Music Lover from Hamburg, looking for inspirations regarding new music. My passion for music rather began with the more adventurous side of Rock (Beatles - yes they are adventurous, Can, VU, Sonic Youth...) and Jazz (Mingus, Ayler, Sun Ra, Electric-period Miles ...), but the older I get the more I get interested in contemporary and "older" classical music. Among my current faves are Stockhausen, Boulez, Feldman, Berg, Stravinsky, Mahler, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach ... . I know these are all very big names, no insider tips among them, but somehow they deserve the praise they get.
Looking forward to some interesting discussions! :)
Welcome to the forum, that's a very nice list (particularly nos. 3-9 8) ) - but I don't see Shostakovich, Messiaen, Sibelius, Ravel, Berlioz, Chopin or Haydn on your list ;)
(and Daniel [aka madaboutmahler]) would be most pleased to meet you)
Thanks for the welcome. The composers in the list are the first that came to my mind. Shostakovich, Messiaen, Ravel are all among my favorites and I like Sibelius and Chopin too. Haydn was never really on my screen, maybe because I wanted to discover Mozart first. But I should definitely give him a try.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 07, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Thanks for the welcome. The composers in the list are the first that came to my mind. Shostakovich, Messiaen, Ravel are all among my favorites and I like Sibelius and Chopin too. Haydn was never really on my screen, maybe because I wanted to discover Mozart first. But I should definitely give him a try.
You should indeed! The symphonies & string quartets are wonderful music, and have influenced every composer who has written string quartets or symphonies ever since (and other composers too, really) - but first and foremost, the music is just really good, and makes for as entertaining listening as anything.
Quote from: North Star on September 07, 2014, 04:41:54 AM
You should indeed! The symphonies & string quartets are wonderful music, and have influenced every composer who has written string quartets or symphonies ever since (and other composers too, really) - but first and foremost, the music is just really good, and makes for as entertaining listening as anything.
Ok - that sounds really promising. Any recommended recordings?
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 07, 2014, 04:58:45 AM
Ok - that sounds really promising. Any recommended recordings?
Provided that you're OK with period instruments:
[asin]B001U0HB60[/asin]
[asin]B00EO7XPPC[/asin]
Quote from: North Star on September 07, 2014, 05:04:38 AM
Provided that you're OK with period instruments:
[asin]B001U0HB60[/asin]
[asin]B00EO7XPPC[/asin]
Thanks - period instruments are super for me. Just ordered the 7 CD symphony set for less than 14€. I've always been a fan of larger instrumentations and what a bargain price.
Welcome to the forum, I hope you'll have a nice time here. :)
I love Mahler, Beethoven, Bach and Stravinsky very much as well; what about Richard Wagner if I may ask?
Welcome and enjoy! We have composer threads for all those guys (and more) if you are looking to discuss any particular composer (or get more recommendations).
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on September 07, 2014, 05:40:24 AM
Welcome to the forum, I hope you'll have a nice time here. :)
I love Mahler, Beethoven, Bach and Stravinsky very much as well; what about Richard Wagner if I may ask?
Thanks! Richard Wagner - of course. There's some kind of mystic around his music, that I like very much - there is something beneath the surface that is great, but you cannot really tell what it is. However I have the impression, that all great Wagner recordings are at least 40 years old or older, which is a pity because recording quality increased much since then. Somehow current orchestras and especially singers do not seem to really get a grip on his anymore. Or is it just my impression?
Welcome. Lots to explore. Don't overlook early music (pre 1600)!
Quote from: Ken B on September 07, 2014, 06:20:59 AM
Welcome. Lots to explore. Don't overlook early music (pre 1600)!
Thanks. There is so much good music out there. Regarding pre 17th century music I lately acquired an very good CD with music from Hildegard von Bingen who lived in the 12th century. In respect of quiet atmosphere it is quite similar to what the likes of Arvo Pärt, Henryk Gorecki ... are doing nowadays.[asin]B000001TYF[/asin]
Quote from: James on September 07, 2014, 06:26:58 AM
Welcome aboard .. nice broad selection you're into. For newer music I recommend this personal list of works well worth hearing ..
Tippett, Piano Concerto (http://www.amazon.com/Tippett-Concerto-orchestra-Fantasia-concertante/dp/B001MTBVL0/ref=cm_lmf_tit_15) (1953-1955)
Ligeti, Melodien (http://www.amazon.com/Ligeti-String-Quartets-Nos-Ramifications/dp/B0000D9R0D/ref=cm_lmf_tit_14) (1971)
Birtwistle, Secret Theatre (http://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Birtwistle-Arcadiae-Mechanicae-Perpetuum/dp/B001HADETG/ref=sr_1_5?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1289683325&sr=1-5) (1984)
Ligeti, Piano Études (http://www.amazon.com/Gy%C3%B6rgy-Ligeti-Etudes-Ricercata-Pierre-Laurent/dp/B0000029P0/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1289683421&sr=1-1) (1985-2001)
Donatoni, Françoise Variationen (http://www.amazon.com/Gorli-Novellette-Variazione-Francoise-Variationen/dp/B000007TDF/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380567269&sr=8-2&keywords=donatoni+francoise) (1983-1996)
Viñao, Son Entero (http://www.vinao.com/STORE%20CDs%20classical.html) (1988)
Gubaidulina, Offertorium (http://www.amazon.com/Gubaidulina-Offertorium-Hommage-T-S-Eliot/dp/B000066I9E) (1981/82/86)
Dutilleux, The Tree of Dreams (http://www.amazon.com/Dutilleux-Complete-Orchestral-Works-Henri/dp/B00004YU78/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1380566370&sr=1-4&keywords=Dutilleux) (1985)
Harvey, Mortuos plango, vivos voco (http://www.amazon.com/Jonathan-Harvey-Tombeau-Messiaen-Melodies/dp/B000025852/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1323522984&sr=1-2) (1980)
Lansky, Ride (http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Lansky-Ride/dp/B000056QDJ/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1323522570&sr=1-1) (2000)
Others worthy of investigation ..
