
really brings into question what should and should not be considered music.
Music, traditionally (and rightly), has melody, harmony, pitch, rhythm, timbre and things of that ilk. Stockhausen's piece has none of these.
( , Thu 9 Aug 2012, 21:51, Reply)

Music has very much evolved, but a lot of things were tried along the way which were completely unlistenable. Much of Stockhausen's work is very important in terms of technology and technique, but the audible results were pretty horrible.
( , Thu 9 Aug 2012, 22:32, Reply)

I'm not claiming by any means the Stockhausen is the greatest composer ever and I listen to him on the way to work every day, but so much wooly nonsense about what music should be gets bandied about. Yes you have to work harder to get something out of music that's outside your usual listening idiom. If you don't want to don't, but nothing is unlistenable.
Sorry I'm not having a go, I know this is all beard stroking nonsense really and probably agree with you for the most part. It just annoys me how safe, pedestrian and tame 99.999% of music is. Such that metal, punk and dubstep are considered extreme. Terrifying really.
( , Thu 9 Aug 2012, 22:44, Reply)

Try harder.
( , Thu 9 Aug 2012, 22:35, Reply)

Although, for example, the time signatures are constantly shifting and bear little resemblance to much else you'll hear from before KHS' time.
One of his Klavierstücke, for example, will touch 142/8 fleetingly, before eventually wheeling round to do it again.
I find Kontakte hugely enjoyable nowadays, although I couldn't sit through the whole thing back in my 20s without hallucinogens.
Pre-electronic microtonal composers are worth a listen. There's an old BBC documentary about Harry Partch on youtube, and he has the most remarkable tale to tell. (Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cKnTj2cyNQ)
Enjoyable debate, btw, based on such a small stimulus!
( , Thu 9 Aug 2012, 23:44, Reply)