György Ligeti (1923-2006)

[karlhenning]

Well, it may be premature for me to give up on this piece, it is certainly premature to give up on Ligeti, I responded very positively to his first quartet.   But I'll probably list to other music by Ligeti before trying too hard on that second quartet.

You might also give the Prokofiev Second a fresh spin ; )

Seriously, sometimes when a certain piece leaves me a little quizzical, some other piece which is even wilder often serves as an excellent 'palate-cleanser'.

[karlhenning]

For me, music is rhythm, harmony, melody, and structure. These is not about rules in my opinion. This is about my own perceptions of what I consider music.

Fair enough, although . . . I wonder about melody as a cardinal element (even allowing for the fact that what makes a good melody varies, sometime widely, from epoch to epoch).

If the objection to a piece by Ligeti is, that it is devoid of melody . . . where is the melody in Ionisation, for instance? (And I am taking it as read that we all agree that Ionisation is just plain a fine piece of music.)

[Luke]

A word for the second quartet....

I think Scarpia is making a few assumptions when he says that

The point of a string quartet is to have four individual voices which create a more or less homogeneous texture but whose clarity allows a musical conversation to occur.

because I don't think there is a rule book anywhere which says that there is a single 'point' to The String Quartet. However, I can appreciate the point he is making. It seems to me, however, that this is precisely what Ligeti is doing in this piece, and wonderfully successfully too. To my mind it's one of his most rigourous pieces, with exactly the homogeneity of texture that Scarpia mentions but more intensively, virtuosically applied than in, say Ramifications (to mention a more-or-less contemporary Ligeti piece also for strings-only). The conversation occurs for the most part at the micro level, as in so much Ligeti of this period, and it means that the piece is always walking a delicate balance between four instruments acting independently and four instruments acting as one super-instrument; it also means that Ligeti can explore his favourite imagery, e.g. that of the machine breaking down, the 'super-instrument' falling apart into its constituent parts (most clearly in the pizzicato movement, one of Ligeti's clearest and best 'machine' pieces, and one where following the different lines, and the correspondences between them is the whole point. 

Ligeti's words are a little misleading, if taken at face value, too. He's trying to explain the approach to the whole quartet in a few words, by saying that it is concerned with texture, not motive, but this doesn't really tell the story, I think. It's true that this piece is not motivic, if by motive we mean only intervalic and rhythmic motive in the Beethovenian sense. But if musical shapes (gestures) are motives, then the piece is full of them. Some gloriously evocative ones, too... And if texture is a motive, or at least affect us with the shock of recognition as a motive does, which (as we can see from countless Romantic works) it can certainly be, then this work is highly motivic. As for contour - well, Ligeti is refering to melodic contour; but contour itself, register, tessitura, it handled absolutely virtuosically in this piece, in fact this feature of it, typical Ligeti, is perhaps the single unifying feature of the piece, the way the registers are written for, combined and extended is practically scientific in its accuracy.

Finally (sorry, this is a very incoherent post, I am desperate to leave work!):

I don't hear much in the way of texture that I haven't heard in other adventurous string quartets (including Ligeti's first).  Those quartets were using texture to present a musical idea in a weird way.  Now the idea is gone and the weird texture is all that's left. 

it should be noted that a) texturally the first and second quartets share pretty much nothing (there are side-by-side score samples of them somewhere in the scores thread - two more different-on-the-page pieces by one composer it would be hard to imagine); and b) the second quartet was AFAIK one of the very first to treat a string quartet in this hyper-textural way. Just as an addendum to the above quotation, nothing more.

[Scarpia]

it should be noted that a) texturally the first and second quartets share pretty much nothing (there are side-by-side score samples of them somewhere in the scores thread - two more different-on-the-page pieces by one composer it would be hard to imagine)

Clearly falls into the category of music that is better than it sounds.   

and b) the second quartet was AFAIK one of the very first to treat a string quartet in this hyper-textural way.

From my point of view, hopefully the last.   

[Luke]

Clearly falls into the category of music that is better than it sounds.   

