Hades heißt wörtlich "der Unsichtbare" oder der "Unhörbare". Auf einem alten Vasenbild sieht man "Hades mit rückwärtsgewandtem Kopf. Er war der nicht Anzuschauende, der schreckliche Todesgott, der alles Lebendige verschwinden ließ, unsichtbar machte" (Karl Kerenyi, "Mythologie der Griechen, Bd.I, S.183)
different styles show different point of views, bringing us happyness, anger, creativity,...
lacking communication between composers and audience (or just btw styles and attitudes) as well as in every other concern in our system, leads 2 a fragmented society. Ppl with influence should all know about social consequences of their work (i guess lachenmann nows, as he is very intelligent).
I'm a social thinker, i could not compose this way. and YES, vote my comment down if you like, of course!
This discussion has been running on Lachenmann music over the last 30 years. Strange that this music can still provoke anyone. There are obviously still many who need to open there eyes and ears. Lachenmann's music is extremely refined and expressive, and a music which rises by acquaintance. Dive more into his work and be enriched! Lachenmann has meant a lot for my generation of composers and those generations to come.
@ArsSub "There are obviously still many who need to open there eyes and ears. " So all those who aren't interested in Lachenmann's music are somehow intellectually deaf and blind? What an arrogant statement.
@chizulch4 In order to percept unknown music, the listener must first of all be open and in this case accept other sonic qualities than pitch. The recipient of the musical artwork must overcome his or her own musical references and try to understand the sender's intentions. Most of the negative comments on this page bear the imprint of superficial and ignorant argumentation.
@ArsSub Thank you for laying down the rules on how the rest of the human race must respond to music. Liking or not liking a piece of music is not about putting forward an argument. It's about how you respond to it. What do you mean when you say that "the listener must first of all be open"? What does "open" mean? I have a feeling it just means that the listener must agree with your opinions.
1.: The way the human brain reacts emotionally to music is by high production of endorphins. The brain will be rewarded by the decoding of the music. This decoding is controlled by various references and by Intellectual factors. There are two options by non-endorphin production: either the work is so different that it is not decoded, or It is the opposite, that the work only contains of already known references or cliches and therefore are too easy to decode.
2.:Practicing one's mind to different music requires time.If you refuse the artwork in advance because the brain does'nt immediately get an endorphin rush,and if this situation is due to lack of decoding capability,one does not develop his musical perception.Though I also find it hard to detach myself from own references,I try to relate myself openly and unselfishly when listening to a new piece.If I can't decode it I hear it again.If decoding is immediately, I hear it never again.
@ArsSub So if a composer presents you with a piece of music and you do not like it, you assume that it's because you cannot "decode" it? Have you considered the possibility that it could be a really bad, boring piece of pretentious rubbish like this Lachenmann composition?
If I hear a piece of music I do not like, I try to analyze what I find problematic about the piece. For me, good or bad is a too simplistic terminology.
@ArsSub Have you ever analysed a piece of music and come to the conclusion that it's really boring and/or aesthetically moribund? Because that's how I feel about Lachenmann's music. You seem to be implying that my reaction is due to the fact that I cannot "decode" the music. But if that is the case, then nothing a composer ever writes can be judged by any listener, because the composer can always say "You just cannot decode my music". This is a recipe for critical paralysis.
poeple think that music isn't music without melody, all I have to say to them is... music is alot of things. Melody included... or not. Dissonant and Atonal harmonies are still harmonies. Just as the keys he hits still create vibrations that you can hear. Don't like it? Don't listen to it. Simple logic that even a 5 year old can understand.
That being said I enjoy this peice, perhaps not as much as Boulez or Varese.