Ferneyhough, String Quartets (http://www.amazon.com/Ferneyhough-Complete-Works-String-Quartet/dp/B00I3LDETW/ref=sr_1_1?%3Cbr%20/%3Eie=UTF8&qid=1410098951&sr=8-1&keywords=ferneyhough+string+quartets)
Ligeti, String Quartets (http://www.amazon.com/Gy%C3%B6rgy-Ligeti-Edition-Quartets-Arditti/dp/B0000029OY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410099124&sr=8-1&keywords=Ligeti+String+Quartets)
Nancarrow, Studies for Player Piano (http://www.amazon.com/Nancarrow-Studies-Player-Piano-1-5/dp/B000031W5A/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-3&keywords=Nancarrow+Wergo)
And a few older classics, highest recommendations ..
Bartók, 6 String Quartets (http://www.amazon.com/Bartok-Julliard-String-Quartet-Bart%C3%B3k/dp/B000P6RB88/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1410099618&sr=1-1&keywords=Bartok+Juilliard)
Webern, Complete Works op.1-31 (http://www.amazon.com/Anton-Webern-Complete-Works-1-Op/dp/B00EC0VW3S/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1410099674&sr=1-2&keywords=Boulez+Webern)
Fauré, L'Oeuvre Pour Piano (http://www.amazon.com/Gabriel-Faure-LOeuvre-Piano-Doyen/dp/B000001Z3C/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1332690139&sr=1-1)
Thanks for the recommendations. Your mentioned works from Ligeti, Gubaidulina, Harvey, Nancarrow, Bartok and Webern I already have in these or other recordings and appreciate all of them very much. From Birtwistle I have only the DG recording of Theseus Game / Earth Dances which never really clicked with me. As for the Ferneyhough string quartets I read a very positive review from Andrew Clemons (Guardian). I Like some of his orchestral works (Terrain, Funerailles) quite a lot. Very curious about the other recordings.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 07, 2014, 06:06:55 AM
Thanks! Richard Wagner - of course. There's some kind of mystic around his music, that I like very much - there is something beneath the surface that is great, but you cannot really tell what it is. However I have the impression, that all great Wagner recordings are at least 40 years old or older, which is a pity because recording quality increased much since then. Somehow current orchestras and especially singers do not seem to really get a grip on his anymore. Or is it just my impression?
I'm very pleased to hear you like Wagner; no, that's not only your impression, I agree the best versions of Wagner's operas are the oldest ones, though it's not necessary to go back so much to find excellent performances (the 1991 Bayreuth Ring, with Barenboim, Jerusalem and Tomlinson, is awesome, for example). I think the main problem is the singers, especially the wagnerian tenors; I don't if it's a matter of technique or a new way of singing, but the latest generation of wagnerian interpreters doesn't seem to stand the comparison with the Londons, the Hotters or the Jerusalems at all.
Welcome! :)
Q
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 07, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Thanks for the welcome. The composers in the list are the first that came to my mind. Shostakovich, Messiaen, Ravel are all among my favorites and I like Sibelius and Chopin too. Haydn was never really on my screen, maybe because I wanted to discover Mozart first. But I should definitely give him a try.
...and I don't see Bartok or Ligeti ;D. But I do see Feldman, so that kind of makes things better... ;)
I find Haydn more interesting than Mozart, but I'm sure there are many people who think the opposite, too. Haydn is full of surprises and humor, but all very well-crafted. For this reason, he seems to go well with Ligeti.
Oh, and welcome. :)
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 07, 2014, 01:26:11 AM
Music Lover from Hamburg, looking for inspirations regarding new music. My passion for music rather began with the more adventurous side of Rock (Beatles - yes they are adventurous, Can, VU, Sonic Youth...) and Jazz (Mingus, Ayler, Sun Ra, Electric-period Miles ...), but the older I get the more I get interested in contemporary and "older" classical music. Among my current faves are Stockhausen, Boulez, Feldman, Berg, Stravinsky, Mahler, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach ... . I know these are all very big names, no insider tips among them, but somehow they deserve the praise they get.
Looking forward to some interesting discussions! :)
You like Stockhausen? Oh dear...well you should get along with the resident Stockhausen wacko, James then. :) Welcome aboard! I can't say I'm fond of Boulez, Feldman, Schubert, Beethoven, or Bach and, of course, I can't stand Stockhausen. ;D Anyway, some of my favorite composers are in my 'Currently Listening To" section under my avatar. What do you think of Shostakovich?
Quote from: EigenUser on September 07, 2014, 01:20:12 PM
...and I don't see Bartok or Ligeti ;D. But I do see Feldman, so that kind of makes things better... ;)
I find Haydn more interesting than Mozart, but I'm sure there are many people who think the opposite, too. Haydn is full of surprises and humor, but all very well-crafted. For this reason, he seems to go well with Ligeti.
Oh, and welcome. :)
My list of favorites was very short and only with composers that directly came to my mind. A more accurate list would include Brahms, Bruckner, Bartok (of course), Carter, Chopin, Debussy, Luc Ferrari, Gershwin, Glass, Grisey, Gubaidulina, Haas, Hindemith, Ives, Janacek, Kurtag, Lachenmann, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Milhaud, Mozart, Nancarrow, Nono, Nyman, Oliveros, Orff, Pärt, Partch, early Penderecki, Prokoviev, Ravel, Reich, Riley, Rihm, Scelsi, Schönberg, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Strauss, Wagner, Webern, Weill, Varese, Verdi, Vivaldi, Xenakis, B.A. Zimmermann
I'm sure Haydn will soon enter the list too. ;)
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 08, 2014, 09:48:48 AM
My list of favorites was very short and only with composers that directly came to my mind. A more accurate list would include Brahms, Bruckner, Bartok (of course), Carter, Chopin, Debussy, Luc Ferrari, Gershwin, Glass, Grisey, Gubaidulina, Haas, Hindemith, Ives, Janacek, Kurtag, Lachenmann, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Milhaud, Mozart, Nancarrow, Nono, Nyman, Oliveros, Orff, Pärt, Partch, early Penderecki, Prokoviev, Ravel, Reich, Riley, Rihm, Scelsi, Schönberg, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Strauss, Wagner, Webern, Weill, Varese, Verdi, Vivaldi, Xenakis, B.A. Zimmermann
I'm sure Haydn will soon enter the list too. ;)
Greetings from NYC. I could be happy listening to any of the composers you list - nice to see Grisey, Lachenmann, Rihm and Scelsi there.
