Stockhausen - Klavierstuck

Tiger wrote:

How many pianists have studied or know this work?

I find them very innovative in the instrumental gesture, look at the facial expressions of Pollini... hunting for sonorities...

It is a very important piece of 20th-century literature. And by now it is "history" (It is from 1953, if I am not mistaken).

I studied it during my conservatory years, in the 6th year.

> And now it is "history"

I agree, if you (or those interested) had to indicate a piece for piano that is important and more recent, what would you think of?

142 then 87 repeated chord(s)... how do you count them or do you go by ear?

Sorry guys, but is it atonal music?? I really don't like it, it doesn't convey anything to me.

Do you have any advice on how to learn to appreciate it??

sisifo1987 wrote:

Sorry guys, but is it atonal music?? I really don't like it, it doesn't convey anything to me.

Well, there are people who don't like Chopin, that's the least of it

Atonal can mean everything and nothing, it is certainly not tonal

sisifo1987 wrote:

Do you have any advice on how to learn to appreciate it??

For this, one would need to undertake a listening journey... where is your ear stuck?"

Rotore wrote:

...where does your ear stop?

Do you mean what kind of music I like?? All tonal music and definitely not non-tonal music ...am I missing something??

sisifo1987 wrote:

Are you asking what music I like?? All tonal music and definitely not non-tonal music ... am I missing something??

Practically, apart from 3 centuries, you are missing everything... in particular the last 100 years

As if you liked reading up to Verga... then that's it.... Montale, Calvino, etc. ... nothing (and not even Dante if we think about what came before)

Important... whether you like it or not means nothing, for example, you didn't know the piece from the topic... now you can say that you don't like it. Before, you couldn't say anything, except to acknowledge that you have major gaps... especially as a pianist.

It is probably a problem you need to address, as I was saying, by undertaking a listening journey... perhaps guided one.

Well, pianist is a big word!! my studies of the piano anthology are just beginning.

In the past I tried listening to some Liszt and it's not too bad, but the sense of suspension without any point of reference bothers me while listening. I have a sense of strange suffering ...anyway thanks for the advice.

Impossible to play on digital pianos even when using sampled libraries... Especially the first part of this piece is designed to exploit the dynamic but above all timbral nuances of the piano. Every chord must be different from another (timbrally and dynamically speaking). Stockhausen here has completely detached himself from melodic variation to concentrate on timbral, dynamic, and agogic variation, almost as if wanting to outline an expansion of time and space. Also brilliant is the massive use of the tonal pedal (the middle one) to highlight the harmonics transmitted through sympathetic vibration. A study and a very interesting perspective in my opinion...

Beautiful sound, except for the excellent Pollini... Full-bodied but not graceless bass, a well-equalized cantabile, and highs that are anything but dry. Excellent performer, excellent piano, excellent technician who prepared it, excellent sound engineering team.

Chopin wrote:

142 then 87 repeated chord(s)... how do you count them [...)?

One... two... three... four... up to 139, then one longer one and then you start again... it's not difficult. The difficult part comes later!

sisifo1987 wrote:

Do you mean what kind of music I like?? All tonal music and definitely not non-tonal music ...am I missing something??

Be careful, however, about what is meant by "non-tonal." Non-tonal is Stockhausen, but also Arvo Pärt; Boulez, but also Debussy; Bussotti, but also Gesualdo da Venosa...

TheSimon wrote:

Impossible to play on digital pianos even when using sampled libraries...

...whereas Chopin, I don't know, the prelude op 28 no. 4 ... is it?

You know how boring it is on a digital, all those identical repeated notes... if the composer writes piano in the score, they mean piano. Otherwise, they would have written tape or other devilry of that sort

I can easily prove to you that in Chopin's prelude you wouldn't notice listening to a sampled piano simply because the intent is different... In this piece by Stockhausen, there are especially 137 chords whose only difference is the dynamics and the sound timbre. In the prelude, the bass chords act as a carpet; what matters is the right hand reciting in the cantabile section. It is difficult to make 137 chords different from one another with just, at best, 18 different timbral levels distributed over 127 velocity levels, which are already fewer than the 137 chords we have to play ranging from fff to ppp. What can we possibly do in between??

Instead, I think that the dynamic and timbral variety in the texture of that insignificant Chopin piece matters and, above all, a learner does not learn it through a digital [instrument].

As a result, as soon as they put their hands on a grand piano, they will play terribly... but they will already be accustomed to it.

And the audience will ask themselves the necessary questions... who knows if Pollini, when he studied to record that work... used a digital [instrument]. They didn't exist. Old school

You are talking to someone who has both a digital and a grand piano and, among other things, works with both instruments; I think I know well what I am saying and what I work on. It's not that I am speaking with bias. Perhaps you should spend a few thousand euros on libraries as I did to understand where there might be a difference and where the difference is only recognizable to experts (I'm not saying there is no difference, mind you...). I can assure you that there are libraries that you would hardly be able to distinguish from the sound of an acoustic piano. If you want, I can open a post and we can do a test... I will post acoustic and digital recordings and whoever wants to can say which is the acoustic one and which is the digital one. This is because I do not love sterile positions supported by words alone... I prefer facts. Believe me when I speak and take a position, it is because I know well what I am saying; otherwise, I prefer to remain silent.

TheSimon, if you could do it I would give you a kiss... I mean posting two recordings: one analog and the other digital of that piece.

It's a lifetime that I am undecided, how many euros would it take?

Honestly, that Chopin prelude is a piece that does not belong to my repertoire, but I am happy to study it to be able to demonstrate this.

Let me tell you an anecdote... The other day I was at Paolo's (pianoexpert) house. As you all know, Paolo is a research technician and pianist. He must have seen and played a million pianos, and he has participated in the production of some albums; I don't think one could say his opinion is not reliable. I brought a CD with 6 samples, all from the same Mozart sonata. At least 2 of these, according to him, were practically unrecognizable from a recording of an excellent acoustic Steinway D.

As for prices, it depends; the last library I bought, I paid €600 for it. It takes up 320 GB of disk space. I have about fifteen of them, some old ones that I no longer use. Do the math at an average price of €250.

TheSimon wrote:

Honestly, that Chopin prelude is a piece that does not belong to my repertoire, but I am happy to study it to be able to demonstrate this.

...come on, it's just a page. For someone like you

Anyway, I am curious too. The learning process remains an unknown; did you graduate using digital [tools]?