Follow-up to earlier thread on symphonies of the 20th Century
Scott Kurtz
nontonal symphony of the twentieth century. My nominees: Searle No. 1,
Gerhard No. 3, Henze No. 4, Rochberg No. 2, Hartmann No. 8.
Jerome Kohl
when the "pan-20th century" version pre-empted me!
Scott Kurtz wrote:
One slightly ticklish question here: how do we define "nontonal"?
I presume from the nominations here listed that this does not preclude
"centricity", since at least the Rochberg and the Hartmann fail the
"atonality" litmus test. If "predominantly nontonal" means nothing
more than "in the main not organized around functional tonal harmony",
then we've opened the floodgates to let Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bax
and company back into the equation.
Still, in good faith I have to say I don't know Humphrey Searle's
symphonies well enough to comment, the Gerhard and Hartmann
have been mentioned previously, as has Henze in a more general
way. Rochberg, I think, is new to the list, but do any of these
really hold a candle to Peter Maxwell Davies's mighty series of
(at least) eight? I've not heard the Seventh or Eighth, but of the
others, if I had to choose one, I think it would be the Fourth.
Jerry
Pan
<kur...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'd like to pose another question: what is the greatest predominantly
>nontonal symphony of the twentieth century.
[snip]
IMO, nothing is close in quality to the Webern.
Michael
Scott Kurtz
Maxwell-Davies but haven't warmed up to him as much as I might have or might
still do. I wish he had written a symphony when he was still in his
nightmarish/macabre late 60s mode. One other I could have mentioned is
William Alwyn's Sinfonietta for Strings, which attempts to fuse the sound
world of Alban Berg's Lulu with English pastoralism, though the Alwyn may
come a little too close to tonality to qualify. Bax, Prokofiev,
Shostakovich, Holmboe would certainly not qualify, although Shostakovich's
Symphony No. 2 might come close. Searle's No. 1 combines pointillistic
Webern with the decidedly nonpointillistic Liszt of Orpheus, From the Cradle
to the Grave, and the more ruminative portions of the Faust symphony in an
explosion of intellectual grandeur that is more than a little frightening
(like looking deep into T.S. Eliot's religion-suppressed id...)
Jerome Kohl <jerom...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E1E0D67...@attbi.com...
Scott Kurtz
sort of dried-up aftermath to his wonderful early expressionistic pieces.
One last work to bring to mind, though it is not at all well known is Henry
Barraud's symphony A Season in Hell (once recorded by ORTF/Inedits).
Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:3e1e0ef7...@news.rcn.com...
Pan
<kur...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'll have to listen closely to the Webern. I have dismissed it as being a
>sort of dried-up aftermath to his wonderful early expressionistic pieces.
>One last work to bring to mind, though it is not at all well known is Henry
>Barraud's symphony A Season in Hell (once recorded by ORTF/Inedits).
Could you describe it in any way? Is it post-Expressionist and very
loud and dissonant? Could be interesting.
Michael
Jerome Kohl
> I'm not sufficiently familiar with them to add them to the list. I like
> Maxwell-Davies but haven't warmed up to him as much as I might have or might
> still do. I wish he had written a symphony when he was still in his
> nightmarish/macabre late 60s mode.
That would have been impossible for the time, I think. When Davies
wrote his First Symphony, it seemed to a lot of people (myself
included) like a betrayal of a principle. The "medieval" line wasn't
so very distant from Webern's admiration of Franco-Flemish
polyphony, or Stravinsky's emulation of Machaut in his Mass. But
a "symphony"?!! This was the very emblem of traditional form. To
attempt re-thinking it in light of what had happened between the
1920s and 1960s was sheer madness. Or was it? Could Davies have
succeeded in absorbing what he had learned at Darmstadt in the
mid-1950s and found a way of reconciling this with the inherited
form of the symphony? I didn't think so at the time, but in the
meanwhile he's been whittling away at my skepticism. The Fourth
Symphony at last made it clear how the "sound shapes" or
"processes" recreate the "symphonic" form. I hear this clearly
in the Sixth Symphony, as well, but I'm still struggling to find it
in the First. This is not music that is easy to understand, but music
worth understanding seldom is.
> One other I could have mentioned is
> William Alwyn's Sinfonietta for Strings, which attempts to fuse the sound
> world of Alban Berg's Lulu with English pastoralism, though the Alwyn may
> come a little too close to tonality to qualify.
Mmm. I've thought dor a long time that Alwyn's symphonies were
much underrated. His Fifth Symphony, "Hydriotaphia", is in my
judgment the best. I'll have to revisit his sound-world again, now that
you've reminded me of it.
> Bax, Prokofiev,
> Shostakovich, Holmboe would certainly not qualify, although Shostakovich's
> Symphony No. 2 might come close.
Prokofiev's Second is almost mad enough to gain an honourary
membership in the club of not-really tonal symphonies.
> Searle's No. 1 combines pointillistic
> Webern with the decidedly nonpointillistic Liszt of Orpheus, From the Cradle
> to the Grave, and the more ruminative portions of the Faust symphony in an
> explosion of intellectual grandeur that is more than a little frightening
> (like looking deep into T.S. Eliot's religion-suppressed id...)
I think in retrospect I've never heard the First. Only the Second,
Third and Fifth, which I wanted desperately to like, but never
quite managed. It was something to do with the fact that he had
this reputation for being the only Brit of his generation (apart
from the transplanted Gerhard) who knew how to wield a 12-tone
row, combined with the wicked sense of humour that allowed
his collaboration in the "Bruno-Heinz Jaja" sketch for the Hoffnung
Interplanetary Music Festival (amongst others). Sometimes a
composer's first symphony can be his best, or the best entree
(Bax comes to mind); othertimes not (Max Davies?).
M. Stratford
> row, combined with the wicked sense of humour that allowed
> his collaboration in the "Bruno-Heinz Jaja" sketch
Jerry - don't forget Searle's "Der Barbier von Darmstadt" from the
same time (as well as Punkt-Kontra-Punkte..!)
Francois Desnoyers
Scott Kurtz wrote:
> I'll have to listen closely to the Webern. I have dismissed it as being a
> sort of dried-up aftermath to his wonderful early expressionistic pieces.
> One last work to bring to mind, though it is not at all well known is Henry
> Barraud's symphony A Season in Hell
Was this symphony inspired by Rimbaud's poem by the same name? Is it sung in
part?
Francois
Jeffrey Quick
<%GmT9.35051$p_6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Scott Kurtz" <kur...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
At least 1 of the 4 by Fartein Valen should make the short list. And
yes, the Webern, and Davies.
All that said, I don't think that the symphony is really a nontonal
form. Certainly in its sonata-based versions, it relies on pitch center
return as a formal device. And it's hard to create points of repose in
non-tonal music. I think it's indicative of this that the Webern and the
Valen are short as far as symphonies go. The Davies symphonies are quite
long, and I've never heard one really take flight with an audience
(which is too bad).
The later Brian symphonies have this same compression for much the same
reason; it's hard work to follow the shotgun marriage of Schoenberg's
forms with Strauss' content.
Jerome Kohl
Written under the same pseudonym of Bruno-Heinz Jaja--thanks
for the reminder, I'd forgotten that one, but not "Young Lochinvar",
for speaking voices and humongous percussion ensemble, written
under his real name.
Jerry
Scott Kurtz
Season in Hell is a symphony in several movements written in about 1971 and
inspired by Baudelaire. Boulez would probably consider it too traditional to
conduct. It is most definitely not pointillistic but is full bloodedly
expressionistic, combining elements of Berg and French impressionism, maybe
a little of the more reflective, less birdy side of Messiaen, fairly heavily
orchestrated but not as multistranded as Messiaen's Chronochromie.
Post-expressionistic, somewhat loud, but probably less dissonant than, say,
Varese. More direct and hard-hitting than the sometimes aloof Dutilleux.
Somewhat akin to Messiaen's pupil Jacques Charpentier--now that is a
composer who has utterly vanished from sight in recent years...news:3e1e5548...@news.rcn.com...