Welcome to GMG and enjoy yourself - lots of fine people running around here, with oceans of knowledge.
--Bruce
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 07, 2014, 02:09:38 PM
You like Stockhausen? Oh dear...well you should get along with the resident Stockhausen wacko, James then. :) Welcome aboard! I can't say I'm fond of Boulez, Feldman, Schubert, Beethoven, or Bach and, of course, I can't stand Stockhausen. ;D Anyway, some of my favorite composers are in my 'Currently Listening To" section under my avatar. What do you think of Shostakovich?
Well there are many people out there, who have difficulties with Stockhausen. Maybe that's because his lyricism (that's probably not the case with you, if you do not like Schubert ;)) is not very obvious, but it is there if you listen careful enough. The things that fascinate me most about Stockhausens music is it's richness of crazy ideas and that it has so many layers to it, which you only get after repeated listenings. You can really hear that the man was very enthusiastic while writing his music. However for me this does maninly hold true for pieces he composed before say 1975. I don't really get most of his opera cycle. Some pieces like Oktophonie are great though.
I saw, that you like Pink Floyd. Have you heard his piece Hymnen? The fourth region is extremely psychedelic.
Looking forward to check out the large Stockhausen tread on this page .
P.S.: Shostakovich is great of course.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 08, 2014, 09:48:48 AM
My list of favorites was very short and only with composers that directly came to my mind. A more accurate list would include Brahms, Bruckner, Bartok (of course), Carter, Chopin, Debussy, Luc Ferrari, Gershwin, Glass, Grisey, Gubaidulina, Haas, Hindemith, Ives, Janacek, Kurtag, Lachenmann, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Milhaud, Mozart, Nancarrow, Nono, Nyman, Oliveros, Orff, Pärt, Partch, early Penderecki, Prokoviev, Ravel, Reich, Riley, Rihm, Scelsi, Schönberg, Schumann, Schnittke, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Strauss, Wagner, Webern, Weill, Varese, Verdi, Vivaldi, Xenakis, B.A. Zimmermann
I'm sure Haydn will soon enter the list too. ;)
We're all just teasing of course, listing 50 favourites doesn't necessarily tell us more about you than listing 5 names does.
An excellent list, though! I don't see
Martinu's name, though. :P
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 08, 2014, 10:11:07 AM
Well there are many people out there, who have difficulties with Stockhausen. Maybe that's because his lyricism (that's probably not the case with you, if you do not like Schubert ;)) is not very obvious, but it is there if you listen careful enough. The things that fascinate me most about Stockhausens music is it's richness of crazy ideas and that it has so many layers to it, which you only get after repeated listenings. You can really hear that the man was very enthusiastic while writing his music. However for me this does maninly hold true for pieces he composed before say 1975. I don't really get most of his opera cycle. Some pieces like Oktophonie are great though.
I saw, that you like Pink Floyd. Have you heard his piece Hymnen? The fourth region is extremely psychedelic.
Looking forward to check out the large Stockhausen tread on this page .
P.S.: Shostakovich is great of course.
Stockhausen is a very interesting figure. About a year ago I hated him, but now I rather like his
Mantra,
Cosmic Pulses, and
Tierkreis (orchestral version). He definitely does have a lyrical side to him, though. This really shines through in
Tierkreis.
Mantra clearly shows his indebtedness to Bartok (and not just in the scoring, though Bartok apparently decided to exclude ring modulators :D). Then there is that crazy electronic work
Cosmic Pulses -- the only purely electronic work I enjoy. None of them are favorites, but I do like them.
Your location indicates Hamburg. Go listen to Ligeti's
Hamburg Concerto! ;D
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 08, 2014, 10:11:07 AM
Well there are many people out there, who have difficulties with Stockhausen. Maybe that's because his lyricism (that's probably not the case with you, if you do not like Schubert ;)) is not very obvious, but it is there if you listen careful enough. The things that fascinate me most about Stockhausens music is it's richness of crazy ideas and that it has so many layers to it, which you only get after repeated listenings. You can really hear that the man was very enthusiastic while writing his music. However for me this does maninly hold true for pieces he composed before say 1975. I don't really get most of his opera cycle. Some pieces like Oktophonie are great though.
I saw, that you like Pink Floyd. Have you heard his piece Hymnen? The fourth region is extremely psychedelic.
Looking forward to check out the large Stockhausen tread on this page .
P.S.: Shostakovich is great of course.
Thanks for your reply, I'll be honest here and say that there's nothing remotely interesting about any of Stockhausen's music to turn me into a fan or even admirer of his works. I prefer the darker, more visceral Germanic angst of composers like Schoenberg, Berg, and Hartmann! :) Stockhausen does absolutely nothing for me. I don't care for his concepts nor would I want to learn about them. Like I said, I'd take Xenakis over Stockhause any day of the week! :)
All of this said, I'm not merely interested in music from a pure sonority aspect, it has to mean something to me emotionally as well as intellectually for me to make a full connection with it.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 08, 2014, 04:19:54 PMAll of this said, I'm not merely interested in music from a pure sonority aspect, it has to mean something to me emotionally as well as intellectually for me to make a full connection with it.
Isn't this true for everyone?
Quote from: Jay F on September 08, 2014, 04:31:18 PM
Isn't this true for everyone?
I would hope so, but then there's James. :P
FWIW I resolved to listen to some more SH. (solidarity with James in a thread battle :blank:). I have listened to Kontakte a couple times. Has some interest is all I'll say at the moment. Still dislike Junglike.