One always has to be wary of talking about 'what the music LOOKS like,' or any other similar such matter, because it invites comments such as this, and fair enough, music is of course 'about' the resultant sound, not about the trip made by the composer to get there. Nevertheless, the technical is the one level about which we can talk about music in a fairly objective way; it takes us further than 'I [don't] like the sound of this' and enquires into the nature of the notes themselves, so it oughtn't to be dismissed. And after all, in talking about your lack of approval of Ligeti's relative lack of focus on certain dimensions of music in the second quartet, you are also indulging in objective, analytical philsophising on the technical nature of the piece, its aesthetic, and not just its sound.

I'm not saying, in comparing the quartets like this, that one is better than the other (actually, I just adore the first quartet, I think it's a mini-masterpiece of its sort), nor am I saying that, never mind the way it sounds, the second looks great on paper and that is what counts. I'm just making the observation that, in fact, from a technical point of view, the two pieces share almost nothing; and in fact, even in places where there might be some kind of aural similarity (some of the denser passages of the first, for instance, might sound similarly manic to some passages in the second), there is in fact no technical similarity at all. The first is an intensely process-driven piece, the second is much more intuitive. And that kind of observation, which I suppose many people might want to dismiss as 'merely' technical, might help someone appreciate either or both works more - it might be that an awareness that the first quartet is built on absolutely rigid pattern-making to a rare degree might help a listener find their way around it even better - if one's ears are opened to the processes the invention of the piece springs off the page even more astonishingly. Similarly it might be that an awareness that the second quartet operates in a much more quantum way, where things flick into life unbidden, where imitations are never exact, where mysterious chain reactions and heterophony are always the order of the day, might be similarly useful. Who knows? But it doesn't hurt to think about the pieces in these ways, and others.

[Scarpia]

Well, my musical education is nowhere near good enough to allow me to study complex scores in isolation, but I have certainly gotten lots of insight by looking at scores of pieces the sound of which I enjoy.   (Having the score in front of me certainly makes it easier to keep track of the voices in a Bach fugue, for example.)  But it seems like you are saying that these scores contain lots of complex stuff that can't be heard.  Isn't that what you were ridiculing Saul for all that time? 

[karlhenning]

I don't believe Luke ever ridiculed Saul, but has consistently shown him exemplary patience.

[Luke]

Well, my musical education is nowhere near good enough to allow me to study complex scores in isolation, but I have certainly gotten lots of insight by looking at scores of pieces the sound of which I enjoy.   (Having the score in front of me certainly makes it easier to keep track of the voices in a Bach fugue, for example.)  But it seems like you are saying that these scores contain lots of complex stuff that can't be heard.  Isn't that what you were ridiculing Saul for all that time?

Briefly, no. If you want a fuller answer, I'll give you one, but I suspect you know the difference, so I won't take the time right now. Suffice it to say, Saul writes stuff which is full of plain and simple error, notationally speaking and technically speaking, before we even come to the actual slimline content of the music; Ligeti wrote music which was always impeccably notated, technically ultra-sophisticated and ultra-demanding, but with material which suited this kind of treatment.

As you rightly say, having  the score in front of you with a Bach fugue helps you to keep track of things. But what goes for Bach goes for Ligeti. I'm sure you aren't saying that because studying a Bach score helps you get to grips with the music better Bach's music is therefore music that is looks better than it sounds, or that it contains stuff that can't be heard  - but both of these are suggestions you have made re Ligeti's 2nd quartet and my talking about its score). (and to be clear, I haven't said that there this piece contains loads of complex stuff that can't be heard - the opposite, in fact: in all the recordings I've heard, every note can be heard, if one wants to listen, or one can adapt ones ears to hear the general micropolyphonic contour; it makes for a fun listening experience)

