Stockhausen on 'sounds', 1972

Back


Excerpt from Karlheinz Stockausen's May 1972 lecture to the Oxford Union on 'Four Criteria of Electronic Music'. It proved to be astonshingly priescent. If you like this, get the whole lecture from Stockhausen-Verlang.



Channel: Music
Uploaded: August 6, 2007 at 11:11 am
Author: golfthewlis

Length: 00:10:15
Rating: 4.67
Views: 70468

Tags: karlheinz stockhausen electronic music lecture 1972 four criteria sounds instrument avant garde

Embed Code: Paste this code in your page


numbing numbered numerous Comments:
golfthewlis (December 1, 2008 at 5:54 am)
You can- check the link in the info panel
AlphacoreX (December 1, 2008 at 1:52 am)
Really like to get the whole lecture of this
backseatdriverpa (November 30, 2008 at 8:34 pm)
I'm looking to check out Stockhausen. Particularly his electronic works. Any suggestions?
richtomes (November 20, 2008 at 1:25 pm)
Evil can't be compared to art in any context unless the fundamental definition of art has changed. Traditionally art contains at its heart a seed of benevolence, a nurturing generous impulse intended for the benefit of future generations. The Devil cannot be an artist because the devil is not generous, nurturing or benevolent. After the art revolution of the late 20th century, a new movement emerged which considered it legitimate to call almost anything art, but
the original pedigree endures.
annedegro (November 20, 2008 at 2:13 pm)
Already in the middle ages was the devil compared with an artist. KS comparison is based on his religious (christian) believes. The fact that you fail to see that is the main cause that you haven't got a clue what KS' music and words stand for!

But KS is a composer and musical explorer, not a priest not a philosopher. We need to discuss his music. That is what makes him with Stravinsky to the most important and influential composer of the 20th century
richtomes (November 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm)
You clearly havn't got a clue what you are talking about. Never before in the history of this tradition has real life evil been compared to great art. Stockhausen was a pioneer in this respect. Such a travesty of the concept of art would have been utterly unthinkable before the 20th century art revolution, after which a school of thought evolved which proposed that anything could be legitimate art.
annedegro (November 20, 2008 at 2:46 pm)
As you should know by now, KS compared 9/11 with the art of a character (Luzifer) from his LICHT-cycle. You confuse reality with art. KS didn't evolve, develope or propagate an aesthetics about evil and art. Actually he stands for the opposite, which he demonstrates in his quote about his Luzifer and 9/11.

So please leave this nonsense about 9/11 and KS for your own video. What you accuse KS of, is not what he stands for. It is your own fascination for violence and art, not Stockhausens.
richtomes (November 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm)
Though it wasn't Stockhausen's intention to create an aesthetic linking evil to art, his words are remembered because they were so wholly unacceptable in the context of the spirit of this tradition. As Evaristti, Abdessemed and Vargas Habacuc have recently demonstrated there is a growing lobby of artists which sees nothing wrong with presenting real life suffering as art. This represents a grotesque caricature of a noble tradition, and KS's grossly unwise words did nothing to halt that trend.
annedegro (November 20, 2008 at 3:18 pm)
Stockhausen is a composer. His music will be remembered. That what makes him important: his music. Not this quote which you force to keep alive with your video.

You fail to understand his quote, you fail to discuss his music and you connect things that don't have anything to do with KS art, aesthetics, ethics and music.

KS has nothing to do with your fascination for violence and art. There is more art than the violent art that you find important.
richtomes (November 20, 2008 at 4:39 pm)
Once again you fail to understand both the traditional concept of art, and the significance of the fact that KS considered his words to be appropriate just one week after 9/11. Evil can't be likened to art in any sense unless the fundamental definition of art has changed. Traditionally art contains at its heart a nurturing generous impulse intended for the benefit of future generations. The Devil can't be an artist because the devil is not generous, nurturing or benevolent.