Quote from: James on September 08, 2014, 05:24:29 PM
Give it some time M.I., you're still young .. once you start to actually listen to KS in a serious way, you'll come around and understand what others find ..
Yes, and everyone in the world will learn to like Stockhausen if they just listen again and again for years. ;)
Quote from: James on September 08, 2014, 05:24:29 PM
Give it some time M.I., you're still young .. once you start to actually listen to KS in a serious way, you'll come around and understand what others find ..
The several occasions I listened to
Gruppen didn't count as serious listens? I have a disc with
Gruppen on it (Abbado/Berliners) and disliked it more and more each time I listened to it. The Kurtag works on this recording, on the other hand, were fantastic, especially
Stele. That's my cup of Modernism.
I'll say this: I don't have to listen to anything that my heart and mind isn't into. Stockhausen is just one of those composers that gives zero satisfaction. I think a listener should walk away from music being glad they just listened to a composer's work, but this isn't what I felt when listening to Stockhausen. The music has some interesting sonorities and textures, but it goes nowhere and I don't actually feel anything from the music. Someone like Xenakis I can listen to and at least walk away with some kind of appreciation for what he did. I don't feel the same way about Stockhausen. I can admire his courage for doing what he wanted to do musically, but I can't bring myself to saying that I actually like the kind of music he composes. It's as simple as that really. Another case in point, I didn't like Bruckner the first time I listened to one of his symphonies BUT there was something there in his music that I found curious but also mysterious. When I cracked the Brucknerian code, I went back to the symphony I dismissed out-of-hand and I really connected with it. My whole point here is even though I struggled with Bruckner's music, I actually felt something powerful and emotional in his music, it's just the exterior gruffness of his music was off-putting. Stockhausen exhibits no such qualities for me and while James may come back with one of his one line rebuttals, it won't do any good, because I'll never understand what he hears in this music, so it's not really a question of 'serious' listening, it's a question of making some kind of connection with the music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 08, 2014, 07:26:20 PM
I'll say this: I don't have to listen to anything that my heart and mind isn't into. Stockhausen is just one of those composers that gives zero satisfaction. I think a listener should walk away from music being glad they just listened to a composer's work, but this isn't what I felt when listening to Stockhausen. The music has some interesting sonorities and textures, but it goes nowhere and I don't actually feel anything from the music. Someone like Xenakis I can listen to and at least walk away with some kind of appreciation for what he did. I don't feel the same way about Stockhausen. I can admire his courage for doing what he wanted to do musically, but I can't bring myself to saying that I actually like the kind of music he composes. It's as simple as that really. Another case in point, I didn't like Bruckner the first time I listened to one of his symphonies BUT there was something there in his music that I found curious but also mysterious. When I cracked the Brucknerian code, I went back to the symphony I dismissed out-of-hand and I really connected with it. My whole point here is even though I struggled with Bruckner's music, I actually felt something powerful and emotional in his music, it's just the exterior gruffness of his music was off-putting. Stockhausen exhibits no such qualities for me and while James may come back with one of his one line rebuttals, it won't do any good, because I'll never understand what he hears in this music, so it's not really a question of 'serious' listening, it's a question of making some kind of connection with the music.
I could have written this post. ;D
And likewise, I've listened to Gruppen probably a dozen times (while reading the score) and probably like it even less each time. I like everything about Stockhausen except the actual music. His ideas, approach, and the visual appeal of his scores are very interesting (uncompromising, alien must appeals to me) but I can sit down and listen to what are his most well known works and not enjoy any of it at all. When I listened to Mantra recently after not having heard it for ten years, I can't say I actually enjoyed it. I'm open to listening to more of his stuff, but it's pointless to listen to a piece of music repeatedly when you know there is nothing about it you enjoy and nothing that you know will grown on you. Bruckner, Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich didn't click right away for me, but there was something that made me come back to the music and eventually love it, but I find none of that in Stockhausen.
Quote from: Greg on September 08, 2014, 07:48:37 PM
I could have written this post. ;D
And likewise, I've listened to Gruppen probably a dozen times (while reading the score) and probably like it even less each time. I like everything about Stockhausen except the actual music. His ideas, approach, and the visual appeal of his scores are very interesting (uncompromising, alien must appeals to me) but I can sit down and listen to what are his most well known works and not enjoy any of it at all. When I listened to Mantra recently after not having heard it for ten years, I can't say I actually enjoyed it. I'm open to listening to more of his stuff, but it's pointless to listen to a piece of music repeatedly when you know there is nothing about it you enjoy and nothing that you know will grown on you. Bruckner, Mahler, Prokofiev and Shostakovich didn't click right away for me, but there was something that made me come back to the music and eventually love it, but I find none of that in Stockhausen.
I could have written this post. ;) Anyway, I agree.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 08, 2014, 07:26:20 PM
I'll say this: I don't have to listen to anything that my heart and mind isn't into. Stockhausen is just one of those composers that gives zero satisfaction. I think a listener should walk away from music being glad they just listened to a composer's work, but this isn't what I felt when listening to Stockhausen. The music has some interesting sonorities and textures, but it goes nowhere and I don't actually feel anything from the music. Someone like Xenakis I can listen to and at least walk away with some kind of appreciation for what he did. I don't feel the same way about Stockhausen. I can admire his courage for doing what he wanted to do musically, but I can't bring myself to saying that I actually like the kind of music he composes. It's as simple as that really.
Fair enough. That's kind of how I feel, but I still occasionally give him a listen just because he is such a towering figure.
With Stockhausen it's worth trying lots of different things. I personally think his best work comes from the 60s, during the years after he'd abandoned serialism and was searching for a new method—he experimented with live electronics (Mikrophonie I & Mantra), spectralism (Stimmung & Klavierstuck... IX?), minimal procedures (Tierkreis & Aus die sieben Tagen), and all sorts of other "formulas" before setting out on his later path (Licht & Klang) which I actually find much less interesting. One could think of him as the Wagner of the 21st century. After Wagner no notable figure ever wrote a music-drama, and while a cult did spring up around his work it devoted itself mostly to perpetuating the correct performance practices set down by the composer himself—on the world of opera, his legacy was minimal. Yet all these other things he came up with while creating his music-dramas went on to permeate the concert music tradition via Bruckner and Liszt and so forth and proved enormously influential—just on other genres. For the same reason, Stockhausen is a marginal figure in classical music, but looms large in psychedelic/alternative rock and sonic arts circles, among others.
