to vanish further and further up the harmonic series as well as up their own arses. Which is why tonality has reasserted itself and we have a new range of ideas to play with.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I can't believe you still consider the harmonic series relevant to this music at all. It's no wonder you hate this. Where has tonality reasserted itself? Minimalism? Neo-romanticism? All nostalgic and intellectually vapid ideals. There are better ideas that that out there.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv And by what grasp of logic do you come to that astonishing conclusion? The Harmonic series is all we have, it is the foundation of everything we have relating to sound generation.The further you go up the more microtonal it gets, that doesn't make it redundant, merely indicates thats that you are actually pretty ignorant of its function. Like declaring the Periodic Table irrelevant for scientists.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv But then I suppose your head is all full of that hegelian bullshit about history as logical progress and that there only being one single way forward.Sadly, it isn't, It is random, as Schopenhauer points out. There is only taste.
And again there is this hilarious assumption that acceptance and looking positively at the works of this charlatan is compulsory. It isn't. Get over yourself.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I don't subscribe to any of that actually. Schopenhauer was definitely not the last word on the subject, by the way. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wittgenstein or Kivy if you haven't already. And I wasn't asking for approval, I was asking for you to actually admit that perhaps you don't understand F's philosophy of music to begin with, and, given that, you are in no place to make a value judgment on his work.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv Philosophy? There is no philosophy here. Just an arrogant pseudo intellectual non-entity expecting performers to kiss his arse and make sacrifices at his altar. An egotistical fraud.
egapnala65 3 months ago
Music of good intention, crisp and moving in time to many places.
MisterSimnock 1 year ago
Beautiful.
markzemusic 1 year ago
@fremsley001 While I welcome legitimate and thoughtful criticism and questioning of the music I post, yours is neither, and your lack of inclination to even attempt to understand the music (and accompanying writings) whose alleged faults you so persistently declaim is all too evident. For that reason I'm blocking you and deleting your previous comments in the interest of whatever standard of public discourse youtube might be able to hope to enjoy. Goodbye.
p0lyph0nyXX 1 year ago 5
A debate lingers in this thread concerning the validity of the level of complexity in Ferneyhough's general oeuvre.
If one is going to talk about Ferneyhough's method of composition, I strongly suggest one acquire and read his Collected Writings. I agree that the descriptions of many of his works are obfuscated in clumsy, "academic" English, but his compositional processes are in actuality fairly simply to grasp... and incredibly intuitive.
MusicaRicercata 1 year ago 2
@MusicaRicercata Whole-heartedly agree with that recommendation. The Collected Writings are wonderful (and, whilst some of what's written in them may take a couple readings to understand -- for me, anyway --, I've found it very much worth the effort).
p0lyph0nyXX 1 year ago
@MusicaRicercata Is it just me, or has his string music become much more accessible & dramatic since the early 2000s (the last time I studied him was around 2003)? One can almost perceive Neoromantic elements - to the phrasing, the melodic contours, the chordal stops, the "fuoco", abrupt dynamics, the cadenzas & trills (certainly not the pitches, though there are phantom snippets of tortured Romantic era chords, as well as a vague premonition of voice leading). What a welcome change!
musicalidea 8 months ago
@MusicaRicercata Who cares about Fh's "method of composition". It's not a listener's business whether the composer used a computer or listened to birds or feels the ghost of Bach visits him. All that matters is how much a listener can grasp of whether the pitches sound meaningful or not - do they tell a story. A chimpanzee has as good a chance as Fh to write meaningful pitches.
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@MusicaRicercata Personally I'd rather read somebody of substance like Schopenhauer myself. You know simply written but profound and of universal interest. Far preferable to a textbook resembling an explosion in a dictionary factory trying to justify what is fairly limited in interest.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@fremsley001 Hey bloke; do you even know what IRCAM is? I suggest you refrain from entering debates until you are actually at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter. Does that sound like a fair proposition to you?
MusicaRicercata 1 year ago
@fremsley001 well... i think ferneyhough's music is not written to make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
bariolaje 1 year ago
geez if only they'd follow the dynamics, right?
kidding.
coolsnak3 1 year ago
I have nothing against any level of complexity in music so long as it has some impact beyond being used for its own sake. Here you got additive time signatures all over the place that don't feel anything like their would be impact anyway because they are so obscured by the irregular tuplets, there is no grounding on which the complexity can effectivly manifest itself. Seems to me the aim with this was to write something complex over writing music regardless of the complexity - just me though.
