Oh goddammit this is incredibly terrible..... it's horrendous! OMG!!! It's not that I don't likec crazy music or anything xD but my line stops at Ligeti.
@SyncChrome Stockhausen's piano music is not his best work. his real genius lies with the electronic stuff he did and with works like "Lucifer's Abscheid". I approach the piano music as I do looking at star constellations but the composer's best work is found elsewhere. Like "Octophonie".
@kloiq Ever listened to schoenberg? He uses the serial technique but maintaining the 'cascade of tones and accords' in a romantic aesthetic, as "music". Webern just changed the way of listening to a 'vertical' way, but its still music, its just that the criteria of 'good' is another for this type of music. Like some occidental cultures like the beat of certain chords, while we consider them dissonant. Webern started a new trend with new criteria. Schoenberg sticks to the old one.
1-"If you can't understand it, it's because you're not smart enough." (A common cop out used to justify crappy art).
2-"We don't want to compose in a tonal style. That's so passe." (Yeah, but if you can't come up with anything better/more appealing, how about just putting down your pencil?)
@koreankayagum Progress is not possible without experimentation. I don't see anything wrong with coming up with something other than tonality to express musical ideas; sometimes it is even necessary, as in the case of Scriabin who underwent a dramatic evolution in his harmonic language from tonality to "atonality" and had a significant influence over the Russian avantgardes, whose music appeals to a significant mass (among classical listeners) and can be appreciated without special knowledge.
@koreankayagum By the way, the music of Bach (and many other famous composers like Beethoven) was also once considered experimental for the time when everyone composed the same way.
Um...no. Bach lived and composed during the late Baroque, centuries after Gregorian chant developed. While he was alive his contemporaries viewed his music as old fashioned. You were trying to make the point that many innovative composers were not immediately appreciated, which may be true. However, Bach is not one of those composers.
@xodn3300 don't worry about it...just make sure it NEVER happens again. you don't want to know what I did to the last guy who posted something possibly misleading about Bach...
Maybe you don't hear the difference between music and random notes in this composition?
When you have studied a lot of music by Beethoven, it is easier to sound like Beethoven. When you have played a lot of music by Stockhausen, you might in the end sound like Stockhausen.
Both tasks are however extremely difficult, since there was only one Beethoven and one Stockhausen.
i think you don't understand what i meant. i think everybody can sound like stockhausen or boulez when he just plays random notes. but nobody can sound like beethoven, even if he studied a lot of it. there is a difference in composing a melody with rhythm and harmony so that everybody can feel the music in it, and composing notes extremely complex without any connection. first is really genius, second is just construction and experiment.
When you don't hear the structure of a composition of Stockhausen or Boulez, doesn't mean other listeners also don't hear it. There is no randomness in the notes of these composers.
No serious listener doubts that Stockhausen and Boulez are brilliant composers.
is it genius to compose music in a way, that only professional musicians can hear the structure of a musical work? and is it good music, when it can only be understood by brain? you needn't understand the structure of baroque, classical or romantic music to enjoy it. don't misunderstand me, i am very interested in new music, i understand the structure when i follow the score and think about it. but i think new music must develope into an easier direction - listen to uros rojko.
@rolandjosef Agreed! A lot of this "experiemental" stuff sounds neat in theory, but the practical results are often unappealing. People are so caught up in the "intellectualism" of it all they can't listen simply and directly and hear it for the mess it is. I think a lot of modern art is a dare-"artists" getting away with absurdity b/c critics and people of influence won't say "THIS BLOWS." It's OK, though. In 200 years this will have been forgotten, but folks will still have Bach.
Wow, that was a pretty bad mistake. She recovered from it pretty well though. Maybe next time she'll learn the song better before attempting. One missed note can ruin a performance like this.
Why waisting time arguing about what's in style and what's not or about this is super intellectual or not? Stockhausen was a great composer and an innovator. Him and his colleges (which included Ligeti and Kagel among others) changed art music forever and some of those influences have permeated to pop music (electronic music).
i'd love to be able to play this. but i guess i would have to listen to it about a thousand times till i truly understand the rythm and the feeling...
My, what an impressive list of ignorant comments! Suggestion: if you don't like it, go away. There's plenty of Madonna up on youtube, after all. I love the arrogance involved, too. "Nobody likes this, they just pretend to." All the answers about what everyone thinks, this guy should be famous, huh? But I bet he isn't, somehow ...
I was hoping to see whether anyone else thought this was a particularly compelling performance. Instead I get Beavis and Butthead trying to be clever. Oh well...
It's not shocking to hear this kind of garbage being passed off as music. It's just the same boring nonsense that modern "composers" have been trying to tell us distinguishes sophisticated listeners from the philistines. People don't get shocked by this anymore, but they do get angry when they are forced to pay for it.
If you feel better about yourself listening to this don't let me stand in your way. If you wouldn't mind though, please don't force me to pay for it or listen to it.
@MrSubtle When you say that "Nobody enjoys this kind of music", you certainly don't speak for a select group of major performers, conductors and composers.
To name a few: Daniel Barenboim, Leonard Bernstein, Knussen, Kremer, Pollini, Mutter, to name but a few...
Why should they have the same narrow taste as you have? Why are their ears so much more developed, that they understand that this isn't just random noise?
@revions Nope. Nobody actually enjoys listening to this. They may say they do, they may feel superior to the rest of us by claiming to know some secret that the rest of us don't. They may just not like music and enjoy sticking their thumb into the eyes of those of us who do. Perhaps they are so lacking in self awareness that they can't tell what they think, but nobody likes listening to 4'33".
I'm not narrow in my tastes. I enjoy all kinds of music. This just isn't music. Obviously.
@MrSubtle When you think others may feel superior because they like music that you can't enjoy, you might suffer a severe inferiority complex. When you think there is some secret involved, you might suffer from paranoia. When you are less narrow in your tastes of music, you might discover that this is obviously music.