Scott Kurtz
I think it was in small part inspired by Baudelaire but in larger part by
Rimbaud. It is entirely orchestral--full orchestra with winds and strings,
not too much percussion, no ondes martenot involved.
Francois Desnoyers <fdesn...@cogniscienceinc.com> wrote in message
news:3E1EE0BB...@cogniscienceinc.com...
Pan
<kur...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Barraud was a French composer who was born in 1900 and died in about 1998. A
>Season in Hell is a symphony in several movements written in about 1971 and
>inspired by Baudelaire. Boulez would probably consider it too traditional to
>conduct. It is most definitely not pointillistic but is full bloodedly
>expressionistic, combining elements of Berg and French impressionism, maybe
>a little of the more reflective, less birdy side of Messiaen, fairly heavily
>orchestrated but not as multistranded as Messiaen's Chronochromie.
>Post-expressionistic, somewhat loud, but probably less dissonant than, say,
>Varese. More direct and hard-hitting than the sometimes aloof Dutilleux.
>Somewhat akin to Messiaen's pupil Jacques Charpentier--now that is a
>composer who has utterly vanished from sight in recent years...
I've never heard of him, only Marc-Antoine and Gustave Charpentier.
I much prefer Messiaen's birdy side to his reflective side. Still,
this sounds like it could be interesting, and thanks for telling me
about it.
Michael
Al Moritz
<<Still, in good faith I have to say I don't know Humphrey Searle's
symphonies well enough to comment, the Gerhard and Hartmann have been
mentioned previously, as has Henze in a more general way. Rochberg, I
think, is new to the list, but do any of these really hold a candle to
Peter Maxwell Davies's mighty series of (at least) eight? I've not
heard the Seventh or Eighth, but of the others, if I had to choose
one, I think it would be the Fourth.>>
and:
<<The Fourth Symphony [by Maxwell-Davies] at last made it clear how
the "sound shapes" or "processes" recreate the "symphonic" form.>>
I am wondering what you mean by that last observation.
Today I was listening again to the Maxwell-Davies Second (1980), which
has been my favorite alongside the Fourth, and to the First (1974).
I have always marvelled at how the music in the Second works. The
musical narrative of at least the first two movements seems to be
unusually open-ended. The music makes transitions from one gestural
block (lasting only a few minutes each) to another without ever
seeming to really turn back, but for whatever reason it all fits very
organically. The overall impression is one of wonderful freedom of
musical flow that, however, somehow does not lose itself.
The music sounds decidedly non-tonal. I am a bit puzzled when the
composer speaks of the symphony being in B minor, and of exploring a
"new" tonality, and specifying which movement is in which tonality.
Does the over-arching harmonic scheme bring about the impression of
organicity and of the music not losing itself, despite of all the
apparent freedom?
In the first symphony, which again I found highly enjoyable and
impressive as well, the gestural argument seems tighter, with the
music of each movement mostly evolving around a basic set of gestures
which is held on to, thus less providing an impression of the music
"running away" as it seems in the Second. In the first movement the
gestural tightness may be most easily evident, where all or most of
the music evolves around not just a basic *set* of gestures, but
around one single archetype ("Ur-Typus") of gesture. That the composer
can shape a highly varied mvmt. of 16+ minutes from that speaks for
his power of imagination.
The music of the first symphony possesses a rather icy, often
hard-egded soundscape, yet this soundscape is less of a static,
crystalline beauty, but rather pushes forward dynamically with highly
organic thrusts. A beautifully natural control of musical flow - in
the literal sense of "flowing" - as well as of its transformations and
transitions generally is one of the great strengths of Maxwell-Davies'
compositions.
I do not see what would make the First a clearly lesser symphony than
the others. At any rate, Maxwell-Davies seems a king of post-1970
symphony - I agree with you.
Al
Jerome Kohl
> Jerry Kohl wrote:
> <<The Fourth Symphony [by Maxwell-Davies] at last made it clear how
> the "sound shapes" or "processes" recreate the "symphonic" form.>>
>
> I am wondering what you mean by that last observation.
Well, I'll try to explain. Davies's musical language (in the symphonies)
eluded me for a long time. It was only while listening to the Fourth
that I suddenly grasped the way that musical gestures (in more
traditional
symphonies one would say "motives") evolve over lomger spans of time.
That is, a certain interval succession, or note group (chord), or
sequence
of note groups (harmonic succession) is reiterated, but with additions,
akterations, expansions or contractions in such a way as to provide a
clearly audible growth, or development of the material. There is both a
harmonic and a motivic aspect to this, but other dimensions, such as
density, dynamic envelope and orchestrational colour participate as
well. Elliott Carter's music is marked by this same character, which
may easily be seen to embrace what Schoenberg called the principle
of "developing variation". It is found, of course, in earlier symphonic
music as well (especially Bruckner, Mahler and Sibelius), but where
traditional tonal (or extended-tonal) procedures are still recognizeable,
this has a subtly different feel to it.
It is difficult enough to achieve this developmental tension within the
relatively simple textures of tension/release structures of "traditional"
(by which I mean 18th/19th century European) harmonies, but it is
especially tricky in an "atonal" framework. Though I do not have
a particularly wide-ranging familiarity with Davies's work as a whole,
I have the impression that this particular aspect begins to take hold
around the time of the Taverner Fantasies (1962 and 1963). Not
coincidentally, I think, the Sinfonia also dates from this time, though
many other works from this time and later do not seem to possess
it, or need it (e.g., the Leopardi Fragments, Eight Songs for a Mad
King). It seems in retrospect the most natural thing in the world that,
having acquired a taste and the skill for this kind of writing, Davies
would want to take on the form of the symphony.
Although the orchestra provides obvious advantages for this kind
of construction (as opposed, for example, to solo guitar, flute duet
or unpitched-percussion ensemble), the availability of massed
sound effects is not sufficient in itself for achieving "symphonic"
form. Many composers have written effective orchestral music
without coming near to this particular quality. A little while ago,
the film suite from Revueltas's La Noche de los Mayas was
mooted as a possible "symphonic" contender. Indeed, when José
Limantour compiled this suite in 1960, he re-ordered the material
(relative to how it occurred in the film) in an attempt to give it a
"symphonic" shape. But while there is no doubting the powerful
cumulative effect of the ostinatos, the gradually piled-up percussion,
and sheer massed orchestral thunder in the final movement (it is
not for nothing that this piece was included on the recent "Earquake"
album!), it falls far short of Limantour's goal--most probably
because Revueltas's talent was of a different order, plus the fact
that his contempt for European-style music and forms (which he
dismissed with the word "salonista") extended to a revolutionary
zeal to overthrow such procedures and replace them with something
that was at the same time "wholly new" and "of the people".
On the other hand, there are some composers who possess this
rare "symphonic" ability but would never dream of resorting to a
form which, after all, has very strong ties to the principles of
tonality.
Stockhausen is one, and I find it very interesting that Davies
attended Stockhausen's Darmstadt seminars in 1956, when the
conception of "statistical" (or "mass") structuring was the latest
thing (we are talking Gesang der Jünglinge, Zeitmaße, and
Klavierstück XI here). Of course, Xenakis had at that time also
just published his first article on "stochastic" composing, which
has a bearing on this issue, but I don't know whether Davies had
any contact with Xenakis at that time.
> Today I was listening again to the Maxwell-Davies Second (1980), which
> has been my favorite alongside the Fourth, and to the First (1974).
>
> I have always marvelled at how the music in the Second works. The
> musical narrative of at least the first two movements seems to be
> unusually open-ended. The music makes transitions from one gestural
> block (lasting only a few minutes each) to another without ever
> seeming to really turn back, but for whatever reason it all fits very
> organically. The overall impression is one of wonderful freedom of
> musical flow that, however, somehow does not lose itself.
Now, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Jerry
Al Moritz
Jerry,
thanks for that highly informative reply!
