Talk:Gruppen

Instrumentation

full orchestration: 5 5 4 3 - 8 6 7 1 - perc(12), hp(2), cel(2), pno, alto sax, bar.sax, guit, vln(26), vla(10), vc(8), cb(6)

• Orchester I: Flöte (+Picc); Altflöte in G; Oboe; Englischhorn; Klarinette in B; Fagott; 1. Horn in F; 2. Horn in F; 1. Trompete in C; 2. Trompete in C; 1. Posaune; 2. Posaune; Basstuba; Marimbaphon; 1. Schlagzeug; 2. Schlagzeug; 3. Schlagzeug; Klaviatur-Glockenspiel oder Celesta; Harfe; Violine (1. Pult); Violine (2. Pult); Violine (3. Pult); Violine (4. Pult); Violine (5. Pult); Viola; Violoncello (1. Pult); Violoncello (2. Pult); Kontrabass

• Orchester II: 1. Flöte (+Picc); 2. Flöte; Oboe; kleine Klarinette in Es; Altsaxophon in Es (+Kl(B)); Baritonsaxophon in Es; Fagott; 1. Horn in F; 2. Horn in F; 3. Horn in F; 1. Trompete in C; 2. Trompete in C; Posaune; Bassposaune; Vibraphon; 1. Schlagzeug; 2. Schlagzeug; 3. Schlagzeug; Klavier; Gitarre; Violine (1. Pult); Violine (2. Pult); Violine (3. Pult); Violine (4. Pult); Viola (1. Pult); Viola (2. Pult); Violoncello; Kontrabass

• Orchester III: Flöte (+Picc); Oboe; Englischhorn; Klarinette in B; Bassklarinette in B; Fagott; 1. Horn in F; 2. Horn in F; 3. Horn in F; 1. Trompete in C; 2. Trompete in C; 1. Posaune; 2. Posaune; Kontrabassposaune (oder Tuba); Xylorimba (=Marimbaphon); 1. Schlagzeug; 2. Schlagzeug; 3. Schlagzeug; Celesta; Harfe; Violine (1. Pult); Violine (2. Pult); Violine (3. Pult); Violine (4. Pult); Viola (1. Pult); Viola (2. Pult); Violoncello; Kontrabass

Badagnani (talk)

Duration series

Hi, Hyacinth. Your change to the caption of the lead illustration is perfectly fine but, unfortunately, the diagram does not include the "number of basic durations, indicated in metronome marks and corresponding with the pitch proportions within the series" now described. These are shown in Imke Misch's example 7, but does Leeuw include them> If so, could you please add them to the diagram?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• <!--Could we have the rest of the example, please, and preferably without the mistakes found in Leeuw 2005 (metronome 76 should read 75, 67 should read 68.5, etc.-->

The above comment was hidden in the article, by JK, after a "where?" tag placed in the caption to the first image: Image:Stockhausen Gruppen für drei Orchester series.png. Since talk pages are for discussion I decided to move it here. What makes one think there is more? What makes one think there are errors? What makes one think that those errors are in the source? Hyacinth (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"What makes one think there is more?" can only be answered by: look at the example in Die Reihe. The errors in Leeuw 2005 ("the source") are also easily seen by comparing his transcription with the original in Die Reihe.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps the errors are not in Leeuw, but in the example presented here. In any case, where they are may still best be determined by consulting the original in Die Reihe.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, with the Die Reihe issue in front of me (and also the version of the example on Texte 1:117) I can specify some things. It does appear that the errors must be in Leeuw (which I do not have to hand). First, the metronomic values are not "rounded off" in Stockhausen's example. Second, the rounding of several values is incorrect. Stockhausen's twelve metronomic values are 75, 60, 80, 68.5, 63.3, 70.3, 102.4, 89.6, 97.7, 116.4, 87.3, and 109. "Rounding" 75 to 76 is a blatant mistake, and the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth values are incorrectly rounded. In any case, if the example is to be taken from Stockhausen's article, these values should not be rounded at all. Second, in the Stockhausen example, even in the English edition the legends are in German, and the translations given here are imprecise. They are all at the left, before the grand-staff example, and in German they read (from top to bottom): "MM =", "Einheit:", and "Dauer-proportionen:" (the last is broken onto two lines at the hyphen; it would be unhyphenated if rendered on one line). The first does not require translating, of course, but if the others are to be rendered in English, they should read "unit" and "duration proportions". Third, the metronomic values and counting units are between the treble and bass staves in Stockhausen's example. Fourth, the "unit" values are not given names, but rather are expressed in notation symbols (, , , , etc.). Fourth, the proportion numbers should be pairwise only—that is to say, the colons in the first row between 10 and 12, 7 and 5, 9 and 7, 2 and 3, and 5 and 10 are mistakes; in Stockhausen's example there is a spaced virgule after the first number in each of these pairs, so the sequence begins "2 : 10 / 12 : 7 / 5 : 9 / ", etc. Similarly, the colons in the second row between the 3 and 6, 13 and 8, 11 and 13, and 6 and 9 should also be virgules, and there is a virgule after the concluding 12. In this way, overlapping whole-number ratio pairs are shown, first a 2 : 10, with a 4 directly below the 10 and forming the first member of a 4 : 3 proportion. Then back to the first row, a 12 : 7 stands over the (unrelated by a proportion sign) 3 and 6 in the lower row, and so on. As the text of Stockhausen's article explains, "The relationship of one fundamental duration to the next is expressed in the following eleven harmonic proportions: 2/10, 4/3, 12/7, 6/13, 5/9, 8/11, 7/2, 13/6, 3/5, 9/12, 10/4".