@MrSubtle maybe youre plainly retarded. Do you even know what music is? do you know its elements? look em up nigger and you'll see this includes them all. Just because its not classical tonality doesnt mean its not music. Classical tonality was like noise when it was inventd too. are you black? christian? why are you so ignorant? in case you didnt knew, music evolves, it wasnt tempered always and it wasnt serialism always and so on. have your ears move along cuz youre culturally 100 years old.
@omgtkseth I'm culturally 100 years old eh? So tell me when did calling people "nigger" come into style? How long ago did religious insults come into style? When exactly was it that listening to someone pounding a piano become the norm? Let me help:
Calling people "niggers"? That went out at least 50 years ago, perhaps longer.
Ignorance and prejudice are very old ideas, they are nothing new.
Listening to people bang on a piano for pleasure has never been "in style".
@MrSubtle dont mind the nigger thing, im kust kidding, i dont know if your black. Lets for a moment stop deflecting and concentrate on music, because i didnt call you a nigger, nor talked to you in first place, because youre nigger. She isnt pounding/banging the piano, if yu think so then YOU are the ignorant. Go to school, this isnt your normal clayderman bullshit, it actually needs studies, its a complex but logical style, started with several like stravinsky, schoenberg and stockenhousen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this sounds like flavor flav singing "Bust it This here's a jam for all the fellas, try to do what those ladies tell us, get shot down cuz you're over zealous. play hard to get, females get jealous. Ok, smarty, go to a party. girls are scantilly clad and showin' body, a chick walks by, ya wish ya could sex her, but she's in another world like you was poindexter..." i hate niggers!!!!!
just listen and say what you feel, if you don't like what are you feeling at this moment, just close this window and go listen to something more relaxing.
i personally find it interesting, but i have no preparation for this level of atonality.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So what would you have done if you were prime Minister? There was no other way the British could take the war to the Germans in Europe except in the air.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why does this remind me of those awful Swedish black and white flicks that win so many awards in France but that nobody ever actually goes to see.....
Because you don't understand (probably because you have an adiabatic brain or adiabatic ears), doesn't mean that other people might not understand it.
Don't take your own limitations as a universal standard. There are a lot of intelligent and musical people (Rattle, Boulez, Aimard, Pollini) that know how to appreciate these works. But maybe you think they only 'believe' to understand this, and maybe they are less talented than you are ;-)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, this music is only a huge mistake.
It's enough listen to the dozen of intellettualistic craps that Stockhausen said about composition to realize how far this stuff is from pepole and music itself.
This is the reason why music having a real pubblic (pop/rock etc.) is another one
@revions Nobody "enjoys" this kind of "music". They enjoy being told that liking childish garbage makes them "sophisticated". That's not the same thing as enjoying music.
Reading your comments on modern and electronic music I have a strong impression that you are more interesting in creating or reproducing one-liners than to get seriously involved in contemporary music.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The more I listen, the more angry I get. If Stockhausen's intention was to drive listeners into a rage and turn himself into a laughing stock, then kudos, he achieved his goal. What a joke, a total joke.
It was never Stockhausens intention to drive listeners into a rage. Although KS thought his early piano music as a new starting point, it is largely in debt with the very traditional music by the Viennese composer Webern.
It remains shocking to see that after 55 years some people still don't hear the beauty of such an important oeuvre as the Klavierstücke by KS. Here lies a big responsability with the musical education!
We shouldn't take anything for granted in life, not even beauty. What was considered ugly in the past is now recognized as pure beauty. (The most famous examples: the dissonance quartet, van Gogh etc.)
You don't need to be educated to appreciate beauty (although sometimes it helps). A listener only needs to have an open mind and open ears. Open ears that are not stuffed with old ideas with what is beauty and what is not.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you blame the education system of today for falsifying, or at least influencing people's ideas of what beauty is, or do you blame people's upbringing?
I don't blame anybody nor anything. People are different, tastes are different. There will always be adventurous people with open minds and open ears and there will always be people that only want to enjoy music or art that is similar to what they already know.
Times change, music changes and what is considered beauty changes...
@MrSubtle Indeed it is not 'considered beautiful' by most people, but that doesn't mean that some people (a lot of them with serious musical background and training) can't sincerely enjoy Stockhausen.
When you simply consider it to be random garbage, only indicates that you can't follow the structure and form of this composition. When you really try to listen and to open your ears, you'll discover that it isn't random at all.
@annedegro I have had people like you telling me that this kind of garbage was music all through my musical education. It's not. They are wrong. You can repeat it a million times but that doesn't make it true.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Anyone who thinks that this is an artistic form of genius carrying some sort of modern message is mad. This is a disgraceful cacophony of random notes. A musical travesty.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Which 20th century composers? Do people listen to there music while driving a car, enjoying a glass of wine or making love? These guys are not musicians! Some of them are mathematicians some architects.
And Boulez did renounce his work, I will post a link when I find it....
@AleDaino You know, I'm so tired of sounding like a pompous old bastard when I sigh about the new generation. But, oh, oh, oh! what will become of us? My nieces can hardly formulate a proper sentence, and my nephew thinks Stockhausen is a brand of German mustard.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In no way at all has he affected contemporary music (and thank God for that). There are no humane references in His works, just like in Cage's Boulez's or Xenakis'. Boulez himself has renounced his works, and told the world that everything he wrote was meaningless. You cannot convince me that any of Stockhousen's work can create any emotions for you..... Be honest. Or is it just that you don't understand purpose of music itself....
Goodness me - to assume that music should or shouldn't do something is a very narrow view for a musician (or even a music lover) to take. Who says music should arouse an emotion?
I'm just now starting to get into Stockhausen, and I must say that even when I've never heard this work this is a rather impressive performance. Thanks for posting this! =D
why not make up an entirely new word that makes as much sense as anacoretic, adiabatic or analdiabetic if your only aim is to disqualify music that you don't like?
I don't have any doubts that 99% dislike this music.
So what?
99% prefers Britney Spears.
Music should be listened to, be heard and felt with heart and brain. Silly and dry academic words like 'adiabatic' and 'anacoretic' (I don't understand what that means, but I'm a musician, not an intellectual)
Gentile prof. Andrea F. ancora co' sta musica adiabatica! Ma se a lei, ascoltatore medio, sta musica non piace, non la ascolti! non è che siccome non piace a lei, la musica non ha senso!