Yes this is genius. The rhythms are exact, calculated, and they fit together with a sort of counterpoint Bach could have never imagined. Its symbolic criticism of modern society is absolutely profound, and listening to it brought tears to my eyes. That hit at 3:05 was genius! I swear I almost crapped my pants
And Sleezy009, that "I'm a student and this is horrible" attitude gives us students a bad name. All young children have a capacity to do this, but how often does that curiosity and contentment with simple sounds go away with age? To me, that's part of the beauty of this piece.
hmm a beautiful piece with only percussion and no intended musical notes or exact frequencies. You are basing its beauty on the idea of it, not the listening experience, otherwise you should probably sell whatever you are smoking...
@bbopdude You can bring a horse to water...and it would in most cases make clippity-cloppity sounds which would, at the very least, be a hell of a lot more interesting than whats being performed on this video.
Lol! If you can't understand this music it doesn't mean it's not worthy. I like this as I like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schumann, Chopin, Bruckner, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen, Berio... ETC. Art is not just about "beauty". Beauty is just one of the categories of the art aesthetics. As difficult this is for you, Lachenmann really takes his time to develop and compose this piece, probably without somke anything.
@EdiEllerymissing most of my joy in hearing music comes from my brain's interpretation of the notes and the resulting harmonic structure of the piece. That is only enhanced by the timbres and percussion, but the backbone is still the notes. If you take that all away, absolute boredom ensues as I can look at it only as I look at blank canvases put up in modern art museums and the like
Jejeje. as a composer and pianist I guess I understand the need you have for a "traditional" structure. I may analyze a sonata just by hearing, I enjoy the unusual structure of the last Beethoven sonatas, or the traditional searching of Brahms... but there's more in music, because music is not just about notes, is about sound. Music would be so poor if it would be the case. You said it, that's the way you appreciate music, but it doesn't mean you may look down this.
I just don't like the pedantic overseriousness taken in analyzing this stuff when it COULD be haphazard and people would like/hate it just as much. I think Bach did well enough with some of his music being entirely "about the notes" rather than sound since he didn't even specify instrumentation so much on his deepest works. The Art of Fugue can be played with many different types of instruments because it doesn't depend on sound. Sound I group more with interpretation than composition imo
Haphazard? Well, then you may try to write and play one piece as good as this. Bach was an excellent composer, a master of the counterpoint and a total musical genius. The art of the fugue is not to be play but to be write and analyze. That's why he didn't wrote it for any specific instrument. You know, if you don't like this and don't understand it because your hearing stay a few centuries in the past then don't listen to it, but don't come and spread your bitter around.
Nobody is being pedantic around here except you. Nobody will become a real artist today by writing fugues and concertos like Bach or Liszt. You know, art evolves as humanity, and tonal music just had it's time. I bet you don't even understand Berio or Messiaen, cause you can't understand the way they order the sound in time. If you don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad music, it just means you're not mentally prepared to listen to it.
What is a real artist? Bach was already writing music that had become outdated in the eyes of the contemporaries and therefore wasn't regarded seriously enough as a composer in his time. He has since been regarded as a great genius by the worthy content he put forth. If music isn't made to entertain by the performance, a wrong medium is certainly chosen. Tonal music has infinite possibilities and atonal is more limited in how the mind effectively negates the dimension of notes
Again, throwing incoherent arguments. Bach music was always praised by the people who knows. Mozart, Beethoven, Czerny and many other fine musicians studied Bach when it was "lost" the public. The true value of his music is because he combines craftsmanship with a concept. That makes worthy his music. That's art, when music is not just about entertaining, feeling and perception.
Tonal music is as finite as its tonal functions are. Tonal is always about a center, and hierarchy. There's tonal music based on triads, there's tonal music based on tonal centers, but at the end is always the same. The problem is to face tonality as a major, minor scale. Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt and every worthy composer probe that's is wrong. Then Wanger comes and show us, with Tristan chord, that tonality is just an illusion.
Then Debussy comes and twisted all the slight knowledge we have about tonality... Then Bartok, Messiaen and every other composer from the XX century show us that tonality is not about triads and scales. You know, is very ignorant, and reactionary to say that "tonal music" is infinite after Fauré. If you don't believe me just ask Ravel. How could you write anything that has not been written by Beethoven, Bach, Brahms or Fauré. After them there's just pseudo-tonality.