Quote from: North Star on September 08, 2014, 10:19:42 AM
We're all just teasing of course, listing 50 favourites doesn't necessarily tell us more about you than listing 5 names does.
An excellent list, though! I don't see Martinu's name, though. :P
One of the main reasons to me for joining the forum is (as for most of you I presume) to become aware of worthwhile new music. Up to know I do only know the name Martinu, but nothing of his music. I will keep him in mind for the next listening session at Spotify.
Quote from: EigenUser on September 08, 2014, 01:05:15 PM
Your location indicates Hamburg. Go listen to Ligeti's Hamburg Concerto! ;D
Oh - I listen to both Stockhausen and Ligeti's Hamburg Concerto. Not at the same time of course. ;)
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 09, 2014, 09:25:52 AM
One of the main reasons to me for joining the forum is (as for most of you I presume) to become aware of worthwhile new music. Up to know I do only know the name Martinu, but nothing of his music. I will keep him in mind for the next listening session at Spotify.
I am particularly fond of the
Harpsichord Concertohttp://www.youtube.com/v/XyPKmFfYHOQ
Quote from: James on September 08, 2014, 02:17:32 PM
Regarding Stockhausen, while I agree with a lot of what you say (i.e. the lyricism that's there, plethora of musical ideas, layers, totally into it for the art and loving it), the later music (being opera) is even more consciously lyrical than the earlier stuff .. you can tell he was going for that singable quality much stronger than before. And it is less aperiodic too. Even if you ignore the mythos of LICHT and focus on the music (the core of it anyway) there is a lot of extraordinary stuff there, and it is a modular work - so much of it's fractals can stand on their own divorced from the operas.
Perhaps I should give the operas another try. One thing that tends to put me off from the operas is also the lyrics, which seem a bit awkward to me. Being German I have difficulties to ignore them like I could do it if they were in English or even better in Italian or whatever language.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 09, 2014, 09:25:52 AM
Up to know I do only know the name Martinu, but nothing of his music. I will keep him in mind for the next listening session at Spotify.
Fantastic composer, with a huge output. My favorite (so far) is the Double Concerto for Two String Orchestras, Piano and Timpani (1938), foreshadowing the coming WWII. There are quite a few good recordings; my fave is with Jiří Bělohlávek and the Czech Philharmonic (the original recording includes an equally good reading of the Symphony No. 1).
Just saw Karl's post - haven't heard the piece but others echo his praise.
--Bruce
Both of the Martinů recommendations are beauties. I'd also add the Nonet (no. 2).
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 08, 2014, 07:15:24 PM
The several occasions I listened to Gruppen didn't count as serious listens? I have a disc with Gruppen on it (Abbado/Berliners) and disliked it more and more each time I listened to it. The Kurtag works on this recording, on the other hand, were fantastic, especially Stele. That's my cup of Modernism.
Maybe your dislike for "Gruppen" is due to the weak performance from Abbado and the Berliners. I bought the same disc because of the (I agree) fantastic Kurtag works and also listened 2 or 3 times to this version of Gruppen. I have to say, that the Eötvos recording is much superior and my favorite is still the recording from the Stockhausen-Verlag with Boulez, Maderna, Stockhausen himself conducting the piece in a really vivid, energetic manner.
Thanks for all the Martinu recommendations. I'll definetely give these works a try. :)
Quote from: North Star on September 09, 2014, 09:43:22 AM
Both of the Martinů recommendations are beauties. I'd also add the Nonet (no. 2).
+ 1 I would also add the
Oboe Concerto and
Magic Nights, but there's SO MANY good ones from Martinu (as we both know) that I'm afraid if I continue to type in this message it will only get longer and, thus, resulting in quite a problematic post. :)
Does anyone know this box-set from Brilliant classics? The recordings seem to be identical with the ones from the BIS series of Martinu-Symphonies also with Neeme Järvi/Bamberger Symphoniker.
[asin]B0017HFRFI[/asin]
I'm sure they're the same recordings.
That said, I'm not sure if you want to start exploring Martinů with a set of symphonies (and I'd recommend Neumann or Belohlavek if you did..) - here are a few suggestions
[asin]B00008UVBR[/asin]
[asin]B0007TF11W[/asin]
[asin]B000007NE9[/asin]
[asin]B002DMIIUW[/asin]
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 10, 2014, 09:43:45 AM
Does anyone know this box-set from Brilliant classics? The recordings seem to be identical with the ones from the BIS series of Martinu-Symphonies also with Neeme Järvi/Bamberger Symphoniker.
[asin]B0017HFRFI[/asin]
Yes, licenced from BIS
A bit disappointing too. Chandos is better.
Quote from: James on September 09, 2014, 03:32:55 AM
On composers, musicians, later developments? Not really .. hugely influential. If you're talking about box office .. 20th century classical music, especially post-war music has largely been marginalized, but things are changing .. it will take time.
I would agree, if influence on other classical composers is meant. So many cited SH as an influence. To name a few: Luc Ferrari, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough, Dillon, Lachenmann, Harvey, Carter, even Stravinsky (for Agon, he even organized listening sessions when new Stockhausen records were released) and not to forget his influence on his peers (Nono, Boulez, Berio ..) at Darmstadt, which was vice versa of course. Till the 70s his influence was really enormous. Maybe since then it has diminished a bit in the region of classical music. In the more experimental regions of pop/rock and jazz he is as influencal as ever before with the likes of Sonic Youth, Coil, Aphex Twin, Radiohead, Björk, even Public Enemy (!) ... citing him as an important influence, but that's probably not the right forum for this.
Quote from: North Star on September 10, 2014, 09:57:35 AM
I'm sure they're the same recordings.
