Sad news,

This is worth reading and it ties into recent discussions on this list.

http://www.music.princeton.edu/~ckk/smmt/scientific.commentary.2.html

Of course he will always be remembered as an avant garde composer, but much of Stockhausens greatness is missed by artists who saw him as a pseudo-scientist and scientists who dismissed him as an artist. He was both at different times. A lack of rigor and precise voclabulary hides his contribution to psychoacoustics, he basically provided experimental support to Gabors theories, yet he is not mentioned once in critcal textbooks like McAdams and Bigand.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:45:35 +0000 "eric labelle" dubian@dubearth.com wrote:

Thanks for posting this Chris...it is quite a loss.

2007/12/10, Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx:

...

Hi,

I haven't seen anyone post on the list about this, so I thought I'd mention it. < http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/arts/music/08stockhausen-1.html?_r=1&r...

...

Best,

Chris.

---

http://mccormick.cx

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

-- Eric Labelle dubian@dubearth.com ________________________________ Disques Dubearth - www.dubearth.com F_actorvisuals - www.f-actorvisuals.net King Tubby's Heritage Dub Foundation

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:41:32 +0100 Yvan Vander Sanden yvan@youngmusic.org wrote:

And of coruse we must not forget he came from sirius to explain us all that :-)

No way? A or B? I can't stand those wankers from Sirius B with their "our star's brighter than yours" crap. Or was he a scientologist, where do they come from again?

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Siriusly though...

I seem to recall Newton was something of an occultist. Einstein and many other scientists share beliefs in supernatural entities. Does that really effect the value of their work?

By all accounts Stockhausen was an arrogant man, which perhaps explains his clumbsy explanations due to unwillingness to research and study others.

But, whatever you think of the man and his ravings, the work stands on its merits because it confirms hypotheses and has predictive utility. That makes it science. Probably more so than Art imho.

What kinda makes him great, but also a bit sad, is what he achieved was in isolation, like many who fall into the cracks between the pillars of established thought.

andy

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:41:32 +0100 Yvan Vander Sanden yvan@youngmusic.org wrote:

Andy Farnell wrote:

...

Of course he will always be remembered as an avant garde composer, but much of Stockhausens greatness is missed by artists who saw him as a pseudo-scientist and scientists who dismissed him as an artist. He was both at different times. A lack of rigor and precise voclabulary hides his contribution to psychoacoustics, he basically provided experimental support to Gabors theories, yet he is not mentioned once in critcal textbooks like McAdams and Bigand.

And of coruse we must not forget he came from sirius to explain us all that :-)

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

and even on flickr he is hard to focus on - is that art or science?

or is he simply between the layers of focus? neither nearfield nor infinitely distant.

only time (or periods, or phases, or whatever term he would be using) will tell.

tm

On 11/12/2007, at 1:16 AM, beau wrote:

He'll be missed, but the music will live on: http://flickr.com/photos/cypod/2094889566/

On Dec 11, 2007 5:15 AM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
wrote:

...

Siriusly though...

I seem to recall Newton was something of an occultist. Einstein and many other scientists share beliefs in supernatural entities. Does that really effect the value of their work?

By all accounts Stockhausen was an arrogant man, which perhaps explains his clumbsy explanations due to unwillingness to research and study others.

But, whatever you think of the man and his ravings, the work stands on its merits because it confirms hypotheses and has predictive
utility. That makes it science. Probably more so than Art imho.

What kinda makes him great, but also a bit sad, is what he
achieved was in isolation, like many who fall into the cracks between the pillars of established thought.

andy

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:41:32 +0100 Yvan Vander Sanden yvan@youngmusic.org wrote:

...

Andy Farnell wrote:

...

Of course he will always be remembered as an avant garde composer, but much of Stockhausens greatness is missed by artists who saw
him as a pseudo-scientist and scientists who dismissed him as an artist. He was both at different times. A lack of rigor and precise
voclabulary hides his contribution to psychoacoustics, he basically provided experimental support to Gabors theories, yet he is not mentioned
once in critcal textbooks like McAdams and Bigand.

And of coruse we must not forget he came from sirius to explain
us all that :-)

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list

-- Use the source

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Andy Farnell wrote:

Of course he will always be remembered as an avant garde composer, but much of Stockhausens greatness is missed by artists who saw him as a pseudo-scientist and scientists who dismissed him as an artist. He was both at different times. A lack of rigor and precise voclabulary hides his contribution to psychoacoustics, he basically provided experimental support to Gabors theories, yet he is not mentioned once in critcal textbooks like McAdams and Bigand.

Oh, that happens everywhere. If you're not part of a university or if you're just a student of some prof or if you're just a research assistant of some prof or if you write in a way that doesn't sound as stuck up as usual... in the latter case you might get told to just go the the philosophy department instead. of course, when you get there, the philosophers will wonder why anyone wanted to send you to the philosophy department in the first place.

It's sad, for example, that you can't talk about the aesthetics of mathematical proofs without first getting out of your main topic and write something specifically about the aesthetics of mathematical proofs so that you can support a certain way of making proofs that you want to use in your specialty field and that otherwise may look inferior to other proofs under statu-quo aesthetic standards of mathematics. Of course it sounds a lot better if you don't have to cite your own article for supporting yourself. If I were writing in math, perhaps I would have an extensive network of pseudonyms writing in different fields. But then if you're in the middle of your masters then most likely you can't pull that trick and you have to submit yourself to your advisor. In any case, chances are that anyone reading your citation of a philosophical thingie will not bother reading the philosophical article and will not think at all about whether they should change their minds about the corresponding issue, so, in that case, my method of proof would still suck.

(this is not all from personal experience, there's a little personal experience and the rest is extrapolation of what would happened if I had stayed 2 or 3 more years in the math dept. I only have a B.Sc. degree.)

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada