Karlheinz Stockhausen - Kontakte

You know it's been a while since the topic has excited me... any references/links, etc?

I don't know how many people know that there are 2 versions, one of which involves the use of the piano. And honestly speaking, it is a whole different thing 😉

In a way, this is the essence of the title Kontakte, contact between two worlds, that of traditional instruments and that of electroacoustic instruments 😉

Margherita1 wrote:

A bit of this is the essence of the title Kontakte, contact between two worlds, that of traditional instruments and that of electroacoustic instruments 😉

Exactly, Kontakte, which dates back to 1960, represents one of the very first examples of integration between the

electronic medium and acoustic instruments (piano and percussion)

The entirely electronic version is the least common

However, the title refers to the contact between 6 different forms of sound spatialization, that is, between the solutions for defining and treating its relationship with space: rotation, circular movement, alternation, separate sound sources, interconnected

sound sources, sounds isolated in space.

But also to the contact that is created, as with Gesang, between synthesized and acoustic sounds.

On a formal level, however, the composition is based on 16 structures, linked to each other seamlessly. But beyond the technical data, what emerges is the composer's great fantasy in combining mysterious sounds, as if coming from another planet, and others more familiar to our listening experience.

But isn't there anything on YouTube? Post some recordings...

Great intervention Tiger 😉

TheSimon wrote:

But isn't there anything on YouTube? Post some recordings...

It's only 35' 🥷

Karlheinz Stockhausen, Kontakte (live recording, Nov. 3 2008)

Open content (youtube)

Thank you darling ! 😉

I don't know how many, however, know that the two performers were the Contarsky brothers 😉

Don't you guys ever sleep? 🙂

Good arguments, thank you 😉

Every hour you sleep is one less hour that you live... Think what a rip-off having to sleep!

Frank wrote:

I don't know how many people know, however, that the two performers were the Kontarsky brothers 😉

I have the LP of Mantra with the Kontarsky brothers, truly special; I heard them live in Rome playing Boulez (if I remember correctly...)

I couldn't have hoped for better. Did anyone step into the role of the two performers for a moment?

... and discussing the score ...? 😎

Xenakis wrote:

I couldn't have hoped for better. Did anyone step into the role of the 2 performers for a moment?

... and score discussion ...? 😎

Good question... here is the score

http://www.mediafire.com/?jvz4x0zgclm

I have some interesting material on the matter, including some in PDF. Anyone interested should contact me privately.

Frank wrote:

I don't know how many people know, however, that the two performers were the Contarsky brothers

Which performance, Frank?

Carlos wrote:

Which performance, Frank?

The one relating to the version for electronic sounds (tape), piano and percussion ... but I am not sure about the nature of your question

Xenakis wrote:

Did anyone step into the role of the 2 performers for a moment?

A fundamental fact is that the instruments cannot decide the direction in any way; all their articulations are based on the relentless timing of the tape

Margherita1 wrote:

I don't know how many people know that there are 2 versions, one of which involves the use of the piano. And honestly speaking, it is a completely different thing

In the meantime, complexity increases given the addition of 27 instruments, and one gets the impression of following a multi-layered piece; the traditional instruments, in their relationship with electronic sounds, have several functions:

a) Underlining and timbral expansion of electronic sounds, as in the case of the 10.4'' piccolo tam

b) Completion of phrases

c) Relative autonomy of the instruments in moments when the functions separate; see when the tape stabilizes on a static band and the traditional instruments continue to interact with each other through single strikes, chords, or phrases (see 3' 9.1'')

D) Mixed situations, see the concomitance of a) and c)

Etc

Even if at a perceptual level it is certainly a different thing, no sounds are removed or added compared to the tape-only version (which can be in quadraphonic, stereo, or mono). This means that for S., the presence or absence of instruments does not necessitate any modification of the formal functions of the tape. They can be obscured, confused, downplayed, or highlighted through fusion or contrast via the intervention of the instruments, but they constitute a texture without which the piece would make no sense.

Frank wrote:

The one relating to the version for electronic sounds (tape), piano and percussion ... but I am not sure about the nature of your question

Ah ok ok, sorry: since I know nothing about this piece and gave a quick listen to the link posted above, I thought you were referring to that, but having seen other names I didn't understand... Thanks for the clarification

...and what do you think? Without using swear words

And I am truly interested.

I think it is truly stimulating to listen to both versions, to see how a piece changes "alone" by changing the "timbre".

Which then ... "timbre"; I say this because the electroacoustic means of the era were rudimentary and they started right from sine waves... nothing to do with the richness of the spectrum of a sound produced by traditional instruments