Subject: RE: Stockhausen
From: +[doh \)+ (thrash@btclick.com)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 11:16:12 EST
No the point is in reference to an electronica timeline
Stockhausen is not that important
There were other people doing all that same stuff much better
Hence I question his involvement on modulations electronica timeline
That's the point and of course that beards of that length
Should be used for the greater human good
i.e. let them climb up a pylon and feed the world with their nylon
k
-------------------------------------------------------
kdx: blackbanana.dyndns.org ( www.haxial.com )
mail: thrash@btclick.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cecdiscuss@concordia.ca
[mailto:owner-cecdiscuss@concordia.ca] On Behalf Of Digs Dorfman
Sent: 03 December 2002 19:03
To: cecdiscuss@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: Stockhausen
> Maybe the question could be put this way ... If S is so great, why do
you
> think so? Is he really so much better than [... name ...]
Hmmm... interesting.
My somewhat limited thoughts:
Whether or not any particular listener 'likes'... 'enjoys'... 'is rubbed
the
right way' by Stockhausen's music is somewhat beside the point. It is
the
impact of his music on the history of music/composition that should be
noted... not his 'groove factor'.
Asking the difference between Stockhausen and other great composers in
the
electroacoustic lineage is like asking the difference between Wagner and
Brahms. The most complete (yet still lacking) answer I can give is:
they
were both great composers, but the work of one affected/changed 'things'
more than the other. Some people prefer the work of one to the work of
the
other... and still others are unable to appreciate either one.
Taste is so subjective. There is an abundance of music I enjoy
listening to
that is very pedestrian in terms of its tonal composition and lots that
just
have a really slammin' beat.
Impact is less subjective. Stockhausen changed 'things'. A whole lot.
~Digs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:06:21 EDT