Well, Christian, what you represent is certainly a new and fragrant twist on navel-gazing but as you and Thomas have abundantly clarified, it has nothing of value to say about his music, or any music, or indeed theology of any kind. "The music of Stockhausen" as advertised below is not on either of your sick and selfpromotional agendas: not any music, nor the composer. In his last years, crippled by dementia, the artist Karel Appel continued to paint with a fierce determination, even though mentally detached from the reality around him. From what is available for anyone to read on this site, Stockhausen's composition of KLANG changed course, lost its way, and petered out in muddle and confusion. And this is the confused old man your pathetic organization triumphantly seeks to make its poster boy. I wonder also at the connivance of his companions in this sad exploitation of a vulnerable genius.
That has nothing to do with navel-gazing, Robin, but is an attempt of understanding. Especially the work of Stockhausen requires an "holistic" view; everything is important, not only the sounds - also the colours, the movements and also the meaning of certain words. For me it is so obvious, and therefore I cannot understand what causes such a fury in some of your contributions. Even in such seemingly solely musical parameters like space (Raum) there are for St. spiritual connotations, from the very beginning, and it is not unseless to reflect on that. Or?
Holism is the last refuge of the intellectually compromised. Especially in German intellectuals. Think of Heisenberg. Come back to me when you have something concrete to discuss. Otherwise you are just wasting space.
I would not put it that way Robin Maconie did. One cannot forbid questions, of course. But one might ask a bit more concrete questions. Or let me say in other words: If everything is interesting, nothing is interesting. I repeat my question: What does the word from Urantia book JERUSEM mean musically for that composition except that Stockhausen uses a high tenor?
Holism is not a good word - I must admit. But in my poor English in that moment nothing other came to my mind. To put it more concrete, an example: As to DONNERSTAG the main colour of this opera is blue. We know that for Stockhausen that was important. He would not have allowed a production where all people on stage were clad in red. So in a way it is essential. But: Does that contribute to the music? Is the music blue in a way? I cannot see that. But in spite of that it is part of the opera. One could say: It contributes to the impression on the public; maybe it creates a certain "Stimmung", a certain disposition. Thus, when you speak about DONNERSTAG, you have to investigate: What is the meaning of this colour in the history of mind and religion, for instance: Bible, German romanticism, Kandinsky, medieval theology etc pp - all that has nothing to do with what you hear when you listen to a CD of that day, but it belongs to that work and you have to deal with these items when you try to understand. The same with Urantia Book. Here Stockhausen was very reluctant; it caused many malicious comments especially in Germany. But nevertheless it is an important ingredient. That leads me to an important general question: Stockhausen was convinced, that his 3 protagonists primarily appear in their formulas. Secondarily they materialize as persons on stage. But there is a difference, obviously, between what music can express and what words can denote. The subtleties of language you cannot transfer without loss into music and you cannot describe without a remnant what music does and expresses. Therefore in a way Michael is his formula and appears in his formula, but to interpret this formula correctly (in the sense of the composer) you have to know more than the formula, you have to go into the spiritual tradition - among other the Urantia Book. The formula goes down for an octave - you will listen to that in another way when you know that that is connected with the theme of incarnation. And you have to KNOW that - the music itself (because of its limitations) cannot tell.
To Adorjàn: I don't understand this question. When the audience of UVERSA sits in the concert hall and hears the words
"bright and morning stars of UVERSA brilliant evening stars UVERSA'S archangels divine counselors celestial overseers mansion world teachers UVERSA'S star-student art celestial artisans in UVERSA for the entire super-universe student visitors ascending pilgrims ascending mortals to UVERSA"
- then, I guess will there be a lot of people asking: "Uversa? Mansion World? What the hell is that? Never heard about!" You cannot deny that this is not simply a libretto about butterflies in the spring everybody would understand at once. For me, libretto and music form a unity, and Stockhausen certainly had reason for using these words and not something about butterflies in the spring. By the way, also the title belongs to a composition. So I think it's terribly narrow-minded only to focus on the music. I know that many musicologists don't like to talk about all the Urantia stuff because they think it's too weird, but as Markus Bandur has shown - he was the first Stockhausen exopert to talk about the UB - it's inevitable to understand Stockhausen's oeuvre as a whole, just as also Ulrich posted above.
To Robin: Thinking that Stockhausen is the "posterboy" (what a nice word I learnt!) of the Urantia folk shows that you know nothing about them. Only a few UB readers know something about the link between Stockhausen and the UB. Their "posterboys" are, when we speak about music, first of all Jimi Hendrix, Jerry Garcia (The Greatful Dead), Carlos Santana, Elvis Presley and other musicians reading the UB (see http://www.ubthenews.com/starpower/musicians.htm). And the most imoprtant "posterboy" for them, by the way, is Christ-Michael.
Christian, I am absolutely not reluctant in any way to speak about the UB. And of course, you are right to accentuate the words which are important - but for the understanding of the text. Same is valid for nearly any music with texts. I only want to make clear what is confused here: one thing is music, and another thing is the text. I can read the whole textbook of the "Ring des Nibelungen" and can have an impression of what Wagner wanted to express by this. But I still have no idea about what he did by or with music. I only want to make clear what we are talking about - Stockhausen´s "view of the world" (Weltanschauung) or his music? I am happy to talk about both - but no mix-up.
Dear Adorján, only a short reply: I think that we're at the point now. The way I knew Stockhausen makes me think you cannot split his music and his "Weltanschauung". The "mix-up" is inevitable. Ulrich's example of the Michael formula proves this very well.
Okay, dear Christian. The necessity of "mix-up" is possible but I presume it is also a bit a question of one´s point of view. See the problem with Wagner: What has his chauvinism, anti-semitism and so on to do with his MUSIC? Some say one cannot look at his music without looking at his "Weltanschauung". I (and many others) say: Yes, one can. Nevertheless, it is alright to examine the "Weltanschauung", too, but in a different context. Ulrich´s example comes from LICHT. I repeat that LICHT is quite different from KLANG - also with regard to UB. The connections between the formulas of LICHT and UB might be more obvious than between the "Reihe" and the UB in KLANG where I somehow have the impression that the words are glued into the music a bit arbitrarily.
I feel that it could be useful to have a discussion-forum on the music of Stockhausen. There are so many people from all over the world, young and old, learned and eager to get into contact with this musical world: musicologists, composers, musicians, music lovers; people who plan concerts - who write books or have to give lectures and so on. So there should be much stuff, many ideas that we can share. And when we have open questions, there may be people who studied just that and could give a hint or a stimulus.
A problem might be the English language, but i feel that is the only possibility that many people who are interested can participate. And we can exercise tolerance to mistakes!