I find this music to be incredibly beautiful, I can not wait for my recorded of the complete version of this to arrive.
some people say that it sounds as though one is just hitting the keyboard but if one actually goues and hits the keyboard of a piono it sounds nothing like thism there is still a structure hear, a melody but it is just not a traditional one, so is not what most people who think they know classical music think.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am absolutely appalled that this can be considered music. It easily nothing more than some painfully hopeless composer trying to make his mark on the world.
Personally if I wanted to make my mark on the world in such a extraneous and stupid way, much like the Jack Ass T.V. show, I would find all of these types of composers and punch them all.
But I know I have better things to do with my time.
It sounds strange to you because you donºt understand it. Stockhausen is one of the best composers of our time. If you hear a poem in chinese and you donºt know chinese you are not going to understand it. You have got to be more open minded, pal. Greetings from Argentina.
Really? A word is a sound code? What about orthography? Is orthography simply sound codes physically represented? What if you can't speak a language, but you can read it? What does the orthography of that language represent, then? Language is not simply words. It is rule-bound, sure, but those rules are not absolute, they are cultural constructions, as are styles of music. Language is also creative. Why can't I say, "Like I potatoes to eat" instead of, "I like to eat potatoes"? Music is poetry.
Can we really be sure it has no beauty? What is beauty? I see beauty in mathematics, no matter how dense and rigid it is.
What you just said makes no sense. If music is beauty, then music cannot lack beauty, because it cannot lack the very thing that makes it. An anology to this is that a building is a bunch of bricks. As such, it cannot lack the quality of having bricks. Stop being such a literalist with your definitions of what or what is not language.
so you think that music is not a language? you are absolutely wrong. The art and the music itself are languages. A language is a comunication system, and music is a way to comunicate. I think that you have a very straight thought of what things are: you think that language is only the spoken language or that music is only tonal music
So if it is wrong to draw any parallelism between language and music, why do you use a term like 'adiabatic' to explain why everybody should dislike contemporary music?
By the way: Beethoven never thought that music had to be beautiful. Now everybody recognize the beauty of his music, but that wasn't something that occupied him while he was composing (as you for example can read in his letters)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Show a Beethoven's letter where there are evidences about you are saying, where he said that his composition aims were different from beauty of music.
Beethoven was concerned with politics and his own desperate situation. Beauty wasn't what he was thinking about. Revolution (3rd symphonie), destiny (5th symphonie) and so on. In his letters he mostly complains about lack of money and that he has to compose to survive. I don't remember the exact letter, but is a letter towards the end of his life. It is about the late stringquartets and the 9th (Schillers text doesn't concern beauty, but politics).
Nope. You never said that. You're a clown. Now shut the fuck up and stop talking as if you know what a language is (I am a trained linguist). You suck. I win.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The term 'adiabatic' doesn't make sense. It means that a messages isn't transferred. Information theory makes clear that the cause of something that isn't transferred can be in the reciever, while the message can be understood by other recievers.
So: there are no adiabatic composers! Only listeners that don't understand the message or language can be 'adiabatic'. Why blame the composer when you as a listener don't understand what he is communicating? There are enough people to enjoy the music!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To give 1 answer to the last three of your supposedly rhetorical questions: no.
Other people understand the composer. So why don't you? It might be a matter of talent, but there are also listeners that need more time to understand or enjoy a certain style of music. That is a matter of musicality and development and not always a matter of intelligence. So I wouldn't call 'common' people too stupid. To understand some music, they may have to try harder...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It didn't take me forty years to appreciate it. It didn't take vanessa 40 years, nor did it take a lot of other musicians, composers, conductors and listeners 40 years to appreciate it.
When music fails for some listeners it doesn't mean that it fails for everybody. In music it is quality that matters, not quantity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When traditional institutions like the Berliner Philharmoniker, the Wiener Philharmoniker, the LSO, and its conductors (Barenboim, Bernstein, Boulez, Abbado) to name a few, perform the 20th century music. It is a cultural elite that decides which pieces are masterpieces, even if the audience doesn't appreciate them, it doesn't mean that disqualifies these works to be brilliant.
You're an adiabatic listener, but there is no such thing as adiabatic music.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wrong again?
Just one example:
It was Bernstein who decided that KS composed HYMNEN for the NYP, not the 'great public'.
(and the word 'adiabatic' as brought up by some stupid musicologist who doesn't know the meaning of the word! Don't use semi-intellectual words only dry academics use for Information Theory; it can't be imposed on music when you don't use the word correctly!)
"the reason you cannot explain in a clear way where is the beauty and the real logic of this Stockhausen's composition"
There are enough listeners that you don't have to explain what the beauty is. Music and beauty is not something you can always explain 'with the mind' but should be felt with the senses. An academic approach like yours (in which you use terms from communication theory that aren't really appropriate) will never help. Music is for the ears, not only for the brains!
She looks like she's playing with difficulty, having to peer closely to examine the text, rather than having it essentially internalized.
JamesSmith86 3 months ago in playlist Music
Oh goddammit this is incredibly terrible..... it's horrendous! OMG!!! It's not that I don't likec crazy music or anything xD but my line stops at Ligeti.
SyncChrome 6 months ago
@SyncChrome Stockhausen's piano music is not his best work. his real genius lies with the electronic stuff he did and with works like "Lucifer's Abscheid". I approach the piano music as I do looking at star constellations but the composer's best work is found elsewhere. Like "Octophonie".
egapnala65 3 months ago
...we get to see her ass, sort of, and the hair looks rather good...but never get to see her face...
fredericfranc 6 months ago
O.o como hago para entender esta musica no le encuentro forma aunque soy consiente de o compleja q es
camilopezr11 7 months ago
We are simply listening to abstract sonic art. Awesome!
guitarphunk 7 months ago
Seeing a hot blonde girl play Stockhausen is way more bizarre than the music itself.
jagajazzin 7 months ago
I like Stockhausen. This is a lovely fluid and flowing interpretation of this piece. I like it very much.
dewarfinch1 9 months ago
in my point of view, this is NOT music. its experimental cascade of tones and accords, but NOT music. btw what about the rhytm??
kloiq 10 months ago
@kloiq Ever listened to schoenberg? He uses the serial technique but maintaining the 'cascade of tones and accords' in a romantic aesthetic, as "music". Webern just changed the way of listening to a 'vertical' way, but its still music, its just that the criteria of 'good' is another for this type of music. Like some occidental cultures like the beat of certain chords, while we consider them dissonant. Webern started a new trend with new criteria. Schoenberg sticks to the old one.
