György Ligeti, Concerto de chambre - Ensemble intercontemporain - Tito Ceccherini 

all coughing was artificially excluded with phase inversion during the concert

@@kollias_music hahaha is fake

Not sure about the flutist, but both clarinets are doing it in the beginning of the final movement (at 15'30). Impressive.

🤍

Except for the part at 13:51

you're mental

thanks for flattering me

Merci pour tes remarques ! Je prend plaisir à les lire et à comprendre les œuvres.

True. What about the horn trio though?

I agree, everything's balanced perfectly here !

@@ippolit23 It is also a very great work, and I love it very much, including the joke at the very beginning (Beethoven made almost the same one in his op. 81 sonata), but it is more engaged in the "second period", in which individual lins are more perceptible.

Yep...Ligeti is a composer of simple "tropes" and clear design. It's in the overlap and superposition where the complexity emerges His piano etudes, like Bartok's Mikrokosmos are a great look into the mind of the composer.

B Bee Sorry, but if you say something like that, you can’t call yourself “fairly conservative” in your musical tastes, as there is nothing conservative about this music

@@snugglethorn i listen to lots and lots of modern and ultra modern composed music. There are numerous 20th century composers that are genius. Ligeti of course is a monster - thats a good thing. Webern is right there among the fabulous and is worthy of repeated listening. His string quartets op 22 and op 28 come to mind as well as his concerto and symphony. Heck Webern is awesome across the board. In fact the only op's of webern that i dont listen to repeatedly are the song cycles. And im trying to crack those as well. Note for note Elliott Carter is my favorite - at least right now. His first string quartet in hindsight changed modern music forever. Carter purists rank his entire cycle of quartets as the single most important contribution to the genre in the 20th Century. Babbitt can not be excluded either. And much earlier in the century there are Schoenberg and Bartok. Henze shouldn't be ignored, especially for large scale orchestral. And finally Hindemith - say what you will - wrote symphonic poems under different guises and names that are a supreme contribution to the western tradition. Oh yes in a very different way is Alfred Schnittke. Talk about sonic delights, his first symphony, his first concert grosso and his third string quartet established the genre of polystylism that is incredibly rewarding. The commentaries on his works evoke the most coherent, sublime and mystical writings found on all of RU-vid.

Webern was the master of minimalism. The Bach of Atonality. Sadly cut down in his prime ...

@@camsun7326 I don't understand Boulez. *sob* WHY No, seriously. I need help.

D'accord avec vous. Et, de plus, c'est très bien dit...

Je suis pleinement d'accord avec vous.

Cher Philippe Circe, tout cela est en effet bellement dit. Mais illustre aussi ce qui m'a toujours gêné avec l'Esthétique et ses analyses des œuvres : on peut s'approcher d'un sentiment "romantique" et subjectif de la musique. Quant à vos corrélations entre l’œuvre et "le réel", j'avoue ne pas les comprendre tout à fait. Bien à vous.

je su también amén,

@@ericclemencon3265 Cher ami, disons que, pour faire simple, Ligeti est indicible, tout comme Penderecki que j'admire également dans le style "musique atmosphérique inquiète" qui reflète à merveille si j'ose dire, l'époque que nous vivons .... Bien sûr, tout ceci est de la littérature sujette à caution ;-)

Et une jubilation pour l’esprit !

Well you can find elements of collage or even pastiche in ligeti's music, which can be realated to posmodernism, yet it is definitely more modern than postmodern. However the latter can also be stressed regarding how individual his style is. I would encourage you to listen to it as the employment of tone, texture, dynamic contrast and the interrelation between different events concerning these elements in overall time, in terms of duration. And last but not least to drop the quotation marks. You won't find harmony in terms of progression and functionality it is true, but it is marvellously harmonious when you come to think and listen in its intrinsic language of tension and release. Forgive me for the snobby language but, ridiculing doesn't really help us to gain a more casual vocabulary to describe it.

Yeah, and it is not an easy one to define too. The term itself is not very helpful either, as it can imply plain and simple the thing that came after modernism. But for example, Boulez who is perhaps the most brutally outspoken advocate of modernism is an exact contemporary of Ligeti, and so is Schnittke. I would say the distinction is how each one defines itself in historical context. Which is to say, the difference between avant-gardeism, the defnition of higher art as to always look, research and invest in further possibilities, techniques and contexts than the established ones; and the approach that understands all the pre-existing artistic tools as an ahistorical palette, and that the syntax in which they're brought together is the only medium that art can occur. In that respect, I think Ligeti's music is closer to modernism, as he's vigourously in search for new sonic and sonorous posiibilities, although not as militantly as Boulez or even Ferneyhough of course. This isn't a recent piece by the way, it is from 1970.

Excellent answer.

Ligeti is just very visceral and that's the only way to describe it.

What isn't music?