DogSeal0 1 year ago 9
@DogSeal0 @DogSeal0 It might help to note that Ferneyhough conceives meter more in terms of giving the composer/performer/listener a temporal space in which to create than in terms of a beat -- so such additive time signatures are acting more as a means to subdivide that space than to create the kind of steady beat that irregular tuplets would indeed obscure.
[continued in next comment]
p0lyph0nyXX 1 year ago 2
@p0lyph0nyXX by definition, meter is not only denoting pulse, but pulse hierarchy. Without the hierarchy, no measures are necessary. There are much simpler ways to notate "temporal space" - no measures, no meter, no pulse, just note values and perhaps adjectives or symbols denoting "faster" and "slower". That any performer would slave over this idiot's notation to realize such worthless sounds is nothing short of astounding.
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@DogSeal0 -continued-: While the beat isn't irrelevant to Ferney (and he's certainly aware of it within his music -- to this end, there's a great video in which he conducts part of his newest flute piece, "Sysyphus Redux"), it also isn't the ultimate goal of meter -- in fact, he sees a situation in which beat is a central goal of meter as being somewhat inseparable from tonality. I can look up and send you the passage in which he discusses all this if you're interested.
p0lyph0nyXX 1 year ago 6
@p0lyph0nyXX Ok, I'm going to bite on this one even though it's meant for DogSeal. I find Ferneyhough's stuff interesting for some reason but I can't say it's something I like listening to. Could I see the beat/meter/tonality passage or maybe a bit more?
qwAirGear 1 year ago
@p0lyph0nyXX Well, I am interested in that video, where is it? Thanks
ablocec 5 months ago
@DogSeal0 There are two kinds of music - music with a pulse, and bad music. The reason is *relation* - notes that refer to a pulse immediately set up a relation with that pulse. Tonal music is full of relation - harmonic relation, melodic relation, formal relation. C-E-G are not 3 notes, they form a relation with each other that we do not hear as three notes, but as something greater than the sum of its parts. The problem with "music" such as Ferneyhough and his ilk is that all we get is notes.
jaspernatchez 8 months ago
@jaspernatchez It seems like you believe the existence of Ferneyhough is meant to undermine or devalue the art of tonal music not just exist as an alternative. Never mind all of the music without a pulse that originated in Eastern classical traditions, jaspernatchez knows that that is not "real music". You are so much more enlightened...anytime we go to do anything non-traditional we should always check with jaspernatchez to see if it is ok because he is the authority of "bad music" and art...
Shredlord12345 6 months ago
@Shredlord12345 Um, no, Ferneyhough is just one of many phonies (many of whom seem to be British). Calling Fh an "alternative" to tonal music is like calling belching an alternative to opera. One need not be enlightened to appreciate great music - it lasts although not many are enlightened. Tonal music is appreciated first non-cerebrally. You can read about why Fh and his ilk are fakers and why those who claim to like them are phonies by typing y9rclzt after
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@jaspernatchez tiny you are ell
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@jaspernatchez I love his music and you claim that I am a "phony". His music influences my own writing furthering my "phoniness". Its fascinating to me that not only do you believe that this isn't real music, but you actually believe that it is impossible for someone to enjoy it. I've read a great deal about Ferneyhough much of which from himself. I've even done a presentation on his music. You can tell me that I secretly don't like him and I laugh at your arrogance.
Shredlord12345 6 months ago
@Shredlord12345 Sorry if the url i posted was not clear - youtube has apparently deemed urls verboten in comments. it's at tiny url dot calm. Read it and you will discover that, unless you are an alien, you must be a phony. My guess is that you became a phony because you couldn't figure out what was so great about Bach and Schumann, but had it in your head that you wanted to be a musician, apparently a composer. Lack of aesthetic judgment has allowed all kinds of idiocy to masquerade as art.
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@Shredlord12345 Sorry if the u r el i posted was not clear - they are apparently verboten in comments. it's at tiny u r el daht calm. Read it and you will discover that, unless you are an alien, you must be a phony. My guess is that you became a phony because you couldn't figure out what was so great about Bach and Schumann, but had it in your head that you wanted to be a musician, apparently a composer. Lack of aesthetic judgment has allowed all kinds of idiocy to masquerade as art.
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@jaspernatchez Quite the contrary, I love Bach and I love Schumann and both are quite influential to me as well (Bach even more than Ferneyhough). I've "had it in my head" that I wanted to be a musician since I was 5 and have been studying composition for years. The only idiocy here is your inability to accept that some music works because of the interweaving of contrasting textures or by rhythm, not all music requires common practice tonality to function.
Shredlord12345 6 months ago
@Shredlord12345 As I said, tonal music is first appreciated non-cerebrally. You apparently haven't a clue as to the incredible richness and complexity of pitch and rhythmic relationships that make tonal music so incredibly versatile and meaningful. I won't bother putting you on the spot by asking you to cite why one event follows another in Fh - of course, there is no justification - it's random garbage.Composing must be so much fun when you don't have to worry about why one event follows nthr!
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@jaspernatchez I would love to tell you why one event follows another but its much more complex in Ferneyhough than in traditional tonal music where events are so methodical that its shocking if a third theme is introduced in sonata form or if the soloist plays an introduction in a concerto. I know nothing of the form of his string quartets and honestly don't really like them that much but as I mentioned I did a presentation on the formal structure of "Cassandra's Dream Song".
Shredlord12345 6 months ago
@jaspernatchez and I would agree that music that has no purpose in why one event follows another is pretty stupid which is exactly why you don't understand Ferneyhough.
Shredlord12345 6 months ago
@Shredlord12345 Perhaps you are not familiar with the definition of "complex". OED says "consisting of many different and connected parts" The connections in tonal music are manifold and occur over many different time spans - note to note, chord to chord, phrase to phrase, section to section. Fh has no connections, therefore is not complex. Some complex things are difficult to understand, so mere incomprehensibility is often confused with complexity. You imply that you are unable to cite why
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@jaspernatchez one event follows another in Fh, and you equate this knowledge to "form". Form is nothing more than a container. It is not important and not meant to be perceived as such. It is just a formula to keep a composer on track. Events follow each other in temporal art such as music or drama according to very basic principles - contrast and continuity. You then say that when the reason events proceed as they do is indecipherable, the music is "stupid". So you imply it is stupid for you.
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@jaspernatchez Would you like to tell us about Philip Glass? About whether you regard his music as "stupid"? Or are you simply saying there are forms of objective stupidity which don't depend on the opinions of others? Or whether his music is simply stupid for you? Matters of taste? Or objective foundations for preferring one form of music to another.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 The only difference between Glass and a typical garage band "musician" is that Glass is a much slier businessman. And yes, there are "forms of objective 'stupidity' " (not my word), or more precisely, objective reasons why certain music is stupid - the rest of your question is redundant. There are also objective reasons why great music is not 'stupid', but many things that make great music great cannot be described objectively, and are thus subject to opinion.
jaspernatchez 5 months ago
@jaspernatchez Well that's rather an arrogant assumption is it not? You can only qualify the reasons you, personally, find such music "stupid". Like your pal Adorno did. Of course, he then went on to universalise his own prejudices and stupidity by covering them over in pretentious, high flown philosophical jargon. Such is the joy of bourgeois aesthetics. But please elaborate. What constitutes objectively "stupid" music. Specific forms, harmonies? If so tell us which ones.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 I have a better idea. Why don't you tell "us" specifically what you like about this Fh "piece" upon which we are supposed to be commenting? Use time markers so I can understand precisely what you are talking about. And don't bother with "this sounds really cool", etc. You need to specify the various connections and references produced by his pitch choices. You need to prove that the choices he makes are motivated in some way by what comes before or after. That is what music is about
jaspernatchez 5 months ago
@jaspernatchez The whole thing pal. So anyway about this objective stupidity in music of yours. What are your parameters ? Specific cadential formulae? Like a plagal cadence that goes a bit silly at weekends? Or some invertible counterpoint that tells jokes? Come on my dear little pseud tell us what objectively constitutes "stupid music", then we can go on from there. You are the one making these claims that something exists beyond your own perceptions. Prove it.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 LOL! Just as I figured - you're just another clueless pseudo who wants to feel special by claiming to comprehend nonsense. If you scan up this thread you'll see you have company.