> Well, I'll try to explain. Davies's musical language (in the symphonies)
> eluded me for a long time. It was only while listening to the Fourth
> that I suddenly grasped the way that musical gestures (in more
> traditional
> symphonies one would say "motives") evolve over lomger spans of time.
> That is, a certain interval succession, or note group (chord), or
> sequence
> of note groups (harmonic succession) is reiterated, but with additions,
> akterations, expansions or contractions in such a way as to provide a
> clearly audible growth, or development of the material. There is both a
> harmonic and a motivic aspect to this, but other dimensions, such as
> density, dynamic envelope and orchestrational colour participate as
> well.
Could you elaborate a little on the harmonic aspect in Davies'
symphonies, also in light of his concept of "tonality" (see my last
post)?
> On the other hand, there are some composers who possess this
> rare "symphonic" ability but would never dream of resorting to a
> form which, after all, has very strong ties to the principles of
> tonality.
> Stockhausen is one,
Yes. Just the other day I was marvelling at the extended "coda" of
Hymnen (the breathing with the inserts overlaid) which in
effectiveness rivals the great codas in Bruckner's slow movements, and
which is even larger in scale. That "coda" feels distinctly symphonic.
In terms of *growth* as a specific form of musical development, there
are several highly impressive large-scale examples in Stockhausen's
music. Take the orchestral Inori (1973/74, lasting 72 min.) as a whole
for example, the long wave running through Evas Erstgeburt from Montag
aus Licht (1988) or the long build-up to the main climax of Sirius
(1975/77) before / at the beginning of the section Aries, see my
review:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/sirius.htm
The one example that stands out most for me, maybe even in all music,
in terms of linear, extremely large-scale, intensification by slow
adding of musical "mass" and "mass action", would be found towards the
end of the electronic Oktophonie (1990/91), beginning at the section
Synthi-Fou, see my review:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/oktophonie.htm
Also in terms of managing the "counterpart" of development, that is
"de-development", Stockhausen is very impressive as a composer. The
"coda" of Hymnen would be one prominent example, and the extended
calming period after that big climax in Sirius (see above) would be
another weighty example.
> > Today I was listening again to the Maxwell-Davies Second (1980), which
> > has been my favorite alongside the Fourth, and to the First (1974).
> >
> > I have always marvelled at how the music in the Second works. The
> > musical narrative of at least the first two movements seems to be
> > unusually open-ended. The music makes transitions from one gestural
> > block (lasting only a few minutes each) to another without ever
> > seeming to really turn back, but for whatever reason it all fits very
> > organically. The overall impression is one of wonderful freedom of
> > musical flow that, however, somehow does not lose itself.
>
> Now, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Aha. Great that I was not too far off. In light of your above
thoughts, the one thing that should be added in my above paragraph
would probably be that "the gestural blocks seem to develop or grow
out of each other". In the first symphony the basic set of gestures
seems to stay the same within one movement (highly evident certainly
in the first one); in that sense there is not that much of the above
specific kind of "development". Is that the difficulty you see in this
work?
In the fourth movement of the second symphony there seems to be a
constant set of gestures as well, but within that set there is clear
symphonic growth, growth in expansion and intensity. I would argue
that while in the first symphony there is not so much "growth" (except
maybe in the slow mvmt.) there certainly is more than sufficiently
interesting development from a constant set of gestures.
Jerome Kohl
> Jerome Kohl <jerom...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3E211F48...@attbi.com>...
[snip]
> Could you elaborate a little on the harmonic aspect in Davies'
> symphonies, also in light of his concept of "tonality" (see my last
> post)?
It will take me a while to find specific illustrations, with the scores
in hand, but I do not mean triadic or overtone-based harmonies, if
that's what you're concerned about. "Tonality" is an interesting
word (like "dissonance"), because it can mean so many different
things, and yet we habitually throw it around as if we were all agreed
on which of those meanings are meant. When Davies says a
symphony (or a movement from one, at least) is "in B minor", he
surely does not mean that it ends on a B-minor triad preceded by
its dominant, and internally emphasizes similar cadential structures
on D major and/or F-sharp minor! On the other hand, Davies by
no means always saturates his textures with chromaticism, and
melodic lines restricted to the (nine) notes of a B-minor scale,
and even providing a sense of centricity on B are therefore not
implausible.
> > > Today I was listening again to the Maxwell-Davies Second (1980), which
> > > has been my favorite alongside the Fourth, and to the First (1974).
> > >
> > > I have always marvelled at how the music in the Second works. The
> > > musical narrative of at least the first two movements seems to be
> > > unusually open-ended. The music makes transitions from one gestural
> > > block (lasting only a few minutes each) to another without ever
> > > seeming to really turn back, but for whatever reason it all fits very
> > > organically. The overall impression is one of wonderful freedom of
> > > musical flow that, however, somehow does not lose itself.
> >
> > Now, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
>
> Aha. Great that I was not too far off. In light of your above
> thoughts, the one thing that should be added in my above paragraph
> would probably be that "the gestural blocks seem to develop or grow
> out of each other".
Yes, exactly. I would suppose (though careful analysis may prove
me wrong) that distinctly contrasted "gestural blocks" (or groups
of such blocks) operate in the way that the thematic material (or
"theme groups") do in Bruckner. By extension, this would offer
the necessary alternative to contrast of tonality for the elaboration
of symphonic structure, as it is (vaguely) understood.
> In the first symphony the basic set of gestures
> seems to stay the same within one movement (highly evident certainly
> in the first one); in that sense there is not that much of the above
> specific kind of "development". Is that the difficulty you see in this
> work?
Perhaps so. My approach has been mainly "unguided listening",
though I have followed along in the score once or twice. I suppose
I was subconsciously searching for something I was failing to
find, and maybe this is it--no "second theme group"?
> In the fourth movement of the second symphony there seems to be a
> constant set of gestures as well, but within that set there is clear
> symphonic growth, growth in expansion and intensity. I would argue
> that while in the first symphony there is not so much "growth" (except
> maybe in the slow mvmt.) there certainly is more than sufficiently
> interesting development from a constant set of gestures.
Thanks for the suggestion, Al. I think I'll go have another listen
to the First, maybe with a comparison to the Second.
Jerry
Jerome Kohl
> Could you elaborate a little on the harmonic aspect in Davies'
> symphonies, also in light of his concept of "tonality" (see my last
> post)?
>
It's taken me a little while to assemble my thoughts, but here's
a start, Al. These observations are primarily based on just
listening, but it was necessary to consult the scores in order
to be precise in description. I do not, however, assume that
you should have the scores handy in order to understand
what I am saying. The recordings, on the other hand, are
essential.
First, for a fairly obvious example of a large-scale process, consider
the second movement of the 6th Symphony, from 5:41-6:13 on
the Collins recording (CD 14822). This is from rehearsal L to N
in the score, where a protracted accelerando/crescendo of (initially
staccatto) chords occurs. This continuous process subdivides into
two phases according to pitch and register. The first two-thirds
expands from a range of less than an octave to six octaves and a
major third at letter M, with chordal complexity increasing (with
fluctuations) from four pitch-classes (with one octave doubling)
to an average of seven (with multiple octave doublings) in the bars
just ahead of letter M. The scoring correspondingly becomes
progressively denser, beginning with alternating by sections
(low woodwinds, trumpets/trbs, horns/tuba, etc.) and gradually
merging sections into tutti scoring, all the while increasing the
number of percussion. While the acceleration/crescendo continues,
the chord densities and registral widths abruptly contract after letter M,
and increase againin a rising motion toward letter N. The speed increases
by a factor of 6 over these 21 bars, dissolving back to the starting
tempo by means of the substitution of triplet-eighths for the counting
unit one bar before N, by which time the chords are succeeding each
other so fast that their pitch content is audibly fusing into a chromatic
totality.
Now, the harmonic aspect of this large process (as distinct from the
chord-to-chord relationships within it) is fairly crude as I have described
it. Let me turn to the Fourth Symphony for a better example of Davies’s
harmonic treatment.
