@princhornrhs. It's a portable baby car seat. The ultimate concern for any parent is their baby's health and safety and this definitely passes the bar for car/travel safety. I found putting our newborn daughter in the capsule, she didn't even need any blankets/wraps as she was very warm in it. Easy to use with 2 clicks to remove the capsule from the base (plus loosening one strap) - our baby never complains as we move the capsule in and out of the car!
If I want to play stuff like that I will improvise it, saves everyone concerned an awful lot of time and effort for an effect that can be roughly equivalent for all intents and purposes.
If classical music is first and foremost notated music which is interpreted then music like this represents the death of classical music. It breaks the bond between interpreter and composer that in an ironic way obviates the composer ever more.
@DarkwingScooter Interpretation is key in this piece. The composer gives the flute player huge amounts of freedom in this piece, as well as any other piece he's written. Also, Ferneyhough's orginizational methods through cylicalism are more or less metrically conocted through-- I'm just going to stop there, you'd have to be a genius to improvise something equivelant to this. I'm not saying you aren't, but with your lack of understanding towards abstraction, I don't think you're there yet.
@Quandrify It's not that I don't understand or enjoy listening to music like this or can't play it myself.
It is just a simple matter of the length of time it takes to learn something like this against the value of the outcome. You can't sight-read this stuff, it takes a long time to learn.
It is just a little too self-indulgent from a composer's point of view for my taste.
@DarkwingScooter Well, while I don't want to say that the sight-readability of the piece shouldn't be a determining factor of whether or not this is a waste of our time, since I'm sure that's not all your arguement is deduced to, but the reason I think it's quite the opposite of self-indulgence is the fact that Ferneyhough uses Cylical structures, which takes from the "stream of sound" and in reality avoids any musical goals.
@Quandrify But currency (whether of the monetary or notational), has the strange property that if you have all of it you have none of it.
At some point when notation gets too complex it loses value as written MUSIC to be interpreted as opposed to written sounds to be reproduced. Remember that we do have a theoretically perfect notation system to exactly reproduce sounds, it is called a CD player.
How can you interpret anything in that score without making a mistake?
Some ferneyhough music could be reproduced digitally (Bone Alphabet), but works like Unity Capsule demand a human performer. By pushing the boundaries of virtuosity and human ability, it is perhaps more "human" in performance than music that is expressly meant to be perfect (Bach, Mozart, etc).
The missed note in a Bach Sonata is a glaring fault of the interpreter. The missed note in Unity Capsule could be the limit of the flautist's physical and cognitive abilities.
composing music is self-indulgence. Ferneyhough embraces that.
And the Arditti quartet was sight-reading Ferneyhough on their third or fourth commission. There are definitely patterns to his gestures and techniques.
@Quandrify Just to be clear, I have the same criticism of Romantic orchestral music (in the sense of it being self-indulgent and ultimately self-destructive).
@DarkwingScooter This quote might help you understand from an essay by Bryn Harrison: "With music that is largely non-directional in nature, and
therefore without reliance on musical stresses or downbeats, it is possible to adopt an
approach to spatial organisation in which the bar line no longer serves its more traditional time keeping function. Instead, one might view a measure not as a unit of emphasis but as a designated space of a particular size in which to 'contain' musical material."
@Quandrify I have actually performed the Berio Sequenza I more than once, so I understand the "space" idea of music. In fact the concept is remarkably similar to my idea of what all music IS (including metrical music), but that is a much larger discussion than there is space for here.
My concern is more that classical music specifically, by my definition is a WRITTEN music, notation is the currency of the transaction of knowledge between composer and performer...
I disagree that classical music is "first and foremost notated music which is interpreted," but if that is your definition then New Complexity is more so the savior of classical music, since this music demands such a long-term commitment and thorough study from the interpreter.
I've had much more profound "interperative" experiences from intense and demanding music than from works that I could understand and sight read immediately.
Of course this peace has no melody, but it does have some thought to it. I mean people are so used to hearing beautiful melodies all the time and that is one of the reasons why I think many people don't want to get involved in music.I've heard many people say "oh why do I need to play those known peaces"etc. Everyone can play melodies and notes these days, but I think this peace shows people what an instrument(in this case flute)can do and present the flute in a unique way.
now at first I considered this insulting to music. It seemed inappropriate and vile in a way that made me twitch (literally) with discomfort. Now I understand that music is as music does, and with extravagance comes a touch of creativity. Despite its undeniable oddness, hats off to a fascinating piece "produced" in contemporary style....
It appears that the first thing the Arditti do when confronted by yet another piece from this charlatan is to effectively rewrite the whole score to make it countable. In order to do this they break down the beat structure. The given time signatures are superflous and only act as delineating chunks of time. To work your way around this your best bet is to determine how many beats there are in each beamed together grouping and then use mathematical ratios to determine values.......
@egapnala65 a marking of 1/20, for example, marks out one 20th of a beat given at the written tempo so you work out how long a whole note at that tempo works then extrapolate from that. This is also not easy as the score itself has no regular beat pattern and changes pulse every few bars. Although it is a given fact that most of the "New Music" brigade treat the scores with a pinch of salt (often as graphic notation for wild improv) they have a rough idea of what constitutes good bullshit......
@egapnala65 and are prone to damn performers who play octaves diminished by a quarter tone as open octaves. In other words it is a world based wholly on deceit lies and pretense. Run the score through a computer if you want to hear it rendered perfectly then leave it at that. Although this process of breaking down beat structures is not unheard of for PARTS of SOME works by Strav, only new complexity composers make it compulsory for ALL their works. Indicating they are shit composers.
@egapnala65 The good thing about this though is that this crap will die with them. As somebody put it "As a professional musician who is constantly uptight about interpreting Beethoven publicly in an acceptable way, looking at scores like this adds nothing to my life." Once Irvine Arditti shuffles off this mortal coil, a whole tranche of this stuff will vanish with him.
More and more people are performing Ferneyhough, Finnisy and the like. Bone Alphabet is now part of standard percussion repertoire; hundreds of people have played it. Performers are much more adventurous and eager to challenge themselves than you seem to believe.
I'm glad you think it's bullshit, though - keeps the egos in check.
The person concerned about interpreting Beethoven "in an acceptable way" needs to stop worrying about what a dead guy thinks of his bowing style.
@coreyfulify Well given that this stuff been floating around since the 70's that's hardly surprising really. I think there is a difference between challenging yourself and allowing yourself to be throttled with a noose.
Personally, I get more out of Segerstam and the Nordgren Symphonies than any of this overwritten hogwash. Probably not on your radar though as a) they are Finnish and b) they are from the past 10 years rather than 50 years ago.
I remember we had a workshop with Boulez and I asked the first question: "You have been quoted as saying that the idea of a great English composer is a genetic impossibility. Are we wasting our time?" It got a huge round of applause although one of the darmstadt brigade chastised me for "insulting" him which amused me no end.
@keman25 You misread my post: I was responding to the poster's saying that Theodoro Adorno claimed that the Serial aesthetic, was as so to 'fight commercialism with ugliness' (something I still have a hard time believing Adorno would have said). The 2nd Viennese and affiliates were very explicit about the innovations of dodecaphony being an extension of Romantic ideas: quite the opposite of wanting to contradict everything else that was going on.
@keman25 As well as this: what can be known as the 'serial aesthetic', is the result of what is considered the 'emancipation of dissonance', as well as tried and true methods of coherently presenting orders and or content groups (e.g. angular lines to make respective intervals more accessible to the ear, aperiodicity to prevent any sort of metric importance occurring regularly, ect).
@AfroDeezeeYak All very true but Adorno took it a lot further and declared everything south of Webern to be Kitsch and part of some cultural conspiracy to keep everybody sheeplike. In order to oppose this "industry" you have to break through and deliberately create work that only an elite body of people would understand as a form of rebellion against the "stupidity" of the masses. It's an utterly vile aesthetic, creating a "master race" (or so they think) of composers. The joys of Hegelianism.
@egapnala65 The aesthetic result of serial music being "vile" is simply your own opinion. I am not an elitist who claims it to be the 'pinnacle of music' or one who denounces everything has occurred before it and around it (a la Boulez): I just harbor Cage's philosophy in what can be concretely described as mu sic.
@egapnala65 As well as this, having done my share of reading on the Second Viennese School: the progress made was not any attempt to exclude the layman from music. There was no 'rebellion against 'the stupidity of the masses'. Serialism resulted as a response to other trends/directions in classical music.
@AfroDeezeeYak I think you seriously need to bone up on Adorno. I am merely stating what he said. I do not find serial music "vile" only the attitudes generated by the likes of Adorno usually to be found amongst Ferneyhough freaks. The state of mind can be found as early as Rene Leibowitz stating (in "Schoenberg and his School") that those who write serially occupy a higher intellectual plane than those who don't.
@egapnala65 I'm sorry: the way you presented the ideas in your last comment made it seem as if everything succeeding the "Adorno took it a lot further and declared everything south of Webern to be Kitsch and part of some cultural conspiracy to keep everybody sheeplike." bit to be your own ideas.
I think it is unfair however, for harsh/elitist claims from critics and musicologists to be representative of how serial composers feel about their music (and non serial music).
@egapnala65 Sorry: "they wouldn't have much in regards to the technical aspects of composition, due to stylistic differences" ****
Also: I don't think juvenile attitudes held by young composers should be given that much consideration. Being a young composer myself (only 21), I have admittedly gone through stages of elitism and all that, but have now harbored a more passive, open-minded approach to any and all music. In retrospect: I'd hope that no one would give my ill-formed ideas any time.
