Stockhausen the fraud

Max Kaye

The same can be said for most of the visual 'art' produced since the 1920s

Jason Noghani

Stockhausens music is not pretentious in the slightest! If you read Stockhausens own notes and theories on his music, you will see that indeed he took it upon himself to write music of a gragantum nature, but the music fulfills every satisfaction that you could possibly desire for. It is constantly varied, inventive and each piece constantly redefines our perception of what music is and is capable of. The only problem with Stockhausens music is that indeed it wont take the average listener a night to get into because of the many varied simultaneous layers, but those who take it upon them to discover into the music are greatly rewarded. It just requires patience and an open mind.

If you read essays by other composers, you will notice a lot of hyper-intelligent and somewhat pretentious remarks, but with stockhausen, the intelligence is pure, and factual rather than opinionated.

With regards to Robin Holloways remark, Stockhausen never intended on becoming a second Wagner, and his musical intentions differ in many ways (he even speaks about this). Whereas the ring cycle offers one granduer gesture after another, Licht is a more meditative unsuspecting experience (with the transformation of events perceived far more subtly than Wagner), with the percieveably arrogant set ups for scenes (such as the helikopter-streichquartett) used purely for sonic effects.

Steven

"I don't think it's possible convincingly to disagree with his key point." Except that his "key point" doesn't actually make any sense: http://unspeak.net/the-dominance-of-western-music/

ivor morgan

As the founder of the Stockhausen Society, I am often asked what Stockhausen's music is about. The first answer has to be that it is about music - all composers are in the same trade as Mozart. Great composers are as innovative and ground breaking as Haydn. Secondly, I am asked how to approach this music, how to 'understand' it. My reply is to sing it - as a person tries to copy the sounds as they hear them by singing as near as possible to what they hear, the form and construction of the music becomes more and more apparent. Often, one can sing more of a Stockhausen work than say Bach fugue. Of course, this does not apply to electronic music.. or does it? A good try may bring suprising results. Thirdly, the music is about the various strands of Stockhausen's own life. His wartime experiences led him to believe that the world can only acheive peace through music and unity is the basis of works such as Hymnen, Telemusik, Stimmung and in Light this is expressed in many ways - the Eflat note that runs throughout the second act of Tuesday - Octophony - is said to be the pitch of the Flying Fortress bomber engines which he must have heard with trepidation in Cologne. Pieta, for soprano and flugel horn, is one of the most moving as well as one of the greatest works for voice ever written (the wrote others of the same calibre). The Helicopter String quartet, in spite of its many humorous aspects, is also about unity - however high we fly, however far apart we are from each other, we can communicate through music and when we come down to earth we have to meet and join with our fellow men.World Parliament is a work that expresses the idea of many writers for such a dream. It is also about love, every aspect of it, so to speak and often not for the prurient. But for the writer, these are secondy concerns. Music cannot change lives, make someone a better person or give hope for eternal life: music can only speak of itself. As someone once said 'Do not confuse a composer's mind with his music'. Stockhausen is a truly great composer - the greatest of the last century and at this moment in time, perhaps for the next century. Listen to the music, how the notes and the form produce music that 'hauls the souls from men's bodies' and be grateful to the muse that it exists. Ivor Morgan Posted by: at Dec 11, 2007 6:43:11 AM

salieri

It makes complete sense: it is absurd to assert that any sound that one terms 'music' becomes music merely by virtue of that assertion. It is also, like the emperor's new clothes, intrinsically fraudulent. Stockhausen did have one talent: the ability to publicise himself to the point where his pretentious and infantile 'ideas' were taken seriously. As for the preceding comment, I had to read it again and rub my eyes in utter disbelief: "the music fulfills every satisfaction that you could possibly desire for [sic]". What, every satisfaction? What about the simple pleasure of listening, which admittedly may no longer be the one and only purpose of 'music' but is still, dear anoraks, way out at the head of the list.

georgesdelatour

After I heard that Stockhausen had died I went and listened again to some of his recordings. I think "Gesang Der Junglinge", "Kontakte", "Stimmung" and "Hymnen" stand up very well. It may well be that few listeners will return to them, essentially for the same reason that few moviegoers return to Murnau, Abel Gance and Eisenstein. They are both from the early dawn of new media - electronic music and cinema - and it's understandable if we're more interested in Michel Gondry or Autechre. I think the Stockhausen pieces in which conventional classical instruments play post-Webern serial music - pieces like Kontra-Punkte - already sound very dated. And maybe, if that's what you want, yes, Boulez does it better than Stockhausen.

But, all in all, I think Stockhausen has made an important and lasting contribution to music.

Paris Treantafeles

Very sad article. What on Earth is the point of such writing? "A musical composition is above all an argument that appeals to the emotions." Who is to say exactly which pieces of music do this? And would the results not vary depending on the listener? Is this supposed to be a scientific statement? It is really just the opinion of some folks like you. As an example, I find "Gesang der Jünglinge" is full of emotion! And is art and music nothing more than something for our emotions? What about our intellect? Art and Music that challenge conventions can have intellectual merit which can have a broad ranging influence. Back to Stockhausen in particular - even if you don't like his work because you found the sounds unpleasant, there's a very likely chance that you like the work of someone who saw beauty in it and was influenced or inspired by his ideas.

Ivor Morgan

The problem with contributors like salieri (Dec 13th) is that they close their minds in advance. The secret of Stockhausen's music and its 'followability' lies in a rhythmic cell that is used in most compositions. Zodiac - twelve melodies for music boxes and then scored for solo instruments, when played to people without disclosing the composer's name, is met with approval and even repeating the almost catchy tunes. When told who it was by, they are surprised - naturally. The fascinating thing about Stockhausen's music is that it reaches out to the listener, creating unmistakeable visual images. In Laub und Regen from Herbstmusik (Autum Music), the clarinetist (every based on the aforementioned cell)in my mind is in a clearing, dancing and enjoying heself. After a few minutes the peeping Tom electric viola makes its presence known and tries to approach her. Her music seems to talk to him, rejecting and dancing away from him...listen to find out what happens - I'm sure a local library may have a copy, if not visit the society for a wonderful musical afternoon and evening. Ivor Morgan

Michael N

Attended a Stockhausen concert at the QEH last year, with a completely open mind. Was radically underwhelmed. Love much contemporary and twentieth century music but was frankly bored. Much nodding afterwards from audience members whose standard-issue London Media spectacles and black turtlenecks seemed to indicate a predisposition to find something positive in the music at any cost. "Rhythmic cells" are a form of mental masturbation - I like my ears to enjoy music as well as my brain.

Matthew H

Not sure why nobody's picked up on this, but Klavierstuck X is not "one note played repeatedly for about 10 minutes at different lengths", and that description applies to none of KS's piano (or otherwise) works. Perhaps the author is thinking of Klavierstuck IX which opens with a repeated chord, but to then remember it as 'only one note' would require aural memory and comprehension of, um, surpassing ineptitude. The central thrust of this post seems to rest on two assertions:- "the simple fact that Stockhausen had no discernible talent even on his own (spurious) terms" What were Stockhausen's terms, how were they spurious, how does he fail to meet them, what are Pollard's terms, how does he fail to meet them? All these questions need to be taken care of before this constitutes anything resembling an argument. "nor did he evince any rigour in the composition of his pieces." This about one of the founders of integral serialism? Very difficult to back that up in any way. Any number of analyses of KS's works can easily be used to repudiate this statement. "They were not ideas. They were cons." What is it when a pundit makes things up, gets things wrong, and substitutes assertion for argument? I'm sure none of this is going to be taken up, but I'd hope that anyone reading this will reflect on Pollard's methods of 'argument', and look at them carefully in his political writings (same goes for Kamm and so on). These little 'arts' comments might seem irrelevant, but pundits accordingly let their guard down and the results are often very interesting to anyone who wants to read them critically.

Bernard Pulham

Stockhausen's music is often colourful, theatrical and imaginative. It usually sounds like nothing else, and yet it is always inspired by simple ideas that the composer pursued with all means at his disposal. The performances and recordings have moved many people to seek out more music by Stockhausen. This is music which doesn't claim to be anything other than how it sounds, and the composer achieved what he set out to do. What is pretentious about this?