That said, I'm not sure if you want to start exploring Martinů with a set of symphonies (and I'd recommend Neumann or Belohlavek if you did..) - here are a few suggestions
[asin]B00008UVBR[/asin]
[asin]B0007TF11W[/asin]
[asin]B000007NE9[/asin]
[asin]B002DMIIUW[/asin]
Ok - then I better leave buying the CD-set. A large set of rather weak performanced symphonies could turn me away from an otherwise good composer. Thanks for the recommendations.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 10, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
I would agree, if influence on other classical composers is meant. So many cited SH as an influence. To name a few: Luc Ferrari, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough, Dillon, Lachenmann, Harvey, Carter, even Stravinsky (for Agon, he even organized listening sessions when new Stockhausen records were released)
I should hardly consider that an influence on
Agon, or even on
Stravinsky in general.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 10, 2014, 10:23:31 AM
I should hardly consider that an influence on Agon, or even on Stravinsky in general.
There was a time when Stravinsky was very much interested in serial music, where he even felt a bit old-fashioned in comparison, and as a result he wrote pieces like Aron. It is reported that he liked Gruppen very much and as I wrote before arranged listening sessions with Stockhausen records. Of course Agon does not sound like Gruppen or Kontrapunkte but for me there is an influence noticeable.
Yes, you're certainly right that Stravinsky became interested in serialism, and made a point of hearing music from the up-and-coming generation. That doesn't translate specifically to any Stockhausen influence on Agon; but if you hear any, I am glad to consider your case! Bring it :)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 10, 2014, 11:10:00 AM
Yes, you're certainly right that Stravinsky became interested in serialism, and made a point of hearing music from the up-and-coming generation. That doesn't translate specifically to any Stockhausen influence on Agon; but if you hear any, I am glad to consider your case! Bring it :)
Well - unfortunately I forgot where I read about Stockhausen's influence on Stravinsky's Agon. At Wikipedia there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Stockhausen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Stockhausen) is written about an probable influence on Threni and Movements. Hence Agon is from the same time an influence on Agon is not unlikely. Also I am quite sure that I remember right in that point.
Quote from: James on September 10, 2014, 11:21:07 AM
Yes, influence doesn't necessarily translate into COPY or IMITATE especially at this level of music making .. Igor admired Carré even more. KS was definitely an influence on IS to a certain extent .. there was a fascinating radio programme hosted by Robin Maconie a few years back which was a little more detailed & specific regarding the musical influences of that time ..
You are at your funniest when you are having a go at being professorial, with your all-caps. Unlike you, I am an actual composer, and I learnt long ago that influence is not necessarily a matter of copying/imitation. As if you could lecture me (or anyone) on the art of composition.
Thanks as ever for the chuckle.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 10, 2014, 11:22:58 AM
Well - unfortunately I forgot where I read about Stockhausen's influence on Stravinsky's Agon. At Wikipedia there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Stockhausen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Stockhausen) is written about an probable influence on Threni and Movements.
Well, a proper source would be nice; you understand how dubious Wikipedia's reliability is. James could have edited the article, for instance, and written anything that comes into his head.
If you scare up a source, I am interested, certainly.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 10, 2014, 11:28:54 AM
Well, a proper source would be nice; you understand how dubious Wikipedia's reliability is. James could have edited the article, for instance, and written anything that comes into his head.
If you scare up a source, I am interested, certainly.
Sorry. I think double checking every comment I post in a forum and being able to give scientifically accepted sources would be a bit too much. That is a standard most dissertations do not achieve and it would also despoil the fun a bit, or?
Oh, I'm all for the fun, and do not mean to place you under any obligation! If at some point you remember the source, great.
Meanwhile, you will grant me my reasonable and musical doubt that there is any Stockhausen influence on Stravinsky. I had a quick look (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,167.msg829564.html#msg829564) in the Walsh bio, but there are other pages listed in the index which I shall peruse.
James, well, James is so besotted, he'd see Stockhausen as influencing Dolly Parton, once you get him wound up.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 10, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
Oh, I'm all for the fun, and do not mean to place you under any obligation! If at some point you remember the source, great.
Meanwhile, you will grant me my reasonable and musical doubt that there is any Stockhausen influence on Stravinsky. I had a quick look (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,167.msg829564.html#msg829564) in the Walsh bio, but there are other pages listed in the index which I shall peruse.
James, well, James is so besotted, he'd see Stockhausen as influencing Dolly Parton, once you get him wound up.
I'm glad to hear you are all for the fun. Please let us know when you find something.
Here it says he influenced Stravinsky.
http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Karlheinz_Stockhausen
Quote from: Mn Dave on September 10, 2014, 11:50:18 AM
Here it says he influenced Stravinsky.
http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Karlheinz_Stockhausen
Thanks, dude. It says no more than has been repeated here: an assertion of influence on certain pieces, but no musical points to make it anything more than an assertion; and the report of
Stravinsky organizing listening parties, which is certainly interest in hearing the music. Which is not the same as influence.
That article has too much of a fanzine feel (which would not stand in the way of Wikipedia regarding it as a "source").
Meanwhile, James, the Stockhausen expert, doesn't give us musical substance, either, instead offering a D.I.Y. home lecture on COPYING and IMITATING. Which has the look of conceding my point.
Stockhausen could or could not have influenced Stravinsky and even if he did so what? There is no trace of Stockhausen in Stravinsky. Stravinsky's music was always well...Stravinsky's music. He sounded like no one but himself and he carried this ingenuity with him until the very end.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 10, 2014, 07:11:12 PM
Stockhausen could or could not have influenced Stravinsky and even if he did so what? There is no trace of Stockhausen in Stravinsky. Stravinsky's music was always well...Stravinsky's music. He sounded like no one but himself and he carried this ingenuity with him until the very end.
Yes, one of the strongest musical personalities.
Quote from: BeatriceI wonder that you will still be talking, Signior
Benedick: nobody marks you.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 10, 2014, 07:11:12 PM
Stockhausen could or could not have influenced Stravinsky and even if he did so what? There is no trace of Stockhausen in Stravinsky. Stravinsky's music was always well...Stravinsky's music. He sounded like no one but himself and he carried this ingenuity with him until the very end.
