While the following musing isn’t intended to take anything away from the singularity of Pisaro’s achievement here…
…it strikes me that, far more than is the case with any other Darmstadt composer’s MO, and despite his still being far less of a “household name” than Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, et al., it’s now Lachenmann’s explorations of the line between pitch and noise that provide the touchstone for the current generation of “cutting edge” composers. Simplistic, I know, and as all generalisations tend to be, but is it fair, do you think?
i don’t think it is fair, no. Speaking for myself, as a composer who flirts regularly (putting it mildly) with the distinction between pitch and noise, i can’t say that Lachenmann is someone uppermost in my mind in this area, though of course i know exactly what you mean, as this is a quality (one of many) that characterises his work. This kind of exploration, it seems to me, is very widespread today – as much, if not more so, in the world of electronic music – so i suspect it’s over-simplistic to think of any one composer as the ‘touchstone’ for what is a highly varied and diverse line of enquiry.
Fair enough (as it were!); a mere thinking-aloud was all it was, and a pretty poorly-expressed one at that. I just find it curious that the kind of experimentation on which Lachenmann’s reputation largely rests is providing such a rich compositional seam at present, whereas many of the other innovations of his Darmstadt peers are not.
Well, total serialism is ridiculous, so that’s perhaps not surprising; collage has perhaps been supplanted by a more subtle ‘referential’/allusive compositional approach.
As for stochastic composition, i’m certainly doing my bit to ensure it becomes a lot more prevalent!
Re: serialism generally, those who claim it’s dead are apt to sound as silly as those serialists who kept saying that the symphony is dead, but, even so, there are very few living composers who are proudly true to the faith; in fact, right now I can only think of Wuorinen.
Anyway, I’m both digressing and waffling dreadfully. And perhaps my impression doesn’t reflect reality very much at all; nevertheless, it still seems to me that pitch/noise experimentation is very much du jour, the other MOs we’ve been discussing (despite your own admirable efforts!) rather less so.
Your comment was actually fair. While “this kind of exploration is very widespread today”, it was not when Ferneyhough started to write this kind of music. Saying Lanchemann’s “musique concrète instrumentale” is not a touchstone if not THE touchstone in the development of the various “noisy styles” of today is like saying Schönberg’s music has nothing to do with integral serialism from the 50’s. A lot of composers often tries to refute that kind of obvious historical lineage, but it’s more often than not an attempt at hiding the fact than their music is simply not original at all.
Thank you for your support for my position, which I’m now belatedly acknowledging!
How much subtle distinction between “noisy” styles actually exists, and how much is down to many composers “hiding the fact than their music is simply not original at all”, is doubtless a moot point; all I know is that many’s the time recently that I’ve sat down to an HCMF premiere and immediately found myself thinking of Lachenmann.
That said, such accusations of hiding are not something that can be levelled at Simon’s own music, which is largely electronic and therefore bears no resemblance to Lachenmann’s for the most part.
[…] and the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, Ilan Volkov (cond); not commercially released but archived here A radical reimagining of both the idea of a concerto and what sounds an orchestra can produce, this […]
Unlock with Patreon
While the following musing isn’t intended to take anything away from the singularity of Pisaro’s achievement here…
…it strikes me that, far more than is the case with any other Darmstadt composer’s MO, and despite his still being far less of a “household name” than Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, et al., it’s now Lachenmann’s explorations of the line between pitch and noise that provide the touchstone for the current generation of “cutting edge” composers. Simplistic, I know, and as all generalisations tend to be, but is it fair, do you think?
i don’t think it is fair, no. Speaking for myself, as a composer who flirts regularly (putting it mildly) with the distinction between pitch and noise, i can’t say that Lachenmann is someone uppermost in my mind in this area, though of course i know exactly what you mean, as this is a quality (one of many) that characterises his work. This kind of exploration, it seems to me, is very widespread today – as much, if not more so, in the world of electronic music – so i suspect it’s over-simplistic to think of any one composer as the ‘touchstone’ for what is a highly varied and diverse line of enquiry.
Fair enough (as it were!); a mere thinking-aloud was all it was, and a pretty poorly-expressed one at that. I just find it curious that the kind of experimentation on which Lachenmann’s reputation largely rests is providing such a rich compositional seam at present, whereas many of the other innovations of his Darmstadt peers are not.
Can you elaborate on what you call “the other innovations of his Darmstadt peers”?
Off the top of my head: total serialism, Sinfonia-style collage, stochastic composition.
Well, total serialism is ridiculous, so that’s perhaps not surprising; collage has perhaps been supplanted by a more subtle ‘referential’/allusive compositional approach.
As for stochastic composition, i’m certainly doing my bit to ensure it becomes a lot more prevalent!
Re: serialism generally, those who claim it’s dead are apt to sound as silly as those serialists who kept saying that the symphony is dead, but, even so, there are very few living composers who are proudly true to the faith; in fact, right now I can only think of Wuorinen.
Anyway, I’m both digressing and waffling dreadfully. And perhaps my impression doesn’t reflect reality very much at all; nevertheless, it still seems to me that pitch/noise experimentation is very much du jour, the other MOs we’ve been discussing (despite your own admirable efforts!) rather less so.
Your comment was actually fair. While “this kind of exploration is very widespread today”, it was not when Ferneyhough started to write this kind of music. Saying Lanchemann’s “musique concrète instrumentale” is not a touchstone if not THE touchstone in the development of the various “noisy styles” of today is like saying Schönberg’s music has nothing to do with integral serialism from the 50’s. A lot of composers often tries to refute that kind of obvious historical lineage, but it’s more often than not an attempt at hiding the fact than their music is simply not original at all.
Thank you for your support for my position, which I’m now belatedly acknowledging!
How much subtle distinction between “noisy” styles actually exists, and how much is down to many composers “hiding the fact than their music is simply not original at all”, is doubtless a moot point; all I know is that many’s the time recently that I’ve sat down to an HCMF premiere and immediately found myself thinking of Lachenmann.
That said, such accusations of hiding are not something that can be levelled at Simon’s own music, which is largely electronic and therefore bears no resemblance to Lachenmann’s for the most part.
Actually, electronic music forms a relatively small part of my output (so far), but you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
I stand duly corrected!
Beautiful commentary on this magnificent work. Couldn’t agree more with all of it, so well expressed. Thanks.
[…] and the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, Ilan Volkov (cond); not commercially released but archived here A radical reimagining of both the idea of a concerto and what sounds an orchestra can produce, this […]