The first bar of this symphony contains a two-part, diverging motive in
the horns, starting in the unison on the G above middle C:
G Ab C Db
G F D D C
Observe that this expanding motive also progresses from consonant
intervals toward progressively sharper dissonances (unison, minor 3d,
minor 7th, major 7th, minor 9th--these intervals predominate through
the first part of the movement). This directional tendency is underlined
by the rhyhms, which are crotchets (quarter notes) for the first two notes,
and quavers (eighths) subsequently (the first horn sustains the Db while
the second horn descends from D to C. (This is not the entire opening
gesture, which adds trumpets and flutes in the continuation, but is
sufficient for my purpose.)
Now, this is not only a brief contrapuntal figure, but also unfolds groups
of pitches melodically that will become intensively reworked (along with
several other such sets) throughout the symphony. The essentially
harmonic content may be seen, for example, at the start of the second
movement, where the timpani solo initially rocks back and forth on C and
Ab, then plays C D F Ab C, C D F D F Ab C, and so on, where C is the
highest and D the lowest pitch. (These four notes are of course the
second and third pairs from the opening horn duet, but ordered differently.)
The beginning of the alto flute solo that opens the third movement is
also clearly derived from this cell: G Ab C D (descending major 7th
at the beginning, then rising), while at the same time echoing the
English horn solo nine bars before the end of the preceding movement
where, however, the harmonic content is quite different (G A C Db).
The aural effect is something akin to changing from minor to major
(or the reverse). The very last chord of the fourth movement is also
derived from this cell, but from the first-horn line alone. In ascending
order the pitches are Ab C G plus octave doublings.
I have deliberately refrained from consulting books and articles that
describe the compositional process of these symphonies, in order
not to prejudice my ear. However, I presume that these associations
stem from some systematic procedures, and knowing more about
them may well improve my enjoyment in listening.
Jerry
Jerome Kohl
Al Moritz wrote:
> Could you elaborate a little on the harmonic aspect in Davies'
> symphonies, also in light of his concept of "tonality" (see my last
> post)?
Oh, yes. About "tonality". Recalling that Davies most often
takes a pre-existent melody as his starting point, and these are
usually plainchant melodies or folk songs, it is plausible to
suppose that at times the original modal or tonal character of
the source tune, even though Davies "treats" this originary
melody, will emerge from the generally chromatic, atonal
texture of his music. On the other hand, there is also no
reason to expect that such textures will govern the whole
course of a work, a movement, or even a section.
A good example occurs at the outset of the second movement
of Davies Sixth Symphony. Over a pedal low E in the double
bass and timpani (later joined by the double bassoon), two
trombones intone an initially diatonic, rising melody,
interpretable as being in the Dorian mode, but lacking the
fifth scale degree, B. Starting in the seventh bar, the second
trombone shifts briefly onto an Ab-Dorian tetrachord, and
then the first trombone repeats the beginning of the melody,
transposed up a minor seventh to D, but this time rising to
thye flatted fifth scale degree, Ab, and the two trombones
then proceed to a classical "clausula vera" in Ab "Lydian",
only with a raised fifth degree, agreeing with the continuing
drone E. This cadential Ab does *not* sound like a major-
third G# over the E, but as a self-sufficient tonal centre in
its own right. The next phrase proceeds in a different way,
but with a similar result, beginning with an E-major gesture,
again lacking the fifth degree, and passing through a
seeming Ab (Mixolydian) centre to come to rest this time
on an F#-A dyad, still over the E in the bass. This propels
the movement off of the E and into a harmonic field of a
decidedly non-tonal nature (initially over C# in the bass,
but with other centricities competing in the upper voices).
In effect, the "tonality" varies from monotonality through
bitonality, tritonality, etc., to duodecatonality--i.e., atonality.
Does that help?
Jerry
Al Moritz
> Al Moritz wrote:
>
> > Could you elaborate a little on the harmonic aspect in Davies'
> > symphonies, also in light of his concept of "tonality" (see my last
> > post)?
> >
>
> It's taken me a little while to assemble my thoughts, but here's
>
> First, for a fairly obvious example of a large-scale process, consider
> the second movement of the 6th Symphony, from 5:41-6:13 on
> the Collins recording (CD 14822). This is from rehearsal L to N
> in the score, where a protracted accelerando/crescendo of (initially
> staccatto) chords occurs. This continuous process subdivides into
> two phases according to pitch and register.
[snip]
>
> Now, the harmonic aspect of this large process (as distinct from the
> chord-to-chord relationships within it) is fairly crude as I have described
> it. Let me turn to the Fourth Symphony for a better example of Davies’s
Thanks, Jerry, for all those examples and your elaborate and useful
comments. I listened to all of this today and it is all very clear and
understandable, and provided me with new insights. I was especially
taken by the comparison of the alto flute solo at the beginning of the
third mvmt. with the beginning of the symphony (double horn motive)
and with the English horn solo nine bars before the end of the second
mvmt.
Regarding the last example, I see a correlation between harmony and
timbre: the English horn motive shows a similar melodic contour as the
alto flute solo, yet in somewhat compressed form. This corresponds to
the more "compressed", i.e. nasal, timbre of the English horn as
compared to the alto flute.
Al Moritz
>
> A good example occurs at the outset of the second movement
> of Davies Sixth Symphony. Over a pedal low E in the double
> bass and timpani (later joined by the double bassoon), two
> trombones intone an initially diatonic, rising melody,
> interpretable as being in the Dorian mode, but lacking the
> fifth scale degree, B. Starting in the seventh bar, the second
> trombone shifts briefly onto an Ab-Dorian tetrachord, and
> then the first trombone repeats the beginning of the melody,
> transposed up a minor seventh to D, but this time rising to
> thye flatted fifth scale degree, Ab, and the two trombones
> then proceed to a classical "clausula vera" in Ab "Lydian",
> only with a raised fifth degree, agreeing with the continuing
> drone E. This cadential Ab does *not* sound like a major-
> third G# over the E, but as a self-sufficient tonal centre in
> its own right. The next phrase proceeds in a different way,
> but with a similar result, beginning with an E-major gesture,
> again lacking the fifth degree, and passing through a
> seeming Ab (Mixolydian) centre to come to rest this time
> on an F#-A dyad, still over the E in the bass. This propels
> the movement off of the E and into a harmonic field of a
> decidedly non-tonal nature (initially over C# in the bass,
> but with other centricities competing in the upper voices).
>
> In effect, the "tonality" varies from monotonality through
> bitonality, tritonality, etc., to duodecatonality--i.e., atonality.
That is riveting. What an organic development of the harmonic
framework!
All in all, with the other examples above, I have gotten a lot of
appetite to listen to more Maxwell-Davies. I have always thought very
highly of him, and now I have even more reason to explore. I also
listened to a few excerpts of his oratorio "Job" today. I used to not
like it very much, and how surprised was I today to be totally drawn
into the music!
Al Moritz
> Oh, yes. About "tonality". Recalling that Davies most often
> takes a pre-existent melody as his starting point, and these are
> usually plainchant melodies or folk songs, it is plausible to
> suppose that at times the original modal or tonal character of
> the source tune, even though Davies "treats" this originary
> melody, will emerge from the generally chromatic, atonal
> texture of his music. On the other hand, there is also no
> reason to expect that such textures will govern the whole
> course of a work, a movement, or even a section.
>
This last sentence seems to contradict what Davies writes, for
example, about his second symphony (see CD booklet):
"The Symphony is in B minor. However, the Dominant I have used
throughout is F, or rather E sharp, to be syntactically correct,
exploiting the implied semitonal conflict with the historic, almost
instinctive dominant of F sharp, which is always in the background of
our musical consciousness. The musical space of the tritone B - E
sharp is slowly explored throughout the work, being filled in by
pivotal steps of a minor third, against the implied cycles of the
fifths around B & F minors. This might sound naively simple - but I am
convinced that to support a complex structure spanning four
substantial movements, an extremely basic unifying hypothesis is
necessary, if the ear is to be able to relate surface detail. However,
I hope that there is here no easy return to old tonality - I feel
there can be no short cuts to a new musical simplicity by these means,
but that tonality might be extended to furnish new methods of
cohesion, if it is understood modally, and not necessarily in relation
to a bass line, and as of potentially multiple musical significance at
any given moment - then it need not reflect a unifying confidence of
outlook characteristic of the greatest period of its former
exploration, which would be inimical to contemporary experience. [...]