NevinJarek 10 months ago
This is quite accessible
Bagas 10 months ago
this is wonderful, stockhausen is the best, so is the urantia book!
alvarohix 11 months ago
bravissima e gran gnocca
JohnPatatino 11 months ago
Hah. Young Steinway Artist playing on a Yamaha. Irony.
classicalmusic29 1 year ago
Two more things...
1-"If you can't understand it, it's because you're not smart enough." (A common cop out used to justify crappy art).
2-"We don't want to compose in a tonal style. That's so passe." (Yeah, but if you can't come up with anything better/more appealing, how about just putting down your pencil?)
koreankayagum 1 year ago
@koreankayagum Progress is not possible without experimentation. I don't see anything wrong with coming up with something other than tonality to express musical ideas; sometimes it is even necessary, as in the case of Scriabin who underwent a dramatic evolution in his harmonic language from tonality to "atonality" and had a significant influence over the Russian avantgardes, whose music appeals to a significant mass (among classical listeners) and can be appreciated without special knowledge.
xodn3300 1 year ago
@koreankayagum By the way, the music of Bach (and many other famous composers like Beethoven) was also once considered experimental for the time when everyone composed the same way.
xodn3300 1 year ago
@xodn3300 I don't think Bach was ever considered experimental...old-fashioned, in fact.
CriterionCoIIection 9 months ago
@CriterionCoIIection yeah he probably isn't as experimental as some but compared to the medieval gregorian chants and whatnot? hell yeah
xodn3300 9 months ago
Um...no. Bach lived and composed during the late Baroque, centuries after Gregorian chant developed. While he was alive his contemporaries viewed his music as old fashioned. You were trying to make the point that many innovative composers were not immediately appreciated, which may be true. However, Bach is not one of those composers.
CriterionCoIIection 9 months ago
@CriterionCoIIection ook i guess so. sorry for talking about bach despite my ignorance and thanks for correcting me
xodn3300 9 months ago
@xodn3300 don't worry about it...just make sure it NEVER happens again. you don't want to know what I did to the last guy who posted something possibly misleading about Bach...
CriterionCoIIection 9 months ago
try to make an improvisation sounding like this, and then try to make another sounding like beethoven.
what is more difficult?
rolandjosef 1 year ago
@rolandjosef
Maybe you don't hear the difference between music and random notes in this composition?
When you have studied a lot of music by Beethoven, it is easier to sound like Beethoven. When you have played a lot of music by Stockhausen, you might in the end sound like Stockhausen.
Both tasks are however extremely difficult, since there was only one Beethoven and one Stockhausen.
roparre 1 year ago
@roparre
i think you don't understand what i meant. i think everybody can sound like stockhausen or boulez when he just plays random notes. but nobody can sound like beethoven, even if he studied a lot of it. there is a difference in composing a melody with rhythm and harmony so that everybody can feel the music in it, and composing notes extremely complex without any connection. first is really genius, second is just construction and experiment.
rolandjosef 1 year ago
@rolandjosef
I completely understood what you meant.
When you don't hear the structure of a composition of Stockhausen or Boulez, doesn't mean other listeners also don't hear it. There is no randomness in the notes of these composers.
No serious listener doubts that Stockhausen and Boulez are brilliant composers.
roparre 1 year ago
@roparre
is it genius to compose music in a way, that only professional musicians can hear the structure of a musical work? and is it good music, when it can only be understood by brain? you needn't understand the structure of baroque, classical or romantic music to enjoy it. don't misunderstand me, i am very interested in new music, i understand the structure when i follow the score and think about it. but i think new music must develope into an easier direction - listen to uros rojko.
rolandjosef 1 year ago
@rolandjosef Agreed! A lot of this "experiemental" stuff sounds neat in theory, but the practical results are often unappealing. People are so caught up in the "intellectualism" of it all they can't listen simply and directly and hear it for the mess it is. I think a lot of modern art is a dare-"artists" getting away with absurdity b/c critics and people of influence won't say "THIS BLOWS." It's OK, though. In 200 years this will have been forgotten, but folks will still have Bach.
koreankayagum 1 year ago
water babe
dolucadoluca 1 year ago
So difficult to understand ... but interesting.
Skraps2010 1 year ago
Wow, that was a pretty bad mistake. She recovered from it pretty well though. Maybe next time she'll learn the song better before attempting. One missed note can ruin a performance like this.
dezmodium 1 year ago
Why waisting time arguing about what's in style and what's not or about this is super intellectual or not? Stockhausen was a great composer and an innovator. Him and his colleges (which included Ligeti and Kagel among others) changed art music forever and some of those influences have permeated to pop music (electronic music).
MAFL77 1 year ago
Would have been very disappointed if i'd paid to go to this concert.
th3wing3dpaint3r 1 year ago
Comment removed
devonmuse 1 year ago
@th3wing3dpaint3r For this outstanding performance alone, I would have been absolutely thrilled to attend.
devonmuse 1 year ago
@devonmuse think I'm with th3wing3dpaint3r on this one.
EyeSeeBirds 1 year ago
i'd love to be able to play this. but i guess i would have to listen to it about a thousand times till i truly understand the rythm and the feeling...
linkay86 1 year ago
love it, well played... just great
lichtconlon 1 year ago
My, what an impressive list of ignorant comments! Suggestion: if you don't like it, go away. There's plenty of Madonna up on youtube, after all. I love the arrogance involved, too. "Nobody likes this, they just pretend to." All the answers about what everyone thinks, this guy should be famous, huh? But I bet he isn't, somehow ...