Technically, serialism even is included as tonal music because it is based on the set chromatic notes. It may be pantonal or have no tonal center, but it is still based on notes. Pseudo-tonality, if you count say Shostakovich within that term, still goes from tonal center to tonal center. Furthermore, it creates distinct qualitative originalities of a higher order. If there were another piece also comprised of the same hand movements on a piano in a similar fashion, one would not differentiate
OH MY, This is absurd already. Did I talk about serialism? You know, tonality is all about hierarchy, if there's no tonal center there's no tonality, so serialism can't be tonality. You said it with Shoshtakovich "it creates distinct qualitative originalities of a higher order": HIERARCHY! If you want to probe something start by being congruent. In any way, Bach itself probes that tonality is assigned to modality, and Debussy take this resource more than one century after him.
I was only referring to human nature with the "higher order" thing. The more something is lacking a tonal center or defined pitch the closer it is to being perceived as white noise. It is therefore harder to distinguish as unique. If he uses really weird electronic sounds in some of his works, I would prefer those for that reason
You know, I should notice from the beginning that you just listen notes, maybe a little bit of rhythm as metric and some of the dynamics. If you're a musician, and I honestly doubt it, you should know music has a lot more parameters than just notes and metric. There's counterpoint, polyphony, harmony, sound quality, phrasing, etc. You can't define sound in relation to tonality and atonality-whitenoise. That's so poor. You're not prepared for the XX century music.
Counterpoint, polyphony, and harmony are all created by the notes and rhythms although harmony can be much different based on sound qualities. If I were like you, I would choose to add personal insults and ignore the meaning of what was said. Putting yourself on a pedestal and misinterpreting simple statements will not get a discussion anywhere, especially if you still won't point out any merits in this. "You can't define sound in relation to tonality and atonality" is a misinterpretation
You're partial as all your comments. Counterpoint, polyphony, and harmony may be created by notes, but a note is a construction around the sound in western music. There is Counterpoint, polyphony, and harmony in african, hindu, japanese, arab, chinese, and other culture's music without "notes", cause is not about notes, but about sound. I said that from the beginning. I said that without any insult. Music is about sound, not "notes" even if you don't want to believe it.
"The more something is lacking a tonal center or defined pitch the closer it is to being perceived as white noise" What is that suppose to mean? You are the one who misinterprets. Open, pointless comments lacking of a real and constructive sense leave the space for misinterpretation Do you know what white noise is? You can't say a chain of notes without tonal center is white noise. Timbre, have you heard of it? Again, music is about sound, not notes... whatever, it's pointless.
A constant stroking of piano keys with no discernible resonant frequencies would be that "white noise" in that one could not feasibly use it alone as a mode of composition. If he made 5 more pieces all using strokes on piano keys alone, it would be pointless because of the perceived similarity. It would quickly wear out. His compositions are even more about mediums and techniques than the product. Crafty techniques of playing I appreciate, but how they are used is little more than a showcase
Again and again to the same point. If you cant hear anything but notes, and don't appreciate rhythm (I suppose you have already read Messaien's treaties about rhythm, or even Scelsi analyze about music parameters) and timbre I can perfectly understand your lack of musical sensibility to this kind of music. Something I agree with you is that this piece is closer to the white noise than it is to "notes". If he didn't made 5 pieces like this is cause he's smart enough to understand what you say...
And, you were talking about "tonal center" but, what's your point? There's is no tonal center here cause there's no abstract sounds here, no notes, as you called them, no pure sound, if you want to name it that way. You jump from one point to other as your convenience, without establish a point or a connection... So, what's your point? That you don't like this? Fine by me. It has nothing to do with Lachemann's quality as a composer. Enough said.
