Helicopter Quartet

I’m making my way through Krautrocksampler, the out of print Julian Cope book about the first German rock movement, and I happened across a this helicopter string quartet. Stockhausen decided to record and film a string quartet traveling in separate helicopters performing an original composition. The blades cutting the air make trance-like percussion supporting the gliding strings.

Part1: Part 2:

Musically, I’m not sure if the piece is that interesting with the conceit of the helicopters removed, but the point of the piece is surely the removal of conceit itself. It was no coincidence, in fact it seems barely an insight, that Stockhausen and Cage achieved prominence at the same time as American Pop Art.

In Cope’s Krautrocksampler, he writes of the outrage in response to a Stockhausen composition that was based on ideas taken from the American Pop Art movement. At certain points, the composition Hymnen takes national anthems and toys with them. What caused a great deal of distress in West Germany was the use of their national anthem in the composition. Cope writes, “The German public ALL furry-freaked. The left-wing didn’t see the funny side at all and accused him of appealing to the basest German feelings, whilst the right-wing hated him for vilifying their pride and joy, and letting the Europeans laugh at them.”

In this regard, Stockhausen is again borrowing from Pop Art, particularly its infuriating lack of orientation from the artist. This is the same lack that allows Warhol’s Campbell’s soup cans and Brillo boxes to work as capitalist critique and capitalist capitulation. Keeping this in mind, let’s look at a video by a YouTube uploader who seems to take offense at the avant-garde of half a century ago.

Before we get to the inflammatory statement, let’s follow the logic of the video. We are presented with a history of composition and then asked to evaluate two groups. The first group is supposed to consist of bad composers who make bad sounds and the second of beautiful composers who make beautiful music. Here are the groups:

Group A
Karlheiz Stockhausen
Luigi Nono
John Cage
Alfred Schnittke
Iannis Xenakis
Lucianio Berio
Georgy Ligeti

Group B
Igor Stravinsky
Dmitri Shostakovich
Benjamin Britten
Samuel Barber
Carl Orff
Aaron Copland
Joaquin Rodrigo

Is there a logical scheme that defines these groups outside of the uploader’s subjective judgements? It seems as though the groups are separated based on their willingness to accept dissonance and chance operations. In other words, Group A is composed of followers of Schoenberg and to a lesser extent Debussy.

What the uploader can’t seem to stand, that sound created with a disregard for tradition, harmony and order, created with a disregard for human connection is precisely the same lack that we see in Pop Art and that these composers seek in their work. It is the lack of fate, a curve of history that serves no conceivable purpose. In one word: Indeterminacy.

“The greatest work of art, ever!”

It’s a stupid thing to say out loud, but it may be true. Obviously, Stockhausen can explain himself and I feel no need to defend him as I am not a regular listener. I do feel a need to understand what is being said.

Shortly after 9/11, I remember making a patriotic mix CD using tracks from KaZaa for my dad and his future wife to distribute to friends and family. I remember we picked tracks like Ray Charles’ America the Beautiful and Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner and also included some more traditional patriotic music. Marching band music. The goal was to distribute the CD to friends and family to bring comfort, but why was this comfort necessary? The point of this exercise was to reassure listeners that we have a strong moral meta-narrative to believe in and we can somehow fit the recent event into that narrative if we only remember how potent it once was before the attack.

When Stockhausen says 9/11 is the “greatest work of art, ever!” this statement must be viewed in the context of art as a means to produce indeterminacy where there once was order. The true meaning of 9/11 as an “art work” could only be appreciated before a narrative had been constructed that explained the event.

We see a fire in a World Trade Center tower, it is unexplained on television, but total coverage is not devoted to it though live updates continue on CNN. A second plane hits the other tower. Suddenly it becomes apparent on television that an intentional violent act is taking place. Each network devotes more of it’s broadcasting time to the event. Commercials stop. All channels focus this violent act and televisions around the nation broadcast it live to every age and social group. As the coverage builds to a cacophony as volumes increase and every station broadcasts the same message. We are being attacked, we do not have an explanation. As this cacophony becomes unbearable, there is a horrible purgation of tension as both World Trade Center towers are destroyed.

In this moment, there is no explanation, we do not understand the narrative, many staggering possibilities arise that before seemed impossible. If we pause here, we understand the lack of meaning and direction that modern composers attempt to create. If there is an aesthetic to be found in trauma, it is here that it exists.

Marching music, Ray Charles and Hendrix are fine for a post-9/11 playlist when we are trying to reconcile our narratives, but a playlist that approached the event of 9/11, the event as an awesome/horrible catharsis, could only be made out of music with an appreciation of indeterminacy.