The four movements follow the old symphonic plan in outline. In the
first, after an introduction containing the germ-cells of all the
material for the whole symphony, there is a quick sonata movement,
with transformation processes in place of a tone development, and a
systematic exploration of the B - E sharp pivot only throughout,
rather than a statement of a tonal centre, followed by a moving away
from a return to that centre.
The second movement is slow, in F minor, with the C flat (B natural)
functioning tonally as the E sharp did in the first. [...]
The finale starts with passacaglia characteristics, in B minor - a
long, slow meldoy for strings. The pace and material gradually
transform to parallel the first movement, and then evolve further into
a tone finale. Towards the end, for the first time in the whole work,
the D tonality - hitherto only touched as a step between B and E
sharp, - comes into its own, in preparation for the final cadence on
the minor third, B and D."
For this issue, also see the essay on the Maxwell Davies website:
"Peter Maxwell Davies and the Problem of Classicizing Modernism"
http://www.maxopus.com/essays/classmod.htm
The author, Arthur Whittall, talks about the "dialogue between focused
and floating musics".
Jerome Kohl
> Jerome Kohl <jerom...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3E2B8051...@attbi.com>...
>
> > Oh, yes. About "tonality". Recalling that Davies most often
> > takes a pre-existent melody as his starting point, and these are
> > usually plainchant melodies or folk songs, it is plausible to
> > suppose that at times the original modal or tonal character of
> > the source tune, even though Davies "treats" this originary
> > melody, will emerge from the generally chromatic, atonal
> > texture of his music. On the other hand, there is also no
> > reason to expect that such textures will govern the whole
> > course of a work, a movement, or even a section.
> >
> This last sentence seems to contradict what Davies writes, for
> example, about his second symphony (see CD booklet):
>
> "The Symphony is in B minor. However, the Dominant I have used
> throughout is F, or rather E sharp, to be syntactically correct,
> exploiting the implied semitonal conflict with the historic, almost
> instinctive dominant of F sharp, which is always in the background of
> our musical consciousness.
[snip]
> For this issue, also see the essay on the Maxwell Davies website:
>
> "Peter Maxwell Davies and the Problem of Classicizing Modernism"
>
> http://www.maxopus.com/essays/classmod.htm
>
> The author, Arthur Whittall, talks about the "dialogue between focused
> and floating musics".
Two points: (1) Given that this is the way the Second Symphony works,
there is still no reason to suppose that it will necessarily apply to the
other symphonies, concertos, etc. (2) My observations are rather more
local--I have not attempted to "hear my way through" entire symphonies,
or even entire movements. Furthermore, as I said in my preliminary remarks,
I have deliberately avoided consulting the various published accounts of
compositional method, in order not to taint the purely "Höranalytische"
aspect of my descriptions. I'm quite sure that there is a great deal more
to Davies's methods than what I can extract by ear from two symphonies
over one weekend, and on reflection I must admit that my suggestion that
"tonalities" might occasionally emerge from something rather murky is
not a very elegant or convincing description. The most obvious surface
features are likely to be misleading as far as large-scale symphonic
structures are concerned, and I eagerly look forward to your (all of you)
corrections and even rebuttals of my faltering first efforts to explain in
words what I *think* I have heard in these works.
Jerry
Al Moritz
Jerry,
your point (1) is well taken, and I apologize for having been careless
and misleading in my reply. The "tonality" in Maxwell-Davies was so
engrained in my mind and I also knew that the third symphony was in D,
that I did not research what the composer or others said about the
fourth and the sixth symphonies, where you took all the harmonic
examples in your posts from.
The text in the CD booklet of the fourth symphony is by Steven
Pruslin, not the composer, and does not contain any hint to
tonalities. The composer's own comments on his website at:
http://www.maxopus.com/works/symph_4.htm#comp
are not elaborate on this either, but only contain the enigmatic (at
least for me) remark:
"There are four movements to be played without a break: (1) moderately
quick; (2) very quick scherzo; (3) slow; and (4) a slow introducion
followed by an Allegro. The use of tonality/modality is perhaps of
interest. It is, I feel, of great help to define for ear formal
settings-forth and returns, but no matter how 'functional' it sounds,
in the classical sense I have used an outcrop of a more fundamental
process involving the plainsong in long-term transformations: the
relationship between known, recognizable 'object' and 'process' in
late Van Gogh is perhaps a helpful analogy."
The composer's comments in the CD booklet to symphony 6 don't touch
the subject of tonality at all and are identical to his comments at:
http://www.maxopus.com/works/symph_6.htm
The extended note there by Arnold Whittall does not touch the subject
either.
As to your point (2), I subscribe, as you know, to your method of
"Hoeranalyse". This keeps the ear focused on what actually can be
*heard* and thus on what the music is capable of actually transmitting
(notwithstanding that it may transmit more below the surface once the
listener is acquainted with in depth-parameters gained from
theoretical analysis), and it keeps the ear fresh and excited,
something that I hope also transpires in my Stockhausen reviews, to
whatever moderate extent that may be:
http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/stockhausenreviews.htm
As for your examples of local analysis, they were very convincing and
useful, as I said above. I could hardly call them "faltering first
efforts".
In any case, Davies' symphonies are rather underrated by "modern
music" fans, I think, and not all have as high an opinion of them as
the both of us do - I have a few times heard comments about them in
the direction of them being unfocused and confusing. As our discussion
in this thread from message 15 on (sorted by date) should show, there
is definitely a strongly perceivable and deeply satisfying development
in his symphonies. Folks, give those musics another listen! They are
more than worth it.
Jerome Kohl
the composer's remark that "the relationship between known, recognizable
'object' and 'process' in late Van Gogh is perhaps a helpful analogy,"
since the question of "process" was exactly where this discussion set
out from.
Al Moritz wrote:
> In any case, Davies' symphonies are rather underrated by "modern
> music" fans, I think, and not all have as high an opinion of them as
> the both of us do - I have a few times heard comments about them in
> the direction of them being unfocused and confusing.
I have to confess that this remained true for me from the time I
first heard the First Symphony in the late 1970s until about two
years ago. These are not "easy listening" symphonies by any measure.
The first problem is finding those "known, recognizable 'object[s]'".
I hope my comments, especially with regard to the Fourth Symphony,
are helpful in this regard. I could add to this that the falling glissandos
in the tune at the beginning of the Sixth are, for me, a very striking
"object" that helps to focus my attention on the intervals of the melodic
line.
> As our discussion
> in this thread from message 15 on (sorted by date) should show, there
> is definitely a strongly perceivable and deeply satisfying development
> in his symphonies. Folks, give those musics another listen! They are
> more than worth it.
For me the sense of developmental processes predominates over
the awareness of the "objects" themselves, which remain surprisingly
unobtrusive. I have a suspicion that this may be quite intentional,
but is likely an important factor in that confusion that many listeners
(myself included) have felt on first exposure to these symphonies
in particular, and perhaps to Davies's post-1976 music in general.
Jerry
M. Stratford
>> I subscribe, as you know, to your method of
>>"Hoeranalyse". This keeps the ear focused on what actually can be
>>*heard* and thus on what the music is capable of actually
transmitting
>>(notwithstanding that it may transmit more below the surface)
On that subject - Ivor Morgan (from UK stockhausen society) went to
Kurten once with a tape of a "Hoeranalyse" he'd made of Gruppen.