I agree with Ken B that Stravinsky was one of the strongest musical
personalities and I think "Le Sacre du Printemps" is perhaps the greatest
piece of music composed in the 20th century. "Agon" is another favorite
of mine. But of course he was (like every composer) influenced by others
(the largest one being perhaps the influence of his teacher
Rimsky-Korsakov) and hence has traces of them in his music. How can you
be so sure that there are no traces of Stockhausen in his music? I would
assume for setting up such thesis, you have to know the works of both
composers very well. For Stranvinsky I have no doubt you do, but for
Stockhausen?
Agon is a beauty, no question.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 11, 2014, 09:46:31 AM
I agree with Ken B that Stravinsky was one of the strongest musical
personalities and I think "Le Sacre du Printemps" is perhaps the greatest
piece of music composed in the 20th century. "Agon" is another favorite
of mine. But of course he was (like every composer) influenced by others
(the largest one being perhaps the influence of his teacher
Rimsky-Korsakov) and hence has traces of them in his music. How can you
be so sure that there are no traces of Stockhausen in his music? I would
assume for setting up such thesis, you have to know the works of both
composers very well. For Stranvinsky I have no doubt you do, but for
Stockhausen?
Ah, but to turn the question around to you: how do you know that Stockhausen had an affect on Stravinsky's music that there are traces of his music in Stravinsky's own? I know of the Rimsky-Korsakov influence and that was with good reason since he was his teacher and Stravinsky was quite young when he was taking lessons from him. Anyway, I'm not going to be listening to any of Stockhausen's music for the simple fact that his philosophy about music and the way its presented garners absolutely no interest from me.
Welcome chadfeldheimer! I see you have met James, karlhenning, and Mirror Image.
Sometimes we talk about composers other than Stockhausen too.
:)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 10, 2014, 12:13:41 PM
Thanks, dude. It says no more than has been repeated here: an assertion of influence on certain pieces, but no musical points to make it anything more than an assertion; and the report of Stravinsky organizing listening parties, which is certainly interest in hearing the music. Which is not the same as influence.
That article has too much of a fanzine feel (which would not stand in the way of Wikipedia regarding it as a "source").
Meanwhile, James, the Stockhausen expert, doesn't give us musical substance, either, instead offering a D.I.Y. home lecture on COPYING and IMITATING. Which has the look of conceding my point.
The Wikipedia KHS article has a salutary history of how a comment can be transformed by interlopers into something completely different, in connection to Stravinsky--from (apparently) a criticism of a general trend among modern composers into a pointed attack on Stockhausen, which even made its way into a formal biography of Stravinsky.
Nonetheless, my read of the sources indicates Stockhausen had at best a negative influence on Stravinksy, by showing the latter a road he chose not to take. But he did obviously pay attention, even if he disliked the results.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 11, 2014, 06:29:38 PM
Ah, but to turn the question around to you: how do you know that Stockhausen had an affect on Stravinsky's music that there are traces of his music in Stravinsky's own? I know of the Rimsky-Korsakov influence and that was with good reason since he was his teacher and Stravinsky was quite young when he was taking lessons from him. Anyway, I'm not going to be listening to any of Stockhausen's music for the simple fact that his philosophy about music and the way its presented garners absolutely no interest from me.
I don't think that Stockhausen had an effect on Stravinsky, but there are definitely parts of
Agon that bring to mind
Gruppen. Apparently, Stravinsky liked
Gruppen quite a lot, but I sometimes wonder if he was
trying to like it so he wouldn't be considered out of date (not that he should have had to worry).
By the way,
Mantra is a pretty cool piece. If you like Bartok's
Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion then it's certainly worth a listen.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 10, 2014, 12:13:41 PM
That article has too much of a fanzine feel (which would not stand in the way of Wikipedia regarding it as a "source").
Lots of aspects of Stockhausen have a fanzine feel... :D
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 11, 2014, 08:26:47 PM
Nonetheless, my read of the sources indicates Stockhausen had at best a negative influence on Stravinksy, by showing the latter a road he chose not to take. But he did obviously pay attention, even if he disliked the results.
That is how I read the matter, as well.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 11, 2014, 06:29:38 PM
Ah, but to turn the question around to you: how do you know that Stockhausen had an affect on Stravinsky's music that there are traces of his music in Stravinsky's own?
Well, as I wrote before, I read about it and also believe to hear it
when listening to Agon. It's a lot easier to find a needle in a
haystack if there are some, than to verify there is no needle if there
is none.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 11, 2014, 06:29:38 PM
I know of the Rimsky-Korsakov influence and that was with good reason since he was his teacher and Stravinsky was quite young when he was taking lessons from him.
Right and later on he was also influenced by Bach.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 12, 2014, 06:16:47 AMis none.Right and later on he was also influenced by Bach.
And
Gesualdo.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 12, 2014, 06:16:47 AM
Right and later on he was also influenced by Bach.
And
Webern afterwards.
To continue to contemplate the nuance in this matter, think of his neo-classical period.
Jeu de cartes reflects a singular absorption (and transmutation) of
Rossini, which is a different matter than trying to argue that
Rossini influenced
Igor Fyodorovich. (I did not use
Le baiser de la fée as an example, because — in fact —
Tchaikovsky's music was certainly a genuine influence from an early age.)
Yes - so he was not immune from getting influenced.
BTW - I found two texts that shown, that Stravinsky at least for a certain time window did not think so negatively about Stockhausen and was even influenced by him. Don't know if they comply with the tight demands of some of you though. ;)
From Wall-Street-Journal with citations from David Toop:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122221027907968931
From stockhausen.org but originally from Seconds Magazine:
http://www.stockhausen.org/stockhausen%20_by_david_paul.html
Quote from: Pat B on September 11, 2014, 07:32:37 PM
Welcome chadfeldheimer! I see you have met James, karlhenning, and Mirror Image.
