Talk:Klavierstücke (Stockhausen)

	This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Classical music

I was wondering if perhaps a table would work better than straight text, given how we have to give similar details about the pieces (i.e. which scene is adapted, from which opera it is taken, whether the piece is for piano and/or synthesizer, etc.). Maybe a table would be easier to read. --Jashiin (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, particularly for the way the article now stands. However, it was my intention when I started this article (and remains my intention) to expand this "stub" information for each piece, to at least match the level of detail given for the first three cycles of pieces. (Keep in mind that pieces XIII and XIX are the longest and most complex of all the pieces.) That would not prevent putting the present information into a table, either to be supplemented with more detailed information for each piece, or to be dismantled when such material is added.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The article in its past state has led me to believe there's little information available on the pieces; if there is enough, a table would only complicate matters in the future, and so I won't be adding it. --Jashiin (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of information on the later pieces is in roughly inverse proportion to their age. There is in fact a huge amount of material on XIII, rather less on XII, XIV, and XV, very little on XVI–XVIII, and next to nothing on XIX (mainly because it is still unperformed and unpublished). It is nevertheless true that the present form of this section is extremely hard to read, and could be improved with a little judicious editing. I will try to do something about this, even while working up the material on the earlier pieces.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past week I have added quite a lot of material, particularly on Klavierstück XI. Things have now progressed to the point where I have felt it is time to make separate subsections for XII–XIX, though only XII has a reasonably full description so far. There is still much to do.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a terrific job, and the new layout is ideal. If I never suggested, it is simply because I never thought the article would become so beautifully detailed. I wish I could contribute something (I feel kind of wrong that after starting all this discussion here and expanding the article a little bit, I'm not doing much now), but unfortunately bits and pieces on I-X from Maconie's book is all I have here. --Jashiin (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging words. As you can see from the current state of the list of Sources (and more to be transferred from "Further reading", particularly when the section on XIII is filled out), there is a lot of material out there beyond Maconie's summary. The sections on VI and X still need a lot of work, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maconie 2005 gives interesting details on those, actually describing what the pieces looked like (pp. 141–42). But he references them to Toop's article "On Writing About Stockhausen" in Contact 20 (1979), p. 25; given how the Sources section now lists more articles from Toop on the same topic, and perhaps some other articles as well, I think maybe using Maconie as a source won't do, so I won't add the material to the article—but it would be nice if the descriptions of these first versions eventually made it to the article. --Jashiin (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Toop's articles contain much of the material that Maconie merely repeats, but Maconie contributes some original ideas, as well. Unfortunately, in Other Planets he also re-introduced some mistakes from the first edition of The Music of Stockhausen that he had corrected in the second edition of 1990 (following Toop's 1979 article in Contact, which is a review of Maconie's first edition). I am working on adding material from Toop's various articles, as well as some other important sources that have been disregarded so far (Smalley, Decroupet, Rigoni, Frisius). The "other versions" of pieces V–VII will certainly be included.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am missing Miec 2004 which is referenced a couple of times in the article but doesn't appear in the Sources section. --Joachim Pense (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is embarrassing! The item is in the list of Sources, but I mistakenly typed "Miec" instead of "Kiec"—five different times! I have corrected them now. Thanks for pointing this out, Joachim.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section starts: Beginning with XV ("Synthi-Fou", 1991), which is part of the ending of Dienstag aus Licht, Stockhausen began to substitute the synthesizer (which he also somewhat misleadingly called elektronisches Klavier) in place of the traditional piano, since the German word Klavier can refer to any keyboard instrument (Stockhausen 1993, 137). As a matter of fact, in modern German, a "Klavier" can definitely _not_ refer to any keyboard instrument. This may have been different in the times of Bach, but nowadays a Klavier is a piano, not a Harpsichord or an Organ or a Syntheziser (Other than, e. g. in French). Unfortunately, I don't have access to the quoted Stockhausen source text; I wonder what he actually wrote there. --Joachim Pense (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, the Article is available on the Web. I'll look it up and come back. --Joachim Pense (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't find the place where Stockhausen says something on the word "Klavier" --Joachim Pense (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is found in the centre of p. 137, as cited. The German text, found on pp. 52–53 of the booklet for Stockhausen Complete Edition CD 42 reads: "So sieht die Entwicklung der Klaviermusik aus, die ungefähr vierhundert Jahre alt ist—vom Cembalo und Clavichord über Kielflügel, Hammerklavier, Pianoforte, modernes Klavier zum Synthesizer—, und wahrscheinlich wird sie solange weitergehen, wie der Mensch zehn Finger hat." In the English translation, the word is spelled "clavier", and I took the precaution of adding a footnote explaining the German words Kielflügel and Hammerklavier, which have no English equivalents. In that note I also explain that, in the English version, "The [German] word Klavier has been variously rendered, according to context, as 'piano', 'clavier', or 'keyboard'".