@AfroDeezeeYak I think you should also try and get a copy of Henze's autobiography where he portrays his generation (centring on Adorno) as being wholly concerned with serialism. To the extent that when Henze extended his world to include tonal ideas, people like Nono, Adorno and Stockhausen walked out and started cutting him dead. Penderecki also wrote that he had much the same experience when he wanted to embrace a more universal language.
@egapnala65 (Not attempting to negate this testament): do you know of any composers who verbally expressed contempt for 'lesser' forms of music (other than Boulez of course)? Also, I don't know if I would consider 'cutting someone dead' a form of active disparagement.
@AfroDeezeeYak I think you should read the book for yourself and make up your own mind. I have already cited Rene Leibowitz. As for Adorno (quoted by Henze) the only music he recognised as having aesthetic validity was "chaotic" music. You keep citing Boulez. Think of how powerful he became and the influence he had over cultural matters. You really think his narrow mindedness was his own alone? The whole aim of that generation of composers was to create a new musical language to replace the....
@egapnala65 current one. Penderecki states that it was a form of universal annihilation of all national and personal boundaries in order to create a utopian aesthetic state. As with Ligeti, he quickly saw the limitations of the outlook and adapted accordingly, and was deemed a "traitor to the cause" for doing so. I think you seriously underestimate the political implications involved. In the Adornoite state all forms of non-serial composition would be deemed aesthetically invalid....
@egapnala65 and all composers who sought to write personally or nationalistically would be gassed. Thankfully Reich and his group broke the cycle and we now have an aesthetic democracy. There are thousands of composers who were culturally annihilated as a result of the authoritarian diktats of Darmstadt and who are now emerging from the shadows. The world has become a far richer place now that anal retentiveness no longer rules.
@AfroDeezeeYak Besides if you follow the "evolutionary" argument much beloved of darmstadt freaks, that harmony evolved into atonality, it is a natural consequence of that position that atonality/serialism is the ONLY way of composing left to "those who take it seriously". The damnation is implicit in the Hegelian view itself. One doesn't need to cite individuals, merely question Hegelian assumptions that progress means vanishing further and further up the harmonic series. History says not.
@egapnala65 I understand in your saying 'in my own experience....' you are not attempting to be all-inclusive, but I would like to ask what experiences lead you think as such? I am a serial composer myself (though not akin to any of the more modern serialist). Naturally: I have studied a lot of the relevant composers, and have yet to read any actual words of such composers speaking contemptuously of non-serial music (other than Boulez, of course).
@AfroDeezeeYak Well, let me see. In my student days I was often told I was writing "nursery rhymes" and when the opportunity to have a one to one session with John Adams came up, the serialists contemptuously started giving away their workshops to us lesser beings. I snapped mine up eagerly and came away impressed by what a nice open man Adams was. Their loss.
More generally, have you read the texts of these people? Senseless verbiage in place of coherent thought? Look at Ferney's writing.
@egapnala65 As someone who identifies themselves as a 'serial composer', I am pretty surprised that people would turn their nose up at an opportunity like that: even if they wouldn't have much to take away from it due to obvious stylistic differences, there would be a lot of real-world insight to gain from the experience. So yes: their loss indeed.
@egapnala65 As much as I agree with the air of pretentiousness and over-technicality of some texts by serial composers: I've never read anything that explicitly insinuated the approach as superior (as a matter of fact: the only verbalized condemnation I've ever read in a text was one made by Hindemith - in regards to atonal music).
Also: there have been serial composers who have made achievements in writing extremely accessible texts (even being at odds): Charles Wuorinen comes to mind.
In the end the best way to regard the likes of Adorno and his acolytes are as sherry sipping bourgeois trying desperately hard to keep the chavs out. Rather like people who attend places like Glyndebourne that you find in the foyer wittering away about how the place has gone downhill with the introduction of cheap tickets.
The Adornoite justification for nonsense like this is that it is meant to work against the commodification of culture by capitalist expansionism. The aim is to create ugliness to fight against commercialism. However given that all the purveyors of this nonsense are professionals making money out of its sales and distribution ( and did Adorno give free lectures or distribute his books for free?) they are still commodified by that very fact. So even that rationale holds no water.
"I was always an "enfant terrible". Other composers criticized me, they called me a traitor to the avant garde cause because I took on big projects and wanted to say important things whilst they were writing 10 minute pieces at Darmstadt. But my music is played because it's good. Theirs is dead, disappeared." Krzysztof Penderecki.
@egapnala65 Listen to what? I really didn't understand you, cause you jump from one thing to another with no connection but your prejudices and tastes... you have no coherence. I listen to Henzes music cause it's good... I have many recordings of his music... I really don't understand you.
@egapnala65 I ask you so the same some posts ago, and you don't even try to do it. You won't turn your incongruities on me. You're the one here trying to prove this music is "bad", but you were never smart enough to articulate a good argument to sustain your "premise" (if you may call that a premise). Don't go back in your own steps, cause we are going to get to the same place: you cant make even one plausible argument.
@EdiEllerymissing Er no I am not trying to prove anything, I am stating my opinion. All the rest is mere projection on your part. Now I do realise that fascists don't like opinions but there you are.
@egapnala65 This discussion starts with you saying this music and Nyman's were the same, something you didn't even understand about Hegel and then I answer you that it doesn't makes any sense in musical or aesthetic terms... then you keep trying to make a stand for your dull point of view... is not that like try to pove something... damn, I'm going crazy, cause you're so incongruous.
@egapnala65 And what I said was that all that stands between them is a massive heap of bullshit. A point you make more obvious with every post you make.
@egapnala65 Lots of similar comments like this can be found in Henze's autobiography where Adorno can be found strutting around declaring Henze's music to be bad because it isn't chaotic enough. But then Adorno hasd this thing about dissing people. Take Stravinsky. Adorno was incapable of producing anything but lukewarm expressionism ("appalling rubbish" according to Henze) and yet he was big enough to denounce the composer of "Les Noces". Darmstadt in a nutshell.
@egapnala65 I really like Henze's music cause it's good. So? He was a fine good composer, very resourceful. It doesn't helps you. You claim this music to be bad just cause you don't understand it, and you don't like it, that's it. You have nothing but that to prove it, unlike Adorno, even if he was not true. Henze music is good despite Adorno. Ferneyhough music is good despite the stupid ignorant named Alan Page. Keep trying.
@EdiEllerymissing Only in your opinion, which as I have said before is irrelevant as you yet to define objective criteria for what is good and what is bad.
@EdiEllerymissing Why would I even WANT to "understand" this crap anyway. The composer surrounds himself with "fuck off" signs. Revels in being incomprehensible to all but a tiny elite of bourgoeis non-entities and clearly has no desire to communicate with anybody else?
@egapnala65 You don't have to... And here we enter a semiologic problem. You really haven't read not even a little bit of philosophy, don't you. You just come here with your Hegel and Adorno frustrations and some Kant and Schopenhahuer phrases. What exactly, in the name of god, do you want to communicate with music. Please be concrete.
@EdiEllerymissing So we don't have to define what is good or bad, we simply have to feel it? Ah yes personal opinion. Congratulations you have finally reached ground zero.
If you want to know what I want to communicate with music go and listen to my "Trilogy Of Loss". You will hate it with a vengeance but I really couldn't give a shit what you think anyway so why not?
@egapnala65 And then, in semiologic terms, according to Lotman and Nattiez (and many others since Saussure to Imberty), it wont matters what you want to communicate, cause people will understand what they can understand: basic semiotics. Here's ground zero: you know nothing about music and aesthetics.
@EdiEllerymissing Only in your opinion which, again means nothing. So if somebody comes away saying that "Bach is pretentious shit" that is valid then is it? In which case what is your point here.
@egapnala65 Which is why, of course, 20th century philosophy is a complete waste of time and space. It either falls into Marx/Hegelianism or vanishes up its own arse into textual analysis.
@egapnala65 JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA! YOU'RE A VERY STUPID PRETENTIOUS GUY, JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA! You just dismissed all XX century philosophy just because you think so, jajaajajajajajajajajajajaja. Come on, jajajajajaja, you can't be serious. You're just some guy trap into the past, jajajajaja. I've been wasting my time with some old stupid guy... bye now.
@EdiEllerymissing Yes, because I am more interested in broader issues like the nature of time and reality and not in petty trivial disputes over opaque terminology. In other words REAL philosophy. Interesting essay in Schopenhauer's "Parerga" about how academic philosophy is all about ensuring stipends for tutors rather than serious investigative thinking. Has far more universal application than any form of textual analysis people like you hold so highly.
@EdiEllerymissing Besides if reading 20th century philosophy means I would become a vacuous ill-informed arrogant little shit like you then I think it is well worth missing out on.
@EdiEllerymissing "In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organised into a system which is neither stable or unstable, but rather "metastable", endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between between series are distributed. In the second place , singularities posses a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the .......
@egapnala65 Don't be stupid and pretentious, you jerk. Semiology is not about judging anything. You see. you keep proving you are ignorant. If you don't know what semiology is about, read a little bit and then come back and argue.
@egapnala65 Jajajaja IDIOT, jajajajajaja, very stupid, jajajaja. Analyze means to to examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations, not to judge. You see, you are ignorant and pretentious ;-).
@EdiEllerymissing Oh right. So now semiotic analysis has no real function except to give anally retentive professors something to write about. Yes that sounds about right. So we still have no objective reason to determine good from bad music only opinions. Nice diversion, didn't lead anywhere though.
@EdiEllerymissing ...corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dices throws, in a single cast." Giles Delueze.
Now as you are such a great mind could you enlighten us all as to what this all means please as he is one of your faves?