I was hoping to see whether anyone else thought this was a particularly compelling performance. Instead I get Beavis and Butthead trying to be clever. Oh well...
2300skiddo 1 year ago
It's not shocking to hear this kind of garbage being passed off as music. It's just the same boring nonsense that modern "composers" have been trying to tell us distinguishes sophisticated listeners from the philistines. People don't get shocked by this anymore, but they do get angry when they are forced to pay for it.
If you feel better about yourself listening to this don't let me stand in your way. If you wouldn't mind though, please don't force me to pay for it or listen to it.
MrSubtle 1 year ago
@MrSubtle When you say that "Nobody enjoys this kind of music", you certainly don't speak for a select group of major performers, conductors and composers.
To name a few: Daniel Barenboim, Leonard Bernstein, Knussen, Kremer, Pollini, Mutter, to name but a few...
Why should they have the same narrow taste as you have? Why are their ears so much more developed, that they understand that this isn't just random noise?
revions 1 year ago 2
@revions Nope. Nobody actually enjoys listening to this. They may say they do, they may feel superior to the rest of us by claiming to know some secret that the rest of us don't. They may just not like music and enjoy sticking their thumb into the eyes of those of us who do. Perhaps they are so lacking in self awareness that they can't tell what they think, but nobody likes listening to 4'33".
I'm not narrow in my tastes. I enjoy all kinds of music. This just isn't music. Obviously.
MrSubtle 1 year ago
@MrSubtle When you think others may feel superior because they like music that you can't enjoy, you might suffer a severe inferiority complex. When you think there is some secret involved, you might suffer from paranoia. When you are less narrow in your tastes of music, you might discover that this is obviously music.
revions 1 year ago 4
@MrSubtle maybe youre plainly retarded. Do you even know what music is? do you know its elements? look em up nigger and you'll see this includes them all. Just because its not classical tonality doesnt mean its not music. Classical tonality was like noise when it was inventd too. are you black? christian? why are you so ignorant? in case you didnt knew, music evolves, it wasnt tempered always and it wasnt serialism always and so on. have your ears move along cuz youre culturally 100 years old.
omgtkseth 1 year ago
@omgtkseth I'm culturally 100 years old eh? So tell me when did calling people "nigger" come into style? How long ago did religious insults come into style? When exactly was it that listening to someone pounding a piano become the norm? Let me help:
Calling people "niggers"? That went out at least 50 years ago, perhaps longer.
Ignorance and prejudice are very old ideas, they are nothing new.
Listening to people bang on a piano for pleasure has never been "in style".
MrSubtle 1 year ago
@MrSubtle dont mind the nigger thing, im kust kidding, i dont know if your black. Lets for a moment stop deflecting and concentrate on music, because i didnt call you a nigger, nor talked to you in first place, because youre nigger. She isnt pounding/banging the piano, if yu think so then YOU are the ignorant. Go to school, this isnt your normal clayderman bullshit, it actually needs studies, its a complex but logical style, started with several like stravinsky, schoenberg and stockenhousen.
omgtkseth 1 year ago
@MrSubtle if you were culturally 100 myears old youd listen to stravinsky. my mistake, 200 or 150 years old.
omgtkseth 1 year ago
"The Emperor's New Clothes" springs to mind...
WillberG100 1 year ago 2
Really cool. Beautifully performed.....quite haunting.
Paulmancieri67 1 year ago
cause I don't have the piano
sheets :)
sabrinabianca89 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I CAN DO THIS CRAP TOO! =D I could be a famous piano player...
sabrinabianca89 2 years ago
why arent you doing it then?
chazums1898 1 year ago 3
@sabrinabianca89 It's not this kind of music that usually makes you famous.
Zirze 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oglox27 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the nazi´s rules dude
lightmyfire90 2 years ago
Comment removed
annedegro 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes
lightmyfire90 2 years ago
Ela é corajosa!
jimmyfabianmiranda 2 years ago
just listen and say what you feel, if you don't like what are you feeling at this moment, just close this window and go listen to something more relaxing.
i personally find it interesting, but i have no preparation for this level of atonality.
locobeis 2 years ago 13
@locobeis
I feel the horror and if you know something about stockhausens youth you know why he was into that horror sound...
stabojert 11 months ago
Really great! I love it!
Grubenpony12 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So what would you have done if you were prime Minister? There was no other way the British could take the war to the Germans in Europe except in the air.
ray25620 2 years ago
Very well played! But it's obvious, Vanessa Benelli was taught by Pascal Rogè! Even Stockhausen prized her!
sousukesagaraJKD 2 years ago 5
great interpretation and performance!
Kastanienzweig 2 years ago 5
Yes. I like to very much
bitachar 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why does this remind me of those awful Swedish black and white flicks that win so many awards in France but that nobody ever actually goes to see.....
IIICyrenaica 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
u sound like a cunt
abdultom 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Music ????
6marco5 2 years ago
yes
annedegro 2 years ago 8
Yes - clean your ears.
TheoRetisch 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"This skilled pianist is wasting her time".
:-)
Perfect conclusion.
laurion69 2 years ago
Why is this skilled pianist wasting her time? Because she can make more money with less complicated music that is more suited for 'adiabatic' ears?
revions 2 years ago 5
why is she wasting her time? she do what she wants. It's not about the money, pff... :(
passeir2 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Adiabatic music is this, a music that is not able to express beauty.
laurion69 2 years ago
You are simply an adiabatic listener; that means a listener that is not able to hear beauty in this music.
revions 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
You belong to that 0,001% that believe to understand it.
But there is nothing to understand.
laurion69 2 years ago
Because you don't understand (probably because you have an adiabatic brain or adiabatic ears), doesn't mean that other people might not understand it.
Don't take your own limitations as a universal standard. There are a lot of intelligent and musical people (Rattle, Boulez, Aimard, Pollini) that know how to appreciate these works. But maybe you think they only 'believe' to understand this, and maybe they are less talented than you are ;-)
revions 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, this music is only a huge mistake.