I hope you'll admit then, the possibility that the score of Ligeti's 2nd quartet may well help to elucidate some of what is going on. It's a fascinating read - but then, so many of Ligeti's scores are: his scores are just full of fun, joy, exuberance and deeply Ligetian idiosyncrasies. Reading them, one subliminally gets a wonderful idea of the character of the music - a character which is obvious once one knows it is there, just as is true of most great composers. Here's the page of the second quartet which I put up as a mystery score, years ago now, I suspect. It's from that 'machine-breaking-down' pizzicato movement - you can see that idea returning on the bottom system, with all four instruments appplying different types of pizzicato to repeated notes in what are effectively four different tempi. Just as with a Bach fugue, it's all audible just listening to the piece, looking at the score doesn't make the piece sound any better per se, of course, but seeing it on paper makes it all that bit more concrete, and it allows one to ruminate over relationships between notes which, when the piece is played, are over in a flash (that is one of the chief joys of studying scores, to me, that ability to freeze time, to replay it, to take an overview...). I chose this page way back then because it shows quite a few of the many things that are going on in this piece. But not all of it, of course:

[Luke]

Just for contrast, here's the page of the first quartet that I posted on that thread too - a typically motive-saturated page, featuring the opening of that wonderful little waltz section, all triadic and rhythmically (relatively) uncomplicated.

[Mirror Image]

Fair enough, although . . . I wonder about melody as a cardinal element (even allowing for the fact that what makes a good melody varies, sometime widely, from epoch to epoch).

If the objection to a piece by Ligeti is, that it is devoid of melody . . . where is the melody in Ionisation, for instance? (And I am taking it as read that we all agree that Ionisation is just plain a fine piece of music.)

Well my opinion about music is more of a generalization of what I listen for, it's not a means to an end. There's a lot of music that seems to be devoid of melody. Sometimes I'm just more into harmony. Sometimes a rhythm fancies my ear rather than a melody. It's just all a matter of the music I'm listening to.

[Scarpia]

Here's the page of the second quartet which I put up as a mystery score, years ago now, I suspect. It's from that 'machine-breaking-down' pizzicato movement

The pizzicato movement was one on part of the quartet that had some appeal to me.  I'm beginning a survey of Ligeti's music and I don't expect to come back to it for some time.  I am still fairly skeptical that I will ever come to terms with it, though.  It seems that Ligeti made a point of ignoring all of the basic aspects of music that I find interesting.

[Sid]

...It seems that Ligeti made a point of ignoring all of the basic aspects of music that I find interesting.

What aspects are they? His music has many aspects, but they are not conventional. Eg. thematic development in the first quartet, rhythmic contrast in the etudes, counterpoint in the Requiem. He was by no means a traditional composer (at least not after he left Hungary), but the fact is, his music has many "basic aspects" which are developments and extensions of what had gone on in music of the previous generation/s...

[Scarpia]

What aspects are they? His music has many aspects, but they are not conventional. Eg. thematic development in the first quartet, rhythmic contrast in the etudes, counterpoint in the Requiem. He was by no means a traditional composer (at least not after he left Hungary), but the fact is, his music has many "basic aspects" which are developments and extensions of what had gone on in music of the previous generation/s...

I was referring specifically to the second quartet where Ligeti, by his own description, focuses on texture to the exclusion of all else, including melody and motivic development.

[Luke]

The pizzicato movement was one on part of the quartet that had some appeal to me.  I'm beginning a survey of Ligeti's music and I don't expect to come back to it for some time.  I am still fairly skeptical that I will ever come to terms with it, though.  It seems that Ligeti made a point of ignoring all of the basic aspects of music that I find interesting.

