Please listen to the following pieces online:
Boulez, Le Marteau sans maîtreStockhausen, Kreuzspiel
Babbitt, Three Compositions for Piano
Also read the following articles:
- an entertaining 2002 interview with Milton Babbitt; please see especially near the end of the interview, where he discusses his (in)famous article "Who Cares If You Listen?"
- Milton Babbitt, "The Composer as Specialist" (a/k/a "Who Cares If You Listen?"), 1958
- A 1997 interview with Karlheinz Stockhausen, in which he discusses the large outlines of his life and career; there is also an interesting interview of Stockhausen by Bjork.
- Richard Toop, "Messiaen/Goeyverts, Fano/Stockhausen, Boulez," Perspectives of New Music 13, no. 1 (Fall-Winter): 141–69. (If this link doesn't work directly, try JSTOR.)
- Finally, much of the writing on Le Marteau sans maître is quite technical; if you're so inclined I highly recommend Lev Koblyakov's book Pierre Boulez: A World of Harmony, on reserve (MT115.B7 K62). But I would like all of us to spend a little time with the facsimile edition of this score, in the Music Library, ML96.5 B68M3.
As before, please comment briefly on this post, on at least one of the listenings or readings (I know, this is a lot).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Reading Stockhausen’s own explanation of the process at play in Kreuzspiel (on p159 of the Toop article) I come away with a colorful mental image: The first phase of the piece begins in black and white (few pitches in only the outer ranges of the piano), gradually becomes more colorful (as the middle range is filled in by the oboe and bass clarinet and pitches “cross” ranges), and concludes with a return to the grey opening. The listening experience for me is unfortunately less vivid. Perhaps this is because Stockhausen’s texture is so thin —- only a few pitches are sounded at any given time. This sparseness of pitch content allows for only a subtle change. More active “melodic” parts might have made Stockhausen’s intended effect more apparent. If the process is supposed to be audible, then I feel that Stockhausen was not completely successful, although the active percussion certainly makes this first phase listenable. I find that the process is even less audible in the following two phases, which also lack the approachable rhythmic “groove” of the first phase. Once again, for me this is a piece more interesting to read about than to listen to.
I found Toop’s article to be most helpful in supplying the context and relationship among the Messiaen, Boulez, and Stockhausen works we have studied. It is also interesting to learn a little about Fano’s and Goeyvaerts’s contemporary works in a similar style that were not as successful. Every style needs its masters as well as its “second tier.”
Regarding the Stockhausen interviews, he comes off as one of the most innovative musical thinkers of the 20th century. But surely he undermines his insights with a statement like this: “But I know that I have learned a lot before this life, and I want to develop much more after this life, because it's so short. I certainly want to continue, and not only on this planet because I think that the planet is extraordinarily simple and limited.” It is difficult to take him seriously when he throws in a screwball idea like this. Yet I suspect that he is being intentionally devious -- laughing on the inside as he offers such a ridiculous statement with a straight face. Likely this statement applies as much to his writings and lectures as it does his music: “It is very often very humorous music; it's not only serious. Well, both.” (Quotes from David Paul interview)
n reading and listening to Babbit's comments on the emergence of "new" music and its purpose, a light bulb turned on for me. I understood his theory that the reason "new" music is hard to understand is that it is written for a higher level of musical intellect. Also, as in class, once we analyzed to a more formal extent the means to which a Messaien piece was composed, I started to better understand it.
What I thought especially interesting was the statement Babbit made at the end of the "High Fidelity" article, in which he suggested that the "new" music composer no longer write music to the solely to the intent of the masses, but to those elite who are educated in the music field. In doing so, a more respected outlet can be obtained for the "new" music.
Both the readings and the listening examples for today made me reflect again on what is "French" and what is "German" in music. The Boulez "Le Marteau" for today was more "French" to my ears than "Structures". First the textures of the piece are crystalline, pointallistic. The different timbres of the instruments are exploited for their colors. Also of interest in the piece was the addition of text and voice. The way that Boulez set the text was centered more on the sonority of the words rather than the meanings. The voice is treated as another instrument. "Operative" words in the poem are not given any more durational weight than articles.