@EdiEllerymissing Which is pleasing to me because when you call my music bad it merely says your just too thick to understand it. Which is pretty much the case I am afraid.
this might be interesting to a flautist in terms of what is technically possible on a flute but as a piece of music i find it devoid of any interest whatsoever. Ferneyhough's pretentious, meaningless explanation doesn't inspire me either.
The only thing that seperates Brian Ferneyhough from Michael Nyman is an enormous pile of bullshit. Now you can pretend that every note/gesture written here is the product of a complex and profound mind, that the music represents the ultimate logical Hegelian final end of music and that it is all as deeply serious and important as it claims to be historically, or you can simply look at how easily and prolifically these composers whap this stuff out and wonder at their commercial nous.
@egapnala65 Oh my god, are you seriously comparing Nyman with Ferneyhough?... You're just saying nonsenses. I'm sure you have no arguments to defend your crappy comment. You people judge so lightly the music you don't understand. I you don't like it it's your problem, if you don't understand it it's because you're an ignorant, but that doesn't mean this is not good music, and, FOR GOD SAKES, this have NOTHING to do with Nyman crap music.
@EdiEllerymissing Ahhh is the poor little Hegelian getting all frumpy because his taste in music is being questioned? There is no specific difference between this and Nyman. They both occupy niche markets and are both out to make money out of people. They would not be professionals otherwise. The difference being, of course, that Nyman can actually play his own works wheras Ferney and his equally fraudulent chums try and use bullshit to cover over the fact they can't.
@egapnala65 Hegelian? JAJAJAJAJA! I'm not really into Hegel right now. I'm studying Deleuze, Foucault, Lotman, Eco, Barthes, Derrida, and other more contemporary philosophers. You're talking about "tastes", I'm not. Ferneyhough may sing all he writes: I've seen him to do it in Stanford and Darmstad. You're just some pretentious pseudo-intellectual guy with a lot of frustrations. You should read some Walter Benjamin before come and judge music you don't even understand so lightly. You're boring.
@EdiEllerymissing Walter Benjamin, Theo Adorno and all the rest of that shebang depend on historicism to make any sense. This historicism was shown up by Schopenhauer to be delusional in Hegel. Therefore anybody who subscribes to it now is of the same cast of mind. But I am not really surprised to see you knee deep in trendies. Your ilk often are. Makes you believe yourselves to be oh so impressive. Personally I find textual analysis irrelevant and boring but I can see why some people go for it.
@EdiEllerymissing And while your at it add Sokal's "Intellectual Impostures" to your reading list. He shreds the likes of Deleuze exposing them as charlatan throwing around scientific terminology they clearly know nothing about. You may actually wish to google "Sokal Social Text" to see how easily fooled people can be by pretentious jargon.
@egapnala65 JAJAJAJAJAJA! Ok, have it your way. You're just repeating yourself, saying the same nonsense arguments over and over, contributing with nothing to a pointless discussion, repeating to yourself how smart you are because you read one Hegel's book and one Schopenhauer's book. If you please point to my "intellectual impostures", cause, as far as I know, I just say nothing but the obvious about your close-minded opinions... then you answer with a sophisticated rethoric...
@EdiEllerymissing Actually you arrogant little twat I have read the whole of Hegel and the whole of Schopenhauer (plus pretty much the major works of every major philosopher between Descartes and Kierkegaard). It is for that reason that I can pass judgement on the posturings of ridiculous little dwarves like Adorno and Benjamin. If they were as critical and as well read as they claimed they would have not settled on Hegelianism.
@egapnala65 You just keep repeating the same empty pretentious words. You cant present even one plausible argument, you just say everyone except you are ignorant. The last time I went to Darmstadt I see with my own eyes Fereneyhough to sing one of his etudes when talk about it in a conference. Me and all the other attendants saw him. It doesn't matter how many philosophers have you read, if you're close-minded enough not try to understand this music then you're an ignorant. No more answers bye.
@EdiEllerymissing Ahhh diddums. Running off to weep into his copy of Adorno's "Aesthetic Theory" like the good little poser he is. Still no reply to my query regarding the sense in piling up inaudible processes in an aural art form? As for being my being narrow minded? The irony of that coming from an Adorno freak is hilarious. Adorno made an entire career consigning far better composers than he himself to the aesthetic gas chamber. From Stravinsky to Sibelius he found reasons to hate them all
@EdiEllerymissing And all for the sake of some mythical Hegelian view of history being a rational process. I have as much right to dismiss the pretentious twaddle of Ferneyhough and co as Adorno had to dismiss anybody who did not pander to his tiny minded obssessions.
@EdiEllerymissing And if I remember rightly it was (and remains) you who started on about how ignorant people are because they don't worship at the Ferneyhough throne.
@egapnala65 Oh my god, you're really delusional, jajajajajajaja. I never said anything about worshiping, Hegel, not even about Adorno... Damn you're crazy. You OBVIOUSLY are not interested in what I have to say about Ferneyhough's music, not even in his music, but into probe this is "crap"... you know what, this is crap if want it to be. Even though, I like it. You have nothing smart to say, you just want to pretend to be smart: you know what, you are if you want to...
@EdiEllerymissing Finally, you admit its a question of personal taste. Good, the first step towards musical democracy has been taken. You are correct, I am not interested. This kind of shit belongs in the 70's when it was nearly impossible for any works which did not conform to the Darmstadt school diktats to get performances. A lot of worthwhile composers were consigned to the darkness because they held that there was more to music than mere "extended technique" and polysyllabic posturing.
@egapnala65 Jajajajaja! YOU CRAZY PRETENTIOUS IDIOT, JAJAJAJAJAJAJA! You're really, really crazy, jajajajaja. I never admit it's about personal taste: if this music is good is not because I like it, but, at this point, you have probe you don't have the ability to understand why, not because you're stupid, but because you're only interested into probe you're right. Your historic and sociological approach to the aesthetic object is very poor. It probes you know nothing about art. Learn to read.
@EdiEllerymissing No the "music" here is crap, you are somewhat crazed and insecure, hence you won't accept differences of opinion. Typical Adornoite fascist.
@egapnala65 Again, I've never said anything about Adorno... nor even make any fascist statement. So far, all the fascist statements comes from you: you're the one who said this is a pile of bullshit, you're the one who call us "hegelians", you're the one who said we are "worshiping" Ferneyhough. The fact I like his music don't doesn't mean I worship him. You keep mixing philosophy with "taste", and trying to mix it up all to confusing me or you (I don't know exactly), but you keep failing.
@egapnala65 There was a lot of music in the 70's with nothing to do with Darmstadt: Scelsi, Takemitsu, Britten (very old), Franck Martin (VERY renowned composer not even close to what you probably know as the Darmstadt school), Feldman, Reich, Crumb, Lutoslawsky, Schnittke, Kurtag, etc. You need to stop the "I know everything about music and philosophy" crap, cause you've probe to be very ignorant many times. You're just very frustrated as a composer and you want to justify your mediocrity.
@EdiEllerymissing Are these really the only composers you can name? Is this the limit of your musical knowledge? No Fartein Valen? No Leif Segerstam? No George Lloyd? No Michael Tippett? Nah, just the fashionable ones you have been programmed to worship as Gods. You really are in aesthetic poverty little man.The sooner you realise that the better for you.
@egapnala65 If you don't like them or understand them, it doesn't mean they are bad composers. You fail over and over again cause for you it's about tastes, and not about music. Your logic have a perfect failure: there's a lot of people who like Ferneyhoughs music, or any of the other composers I named. If this were about tastes, then you're wrong. And you even miss your own point: there was a lot more than just Darmstadt back then in 1970. You put yourself in evidence every comment you make.
Just run along and invent some new ways of blowing shit out of a flute, my dear little bourgeois. it is probably all you will ever do in your life, so why not? As for the arguments concerning object vs subject I refer you to Kant. Everything is the construction of your individual sensory apparatus, therefore all claims to objectivity are suspect. That's what makes Kant a philosopher and not the kind of shallow pretentious shitheads you read.
@egapnala65 I've never invented any new ways of blowing the flute, jajajajaja. You did it again, you come out of the subject with a new one, and claim you're very smart because you said something is not really related to the initial point. You may keep doing this, but it will not change the fact you're not saying anything smart, much less writing any good argument to support your point of view (so far is nothing more than a point of view, cause, at least for you, is everything about "tastes").
@EdiEllerymissing Are you actually going to comment on the remark I made about Kant or are you simply going to keep hurling ad hominens and trying to avoid any real discussion? Suits me, arrogant little shits like you amuse me greatly.
@egapnala65 And of course they are not the only composers I can name. I was just making a point about how wrong you were by saying Darmstadt school was the only music was hear back then in the 70's. You always try to be the smart one, but keep mixing things and answering about things I didn't write. You say something apparently smart, the I answer you, and then you answer something very different with a sophism. Stop putting yourself in evidence.
@EdiEllerymissing Oh I think you will find that anybody who did not toe the serialist line back then was pretty much sidelined by the broadcasting authorities. Something which Reich and co. managed to put right. Sadly people like you are still dancing around this putrid corpse and pretending its new and exciting. It isn't.
@egapnala65 After all it was "the music of the future" wasn't it? And if you were to run into the likes of William Glock and you were not a serialist then you really had no chance. In Henze's autobiography he writes about being excluded from the Darmstadt clique because they found elements of tonality in his works. You should read it, show you the kind of ethos they perpetuated.
@egapnala65 And you did it again, jajajaja... You know what, so far, you have probe you don't have anything to probe, much less, anything smart to say. This is becoming boring, cause you do the same all the times, but you can't present any valid arguments, but aggressions by claiming you're smarter than the others. You're not even a good musician, so keep saying anything you want.
