Stockhausen on 'sounds', 1972 Videos

hehw Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - wow, what's with stockhausen and dadaism?!?!stockhausen's experimentation in his early works came from his reaction against the twelve-tone system developed by arnold schoenberg. his development as a composer came through his musical influences like messiaen and webern, as well as influences by certain painters.he hasn't been anti-art, as he said in an interview that he even doesn't like the idea of "breaking each other's works, that would be disrespectful". he said he didn't break anything,

hehw Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - [cont.] he just extended what the others had already done...anyway...the point is, stockhausen and dadaism never met in the hallway...music history is quite different as art history [especially in the visual arts]

egapnala65 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Yes, but if you do some actual studying you'll soon mature enough to see how this talk relates to his "Licht" cycle.It is the keystone to his entire output.

Whiskybar23 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - aren't you either?

groinhat Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Surprisingly down to earth, and some of it actually seems quite quaint to 21st century ears.Nowadays anyone can find a WAV of an electric drill or lion on the internet, sample records or CDs, add echo/overdrive/flange to the cello and slap bass that come as standard with music-making software, buy a microphone for a fiver, and manipulate and edit it all until it sounds good.Now even punk seems elitist - to be in a punk band you need a mate that can afford a drum kit.

laurion69 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Many talks, very little music.And that little music is also ugly.

hscottbrown Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Sh*t....they must have had some serious sh*t growing or being made in the 70's !!He has clearly been OD'ing on it for too long

freundtraub Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - nice lag. makes me think about sight and sound and its relevance to the corrections the mind produces concerning light.

tubafatness Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Geez, laurion, you've become quite the troll!And since when has music intended to be pretty? Music is music, regardless of how cute it is.This argument always makes me think of a line from Allen Ginsberg's "After Lalon": "If I had a soul, I sold it for pretty words..."

dhatudharma Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - i am the blue heron.

dorf38 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - It's interesting to see Karlheinz on film. Part of the interest of buying Stockhausen records over the years was always the mystical state of extreme inspiration and exploration invariably on his face in a photo or two, a little like Captain Kirk only the Enterprise was his brain(the other added bonus was always his written explanations).It's interesting to see here he's not always pulling those faces,seems more normal,human,regular,I've found the internet usually has that leveling effect.

bodelaireverlaine Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - amazing , i really love his music

midrest778 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - His music is rather poor. You don't just use a synthesizer and make great music. You have to use theory, trial-and-error, ..., to put a sense into your music. Stockhausen produces great sounds, true, but he does nothing with those great sounds.

iosonounosbirro Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - There is no sense in human life so why music should have any sense?

xawesomexelix Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - theory is not mandatory, it is a standard, but a standard of contemporary western music. this is a completely different standard, not necessarily better or worse, it's preference. just as much as people prefer impressionism while other prefer death metal. it's just a different take on muic. music is anything you deem as so. there is a sense, but the sense will not touch you if you are not into it, but for those that like this kind of music, it does have sense.

duefriday3 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - lol, he's being all "I studied this" and "investigated that" but doesnt say ANYTHING scientific or useable in this whole 10 min clip ("yes, you can use white noise, like the color and transform it into colord noise like the wind by applying 'filters' (aha, how?), but what is important that I studied these books (which books?) which say... bla bla (lol?)").

duefriday3 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - he only makes assumptions about, that a sound of a door slamming (saying "any sound") might have a symphony enclosed, releasing it when stretched into an enormous amount of time, without giving details about where his theorys rely on. sounds to me like hes keeping the "unilluminated" public dumb while praising himself as the new superhuman (along with a very few others of course), him being the music hero of our times.

morelli6 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - mmm actually that kind of vision is not new. reminds me of plato, leibniz, hegel and the pythagoreans. philosophy of any kind tends to be arrogant.

laurion69 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Great Maestro, your abstruse music was so beutiful, that your son has taken to compose and to play a kind of movie-easy-jazz with his trumpet...Ah! Ah! Ah! :-)

dnollmeyer Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Stockausen is typical of an academic pursing REVOLOTIONARY CHANGE BUT ACHIEVING ONLY GRADUAL CHANGE.Objective analysis shows a snail pace in music and in hard science. Copernicus with the heliocentirc universe and so on. The well tempered tuning is only some 300 years old. Persons are not even aware of chords over the seventh. It is still possible to argue such as non-harmonic embellishments versus 9,11,13.Great Lecture!

typondis Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - There is no structure to the cosmos. More than this is not necessary.

typondis Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - No. There are two conditions in composition: structural determinants, however intuitively felt/comprehended, and stylistic capacity.

typondis Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Heheheh, whoops. Strike the 'no'.

kenrben Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - You must assign your own meaning to our enigmatic existence.

wgibbens Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - AA EEE II O UU ÖÖ ÜÜ