It is interesting to me that another French poet that Boulez set to music, Mallarme, was one of the first poets to fixate more on the sound of the French language (through alliteration and assonance) than meaning.
The Stockhausen interviews gave me a lot to think about. Two things in particular struck me - the first was the role of a composer in creating works that are not a response to either commercial or societal demands. Stockhausen strikes me as a composer that for most of his career has been able to compose solely out of his own impulses.
The other comment of Stockhausen's that was of interest to me was looking at his systemization of music as an organic whole. In the works that were analyzed today in class, I can see an underlying organicism at work. Pitch classes or "cells" are combined and recombined into larger groupings that build larger structures.
Zuckerman's interview of Babbitt is intriguing and worthwhile. Two of my lasting impressions (among many) are these:
1) Can you imagine Milton Babbitt as a composer for musical theater? I almost laughed out loud at his story (he does have some good stories) about his flirt with show business.
2) I totally can understand and relate to his statement (near the end of the interview) where he says "I don't see how anybody could sit through a work by Schoenberg or even Brahms who has no conception of how to follow the piece or is unable to follow the piece by ear." Part of my impatience and lack of understanding of 20th century music is due to my lack of its structure and formation.
That's yet another reason for taking this class-- hopefully this will help train me how to listen to composers like Babbitt, Schoenberg, and Boulez. In my past, I've only listened to (and studied) Mozart, Beethoven, etc. and so when I hear those composers' music I know where they're going and I can follow their pieces more intelligently.
I also found Toop's article to be helpful for filling in the details about the development of this music, the context in which these composers were working and how they all influenced each other. However, I found his anlyses of each piece to be really tedious. For me, the background information about what these composers were thinking and talking about with each other is just as important for understanding their music as the note-to-note details.
That said, I think that Toop's characterization of these pieces as "point music" is really apropos, especially for the Stockhausen piece. As I see it, the parameterization inherent in serial technique works to individuate each note, making it an entity that can (theoretically) be appreciated for its unique qualities within the work's overall structure. The sparsity of Kreuzspiel really emphasizes this pointillistic aspect of integral serialism. However, I think that Boulez's Le Marteau sans Maitre also has a certain pointillistic character, even when the points are more densely clustered into a field or cloud; I suppose this type of texture could be considered very "French."
Babbitt's Three Compositions for Piano is kind of an exception, however. As mentioned in the interview, I hear Babbitt's music as distinctly American; the rhythms and harmonies of jazz definitely strike my ear in listening to this music. The first and third pieces have an edge to them that betray Babbitt's urban consciousness. In general, I tend to think that characterizations of musical style according to nationality are over-simplified, but maybe there is something to it. In listening to these three very different pieces, I became more and more aware of the relationships of each piece to their own nation's musical traditions despite the common technical basis in integral serialism.
Interesting comments everyone! I'll second Taylor's observation that you can go too far in "nationalizing" musical styles. In fact the serialists' big ambition was to create a new, international lingua franca for music, based of course on serialism. But still it's hard to imagine Boulez or Stockhausen writing "All Set."
Toop is a good writer, and you'll notice I used some of his analytical points in class - it's difficult to write "close reading" analyses of music. Personally I think he gives short shrift to Goeyvaerts and Fano, based on the musical examples, but it's good to get a sense of the milieu.
I have gained a greater sense of respect for Stockhausen and Babbitt after reading their interviews. I find it interesting to know more about their lives and their opinions about music.
When I read the Bjork interview, I expected Stockhausen to be opposed to listening to 'old music' as he called it and was pleasantly surprised when he was referring to Bach later on in the interview. The articles helped prove Stockhausen's brilliance in his composition styles and cutting edge music.
I appreciated Babbitt's comments on music education. I also related with his comment, "musical structure is in the memory of the beholder, in the memory of the listener." With more time devoted to listening, I hope my ear will be trained to better understand and appreciate music by Babbitt, Stockhausen and others.