The point is that Stockhausen is not referring exclusively to the modern German meaning, but to the way in which the meaning has changed over a period of four hundred years. I initially thought four hundred years might be a bit of an exaggeration, but Duden Etymologie: Herkunftswörterbuch der deutscen Sprache (Duden Band 7), 1963 edition, confirms Stockhausen is correct: "Das seit dem 16. Jh. bezeugte Fremdwort bedeutete urspr. „Tastenreihe, Tastenbrett“, in welchem Sinne es aus gleichbed. frz. clavier entlehnt wurde. Ald 'Pars pro toto' wurde das Wort seit dem 17. Jh. zum Namen des Musikinstrumentes" (usw). The implication in Stockhausen's lecture is that the word, once signifying clavichords, harpsichords, etc., by now is being transferred from the sense of an instrument with strings and hammers to an electronic keyboard instrument, also known as a "synthesizer". This is consistent with the terminology found in the composer's catalog of works for the Klavierstücke from XV to XIX, none of which are for the instrument called "piano" in English (save for XVI, which is optionally for synthesizer or piano—specified as Saitenklavier in the score). I could go further and describe the somewhat heated argument we had over this terminology (Stockhausen was adamant that he had seen synthesizers in shop windows in America described in English as "pianos", though he had not been in America since 1984), and of course I was in no position to assert that the German Klavier is not used today for a synthesizer. However, as all of this is unpublished, it would amount to "original research" on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still the claim that the word Klavier can be used in German to mean any keyboard instrument is wrong. Stockhausen is trying to extend the meaning of "Klavier" to mean "Synthesizer", which he thinks is justified by the historical development of the instrument, or more precisely, the music written for the instrument. (And that's what I can read from his quoted sentence, nothing on the historical usage of the word). So he is proposing a language change, not using a possibility of the existing language. This is consistent with your argument with him you mention: he claims that the English word piano be also already sometimes used to mean synthesizer by some music shop owners. So he might have felt that this change is already underway also in German and he was only going into the same direction.

The German usages of Klavier that don't mean piano are only in compounds like "Schifferklavier" ('sailor's piano' slightly ironic for accordion), "Spielzeugklavier" ('toy piano'), "Daumenklavier" ('

thumb piano'), "Mäuseklavier" ('mice piano', ironic for DIP switch

). Notice that the toy and thumb variant occur with "piano" in English, too.

I suggest to modify the claim I incriminated into since the German word Klavier historically could denote any keyboard instrument, and Stockhausen saw the history of the piano logically continued by the Synthesizer (Stockhausen 1993, 137). or something similar.

--Joachim Pense (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a prudent change. However, I wonder if you could clarify a point that has annoyed me for over forty years. In record-liner notes for, e.g., the harpsichord concertos of J. S. Bach, the works are often described as Klavierkonzerte and invariably this is translated into English as "piano concertos". Is this simply ignorant German usage, or is it meant to reflect eighteenth-century German terminology? After all, we do not customarily refer today to Bach's Wohltemperierte Cembalo or, in English, to either the "Well-tempered Harpsichord" or "Well-tempered Piano", but of course in English "clavier" is a rather special, historically oriented word.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is partially ignorant German usage, but it reflects the old terminology. After all, "Wohltemperiertes Clavier" is Bach's original title, isn't it? But this usage is (re-)justified by the practice of playing Harpsichord pieces on the piano, and the general view that the piano can "legally" be used to play Harpsichord and Clavichord music. So I think it is ok to call the piece "Well-tempered Piano".