jaspernatchez 4 months ago
@jaspernatchez Yes yes. Of course. It, of course being an eternal truism of an aural art form that textual analysis is the only way to appreciate it. Rather like one should read the screenplay of a film before seeing it. Sorry, but that is an entirely false position. Great music should not need textual analysis for it to be valid. It should validate itself in performance. The fact that you need to analyse the score of this kind of crap merely shows how deficient it really is.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@jaspernatchez So have you come to any clear decision as to what objectively defines stupid music. You seem to be very good at hurling abuse around without actually making any contributions. So please present me with some objective factors. Though I think music which only justifies itself through textual analysis and which dies on its arse otherwise might be a good start.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 If you glance up the thread, you'll see not only that the word "stupid" is not mine, but that I clearly state the conditions that another poster deemed stupid. Since it appears your ability to comprehend what you read is limited, I'll now repeat: when the reasons why events follow each other are indecipherable, the music is "stupid". Now, I trust you realize it's clear to all that your above bs is intended solely to distract from the fact that you have no idea why Fh is not "stupid".
jaspernatchez 4 months ago
@jaspernatchez By what objective criteria though? There's no point trying to bring personal impressions into the argument. What you find indecipherable may be perfectly clear to some other person. Please supply objective criteria. And are you referring to audio or textual criteria? You seem to hold that simply because textual analysis reveals hidden depths to this work makes it a masterpiece. On the contrary, if the piece fails on an audio level and need that analysis it is stupid. Bad music.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 And the whole "new complexity" bullshit fails big time because of that very criteria.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 When I asked you, "Why don't you tell "us" specifically what you like about this Fh "piece" ", you replied "the whole thing pal", yet, when I bothered to read some of you other comments in the thread, it seems clear that you don't like the whole thing at all. The only conclusion one can draw is that you're just a troll, probably very lonely and starved for conversation. And if the reasons for the procession of events in a piece are clear to someone, he ought to be able to explain.
jaspernatchez 4 months ago
@jaspernatchez You can draw whatever conclusions you want. You have not yet supplied any objective basis for any of your assertions. Again you rely on subjective opinions.
My opening comment is pretty clear where I stand in regard to this bullshit. Presumably you are too far up your own arse to have actually bothered to read that or you would not have put such a stupid question in the first place.
In the end its all taste you like CGI stuff I prefer substance.
egapnala65 4 months ago
You are quite lucky by the way. I almost replied "Sorry I think you are mistaking me for your mirror" but thought better of it.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Smart choice, since the observation made no sense.
jaspernatchez 4 months ago
@jaspernatchez Not to you, clearly. But as you are unable to actually listen to music without the aid of analytical crutches anyway, I can see why.,
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 It would be interesting to analyze the "thought" process that led you to this conclusion. Probably similar to that which led you to believe that "criteria" is singular.
jaspernatchez 4 months ago
@jaspernatchez No, there are probably more than one. The usage is perfectly correct thank you.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@DogSeal0 Correct.
jaspernatchez 6 months ago
@DogSeal0 Totally agree. You only need to see the work of Charles Ives to see complexity being used in a clearly expressive way. The problem with the anally retentive Ferneyhough clique is they think that cramming as much layering into a single note constitutes some form of intellectual endeavour. Wrong, it signifies wasted effort and anal retentiveness. Layer enough levels and you end up with a wash. It all looks impressive on a blackboard but in performance its bullshit.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You're confusing method with meaning, in the meanwhile coming dangerously close to actually figuring it out. "Layer enough levels and you end up with a wash." That's exactly what Xenakis did, and if you think he's out then we've got a whole other problem. It certainly wasn't wasted effort, and he very much did end up with something expressive, but it doesn't fit your rather shrunken idea of expressiveness, so you've rejected it. So close...
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv Ah yes Xenakis. I showed a mathematical friend of mine a copy of "Stochastic Music" and he commented that Xenakis couldn't even get the basic mathematical notation right. More bullshit? If all you want form music is to bliss out to white noise that is your prerogative and composers like Branca would love to know you. Just don't expect people who favour things like contrast and conflict to follow your one-dimensional lead though.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I am sincerely perplexed by your comment. Disregarding your talk about the math (people on different continents in different decades are often taught different notations, the stochastic methods work, and his music (most of it) is excellently engaging. You're being genuinely ignorant here.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv To you perhaps. But again, it is not compulsory. Your very keen to dismiss "neo-romanticism" and "Minimalism" as unworthy aesthetics and that also makes you very ignorant then does it not? Or merely a pretentious hypocrite?