It's enough listen to the dozen of intellettualistic craps that Stockhausen said about composition to realize how far this stuff is from pepole and music itself.
This is the reason why music having a real pubblic (pop/rock etc.) is another one
laurion69 2 years ago
There are enough people that enjoy this music, even if it is a majority. Why is it such a problem for you that OTHER people enjoy it?
revions 2 years ago 6
@revions Nobody "enjoys" this kind of "music". They enjoy being told that liking childish garbage makes them "sophisticated". That's not the same thing as enjoying music.
MrSubtle 1 year ago
Comment removed
musthatedogs 1 year ago
Comment removed
musthatedogs 1 year ago
laurion69 is troll
DNFTT
derspeters 2 years ago 9
@revions I'll believe that she's a "skilled pianist" when I hear her play some music. Any three year old can play this kind of "music".
MrSubtle 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're so right, when will people learn...?
Maddy4Me 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, well said!
laurion69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thank you laurion, finally we agree
annedegro 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Well, well said!" was not for your previous comment, annedenegro.
I mistaked my posting...
laurion69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
just teasing you! :-)
annedegro 2 years ago
There is nothing academic about this piece.
Reading your comments on modern and electronic music I have a strong impression that you are more interesting in creating or reproducing one-liners than to get seriously involved in contemporary music.
annedegro 2 years ago 4
Conoscete KICKO ? E' lo youtube del calcio!
GabrielTalentScout1 2 years ago
I luv these singalong events...
cosmicjazzer 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The more I listen, the more angry I get. If Stockhausen's intention was to drive listeners into a rage and turn himself into a laughing stock, then kudos, he achieved his goal. What a joke, a total joke.
Maddy4Me 2 years ago
It was never Stockhausens intention to drive listeners into a rage. Although KS thought his early piano music as a new starting point, it is largely in debt with the very traditional music by the Viennese composer Webern.
It remains shocking to see that after 55 years some people still don't hear the beauty of such an important oeuvre as the Klavierstücke by KS. Here lies a big responsability with the musical education!
annedegro 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a sad day when anyone needs to be educated to appreciate beauty which should, surely speak for itself.
Maddy4Me 2 years ago
We shouldn't take anything for granted in life, not even beauty. What was considered ugly in the past is now recognized as pure beauty. (The most famous examples: the dissonance quartet, van Gogh etc.)
You don't need to be educated to appreciate beauty (although sometimes it helps). A listener only needs to have an open mind and open ears. Open ears that are not stuffed with old ideas with what is beauty and what is not.
This composition by KS is pure beauty.
annedegro 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you blame the education system of today for falsifying, or at least influencing people's ideas of what beauty is, or do you blame people's upbringing?
Maddy4Me 2 years ago
I don't blame anybody nor anything. People are different, tastes are different. There will always be adventurous people with open minds and open ears and there will always be people that only want to enjoy music or art that is similar to what they already know.
Times change, music changes and what is considered beauty changes...
annedegro 2 years ago
@annedegro "Considered beautiful" by whom? I consider it to be random garbage. So do most people. Why is it that your opinion is so important?
MrSubtle 1 year ago
@MrSubtle Indeed it is not 'considered beautiful' by most people, but that doesn't mean that some people (a lot of them with serious musical background and training) can't sincerely enjoy Stockhausen.
When you simply consider it to be random garbage, only indicates that you can't follow the structure and form of this composition. When you really try to listen and to open your ears, you'll discover that it isn't random at all.
Good luck
annedegro 1 year ago
@annedegro I have had people like you telling me that this kind of garbage was music all through my musical education. It's not. They are wrong. You can repeat it a million times but that doesn't make it true.
MrSubtle 1 year ago
@MrSubtle
I totally agree with you.
Anyway, she looks hot! ;)
cesaresusa 1 year ago
i don t get it
username1p 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone who thinks that this is an artistic form of genius carrying some sort of modern message is mad. This is a disgraceful cacophony of random notes. A musical travesty.
Maddy4Me 2 years ago
awesome!! ... i cna't play like that ...
i love Stockhausen!!
kisses from Chile
Evthanazia 2 years ago
can you share with us what is it that you like about his work? thanks
pigolet2178 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lennon & McCartney? Lmao...
I have nothing more to say, cause I've discovered Your problem: You obviously don't listen to music..
So, enjoy your favorite composers. I pity you.
NivonStorm 3 years ago
Comment removed
annedegro 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Which 20th century composers? Do people listen to there music while driving a car, enjoying a glass of wine or making love? These guys are not musicians! Some of them are mathematicians some architects.
And Boulez did renounce his work, I will post a link when I find it....
NivonStorm 3 years ago
Comment removed
annedegro 3 years ago 2
To NivonStorm
Yeah, you´re right.
You can also hear music when you are in a super markt...
marmasiotis 2 years ago
Why does this music still shock? Why do people become angry whenever they have to think a little.
nicksum29 3 years ago 20
@nicksum29 a little? They don't even understand Pink Floyd....how can they understand Stockhausen?!?
AleDaino 1 year ago
@AleDaino You know, I'm so tired of sounding like a pompous old bastard when I sigh about the new generation. But, oh, oh, oh! what will become of us? My nieces can hardly formulate a proper sentence, and my nephew thinks Stockhausen is a brand of German mustard.
nicksum29 1 year ago
@nicksum29 Because people now adays do not want to think about anything, nothing.
mindwarpcz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In no way at all has he affected contemporary music (and thank God for that). There are no humane references in His works, just like in Cage's Boulez's or Xenakis'. Boulez himself has renounced his works, and told the world that everything he wrote was meaningless. You cannot convince me that any of Stockhousen's work can create any emotions for you..... Be honest. Or is it just that you don't understand purpose of music itself....
NivonStorm 3 years ago
Goodness me - to assume that music should or shouldn't do something is a very narrow view for a musician (or even a music lover) to take. Who says music should arouse an emotion?
nicksum29 3 years ago 7
Comment removed
annedegro 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He wasn't a musician. He was a fraud! I cannot understand how can anyone appreciate this....