Stockhausen appended his own verbal comments at the end which very
roughly said:
"I often wonder whether people who write about my music can hear
anything at all. Do they hear anything...? They look at paper and
write another paper. I wait for a new kind of musicology which shows
what people percieve - and I find your approach very promising".
The tape spoke about motivic/rhthmic motives which he'd heard - the
expressionistic "violin concerto" and other stuff.
mark stratford
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>AlMoritz --> Jerry Kohl
>
>>> I subscribe, as you know, to your method of
>>>"Hoeranalyse". This keeps the ear focused on what actually can be
>>>*heard* and thus on what the music is capable of actually
>transmitting
>>>(notwithstanding that it may transmit more below the surface)
>
>On that subject - Ivor Morgan (from UK stockhausen society) went to
>Kurten once with a tape of a "Hoeranalyse" he'd made of Gruppen.
>Stockhausen appended his own verbal comments at the end which very
>roughly said:
>
>"I often wonder whether people who write about my music can hear
>anything at all. Do they hear anything...? They look at paper and
>write another paper. I wait for a new kind of musicology which shows
>what people percieve - and I find your approach very promising".
Very interesting indeed, especially given the complaints people have
about not being able to follow serial structure. For me, an insightful
essay was his radio analysis of Klavierstueck I in, I believe,
'Gruppenkomposition', where he didn't go into series at all but
focused on clearly audible aspects. And still some intelligent seeming
people think his composition is merely 'deluded' or 'obsessional'...
Jerome Kohl
> On 27 Jan 2003 02:19:55 -0800, mark.st...@misys.com (M. Stratford)
> wrote:
>
> >AlMoritz --> Jerry Kohl
> >
> >>> I subscribe, as you know, to your method of
> >>>"Hoeranalyse". This keeps the ear focused on what actually can be
> >>>*heard* and thus on what the music is capable of actually
> >transmitting
> >>>(notwithstanding that it may transmit more below the surface)
> >
> >On that subject - Ivor Morgan (from UK stockhausen society) went to
> >Kurten once with a tape of a "Hoeranalyse" he'd made of Gruppen.
> >Stockhausen appended his own verbal comments at the end which very
> >roughly said:
> >
> >"I often wonder whether people who write about my music can hear
> >anything at all. Do they hear anything...? They look at paper and
> >write another paper. I wait for a new kind of musicology which shows
> >what people percieve - and I find your approach very promising".
>
> Very interesting indeed, especially given the complaints people have
> about not being able to follow serial structure. For me, an insightful
> essay was his radio analysis of Klavierstueck I in, I believe,
> 'Gruppenkomposition', where he didn't go into series at all but
> focused on clearly audible aspects.
You recall the title correctly. However, a couple of things need saying.
First of all, he *does* talk about series in that essay--the *durational*
6 x 6 structure, though this is at the same time a "clearly audible"
thing, insofar as these different-length measures each has a distinctive
"shape". Secondly, if you mean he doesn't mention twelve-tone rows,
it might be because there aren't any. The pitch structure is organised
predominantly on a vertical model, with the pitch *sequences* more
or less freely improvised, except that two chromatic hexachords are
strictly alternated. Stockhausen doesn't go into this in his talk,
perhaps
for the very reason you mention--it's not really audible as such, though
the shapes which *are* clearly audible would not be as they are if
that underlying pitch structure were changed. This goes right to the
core of the notion of "following serial structure". Usually people
seem to mean they can't identify the tone-rows as they go clattering
by, but of course that's not particularly relevant to hearing "the
structure", which in Stockhausen's case, at least, is rather more
obvious than that.
There are considerable dangers to the "Höranalyse" approach, the
chief one being that we listeners all bring a host of expectations and
suppositions with us to every piece we listen to. "Just listening" to
what is actually there is one of the most difficult things imaginable.
Recall the famous story about Stockhausen defending Goeyvaerts's
music at Darmstadt in 1951, after Adorno had severely criticised the
second movement of the Sonata for Two Pianos: "The Second
movement of this Sonata was indeed 'point music': just isolated
tones. . . . Adorno couldn't understand it at all. He said, there is no
motivic work. . . . I said, but Professor, you are looking for a
chicken in an abstract painting. That's when I began to have my
doubts about intellectuals and so-called specialists, even among
the avant-garde. . . . A creative person is always most excited
when something happens that he cannot explain, something
mysterious or miraculous. Then he is very nervous."
(From the 1971 lecture "Musical Forming" in Stockhausen
on Music, p. 36.)
Recognizing one's own suppositions is an important first step,
and a philosopher like Adorno ought to be better-equipped than
most people in this department. When Ivor Morgan forthrightly
states that he is looking for motives and stylistic references, at
least we know the nature of the chicken he is expecting to see.
When I first read Genevieve Marcus's 1968 analysis of
Zeitmasse (which proclaims itself to be a "Höranalyse"), I
was severely critical because she, too, was trying to find
motivic/thematic connections in a piece that--to my understanding--
was deliberately avoiding such things. I'm a little more tolerant
of that article now, which really is very insightful, even if I
still find the "motivic" notion (however heavily Marcus qualifies
the term) wrong-headed.
Certainly, on the other side, analyses of scores (and I do mean
just that--not musical compositions, but the scores notating
them) is pointless and, worse, potentially misleading. I can
imagine such an analysis observing, "page 4 of the score is
16% black ink and 84% white space." A scientifically verifiable
fact, perhaps . . . :-)
> And still some intelligent seeming
> people think his composition is merely 'deluded' or 'obsessional'...
I've said it before, but it's worth saying again: None so deaf
as those that *will not* hear!
Jerry
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>Certainly, on the other side, analyses of scores (and I do mean
>just that--not musical compositions, but the scores notating
>them) is pointless and, worse, potentially misleading. I can
>imagine such an analysis observing, "page 4 of the score is
>16% black ink and 84% white space." A scientifically verifiable
>fact, perhaps . . . :-)
You've given me an idea for a piece! ;-)
Al Moritz
Yes, and on top of that elaborate, yet easily understandable analysis,
he said (mischievously or not) at the end:
"Es koennte nun leicht der Eindruck entstehen, als haette ich das
erste Klavierstueck 1952 so komponiert, wie ich es hier beschrieben
habe. Das ist ganz und gar nicht der Fall. Ich habe an nichts von
alledem gedacht und hatte mir damals lediglich einige Masse und
Verhaeltnisse vorbereitet, mit deren Hilfe ich komponierte (ich
schrieb dieses Stueck sehr schnell, in zwei Tagen). Die Begriffe, die
ich hier verwendet habe, fand ich erst viel spaeter - wie ich denn
auch zu der Zeit noch nicht eine einzige Webernanalyse gemacht hatte
und erst wenige Werke Weberns in Darmstadt nur einmal gehoert hatte.
In Weberns Werk entdeckte ich dann spaeter - findend, was ich suchte
-, dass vieles bei ihm schon vorbereitet war." (Texte zur Musik I,
p.74)
(Quick) translation by me:
"Now easily the impression could arise that I had composed the first
piano piece in 1952 the way as I have described it here. This is not
at all the case. I haven't thought of anything of all this, and at the
time had only prepared a few dimensions (measures?) and relations,
with the help of which I composed (I wrote this piece very fast, in
two days). The concepts that I have used here I only found much later
- just as at the time I hadn't made a single analysis of Webern and
had heard just a few works of Webern only once in Darmstadt. In
Webern's output I then later discovered - finding what I searched for
- that a great deal was already prepared by him."
Al Moritz
> There are considerable dangers to the "Höranalyse" approach, the
> chief one being that we listeners all bring a host of expectations and
> suppositions with us to every piece we listen to. "Just listening" to
> what is actually there is one of the most difficult things imaginable.
True. I try to "just listen" but - with an informed mind. The CD
booklets usually contain enough information about what Stockhausen
wanted with the work at hand, and I do try to discover just that as
well - what the composer's concepts were. Thus, I do try to understand
the work from within and not just from what I personally see in it
when I listen (I also read the composer's Texte zur Musik and, where
it seems demanded, other author's observations).