Out of the all the listening pieces and reading articles, I found Babbitt easiest to relate to. Even yesterday, during my first listening of the "Three Compositions for Piano" I was drawn to this piece, mainly based on how the score looked. It was the first time something looked like piano music you could pick up and play. In his article he says "my music comes most directly from Schoenberg with a little bit of Webern maybe, and Schoenberg takes you right back to Brahms." Is this another reason I relate more? Because I am more familiar with Brahms? It seems like a stretch, but for me, I'm trying to make some connection with all of this new material! While Boulez and Stockhausen also relate their music to other composers, they seem to take it a different route that I cannot always follow.
I enjoyed the Babbit interiew. To me, 20th century composers seem to be "out there". (Perhaps even from another planet) This interview, I thought, really brought Milton Babbit to a "regular" level. I suppose deep down we all know that all great composers, performers, and conductors "put their pants on one leg at a time" as the old cliche goes. It is refreshing to know, however, that little Milton started out as a clarinet player. Who would have thought? It really brings things to a whole new level in my way of thinking.
Also, out of the pieces we listened to in class yesterday, the Babbit was my favorite. It did not feel as disjunct as the others, yet it still was based on similar compositional techniques.
This is my first post..
My name is Chad Daigle, I am wrapping up the MM in Trumpet Performance about to begin the DMA in Trumpet Performance at Arizona State this fall. Cant wait for the weather, Im orginally a southern boy (New Orleans, LA) which is one of the reasons, a non-musical one, I enjoyed the Babbit interview. I often find myself having to defend my heritage because of ignorrance people display trying to be pretentious. There were many quotable sections in there that I plan to cling to while taking this course, I need to take a step back sometimes a look at things from a different angle, not be closed minded about atonal music, Im getting there!
As I read Milton Babbit's "Who Cares if you Listen?," I found myself becoming very enraged at some of the things he says. I also found his defense of the piece rather flimsy as well. I think removing one's music from the public sphere entirely is a very arrogant, elitist, and unneccessary action. Babbit seems to equate music with a science, something that one needs an education to appreciate. It seems to me that equating music with science is belittling it, removing all the emotion and beauty, and turning it into just academic studies of codes, forms, and other non expressive facets of music. His desire to remove the performer from the piece takes even more life out it, it removes a further connection between the audience and the composer, and takes much of the life and excitement out of the composition.
I also disagree that one necessarily needs an education to enjoy art music. Perhaps one needs education to understand music, but to me undertanding and enjoyment are two seperate and not always coinciding terms. I have met many enthusiastic patrons who have prasied my excellent "trumpet" playing. If they cannot even tell the instruments apart, it seems to me that getting to the more esoteric aspects of the music seems pointless, and yet the music still seems to speak to them.
I am in no way trying to trash Babbit's music, I enjoyed the piece, I just wish he would appear to be more comfortable with letting everyone enjoy it as well.
I found the David Paul Stockhausen article quite insightful into some of the mental processes and philosophies behind Stockhausen's composition. Especially of note: "I am not an employee, you know, since I started to compose. So I don't need to listen to persons who pay me, what they want or what they do not like." He contrasts this compositional philosophy with the one of catering to the audience that Mozart was forced into adopting.
Also of note was his idea that he is more of a metaphysical artist than a strict musical composer: "...I know that my composition is an extraordinarily small model of what I can see daily in astronomy or genetics or biology, physics and chemistry." So the fact that he thinks on a metaphysical and generally broad philosophical scale when composing provides insight into the compositions themselves and helps my understanding when listening.
I think it’s an absolutely right analogy between the music and another fields of arts or sciences in Babbitt’s interview:
”The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics.”
Why to expect anyone (including myself) to be able “simply” enjoy something what
“ is a result of a half-century of revolution in musical thought, a revolution whose nature and consequences can be compared only with, and in many respects are closely analogous to, those of the mid-nineteenth-century evolution in theoretical physics”?
I also feel that even after some preparation and training not everyone is able to develop more than passive acceptance-but it’s just like in every other field, one has more abilities than another.
