Karlheinz Stockhausen, Another expert slapped down Options

[guy]

From talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=84341254

OK, fair enough. But is it OK to point out that some of the jargon used by Stockhausen and others when discussing his music (including in the article here) is meaningless? (For the record, I am a professional composer, have a doctorate in composition from Juilliard, and I teach at the University of Montreal. So if I don't understand it, it is NOT due to lack of training.) 64.229.129.200 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Alan Belkin

No, it's not okay. Making claims about Stockhausen based on your own views violates WP:NOR. Everything on WP must be cited from external sources. Surely there's formal scholarship out there that you could use, and since you have access to a university library I imagine it would be quite easy for you to put together some good additions here. CRCulver 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The audacity of the man! Imagining that being a professional composer, having a doctorate in composition from Juilliard, and teaching at the University of Montreal gives him the right to say something about a fellow composer. Especially when his views agree with most people who know anything about classical music, but differ from those of the Stockhausen groupies who own the article.

[taiwopanfob]

A few seconds at google brings up:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-6016...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

Even from this abstract, we can conclude that 64.229.129.200 appears to be correct -- Stockhausen is a techno-babbler -- and that CRCulver is an intellectual lazy ass.

[Somey]

Stockhausen has groupies?

And they refuse to accept the idea that phrases like "polyvalent composition mode" are meaningless self-invented jargon?

How about are considered by some to be meaningless self-invented jargon? I guess if you're a Stockhausen groupie, they might mean something to you... I was always a big fan of the Cocteau Twins, and there used to be huge arguments on their mailing list over whether or not the singer, Liz Frazer, was actually singing real words or not. There were similar arguments about Michael Stipe back in the early days of R.E.M., though at least he was definitely singing real words, just not in grammatically understandable constructions.

You wouldn't think an article about Stockhausen would descend to the level of fancruft, but I've long since stopped being surprised by some of the stuff I see on WP...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

You wouldn't think an article about Stockhausen would descend to the level of fancruft, but I've long since stopped being surprised by some of the stuff I see on WP...

But then again, you might be surprised. Stockhausen granted an interview to Rolling Stone magazine back in the early '70s, and they bestowed upon him the same adoring attention they were giving to the rock bands of the day. I could say more, but then, it would probably just be the conspiratorial cosmology talking. So, why not Wikipedia?

[guy]

Stockhausen has groupies?

Look how many of the edits have been made by one user, and then look at his user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerome_Kohl

His dissertation is titled "Serial and Non-Serial Techniques in the Music of Karlheinz Stockhausen from 1962-1968"; he is currently completing a book on Stockhausen's Zeitma?ƒe, he was invited to present papers at the "Stockhausen 70 Symposion" and "Stockhausen 2000 Symposion" and he is the Editor and chief translator for the forthcoming English edition of Stockhausen's Texts on Music.

How would he react to criticisms of Stockhausen? There is indeed a section on criticisms, and look what he did to Stravinsky's well-attested comment that Stockhausen was boring: "Igor Stravinsky expressed great, but not uncritical enthusiasm for Stockhausen's music"!

[Poetlister]

I endorse the views of Sir Thomas Beecham, which seem to have survived unscathed in the article.