However, after having assimilated the composer's general ideas and
directions, I try to discover for myself what the work is *as MUSIC*.
And, after repeated listening and thorough absorbing *by listening*,
this may result in descriptions that are very different from any
"technical" analyses or philosophical essays written so far - also
those written by the composer. But, given the reaction of Stockhausen
to my essays, my observations mostly do not seem that far off from the
musical essence as to deserve too harsh a punishment by the composer
:-) hehe...
Jerome Kohl
> sqv.remo...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen) wrote in message news:<3e353efa...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> > On 27 Jan 2003 02:19:55 -0800, mark.st...@misys.com (M. Stratford)
> > wrote:
> > Very interesting indeed, especially given the complaints people have
> > about not being able to follow serial structure. For me, an insightful
> > essay was his radio analysis of Klavierstueck I in, I believe,
> > 'Gruppenkomposition', where he didn't go into series at all but
> > focused on clearly audible aspects. And still some intelligent seeming
> > people think his composition is merely 'deluded' or 'obsessional'...
>
> Yes, and on top of that elaborate, yet easily understandable analysis,
> he said (mischievously or not) at the end:
(slightly more polished translation, from the forthcoming English
edition of the TEXTE (barring any last-minute changes):
The impression could easily arise that I composed the first
KLAVIERSTÜCK in 1952 in the way I have described it here.
That is not at all the case. I thought of none of all this and at the
time had merely prepared some measurements and relationships,
with the help of which I composed (I wrote this piece very rapidly,
in two days). The concepts that I have made use of here I found
only much later—just as I also had not at that time made even
one single Webern analysis, and had only heard a few of Webern's
works once in Darmstadt. In Webern's work I then later discovered—
finding what I sought—that much had already been prepared by him.
FWIW, I think this is probably not too mischievous. The essentially
"improvisatory" manner of presenting the pitches (within the framework
of the alternating hexachords) seems to concord with this description,
and the "measurements and relationships" could well mean the six
duration sets (in systematic rotations, a la Boulez), but might also
apply to the vertical (pitch-in-pitch) arrangement--which nevertheless
has some entirely characteristic "defects".
Jerry
Philippa Ballard
>>given the reaction of Stockhausen to my essays my observations
mostly do not >> seem that far off from the musical essence as to
deserve too harsh a punishment
Al – I've read some of your essays sanctioned by KS. They're very good
– but my god are you REALLY going to cover all those "cute" litte
pieces (Xi, mission u Himmelfahrt, Flautina, ypsilon, thinki,
chin-dance,upperlip-dance, freia, susanis echo, Sukat, Dragon Fight )
....?? Maybe you can cheat a bit and miss some out...?
Of course KhS looks like he's going to live for ever. You'll have to
give up your day-job just to try & keep up with his output.
One problem is you've already written about most of the *great* music
(you've done reviews of Kontakte, Gruppen , Carre, MOmente, Inori).
When you're sitting there in 2009 typing away about the latest pieces
[Katty-Su-inka and Suzee-Pasveer-Tanz] you'll think you've peaked too
soon...! Make sure you save Kontrapunkte and Zeitmasse for a rainy
day..!
philippa ballard
Al Moritz
>
> However, after having assimilated the composer's general ideas and
> directions, I try to discover for myself what the work is *as MUSIC*.
> And, after repeated listening and thorough absorbing *by listening*,
[snip]
Informing myself about the composer's ideas may often come only after
first listening(s). At first I may plunge into completely "naive"
listening one or a few times, and only then, during follow-up
listenings, inform myself from the CD booklet etc, and from there
start to further shape my views on the work at hand. However,
informing myself *is* an essential part of the process, and often I
find quoting from the CD booklet or other sources indispensable for my
essays.
In the end, however, frequent listening does have the last word, long
after any background ideas of the work have been absorbed. And often,
what I find as background information, does not at all stand central
to my own ideas of how the piece works as music, as I try to convey in
my essays.
Al Moritz
And yes, I do try to avoid seeing chickens in abstract paintings :-)
Al
Ian GILLIES
>>thinki..sukat...susani etc
Maybe this can form the basis of the next grand
"Stockhausen Composition Competition"...?
Instead of using MP3 cells perhaps titles can be constructed using the
core material of these four words:
"Flute" "Basset-Horn" "Kathinka" "Suzanne"
In this way titles can be generated to fill several more CDs to keep
Dr Moritz busy scribbling away:
eg
"Flassinka-Sorn" (for alto-flute, synthesizer, trombone and
percussion)
"Banne-Kute" (for bass,mime, synthesiser and basset-horn)
"Ink-Set" (Brown-nose dance for amateur author , Moritz dancers and a
once-great composer - with tape interludes of great pieces from 40
years ago).
etc
Philippa Ballard
Don't forget that KS banished Maconie's wonderful stand-alone essays
from the website as he wanted "no opinions". You can see a copy of
this hand-written fax (now on Maconie's pages) and yes, KS actually he
said that his Web site was no place for "opinions".
When he loses valuable friends in this way he has to surround himself
with "Yes-men". All the Moritz articles really do is quote *massively*
from the CDs and publications - do a vague bit of a record-review
("the recording balance is transparent") and flatter the man
outrageously...."This vocal writing is the most beautiful I have ever
encountered"
It's sad that a man who once had incredible mental vigour is reduced
to allowing this sycophancy..!
PB
Ian GILLIES
reduced
>> to allowing this sycophancy..!
Remember though that the Moritz stuff isn't half as bad as the gaga
writings by Chief Court-Sycophant Ingvar Loco Nordin.
You're quite right. Maconie was (and is) a great learned writer with a
stunning
ear , wit and style. He's widely read in philosophy & semiotics and
was
actually with KhS when all those masterpieces were written.
That was a sad day 3 or 4 years ago when he was "airbrushed" out of
the circle and that we're reduced to these juvenile "CD reviews".
Ian Gillies
Walter Ekelin
"Ian GILLIES" <gilli...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:594f66a3.03012...@posting.google.com...
>
> Remember though that the Moritz stuff isn't half as bad as the gaga
> writings by Chief Court-Sycophant Ingvar Loco Nordin.
>
It's an old debate also here at rmcc but for some music has a meaning wider
than that of its technicalities.
Perhaps it's a question also of different perspectives; the listener's, the
musician's, the composer's etcetera and whether one's tied up in a fixed
perspective (for instance professional) when listening to music.
greetings
Walter Ekelin
Kalmar, Sweden
walter...@telia.com
http://w1.480.telia.com/~u48018896/index.html personal homepage
http://w1.480.telia.com/~u48022134/index.html The Hilding Rosenberg Pages
Al Moritz
>
> When he loses valuable friends in this way he has to surround himself
> with "Yes-men". All the Moritz articles really do is quote *massively*
> from the CDs and publications - do a vague bit of a record-review
> ("the recording balance is transparent") and flatter the man
> outrageously...."This vocal writing is the most beautiful I have ever
> encountered"
>
<<When he loses valuable friends in this way he has to surround
himself with "Yes-men".>>
Ouch, haha, I could hardly be called a "Yes-man" :-) My Inori review
states:
"In fact, to my knowledge INORI is the biggest instrumental,
orchestral process of unfolding of one single argument ever written
(it lasts 72 min.). Evidently, also other composers have built vast
orchestral structures, some even lasting longer. Here immediately come
to mind some of the incredibly wonderful symphonies of Bruckner and
some of the symphonies of Mahler which impressively are building an
encompassing own world. But as much as Bruckner's and Mahler's music
is imbued with majestic musical breath, their works still are divided
into, albeit of course connected, movements. INORI however unfolds in
one single breath, with each section closely and unseparably building
on the previous one(s). Also, the movements in Bruckner and Mahler
develop several musical arguments, as does the impressive
single-movement 9th symphony by Allan Pettersson (1970) with a length
of 70 min. INORI however, through an extreme variety of proceedings,
develops one single argument: its formula. Certainly, as generally and
deeply the vast musical breath in Bruckner and Mahler is admired and
loved (also by this listener), Stockhausen's INORI is as impressive
and unforgettable in large-scale musical breath as the best examples
of these other great composers."
