Problem Works By Composers You Love

[Beef Oven!]

Yes, Boult is equally fine but it was the Barbirolli that really made me love the work and it is to his version that I would turn. I never heard the Handley as it got poor reviews but I've heard it live several times now, mostly, it seems, under Sir Andrew Davis.

Heard it in concert a few times myself, the last time was 9 years ago at the Proms with the Halle, Mark Elder conducting. A beautiful, if somewhat smooth performance. Reminds me that the opener for one of the seasons around that time was Tippett's 'A Child Of Our Time' with Sir Willard White, but I forget the year and conductor (Davis?).

[Roehre]

Where the DoG is concerned, I have taken the path of "If at first you don't succeed, give up, it's probably not worth the effort".

An adage to which I stick to too

[Serial_Apologist]

I love the piece. Who can't feel the goosebumps at the mighty choral outbursts at 'Go forth'

That's always the point at which I take the advice!

[MrGongGong]

That's always the point at which I take the advice!

Stockhausen's Hymnen has at it's heart a fundamental misunderstanding about the music of the world IMV

It's sonically wonderful stuff but the stated aim of the piece

"The composition of so many national anthems into a common musical temporal and spatial polyphony could make it possible to experience – as musical vision – the unity of peoples and nations in a harmonious human family."

makes the (IMV) mistake of thinking that National Anthems are somehow representative of the diversity of the worlds musics. They aren't, they are almost (with a few notable exceptions ) western music to be played by a military band.

It appears a bit lazy (though Stockhausen is a composer who no one would accuse of that and he worked tirelessly all his life) to simply take this obvious source with no engagement of the people who's musics you are appropriating.
So it kind of backfires in that in seeking to make a universal music he creates a kind of 'colonial' modernism.
Which is a shame because so much of it sounds fantastic.

[kea]

My problem with Stockhausen is almost anything where the Urantia stuff becomes intrusive. E.g. the later hours of Klang with Kathinka's hilariously over-the-top voice-overs. I appreciate the isolation of the individual layers of Cosmic Pulses, not having an octophonic speaker setup at home, but it just sounds silly with the text. Maybe it's supposed to. I don't know.

[Suffolkcoastal]

I have no soul

I don't have any soul either! It's part one of DoG though that I really can't get on with, I just find it horribly claustrophobic and cloying even rather unpleasant in atmosphere. The rest has some good bits, but still has some of the atmosphere of part one.

[Beef Oven!]

Stockhausen's Hymnen has at it's heart a fundamental misunderstanding about the music of the world IMV

It's sonically wonderful stuff but the stated aim of the piece

"The composition of so many national anthems into a common musical temporal and spatial polyphony could make it possible to experience – as musical vision – the unity of peoples and nations in a harmonious human family."

makes the (IMV) mistake of thinking that National Anthems are somehow representative of the diversity of the worlds musics. They aren't, they are almost (with a few notable exceptions ) western music to be played by a military band.

It appears a bit lazy (though Stockhausen is a composer who no one would accuse of that and he worked tirelessly all his life) to simply take this obvious source with no engagement of the people who's musics you are appropriating.
So it kind of backfires in that in seeking to make a universal music he creates a kind of 'colonial' modernism.
Which is a shame because so much of it sounds fantastic.

You can't take things out of their historical context and measure them by a contemporary yardstick. Stockhausen, like anyone, was a product of his time. He was born in the 1920s and his take on universalism in music was revolutionary. It's mean, cheap and lazy to talk about laziness on his part.

I would also question your view on music as property. Music is not 'appropriated', it belongs to us all. However, I suppose your liberal-bourgoise view of music as property, kind of goes with your 'easy' criticism of a genius.

[hmvman]

Where the DoG is concerned, I have taken the path of "If at first you don't succeed, give up, it's probably not worth the effort".

Yes, I'm beginning to think I might as well take the same path. After all, there's plenty of other music by Elgar I love very much.

[BBMmk2]

The text

Quite agree, in some respects, GG. Sometimes the diction is very bad. Pity, when the recording is a good one.

[MrGongGong]

You can't take things out of their historical context and measure them by a contemporary yardstick. Stockhausen, like anyone, was a product of his time. He was born in the 1920s and his take on universalism in music was revolutionary. It's mean, cheap and lazy to talk about laziness on his part.

I would also question your view on music as property. Music is not 'appropriated', it belongs to us all. However, I suppose your liberal-bourgoise view of music as property, kind of goes with your 'easy' criticism of a genius.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.
I didn't say he was "lazy" more that it "appears" to be so, when I know he was anything but.

My criticism is more that his desire (born out of the terrible things that happened to his mother and millions of others) to create a universal music doesn't work so well if one takes national anthems as a signifier of this.
Yes, it was of it's time and is in many ways a wonderful work.

I don't think music is necessarily 'property' but one can't ignore the ways in which some (and NOT all) musical cultures have been 'plundered' with no respect.

I think Stockhausen WAS a genius if such titles are appropriate. When went to hear him speak as a 17 year old it had a profound affect on me and much of his music I love.

If one makes an artwork that has a 'message' (as DoG) I don't think one can't pick and choose whether criticism is appropriate or not if it involves the connection between the music and the 'message'.