Fair enough - but I don't think judging him on the basis of this quartet really gives much of a clue as to what the mature Ligeti is about. After all, there are many stylistic shifts in his work, and at least two mature periods - the atonal micropolyphonic style of which the 2nd quartet is an example, and the tonal later style, with its rhythmic hi jinks a la Nancarrow, its clouds of natural harmonics etc. etc. So can I suggest you give some of the later music a try? The late 60s/70s micropolyphony and texture-play of which the second quartet is a fine example may not be up your alley (though perhaps in more colourfully orchestrated dress - e.g. the dazzling chamber concerto - you might find something more in it), but the later music is all melody, really. Try some of the piano etudes (there are some melodic gems in there, especially in the first book); try the piano concerto, or the violin concerto, with its haunting slow movement (chock-full of melody, that one); try the horn trio... Of all the post 1950 masters, Ligeti, I think, was the most natural born composer, a practical notes man rather than an ideas man, a poet rather than a philosopher - of course there's a theoretical basis to his composing, as there is to everyone's, but everything is worn very lightly, everything is audible, he's just bursting with invention, and he has the technical ability and knowledge to pull off the most spectacular instrumental magic. There are textures and sounds in Ligeti you will never hear from anyone else, and always consummately realised; there are games and processes going on which are a treat for the ear to follow. And, to put it bluntly, I can't think of many composers who are as much fun, as full of mischief and wizardry as Ligeti, let alone any of the late 20th century's major figures. He's a blast - and yet, at the same time, there is a really sensitive, profound side to him (as in that violin concerto slow movement, or in the Chopinesque last etude of the first book). Everything is refracted in late Ligeti, things refer to other things refer to other things, there is a wonderful jumble of ideas and influences, Africa, America, Eastern Europe, Nancarrow, the microtonality of natural harmonics, all the weight of previous classical music understood and treated with a light, deft touch; - the horn trio's instrumentation refers to Brahms but its music refers to Beethoven, all refracted through this wonderful crazy mind through which the new makes the old seem older and the old makes the new seem newer - it's like some kind of a summation of what music and musical reference can do - Ligeti is able to play with and within these limits in a much more joyful and lithe way than any other composer I know (sorry, these are thoughts I was having this morning whilst listening to the horn concerto on my drive to work)

[Scarpia]

Fair enough - but I don't think judging him on the basis of this quartet really gives much of a clue as to what the mature Ligeti is about. After all, there are many stylistic shifts in his work, and at least two mature periods - the atonal micropolyphonic style of which the 2nd quartet is an example, and the tonal later style, with its rhythmic hi jinks a la Nancarrow, its clouds of natural harmonics etc. etc. So can I suggest you give some of the later music a try? The late 60s/70s micropolyphony and texture-play of which the second quartet is a fine example may not be up your alley (though perhaps in more colourfully orchestrated dress - e.g. the dazzling chamber concerto - you might find something more in it), but the later music is all melody, really. Try some of the piano etudes (there are some melodic gems in there, especially in the first book); try the piano concerto, or the violin concerto, with its haunting slow movement (chock-full of melody, that one); try the horn trio... Of all the post 1950 masters, Ligeti, I think, was the most natural born composer, a practical notes man rather than an ideas man, a poet rather than a philosopher - of course there's a theoretical basis to his composing, as there is to everyone's, but everything is worn very lightly, everything is audible, he's just bursting with invention, and he has the technical ability and knowledge to pull off the most spectacular instrumental magic. There are textures and sounds in Ligeti you will never hear from anyone else, and always consummately realised; there are games and processes going on which are a treat for the ear to follow. And, to put it bluntly, I can't think of many composers who are as much fun, as full of mischief and wizardry as Ligeti, let alone any of the late 20th century's major figures. He's a blast - and yet, at the same time, there is a really sensitive, profound side to him (as in that violin concerto slow movement, or in the Chopinesque last etude of the first book). Everything is refracted in late Ligeti, things refer to other things refer to other things, there is a wonderful jumble of ideas and influences, Africa, America, Eastern Europe, Nancarrow, the microtonality of natural harmonics, all the weight of previous classical music understood and treated with a light, deft touch; - the horn trio's instrumentation refers to Brahms but its music refers to Beethoven, all refracted through this wonderful crazy mind through which the new makes the old seem older and the old makes the new seem newer - it's like some kind of a summation of what music and musical reference can do - Ligeti is able to play with and within these limits in a much more joyful and lithe way than any other composer I know (sorry, these are thoughts I was having this morning whilst listening to the horn concerto on my drive to work)

I don't have any intention of giving up on Ligeti, the first quartet made a good impression. 

Besides the string quartet disc, I have amassed this collection:




There are a few other pieces on the string quartet disc that I have yet to hear, after that I was thinking of trying the other two discs from the Sony edition, piano music and chamber music.

As far as what I enjoy in music, it is not primarily melody.  Probably complex harmony and imitative counterpoint are the things that fascinate me most.  If I was magically endowed with the ability to compose music I think it would probably come out sounding like a Schoenberg chamber symphony, a late Bartok string quartet, or Beethoven Op. 127.

[Luke]

I don't have any intention of giving up on Ligeti, the first quartet made a good impression. 

