Helmut Lachenmann - Concertini (2005)

Thank you, I listened to all 4 videos and I liked everything.

I have only listened to the first one

RedScharlach wrote:

Now I am listening to Concertini: it is disconcerting how the pure and hard "instrumental musique concrète" of Kontrakadenz (1970-71) manages, thirty years later, to open itself up to an experience that embraces "consonance" at every level, a music where everything is driven forward by an inexorable and overwhelming rhythm.

It had been a while since I last listened to Lachenmann and I must say that despite this new openness compared to his works from half a century ago, I have the impression that stylistically he still has too many "hangovers" from the past; to me it appears as a piece that is already dated. Clearly mine is just an opinion regarding aesthetic approach, besides it's Lachenmann... what could one ever say to him

But ... in particular, in which of the 4 pieces do you find an inexorable and overwhelming rhythm... I would say of the piece taken from Bertrand's linked topic, but this...? ...!

Frank wrote:

It had been a while since I last listened to Lachenmann and I must say that despite this new openness compared to his works from half a century ago, I have the impression that stylistically he still has too many "hangovers" from the past; to me it appears as a piece that is already dated.

Dated compared to some other Lachenmann piece or to some other contemporary composer in particular?

At the beginning, the trombone's "melody" [00.50], with its disconnected intervals and sudden sforzando, "sounds" unequivocally like 1950s pointillism. If one wishes, it sounds more dated than what is heard in Kontrakadenz. As far as I am concerned, it is not interesting in itself. However, it is a sign: the world of Concertini welcomes it, just as it welcomes many other different things – beautiful and ugly? Perhaps. There is also a sharp C major of string harmonics [2.41]. What is it that holds everything together? In my opinion, it is precisely that rhythm... it is heard explicitly for the first time – though still somewhat hidden – in a rapid clarinet scale [2.00].

Of course, it cannot be compared to the vortices of Vertigo: there, the rhythm is always explicit. Concertini, for the record, is a single 40-minute movement (not 4 movements of 10 minutes): the main metronome is fixed on the quarter note at 56, and the rhythmic flow is the triplet of sixteenth notes. But this pulsation is internal, subcutaneous (but not for that reason any less driving). Anyone who wants to hear it explode must go to the second video.

The main difference between Concertini and Vertigo – or one of the most obvious ones – is that in Bertrand we have homogeneous sections that can last from 26 to 306 seconds; in Lachenmann, the landscape changes practically with every bar, every moment there is something new to listen to – and in this sense, Lachenmann demands much more rapid listening than Bertrand.

What is impressive about Concertini? That it is direct. Yes, there are points of dispersion (a sound here, a sound there, but what is the relationship? the doubt remains) ... however, every dispersion is immediately reabsorbed – with a violent and at the same time almost playful gesture – by the inexorable flow of a rhythm that sweeps everything away. I mean, the problem for listening has always been unrelated events or those difficult to relate (Kontrakadenz), for which there was no foothold, one would get lost (it is difficult to relate during listening, a very complex task, one must have fast ears because it is necessary to hold this together with that, even when this and that are extremely heterogeneous, two points very far apart in the acoustic space), whereas in Concertini, as soon as the ground disappears from under your feet, as soon as the foothold is lost, here comes the rhythm again, dragging you away along with everything else.

Example: the second video, at 05.30, after the section where the harp is the protagonist (but actually even before, from the very beginning).

First of all, Red, I thank you for the rich contribution which I truly appreciated very much; between the lines, you have perfectly described why it is a piece that seems dated to me and if you think about it:

- 1950s Pointillism,

> in Lachenmann the landscape

> changes practically with every bar,

> every moment there is something new to listen to

> – and in this sense, Lachenmann demands much more

> listening speed than Bertrand.

- Above all, all of this refers back to structuralism, which is an aesthetic that has run its course (and declined)

- I would add that furthermore it is still very tied to the world of musique concrète

Here are these three factors, well mixed, bringing the ear back to those fabulous, already passed 1980s. There is nothing wrong with it; they even told Brahms that he wrote a bit datedly, but it is so beautiful that you can't say anything to him. By the way, I like that in your intervention there is a veiled reference to “beautiful and ugly things.”

Anyway, you say that these remnants are not interesting in themselves, and that makes sense; as a composer, you focus more on this openness to the listener (by the way, now I understand what you meant by 'dragged' in reference to the rhythm. Of course, as you well describe, it is a way to give a minimum of certainty to the listener, but in fact this is not a novelty in an absolute sense, certainly for Lachenmann). It is precisely as a listener that I say, because of all this, I find the good Bertrand more centered in the twenty-first century than the "new" Lachenmann. I write this not because I care about which of the two has it harder, but because both have tried to respond to a need, but Lachenmann seems more weighed down by those "burdens" typical of his aesthetic... which made an era, so hats off to him.

