the greatest music compositions of the last century
Jacker172
What do you recognize as the most significant or influential musical
compositions that are composed in the 20th century of the diversity
age.
Is it possible to reach any consensus about the question above?
Please cite a dozen of compositions with policy of selection.
I have projected a list of works already. If you want know it, see
http://www.peerlesspeers.com
M.E.A.
Jacker172 wrote:
> What do you recognize as the most significant or influential musical
> compositions that are composed in the 20th century of the diversity
> age.
> Is it possible to reach any consensus about the question above?
But why do you limit yourself in this way?
Don't be shy!
I suggest you to proudly announce a poll with respect to "The greatest
composition of Any time!" or maybe better "The Greatest piece of Art
Ever written in the world ! " no ...no....even better "ever written
in the Universe"
> Please cite a dozen of compositions with policy of selection.
I'm afraid I have better things to do.
Cheers,
M.E.A.
Samuel Vriezen
> Jacker172 wrote:
>
>>What do you recognize as the most significant or influential musical
>>compositions that are composed in the 20th century of the diversity
>>age.
>>Is it possible to reach any consensus about the question above?
Of course. But you do need support from the pentagon. Even then, you might have
to face an insurgency in its death throes for a little while.
> But why do you limit yourself in this way?
> Don't be shy!
> I suggest you to proudly announce a poll with respect to "The greatest
> composition of Any time!" or maybe better "The Greatest piece of Art
> Ever written in the world ! " no ...no....even better "ever written
> in the Universe"
And why only consider art works? What's wrong with the Grand Canyon, crumpets,
Planck's Constant and the Persian Wars? Why exclude all these wonderful things
from the competition?
--
samuel
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sqv/ - homepage, soundclips
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/sqv - weblog in Dutch
Nobody out there but us. And I can never figure out who that was or will be,
much less is.
- Charles Bernstein
Jacker172
There's an entire world out there. Someone could try to tell us
Al-Qaeda has performed the greatest ageless work ever done in the
world. Another one could think the first Pearl Harbor is more great.
Your view is certainly interesting. I want to get a chickett for Grand
Canyon too, but there is nothing better to know music deeper and
broader. At least for me.
Although I believe I have already known several or at least a couple of
great compositions written in the 20th century, it's also true that not
a few pieces has been left.
Am I the only one? Avid music fans would edify each other.
I would very much like to do.
Cheers
Jacker172
Often ambiguity of terms including contemporary, classical, avantgarde
or modern makes perpetual discussion and needless confrontations.
Compositions ever written in the universe - it may be better, but...
The site was opened about six months ago. I have seemed to do a
thoughtless thing. My list has been grown too long, and I have now over
three thousands of titles.
If "of any time" had been instead, I would have had no time to do any
other thing by this
Cheers,
Samuel Vriezen
Well, if you're looking for great music of the 20th, there are many sources. A
couple of composers I'm interested in include Xenakis, Ravel, Cage, Nancarrow,
Feldman, Scelsi, Lucier, Tom Johnson and many others. My own work for example:
help yourself to a sampling at my webpage, below!
Christopher Culver
> There's an entire world out there. Someone could try to tell us
> Al-Qaeda has performed the greatest ageless work ever done in the
> world.
Stockhausen?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Poldie
Christopher Culver wrote:
> "Jacker172" <me...@peerlesspeers.com> writes:
> > There's an entire world out there. Someone could try to tell us
> > Al-Qaeda has performed the greatest ageless work ever done in the
> > world.
>
> Stockhausen?
I think it was a German journalist who claimed that, not Stockhausen.
david...@aol.com
Mahler 7th or 9th
Debussy La mer or Jeux
Schoenberg: Erwartung and the other expressionist period pieces
Berg: Altenberglieder, Three Orchestral Pieces, Wozzeck
Boulez: Visage nuptial (1952 version); Pli selon pli
Berio: Nones, Allelujah II, Epifanie, String Quartets
Stockhausen: Gruppen; Carre; Punkte
Carter: Concerto for Orchestra, 3rd Quartet
Ferneyhough: something, although I'm not sure what
-david gable
Samuel Vriezen
Well, Stockhausen literally did use words to that effect, in a rush of
overexcited inspiration I suppose. Of course, it is always good to get more
context. The full transcript can be found at http://www.stockhausen.org/hamburg.pdf
and the relevant passage goes:
Q: Die Ereignisse der letzten Tage, wie berührt Sie das persönlich
und vor allem, wie sehen Sie dann solche Notizen zur harmonischen
Menschlichkeit in „Hymnen“, die ja auch aufgeführt werden,
nochmal an?
A: Hm. Also was da geschehen ist, ist natürlich – jetzt müssen
Sie alle Ihr Gehirn umstellen – das größte Kunstwerk,
was es je gegeben hat. Daß also Geister in einem Akt etwas
vollbringen, was wir in der Musik nie träumen könnten,
daß Leute zehn Jahre üben wie verrückt, total fanatisch, für
ein Konzert. Und dann sterben. [Zögert.] Und das ist das
größte Kunstwerk, das es überhaupt gibt für den ganzen
Kosmos. Stellen Sie sich das doch vor, was da passiert ist.