@EdiEllerymissing After all with all those philosophers like Benjamin under your belt a simple discussion of Kant's epistemology shouldn't be beyond you surely?So let's start with this concept of "Objectivity" that you claim is so real and obvious. How is that defined? If we are merely passive subjects to receptors of our sensory apparatus conditioned by our minds, how do we know that we actually exist at all and are not simply hyperactive quarks?
@egapnala65 You read Nishitani, and I will answer your old fashion argument. You're not making a point about music. I've never said this have to be objective, but you keep mixing objectivity with tastes, music and philosophy, If you're going to make a stand for any of those, start by being congruent.
So you are now saying that there are no objective grounds for determining the worth or otherwise of a piece of music? So what constitutes good and bad music is based on opinion then?
@egapnala65 GOD!!! ARE YOU STUPID OR WHAT?! PLEASE START BY READ WHAT I'VE WROTE AND THEN ANSWER. YOU SAID IT WAS ABOUT TASTES, YOU'RE THE ONE MIXING IT ALL... Damn you're obnoxious and fool. Of course there are objective grounds for determining the worth of a piece of music. You're the one saying this is not good music and haven't give even one argument to support that. A little bit of organization doesn't hurt anyone.
@EdiEllerymissing You have produced nothing of any real intellectual depth to prove that this is a "good" piece. you just keep asserting that because you say it is, it is. What objective grounds are there? Defined by what criteria? Or by who's criteria? Let's talk polyphony. The whole idea of polyphony was that each strand of each voice should be clear and audible? Is that right?
@egapnala65 And that if we take that as objective law of polyphony then that makes a lot of your musical heroes pretty crap doesn't it? Elliot Carter for example? It brings me back to the point I made (and you avoided) in an audible art form what is the point of piling up inaudible processes?
@egapnala65 You see, you have no real "objective" arguments. You just disagree with this music cause you don't understand it, and even more, you don't want to understand it. You should go back to music school and study with a real music teacher.
@egapnala65 You're the one saying this is not good music, then you should be the one trying to prove this is bad music. Is polyphony clear and audible in 62 voices madrigals? Not a point there.
@egapnala65 You know, you haven't give any argument about this music other than your own prejudices about it. If you want to hear just nice harmonies and counterpoint, go back to Monteverdi and Bach. Here, means and ends are quite others. If you can't understand that, then, What are you doing here, trying to argue about something you don't understand because your mind is so narrowed you think all music should sound as you think it should to be good?
@EdiEllerymissing "here means and ends are quite others" is this some piece of pretentious gobbledegook? Wouldn't put it past you? And actually at the moment i am going through a lot of late 19th century early 20th century opera stars for yet another facebook page I am compiling.
@egapnala65 You give exceptions for your initial argument, but don't make it clear for the rest of your argumentation. And, if you ever see the score of this piece, you know THERE'S NO RANDOM RUBBISH HERE. You make argumentation based on ignorance, not very smart. You should probably come with another real argument for this. If you going to keep with the polyphony argument, then try to make it clear. And polyphony is clear just if you want it to be, that's what 62 voices madrigals prove it.
Er... by conventional objective standards of harmony and counterpoint it is. No audible process, no harmonic language just a lot of random special effects arranged according to extra-musical logic. And as I have said before the counterpoint in such madrigals is determined by the overall harmonic function. Eliminate that and you eliminate the whole reason for polyphony. But anyway getting back to your dismissing Kant as "old fashioned", do you dismiss Bach or Beethoven in the same way?
@egapnala65 "There is no break but rather a bubbling or seething [bouillonement]; when, at the end of the 19th century, attempts were made at a generalized chromaticism or a chromaticism free of temperament (...) music rendered more and more audible what had worked within it at all times: non-sonorous forces like Time, the organization of Time, silent intensities, rhythms of every nature." Gilles Deleuze
@EdiEllerymissing And posting pretentious claptrap like that from a proven fraudster doesn't really help your case either. The aim of the Darmstadt school was to create a new musical language which would form some kind of utopian paradise freed from things like national or personal identity. All composers of all nations could become one body. Of course the problem with that is that it had to exterminate all other composers who did not wish to compromise their personal integrity.
@egapnala65 Another lie... You're not talking with a ten years old boy. I wont buy your lies just because it's well written. Go back to school, please.
@EdiEllerymissing What am I lying about? Ferneyhough's 26 foot high orchestral score or about Darmstadt? The former is perfectly true and the latter comes from Penderecki. So hardly lies. Just another example of you not being as well informed as you pretend to be.
@EdiEllerymissing Actually, given the fact that you were seemingly unaware of the Darmstadt links of Messiaen and co. I think you should just quietly retire and go and learn new ways of blowing shit out of a Flute as I have said before.
@egapnala65 Your arguments ar as solid as an icicle, jajajaja... You're very good at sophism, but when it comes to real critical thinking, you're nothing but a pile of crap ;-).
@egapnala65 Do you actually going to claim there's no audible process and no harmonic language here? Seriously? Extra-musical logic, are you serious? Then there's nothing to discuss about, cause you're deaf or insanely stupid. Again, if you think harmonic function is the overall in counterpoint, the go back to school and learn some music history. You know, there's nothing to discuss with you, cause you're not even a musician, but a pretentious bastard. BYE!
@EdiEllerymissing Well up until Schoenberg the prevailing attitude was that horizontal contrapuntal logic was conditioned also by the vertical harmonic dimension. Pretty clearly, there is none of that here.
@egapnala65 The fact you just understand music as a bunch of pitches ordered to "sound nice, clear and audible" doesn't prove this music is bad, but that you're a pretentious, ignorant, close-minded idiot.
@EdiEllerymissing Read Xenakis thinks about polyphony... from some one who really put's himself to do a serious investigation about it, and you can prove it by reading his books. Stop exposing yourself as the ignorant you are. You started with some pretentious words by others, but you cant even argue with real arguments.
@EdiEllerymissing Ah yes, Xenakis. I once showed a mathematician friend of mine a copy of his "Stochastic Music", he stated that Xenakis couldn't even notate the simplest mathematical equation properly.
@egapnala65 And again, you miss the point. I didn't talk about his music, but his hard investigation about polyphony. You keep showing yourself as stupid and a fraud wrap into nice words taken out of context from good philosophers. If you don't have the intellectual ability to keep going, then stop. You don't have a point, nor the education and preparation to prove anything, because you're just some old frustrated idiot.
@EdiEllerymissing Sorry, i thought you argued that there were objective ways of telling good from bad music. So now you hold there isn't? Or if there are they don't apply?
@egapnala65 Then, if there's no objective ways of telling good from bad music, reduces this to one point: just because you don't like it it doesn't mean this is bad music, just that you don't like it. Then every music ever written is good, therefore, you have nothing to argue about. Then, if I say your music is crap because I don't like it, it's true... wait, something is wrong with this false logic. You contradict yourself and you expect me to make a mistake, but you make all of them.
@EdiEllerymissing Oh I can see the score here thank you. It is still crap. Rather like that orchestral work of his that has a full score that is 26 feet high. It's bullshit from start to finish.
@egapnala65 Bullshit your sonata. Here there's a lot of AUDIBLE MUSIC, with rhythm, counterpoint, harmony, timbre, etc, processes. Deaf stupid guy, jajaja. ENOUGH SAID ;-).
@EdiEllerymissing There is nothing but cgi special effects arranged by mathematical processes. The fact it relies on external mathematical processes rather than purely musical ones makes it crap.
@egapnala65 THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE THEN, YOUR MUSICAL TASTES!!!!! That's why you'll never understand this music, cause you have a real poor conception of music. MUSIC ALWAYS RELIES ON EXTERNAL MATHEMATICAL PROCESSES. If you don't believe me, go and look some Machaut, Vitry, Beethoven, Tchaykovsky or Ravel's music... you pathetic piece of pretentious ignorant bastard, jajaja.
And what is this word "probe" by the way. Am I really talking to somebody claiming a higher intellectual plane than me who cannot even deal with basic english? How amusing.
@egapnala65 I'm not claiming any higher intellect, you are. I'm not a natural english-speaker, so I probably make many mistakes already. You did it again, you turn yourself aside of the point by claiming you're the smartest one. Keep going like this, it'll make a very good musician...
@princhornrhs. It's a portable baby car seat. The ultimate concern for any parent is their baby's health and safety and this definitely passes the bar for car/travel safety. I found putting our newborn daughter in the capsule, she didn't even need any blankets/wraps as she was very warm in it. Easy to use with 2 clicks to remove the capsule from the base (plus loosening one strap) - our baby never complains as we move the capsule in and out of the car!
Either that or it's a pretentious title.
JohnRSamples 1 day ago
If I want to play stuff like that I will improvise it, saves everyone concerned an awful lot of time and effort for an effect that can be roughly equivalent for all intents and purposes.
If classical music is first and foremost notated music which is interpreted then music like this represents the death of classical music. It breaks the bond between interpreter and composer that in an ironic way obviates the composer ever more.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Interpretation is key in this piece. The composer gives the flute player huge amounts of freedom in this piece, as well as any other piece he's written. Also, Ferneyhough's orginizational methods through cylicalism are more or less metrically conocted through-- I'm just going to stop there, you'd have to be a genius to improvise something equivelant to this. I'm not saying you aren't, but with your lack of understanding towards abstraction, I don't think you're there yet.
Quandrify 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
DarkwingScooter 4 weeks ago
@Quandrify It's not that I don't understand or enjoy listening to music like this or can't play it myself.
It is just a simple matter of the length of time it takes to learn something like this against the value of the outcome. You can't sight-read this stuff, it takes a long time to learn.
It is just a little too self-indulgent from a composer's point of view for my taste.
DarkwingScooter 4 weeks ago 2
@DarkwingScooter Well, while I don't want to say that the sight-readability of the piece shouldn't be a determining factor of whether or not this is a waste of our time, since I'm sure that's not all your arguement is deduced to, but the reason I think it's quite the opposite of self-indulgence is the fact that Ferneyhough uses Cylical structures, which takes from the "stream of sound" and in reality avoids any musical goals.
Quandrify 3 weeks ago
@Quandrify But currency (whether of the monetary or notational), has the strange property that if you have all of it you have none of it.
At some point when notation gets too complex it loses value as written MUSIC to be interpreted as opposed to written sounds to be reproduced. Remember that we do have a theoretically perfect notation system to exactly reproduce sounds, it is called a CD player.
How can you interpret anything in that score without making a mistake?
DarkwingScooter 3 weeks ago
@DarkwingScooter
Some ferneyhough music could be reproduced digitally (Bone Alphabet), but works like Unity Capsule demand a human performer. By pushing the boundaries of virtuosity and human ability, it is perhaps more "human" in performance than music that is expressly meant to be perfect (Bach, Mozart, etc).
The missed note in a Bach Sonata is a glaring fault of the interpreter. The missed note in Unity Capsule could be the limit of the flautist's physical and cognitive abilities.
coreyfulify 6 days ago
@DarkwingScooter
composing music is self-indulgence. Ferneyhough embraces that.
And the Arditti quartet was sight-reading Ferneyhough on their third or fourth commission. There are definitely patterns to his gestures and techniques.
coreyfulify 6 days ago
@Quandrify Just to be clear, I have the same criticism of Romantic orchestral music (in the sense of it being self-indulgent and ultimately self-destructive).
DarkwingScooter 4 weeks ago
@DarkwingScooter This quote might help you understand from an essay by Bryn Harrison: "With music that is largely non-directional in nature, and
therefore without reliance on musical stresses or downbeats, it is possible to adopt an
approach to spatial organisation in which the bar line no longer serves its more traditional time keeping function. Instead, one might view a measure not as a unit of emphasis but as a designated space of a particular size in which to 'contain' musical material."
Quandrify 3 weeks ago
@Quandrify I have actually performed the Berio Sequenza I more than once, so I understand the "space" idea of music. In fact the concept is remarkably similar to my idea of what all music IS (including metrical music), but that is a much larger discussion than there is space for here.
My concern is more that classical music specifically, by my definition is a WRITTEN music, notation is the currency of the transaction of knowledge between composer and performer...
DarkwingScooter 3 weeks ago
@DarkwingScooter
I disagree that classical music is "first and foremost notated music which is interpreted," but if that is your definition then New Complexity is more so the savior of classical music, since this music demands such a long-term commitment and thorough study from the interpreter.
I've had much more profound "interperative" experiences from intense and demanding music than from works that I could understand and sight read immediately.
coreyfulify 6 days ago
what the fuck is a unity capsule?
princhornrhs 2 months ago 8
I liked this peace.
Of course this peace has no melody, but it does have some thought to it. I mean people are so used to hearing beautiful melodies all the time and that is one of the reasons why I think many people don't want to get involved in music.I've heard many people say "oh why do I need to play those known peaces"etc. Everyone can play melodies and notes these days, but I think this peace shows people what an instrument(in this case flute)can do and present the flute in a unique way.
JustUnluckyMe 2 months ago
It was a hard time listening to the entire piece. Summary: A pile of nonsense, ridiculously notated in a burocratic style, no musical value at all.
foo0815 2 months ago
now at first I considered this insulting to music. It seemed inappropriate and vile in a way that made me twitch (literally) with discomfort. Now I understand that music is as music does, and with extravagance comes a touch of creativity. Despite its undeniable oddness, hats off to a fascinating piece "produced" in contemporary style....
DRBiblicalMD 2 months ago
It appears that the first thing the Arditti do when confronted by yet another piece from this charlatan is to effectively rewrite the whole score to make it countable. In order to do this they break down the beat structure. The given time signatures are superflous and only act as delineating chunks of time. To work your way around this your best bet is to determine how many beats there are in each beamed together grouping and then use mathematical ratios to determine values.......
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 a marking of 1/20, for example, marks out one 20th of a beat given at the written tempo so you work out how long a whole note at that tempo works then extrapolate from that. This is also not easy as the score itself has no regular beat pattern and changes pulse every few bars. Although it is a given fact that most of the "New Music" brigade treat the scores with a pinch of salt (often as graphic notation for wild improv) they have a rough idea of what constitutes good bullshit......
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 and are prone to damn performers who play octaves diminished by a quarter tone as open octaves. In other words it is a world based wholly on deceit lies and pretense. Run the score through a computer if you want to hear it rendered perfectly then leave it at that. Although this process of breaking down beat structures is not unheard of for PARTS of SOME works by Strav, only new complexity composers make it compulsory for ALL their works. Indicating they are shit composers.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 The good thing about this though is that this crap will die with them. As somebody put it "As a professional musician who is constantly uptight about interpreting Beethoven publicly in an acceptable way, looking at scores like this adds nothing to my life." Once Irvine Arditti shuffles off this mortal coil, a whole tranche of this stuff will vanish with him.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65
More and more people are performing Ferneyhough, Finnisy and the like. Bone Alphabet is now part of standard percussion repertoire; hundreds of people have played it. Performers are much more adventurous and eager to challenge themselves than you seem to believe.
I'm glad you think it's bullshit, though - keeps the egos in check.
The person concerned about interpreting Beethoven "in an acceptable way" needs to stop worrying about what a dead guy thinks of his bowing style.
coreyfulify 6 days ago
@coreyfulify Well given that this stuff been floating around since the 70's that's hardly surprising really. I think there is a difference between challenging yourself and allowing yourself to be throttled with a noose.
Personally, I get more out of Segerstam and the Nordgren Symphonies than any of this overwritten hogwash. Probably not on your radar though as a) they are Finnish and b) they are from the past 10 years rather than 50 years ago.
egapnala65 6 days ago
Where I can find the score?
RolNoisy 3 months ago
@RolNoisy You can buy rolls of it at any supermarket. Extra absorbent and gentle on those tender places.
egapnala65 3 months ago
I remember we had a workshop with Boulez and I asked the first question: "You have been quoted as saying that the idea of a great English composer is a genetic impossibility. Are we wasting our time?" It got a huge round of applause although one of the darmstadt brigade chastised me for "insulting" him which amused me no end.
egapnala65 3 months ago
The serial aesthetic is supposed to 'fight commercialism with ugliness'?
Where and when does Adorno say this? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard (and have a hard time believing Adorno said that).
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak Read the "Aesthetic Theory". Actually don't bother. It's bullshit from start to finish anyway.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak The serial aesthetic is an outcome of today's individualistic mentality.
keman25 3 months ago
@keman25 You misread my post: I was responding to the poster's saying that Theodoro Adorno claimed that the Serial aesthetic, was as so to 'fight commercialism with ugliness' (something I still have a hard time believing Adorno would have said). The 2nd Viennese and affiliates were very explicit about the innovations of dodecaphony being an extension of Romantic ideas: quite the opposite of wanting to contradict everything else that was going on.
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@keman25 As well as this: what can be known as the 'serial aesthetic', is the result of what is considered the 'emancipation of dissonance', as well as tried and true methods of coherently presenting orders and or content groups (e.g. angular lines to make respective intervals more accessible to the ear, aperiodicity to prevent any sort of metric importance occurring regularly, ect).
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak All very true but Adorno took it a lot further and declared everything south of Webern to be Kitsch and part of some cultural conspiracy to keep everybody sheeplike. In order to oppose this "industry" you have to break through and deliberately create work that only an elite body of people would understand as a form of rebellion against the "stupidity" of the masses. It's an utterly vile aesthetic, creating a "master race" (or so they think) of composers. The joys of Hegelianism.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 The aesthetic result of serial music being "vile" is simply your own opinion. I am not an elitist who claims it to be the 'pinnacle of music' or one who denounces everything has occurred before it and around it (a la Boulez): I just harbor Cage's philosophy in what can be concretely described as mu sic.
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@egapnala65 As well as this, having done my share of reading on the Second Viennese School: the progress made was not any attempt to exclude the layman from music. There was no 'rebellion against 'the stupidity of the masses'. Serialism resulted as a response to other trends/directions in classical music.
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak I think you seriously need to bone up on Adorno. I am merely stating what he said. I do not find serial music "vile" only the attitudes generated by the likes of Adorno usually to be found amongst Ferneyhough freaks. The state of mind can be found as early as Rene Leibowitz stating (in "Schoenberg and his School") that those who write serially occupy a higher intellectual plane than those who don't.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 Wheras, in my own experience, they tend to only occupy higher levels of anal retentiveness.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I'm sorry: the way you presented the ideas in your last comment made it seem as if everything succeeding the "Adorno took it a lot further and declared everything south of Webern to be Kitsch and part of some cultural conspiracy to keep everybody sheeplike." bit to be your own ideas.
I think it is unfair however, for harsh/elitist claims from critics and musicologists to be representative of how serial composers feel about their music (and non serial music).
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak When I said "vile aesthetic" I was applying it to Adorno and not serialism in general.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 Sorry: "they wouldn't have much in regards to the technical aspects of composition, due to stylistic differences" ****
Also: I don't think juvenile attitudes held by young composers should be given that much consideration. Being a young composer myself (only 21), I have admittedly gone through stages of elitism and all that, but have now harbored a more passive, open-minded approach to any and all music. In retrospect: I'd hope that no one would give my ill-formed ideas any time.
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak I think you should also try and get a copy of Henze's autobiography where he portrays his generation (centring on Adorno) as being wholly concerned with serialism. To the extent that when Henze extended his world to include tonal ideas, people like Nono, Adorno and Stockhausen walked out and started cutting him dead. Penderecki also wrote that he had much the same experience when he wanted to embrace a more universal language.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 (Not attempting to negate this testament): do you know of any composers who verbally expressed contempt for 'lesser' forms of music (other than Boulez of course)? Also, I don't know if I would consider 'cutting someone dead' a form of active disparagement.
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak I think you should read the book for yourself and make up your own mind. I have already cited Rene Leibowitz. As for Adorno (quoted by Henze) the only music he recognised as having aesthetic validity was "chaotic" music. You keep citing Boulez. Think of how powerful he became and the influence he had over cultural matters. You really think his narrow mindedness was his own alone? The whole aim of that generation of composers was to create a new musical language to replace the....
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 current one. Penderecki states that it was a form of universal annihilation of all national and personal boundaries in order to create a utopian aesthetic state. As with Ligeti, he quickly saw the limitations of the outlook and adapted accordingly, and was deemed a "traitor to the cause" for doing so. I think you seriously underestimate the political implications involved. In the Adornoite state all forms of non-serial composition would be deemed aesthetically invalid....
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 and all composers who sought to write personally or nationalistically would be gassed. Thankfully Reich and his group broke the cycle and we now have an aesthetic democracy. There are thousands of composers who were culturally annihilated as a result of the authoritarian diktats of Darmstadt and who are now emerging from the shadows. The world has become a far richer place now that anal retentiveness no longer rules.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak Besides if you follow the "evolutionary" argument much beloved of darmstadt freaks, that harmony evolved into atonality, it is a natural consequence of that position that atonality/serialism is the ONLY way of composing left to "those who take it seriously". The damnation is implicit in the Hegelian view itself. One doesn't need to cite individuals, merely question Hegelian assumptions that progress means vanishing further and further up the harmonic series. History says not.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 I understand in your saying 'in my own experience....' you are not attempting to be all-inclusive, but I would like to ask what experiences lead you think as such? I am a serial composer myself (though not akin to any of the more modern serialist). Naturally: I have studied a lot of the relevant composers, and have yet to read any actual words of such composers speaking contemptuously of non-serial music (other than Boulez, of course).
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak Well, let me see. In my student days I was often told I was writing "nursery rhymes" and when the opportunity to have a one to one session with John Adams came up, the serialists contemptuously started giving away their workshops to us lesser beings. I snapped mine up eagerly and came away impressed by what a nice open man Adams was. Their loss.
More generally, have you read the texts of these people? Senseless verbiage in place of coherent thought? Look at Ferney's writing.
egapnala65 3 months ago
@egapnala65 As someone who identifies themselves as a 'serial composer', I am pretty surprised that people would turn their nose up at an opportunity like that: even if they wouldn't have much to take away from it due to obvious stylistic differences, there would be a lot of real-world insight to gain from the experience. So yes: their loss indeed.
I
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@egapnala65 As much as I agree with the air of pretentiousness and over-technicality of some texts by serial composers: I've never read anything that explicitly insinuated the approach as superior (as a matter of fact: the only verbalized condemnation I've ever read in a text was one made by Hindemith - in regards to atonal music).
Also: there have been serial composers who have made achievements in writing extremely accessible texts (even being at odds): Charles Wuorinen comes to mind.
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
@AfroDeezeeYak Sorry I misspoke again: I agree that many texts by serial composers cast the aforementioned air about them...
AfroDeezeeYak 3 months ago
In the end the best way to regard the likes of Adorno and his acolytes are as sherry sipping bourgeois trying desperately hard to keep the chavs out. Rather like people who attend places like Glyndebourne that you find in the foyer wittering away about how the place has gone downhill with the introduction of cheap tickets.
egapnala65 4 months ago
The Adornoite justification for nonsense like this is that it is meant to work against the commodification of culture by capitalist expansionism. The aim is to create ugliness to fight against commercialism. However given that all the purveyors of this nonsense are professionals making money out of its sales and distribution ( and did Adorno give free lectures or distribute his books for free?) they are still commodified by that very fact. So even that rationale holds no water.
egapnala65 4 months ago
"I was always an "enfant terrible". Other composers criticized me, they called me a traitor to the avant garde cause because I took on big projects and wanted to say important things whilst they were writing 10 minute pieces at Darmstadt. But my music is played because it's good. Theirs is dead, disappeared." Krzysztof Penderecki.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Good for him. I listen to the music from him that I like, but I won't dare to say that his music I don't like is bad. Enough said.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
But you simply won't listen to it? Pick and choose the "radical" bits?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Listen to what? I really didn't understand you, cause you jump from one thing to another with no connection but your prejudices and tastes... you have no coherence. I listen to Henzes music cause it's good... I have many recordings of his music... I really don't understand you.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Define what is "GOOD" and what is "BAD" in objective terms. Beyond that there is only opinion.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 I ask you so the same some posts ago, and you don't even try to do it. You won't turn your incongruities on me. You're the one here trying to prove this music is "bad", but you were never smart enough to articulate a good argument to sustain your "premise" (if you may call that a premise). Don't go back in your own steps, cause we are going to get to the same place: you cant make even one plausible argument.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Er no I am not trying to prove anything, I am stating my opinion. All the rest is mere projection on your part. Now I do realise that fascists don't like opinions but there you are.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 This discussion starts with you saying this music and Nyman's were the same, something you didn't even understand about Hegel and then I answer you that it doesn't makes any sense in musical or aesthetic terms... then you keep trying to make a stand for your dull point of view... is not that like try to pove something... damn, I'm going crazy, cause you're so incongruous.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing They are exactly the same. It is only the listener's opinion that argues otherwise. As you have just said yourself.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 And what I said was that all that stands between them is a massive heap of bullshit. A point you make more obvious with every post you make.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Lots of similar comments like this can be found in Henze's autobiography where Adorno can be found strutting around declaring Henze's music to be bad because it isn't chaotic enough. But then Adorno hasd this thing about dissing people. Take Stravinsky. Adorno was incapable of producing anything but lukewarm expressionism ("appalling rubbish" according to Henze) and yet he was big enough to denounce the composer of "Les Noces". Darmstadt in a nutshell.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 I really like Henze's music cause it's good. So? He was a fine good composer, very resourceful. It doesn't helps you. You claim this music to be bad just cause you don't understand it, and you don't like it, that's it. You have nothing but that to prove it, unlike Adorno, even if he was not true. Henze music is good despite Adorno. Ferneyhough music is good despite the stupid ignorant named Alan Page. Keep trying.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Only in your opinion, which as I have said before is irrelevant as you yet to define objective criteria for what is good and what is bad.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Why would I even WANT to "understand" this crap anyway. The composer surrounds himself with "fuck off" signs. Revels in being incomprehensible to all but a tiny elite of bourgoeis non-entities and clearly has no desire to communicate with anybody else?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You don't have to... And here we enter a semiologic problem. You really haven't read not even a little bit of philosophy, don't you. You just come here with your Hegel and Adorno frustrations and some Kant and Schopenhahuer phrases. What exactly, in the name of god, do you want to communicate with music. Please be concrete.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing So we don't have to define what is good or bad, we simply have to feel it? Ah yes personal opinion. Congratulations you have finally reached ground zero.
egapnala65 4 months ago
If you want to know what I want to communicate with music go and listen to my "Trilogy Of Loss". You will hate it with a vengeance but I really couldn't give a shit what you think anyway so why not?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 And then, in semiologic terms, according to Lotman and Nattiez (and many others since Saussure to Imberty), it wont matters what you want to communicate, cause people will understand what they can understand: basic semiotics. Here's ground zero: you know nothing about music and aesthetics.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Only in your opinion which, again means nothing. So if somebody comes away saying that "Bach is pretentious shit" that is valid then is it? In which case what is your point here.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing And judging everything on a semiotic level is just as ridiculous and anally retentive as judging everything by Schenkerian theory.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Which is why, of course, 20th century philosophy is a complete waste of time and space. It either falls into Marx/Hegelianism or vanishes up its own arse into textual analysis.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA! YOU'RE A VERY STUPID PRETENTIOUS GUY, JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA! You just dismissed all XX century philosophy just because you think so, jajaajajajajajajajajajajaja. Come on, jajajajajaja, you can't be serious. You're just some guy trap into the past, jajajajaja. I've been wasting my time with some old stupid guy... bye now.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Yes, because I am more interested in broader issues like the nature of time and reality and not in petty trivial disputes over opaque terminology. In other words REAL philosophy. Interesting essay in Schopenhauer's "Parerga" about how academic philosophy is all about ensuring stipends for tutors rather than serious investigative thinking. Has far more universal application than any form of textual analysis people like you hold so highly.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Besides if reading 20th century philosophy means I would become a vacuous ill-informed arrogant little shit like you then I think it is well worth missing out on.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing "In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organised into a system which is neither stable or unstable, but rather "metastable", endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between between series are distributed. In the second place , singularities posses a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the .......