This discussion is going anywhere cause all you want is to be smarter. You don't give logic and exact answers to my questions. You just disqualify my opinions based on your perception and your defective arguments. Again, and I can see these by your incongruous answers, if you don't understand this music, just don't listen to it. If you want to disqualify a composer as Lachenmann, star by learning to be logic and congruent with what you say.
I am curious if this piece make angry commenters as angry without the knowledge of what a piano usually sounds like? If it was just the sounds created? What elements are required to be the same to stave off an emotional response?
Parquar, I think you are asking exactly the right questions, but why is your reaction anger? What constitutes a 'good atmosphere'? What is wrong with the notes of this piece that is right with the notes of, let's say, Beethoven--aren't they both percussive?
ok I was seeking a vindication of your appreciation of this so I could know what people like about it but you resorted to red herring technicalities and anger along with "close-mindedness" of all things. Im not covering through things specifically because I already did and it deleted it rather than posting it and I don't feel like typing it again. Anyway, do people who like this typically listen to it primarily or as a sort of 'novelty' thing?
Why does everything have to be some kind of statement on how music should be as a whole? Its just a guy making noises at a piano, why is this a threat to our precious musical traditions? Its funny how bent out of shape people get over this stuff.
I love contemporary music, so I'm not closed-minded, but this is stupid. It would be nice to live in a world where more people were exposed to the genuine masterpieces of contemporary music (the works of Crumb, Ligeti, Schnittke, Messiaen, etc.) but this shit ain't helping.
I'm going to look up your suggestions. This is so stupid. Why use a piano if you are only using the keys for a percussive sound? Couldn't you just use a percussive instrument? This doesn't even create good atmosphere or anything either. At least other atonal works have THAT if anything. At least other atonal works have notes...
I must say, even as a student of music, I find this horrible. People will say that I'm ignorant or close minded. But honestly, I cannot imagine anyone truthfully enjoying this piece. I agree with alexioco, even my 3 yr old brother can do something like this...
In a concert-situation you will listen to these sounds in a different way than if you hear similar noises in nature. Why do you take pictures? Because you feel something about the motif, they reminds you of a certain feeling from a situation. For me these sounds reminds me of something I often forget to appreciate, something I think people should care more about, and put into a musical texture and form, they will be focused on with great tension, they will become art.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what rubbish, just goes to show how liszt and the other great composers where ahead of their time, and still ahead now, if we are to progress in music, it should be getting more techincal and interesting, the notes arnt even being played here, i mean, come on...
i dont aggree, anyway how can anyone call this music? Its as if we have gone right back to when music was just starting to form and this inst even that, seriously now...
i wish this was a joke
CAJAMinc 2 months ago
Wait a minute! This sounds like it was transposed upwards by one semitone...
cesaresusa 4 months ago
@cesaresusa The piano has to be tuned to French tuning for this piece...
BlueCougar 2 months ago
Black Hole Sun, won't you come?
ivannoveottouno 7 months ago
I did this with a hot wheels car when I was a kid.
erinmerle 1 year ago
WTF am I watching?
acarlisl 1 year ago
This is really old fashion music.
Sounds like last century.
thierrylancino 1 year ago
This music sounds quite old fashion to me.
A bit like 20th century.
It is stuck.
thierrylancino 1 year ago
Hades heißt wörtlich "der Unsichtbare" oder der "Unhörbare". Auf einem alten Vasenbild sieht man "Hades mit rückwärtsgewandtem Kopf. Er war der nicht Anzuschauende, der schreckliche Todesgott, der alles Lebendige verschwinden ließ, unsichtbar machte" (Karl Kerenyi, "Mythologie der Griechen, Bd.I, S.183)
TheRekisum 2 years ago
Hades-Musik
TheRekisum 2 years ago
i like it, but i couldnt help wondering the whole way through when he was actually going to PLAY the piano XD
rockgod111 2 years ago
different styles show different point of views, bringing us happyness, anger, creativity,...
lacking communication between composers and audience (or just btw styles and attitudes) as well as in every other concern in our system, leads 2 a fragmented society. Ppl with influence should all know about social consequences of their work (i guess lachenmann nows, as he is very intelligent).
