Once more to the "mix-up": I think we have to differentiate. Sometimes the "philosophy" of a composer is very much related to a work - then it affects the understanding of a work and we have to deal with it. In the example of Wagner: For me it contributes to the understanding of the "Ring" when I know that Wagner has been a revolutionary socialist in his youth. And also the antisemitism, when we hear the part of Mime. But that is very much correlated to what really happens on stage - and not just a moral judgment against an artist. In this way I think: In LICHT Stockhausen wants to communicate his view of life and heaven - thus automatically I deal with it when I experience the operas on stage. But also in KLANG 14 - 21: He deliberately choose the texts related to the Urantia Book and I cannot help but listening to them, when I listen to the pieces; even if I do not like it I should find a conscious relation to it. But another thing is the way Stockhausen lived or his political thoughts (or when he in former times was accused to be sexistic, racist etc pp); that really is not interesting in respect to his music - in most cases is just a way to turn him down.
The Housewives of Beverly Hills are at it again, trying on discarded garments, applying makeup, asking "does my butt look big in this?" etc. Frivolous, vain, demeaning of the composer's memory, and ignoring a lifetime of reading by the composer, just to name a few, of Hermann Hesse (Glasperlenspiel), Christian Morgenstern, Breton, Plato ("liking is remembering"), Heissenbüttel, Mallarmé, Cage, Boulez, the linguistics of Saussure, Lévi-Strauss and Malinowski on family relations, Jean Piaget on groups, A. N. Whitehead on time, all carefully laid out in Other Planets with citations from the composer's own published texts. And if religion is your thing, what of Sri Aurobindo, sage and guru of the text pieces? Is Aurobindo - a real person - also to be consigned to oblivion? Or Jakob Lorber, the Austrian mystic and violin player whose quaintly visionary texts form part of the backdrop to SIRIUS? Is he not an active ingredient of Stockhausen's mysticism? What makes the Urantia Book any more significant than any of these others? Nothing of any consequence. The Urantia Book references are a final bleak cosmic joke, fly-paper attached to the final postcards to trap unwary and noisy pests frantically buzzing around the corpse. And how the joke has succeeded! Let us see if visitors to this site will come to the defence of our housewives Thomas and Christian. All of the names previously mentioned have a demonstrable influence on specific works, so that one can learn from the influences how better to interpret the works themselves, and understand the composer's serious foundation in 18th through 20th c. philosophy. Added to that is the dimension of technical competency, the information theory learned from Werner Meyer-Eppler, of understanding microphones, and tape, and the technology of the fifties as practised in Paris under Schaeffer and at Cologne Radio under Eimert, all of it beyond the competence of our ranting Urantians.
Robin, I like the pictures your frustration and desperation are creating like a never stopping volcano. They amuse me each morning. But I must tell you: better being a housewife than a frustrated intellectual who a) never will understand his "Übervater" (over-father) Karlheinz for the lack of spirituality and b) - even worse - was banned by the Übervater so that the poor intellectual is now committing patricide. Thomas Ulrich and I may be housewives in your eyes - but then you are the Gollum of the Stockhausen scene whose ring is the spiritual understanding of Stockhausen he never will get. Of course we can talk about Sri Aurobindo and Jakob Lorber. Both offer interesting topics and I know them both quite well. But I don't see any influence by Aurobindo and Lorber neither in LICHT nor KLANG.
"Housewife" or not - that is not a relevant discussion. When I try to put your argument down to earth, Robin, you say (as I understand it): The Urantia Book is not relevant for Stockhausen's works since the seventies. Christian und I say: That is definitely wrong. I myself am not a fan of the Urantia Book and for many years refused to touch it. But I had to learn: If you will understand LICHT, you must look into this book. I am convinced you know why and I must not prove it to you; there are so obvious citations of this book in the signs, the names of the protagonists, certain motives of the content of scenes, that you cannot neglect this - apart from what St. himself said about the importance of this book in his life. You may not like it, but you have to acknowledge the facts or argue why these facts are not important - or to prove that we are wrong. It is that simple.
Robin can easily defend himself but please, Christian, do not use the word "intellectual" in that despising way. Stockhausen did it because he was attacked in his art by "intellectuals" - that is something completely different. An artist cannot be a mere intellectual (Stockhausen was one, though, in his theoretical texts) and his creation of art cannot be simply intellectualistic. BUT: A discussion like this must not be mythological or spiritual or anything like that. It must be intellectual (rational) EVEN IF one is talking about mythological or spiritual influences in an artist´s work. One does not have to be a spiritual believer to get "spiritual understanding of Stockhausen". I understood Ulrich´s last contribution saying the same. I do not think that you would object; I only wanted to make that clear.
I always thought that KS just stole from UB to get some exotic or nifty sounding titles for his later compositions .. (they are pretty 'cool' titles imo) .. and they fit into the image of the cosmological interests he always seemed to have. But beyond that, and some other minor things he stole from it .. it is just a minor, minor, minor spice or ingredient he dashed into his own unique musical BIG blend.
I want to come back to the start of this thread and to the question whether Stockhausen at the beginning of his plans for LICHT saw Michael as the UB's Creator Son a an archangel. In the Umbach interview of 1983 I mentioned in the other thread I saw that he speaks of an archagnegl(!). Stockhausen says:
I wonder: Did Stockhausen really say this or is this a wrong transcribition by "Der Spegel" and Stockhausen didn't correct it? I guess so because describing Michael as an archangel *and* as the master of our universe doesn't fit together because the expression "master of our universe" is a clear sign for the UB's conception of Michael. A little bit puzzling that...
Could that be a very clear and beautiful example of how Stockhausen used tradition? Obviously he was impressed by the Urantia Book and the fact that Michael play there an enormous role - but perhaps the fact that Michael is so important for the UB is also responsible for the fact that Stockhausen was attracted to the book. For he loved Michael from his childhood on, Michael as an archangel - and Michael continued to appear in this way to him; also the pictures he posessed and got from many people were the pictures of this archangel. So I think maybe he was not aware at all that there existed a problem, to identify archangel and master of our universe - for him it is just the same tradition.
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!