Philomel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngw1AzxGF0Y

What do you all think of this? Be honest, don't jump on any bandwagons, and be specific if possible.

I didn't know this piece, but then again, I am poorly .. heard?

I actually don't like the use of the voice, but i tend not to in most pieces -- sounds very performance art/fluxus in the use. Obviously, this is 1961, so i have a ton of respect for HOW he made the music, defs sounds like the Princeton dept, i might have my people crossed though.

Of course the biggest thing is how the electronics work with the performed element, and i think it's interesting because that kind of electronics is both atmospheric and supportive in nature, somethign that's always hard to do.

The second part, where it switches to the synth noise is likely mathematical, but just sounds like twinkling. I'm not sure if it works int he forefront like that. Then again, maybe it's just the sound, because the other breaks where it's more electronic in sound works better, especially at something like 8:50.

Starting the second half, it almost sounds liek there was something cut, but whatever. More sparse sounds lead to a much slower attack, then a vocal focus. He shifts very quickly, very good fo my musical ADD. By 8:00, i think it's starting to get kind of long. there's not much change over hte piece, despite the on-crack approach to the background.. the texture just doesn't move.

then again, who am I to argue with one of the best electronic composers?

To be frank:

This is like Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire. It has the similar style: an eerie tone and structural to it. The atonality is not forced, but still is creepy. I am not sure about the voice for it is awkward at times. The orchestration that is used is executed well, and it adds nice atmosphere to the vocals. However, nothing is never new anymore, and it's too similar to Pierrot Lunaire. Babbit is a copy cat of Schoenberg, but that's just my ears telling me that.

To be frank:

This is like Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire. It has the similar style: an eerie tone and structural to it. The atonality is not forced, but still is creepy. I am not sure about the voice for it is awkward at times. The orchestration that is used is executed well, and it adds nice atmosphere to the vocals. However, nothing is never new anymore, and it's too similar to Pierrot Lunaire. Babbit is a copy cat of Schoenberg, but that's just my ears telling me that.

I see what you mean about the use of vocals, though didn't Schoenberg rap more (ie sprectgesang)? I'm surprised that you saw the electronic elements as more Schoenberg than Mumma or Stockhausen, care to elaborate why?

Actually to my ears this Babbit piece is TAMER than Pierrot. It has a very strong sense of cadence and release if you listen carefully - it is just not done thru classical or late romantic period harmony - rather, reduction of rhythmic conflict, tessitura, contrapuntal means, and reversing the expected order of consonance and dissonance where a consonant 4th or 5th will pop up and will be the big surprise. In this piece, the last item doesn't occur as much but check out hi clarinet quintet and piano concerto. Also, Babbit did write a ton of popular music when he first started out. I could argue that Babbit took the path Gershwin was inching toward at the very end of his life (I mean listen to Gershwin's Piano Concerto carefully and compare some of the textures to the Second Viennese school and Ravel - you'll hear some very subtle influences). And if you want to hear a great meld of jazz and serial techniques check out Babbit's All Set, here is a link to a performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s11zaVuqzlE&playnext=1&list=PL650FA23B86D3AAF6

greetings magna didn't know you still haunt this place.