Das sind also Leute, die sind so konzentriert auf dieses eine,
auf die eine Aufführung, und dann werden fünftausend
Leute in die Auferstehung gejagt. In einem Moment. Das
könnte ich nicht. Dagegen sind wir gar nichts, also als
Komponisten. Ich meine, es kann sein, daß, wenn ich
„Freitag“ aus „Licht“ aufführe, daß da ein paar Leute im
Saal sitzen, denen das passiert, was ein alter Mann mir vorige
Woche gesagt hat, beim „Samstag“ nach der Aufführung:
„Na, sagen Sie mal. Zweieinhalb Stunden, da waren
doch diese unglaublich tiefen Klänge, die wie Wolken über
uns schwebten und sich bewegten die ganze Zeit, die segelten
und dazu dann ganz schnelle Schüsse von anderen
Klängen – sagen Sie mal, was ist denn das für ein Orchester?
Ich sage: „Gar keins.“ Sagt er: „Was? Wie haben Sie’s
denn gemacht? Sie müssen das doch irgendwie machen!
Wer spielt das? Wer hat das gesungen oder gespielt?“ Ich
sage: „Niemand“. „Ja, wie denn?“ Ich sage: „Mit Generatoren
und Synthesizern.“ Sagt er: „Was? Dann brauchen wir
ja gar kein Orchester mehr!“ Ich sage: „Nein.“ Dann lief der
raus, als ob der innerlich, im Geiste gestorben wäre. Ich
weiß nicht, was jetzt passiert mit dem. Und es waren mehrere
Damen, die dann zu mir kamen und sagten: „Sagen
Sie mal, was haben Sie denn hier?“ Und ich sagte: „Das ist
ein Mischpult“. „Ja, wie geht denn das überhaupt, da
kommt das alles raus?“ Ich sage: „Ja.“ – „Ja, haben Sie auch
eine Partitur?“ – „Ja.“ – „Kann ich die mal sehen?“ – „Ja.“
Das waren Damen so zwischen siebzig und achtzig auf einmal,
das war wahrscheinlich Abonnementspublikum fürs
Bach-Festival. Die standen um mich herum. Ich sage:
„Gucken Sie her, Sie können Noten?“- „Ja, ja, wir können
Noten lesen. Kann das jemand verstehen?“ Ich sage: „Ja,
das kann jemand verstehen. Man muß das nur studieren“,
und so. Das war eine Explosion wie für die Menschen in
New York. Bum! Und ich weiß nicht, ob die jetzt woanders
sind, die da plötzlich so schockiert waren. Also es gibt Dinge,
die gehen in meinem Kopf vor sich durch solche Erlebnisse.
Ich habe Wörter benutzt, die ich nie benutze, weil
das so ungeheuer ist. Das ist das größte Kunstwerk überhaupt,
das passiert. Stellen Sie sich mal vor, ich könnte jetzt
ein Kunstwerk schaffen, und Sie wären alle nicht nur erstaunt,
sondern Sie würden auf der Stelle umfallen. Sie
wären tot und würden wiedergeboren, weil Sie Ihr Bewußtsein
verlieren, weil das einfach zu wahnsinnig ist. Manche
Künstler versuchen doch, über die Grenze des überhaupt
Denkbaren und Möglichen zu gehen, damit wir wach werden,
damit wir für eine andere Welt uns öffnen. Also, ich
weiß nicht, ob das fünftausend Wiedergeburten gibt, aber
irgend so etwas. [Fingerschnippen] Im Nu. Das ist unglaublich.
Samuel Vriezen
> Poldie wrote:
>
>> Christopher Culver wrote:
>>
>>> "Jacker172" <me...@peerlesspeers.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> There's an entire world out there. Someone could try to tell us
>>>> Al-Qaeda has performed the greatest ageless work ever done in the
>>>> world.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stockhausen?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it was a German journalist who claimed that, not Stockhausen.
>
>
>
> Well, Stockhausen literally did use words to that effect, in a rush of
> overexcited inspiration I suppose. Of course, it is always good to get
> more context. The full transcript can be found at
> http://www.stockhausen.org/hamburg.pdf
(and for more on the whole affair: http://www.stockhausen.org/the_true_story.html)
Jerry Kohl
On Oct 4, 5:33 am, Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.s...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Poldie wrote:
> > Christopher Culver wrote:
>
> >>"Jacker172" <m...@peerlesspeers.com> writes:
>
> >>>There's an entire world out there. Someone could try to tell us
> >>>Al-Qaeda has performed the greatest ageless work ever done in the
> >>>world.
>
> >>Stockhausen?
>
> > I think it was a German journalist who claimed that, not Stockhausen.Well, Stockhausen literally did use words to that effect, in a rush of
> overexcited inspiration I suppose. Of course, it is always good to get more
> context. The full transcript can be found athttp://www.stockhausen.org/hamburg.pdf
>
> and the relevant passage goes:
[snip]
(Sigh.) Yes, that is the passage the journalist quoted, without the
immediately preceding material, in which Stockhausen said it was an
example of Lucifer's activities in the present-day world, which he
characterized with the word "monstrous".
--
Jerry Kohl
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Samuel Vriezen
Sure. That bit of context is not unimportant and I should have put it in
explicitly as well. And in fact, after this famous bit, Stockhausen, taken aback
by the reaction in the hall, also suggests that Luzifer was behind making him
say these things.
Now to me, it's clear that Stockhausen meant no harm. But the qualification of
9/11 as "the greatest work of art that there is in the whole cosmos" is
certainly there, contrary to Poldie's claim - and the attribution of this work
of art to Luzifer is by no means unequivocal. I don't even think it matters
much. I trust Stockhausen not to be so crazy so as to approve of terrorism.
Luzifer entered the discussion a little earlier because his presence was felt in
NY. Then the question comes, what does this mean for Hymnen? And Stockhausen
continues to explain how incredible the whole 9/11 thing is and how musicians
can never hope to have such an extreme effect - Luzifer is not mentioned at that
point.
Personally, I find this whole mention of Luzifer less interesting than the
little remark "jetzt müssen Sie alle Ihr Gehirn umstellen". Six days after the
event, Stockhausen already attempts a broader perspective, and how could it not
have been a perspective related to the world-view he uses for his major opus?
That's what it's all about (and I do think this was a judgment error, lacking in
sensitivity, though certainly not a crime). If you read the whole, it is
impossible to miss the fact that Stockhausen disapproves of the terrorist act,
but it's equally impossible not to sense some admiration for the professionalism
of Bin Laden in the rehearsal comparison, or how much he was impressed with the
incredible theatrical effect, as was everybody with a TV at the time of course.
Ian Pace
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do....@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:45255a93$0$4518$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
Ian
Jack Campin - bogus address
> His comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
He spent the May Days of 1968 locked in his Paris hotel room whimpering
out the pompous cliches of "Aus den Sieben Tagen".
He appreciated situationism about as much as Dubya appreciated hijacked
planes.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Jacker172
I have finished the 22nd update of the site.
mark steven brooks
>>Does anyone know if Stockhausen ever had any interest in Situationism?
>>His comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
>
>
> He spent the May Days of 1968 locked in his Paris hotel room whimpering
> out the pompous cliches of "Aus den Sieben Tagen".
>
> He appreciated situationism about as much as Dubya appreciated hijacked
> planes.
Which is to say a great deal I would think. The Bush administration
must have gotten down on its collective knees and kissed the ground when
9/11 happened.
Jacker172
> couple of composers I'm interested in include Xenakis, Ravel, Cage, Nancarrow,
> Feldman, Scelsi, Lucier, Tom Johnson and many others. My own work for example:
> help yourself to a sampling at my webpage, below!
Samuel,
Though I have been interested in composers that you mentioned, I didn't
ever hear of Charles Bernstein. I don't know whether I ilke his
compositions and style, but I must try as soon as possible.
Don't you like minimalists very much? I think Reich, Riley Glass and
John Adams whose names are as big as Scelsi or Feldman, should not be
omitted. As for me, there is a stronger interest in music of Murail,
Grisey, Jarrell, Saariaho, and Lindberg.
By the way, quite a many people don't seem to like progressive music or
avant-garde in 50's - Stockhausen, Nono, Boulez or similarly others.
They seem to dislike all the works and to want sweep them away, but
perhaps some of such listeners would be also like some of them as good
as Stravinsky or Ravel if they have a chance to listen to them.
I will ensure that my site and list is much better, and expect to make
someone to be interested in great masterpieces of the 20th century.
So I added Charles Bernstein and you into the composers' link of my
site.
Paul Dirmeikis
> >>Does anyone know if Stockhausen ever had any interest in Situationism?
> >>His comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
Stockhausen always claimed his total uninterest in politics. Even if
some of his past comments about some world events might sound
political, they aren't. Stockhausen never speaks on that level. IMO,
none of his statements should NEVER be considered under a political
light. This is the main reason of the confusion that keeps on going as
I can see...
> Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
> > He spent the May Days of 1968 locked in his Paris hotel room whimpering
> > out the pompous cliches of "Aus den Sieben Tagen".
For your information : Stockhausen was at home, in Kuerten, when he
wrote the texts of "Aus den sieben Tagen", not in a Paris hotel room
(speaking of cliches...).
Actually, he was in a suicidal state of mind, and if you are entitled
to think whatever you want about the musical result of these texts,
your ad hominem comments are very pointlessly despising and insulting.
Paul Dirmeikis
www.dirmeikis.org
Paul Dirmeikis
> >>Does anyone know if Stockhausen ever had any interest in Situationism?
> >>His comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
Stockhausen always claimed his total uninterest in politics. Even if
some of his past comments about some world events might sound
political, they aren't. Stockhausen never speaks on that level. IMO,
none of his statements should NEVER be considered under a political
light. This is the main reason of the confusion that keeps on going as
I can see...
> Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
> > He spent the May Days of 1968 locked in his Paris hotel room whimpering
> > out the pompous cliches of "Aus den Sieben Tagen".
For your information : Stockhausen was at home, in Kuerten, when he
Samuel Vriezen
>>Well, if you're looking for great music of the 20th, there are many sources. A
>>couple of composers I'm interested in include Xenakis, Ravel, Cage, Nancarrow,
>>Feldman, Scelsi, Lucier, Tom Johnson and many others. My own work for example:
>>help yourself to a sampling at my webpage, below!
>
>
> Samuel,
> Though I have been interested in composers that you mentioned, I didn't
> ever hear of Charles Bernstein. I don't know whether I ilke his
> compositions and style, but I must try as soon as possible.
Hi Jacker, Charles Bernstein in fact is a poet, but recently he has collaborated
with Brian Ferneyhough on an opera called Shadowtime (about the death of Walter
Benjamin), which has been released on CD a few months ago.
> Don't you like minimalists very much? I think Reich, Riley Glass and
> John Adams whose names are as big as Scelsi or Feldman, should not be
> omitted.
Reich wrote some of the most important pieces I know (as well as a lot of things
I don't care for). Similarly earlier Glass I find great, but I've always
maintained a little bit of a weak spot for him and somehow I can stand the music
from his "sell-out phase" better than a lot of my friends can. Riley is an
original but I know his music only very little.
As to John Adams: remember how Bach used to be CPE until it started referring to
JS. I've already started calling John Adams "John Other Adams" to distinguish
him from the - AFAIC - more interesting composer John Luther Adams.
Samuel Vriezen
> mark steven brooks wrote:
>
>>>>Does anyone know if Stockhausen ever had any interest in Situationism?
>>>>His comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
>
>
> Stockhausen always claimed his total uninterest in politics. Even if
> some of his past comments about some world events might sound
> political, they aren't. Stockhausen never speaks on that level. IMO,
> none of his statements should NEVER be considered under a political
> light. This is the main reason of the confusion that keeps on going as
> I can see...
What, we shouldn't see his ideas in a political light just because he himself
doesn't like to think about politics?
Ian Pace
> Paul Dirmeikis wrote:
>
>> mark steven brooks wrote:
>>
>>>>>Does anyone know if Stockhausen ever had any interest in Situationism?
>>>>>His comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
>>
>>
>> Stockhausen always claimed his total uninterest in politics. Even if
>> some of his past comments about some world events might sound
>> political, they aren't. Stockhausen never speaks on that level. IMO,
>> none of his statements should NEVER be considered under a political
>> light. This is the main reason of the confusion that keeps on going as
>> I can see...
>
>
> What, we shouldn't see his ideas in a political light just because he
> himself doesn't like to think about politics?
>
challenge a reactionary status quo. That is as 'political' a viewpoint as
any other.
Ian
Paul Dirmeikis
> Paul Dirmeikis wrote:
>
> > mark steven brooks wrote:
> >
> >>>>Does anyone know if Stockhausen ever had any interest in Situationism?
> >>>>His comments resonante with situationist ideas quite strongly.
> >
> >
> > Stockhausen always claimed his total uninterest in politics. Even if
> > some of his past comments about some world events might sound
> > political, they aren't. Stockhausen never speaks on that level. IMO,
> > none of his statements should NEVER be considered under a political
> > light. This is the main reason of the confusion that keeps on going as
> > I can see...
>
>
> What, we shouldn't see his ideas in a political light just because he himself
> doesn't like to think about politics?
Well, it makes sense to me.
I don't see the point in applying a political filter on ideas which
were not expressed on a political level.
One can do it of course (in the absolute, one can make a political
analysis of whatever you want on Earth), but I doubt it will favour a
better understanding. On the contrary, in most cases, it will distort
the meaning, and lead people on wrong roads, as it did with this famous
Stockhausen 9/11 quotation.
Paul Dirmeikis
www.dirmeikis.org
mark steven brooks
In fact I recently purchased the 7 CD set of the Aus Den Sieben Tagen
recordings and am enjoying them immensely.
mark steven brooks
Samuel Vriezen
>>What, we shouldn't see [Stockhausen's] ideas in a political light just because he himself
>>doesn't like to think about politics?
>
>
> Well, it makes sense to me.
> I don't see the point in applying a political filter on ideas which
> were not expressed on a political level.
Because politics is not a hobby that you either have or don't have.
> One can do it of course (in the absolute, one can make a political
> analysis of whatever you want on Earth), but I doubt it will favour a
> better understanding. On the contrary, in most cases, it will distort
> the meaning, and lead people on wrong roads, as it did with this famous
> Stockhausen 9/11 quotation.
Well.
First: the way I remember the whole scandal, there were a few misunderstandings
on the nature of the scandal itself.
I believe, as I indicated before, that the scandal was definitely NOT about
Stockhausen somehow approving of terrorism. However, by a lot of parties, the
scandal was seen in more or less those terms. Of course, I fully trust
Stockhausen not to be that sort of evil person, and his politics indeed do not
seem to be of the activist, direct-influence-seeking kind with some sort of
explicit social goal (except where getting commissions, orchestras, armies to
help out with a couple of helicopters, and other mundane composerly
practicalities of that order is concerned I guess)
Also, I agree that if you want to understand Stockhausen as Stockhausen would
like to be understood, the political analysis may not be useful. And of course,
it makes a lot of sense to want to understand an artist the way the artist would
like to be understood because art is about that.
But there's also looking at what artistic ideas might imply beyond the immediate
opera house - symphony hall - army helicopter context.
Now what I found so breathtaking and deeply problematic about the scandal was
something other than this bizarre suggestion of "Stockhausen Serves Terrorism"
entirely. It was the way Stockhausen subsumed recent political events under his
personal creative mythology. To put it bluntly, it felt as if 9/11 could be
analysed in terms of some transformation of the Urformel for Licht. And of
course, here we have an opera cycle that more or less is about Everything (I
believe, as regulars here know, that Including Everything is the major theme of
Stockhausen's whole oeuvre). So it's inevitable that politics is going to enter
into the myth.
Stockhausen was inviting us to look at world politics and at history in terms of
the Michael/Eva/Luzifer triangle.
Now the thing is: if artistic structures are going to be used to look at the
whole world, to synthesize a view on history, shouldn't we be extremely critical
on the political level of those artistic structures? If we're willing to be
critical of how, say, FOX news represents things, why shouldn't we be critical
of how Stockhausen invites us to see things?
I think Stockhausen is significant enough to make such a critique relevant.
Samuel Vriezen
And this became so scandalous because in his remarks he gives the impression of
seeing in Bin Laden a rival in the staging of spiritual truth. Of course, he's
quick (and entirely correct) to point out the moral superiority of spiritual
truth staged in the Stockhausen manner above the terrorist manner: with
Stockhausen, people "go to the concert willingly". The implication being: if
Stockhausen would ever write a piece in which two skyscrapers collapse, the
thousands of people in there would *willingly* be part of the performance.
Paul Dirmeikis
mark steven brooks wrote:
> Um, I never wrote any of the preceeding which was attributed to me.
> In fact I recently purchased the 7 CD set of the Aus Den Sieben Tagen
> recordings and am enjoying them immensely.
Mark, please read carefully the quotation :
(> > > Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
> >>>He spent the May Days of 1968 locked in his Paris hotel room whimpering
> >>>out the pompous cliches of "Aus den Sieben Tagen".)
I did not attribute to you this "comment" about "Aus den sieben Tagen".
Paul Dirmeikis
> Because politics is not a hobby that you either have or don't have.
It may not be a hobby, but I nevertheless perceive politics as coloured
glasses that make you see things in such a distorted way.
But as our experience is inevitably different, I guess we don't give
exactly the same meaning to such a worn-out word as "politics". It has
lost so much of its glory and truth, when you see what you see on TV,
and read what you read in the newspapers...
> Now what I found so breathtaking and deeply problematic about the scandal was
> something other than this bizarre suggestion of "Stockhausen Serves Terrorism"
> entirely. It was the way Stockhausen subsumed recent political events under his
> personal creative mythology. To put it bluntly, it felt as if 9/11 could be
> analysed in terms of some transformation of the Urformel for Licht.
I understand what you mean, and it's a very interesting point of view,
but I'm not sure one can go so far in the interpretation of
Stockhausen's words!
> Stockhausen was inviting us to look at world politics and at history in terms of
> the Michael/Eva/Luzifer triangle.
Once again, I think that for Stockhausen, all this is on a spiritual
level, far beyond any political or historical perspectives. What
interests him are the everlasting spiritual forces and battles behind
the precarious and temporary human beings we are.
> If we're willing to be
> critical of how, say, FOX news represents things, why shouldn't we be critical
> of how Stockhausen invites us to see things?
I don't know if we "should", but we "can", of course. If it makes
sense. And if we're sure we're speaking the same language than
Stockhausen, which is by far less cristal clear than FOX's language.
:-)
Ian Pace
"Paul Dirmeikis" <Dirme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1160238805....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>> Because politics is not a hobby that you either have or don't have.
>
> It may not be a hobby, but I nevertheless perceive politics as coloured
> glasses that make you see things in such a distorted way.
> But as our experience is inevitably different, I guess we don't give
> exactly the same meaning to such a worn-out word as "politics".