You should know that Stockhausen does not like Mahler *at all*, and
for what I can deduce from his early texts, he does not think very
highly of Bruckner as well. Furthermore, Stockhausen believes that the
category symphony is obsolete for contemporary music - this would
leave Pettersson out of the picture and would be a definite no-no. I
did mention those three composers in the above paragraph as highly
positive points of comparison - he could have killed me for that! (But
he didn't hehe)
My review of Donnerstag states:
<<In the opera, inspired by the Urantia book, the belief is expressed
that the archangel Michael became man, and in this quality he is the
main protagonist of the opera. This belief of Incarnation is different
from the belief of most Christian churches that the second person of
the Holy Trinity - one God in three persons - became man. But, for any
belief in the Incarnation, the following ideas expressed by Michael in
VISION, the last scene of DONNERSTAG, are very appropriate and
touching: [...]>>
How could I dare to question Stockhausen's Urantia beliefs by
relativizing them against the mainstream beliefs of Christianity? As a
Yes-man, certainly not!
My Momente review states about the big opening moment:
"The soprano, in a grand beginning of the music carried on the
instrumental side by drums and electric organ, annnounces what MOMENTE
is all about:
"Hört die Momente - Musik der Liebe, damit sich in uns allen die Liebe
erneuere - die Liebe, die das ganze Universum zusammenhält."
("Hear the Moments - music of love, so that in all of us love may
renew itself - the love that keeps the whole universe together.")
She invites the choir and the brass players who are waiting outside to
enter the hall and all enter while playing and singing. After that, a
climax is achieved when soprano and choir sing the above text
together. Everything from the beginning of the Moment happens in a
setting that almost might be described as happy hippy musical-like
atmosphere and you start wondering where all this is supposed to go.
Before long however, a dark color enters the music with violent chords
from the trombones - the first appearance of these chords occurs even
before the climax of the soprano and choir with the above statement.
[...]>>
The sentence:
"Everything from the beginning of the Moment happens in a setting that
almost might be described as happy hippy musical-like atmosphere and
you start wondering where all this is supposed to go."
is pretty daring I would say (a friend of mine said: ..."and you sent
THAT to Stockhausen?"). I did find the need to write in such a way,
and Stockhausen apparently had nothing to object.
My review of Sirius states:
"SIRIUS is a kind of science-fiction story in which four messengers
from Sirius land on the earth, teach the humans about the music on
that star and after that take off again into space."
That is the only thing that I myself say about the story of the work
in an 11-page-essay, being completely uninterested in the question of
Stockhausen comes from Sirius or not. What does it friggin' matter to
me? What does matter to me is that he writes outrageously good music.
Period. The rest of that essay on Sirius is about the music.
If I would be a Stockhausen disciple I would philosophically discuss
the artistic implications of Stockhausen's belief that he comes from
Sirius. Evidently I didn't feel the need to, since I am no "disciple",
but simply a music lover who honestly and enthusiastically thinks that
Stockhausen's music is among the best.
I could go on but the few examples above should suffice re: the issue
"Yes-man".
And by the way, apart from his "despised opinion" that he regarded
Stockhausen's statement being from Sirius to be a joke (which is the
one and only reason his texts were removed), in general Maconie's
essays hardly read as being "politically incorrect" (nothing wrong
with that; why would you unnecessarily want to be "politically
incorrect" for its own sake? ).
<<All the Moritz articles really do is quote *massively*
from the CDs and publications - do a vague bit of a record-review
("the recording balance is transparent")...>>
Alright, let's throw in some numbers :-)
Ave: 1 page Stockhausen quotes, 6 pages own listing observations
Momente: maybe 2 pages Stockhausen quotes, 9 pages own listing
observations
Sirius: barely 2 pages Stockhausen quotes, 9 pages own listing
observations
I could go on with examples, but you get my point :-)
<< All the Moritz articles really do [...] and flatter the man
outrageously...."This vocal writing is the most beautiful I have ever
encountered">>
Well, if you feel the deep psychological need to mistake genuine
enthusiasm for flattery then this is your problem, not mine :-)
BTW, I would *never* say:
...."This vocal writing is the most beautiful I have ever
encountered"
I could say:
...."This vocal writing is among the most beautiful I have ever
encountered"
Subtle but important difference. There is no such thing as THE
greatest.
In any case, in another post you called my essays "very good". If
given the choice, I'll stick with *that* compliment, hehe. Thanks :-)
Al Moritz
>
> – but my god are you REALLY going to cover all those "cute" litte
> pieces (Xi, mission u Himmelfahrt, Flautina, ypsilon, thinki,
> chin-dance,upperlip-dance, freia, susanis echo, Sukat, Dragon Fight )
> ....?? Maybe you can cheat a bit and miss some out...?
>
> Of course KhS looks like he's going to live for ever. You'll have to
> give up your day-job just to try & keep up with his output.
>
> One problem is you've already written about most of the *great* music
> (you've done reviews of Kontakte, Gruppen , Carre, MOmente, Inori).
> When you're sitting there in 2009 typing away about the latest pieces
> [Katty-Su-inka and Suzee-Pasveer-Tanz] you'll think you've peaked too
> soon...! Make sure you save Kontrapunkte and Zeitmasse for a rainy
> day..!
>
>
> philippa ballard
Oh well, there are Microphonie I, Stimmung, Hymnen, most of Licht
(which is *a lot*) etc. which I have not covered yet, apart from
Kontrapunkte and Zeitmasse. Also, I have done some of the "smaller"
pieces, for example Tierkreis and Ave. Furthermore, most of the other
cute little pieces will go into just a few reviews, for example a
review of CD 28 or a review of CD 32.
By the way, since you recently mentioned Harlekin as not liking it, I
was tempted to give it another spin (I didn't like it in the
beginning, but then was far more positive a year ago). This time I
started to absolutely *love* it. I am so enthusiastic now that I might
write a review shortly :-)
In order to have outrageous fun, I'll probably couple the review of
Harlekin with my review of Mikrophonie I, hehe. Yeah, I'll definitely
do that :-)
Al Moritz
>
> It's an old debate also here at rmcc but for some music has a meaning wider
> than that of its technicalities.
>
> Perhaps it's a question also of different perspectives; the listener's, the
> musician's, the composer's etcetera and whether one's tied up in a fixed
> perspective (for instance professional) when listening to music.
>
>
> greetings
> Walter Ekelin
> Kalmar, Sweden
>
Exactly. I write just from a listener's point of view. Thus, there is
no way I would compete or would want to compete with Maconie. My
writing is simply different.
Al Moritz
"Alright, let's throw in some numbers :-)
Ave: 1 page Stockhausen quotes, 6 pages own listing observations
Momente: maybe 2 pages Stockhausen quotes, 9 pages own listing observations
Sirius: barely 2 pages Stockhausen quotes, 9 pages own listing observations"
it should, of course, read "listening observations".
M. Stratford
> It's an old debate also here at rmcc but for some music has a meaning wider
> than that of its technicalities.
Yes.
I've heard CARRE loads, seen the score and attended a performance
(plus a week of rehearsals) in London - but still got some very
interesting new perspectives from AM's review of the work.
Now that we've all calmed down - has anybody heard anything about
Hoch-Zeiten which had premiere last night...?
Mark Stratford.
Al Moritz
Hmmm, nice to hear. However, my CARRE review is one of the first six
ones, and a few of those, CARRE too, definitely are pretty short and
will be re-written or replaced by completely new, more extended
reviews later on, in a few years (GRUPPEN and MONTAG are on that list
for certain as well). All the other reviews following those first six
will most likely not be revised in content to a great extent.
No, haven't heard about Hochzeiten...If it's just half as good as
Engel-Prozessionen, it will be darn good!