Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 6 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
Brandenburg 5/i is another example. The way the lowly harpsichord rebels against her "station in life" and eventually takes centre stage -- this music expresses ideals about social equality. Obvs.
You are kidding with this, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
I feel that instrumental music can clearly be political in a certain context. If the government represents a certain restriction, and the music intentionally breaks that restriction or finds a way around it, then the music is inherently political in nature.

This was shown in some 18th century comique operas where singing on stage was banned, so the opera producers decided to let the audience sing the tunes instead-a loophole and an indirect protest against the government censorship.

Another example is Haydn's famous use of musicians one by one muting their instruments in order to convey a "farewell" to the prince. This would only make sense in the context that Haydn wanted to leave.
They didn't mute their instruments. The musicians got up one by one, snuffed out the candle at their stand, and left the stage--or whatever the performance area was--until there were only the first chair violinists left...and only they had mutes on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
What constitutes "politicization"?

Very cryptic. Who "already has" politicized modern music (and which modern music)? Who "will say" that you have consciously "politicized" (why the quotes?) music? What does this "political undercurrent" look like?

I haven't noticed music being called liberal, leftist, or Marxist. Maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention. Who's calling music those things?

What "attitude" are you talking about? What tradition? A musical tradition? A political/social tradition?

First, neither word clearly specifies anything. Second, artistic tastes and political convictions need have no relation to one another, and when they seem to do so the cause is apt to be conditioning by a specific cultural milieu. But you can dislike rap and hiphop and believe that black lives matter, and you don't have to be a Republican to say "no no" to Nono.

Such as what thing? Musical styles and eras? Of course we will. We do it all the time.

You often talk about "traditionalists" and "modernists" here, and your concern with advancing some definition which will distinguish (or pigeonhole) those categories of music listeners - in this case in terms of their politics - seems to be the underlying purpose this thread. You might want to keep in mind that Modernist movements in art were freighted with ideologies before anyone here came along to like or dislike their products, and tended to be advanced by people who saw them as embodiments, and even tools, of radical social/political philosophies and agendas. This is an important part of the legacy of Modernism right up through at least the mid-20th century, to be vitiated and "deconstructed" by postmodernism (which, however, carries its own political tendencies). If modern art has been politicized, you might look first at what its creators and contemporary supporters thought they were up to, rather than try to deduce the political leanings of people unsympathetic to it a century later. You won't learn much of consequence about us by asking whether we prefer Bizet or Birtwistle.
Spot on, Woodduck! Another excellent post...especially the last paragraph in bold.

Funny how a number of TC members who have lately been posting in a number of contentious, politically-favored threads seem to have no knowledge of this reality...or chose to ignore it.

Woodduck knocks another one out of the park!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
I think "moment form" is shocking for the bourgeoisie. From Stockhausen's essay on it, with the Wikipedia translation (is the essay in English anywhere?) music in moment form

neither aim at the climax, nor at prepared (and consequently expected) multiple climaxes, and the usual introductory, rising, transitional and fading-away stages are not delineated in a development curve encompassing the entire duration of the work. On the contrary, these forms are immediately intense and seek to maintain the level of continued "main points", which are constantly equally present, right up until they stop. In these forms a minimum or a maximum may be expected in every moment, and no developmental direction can be predicted with certainty from the present one; they have always already commenced, and could continue forever; in them either everything present counts, or nothing at all; and each and every Now is not unremittingly regarded as the mere consequence of the one which preceded it and as the upbeat to the coming one-in which one puts one's hope-but rather as something personal, independent and centred, capable of existing on its own. They are forms in which an instant does not have to be just a bit of a temporal line, nor a moment just a particle of a measured duration, but rather in which concentration on the Now-on every Now-makes vertical slices, as it were, that cut through a horizontal temporal conception to a timelessness I call eternity: an eternity that does not begin at the end of time but is attainable in every moment. I am speaking of musical forms in which apparently nothing less is being attempted than to explode (even to overthrow) the temporal concept-or, put more accurately: the concept of duration. . . .
In works of this kind the start and stop are open and yet they cease after a certain duration.

And I think it has political, social, implications, very fundamental ones. An example (I haven't heard this performance, I heard him play it in a London concert though. There's a tremendous performance by Sabine Liebner, but it's not on YouTube.)