NivonStorm 3 years ago
Comment removed
annedegro 3 years ago 2
I'm just now starting to get into Stockhausen, and I must say that even when I've never heard this work this is a rather impressive performance. Thanks for posting this! =D
HerrWozzeck 3 years ago 2
I like this ^^
drummerponsi 3 years ago 3
avant weird
mrethrift 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fin troppo facile, suona una ballata di chopin e poi ne riparliamo
andrewfox777 3 years ago
non credere sia così facile suonarlo.
il fatto che non sia "tonale" non significa sia facile da suonare....
se sei interessato prova a documentarti e a capire cosa sta dietro al lavoro di stockhausen,
poi ne riparliamo!
;) il lavoro è più che altro mentale, di costruzione, bla bla bla
kiryafalstaff 3 years ago 2
Molto brava. Ce ne fossero di più di musicisti disposti ad eseguire musica contemporanea, e di questo calibro poi...
JohnPatatino 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You don't have to be a composer or a musitian or a pianist to "play" or "write" this "music"
vitovito1234 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I use the term ADIABATIC to define a music totally disconnetted from common taste and large pubblic.
I could define it also anacoretic.
laurion69 3 years ago
why not make up an entirely new word that makes as much sense as anacoretic, adiabatic or analdiabetic if your only aim is to disqualify music that you don't like?
annedegro 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Definitions are conventional.
Languamge is a code for informations.
Adiabatic or anacoretic is quite suitable to describe the phenomen of a music without links with the real world.
Have you any doubts that 99% persons dislike this music in itself?
laurion69 3 years ago
I don't have any doubts that 99% dislike this music.
So what?
99% prefers Britney Spears.
Music should be listened to, be heard and felt with heart and brain. Silly and dry academic words like 'adiabatic' and 'anacoretic' (I don't understand what that means, but I'm a musician, not an intellectual)
annedegro 3 years ago 7
Gentile prof. Andrea F. ancora co' sta musica adiabatica! Ma se a lei, ascoltatore medio, sta musica non piace, non la ascolti! non è che siccome non piace a lei, la musica non ha senso!
perillio 2 years ago 2
she is hot!
rdnzl7878 3 years ago
Wow. I've been playing the piano for 12 years, And I find it hard to appreciate this.
Although I'm not criticizing the pianists ability. This song just strikes the wrong chords for myself, but maybe you enjoy it?
To each his own.
scottydangerous 3 years ago
This sounds like irrational thoughts.
Jabberwocky!
susulovesjesus 3 years ago
beatifaul performance! I love this piece
hexatonico 3 years ago
I find this music to be incredibly beautiful, I can not wait for my recorded of the complete version of this to arrive.
some people say that it sounds as though one is just hitting the keyboard but if one actually goues and hits the keyboard of a piono it sounds nothing like thism there is still a structure hear, a melody but it is just not a traditional one, so is not what most people who think they know classical music think.
ytrewq3141 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am absolutely appalled that this can be considered music. It easily nothing more than some painfully hopeless composer trying to make his mark on the world.
Personally if I wanted to make my mark on the world in such a extraneous and stupid way, much like the Jack Ass T.V. show, I would find all of these types of composers and punch them all.
But I know I have better things to do with my time.
dcaonoek 3 years ago
It sounds strange to you because you donºt understand it. Stockhausen is one of the best composers of our time. If you hear a poem in chinese and you donºt know chinese you are not going to understand it. You have got to be more open minded, pal. Greetings from Argentina.
hexatonico 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again with this stupid parallelism between language and music.
Music and language are totally different!
If I cannot understand chinese, I can get a traslation.
The word is a sound-code, it expresses a concept.
Music does not expresses a concept it expresses just itself.
You cannot get any translation of this rubbish.
We cannot understand... we cannot understand...
Ok. Explain what we should understand about this piece!
laurion69 3 years ago
So true.
dcaonoek 3 years ago
Really? A word is a sound code? What about orthography? Is orthography simply sound codes physically represented? What if you can't speak a language, but you can read it? What does the orthography of that language represent, then? Language is not simply words. It is rule-bound, sure, but those rules are not absolute, they are cultural constructions, as are styles of music. Language is also creative. Why can't I say, "Like I potatoes to eat" instead of, "I like to eat potatoes"? Music is poetry.
EliteOfTheRad 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I said language of written and spoken worda and language of sounds, that is music, are totally different.
Music is in itself a form art, the language is not.
Language can be a form of art, but also a simple way of information or communication.
Music is poety, surely.
Even better we can say music is beauty.
And this musiccan have a structure, an artificial logic on paper, on score, but it has no beauty.
laurion69 3 years ago
Can we really be sure it has no beauty? What is beauty? I see beauty in mathematics, no matter how dense and rigid it is.
What you just said makes no sense. If music is beauty, then music cannot lack beauty, because it cannot lack the very thing that makes it. An anology to this is that a building is a bunch of bricks. As such, it cannot lack the quality of having bricks. Stop being such a literalist with your definitions of what or what is not language.
Also, music CAN communicate simple info.
EliteOfTheRad 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A music that communicates simple informations is a contraddiction in terms.
What sense would it have?
Music has be art and art has be beauty.
No beauty, no art.
A music avoid of beauty is not music.
Beauty is subjective, surely, and quite for this reason art needs a concept of beauty enughly common and shared.
laurion69 3 years ago
so you think that music is not a language? you are absolutely wrong. The art and the music itself are languages. A language is a comunication system, and music is a way to comunicate. I think that you have a very straight thought of what things are: you think that language is only the spoken language or that music is only tonal music
hexatonico 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I said music is A LANGUAGE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WORDS.
It's wrong any parallelism between them.
laurion69 3 years ago
So if it is wrong to draw any parallelism between language and music, why do you use a term like 'adiabatic' to explain why everybody should dislike contemporary music?