I like the sound of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WriIYTps2Rk
and also this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_mQiL19XmI

But the 'messages' ?

[amateur51]

You can't take things out of their historical context and measure them by a contemporary yardstick. Stockhausen, like anyone, was a product of his time. He was born in the 1920s and his take on universalism in music was revolutionary. It's mean, cheap and lazy to talk about laziness on his part.

I would also question your view on music as property. Music is not 'appropriated', it belongs to us all. However, I suppose your liberal-bourgoise view of music as property, kind of goes with your 'easy' criticism of a genius.

Read what Mr GG actually wrote, please.

[Beef Oven!]

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.
I didn't say he was "lazy" more that it "appears" to be so, when I know he was anything but.

My criticism is more that his desire (born out of the terrible things that happened to his mother and millions of others) to create a universal music doesn't work so well if one takes national anthems as a signifier of this.
Yes, it was of it's time and is in many ways a wonderful work.

I don't think music is necessarily 'property' but one can't ignore the ways in which some (and NOT all) musical cultures have been 'plundered' with no respect.

I think Stockhausen WAS a genius if such titles are appropriate. When went to hear him speak as a 17 year old it had a profound affect on me and much of his music I love.

If one makes an artwork that has a 'message' (as DoG) I don't think one can't pick and choose whether criticism is appropriate or not if it involves the connection between the music and the 'message'.

I like the sound of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WriIYTps2Rk
and also this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_mQiL19XmI

But the 'messages' ?

I understood what you wrote. You said it appears lazy, meaning intellectually, not his work ethos (which we both know was second to none). And I don't agree, that's all. I think his work is a product of the time. As such, it will would not benefit from current enlightenment about diversity and what 'universalism' would 'look like'.

Much the same with, say, Beethoven's Ode To Joy thang. Its white, Europeancentric view of brotherhood/whatever is a sign of the times.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My criticism is more that his desire (born out of the terrible things that happened to his mother and millions of others) to create a universal music doesn't work so well if one takes national anthems as a signifier of this.

I don't hear the Music of Hymnen in these terms, MrGG - for the reasons you mention, and because he was brought up in a society where a melody by Haydn was appropriated by a racist mindset alien to Haydn, Stockhausen was all-too-aware of the potentially poisonous uses to which these anthems could be put. The Music plays with the double potential of the National Anthems: as an identifier of a clan/community (the "nation-al" if you like) and as manipulator of aggression (the "National-ist") - that's why so often he takes the piss out of them (the geese honking the Marseillaise) or, with the case of the Star-Spangled Banner, presenting it either in a bombastic, militaristic fashion or gently, aware of the dual persona of the US in the 60s - coco-coloniser and source of the liberative ideals of the counter-culture. Stockhausen's original Music draws on (is based in) the Musical parameters of the Anthems, but makes something new and "magical" from their trivial materials. The overall "message" I get from Hymnen is that whilst the dual personality of National/ism has its beneficial and corrosive (Nationalism imprisoning the imagination) effects, the meta-nationalism of a Music from and of Humanity takes us to "realms" beyond the outdated herding the Anthems can be used to represent.

"Of its time", certainly - but a "message", and one that has more appeal (to me, at any rate) and offers something much better than the more trendy forms of Nationalism that are resurgent nearly half a century later.

And it is marvellous Music.

[MickyD]

I'm going to rattle a few cages by saying the last movement of Beethoven's 9th. I can't stand it, but that could be because of how often it has been played and used.

[MrGongGong]

Much the same with, say, Beethoven's Ode To Joy thang. Its white, Europeancentric view of brotherhood/whatever is a sign of the times.

The thing about Stockhausen as opposed to Beethoven is that he DID spend large parts of his life travelling all over the world and did hear many other musics but chose, in this piece to use national anthems as representative of the musics of the world.
I'm not sure of the chronology but wonder whether he wrote this before or after visiting Asia ?

I don't hear the Music of Hymnen in these terms, MrGG - for the reasons you mention, and because he was brought up in a society where a melody by Haydn was appropriated by a racist mindset alien to Haydn, Stockhausen was all-too-aware of the potentially poisonous uses to which these anthems could be put. The Music plays with the double potential of the National Anthems: as an identifier of a clan/community (the "nation-al" if you like) and as manipulator of aggression (the "National-ist") - that's why so often he takes the piss out of them (the geese honking the Marseillaise) or, with the case of the Star-Spangled Banner, presenting it either in a bombastic, militaristic fashion or gently, aware of the dual persona of the US in the 60s - coco-coloniser and source of the liberative ideals of the counter-culture. Stockhausen's original Music draws on (is based in) the Musical parameters of the Anthems, but makes something new and "magical" from their trivial materials. The overall "message" I get from Hymnen is that whilst the dual personality of National/ism has its beneficial and corrosive (Nationalism imprisoning the imagination) effects, the meta-nationalism of a Music from and of Humanity takes us to "realms" beyond the outdated herding the Anthems can be used to represent.

"Of its time", certainly - but a "message", and one that has more appeal (to me, at any rate) and offers something much better than the more trendy forms of Nationalism that are resurgent nearly a quarter of a century later.

And it is marvellous Music.

Thanks for this
interesting thoughts and will probably make me revisit the piece