I'm a social thinker, i could not compose this way. and YES, vote my comment down if you like, of course!
kage1369 2 years ago
This discussion has been running on Lachenmann music over the last 30 years. Strange that this music can still provoke anyone. There are obviously still many who need to open there eyes and ears. Lachenmann's music is extremely refined and expressive, and a music which rises by acquaintance. Dive more into his work and be enriched! Lachenmann has meant a lot for my generation of composers and those generations to come.
ArsSub 2 years ago 13
@ArsSub "There are obviously still many who need to open there eyes and ears. " So all those who aren't interested in Lachenmann's music are somehow intellectually deaf and blind? What an arrogant statement.
chizulch4 1 year ago
Comment removed
ArsSub 1 year ago
@chizulch4 In order to percept unknown music, the listener must first of all be open and in this case accept other sonic qualities than pitch. The recipient of the musical artwork must overcome his or her own musical references and try to understand the sender's intentions. Most of the negative comments on this page bear the imprint of superficial and ignorant argumentation.
ArsSub 1 year ago
@ArsSub Thank you for laying down the rules on how the rest of the human race must respond to music. Liking or not liking a piece of music is not about putting forward an argument. It's about how you respond to it. What do you mean when you say that "the listener must first of all be open"? What does "open" mean? I have a feeling it just means that the listener must agree with your opinions.
chizulch4 1 year ago
@chizulch4
1.: The way the human brain reacts emotionally to music is by high production of endorphins. The brain will be rewarded by the decoding of the music. This decoding is controlled by various references and by Intellectual factors. There are two options by non-endorphin production: either the work is so different that it is not decoded, or It is the opposite, that the work only contains of already known references or cliches and therefore are too easy to decode.
ArsSub 1 year ago
@chizulch4
2.:Practicing one's mind to different music requires time.If you refuse the artwork in advance because the brain does'nt immediately get an endorphin rush,and if this situation is due to lack of decoding capability,one does not develop his musical perception.Though I also find it hard to detach myself from own references,I try to relate myself openly and unselfishly when listening to a new piece.If I can't decode it I hear it again.If decoding is immediately, I hear it never again.
ArsSub 1 year ago
@ArsSub So if a composer presents you with a piece of music and you do not like it, you assume that it's because you cannot "decode" it? Have you considered the possibility that it could be a really bad, boring piece of pretentious rubbish like this Lachenmann composition?
chizulch4 1 year ago
@chizulch4
If I hear a piece of music I do not like, I try to analyze what I find problematic about the piece. For me, good or bad is a too simplistic terminology.
ArsSub 1 year ago
@ArsSub Have you ever analysed a piece of music and come to the conclusion that it's really boring and/or aesthetically moribund? Because that's how I feel about Lachenmann's music. You seem to be implying that my reaction is due to the fact that I cannot "decode" the music. But if that is the case, then nothing a composer ever writes can be judged by any listener, because the composer can always say "You just cannot decode my music". This is a recipe for critical paralysis.
chizulch4 1 year ago
@chizulch4 Your right, this piece is balls.
Uberloinvongenchler 2 weeks ago
poeple think that music isn't music without melody, all I have to say to them is... music is alot of things. Melody included... or not. Dissonant and Atonal harmonies are still harmonies. Just as the keys he hits still create vibrations that you can hear. Don't like it? Don't listen to it. Simple logic that even a 5 year old can understand.
