Talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Contents 1 Poetry 2 suggestion 3 quotes 4 suggestion: images 5 Nice 6 POV? 7 New Age 8 Notable students? 9 Unsourced statements 10 Better photo request

[edit] Poetry

Cam, luckily for me the poetry is in German. Hyacinth 20:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It exhibits a preoccupation with certain bodily fluids and the bits which produce them. I think it's meant to be erotic. Maybe in a live performance in the right environment it works, but listening to it on a CD at home, I'm just worried th neighbours might hear. Interesting piece, though. --Camembert

[edit] suggestion

Someone should look into the whole business concerning Stockhausen's publishing house. I think that the publishing house is part of the Stockhausen foundation and that the recording company is part of the publishing house. In that respect it is not enough to say that Stockhausen founded the record company "to make this music permanently available on compact disc". Rather, one should think of it as part of a concept, with which Stockhausen wants to make his life's work permanently available. Interesting in this respect is also, that Stockhausen bought back the rights for the publication of his pieces, both for scores and recordings ("Gaining access" sounds to passive, I think).

In general I think the article is very good!

[edit] quotes

I'm saddened the quote on BBC radio - whoever said it escapes me - isn't in the article. The one that goes, after a composer had heard any Stockhausen, he says "No, but I believe that I have trodden in some."

Sir Thomas Beecham said it. --Mandel

[edit] suggestion: images

Very interesting article! Thanks for writing it! Could anybody add some images? Musicmaster

There's now one. Hyacinth 20:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Where can I find information about his students? Thanks for posting. Melbrooks

Where can I find the official homepage of Stockhausen? I would appreciate a nice answer. --Koril 13:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the one? [1] - Runcorn 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, and this is where you can order his releases.

[edit] POV?

I removed this. Feel free to put it back if you like...

"It is also worth noting that in the broad scheme of electronic music one could make the argument that Stockhausen and his fellow musique concrete composers got a hold of a bunch of audio equipment that they did not even begin to understand, but managed to talk their way out of arguing whether they're music was good or not by saying it was avant garde art. Please see http://www.di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html."

Adambisset 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, leave it out.--Runcorn 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not acceptable to raise questions about Stockhausen's place in the musical world? Many, many fine musicians feel that he is a perfect example of the emperor wearing no clothes.

Adding criticism is fine, but it must be sourced. You must give names and formal publications of those who have criticized Stockhausen. Saying just "many composers" or "many critics" violates WP:WEASEL. CRCulver 00:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. But is it OK to point out that some of the jargon used by Stockhausen and others when discussing his music (including in the article here) is meaningless? (For the record, I am a professional composer, have a doctorate in composition from Juilliard, and I teach at the University of Montreal. So if I don't understand it, it is NOT due to lack of training.) 64.229.129.200 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Alan Belkin

No, it's not okay. Making claims about Stockhausen based on your own views violates WP:NOR. Everything on WP must be cited from external sources. Surely there's formal scholarship out there that you could use, and since you have access to a university library I imagine it would be quite easy for you to put together some good additions here. CRCulver 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, though this particular case cites a URL, the claims of technical incompetence are not found on that site. (Yes, I did look through that incredibly sloppy site *thoroughly*.) Jerome Kohl 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, musicians' opinions on composers are of no validity. --194.82.45.23 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement, or is it original research?--Runcorn 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Age

Category "New Age" musicians? Really? Is there any source that cites him as a member of this category, or even makes a plausible claim? Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to go back to the book and check, but I think this connection is made in Wolfgang Martin Stroh's book, Handbuch New Age Musik: auf der Suche nach neuen musikalischen Erfahrungen (Regensburg: ConBrio Verlagsgesellschaft, 1994). Is it Wiki protocol to require a published source to authenticate a category (as it is for article content)? If not, then consider the New Grove definition of "New Age" in comparison with Stockhausen's music and public statements, especially from 1968 onward:

An ideology based on the belief in the ultimate cultural evolution of human societies through the transformation of individuals. . . . its manifestations involve a great variety of techniques, including sound and music. A particular link is invoked connecting music, meditation and mind.

A search on Amazon.com for books on "New Age music" turns up the collection of Stockhausen essays, translated by Tim Nevill, Towards a Cosmic Music (1994). Amongst Stockhausen's compositions, the most obvious candidates for classification as "New Age" are Stimmung, Sternklang, and the American Indian Songs ("In the sky I am walking") from Alphabet für Liège. However, a number of other compositions (or portions of them) could also plausibly fit: some of the Aus den sieben Tagen pieces (most notably "Goldstaub" and "Litanei 97"), Trans, Ylem, Tierkreis (at least, in many performances), Sirius, Atmen gibt das Leben, many portions of Licht (amongst others, the "Invisible Choirs" from Donnerstag, the "Greetings" from Montag and Dienstag, "Michaelion" from Mittwoch, the electronic music from Freitag, "Lichter-Wasser" and the "Sonntags Abschied" from Sonntag), and, more recently, Natürliche Dauern (the "Third Hour" of Klang). Jerome Kohl 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any information in an article can be challenged if it is not properly sourced. A category provides information - there is no logical difference between adding a category about New Age and saying explicitly in the article that he is New Age.--Runcorn 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. How does one properly source a category, or is this something that should be added only if the article content makes an explicit, sourced reference? (BTW, I was not the person who added that category--I simply can see its plausibility for some of the composer's works.)--Jerome Kohl 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If the category has been queried, either mention the fact in the article or add a reference that specifically addresses the point and flag it "Stockhausen is New Age".--Runcorn 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable students?