BTW: Strictly speaking, "Klavier" denotes only the upright piano in today's German, as opposed to "Flügel" (grand piano). But as there are no (maybe almost no) pieces written specifically for either, in musical pieces the name "Klavier" refers generically to both upright and grand pianos. (This situation between specific and generic may make it easier for speakers of German to accept the situation that "Klavier" for older music sometimes somehow includes the Harpsichord). --Joachim Pense (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

each time 2:3 times faster than the time before—what does that mean? --Joachim Pense (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means what it says. I don't have the score to consult but, if the first time through the tempo is measured at quarter-note = 50, then the second time it will be at quarter-note = 75 (3/2 x 50 = 75), and the third time at 112.5. This is the proportion referred to in medieval and renaissance theory as sesquialtera.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. As a nit-picking mathematician, when I hear: "this piece is two-thirds faster", I would interpret this as: it is actually slower, by a factor of ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {3}{2}}}$. But now it's clear. --Joachim Pense (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Discussion transferred from User talk:Jerome Kohl on 21 October 2009.] Dear Jerome,

We met briefly in the usenet (rmcc) about a year ago discussing some of Stockhausen's piano pieces. Right now, I am translating your article on the pieces into German (if you care, you can see the work in process as de:Benutzer:JPense/Klavierstücke (Stockhausen)).

In your article, you quote your translation of a lecture by Stockhausen; can you please point me to the German original of this, and a quotable reference for it? Otherwise, I would have to translate the parts you quoted back to German, which is certainly the second best choice.

Another question: In that usenet discussion, among other things you suggested that Klavierstück IV is actually using group composition techniques, although Stockhausen himself gives it as a typical example of point music. You wrote you were preparing an article for some proceedings volume on the topic. In the WP article on the Klavierstücke, you don't mention any of this, and just give the "standard version" that it is a two-part Point Music piece. Can you give me an update on this, please?

Best, --Joachim Pense (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joachim, it is good to hear from you, and of your project to translate the Wikipedia article on Stockhausen's Klavierstücke. The text "Klaviermusik 1992" has not yet appeared in the composer's Texte zur Musik, since the last published volumes only go as far as 1991. However, you can find the German text in the booklet for the Stockhausen Complete Edition CD 42, Synthi-Fou—Dienstags-Abschied; Klangfarben für Synthi-Fou, pp. 51–74 (my English translation, edited and corrected by Suzanne Stephens, appears on pp. 99–122 of the same booklet).

Klavierstück IV is in fact composed in groups, but I cannot say this on Wikipedia because there is no published source (yet), and "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". My paper from the 2004 Society for Music Theory conference still awaits the necessary revision (namely, the addition of an analysis of Klavierstück IV). There will be no "conference proceedings", but I mean to submit it for publication, as soon as I can get around to making the revision.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Stockhausen quote:

I have had the feeling for some time that Monday will be very different—very new for me too, because I have the feeling Monday is the reverse, because it's the birth. So it's the reverse of everything that I have done up to now. Most probably all the formulas will be upside-down, will be mirrored: like The Woman is in respect to the men. I think all the structural material all of a sudden is going to change drastically in the detail.

It's from Stockhausen, Karlheinz, and Jerome Kohl. 1985. “Stockhausen on Opera.” Perspectives of New Music 23/2 (Spring-Summer): 24–39.. Do you happen to have the original German for this? --Joachim Pense (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joachim. There is no German original. The interview was conducted in English. I believe I still have the original tape recording from which the published version is edited. I particularly recall the sound near the beginning of a soda-can being opened, and I remember very clearly the surroundings—the porch next to the courtyard of a Renaissance villa in Florence, by then long-since converted for use as an hotel.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerome, the Translation is ready now, and moved into the article namespace of the German WP. I took the liberty of adding some edits of my own, which you will certainly hate, but I hope not too much :-/

Here's an account of what I did, plus one or two remaining questions:

• Formal adaptation to German WP practices (referencing etc.)
• I added Stockhausen's "Nr. " opus numbers.
• Introducing section: I added a couple of paragraphs on the role of construction versus musical imagination in Stockhausens work (particularly the early work), to avoid the misconception that this kind music is a pure number exercise; referring to Blumröder and Rhys Chatham.
• Klavierstücke I−IV, introduction: I added a couple of lines by Stockhausen on the premiere scandal, and on basing the listening experience on the rests.
• Klavierstück I: I mention the "Nachtprogramm" lecture where he explains Group Composition and gives a listening instruction to the piece. As a final line, I add a remark on the final note that marks the end of the piece.
• Klavierstück II: A remark on the "missing two notes" that appear as an afterthought at the end of the piece.
• Klavierstück III: Added an enthusiastic remark by Rhys Chatham relating the piece to Billie Holiday.
• Klavierstück III—Question: Do you think one should add something on Blumröder's observation on the vertical groups (p 135), related to timbres? The graphic illustration there looks quite catchy. (You mention an analysis of by Maconie who finds similar features in Klavierstück II).
• Klavierstück IV—Question: Do you have a reference that mentions that the two lines are separated not (or not only) by pitch as in traditional music, but by other parameters instead?
• Klavierstück V: I was not able to quickly get hold of a copy of that CD booklet that contains the German original of the Stockhausen quote. So I deleted it for now, as I think it is not essential for the section. But once I have it, I'll insert the quote.
• Klavierstück IV—second Question: You write that the piece "features progressive shortening of fundamental durations by serial fractions". I must admit I didn't understand that sentence.

Best, --Joachim Pense (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim, I don't know why you believe I will hate the material you have added. It all sounds good to me, though I am startled to hear about Rhys Chatham's enthusiastic remark! (Still, if Rudolph Stephan could find traces of Medieval bar form in it—not to mention Wilfrid Mellers's sensational discovery that Gesang der Jünglinge is based on nursery rhymes and children's street songs—then anything is possible, I suppose.) I expect I will want to incorporate most or even all of your additions into the English version, which badly needs something to balance the excessively "constructionist" character of especially the material on Klavierstücke I–XI. To address your specific points and questions:

• Klavierstück I: I don't know how I failed to include mentioning "Gruppenkomposition", and will certainly add it, even though this important article will not be as accessible to English readers as it is to readers of German (until the English version of the Texte finally appears). "As a final line, I add a remark on the final note that marks the end of the piece." I look forward to seeing this, because it is a truly strange thing to write a preparatory grace-note to the final note like that. There is a perfectly comprehensible reason for it (though it is a very obscure joke), if you have seen the erasures at the end of the manuscript, but, since nothing about this has ever been published, it would be "original research" if I were to add it to the article.
• Klavierstück III—Question: "Do you think one should add something on Blumröder's observation on the vertical groups (p 135), related to timbres? The graphic illustration there looks quite catchy. (You mention an analysis of by Maconie who finds similar features in Klavierstück II)."

While I am reluctant to add even more to the already disproportionately long section on Klavierstück III (perhaps it should have its own separate article?), I think the timbre connection to the vertical groups is very much worth mentioning.

• Klavierstück IV
  • Question: "Do you have a reference that mentions that the two lines are separated not (or not only) by pitch as in traditional music, but by other parameters instead?"

I know there are sources that mention the separation of the lines by dynamics (Maconie? Harvey? Frisius?), but I shall have to dig around a bit to find them. In fact, the lines are emphatically not separated by pitch, nor by register: they constantly cross over each other, and the pitches reel off a succession of 12-note aggregates regardless of which "voice" is occurring from one attack to the next. I don't know if anyone has published a description of how this distinction in dynamics is eroded toward the middle (by the increasing use of "mediating" dynamics between the extremes of ff and pp), but it is an interesting transposition of the function of registers in Kreuzspiel onto the dynamics here.

• • second Question: "You write that the piece "features progressive shortening of fundamental durations by serial fractions". I must admit I didn't understand that sentence."

It comes from Maconie (the citation refers to both of the two sentences preceding it), and I can't say I fully understand it, either. He seems to be referring to the way the proportion of sound to silence decreases toward the middle of the piece, but (unless the answer lies buried in my analytical notes for the revision of my 2004 paper) I fail to see a serial design.

I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion really should have been over on Talk:Klavierstücke (Stockhausen), but I have found some sources for Klavierstück IV's partitioning by dynamics, and even for the gradual dissolution of this distinction. It turned out that all three authors I mentioned (Harvey, Maconie, and Frisius) discuss this in different ways. This has now been added to the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you liked my additions. You can still copy this discussion over to the article talk page. I think I'll copy it to the talk page of the German translation as well, (if you don't mind). --Joachim Pense (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: I intend to self-nominate the translated version of your article for "lesenswerter Artikel" (the German equivalent to "good article"). Before that's done, the article is expected to run through the WP review process (actually it's not a must, but I have been advocating the principle running through the review for a couple of weeks before running for the award a lot myself). There (and later in the nomination discussion as well), I think I'd need your expertise to comment on questions and maybe perform enhancements. Would you be prepared to participate? My knowledge of the relevant literature and Stockhausen's work (particularly the later periods) is incomparable to yours, so I don't think I could survive that alone. But I think an article like this, so comprehensive and well-referenced, deserves the award. --Joachim Pense (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, and for all your work preparing the German version. Of course I will be happy to help in any way I can. One criticism I may anticipate already: the section on Klavierstück VI says a great deal about withdrawn and superseded versions, and almost nothing at all about the final, published version. I had not gotten to that yet, and it is a daunting task, given that sources must be found for everything and surprisingly little has been published about this final version.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Link to the review page. I'll keep you updated. --Joachim Pense (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a review discussion on the German translation of this page, someone challenged Pitches are the only thing not organised in sevens. Rather, they are in sixes, based on the hexachord A F A♯ G F♯ G♯. He is in doubt of the complete tone material is derived from this series; Henck writes about "similar" series that are used in the piece. (Henck: "Ähnliche Reihen verwendet Stockhausen im ganzen Stück. Auch die Akkorde werden aus ihnen aufgebaut, wenn sich bei ihnen auch die Herkunft aus einer bestimmten Permutation der Reihe kaum nachweisen lässt" - "Stockhausen uses similar series in the whole piece. The accords, too, are built from them - of course origin in a particular permutation cannot be shown for them"). --Joachim Pense (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I have added all the premiere/dedicatee information to the English article here (I can add the German original of the dedication quotation for XVI to the German version of the article), but I have not yet gotten on to the part discussing Klavierstück X yet. A quick glance at the sentence in question suggests that the person challenging this claim will need to take this up with Herbert Henck, but I shall have to check the citation to be sure I have quoted him correctly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I now see the problem. It is not a question of whether the pitches are organized in sixes (Henck is absolutely clear about that), but the way the sentence was written suggested that all these six-note sets were in the same ordering (permutation). They are not, though their transposition levels are nevertheless ordered by that one hexachord (at least, as far as Henck explains things). It is difficult in a short sentence to summarize even what Henck says in words, let alone what his examples and the score show. I have adjusted the passage slightly, but I fear it still needs improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion of the early version of VI, is the unquoted attribution of a narrow, claustrophobic high register also due to Toop? --Joachim Pense (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have condensed the longer original on page 350 of Toop's article which reads: "Stockhausen's major 2nds occupy a mere two octaves in the upper middle range of the piano (almost all of the piece is written in the treble clef). It is the almost claustrophobic insistence on this narrow range and static harmony, coupled with spasmodic, twitching rhythms, that gives the work its character".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Joachim Pense (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hyacinth has added an image and sound file, citing Ton de Leeuw's 2005 book. Because of this documentation and because I have not read Leeuw's justification for this analysis, I am reluctant to remove this material, but it looks like rubbish to me (certainly the claim of a "row" is nonsense). For one thing, the pitch structure of Klavierstück II has been shown by Herman Sabbe (as cited in the article) to be based on unordered chromatic pentachords (divided into conjunct trichords), and includes only ten pitch classes until the very end. The first part of Leeuw's diagram, with ten pitches of the chromatic scale bracketed in threes, corresponds to this but, as labelled, attributes it to Klavierstück I instead of II. The pitch structure of Klavierstück I is generally acknowledged to be built on alternating unordered chromatic hexachords ("tropes", in Hauer's terminology). I see that this information is not included in the article as it presently stands, but this is heavily documented. The second part of Leeuw's diagram (G♯, A, B♭, B♮, D) is the inversion of the pentachord proposed by Dieter Schnebel and Jonathan Harvey, not for Klavierstück II (as the caption here implies), but for Klavierstück III. As discussed in the article, the pitch structure of this piece is controversial (and will become even more so with the publication of currently pending doctoral dissertation, which proposes an entirely different explanation for the pitches), but to present an inversion of the pentachord, ascribed to the wrong piece, is certainly confusing for the reader (as is the mis-attribution of the chromatic pentachords to Klavierstück I). I suspect that there may be a misreading here (possibly by Leeuw or his translator) but, unfortunately, my library does not hold a copy of Leeuw's book.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have now added a paragraph describing the pitch structure of Klavierstück I. It is completely at odds with the diagram from Leeuw 2005, as noted above. Is it possible that Leeuw meant to refer to Klavierstück II and III instead of I and II? And what on earth does he mean by "retaining the rudiments of the 12-note series"? What 12-tone series, and how do a chromatic scale and a pentachord retain "rudiments"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sources is not uncommon, and our job would then be to cover their various views. Simply because 'my' source disagrees with 'yours' doesn't mean that either are "rubbish". Hyacinth (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree entirely about conflicting sources. But because I do not have ready access to this book, I'm only asking that you check to be sure The Lion actually says he is speaking of Klavierstücke I and II, rather than II and III, and whether he explains any better than in the quotation how a scale and a pentachord might represent "rudiments" of a 12-tone series, and which 12-tone series it is to which he is referring. But if this says what it appears to say, it certainly is rubbish (the documentation already provided is overwhelming), even if Wikipedia does not allow us to say so in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't know what agree means, or what entirely means. Hyacinth (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Now that I have actually seen Leeuw's book, and in the light of your very helpful edits to the example, there appears to be no conflict—merely a vagueness on Leeuw's part about whether he believes his two scale examples to be ordered tone rows (very unlikely), or not. Now that there are separate examples for Klavierstück II and Klavierstück III, I have moved them to the discussion of those particular pieces, where I think they help make the descriptions of the pitch structures clearer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to this article, User:Michael Bednarek noted amongst many other things "request explanation of unicode placeholders". I gather that this must refer to the "clarification needed: Unintelligible symbols" notice placed in the section on Klavierstück XI. Since I was the editor who wrote that section, I would be happy to fix it if I knew how. The characters (which display without any serious problems on my various Macintosh computers, running different versions of Safari and Firefox) are not, so far as I understand the term, Unicode, which I have learned to avoid at all cost on Wikipedia. Rather, they are generated by the template {{Music|''argument''}}, where argument represents a code phrase calling a particular music-notation element. Perhaps that template is in turn generating Unicode characters, I do not know. In any case, these are meant to be duration values: quaver (eighth note), crotchet (quarter note), and dotted crotchet. If this template is not the preferred way of inserting these symbols, what should be used in its stead? Writing out the value names in full would be clumsy and difficult to read. Should graphic files be created and inserted, as I have seen done occasionally on other articles?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{Music}} is indeed used for all the musical symbols in that paragraph except those two characters directly preceding my clarification request, U+1D157 and U+1D165 as shown, or not in my case, at List of Unicode characters#Musical symbols. Following information there, I glean that U+1D157 is very similar to a whole note (), and elsewhere I find that U+1D165 is called "Musical Symbol Combining Stem", which leads me to believe that the intended result is a half note () which also seems to fit into the sequence of "two columns of + , three columns of + + ., four columns of + + . +" — Is that correct? If so, those two characters can be replaced with {{Music|half}} (or {{Music|minim}} for those on the right side of the ditch). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Yes, now I see the offending symbol(s). They are partly covered in the editorial markup by the annotation "{{Clarify|post-text=Unintelligible symbols|date=February 2013}}", and in the displayed text by the generated message! Indeed, there should be a minim (half note), and this is easily repaired. It might be a little more difficult to continue the sequence with a minim tied to a quaver, so perhaps it is just as well to leave off with "etc." at that point! Thanks for the clarification. I will attend to this immediately.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]