Edward Moore, quoting on Stockhausen's "Klavierstucke":

>For Stockhausen, the proper response to music is in the form of a _reply_.
>This leads him to elevate the performer (interpreter) to the status
>of a veritable co-composer, or co-producer.  Such a move rests upon
>the conviction that the internal and intellectual musical idea is only
>communicable in the form of an historically realizable set of instructions
>-- or, more precisely, _suggestions_ -- that will lead the performer to
>spontaneously reply to the score in such a way as to render the
>intellectual 'idea' or _logos spermatikos_ in the most unmediated manner
>possible.

This is simply bad speech about music, or _kakos logos peri mousike_.
Why?, because it's a lie.  To "elevate the performer to the status of
co-composer, blah, blah" was just an elegant theoretical cap built up
in the mid 50's to cover a big hole at the musical inventive of Mr. KH
Stockhausen, one of the major artistic impostors of the XX century.  That
cap was called aleatory music, a true oxymoron; it was a pretended reaction
against total serialism, and its utile life was about 3 or 4 weeks.
Actually, I'm not sure whether he or some critics invented it.  Doesn't
matter:  speeches like that provided (and still provides) a justification
for both moron critics and sterile composers.  In short, the theory of
aleatory music proposes to the listener the following:  "you make the
music, I get the money".  Cage, at least, was not an impostor.  When he
sat to the piano, he used to write down good music.  He didn't try to sell
anything to people, or at least, he had the manners of using a simplest
intellectual paraphernalia for that.

>... the waltz (valse) corresponds to the movement of the human body as the
>vivifying Platonic 'light' corresponds to the passive _hupokeimenon_ of the
>material realm.

Why not this?:

"..the mambo (mambo) corresponds to the movement of human body as the
Hegelian "Aufhebung" corresponds to both dialectic moments in the analysis
of reality _Wirklichkeit_"

The first sentence appears to be delicate and intelligent, just because
it was "seriously" written.  The second one seems merely nonsense, just
because in this reading context, it's clear that it wasn't seriously
written.  Believe me:  the fraction of meaning of both sentences is exactly
the same.

Sorry

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]