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I disagree with minimalism and neo-ro (no need for the scare quotes), not on grounds of their being "incomprehensible" or "too darned complicated" or "boring" or any other low-level set of observations, but because I've engaged their theories of aesthetics and found them unsuitable and unrewarding. I dislike their founding principles because I believe they're ethically wrong, not just because they're "bullshit."
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv Yes yes of course. It all boils down to aesthetics does it not. That's all very well until people like me come along and start trashing the "aesthetics of bullshit" displayed here.
Other people would look for things like individual fingerprints, stylistic and nationalistic differences, the influence of native cultures etc. Ah yes, I forget all of that is not important is it? What matters is competing to see who reaches white noise status first is it not? It's your loss not mine.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv I am just intrigued as to why you consider appreciation of this stuff to be compulsory. It isn't. I jog along quite merrily without it, it adds nothing to the musical world except a heap of polysyllabic gibberish. It isn't particularly mind shattering or important as the electronic and multi-directional sound explorations of the likes of Stockhausen and Nono. Giants like those mad a real contribution to music and their work repays study. This doesn't. Its music for anal retentives.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I don't consider appreciation mandatory, but I would prefer a little respect for something you don't understand, as opposed to calling it bullshit. The Darmstadt school is dead, so of course the controversy surrounding their validity is over and you can easily cite them as important. This music, however, is somewhat more fresh and thus more "open" to your destructive, conservative criticism.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv It is not "fresh", its part of the 1970's "modernism for modernism's" sake which did much to tarnish the UK then. It is merely an attempt to recreate the aesthetics of 1950's Darmstadt which for anal retentive academics is seen as the high point. Composers like Segerstam are far more interesting and relevant now.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 Note, "somewhat more fresh."
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv No 50 years out of date and counting. What is it about the avant garde that they seem to be stuck in an aesthetic timetrap?
egapnala65 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv "A shrunken idea of expressiveness" of course, if John Cage were to have recorded himself pissing in a bucket you would, no doubt, declare appreciation of that to be compulsory as well. Sorry to disappoint.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 To be honest I don't listen much to Cage, and I still have no idea where you getting the idea that this music must be appreciated, as opposed to understood.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv I understand it fully. Your arrogant assumption that understanding something automatically has to generate approval is ridiculous. Try another cliche.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I have been exceedingly careful not to make that assumption, and you must have been reading it into my statements if you felt that. I have found throughout this discussion that it is you, not me, who insists on using worn-out cliches when discussing this music, and I will not be returning to this video to comment. If you had given a ref to some outside source that could explain your distaste in fuller times, I might listen. Alas, you've gone too far for me to take you seriously.
wetuadjlv 3 months ago
@wetuadjlv I don't frankly care whether you take me seriously or not. The man's a charlatan.
egapnala65 3 months ago
THANK YOU!!, I didn't even know there was a Fifth. I had the honour of hearing the Arditti perform the Third a few years ago. All praise to anyone to the left of John Adams, from a benighted U. S. resident.
Enantiodromialist 1 year ago 7
Fascinating to see it with the score... Thanks very much for uploading it!
Rolf, Netherlands
otterhouse 1 year ago
Fascinating to see it with the score... Thanks very much for uploading it!
Rolf, Netherlands
otterhouse 1 year ago 4
Quite an exercise in counting!
musicalidea 1 year ago
bar 12 violin 1-key is Bmajor
quelbop 1 year ago
Thank you for posting with the score!
stanchinsky 1 year ago 2
It's great to see the score as well-when i fist heard the quartet a few years ago i was more awe struck by Ferneyhough's verbal description, than the piece itslelf- -now,with the aid of the score,it is becoming more clear to me.
japanesesweet 1 year ago 4
Glad it is helping you -- making the video was a real eye-opening experience for me as well.
p0lyph0nyXX 1 year ago 3
Great stuff, thanks for putting this up with the score
s