Nowadays, with all my subjectivity as a pure listener, this piece by Lachenmann does not impress me all that much; if I go to a Contemporary music concert hall, I hope not to find the Lachenmann of the day dusted off, but something relatively new... otherwise it ends up like the Contemporary Music Hub Milano

Obviously, composers of Lachenmann's stature always emerge egregiously... but what interests me is that the underlying concept comes through, and I am not convinced that dusted-off classics are in the spirit of the Contemporary. Am I wrong? ... or rather, to me, all this is starting to confirm that Lachenmann is truly becoming a classic now... said with the noblest intentions.

But you know ... dated ... one must understand what is meant. You hear a moment of pointillism, you perceive it as dated because it is effectively dated (that is, easily referable to a mode widespread in the 50s), and thus the entire piece results in being dated? Or must one hear that object and yet recognize that within the piece there are a multitude of different things, and then one must also pose the problem of how that fits together with everything else?

What does it mean that it is still concrete? Lachenmann is that; his world is the concrete; should we ask him to do something else to be up-to-date?

Lachenmann was born in 1935; his research began to become paradigmatic at the end of the 60s, when he was about thirty years old; musique concrète is his world, which he has explored for fifty years (Bach explored counterpoint his whole life, while in his era those who wanted to be up-to-date – and wanted to make money – turned to melodrama), except that unlike his numerous followers, for whom this research reduces to the search for "cheap effects," Lachenmann's discourse is articulated and complex.

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/4316-helmut-lachenmann-il-mio-percorso-esistenziale-e-musicale-2011/?hl=lachenmann

Toda his discourse is about sound: it is not theory, it is practice, it is his experience. What is the difference between Lachenmann and the hundreds of followers scattered around the world? Among the many, there is the difference that in Lachenmann every sound is part of a vision – of the world. A vision that is both articulated and unitary, where heterogeneity is welcomed, but before being welcomed it is understood (or perhaps welcoming and understanding are contemporary – it doesn't matter much). Every sound is experienced by thought – and by the stomach.

And over the years he has not stood still. His world has progressively expanded, including more and more things: and this was what I noticed in Concertini, this was what I meant by openness: openness to other sounds, to sounds already known (a C major arpeggio on the piano is more heterogeneous to the splashing of water in a zinc basin compared to the harmonics of strings). Openness to listeners? Well, I don't know, maybe; but probably not much more than Kontrakadenz.

By the way, I'll take this opportunity because re-listening to Kontrakadenz, I must say that I have reconsidered. It is not just hard and pure musique concrète. Even here – despite all the demonstrative value of the moment of discovering the new world of instrumental musique concrète – sound has its full value as an instigator of relationships. But it also has a more immediate value: it is seductive.

Open content (youtube)

It will be interesting to analyze ... but as far as I am concerned (speaking from a listening perspective) I didn't like it at all. I am aware that my opinion is worth nothing but, excuse my frankness, I am certainly not sure I want to pay money for a ticket where this composer's music is performed.

The discussion prompted me to skim through the 4 pages of the forum section for pieces of this century; in effect, Lachenmann is the only one who uses noise in a structural way. One of my teachers always used to say that a scratch is as much a historicized fact as an octave interval; from this perspective, one can be free to use both "stylisms" without too many scruples. Therefore, even if on one hand I understand that Lachenmann has been pursuing this common thread for decades—this spasmodic relationship with the world of the concrete—on the other hand, it has the same value as if he were working with sound.

Lachenmann doesn't drive me crazy, but he operates in this niche; it is his choice, and regardless of taste, he has my respect.

These days I am continuously listening to Lachenmann again. Salut für Caudwell is from 1977. What surprises me is constantly finding openings in the most unexpected directions. A sort of signals. Of course, they are sometimes very faint signals, but still signals, like when [2:08] one listens to an arpeggio that opens a section of regular pulsations which then welcome the spoken word. I don't quite know what 'narrative' means, but this seems truly narrative to me. The form is very clear: it is impossible not to perceive the different sections. Within this form, there is also space for surprises, perhaps very obvious ones [11:20].

Open content (youtube)

Indeed, as Jack says, the link is no longer available, alternatives?

Thanks, but can it be downloaded from SoundCloud?

There are several programs to do it, 4k downloader; 4k youtube to mp3 and even others, but right now a specific name escapes me.

I found Video Grubby http://www.videograbby.com/