Sometimes we talk about composers other than Stockhausen too.
:)
Thanks! Yes my start was heavy on Stockhausen. Even if it doesn't look like, I'm also interested in other composers discussed hear. Therefore I hope my future post will be more balanced in this regard. For being subject of controversial discussions however it seem difficult to match Stockhausen.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 12, 2014, 06:40:08 AM
Yes - so he was not immune from getting influenced.
BTW - I found two texts that shown, that Stravinsky at least for a certain time window did not think so negatively about Stockhausen and was even influenced by him. Don't know if they comply with the tight demands of some of you though. ;)
From Wall-Street-Journal with citations from David Toop:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122221027907968931 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122221027907968931)
From stockhausen.org but originally from Seconds Magazine:
http://www.stockhausen.org/stockhausen%20_by_david_paul.html (http://www.stockhausen.org/stockhausen%20_by_david_paul.html)
Thanks!
No one claims that
Stravinsky was immune to influences. We call that a straw man ;)
Quote"Stravinsky admired two things about Gruppen," Mr. Toop clarifies: "First was the sound of the orchestra, because it sounds like no piece before it. Secondly, Stravinsky was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures."
Richard Toop is "a Stockhausen expert," which I do not doubt. But here, begging your pardon, he sounds like the fan variety of expert. "Secondly, Stravinsky was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures." That would sound so much better, with a little more sobriety. That
Stravinsky was fascinated with the rhythmic structures, which are complex, I think would be merely stating the fact. Anyone who has studied
Le sacre knows that
Stravinsky was no stranger to complex rhythmic structures. I certainly grant that this is not a musicological article: it's a
Stockhausen-oriented puff piece (and why not? It's not often there's a performance of
Gruppen). So "was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures" is one of those "really, it's all about the Karlheinz" remarks.
But set my quibbles aside,
Chad: in your opinion, does that mean that
Gruppen specifically was an influence?
In the latter article:
QuoteKontra-Punkte, a piece Stockhausen wrote in group form, came to the attention of Igor Stravinsky and influenced that composer's writing.
I do appreciate your pains here,
Chad, but here again is a one-line, name-dropping assertion — and we're just supposed to take the writer's word for it. Maybe it's true, maybe it is not; but with nothing but the assertion sitting there, I shall keep faith with my intellect and continue to doubt 8)
If we can find some sober assessment, with musical or other textual examples, I am happy to read it. No one (again) claims that
igor Fyodorovich was "immune to influence." But no one would take any of these statements of this or that piece "was an influence" as documentation.
Is any piece in which I take an interest "an influence" on my work? Doesn't that trivialize what we mean by influence?
Webern, yes: a seminal influence on the late
Stravinsky.
Stockhausen? I have my doubts.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2014, 07:07:06 AM
But set my quibbles aside, Chad: in your opinion, does that mean that Gruppen specifically was an influence?
I'm not sure. Did I say that?
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2014, 07:07:06 AM
In the latter article:
I do appreciate your pains here, Chad, but here again is a one-line, name-dropping assertion — and we're just supposed to take the writer's word for it. Maybe it's true, maybe it is not; but with nothing but the assertion sitting there, I shall keep faith with my intellect and continue to doubt 8)
That's right only one line, but at least one that states Stockhausen was an influence.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2014, 07:07:06 AM
If we can find some sober assessment, with musical or other textual examples, I am happy to read it. No one (again) claims that igor Fyodorovich was "immune to influence." But no one would take any of these statements of this or that piece "was an influence" as documentation.
Is any piece in which I take an interest "an influence" on my work? Doesn't that trivialize what we mean by influence?
Webern, yes: a seminal influence on the late Stravinsky. Stockhausen? I have my doubts.
I exspected your doubts. What about James' citations?
For me all in all there is quite a number of indices, that Stockhausen had some kind of influence on Stravinsky. At the end it's all a matter of faith.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2014, 07:07:06 AM
That Stravinsky was fascinated with the rhythmic structures, which are complex, I think would be merely stating the fact. Anyone who has studied Le sacre knows that Stravinsky was no stranger to complex rhythmic structures.
That's right, but Gruppen was perhaps the first piece that really excessed in complexity. In this regard it might never have been outmatched but only equaled by the likes of Carter or Ferneyhough. I think that was fascinating for Stravinsky.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2014, 07:07:06 AM
I certainly grant that this is not a musicological article: it's a Stockhausen-oriented puff piece (and why not? It's not often there's a performance of Gruppen). So "was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures" is one of those "really, it's all about the Karlheinz" remarks.
Well, I do not know many text's by Toop, but I can imagine you will find somewhere a more serious text by him with basically the same content.
Quote from: James on September 12, 2014, 07:40:58 AM
Well .. there a different degrees on which it can occur. If you take "an interest" in a work or art, it can influence your own creative thought processes & ideas, it can wedge itself into your brain and stay there. No? And we have to remember Stravinsky was very old at this point, he went through so many phases and was so incredibly creative & inventive, but he had reached an impasse with Neoclassicism .. and was (like most great artists) always looking for ideas or perspective to stimulate his own creativity, keep it vital and fresh, to keep forging ahead and not stagnate or repeat (i.e. once neoclassicism ran it's course, he moved on to his own personal use of twelve tone technique) .. so it is safe to assume that he followed this tendency to his death, and is why he listened-to and took interest in that younger generation of major composers* (and vice versa) and what they were doing, to the point of even complimenting certain works that he heard which tickled his fancy. To me, this influence is not incredibly major (or important even) .. but it was there.
* whom also loved Webern in particular, shared interest of the time.
I completely agree. Maybe also karlhenning can live with your remarks. Nobody said Stockhausen was a hero for Stravinsky as he perhaps is for David Toop.
Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 12, 2014, 07:42:36 AM
Well, I do not know many text's by Toop, but I can imagine you will find somewhere a more serious text by him with basically the same content.
I shall hope so; thanks for being such a good sport!
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2014, 07:50:41 AM
I shall hope so; thanks for being such a good sport!
Thank you too!