That being said I enjoy this peice, perhaps not as much as Boulez or Varese.
stathagranak 2 years ago
Yes this is genius. The rhythms are exact, calculated, and they fit together with a sort of counterpoint Bach could have never imagined. Its symbolic criticism of modern society is absolutely profound, and listening to it brought tears to my eyes. That hit at 3:05 was genius! I swear I almost crapped my pants
parquar 2 years ago
And Sleezy009, that "I'm a student and this is horrible" attitude gives us students a bad name. All young children have a capacity to do this, but how often does that curiosity and contentment with simple sounds go away with age? To me, that's part of the beauty of this piece.
bbopdude 2 years ago
hmm a beautiful piece with only percussion and no intended musical notes or exact frequencies. You are basing its beauty on the idea of it, not the listening experience, otherwise you should probably sell whatever you are smoking...
parquar 2 years ago
You can bring a horse to water...
bbopdude 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bbopdude You can bring a horse to water...and it would in most cases make clippity-cloppity sounds which would, at the very least, be a hell of a lot more interesting than whats being performed on this video.
chizulch4 1 year ago
Lol! If you can't understand this music it doesn't mean it's not worthy. I like this as I like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schumann, Chopin, Bruckner, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen, Berio... ETC. Art is not just about "beauty". Beauty is just one of the categories of the art aesthetics. As difficult this is for you, Lachenmann really takes his time to develop and compose this piece, probably without somke anything.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
@EdiEllerymissing most of my joy in hearing music comes from my brain's interpretation of the notes and the resulting harmonic structure of the piece. That is only enhanced by the timbres and percussion, but the backbone is still the notes. If you take that all away, absolute boredom ensues as I can look at it only as I look at blank canvases put up in modern art museums and the like
parquar 2 years ago
Jejeje. as a composer and pianist I guess I understand the need you have for a "traditional" structure. I may analyze a sonata just by hearing, I enjoy the unusual structure of the last Beethoven sonatas, or the traditional searching of Brahms... but there's more in music, because music is not just about notes, is about sound. Music would be so poor if it would be the case. You said it, that's the way you appreciate music, but it doesn't mean you may look down this.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
I just don't like the pedantic overseriousness taken in analyzing this stuff when it COULD be haphazard and people would like/hate it just as much. I think Bach did well enough with some of his music being entirely "about the notes" rather than sound since he didn't even specify instrumentation so much on his deepest works. The Art of Fugue can be played with many different types of instruments because it doesn't depend on sound. Sound I group more with interpretation than composition imo
parquar 2 years ago
Haphazard? Well, then you may try to write and play one piece as good as this. Bach was an excellent composer, a master of the counterpoint and a total musical genius. The art of the fugue is not to be play but to be write and analyze. That's why he didn't wrote it for any specific instrument. You know, if you don't like this and don't understand it because your hearing stay a few centuries in the past then don't listen to it, but don't come and spread your bitter around.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
Nobody is being pedantic around here except you. Nobody will become a real artist today by writing fugues and concertos like Bach or Liszt. You know, art evolves as humanity, and tonal music just had it's time. I bet you don't even understand Berio or Messiaen, cause you can't understand the way they order the sound in time. If you don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad music, it just means you're not mentally prepared to listen to it.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
What is a real artist? Bach was already writing music that had become outdated in the eyes of the contemporaries and therefore wasn't regarded seriously enough as a composer in his time. He has since been regarded as a great genius by the worthy content he put forth. If music isn't made to entertain by the performance, a wrong medium is certainly chosen. Tonal music has infinite possibilities and atonal is more limited in how the mind effectively negates the dimension of notes
parquar 2 years ago
Again, throwing incoherent arguments. Bach music was always praised by the people who knows. Mozart, Beethoven, Czerny and many other fine musicians studied Bach when it was "lost" the public. The true value of his music is because he combines craftsmanship with a concept. That makes worthy his music. That's art, when music is not just about entertaining, feeling and perception.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