The score of Klavierstuck XI consists (or consisted originally) of a large piece of cardboard with 19 sections or fragments of music. To start the pianist selects and plays any fragment. At the end of every fragment there are tempo, dynamic, and articulation indications. These are applied to the next fragment selected…which is any one the pianist chooses. The piece continues in this manner until a particular fragment is played for a third time.

The piece is an example of what is sometimes called "open-form" or "polyvalent form", since the composition itself has no set structural arc.

Thus the central "gimmick", if you will, of the work is the freedom the pianist has in selecting the "route" he is going to take through the piece. A gimmick that is not audible, unless a listener hears the piece again and perceives the different route each time.

For a classical music listener with conservative tastes the only thing they would find shocking or distasteful about this piece is the dissonance and overall disjunctive quality…the same as found in thousands of atonal/serial works that are precisely/traditionally notated i.e., with no chance elements at all.

Any listener who doesn't know the "backstory" about the piece is NOT going to perceive any political or social message. Even if they were to read the notes you included, there are no such perceivable messages.

Or even if they read this is from a blogspot entitled "stockhausenspace":

"Introduction
In the earlier analysis of Piano Pieces 5-10, I described the isolated phrases in those works as being in a way "snowflakes in a snowstorm". In this 11th piano piece, that analogy becomes more appropriate than ever. However, from a pianist's point of view, it may be more apt to use an "autumn leaves" analogy. Here, 19 musical "leaves" are spread in front of the player. He picks one up, "plays" it, returns it to the pile, and then picks up another to play (however, the way he plays this new leaf is affected by what he saw in the previous leaf). Sometimes he will pick up one that he's chosen before, but he plays it anyway. However, if he realizes that he's picked up the same leaf 3 times already, he stops, and the performance is over. In Piano Piece 11, each leaf is a few measures of score, and at the end of each score fragment is the indication of how to approach the next chosen musical fragment (in the terms of tempo, dynamic, and articulation). Instead of a "pile of leaves", all of these musical fragments are scattered over a huge sheet of paper, and the pianist chooses the phrases randomly. He stops after he has hit the same fragment a 3rd time.

(I should mention that Stockhausen has never called these 19 score fragments "leaves" (as far as I know), but I just find it handy to think of them that way.)

Polyvalent Form
Because of the nature of this piece, there can be an almost unimaginable number of versions. Each version could start from any one of the 19 "leaves", and end on any one of them. This is an example of what is sometimes called "open-form" or "polyvalent form", since the composition itself has no set structural arc. One idea that Stockhausen is exploring here is that each of these leaf fragments create their own "vibration" or color. In the previous Piano Pieces, grace note "satellites" and "halo tones" were used to create a resonating color over a central note. In this piece, each leaf (which also has its own internal central notes and satellites) could be considered a single central tone by itself, and the tempo/dynamic/articulation instructions at the end of each leaf are a kind of "resonant-coloration" which affects its surrounding "satellite" leaves.

Structurally, if one thinks of each one of these 19 leaves as a single note-entity (as just described), the chance sequencing of the leaves functions more or less the same way as putting these leaves into a serial sequence. The basic purpose of serialism is to produce variety and unpredictability, and the method employed here can produce the same kind of unpredictability. Naturally this "eye-contact serialism" is not going to be as "pure" as in a case where these leaves are put into a specific, non-repeating "leaf row", but since the previous piano pieces already covered serial organization on different time-scales, perhaps the idea of an open-form work which could produce a large variety of structural outcomes became much more important. However, ironically, some pianists prefer to "pre-program" the sequence and play the same sequence of leaves from performance to performance (probably because it was simply too hard to do it the "honest way").

Stockhausen points out that it doesn't really matter how these leaves are sequenced - in the end it's still a pile of leaves. The work itself has its own unique "vibration". "Piano Piece XI is nothing but a sound in which certain partials, components, are behaving statistically... If I make a whole piece similar to the ways in which (a complex noise) is organized, then naturally the individual components of this piece could also be exchanged, permutated, without changing its basic quality." (Conversations with the Composer, Jonatan Cott)."

Rectangle Font Handwriting Material property Parallel


With all due respect Mandryka I have to ask why you insist on hearing political and social messages in pieces of music where they do not exist...whether this piece or the first movement of the fifth Brandenburg Concerto?
 
1 - 6 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top