But even if you’re smart and educated enough to understand this music it’s still possible you’ll not love it-and that’s fine too. But you have a chance and a choice.
Finally, I think it’s always was and will be an intellectual elite which moved the whole progress despite of lock of appreciation or understanding.
Those composers are brilliant people and I’m very glad that I learned something about them.
I think it’s an absolutely right analogy between the music and another fields of arts or sciences in Babbitt’s interview:
”The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics.”
Why to expect anyone (including myself) to be able “simply” enjoy something what
“ is a result of a half-century of revolution in musical thought, a revolution whose nature and consequences can be compared only with, and in many respects are closely analogous to, those of the mid-nineteenth-century evolution in theoretical physics”?
I also feel that even after some preparation and training not everyone is able to develop more than passive acceptance-but it’s just like in every other field, one has more abilities than another.
But even if you’re smart and educated enough to understand this music it’s still possible you’ll not love it-and that’s fine too. But you have a chance and a choise.
Finally, I think it’s always was and will be an intellectual elite which moved the whole progress despite of lock of appreciation or understanding.
Those composers are brilliant people and I’m very glad that I learned something about them.
:
Babbitt's "Who Cares if you listen" is right on the mark for a more-musical-than-thou personality. AFter all if "music is JUST music" (the common perception Babbitt describes) then why should we not, after working so hard to perform our craft take this high-horsed stance?
Babbitt describes the public perception of composers/artists as "owing" them an interesting, exciting composition or performance. Meanwhile, the public's duty to the piece is fulfilled simply by showing up.
Even today, the "artists" that are glorified by the public are often no more than scantily-clad, lip-synching dancing machines that are enhanced by audio engineers and graphic designers. We applaud these performers with award shows on primetime television and outrageous advertising deals.
However valid and justified Babbitt's stance may be, and at times I agree with him, Music as a profession cannot become this high minded ideal that is beyond the reach of the common mortal. The fact is that we need musical entertainment, but we also need substance, however ill-regarded it may be. Music cannot survive with such a superior attitude amongst its smartest and most brilliant creators.
The pieces on the listening assignment definitely show a great step forward in the school of total serialization. I was particularly impressed by the improvement in rhythmic serialization, namely in Kreuzspeil and Three Compositions for Piano. Instead of using a chromatic scale of durations, as in Modes de Valeurs or Structures 1a - Stockhausen and Babbitt created processes of rhythmic serialization based on groupings of equal durations. I think their approaches were much more successful than the point based approach of the earlier Messaien and Boulez works. Group based rhythmic serialization allows for a perceptible rhythmic pulse which can make the piece more exciting, especially in the case of Kreuzspiel, and I believe it makes the music more unified, because it reveals some of the 'cellular' components that constitute the work as a whole. I also thought that Stockhausen and Babbitt made the structures of their works more aurally perceptible - perhaps through the use of tempo changes and the juxtapositions of dissimilar textures. I found these two pieces (relatively) easy to follow and enjoyable to listen to.
As for the Marteau - I was puzzled. Though I found the music thrilling and evocative, I couldn't at all grasp in any concrete way how it was related to the poetry - even in the various permutations of "L'Artisanat Furieux" - of which Boulez wrote in his program notes: "l'Artisanat furieux is a completely linear piece, in the sense that in it the text is handled, 'set to music', in the most direct manner." Following along in the score, it was abundantly clear to me why Ligeti refused to analyze this piece.
Reading the interviews with Stockhausen, made me laugh, but not because I found him personally amusing or silly. I laugh because I am picturing him as my teacher. Forget the fact that I am very slow and seemingly uncreative when it comes to composition, imagine that I am endowed in that area. I am imagining our personality clash, or rather the parts of it that would work well together. He has a sort of dry sense of humor that one could consider mean spirited if they didn't know him, but coming from a background of lots of sarcasm, I understand that this is a form of creativity. I think that if Stockhausen wasn't the personality that he is/was, his music would be completely different. Sometimes it's kindof twisted and angry, but could you imagine him writing straight forward symphonies and concertos that the untrained audience would enjoy...he would be miserable!
Post a Comment