Tonal music is as finite as its tonal functions are. Tonal is always about a center, and hierarchy. There's tonal music based on triads, there's tonal music based on tonal centers, but at the end is always the same. The problem is to face tonality as a major, minor scale. Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt and every worthy composer probe that's is wrong. Then Wanger comes and show us, with Tristan chord, that tonality is just an illusion.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
Then Debussy comes and twisted all the slight knowledge we have about tonality... Then Bartok, Messiaen and every other composer from the XX century show us that tonality is not about triads and scales. You know, is very ignorant, and reactionary to say that "tonal music" is infinite after Fauré. If you don't believe me just ask Ravel. How could you write anything that has not been written by Beethoven, Bach, Brahms or Fauré. After them there's just pseudo-tonality.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
Technically, serialism even is included as tonal music because it is based on the set chromatic notes. It may be pantonal or have no tonal center, but it is still based on notes. Pseudo-tonality, if you count say Shostakovich within that term, still goes from tonal center to tonal center. Furthermore, it creates distinct qualitative originalities of a higher order. If there were another piece also comprised of the same hand movements on a piano in a similar fashion, one would not differentiate
parquar 2 years ago
OH MY, This is absurd already. Did I talk about serialism? You know, tonality is all about hierarchy, if there's no tonal center there's no tonality, so serialism can't be tonality. You said it with Shoshtakovich "it creates distinct qualitative originalities of a higher order": HIERARCHY! If you want to probe something start by being congruent. In any way, Bach itself probes that tonality is assigned to modality, and Debussy take this resource more than one century after him.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
I was only referring to human nature with the "higher order" thing. The more something is lacking a tonal center or defined pitch the closer it is to being perceived as white noise. It is therefore harder to distinguish as unique. If he uses really weird electronic sounds in some of his works, I would prefer those for that reason
parquar 2 years ago
You know, I should notice from the beginning that you just listen notes, maybe a little bit of rhythm as metric and some of the dynamics. If you're a musician, and I honestly doubt it, you should know music has a lot more parameters than just notes and metric. There's counterpoint, polyphony, harmony, sound quality, phrasing, etc. You can't define sound in relation to tonality and atonality-whitenoise. That's so poor. You're not prepared for the XX century music.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
Counterpoint, polyphony, and harmony are all created by the notes and rhythms although harmony can be much different based on sound qualities. If I were like you, I would choose to add personal insults and ignore the meaning of what was said. Putting yourself on a pedestal and misinterpreting simple statements will not get a discussion anywhere, especially if you still won't point out any merits in this. "You can't define sound in relation to tonality and atonality" is a misinterpretation
parquar 2 years ago
You're partial as all your comments. Counterpoint, polyphony, and harmony may be created by notes, but a note is a construction around the sound in western music. There is Counterpoint, polyphony, and harmony in african, hindu, japanese, arab, chinese, and other culture's music without "notes", cause is not about notes, but about sound. I said that from the beginning. I said that without any insult. Music is about sound, not "notes" even if you don't want to believe it.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The more something is lacking a tonal center or defined pitch the closer it is to being perceived as white noise" What is that suppose to mean? You are the one who misinterprets. Open, pointless comments lacking of a real and constructive sense leave the space for misinterpretation Do you know what white noise is? You can't say a chain of notes without tonal center is white noise. Timbre, have you heard of it? Again, music is about sound, not notes... whatever, it's pointless.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
A constant stroking of piano keys with no discernible resonant frequencies would be that "white noise" in that one could not feasibly use it alone as a mode of composition. If he made 5 more pieces all using strokes on piano keys alone, it would be pointless because of the perceived similarity. It would quickly wear out. His compositions are even more about mediums and techniques than the product. Crafty techniques of playing I appreciate, but how they are used is little more than a showcase
parquar 2 years ago
Again and again to the same point. If you cant hear anything but notes, and don't appreciate rhythm (I suppose you have already read Messaien's treaties about rhythm, or even Scelsi analyze about music parameters) and timbre I can perfectly understand your lack of musical sensibility to this kind of music. Something I agree with you is that this piece is closer to the white noise than it is to "notes". If he didn't made 5 pieces like this is cause he's smart enough to understand what you say...