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Don't be stupid and pretentious, you jerk. Semiology is not about judging anything. You see. you keep proving you are ignorant. If you don't know what semiology is about, read a little bit and then come back and argue.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing So semiotic analysis isn't a form of analysis then? Interesting.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Jajajaja IDIOT, jajajajajaja, very stupid, jajajaja. Analyze means to to examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations, not to judge. You see, you are ignorant and pretentious ;-).
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Oh right. So now semiotic analysis has no real function except to give anally retentive professors something to write about. Yes that sounds about right. So we still have no objective reason to determine good from bad music only opinions. Nice diversion, didn't lead anywhere though.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing ...corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dices throws, in a single cast." Giles Delueze.
Now as you are such a great mind could you enlighten us all as to what this all means please as he is one of your faves?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Which is pleasing to me because when you call my music bad it merely says your just too thick to understand it. Which is pretty much the case I am afraid.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 But anyway I have more important things to do than argue with jumped up little morons, there's the Reger Quartets to explore.
egapnala65 4 months ago
I repeat, the only thing that stands between Brian Ferneyhough and Michael Nyman is an enormous pile of bullshit.
egapnala65 4 months ago
this is awful!
FcoXHR 4 months ago
utter garbage.....
Sentient6505 4 months ago
@Sentient6505 Your comment? Of course...
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
Per suonare una cosa simile dallo spartito uno si deve fare un mazzo!!!
Iolealdrovandi 4 months ago
its like trying to beatbox on the flute but failing miserably
DualThunder 4 months ago
this might be interesting to a flautist in terms of what is technically possible on a flute but as a piece of music i find it devoid of any interest whatsoever. Ferneyhough's pretentious, meaningless explanation doesn't inspire me either.
ukdavepianoman 4 months ago
Comment removed
johnzammitpace 4 months ago
The only thing that seperates Brian Ferneyhough from Michael Nyman is an enormous pile of bullshit. Now you can pretend that every note/gesture written here is the product of a complex and profound mind, that the music represents the ultimate logical Hegelian final end of music and that it is all as deeply serious and important as it claims to be historically, or you can simply look at how easily and prolifically these composers whap this stuff out and wonder at their commercial nous.
egapnala65 5 months ago
@egapnala65 Oh my god, are you seriously comparing Nyman with Ferneyhough?... You're just saying nonsenses. I'm sure you have no arguments to defend your crappy comment. You people judge so lightly the music you don't understand. I you don't like it it's your problem, if you don't understand it it's because you're an ignorant, but that doesn't mean this is not good music, and, FOR GOD SAKES, this have NOTHING to do with Nyman crap music.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Ahhh is the poor little Hegelian getting all frumpy because his taste in music is being questioned? There is no specific difference between this and Nyman. They both occupy niche markets and are both out to make money out of people. They would not be professionals otherwise. The difference being, of course, that Nyman can actually play his own works wheras Ferney and his equally fraudulent chums try and use bullshit to cover over the fact they can't.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Hegelian? JAJAJAJAJA! I'm not really into Hegel right now. I'm studying Deleuze, Foucault, Lotman, Eco, Barthes, Derrida, and other more contemporary philosophers. You're talking about "tastes", I'm not. Ferneyhough may sing all he writes: I've seen him to do it in Stanford and Darmstad. You're just some pretentious pseudo-intellectual guy with a lot of frustrations. You should read some Walter Benjamin before come and judge music you don't even understand so lightly. You're boring.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Walter Benjamin, Theo Adorno and all the rest of that shebang depend on historicism to make any sense. This historicism was shown up by Schopenhauer to be delusional in Hegel. Therefore anybody who subscribes to it now is of the same cast of mind. But I am not really surprised to see you knee deep in trendies. Your ilk often are. Makes you believe yourselves to be oh so impressive. Personally I find textual analysis irrelevant and boring but I can see why some people go for it.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing And while your at it add Sokal's "Intellectual Impostures" to your reading list. He shreds the likes of Deleuze exposing them as charlatan throwing around scientific terminology they clearly know nothing about. You may actually wish to google "Sokal Social Text" to see how easily fooled people can be by pretentious jargon.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 JAJAJAJAJAJA! Ok, have it your way. You're just repeating yourself, saying the same nonsense arguments over and over, contributing with nothing to a pointless discussion, repeating to yourself how smart you are because you read one Hegel's book and one Schopenhauer's book. If you please point to my "intellectual impostures", cause, as far as I know, I just say nothing but the obvious about your close-minded opinions... then you answer with a sophisticated rethoric...
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Actually you arrogant little twat I have read the whole of Hegel and the whole of Schopenhauer (plus pretty much the major works of every major philosopher between Descartes and Kierkegaard). It is for that reason that I can pass judgement on the posturings of ridiculous little dwarves like Adorno and Benjamin. If they were as critical and as well read as they claimed they would have not settled on Hegelianism.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You just keep repeating the same empty pretentious words. You cant present even one plausible argument, you just say everyone except you are ignorant. The last time I went to Darmstadt I see with my own eyes Fereneyhough to sing one of his etudes when talk about it in a conference. Me and all the other attendants saw him. It doesn't matter how many philosophers have you read, if you're close-minded enough not try to understand this music then you're an ignorant. No more answers bye.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Ahhh diddums. Running off to weep into his copy of Adorno's "Aesthetic Theory" like the good little poser he is. Still no reply to my query regarding the sense in piling up inaudible processes in an aural art form? As for being my being narrow minded? The irony of that coming from an Adorno freak is hilarious. Adorno made an entire career consigning far better composers than he himself to the aesthetic gas chamber. From Stravinsky to Sibelius he found reasons to hate them all
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing And all for the sake of some mythical Hegelian view of history being a rational process. I have as much right to dismiss the pretentious twaddle of Ferneyhough and co as Adorno had to dismiss anybody who did not pander to his tiny minded obssessions.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing And if I remember rightly it was (and remains) you who started on about how ignorant people are because they don't worship at the Ferneyhough throne.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Oh my god, you're really delusional, jajajajajajaja. I never said anything about worshiping, Hegel, not even about Adorno... Damn you're crazy. You OBVIOUSLY are not interested in what I have to say about Ferneyhough's music, not even in his music, but into probe this is "crap"... you know what, this is crap if want it to be. Even though, I like it. You have nothing smart to say, you just want to pretend to be smart: you know what, you are if you want to...
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Finally, you admit its a question of personal taste. Good, the first step towards musical democracy has been taken. You are correct, I am not interested. This kind of shit belongs in the 70's when it was nearly impossible for any works which did not conform to the Darmstadt school diktats to get performances. A lot of worthwhile composers were consigned to the darkness because they held that there was more to music than mere "extended technique" and polysyllabic posturing.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Jajajajaja! YOU CRAZY PRETENTIOUS IDIOT, JAJAJAJAJAJAJA! You're really, really crazy, jajajajaja. I never admit it's about personal taste: if this music is good is not because I like it, but, at this point, you have probe you don't have the ability to understand why, not because you're stupid, but because you're only interested into probe you're right. Your historic and sociological approach to the aesthetic object is very poor. It probes you know nothing about art. Learn to read.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing No the "music" here is crap, you are somewhat crazed and insecure, hence you won't accept differences of opinion. Typical Adornoite fascist.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Again, I've never said anything about Adorno... nor even make any fascist statement. So far, all the fascist statements comes from you: you're the one who said this is a pile of bullshit, you're the one who call us "hegelians", you're the one who said we are "worshiping" Ferneyhough. The fact I like his music don't doesn't mean I worship him. You keep mixing philosophy with "taste", and trying to mix it up all to confusing me or you (I don't know exactly), but you keep failing.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@egapnala65 There was a lot of music in the 70's with nothing to do with Darmstadt: Scelsi, Takemitsu, Britten (very old), Franck Martin (VERY renowned composer not even close to what you probably know as the Darmstadt school), Feldman, Reich, Crumb, Lutoslawsky, Schnittke, Kurtag, etc. You need to stop the "I know everything about music and philosophy" crap, cause you've probe to be very ignorant many times. You're just very frustrated as a composer and you want to justify your mediocrity.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Are these really the only composers you can name? Is this the limit of your musical knowledge? No Fartein Valen? No Leif Segerstam? No George Lloyd? No Michael Tippett? Nah, just the fashionable ones you have been programmed to worship as Gods. You really are in aesthetic poverty little man.The sooner you realise that the better for you.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 If you don't like them or understand them, it doesn't mean they are bad composers. You fail over and over again cause for you it's about tastes, and not about music. Your logic have a perfect failure: there's a lot of people who like Ferneyhoughs music, or any of the other composers I named. If this were about tastes, then you're wrong. And you even miss your own point: there was a lot more than just Darmstadt back then in 1970. You put yourself in evidence every comment you make.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
Just run along and invent some new ways of blowing shit out of a flute, my dear little bourgeois. it is probably all you will ever do in your life, so why not? As for the arguments concerning object vs subject I refer you to Kant. Everything is the construction of your individual sensory apparatus, therefore all claims to objectivity are suspect. That's what makes Kant a philosopher and not the kind of shallow pretentious shitheads you read.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 I've never invented any new ways of blowing the flute, jajajajaja. You did it again, you come out of the subject with a new one, and claim you're very smart because you said something is not really related to the initial point. You may keep doing this, but it will not change the fact you're not saying anything smart, much less writing any good argument to support your point of view (so far is nothing more than a point of view, cause, at least for you, is everything about "tastes").
