Unpopular Opinions

[Karl Henning]

Posters should note that I have no problem with ambivalence to Stockhausen's music. But, given the breadth of his oeuvre, "several hours" is hardly enough to justify the constant bashing, which is quite a bit more than ambivalence.

Maybe I am inattentive, but I was not aware of constant bashing of Stockhausen.  In the opposite direction, James's cheerleading seems to have tapered off from a constant flow.  On a secondary plane, there may be chaffing of the cheerleading, which is not the same thing as bashing Stockhausen.

[Mirror Image]

A person doesn't have to spend six months with Stockhausen's music to know it's not for them. A few listens to a couple of works and you get the general aesthetic of his music. This said, I never understood the fascination, but to each his own.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Regarding Stockhausen I will paraphrase one reviewer on Youtube:

If I die and wake up to this music then I know I have gone to the wrong place.

[Ken B]

A person doesn't have to spend six months with Stockhausen's music to know it's not for them. A few listens to a couple of works and you get the general aesthetic of his music. This said, I never understood the fascination, but to each his own.

That's at least the third comment I've see from YOU dissing Stockhausen. That's 3 maybe 4 out of only 38,583 comments. Will you never relent?

[Mirror Image]

That's at least the third comment I've see from YOU dissing Stockhausen. That's 3 maybe 4 out of only 38,583 comments. Will you never relent?

Said a guy who goes out of his way to diss Debussy's La Mer every chance he gets.

[Parsifal]

I have never, to my knowledge, heard a note of music by Stockhausen. It is mainly the praise, rather than criticism, of Stockhausen that has convinced me that there is no need.

[Ken B]

Said a guy who goes out of his way to diss Debussy's La Mer every chance he gets.

You need to work on your irony detector John.

La Mer is at least as good as anything by Stockhausen 

[nathanb]

A lot of people seem to value other people's opinions of music over using their actual ears. An interesting phenomenon, imo.

[Karl Henning]

A lot of people seem to value other people's opinions of music over using their actual ears. An interesting phenomenon, imo.

Example?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[kishnevi]

A lot of people seem to value other people's opinions of music over using their actual ears. An interesting phenomenon, imo.

We all do it in some way.

I am familiar with X's taste in music, and how it differs or does not differ from mine. I can therefore often judge what my probable opinion of a work of music will be based on X's reaction.

[Mirror Image]

You need to work on your irony detector John.

La Mer is at least as good as anything by Stockhausen 

Well, irony is difficult to detect over the web. A smiley or laughing emoticon in your initial post wouldn't have hurt.

[Mirror Image]

A lot of people seem to value other people's opinions of music over using their actual ears. An interesting phenomenon, imo.

No worries about that here. Me, myself, and I are all present whenever we say Stockhausen isn't for us.

[Parsifal]

Example?

I would not put it so strongly, but I find myself surprised by the extent to which people value recommendations of the "best" version of a piece. I find that someone's opinion that a recording is good, bad, better, worse gives me almost no information about whether I will enjoy it. When I see a review of a recording on this site, almost all the information resides in the fact that the recording exists. (And often that is very valuable information.) Sometimes objective statements are useful (tempo fast/slow, repeats taken/not taken). The hallmark of a useful comment is that it is value neutral; I can determine that I would like it even though the person commenting didn't like it, or vice versa.

[Madiel]

Posters should note that I have no problem with ambivalence to Stockhausen's music. But, given the breadth of his oeuvre, "several hours" is hardly enough to justify the constant bashing, which is quite a bit more than ambivalence.

Stop creating straw men. Constant bashing? This is most likely the first time I've mentioned the man all year.

And the notion that it's hardly enough is ludicrous anyway. Exactly how long would you suggest someone keep hitting their hand against a wall before saying "ouch, that's hard"?  How many times does someone need to taste a food before saying that they don't like the taste of it?

If you don't think that several hours (minus sceptical quote marks, thanks very much) is enough, then come up with a damn figure. Tell me what percentage of the total oeuvre is required, estimate the total number of hours of music composed (shouldn't be that hard with all the recordings) and tell me the figure.

And if your chosen percentage is nowhere near the kind of sampling used in surveys and opinion polls, then I'll feel quite comfortable in laughing at you all day.

[nathanb]

Example?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

First post on this page.

[Karl Henning]

Barring the attachment of non-musical information, it is impossible, completely impossible, to write music which will mean the same thing, emotionally, to all listeners.

[Madiel]

Barring the attachment of non-musical information, it is impossible, completely impossible, to write music which will mean the same thing, emotionally, to all listeners.

It would be an interesting challenge to try and write something that generates a universal dislike.

[Florestan]

Barring the attachment of non-musical information, it is impossible, completely impossible, to write music which will mean the same thing, emotionally, to all listeners.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, today it might be. In the past, though, it might have been possible. Gurn has suggested repeatedly in his essays that Haydn was a master of cleverly calculating, and effectively achieving, desired emotional responses from his listeners.

[Karl Henning]

I'm not sure about that. I mean, today it might be. In the past, though, it might have been possible. Gurn has suggested repeatedly in his essays that Haydn was a master of cleverly calculating, and effectively achieving, desired emotional responses from his listeners.

It requires a cultural environment which conditions the reception of the art.

It is not a popular assertion, but one can read Stravinsky's infamous remark as simply true, if we but draw a distinction between [x provokes/invites an emotional response] and [x expresses a certain emotion].  Of course, this is not nearly so cathartic or satisfying as to castigate a great composer for saying something which we can readily protest 

[Florestan]

It requires a cultural environment which conditions the reception of the art.

And which is simply inescapable. Haydn's cultural environment was not only part and parcel of his music --- it was the very substance breeding, nurturing and sustaining it.

The creation, and reception, of every art is culturally conditioned. Your own music is no exception. Had you been born in another time or / and place, it would have certainly sounded differently.

To divorce art from the cultural environment which made it possible, and to brand the latter as something extraneous to that art is an impossible operation for me. 

It is not a popular assertion, but one can read Stravinsky's infamous remark as simply true, if we but draw a distinction between [x provokes/invites an emotional response] and [x expresses a certain emotion].

That's another distinction I can't make --- at least not for the kind of music which is my daily bread and cup of tea. This is not to say that it doesn't hold true for other kinds of music, Stravinsky's own included.

Of course, this is not nearly so cathartic or satisfying as to castigate a great composer for saying something which we can readily protest 

A great composer is not ipso facto exempt from saying unrealistic, provocative or stupid things. Stravinsky just talked and wrote more than others.