So once again, what is the meaning that you give to it? And what makes one
set of glasses 'political' and another not?
> It has
> lost so much of its glory and truth, when you see what you see on TV,
> and read what you read in the newspapers...
What politicians that currently have power or influence do is a different
matter to 'politics' per se.
>
>> Now what I found so breathtaking and deeply problematic about the scandal
>> was
>> something other than this bizarre suggestion of "Stockhausen Serves
>> Terrorism"
>> entirely. It was the way Stockhausen subsumed recent political events
>> under his
>> personal creative mythology. To put it bluntly, it felt as if 9/11 could
>> be
>> analysed in terms of some transformation of the Urformel for Licht.
>
> I understand what you mean, and it's a very interesting point of view,
> but I'm not sure one can go so far in the interpretation of
> Stockhausen's words!
>
>
>
>> Stockhausen was inviting us to look at world politics and at history in
>> terms of
>> the Michael/Eva/Luzifer triangle.
>
> Once again, I think that for Stockhausen, all this is on a spiritual
> level, far beyond any political or historical perspectives. What
> interests him are the everlasting spiritual forces and battles behind
> the precarious and temporary human beings we are.
>
An awful lot of political figures have dressed their ideas in rhetoric about
'everlasting spiritual forces' and the like.
Ian
Samuel Vriezen
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>
>>Because politics is not a hobby that you either have or don't have.
>
>
> It may not be a hobby, but I nevertheless perceive politics as coloured
> glasses that make you see things in such a distorted way.
> But as our experience is inevitably different, I guess we don't give
> exactly the same meaning to such a worn-out word as "politics". It has
> lost so much of its glory and truth, when you see what you see on TV,
> and read what you read in the newspapers...
Newspapers and TV have, under the guise of "transparency", become the ultimate
vehicles for obscurantism in our age, I think. Indeed, seeing how the Bush
administration has been operating and how easily he keeps getting away with his
deceptions, you get the idea that truth itself simply is no longer a force of
any potency...
mark steven brooks
> Now what I found so breathtaking and deeply problematic about the
> scandal was something other than this bizarre suggestion of "Stockhausen
> Serves Terrorism" entirely. It was the way Stockhausen subsumed recent
> political events under his personal creative mythology.
This is pure Stockhausen, no? He has always had this incredibly
grandiose sense of himself and his work. I suppose that's what it
takes to become a great artist but personally I find it tiresome and a
bit embarassing.
mark steven brooks
> how the Bush administration has been operating and how easily he keeps
> getting away with his deceptions, you get the idea that truth itself
> simply is no longer a force of any potency...
Well, there's what's presented as truth and what is really true. The
reason his administration has been getting away with it is because they
have pandered to a large segment of the American populace (mentally
challenged religious Christians) who are themselves living lives of
delusion and who will support that which feeds their delusions.
Christopher Culver
> Well, there's what's presented as truth and what is really true.
> The reason his administration has been getting away with it is
> because they have pandered to a large segment of the American
Do we have to start condemning various religions here? It seems
pointless to dump hate on believers in Christianity, since so much of
the music we could discuss here is based upon it in some fashion:
Gubaidulina, Rautavaara, Schnittke, Kniefel, Part, and Messiaen are
(/were) all very devout and their music reflects it.
The only outright atheists (as opposed to agnostics or believers in at
least something) I can think of among modern composers are Boulez and
Carter.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
mark steven brooks
>
> Do we have to start condemning various religions here? It seems
> pointless to dump hate on believers in Christianity, since so much of
> the music we could discuss here is based upon it in some fashion:
> Gubaidulina, Rautavaara, Schnittke, Kniefel, Part, and Messiaen are
> (/were) all very devout and their music reflects it.
You know exactly the sort of people I was referring to.
Jacker172
very instructive for me.
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Hi Jacker, Charles Bernstein in fact is a poet, but recently he has collaborated
> with Brian Ferneyhough on an opera called Shadowtime (about the death of Walter
> Benjamin), which has been released on CD a few months ago.
>
I got the CD and it got to me so much. So I should have known Charles
Bernstein as a poet.
I believe the opera is so important that it should be performed more.
>
> As to John Adams: remember how Bach used to be CPE until it started referring to
> JS. I've already started calling John Adams "John Other Adams" to distinguish
> him from the - AFAIC - more interesting composer John Luther Adams.
>
You convinced me that John Luther is and will be a more important
figure than John Coolidge.
However, many people who voted at my site look satisfied with JC Adams
whose Nixon in China has been popular unusually for modern
composisions. Probably JL Adams' time has not yet come.
Perhaps you want to say nothing about composers around IRCAM, don't
you?
That's that.
Many classical music lovers who love Turandotto, Madame Butterfly or
Rosenkavalier have no hesitation in stating that there is not
significant works but symphonies of Mahler and Sibelius, and opera of
Strauss or Puccini.
I don't think so, but I also hesitate about recommendding Helicopter
Quartet for them. We have only a few have been masterpieces without any
doubt.