I appear to have been mistaken about there being more to this example; what I thought was its completion turns out, on closer inspection, to be Example 13, showing the approximate timing in seconds of each unit. My apologies.

It is also important to realise that this is a purely hypothetical example. It is not one of the twelve similar proportion series actually used to define the durations in Gruppen, though it does resemble a rotated retrograde of the eighth proportion series.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A new version, after Maconie. I can't take credit for the brackets. Hyacinth (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, whoever gets the credit for the brackets, it's a distinct improvement. I'm a little amused by the cross-reference to the row for Klavierstück IX, which I have already broadened (following Henck and Maconie) to the Klavierstücke VII and X. I expect the next step will be to quote Richard Toop on the use of the hexachord that lies at the base of this row, and is also the starting point for Klavierstück VI (and in fact is also involved in Klavierstücke V and VIII). Then we can cite York Höller and Pascal Decroupet, on how the inversion of this row is used in the closing part of Zeitmaße. Before long, we will have cross references to half of Stockhausen's works, including especially the Klang cycle. Looks like you've dug me up a lot of work to do!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How should the midi sound? Hyacinth (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

All-interval row

Gruppen tone row Play^ⓘ

Tone row from Klavierstück IX with intervals labeled Play^ⓘ

Two tone rows used by Stockhausen

If the second half of the row consists of the retrograde of the first half doesn't the row contain two of the five intervals found between the notes in the first half, rather than containing one of all eleven intervals as in an all-interval twelve-tone row? Hyacinth (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Look more carefully at your examples. The numbers under the second one do not take into account the direction of the intervals, and so can all be reduced to numbers between 1 and 6. Each such "interval class" in the first half of the series has a corresponding interval class in the retrograde of the second half, but in each case the direction of the interval is the opposite. For example, the first interval of the row is a falling major third, the last one a rising major third; the second is a rising fourth, the second-last a falling fourth. If you measure all intervals only in ascending order, their values in semitones are 8, 5, 9, 11, 2, 6, 10, 1, 3, 7, and 4. Therefore, exactly one each of the directed intervals from 1 to 11, which is the definition of an all-interval series. Of course, this series also has the special property of retrograde symmetry; there are many more assymetrical than symmetrical all-interval rows. Out of the 1,928 all-interval row types, there are only 22 classes that are symmetrical.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Discography

There seems to be another recording:

• 1993. Tanglewood Music Center Orchestra, Theatre-Concert Hall, 25 August 1993; Oliver Knussen, Reinbert de Leeuw, Robert Spano, conductors (Details, Boston Symphony Orchestra)

Worth mentioning? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It does appear to be a commercial release, even if available only as a download. Formatting for the discography would appear to be the only question here: place, publisher, catalog number, etc., and whether these things are relevant in such a case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

IF (big if) one is interested in recordings of Gruppen, this seems to be the recording which can be most easily obtained, and it's probably the cheapest.
Music (and books) solely distributed electronically don't seem to lend themselves to the the niceties of citation conventions.
If you add it, you might also throw a {{Italic title}} into the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the cheapest commercial release, unless of course you are into shoplifting, which is more feasible for a CD than an MP3 download! As for ease of obtaining, I just tried to order 200 copies and, do you know what? The website crashed my order! Electronic distribution appears to have many perils in addition to niceties of citation conventions. I see that Wikipedia now demands those stupid italic title conventions. I also notice that there are thousands of articles out there that do not conform. Yet. I suppose they will do, eventually, and at about that same, the policy will be reversed, so we can start taking the templates down again. Oh, well, I suppose it keeps us off the streets.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case, at least, citation conventions have proved to be flexible enough to rise to the occasion. There is even a catalog number for this recording, if you know where to look. Thanks again for calling attention to this release. This makes 24 recordings of which I am aware, though only seven are commercial releases.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why

• Gruppen tone row (Harvey 1975, 58; Misch 1998, 161; Whittall 2008, 185; Stockhausen 1963b, 116, and Maconie 2005, 149 show this row transposed up a tritone).{{Why|date=August 2012}}<!--Why?-->

Why not? Hyacinth (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is: If the prime form of the row really is the one beginning on G, why do all these authors offer T₆ = R₀ instead? I believe I know the answer to this (it lies in Stockhausen's symbolic use of the note G above middle C, not only in Gruppen but also in Zeitmaße, Klavierstücke VII and IX, and Inori), but I have not yet been able to find a published source to confirm it. Imke Misch comes very close to explaining this, I think, and her book may yet have the citation I am seeking. Until I find it, however, this remains Original Research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)