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Are you actually going to comment on the remark I made about Kant or are you simply going to keep hurling ad hominens and trying to avoid any real discussion? Suits me, arrogant little shits like you amuse me greatly.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 And of course they are not the only composers I can name. I was just making a point about how wrong you were by saying Darmstadt school was the only music was hear back then in the 70's. You always try to be the smart one, but keep mixing things and answering about things I didn't write. You say something apparently smart, the I answer you, and then you answer something very different with a sophism. Stop putting yourself in evidence.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Oh I think you will find that anybody who did not toe the serialist line back then was pretty much sidelined by the broadcasting authorities. Something which Reich and co. managed to put right. Sadly people like you are still dancing around this putrid corpse and pretending its new and exciting. It isn't.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 After all it was "the music of the future" wasn't it? And if you were to run into the likes of William Glock and you were not a serialist then you really had no chance. In Henze's autobiography he writes about being excluded from the Darmstadt clique because they found elements of tonality in his works. You should read it, show you the kind of ethos they perpetuated.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 And you did it again, jajajaja... You know what, so far, you have probe you don't have anything to probe, much less, anything smart to say. This is becoming boring, cause you do the same all the times, but you can't present any valid arguments, but aggressions by claiming you're smarter than the others. You're not even a good musician, so keep saying anything you want.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing After all with all those philosophers like Benjamin under your belt a simple discussion of Kant's epistemology shouldn't be beyond you surely?So let's start with this concept of "Objectivity" that you claim is so real and obvious. How is that defined? If we are merely passive subjects to receptors of our sensory apparatus conditioned by our minds, how do we know that we actually exist at all and are not simply hyperactive quarks?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You read Nishitani, and I will answer your old fashion argument. You're not making a point about music. I've never said this have to be objective, but you keep mixing objectivity with tastes, music and philosophy, If you're going to make a stand for any of those, start by being congruent.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
So you are now saying that there are no objective grounds for determining the worth or otherwise of a piece of music? So what constitutes good and bad music is based on opinion then?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 GOD!!! ARE YOU STUPID OR WHAT?! PLEASE START BY READ WHAT I'VE WROTE AND THEN ANSWER. YOU SAID IT WAS ABOUT TASTES, YOU'RE THE ONE MIXING IT ALL... Damn you're obnoxious and fool. Of course there are objective grounds for determining the worth of a piece of music. You're the one saying this is not good music and haven't give even one argument to support that. A little bit of organization doesn't hurt anyone.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing You have produced nothing of any real intellectual depth to prove that this is a "good" piece. you just keep asserting that because you say it is, it is. What objective grounds are there? Defined by what criteria? Or by who's criteria? Let's talk polyphony. The whole idea of polyphony was that each strand of each voice should be clear and audible? Is that right?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 And that if we take that as objective law of polyphony then that makes a lot of your musical heroes pretty crap doesn't it? Elliot Carter for example? It brings me back to the point I made (and you avoided) in an audible art form what is the point of piling up inaudible processes?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You see, you have no real "objective" arguments. You just disagree with this music cause you don't understand it, and even more, you don't want to understand it. You should go back to music school and study with a real music teacher.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You're the one saying this is not good music, then you should be the one trying to prove this is bad music. Is polyphony clear and audible in 62 voices madrigals? Not a point there.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing I don't need to, It speaks for itself. As for Madrigals, there is also harmonic movement to be
taken into consideration which means that a certain amount of textural wash is permissable. Not a whole lot of random rubbish.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You know, you haven't give any argument about this music other than your own prejudices about it. If you want to hear just nice harmonies and counterpoint, go back to Monteverdi and Bach. Here, means and ends are quite others. If you can't understand that, then, What are you doing here, trying to argue about something you don't understand because your mind is so narrowed you think all music should sound as you think it should to be good?
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing "here means and ends are quite others" is this some piece of pretentious gobbledegook? Wouldn't put it past you? And actually at the moment i am going through a lot of late 19th century early 20th century opera stars for yet another facebook page I am compiling.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 You give exceptions for your initial argument, but don't make it clear for the rest of your argumentation. And, if you ever see the score of this piece, you know THERE'S NO RANDOM RUBBISH HERE. You make argumentation based on ignorance, not very smart. You should probably come with another real argument for this. If you going to keep with the polyphony argument, then try to make it clear. And polyphony is clear just if you want it to be, that's what 62 voices madrigals prove it.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
Er... by conventional objective standards of harmony and counterpoint it is. No audible process, no harmonic language just a lot of random special effects arranged according to extra-musical logic. And as I have said before the counterpoint in such madrigals is determined by the overall harmonic function. Eliminate that and you eliminate the whole reason for polyphony. But anyway getting back to your dismissing Kant as "old fashioned", do you dismiss Bach or Beethoven in the same way?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 "There is no break but rather a bubbling or seething [bouillonement]; when, at the end of the 19th century, attempts were made at a generalized chromaticism or a chromaticism free of temperament (...) music rendered more and more audible what had worked within it at all times: non-sonorous forces like Time, the organization of Time, silent intensities, rhythms of every nature." Gilles Deleuze
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing And posting pretentious claptrap like that from a proven fraudster doesn't really help your case either. The aim of the Darmstadt school was to create a new musical language which would form some kind of utopian paradise freed from things like national or personal identity. All composers of all nations could become one body. Of course the problem with that is that it had to exterminate all other composers who did not wish to compromise their personal integrity.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Another lie... You're not talking with a ten years old boy. I wont buy your lies just because it's well written. Go back to school, please.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing What am I lying about? Ferneyhough's 26 foot high orchestral score or about Darmstadt? The former is perfectly true and the latter comes from Penderecki. So hardly lies. Just another example of you not being as well informed as you pretend to be.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Do you actually take the time to read the things you write? Jajajaja. Idiot. You lie about Darmstadt School, and about music in general.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Actually, given the fact that you were seemingly unaware of the Darmstadt links of Messiaen and co. I think you should just quietly retire and go and learn new ways of blowing shit out of a Flute as I have said before.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Your arguments ar as solid as an icicle, jajajaja... You're very good at sophism, but when it comes to real critical thinking, you're nothing but a pile of crap ;-).
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing yes, of course. But only in your opinion which, given your cultural illiteracy isn't really worth an awful lot is it?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Do you actually going to claim there's no audible process and no harmonic language here? Seriously? Extra-musical logic, are you serious? Then there's nothing to discuss about, cause you're deaf or insanely stupid. Again, if you think harmonic function is the overall in counterpoint, the go back to school and learn some music history. You know, there's nothing to discuss with you, cause you're not even a musician, but a pretentious bastard. BYE!
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Well up until Schoenberg the prevailing attitude was that horizontal contrapuntal logic was conditioned also by the vertical harmonic dimension. Pretty clearly, there is none of that here.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 The fact you just understand music as a bunch of pitches ordered to "sound nice, clear and audible" doesn't prove this music is bad, but that you're a pretentious, ignorant, close-minded idiot.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Read Xenakis thinks about polyphony... from some one who really put's himself to do a serious investigation about it, and you can prove it by reading his books. Stop exposing yourself as the ignorant you are. You started with some pretentious words by others, but you cant even argue with real arguments.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Ah yes, Xenakis. I once showed a mathematician friend of mine a copy of his "Stochastic Music", he stated that Xenakis couldn't even notate the simplest mathematical equation properly.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Another case of blinding people with science.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 And again, you miss the point. I didn't talk about his music, but his hard investigation about polyphony. You keep showing yourself as stupid and a fraud wrap into nice words taken out of context from good philosophers. If you don't have the intellectual ability to keep going, then stop. You don't have a point, nor the education and preparation to prove anything, because you're just some old frustrated idiot.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Sorry, i thought you argued that there were objective ways of telling good from bad music. So now you hold there isn't? Or if there are they don't apply?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Then, if there's no objective ways of telling good from bad music, reduces this to one point: just because you don't like it it doesn't mean this is bad music, just that you don't like it. Then every music ever written is good, therefore, you have nothing to argue about. Then, if I say your music is crap because I don't like it, it's true... wait, something is wrong with this false logic. You contradict yourself and you expect me to make a mistake, but you make all of them.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Now again in English, please. That must score top marks for obfuscation. Hegel would be so proud.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Sí, imbécil, lo dije bien, siguiendo tu lógica estúpida, tú y yo somos de la escuela de Darmstadt. Eres un pendejazo, jajajaja.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Or you could simply resort to abuse of course?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing Oh I can see the score here thank you. It is still crap. Rather like that orchestral work of his that has a full score that is 26 feet high. It's bullshit from start to finish.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Bullshit your sonata. Here there's a lot of AUDIBLE MUSIC, with rhythm, counterpoint, harmony, timbre, etc, processes. Deaf stupid guy, jajaja. ENOUGH SAID ;-).
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing There is nothing but cgi special effects arranged by mathematical processes. The fact it relies on external mathematical processes rather than purely musical ones makes it crap.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE THEN, YOUR MUSICAL TASTES!!!!! That's why you'll never understand this music, cause you have a real poor conception of music. MUSIC ALWAYS RELIES ON EXTERNAL MATHEMATICAL PROCESSES. If you don't believe me, go and look some Machaut, Vitry, Beethoven, Tchaykovsky or Ravel's music... you pathetic piece of pretentious ignorant bastard, jajaja.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
And what is this word "probe" by the way. Am I really talking to somebody claiming a higher intellectual plane than me who cannot even deal with basic english? How amusing.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 I'm not claiming any higher intellect, you are. I'm not a natural english-speaker, so I probably make many mistakes already. You did it again, you turn yourself aside of the point by claiming you're the smartest one. Keep going like this, it'll make a very good musician...
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago
@EdiEllerymissing More ad hominen.You really are a bundle of it aren't you?
egapnala65 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@egapnala65 I may say the same about you. It's just about where you stand.
EdiEllerymissing 4 months ago 2