I wish you would mention a number of compositions, beside your own
works.
Samuel Vriezen
> Thank you so much Samuel. I have been learning. So your comments are
> very instructive for me.
>
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>>Hi Jacker, Charles Bernstein in fact is a poet, but recently he has collaborated
>>with Brian Ferneyhough on an opera called Shadowtime (about the death of Walter
>>Benjamin), which has been released on CD a few months ago.
>>
>
>
> I got the CD and it got to me so much. So I should have known Charles
> Bernstein as a poet.
> I believe the opera is so important that it should be performed more.
>
>
>>As to John Adams: remember how Bach used to be CPE until it started referring to
>>JS. I've already started calling John Adams "John Other Adams" to distinguish
>>him from the - AFAIC - more interesting composer John Luther Adams.
>>
>
>
> You convinced me that John Luther is and will be a more important
> figure than John Coolidge.
> However, many people who voted at my site look satisfied with JC Adams
> whose Nixon in China has been popular unusually for modern
> composisions. Probably JL Adams' time has not yet come.
Writing popular operas helps of course. John Other Adams of course is a very
skilled composer, that is, I think most of his pieces "work" (and I think some
are failures, such as the "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" which always suggests
an over-age jogger rather than a fast machine at all to me). But I don't think
there's much in his work that will keep interest when he's no longer there, and
there will be other composers who do the same sort of thing on a high level.
> Perhaps you want to say nothing about composers around IRCAM, don't
> you?
There are some good ones, but often all that technology bores me.
> That's that.
> Many classical music lovers who love Turandotto, Madame Butterfly or
> Rosenkavalier have no hesitation in stating that there is not
> significant works but symphonies of Mahler and Sibelius, and opera of
> Strauss or Puccini.
> I don't think so, but I also hesitate about recommendding Helicopter
> Quartet for them. We have only a few have been masterpieces without any
> doubt.
> I wish you would mention a number of compositions, beside your own
> works.
I don't really like to name "masterpieces". I've never enjoyed a piece of music
because it was a "masterpiece". There always ways a better reason to enjoy a
piece of music.
But when asked to compile a list of 10 "great musical moments", I selected bits
from WA Mozart, John Cage, Alvin Lucier, Conlon Nancarrow, Iannis Xenakis,
Richard Ayres, Tom Johnson, Maurice Ravel, and two others that escape me
temporarily.
Last wonderful discoveries: discs by Burkhard Schlothauer and Manfred Werder on
Wandelweiser.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> He spent the May Days of 1968 locked in his Paris hotel room whimpering
>> out the pompous cliches of "Aus den Sieben Tagen".
> For your information : Stockhausen was at home, in Kuerten, when he
> wrote the texts of "Aus den sieben Tagen", not in a Paris hotel room
> (speaking of cliches...).
> Actually, he was in a suicidal state of mind, and if you are entitled
> to think whatever you want about the musical result of these texts,
> your ad hominem comments are very pointlessly despising and insulting.
Maybe somebody can find the exact quote? In whatever I read, he implied
that he was well aware of what was going on in Paris and his shutting
himself away was a conscious response to it. Probably the text wasn't
specific about which town the bed he was hiding under was located in, I
assumed it was Paris because that was where the action was.
Getting into a suicidal state of mind about the greatest collective
manifestation of social hope he could have known of in his lifetime
certainly *does* say something about his politics and it isn't pretty.
Christopher Culver
> Getting into a suicidal state of mind about the greatest collective
> manifestation of social hope he could have known of in his lifetime
> certainly *does* say something about his politics and it isn't
> pretty.
Right, because Marxist-controlled youth uprisings before then had
resulted in so much obvious good for the world that you'd have to be a
fool to be sceptical about Paris 1968.
Ian Pace
"Christopher Culver" <crcu...@christopherculver.com> wrote in message
news:87lknq7...@aura.christopherculver.com...
> Jack Campin - bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Getting into a suicidal state of mind about the greatest collective
>> manifestation of social hope he could have known of in his lifetime
>> certainly *does* say something about his politics and it isn't
>> pretty.
>
> Right, because Marxist-controlled youth uprisings before then had
> resulted in so much obvious good for the world that you'd have to be a
> fool to be sceptical about Paris 1968.
>
I'd also sound a sceptical note. On the equivalent (if less drastic) events
in Italy, Pier Paolo Pasolini had the following to say in June 1968:
'Now all the journalists of the world are licking your arses. . . but not
me, my dears. You have the faces of spoilt brats, and I hate you, like I
hate your fathers . . . When yesterday at Valle Giulia you beat up the
police, I sympathized with the police because they are the sons of the poor'
(quoted in Tony Judt - 'Post War')
Now, I don't go all the way with Pasolini here, in light of what is known of
the brutal practices of the Italian police forces at the time (Finnissy was
studying in Rome at this time and has some interesting memories to recall of
the period), but I see where he's coming from.