By the way: Beethoven never thought that music had to be beautiful. Now everybody recognize the beauty of his music, but that wasn't something that occupied him while he was composing (as you for example can read in his letters)
annedegro 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
annadegro wrote: "Beethoven never thought that music had to be beautiful".
This is the greatest and deepest foolishness about music I never heard!
What did Beethoven think about music, that it had to be ugly?
What prooves have you to affirm Beethoven did not think music had to be beautiful?
Can you read in his thoughts of 200 years ago?
Are you a diviner?
Beethoven wrote beautiful music, like any else great composer really such.
This is the only proof we have about what they thought!
laurion69 3 years ago
I didn't claim that Beethoven didn't compose beautiful music. I only said that his aims were something else.
No I can't read his thoughts, but I have read his letters.
When you read his letters about his political, moral, religious and musical concerns you'll find some of the things that occupied him.
So there you can find some of the proof of what he did think about and what he didn't think about... ;-)
I'm so sorry that reading Beethovens letters was such a foolish thing... ;-)
annedegro 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Show a Beethoven's letter where there are evidences about you are saying, where he said that his composition aims were different from beauty of music.
laurion69 3 years ago
Beethoven was concerned with politics and his own desperate situation. Beauty wasn't what he was thinking about. Revolution (3rd symphonie), destiny (5th symphonie) and so on. In his letters he mostly complains about lack of money and that he has to compose to survive. I don't remember the exact letter, but is a letter towards the end of his life. It is about the late stringquartets and the 9th (Schillers text doesn't concern beauty, but politics).
He never mentions the word 'Schönheit'
annedegro 3 years ago 4
Good to know that the pointless youtube insults arent just reserved for the Rap videos ROFL Classical battle!! 2 funny
kmangum1974 2 years ago
Nope. You never said that. You're a clown. Now shut the fuck up and stop talking as if you know what a language is (I am a trained linguist). You suck. I win.
EliteOfTheRad 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are a trained idiot and win a trip to the land of morons thank to your millionth crap.
Congratulations!
laurion69 3 years ago
This is amazing! Just kidding. It's horrible.
KaloManifesta 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your're right.
Adiabatic composers continued and continue to compose from year by year, since 1900, silly abstruse cathedrals in desert without a real public.
They did not understand people is in another place...
laurion69 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The term 'adiabatic' doesn't make sense. It means that a messages isn't transferred. Information theory makes clear that the cause of something that isn't transferred can be in the reciever, while the message can be understood by other recievers.
So: there are no adiabatic composers! Only listeners that don't understand the message or language can be 'adiabatic'. Why blame the composer when you as a listener don't understand what he is communicating? There are enough people to enjoy the music!
annedegro 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The correct question is why to blame thousands listeners when a composer make himself incomprehensible?
If one listener think to understand and to enjoy this music, thousands others do not...
Is that composer too sophisticated for common people?
Is common people too stupid for him?
Or simply s that composer saying nothing special behind his bizarre expedients?
laurion69 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To give 1 answer to the last three of your supposedly rhetorical questions: no.
Other people understand the composer. So why don't you? It might be a matter of talent, but there are also listeners that need more time to understand or enjoy a certain style of music. That is a matter of musicality and development and not always a matter of intelligence. So I wouldn't call 'common' people too stupid. To understand some music, they may have to try harder...
annedegro 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mmh... to study harder to understand and to appreciate it...
Maybe you forget the this music is forty years old.
Forty years in music is an eternity and still it has not entered pepole's head.
How long does it need?
Do you realize this macroscopic contradiction?
Have you never got a doubt that this music could be a failed experiment?
laurion69 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It didn't take me forty years to appreciate it. It didn't take vanessa 40 years, nor did it take a lot of other musicians, composers, conductors and listeners 40 years to appreciate it.
When music fails for some listeners it doesn't mean that it fails for everybody. In music it is quality that matters, not quantity.
annedegro 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Where is it writen that few pepole rappresents quality and the rest the quantity without quality?
Adiabatic composers appreciate adiabatic composers.
Some conductor and performer appreciate adiabatic music (or perhaps pretend to appreciate), many others don't.
But large people don't like it, never liked it.
The six little pieces for piano by Shoenberg are of 1911.
They are almost 100 years old and the great people don't still appreciate them...
Why?
laurion69 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When traditional institutions like the Berliner Philharmoniker, the Wiener Philharmoniker, the LSO, and its conductors (Barenboim, Bernstein, Boulez, Abbado) to name a few, perform the 20th century music. It is a cultural elite that decides which pieces are masterpieces, even if the audience doesn't appreciate them, it doesn't mean that disqualifies these works to be brilliant.
You're an adiabatic listener, but there is no such thing as adiabatic music.
annedegro 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are wrong again, annedegro.
It's the great pubblic that decides what orchestras and their conductors have to perform.
Infact, all great orchestras play for 99% non-adiabatic music, because great pubblic like it.
For 1% they play adiabatic music sometime.
If the great pubblic like Verdi and Puccini any orchestra will play Verdi and Puccini.
It's a shame that there is no a new language non adiabatic, because pepole would be ready to follow it.
laurion69 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wrong again?
Just one example:
It was Bernstein who decided that KS composed HYMNEN for the NYP, not the 'great public'.
(and the word 'adiabatic' as brought up by some stupid musicologist who doesn't know the meaning of the word! Don't use semi-intellectual words only dry academics use for Information Theory; it can't be imposed on music when you don't use the word correctly!)
annedegro 3 years ago
I love it
zdzdzdzdzdzdz 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you did it, you surely could say that a like literary composition is something new cause it has never exisited.
But you could not say what it is.
This is the reason you cannot explain in a clear way where is the beauty and the real logic of this Stockhausen's composition.
laurion69 3 years ago
"the reason you cannot explain in a clear way where is the beauty and the real logic of this Stockhausen's composition"
There are enough listeners that you don't have to explain what the beauty is. Music and beauty is not something you can always explain 'with the mind' but should be felt with the senses. An academic approach like yours (in which you use terms from communication theory that aren't really appropriate) will never help. Music is for the ears, not only for the brains!
revions 3 years ago 6