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
And, you were talking about "tonal center" but, what's your point? There's is no tonal center here cause there's no abstract sounds here, no notes, as you called them, no pure sound, if you want to name it that way. You jump from one point to other as your convenience, without establish a point or a connection... So, what's your point? That you don't like this? Fine by me. It has nothing to do with Lachemann's quality as a composer. Enough said.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
This discussion is going anywhere cause all you want is to be smarter. You don't give logic and exact answers to my questions. You just disqualify my opinions based on your perception and your defective arguments. Again, and I can see these by your incongruous answers, if you don't understand this music, just don't listen to it. If you want to disqualify a composer as Lachenmann, star by learning to be logic and congruent with what you say.
EdiEllerymissing 2 years ago
I am curious if this piece make angry commenters as angry without the knowledge of what a piano usually sounds like? If it was just the sounds created? What elements are required to be the same to stave off an emotional response?
Parquar, I think you are asking exactly the right questions, but why is your reaction anger? What constitutes a 'good atmosphere'? What is wrong with the notes of this piece that is right with the notes of, let's say, Beethoven--aren't they both percussive?
bbopdude 2 years ago
ok I was seeking a vindication of your appreciation of this so I could know what people like about it but you resorted to red herring technicalities and anger along with "close-mindedness" of all things. Im not covering through things specifically because I already did and it deleted it rather than posting it and I don't feel like typing it again. Anyway, do people who like this typically listen to it primarily or as a sort of 'novelty' thing?
parquar 2 years ago
very beautiful delicate , even relaxing sounds
theSkYkAlEiDoScOpE 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In technical terms:
this is complete shit.
MrAlexKeaton 2 years ago
Why does everything have to be some kind of statement on how music should be as a whole? Its just a guy making noises at a piano, why is this a threat to our precious musical traditions? Its funny how bent out of shape people get over this stuff.
TheEarlOfDublin 2 years ago 4
I love contemporary music, so I'm not closed-minded, but this is stupid. It would be nice to live in a world where more people were exposed to the genuine masterpieces of contemporary music (the works of Crumb, Ligeti, Schnittke, Messiaen, etc.) but this shit ain't helping.
cbnetmkr 2 years ago
I'm going to look up your suggestions. This is so stupid. Why use a piano if you are only using the keys for a percussive sound? Couldn't you just use a percussive instrument? This doesn't even create good atmosphere or anything either. At least other atonal works have THAT if anything. At least other atonal works have notes...
parquar 2 years ago 2
I must say, even as a student of music, I find this horrible. People will say that I'm ignorant or close minded. But honestly, I cannot imagine anyone truthfully enjoying this piece. I agree with alexioco, even my 3 yr old brother can do something like this...
Sleezy0091 2 years ago
In a concert-situation you will listen to these sounds in a different way than if you hear similar noises in nature. Why do you take pictures? Because you feel something about the motif, they reminds you of a certain feeling from a situation. For me these sounds reminds me of something I often forget to appreciate, something I think people should care more about, and put into a musical texture and form, they will be focused on with great tension, they will become art.
ArsSub 2 years ago
Comment removed
ArsSub 3 years ago
I love theese delicate sounds. This fragile beauty. There are so many treasures to find, if you just open your mind.
0205812709 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what rubbish, just goes to show how liszt and the other great composers where ahead of their time, and still ahead now, if we are to progress in music, it should be getting more techincal and interesting, the notes arnt even being played here, i mean, come on...
alexioco 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but you must understand... No one is ever "ahead" of their time, they are only "of" their time.
denvermarathon 3 years ago
i dont aggree, anyway how can anyone call this music? Its as if we have gone right back to when music was just starting to form and this inst even that, seriously now...
alexioco 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the people clicking the thumbs down on these peoples comments are all idiots
parquar 2 years ago
Thanks so much for posting this. Lachenmann is a visionary!
sonicpsychiatry 3 years ago