Ian
mark steven brooks
> Maybe somebody can find the exact quote? In whatever I read, he implied
> that he was well aware of what was going on in Paris and his shutting
> himself away was a conscious response to it. Probably the text wasn't
> specific about which town the bed he was hiding under was located in, I
> assumed it was Paris because that was where the action was.
>
> Getting into a suicidal state of mind about the greatest collective
> manifestation of social hope he could have known of in his lifetime
> certainly *does* say something about his politics and it isn't pretty.
He was suicidal because his wife Mary phoned him from the states to say
she was through with him and that she and kids would not be returning to
Kurten.
Paul Dirmeikis
Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
> that he was well aware of what was going on in Paris and his shutting
> himself away was a conscious response to it. Probably the text wasn't
> specific about which town the bed he was hiding under was located in, I
> assumed it was Paris because that was where the action was.
>
> Getting into a suicidal state of mind about the greatest collective
> manifestation of social hope he could have known of in his lifetime
> certainly *does* say something about his politics and it isn't pretty.
You should check everything you write before writing it.
First of all, Stockhausen maybe was aware, but wasn't interested at all
in what was happening in Paris - he wasn't the only one. (By the way,
you should also read some of the many books which were written about
"Mai 68" in Paris, and you will see that even the left-thinking
writers/philosophers - and even those who participated in the
demonstrations, do not label any more these events as "the greatest
collective manifestation of social hope" one could have known in our
lifetime. Their analysis is much more subtle and unfortunately less
romantic... But this is getting really off topic).
Then, Stockhausen was "hiding" (from who? may I ask) nowhere. I repeat
: he was at home, in Kuerten, returning after the premiere of
"Kurzwellen". You can find all the information you seem to need in
"Texte zur Musik", vol. 6, p.392-398, or in Michael Kurtz's
"Stockhausen - a Biography", Faber & Faber, p.160-163.
And finally, if he was in a suicidal state of mind, it wasn't
absolutely not about was going on in Paris (what a barmy assumption!) :
it was because of personal affective problems, as each of us can
encounter during his life...
And I still find your tone pointlessly despising and insulting towards
Stockhausen. But I suppose you have your reasons.
Paul Dirmeikis
www.dirmeikis.org
Jack Campin - bogus address
> absolutely not about was going on in Paris (what a barmy assumption!)
It wasn't an assumption, it was what *he* said. Possibly in a preface
to the score of AdST? No mention of any life event being involved in
his state of mind, just the political situation.
> And I still find your tone pointlessly despising and insulting
> towards Stockhausen. But I suppose you have your reasons.
Brainless Jungian occultism complicated by delusions of grandeur
doesn't add up to a social programme I'd want to be part of - it'd
be like Wagner's utopia with Scriabin as emperor. I think Cardew's
perceptions of what Stockhausen was about were dead on. I pretty
much gave up on listening to Stockhausen's later music when the
overwhelming New Age silliness of his ideology got too much for me
to stand. (Better than Jonathan Harvey, I couldn't even start to
feel interested in what he was doing because of the dimwittedness
of the ideas behind it).
mark steven brooks
Cardew's embrace of Confusian and Marxist philosophies was far sillier
than Stockhausen's new ageism.
I think he had self esteem issues with being Stockhausen's assistant.
Jerry Kohl
wrote:
> > And finally, if he was in a suicidal state of mind, it wasn't
> to the score of AdST? No mention of any life event being involved in
> his state of mind, just the political situation.
Fascinating. There is no preface to the score of AdsT, so it must have
been somewhere else. I hope you can remember where you saw this and
post it here, please. I have read everything that I could find about
AdsT, both when I was writing my dissertation, which has a chapter on
it--if you are interested you can read it here:
<http://www20.brinkster.com/improarchive/jk_7t.htm>
--and afterward up to the present time, and have had extended
conversations with the composer about it, as well. I have not yet come
across anything at all connecting those texts with the concurrent
political situation, so your findings would come as a revelation to me.
FWIW, those texts were written between 7 and 11 May 1968, and the Paris
"situation" erupted on the 6th, so it is marginally possible that he
had heard something before starting to write but, as Paul says, his
mind was on other things.
There is another text, written slightly later (16 June 1968), the first
sentence of which does obliquely refer to the political situation.
However, it does not mention the Aus den sieben Tagen texts. It is
titled "Freibrief an die Jugend" (Charter for the Youth) and can be
found here in English translation:
<http://www.stockhausen.org/charter_for_the_youth.pdf>
--
Jerry Kohl
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jerry Kohl
> I think Cardew's perceptions of what Stockhausen was about were dead on.
>
> Cardew's embrace of Confusian
Shouldn't that be spelled "confusion"? ;-)
Jacker172
Jacker172
I updated the ranking on the 14th Oct.
Please check out it. http://www.peerlesspeers.com/music20c.html
Thanks
Jacker172
yesterday.
Jacker172
Jacker172
now updated on 4 November