This list seems to have a lot of redlinks. If they are all notable, can someone produce articles on them explaining why they're notable?--Runcorn 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "notable" is a contentious category. As the person who uplinked 25 of those 27 names, I suppose the burden is mainly on me to produce those articles. Or perhaps it would be better to change the section heading to something less liable to cause controversy, like simply "students"? This raises an issue with which I have been struggling for some months now, ever since I read further back on this Talk page a request for such a list. The names already posted are of composers who attended a regular course of composition study with Stockhausen, either at the Cologne Conservatory, the University of Pennsylvania, or the University of California Davis, or who studied privately with him in Cologne. I have another 75 or so names of people who attended intensive composition workshops under Stockhausen at Darmstadt or the Cologne Courses for New Music in the 1960s, another 40 composers who state in their resumés or press releases that they studied with Stockhausen in some capacity (in some cases, this amounts to nothing more than attending one of his Darmstadt lectures), and another 14 who are known to have attended his Darmstadt lectures, but who do not generally claim to have studied with him. All of these categories include names that are indisputably "notable", as well as names that may be "notable" perhaps only in their home countries, or only within certain circles. For example, many of the names which were totally unfamiliar to me turn out to be famous (or relatively famous) pop musicians, an area in which I have no expertise whatever. So, what are the criteria for inclusion? Put up the whole list of more than 150, and let the wikicommunity start trying to whittle it down? --Jerome Kohl 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice, as someone who knows a lot less about Stockhausen than you do but maybe more about Wikipedia, is to make a list of people who have genuinely studied with him, not just attended a couple of lectures. See where the redlinks are. On the classical side, you will have a good idea whether they are worth articles; if not, omit them. If there are pop musicians you are unsure about, post their names here and on WP:VPM for comment.--Runcorn 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "see where the redlinks are". I do see them, and have created two articles just today to help address the problem in this particular instance. My experience with Wikipedia is still very small, but I do know that there are in general a great many redlinks for people that I would regard as more notable than some others that have bluelinks. For comments from others who read this Talkpage on the redlink names presently in this section, would anyone care to tell me whether they think Alden Jenks, Will Johnson, Mark Riener, or Julian Woodruff are notable or not? (They were all in Stockhausen's Davis, California seminar in 1967, according to Jonathan Kramer's article, "Karlheinz in California", in Perspectives of New Music 36/1, pp. 247-61 and, though I have heard (vaguely) of Jenks and Johnson, the other two are not familiar names. --Jerome Kohl 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that editors expert in Stockhausen should produce a list that includes only who should be there because they really were his students, then see what redlinks remain. I suspected that many of the redlinks would be deleted.--Runcorn 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean now. It is remarkably difficult to sort this sort of thing out in some cases, since gaining access to conservatory and university student records is not really possible, for confidentiality reasons. Many individuals believe it will boost their standing to say they have studied with a celebrity, even if their contact was very tangential. Still, I take your point, and agree that at least a few of the redlinks will be deleted. There remains the serious question of just how "notable" is "notable"? For example, is being a professor of composition at an American university sufficient to count as "notable"? Does winning one international composition prize qualify? If so, then all but possibly two of the remaining redlinks should remain, and "go blue" in the end.--Jerome Kohl 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How am I doing so far?--Jerome Kohl 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me!--Runcorn 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that an anonymous contributor has added Peter D. Pecere to the "notable students" list. I find nothing at all about him, apart from the fact that he joined the American Composers Alliance in 2005, and had an unnamed piece performed (or at least, scheduled to be performed, the online notice mentioned but did not name "two casualties" on that program) recently at a regional conference of the (American) Society of Composers. Unless someone can explain how he qualifies as "notable" (as well as when and where he studied with Stockhausen—see above), I propose his name be removed from the list, as has been done with several redlinked names in the past.--Jerome Kohl 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It has now been a month since the addition of Pecere to the list of "notable students". Because I have failed in several further attempts to learn anything further about him, and no one else has offered any evidence of his notability, I have removed his name.--Jerome Kohl 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements

I have just reverted this article from an edit by an apparently well-meaning but anonymous contributor, who removed (amongst other things and without stating any reason for the changes) one source reference from an article already tagged for having unsourced statements. As it happens, I was responsible for adding all of the material deleted in this edit, but I am not personally invested in any of it, apart from the correction of the long-standing mistake of presenting "Burg Mödrath" as if it were the name of a town (it is in fact a building). If this anonymous editor has reasons for the other deletions ("too much information", "irrelevant data", "incorrect statements", etc.) he/she should mention them here, where I would be happy to discuss them.--Jerome Kohl 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better photo request

Can we get a better photo - that sideways shot is pretty bad. -asmadeus 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a better photo to offer, but I agree completely. Not only is it badly exposed, but Wikipedia guidelines specify that a portrait with the subject looking to the right should be placed at the left of the page (gazing into the center, instead of out beyond the margins). I repeatedly fixed this, but other people kept putting it back at the right. When the infobox was added, I could find no way of moving it back to the left, so I gave up.--Jerome Kohl 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's often very difficult to get a photo with no copyright problems.--Runcorn 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)