Besides the string quartet disc, I have amassed this collection:

Well, everything I recommended is in there, and more besides - you have pretty much all the essential stuff 

There are a few other pieces on the string that I have yet to hear, after that I was thinking of trying the other two discs from the Sony edition, piano music and chamber music.

As far as what I enjoy in music, it is not primarily melody.  Probably complex harmony and imitative counterpoint are the things that fascinate me most.  If I was magically endowed with the ability to compose music I think it would probably come out sounding like a Schoenberg chamber symphony, a late Bartok string quartet, or Beethoven Op. 127.

No, I wasn't imagining that melody was the thing of primary importance to you - I was only mentioning it because it was one of the aspects of music which you said (and quoting Ligeti) was not focussed on in the second quartet. When I read your Schoenberg/Bartok/Beethoven list there - and what wouldn't we all give to compose like that! - it'sd strange, because I think Ligeti comes closer to this magic combination than any other late 20th century composer I can think of. The mercurial invention and lightning speed (of movement and of mind) of the Schoenberg op 9 is matched by Ligeti - I think the piano concerto might be the closest match; as for Bartok, well, clearly the first quartet, which you enjoyed, has many Bartokian moments, but in the later music Ligeti really stands as Bartok's heir, in a true Hungarian sense - those typical Eastern European-Bartokian additive rhythms which are such a feature of the older composer's quartets, for instance, reach a kind of culmination in some of Ligeti's piano etudes; Bartok's way of looking at an old, forgotten form or texture afresh is something Ligeti also excels at in his later music (somehow the Horn Concerto strikes me as rather Bartokian); the earlier, Hungarian, Ligeti, writing in the state sponsored national style (but doing so marvellously well) reminds me of the early Barok (of e.g. the Rhapsody) doing similarly. As for Beethoven - no, Ligeti doesn't call Beethoven to mind for me very often, but he is so aware of the tradition that includes Beethoven, and his music draws on this awareness at all times (unlike that of those contemporary 'great 20th century composers born in the same decade - Xenakis, Boulez, Stockhausen et al). The Horn Trio is a particularly rich work in that respect. 

[Scarpia]

I did listen to the remaining items on the string quartet disc, a few small pieces from Ligeti's early days, and a brief piece for violin and cello from the 80's.  The 80's piece was interesting, and an early string quartet from Ligeti's school days was well crafted, if not very adventurous.

But after some mention of the etudes for piano above I popped in volume 3 of the Sony edition and played the first Etude.  Very interesting piece.  I am looking forward to the piano music.

[Mirror Image]

Lately, I've getting into Ligeti's music much more. I've come to appreciate his approach to music, which, to me, seems like it's much more about texture than anything else. This, of course, doesn't mean that a person can't detect a melody here or there, because if you listen closely enough there are a lot of melodies that fly by mostly little snippets. I can't help but wonder what Ligeti must have thought about Debussy's Jeux? This work had to be influential to him.

[Mirror Image]

I don't know what it is with me, but Ligeti is really hard for me to listen to.

I used to be the same way, but I actually went as far as ridiculing the music and dismissing out-of-hand. That was only two years ago. Now, I'm plowing my way through his music and loving every minute of it. I have found out, in the process of listening, which Ligeti style I like best. I'm particularly impressed with works like Atmospheres, Lontano, Melodien, and Clocks & Clouds where there are these dense textures created by long sustained, almost like overtones from the different orchestral sections. Within these sustained textures, they move into other octaves and so forth, which creates a shift and new ideas can be created from these shifts. For me, this is the kind of music I would probably work my way towards if I were a composer, but this style of Ligeti's is not quite spectral music like Murail, Vivier, or Grisley, because from what I've heard of this music there is little change.

I think one of the main things is you've got to keep an open-mind when you're listening and you have to approach the music with a different set of ears than you do when you listen to say Schubert or Dvorak. This music is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll never know if you like it or not if you don't give it a chance.

[Mirror Image]

Atmosphères live must be something out of this world, i wish i could see that!

Same here. That would be an unbelievable experience, especially seeing a world-class orchestra perform like the Berliners for example:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOlXgCaKhIQ