Talk:Cosmic Pulses

Karman's Studio Report
I don't know if it was ever published anywhere, but the portions I cite are all quoted in Ingvar's lengthy review. Should I just cite that review then? It seemed best to point people to the actual report. I could post the pdf online, if that's helpful.Trumpetrep (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline at Citing sources seems clear enough on this subject. If you cannot "point people to the actual report" (that is, indicate where it is published), then you should cite the source in which you read the excerpts. Apart from intellectual honesty, there are at least two very sound reasons for doing this. First, there may be perfectly honest but unfortunate mistakes in the quoting source; second, the reader should be made aware of the actual context in which the the quotation is found, since this may put quite a different "spin" on the meaning than it had originally. I have seen those excerpts in Invar's online review and others in another unpublished second-hand source, and have also heard Gregorio give formal presentations based in part on that report on three separate occasions. As far as I am aware, the report itself was prepared as an internal document for the Experimentalstudio Freiburg, and has not been published. Until it is, it really cannot be cited on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Pulses as Notes
Too right, it's not in the program. I thought it was identical to the study materials sold for the 2008 Analysis Seminar at the courses, which state "The tempi 240 to 1.17 apply to sequences of 8 pulses". So, how to cite these study materials, which as I recall, cost something like 12 euro?Trumpetrep (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume you are talking about the photocopies of the sketches that Richard Toop used to illustrate his seminar that year. Many of those sketches are published in the CD booklet, and on the Stockhausen website here (but you know this). The remaining sketches probably cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia, since they are not published. Yet. There are as many as four publications on Cosmic Pulses in the pipeline that may change this situation. However, the "pulses" in question are not pitches or notes, but rhythmic attacks. Of course, I cannot prove this interpretation to Wikipedia standards, either, until those items appear.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So, we bought and paid for those materials, but that doesn't count as a published source? The preliminary sheet looks identical to the one in the program, but as you point, it contains additional information regarding the pulses. The rhythmic attacks are notes, are they not? In all other Stockhausen repertoire that I'm aware of, the two things are one and the same. That is not to say that 8 notes are 8 different pitches, however. Perhaps that is what you are objecting to?Trumpetrep (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a source which references the unique language from the study materials sold in Kuerten in 2008. Interestingly, it also quotes the Orvonton libretto (emphasis mine):
 * Layer nineteen has twenty-three tones as sound loop.
 * In the basic tempo 3.75 each tone lasts 2 seconds,
 * and therefore the loop lasts 23 x 2 = 46 seconds.
 * That's pretty clear. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear only to the extent that it explains the maths and, therefore, the durations of the loops. It utterly fails to substantiate the claim that Stockhausen uses the term "pulse" as equivalent to "note". As I explained in hidden text, the programme note is not even attributed to Stockhausen but, even if we accept that some of the language may stem from the composer, the characterization of "pulses" clearly refers to "beats", not "pitches", "notes", "tones", or "sounds"—that is to say, these "pulses" are abstract measuring units (numbers on a metronome, for example), not the actual sounding music that they measure.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we both see things 'clearly', but disagree as to the substance. I don't understand how you arrive at the idea that "the characterization of pulses clearly refers to beats". Moreover, that's a shifted definition from the one you offered in your previous comment, where the pulses were "rhythmic attacks".
 * The quoted libretto from 'Orvonton' explicitly refers to 'tones', in the place where 'pulses' is used in Toop's explanation of tempi in the analysis seminar materials. Perhaps this is the source of Warsaw Autumn's program notes. Regardless, you have the exact same language used in these notes as is used in the materials sold to us in Kuerten. That seems to me like a verifiable citation which is perfectly appropriate to use in the context of this article. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I added Jerusem as a citation for the tempi language, which is found in Toop's seminar materials as well as the Warsaw Autumn program note. On p. III of the score, it uses the same definition of a tempo as a total of 8 pulses. The matter of what 'pulses' mean would appear to be at a stalemate. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my previous characterization of "rhythmic attacks", which is completely inaccurate since this could well include irregular rhythms, but I don't see any "stalemate". It is clear that "pulses" means "pulses". If you like, we can run down the eight main senses listed in the OED (and the various sub-senses of the first and fourth sense found there), to see which one best fits this context, but the main thing is that Stockhausen (or whoever actually wrote the texts in the score prefaces) did not make any special definition redefining "pulse" as anything else. If your hope was to tie "notes" to the title of the composition, I think I should point out that the German word translated into into English in the score prefaces of all eight of the solo Hours 14–21 is "Impulsen", not "Pulsen". "Pulse" is of course the correct English translation in electronic and acoustical technical English, but "Cosmic Pulses" in German is ordinarily rendered as "Kosmische Pulse". As far as the libretto to Orvonton is concerned, I do not find the sentence "Die Tempi 240–1,17 gelten für Sequenzen von 8 Tonen", or anything even similar. It seems clear to me (though you may disagree) that the point of using the word "Impulse" here is that it describes a periodic phenomenon—necessary when speaking of tempos. "Groups of eight pulses" therefore implies equal distances in time, whereas equating "pulse" to "note" or "tone" would do no such thing. Of course, if Stockhausen had actually said somewhere, "By 'pulses' I mean 'notes'", then despite the inherent contradiction, it would be a verifiable fact but—so far at least—no such citation has been found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at verifiable facts, then.

The Orvonton preface states "The tempi 240-1.17 apply to sequences of 8 pulses". Toop's study materials, which look identical in layout to the printed program from the premiere, flesh out this premise with two examples:
 * "Thus tempo 24 means: 240 x 8 = 1920 pulses per minute, tempo 1: 1.17 x 8 = 9.36 pulses per minute"

Meanwhile, the Orvonton libretto reads:
 * "In the basic tempo 3.75 each tone lasts 2 seconds, and therefore the loop lasts 23 x 2 = 46 seconds."

This is an identical mathematical process, where the tempo is multiplied by 8 to yield the total beats per minute. In the preface/Toop material, the multiple of 8 are referred to as "pulses". In the libretto, "tones" replaces "pulses" in the equation. So, according to your interpretation, this is merely a coincidence. Are we to understand that the pulses and tones are occurring simultaneously with each other?

The parallels continue. The libretto goes on "the tempo are varied manually with accelerandi and ritardandi according to patterns." This is identical to the transformation of the "pulses" described by Toop and the preface.

More from the libretto: "Layer twenty has nineteen tones with a basic tempo of two point nine! Two point five seconds per tone, but longer or shorter according to ritardando or accelerando." Again, 2.9 x 8 = 23.2 bpm (or 2.58 notes per second), this is the same exact tempo equation that Stockhausen formulated for the 'pulses'. Yet, in the libretto, "tones" is used instead of "pulses".

The libretto elaborates even further: "Layer twenty-one with nine tones in the basic tempo two point three, tone duration three point two seconds: yet during the tempo variations sometimes a tempo is reached which is twelve times faster or twelve times slower." Again, 2.9 x 8 = 18.4 (or 3.26 notes per second); therefore, the 'tones' are following the precise pattern that the preface and Toop outline for the 'pulses'. Moreover, the "tempo-control range" described by Toop can be 1/12th slower or 12 times faster, just as the libretto describes.

Finally, "Loops nineteen twenty twenty-one are transposed upwards or downwards with glissandi according to the patterns, intuitively and manually by Kathinka. Variations quite free of durations and pitches of each layer," according to the libretto. Now, your interpretation that pulses are different than tones would mean that Kathinka performed two identical sets of variations, one for the "pulses" described in the preface and by Toop, and a second one for the "tones" described by the libretto. That seems wholly implausible.

Within inches of each other in the score for Orvonton, the words "pulses" and "tones" are used interchangeably. Cross-referencing Orvonton's elaborate description of the compositional process with the study materials provided by Toop at his analysis seminar shows that both the libretto and the study materials describe identical processes. The libretto uses the word "tones"; whereas, Toop's materials use the word "pulses". On the face of it, which seems more logical, that the two words mean the same thing, or that Stockhausen had two separate processes at work in the piece and failed to mention it? Trumpetrep (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How does using an identical mathematical process translate into making equivalent the entities upon which the mathematics are being applied? In the case of Cosmic Pulses, of course the sound materials are "tones" (there are no silences worth mentioning, and noises occur almost exclusively as a composite of tones). So, of course, when the abstract values of tempo relationships (expressed in terms of "(im)pulses", which are momentary, not sustained phenomena) are applied to the material of the piece, the result is a series of tones whose lengths correspond to the distances between impulses of the establishing tempo. The same application of tempos to changing coloured floodlights, or to manometric flames, could be used to create a light show or a dynamic event like the ones in situation 2 of Alphabet für Liège, but that would not make "pulses" equivalent to "lights" or to "fire". Making a connection like this is synthesis and, in the present case, not even logically defensible.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the logic is quite clearly defended in the comparison I posted above between the Orvonton libretto and its prefatory material as well as Toop's study materials. Moreover, you are ignoring the other similarities I pointed out and trying to limit the evidence to a mere mathematical coincidence. In fact, it's more than just the 8 tones/pulses per tempo unit that are identical, it is the very transformation process that these tones/pulses undergo. As I pointed out, for the Orvonton libretto to be true and for Toop's study materials to be true, there would have to be two separate transformation processes, one of which Stockhausen never specified.


 * The fact of the matter is that Stockhausen's published materials uses the word "tone" and "pulse" interchangeably. Moreover, you are conceding that the two things occur simultaneously. What you object to, as I understand it, is my simple formulation that Stockhausen conflates the two. Perhaps you would be happier if the passage were to more passively state this fact. I don't really see the difference, as all score materials are presented as though Stockhausen wrote them.


 * From a musical standpoint, you also seem to object to the conflation of the pitch (tone) with its articulation (pulse), but I am not creating that out of thin air. Stockhausen is the one who blurs the distinction. To establish that the two things are separate, and that Stockhausen has something else in mind other than tones when he uses the word pulse, it seems like the burden of proof is more on your view than it is on mine. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are misreading me, as well as Stockhausen. I am not objecting to the conflation of pitch and its articulation (though I would do so if the opportunity were to arise), but rather to the conflation of actual sound with its conceptual structuring ideas. However, that is really quite beside the point. Nothing in what you say identifies anything at all in Stockhausen's writings that plainly state (as opposed to the possibility of being inferred through associational thinking): "By 'pulse' I mean 'tones'" (or the reverse).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply don't see any reason to be so Jesuitical about this. Yes, Stockhausen does not plainly state pulse and tone are equivalent. However, the reality that you suggest, where they are not is just as absent from any of the sources cited in the article. This seems to be some secret knowledge you possess, and I'm not sure why you don't simply add it to the article.
 * Stockhausen uses the terms interchangeably through several of the cited sources, which is why I inserted the parenthetical note about their equivalency. I have thoroughly documented in this discussion how he conflates the terms. I would suggest either rephrasing the note or leaving it be. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jesuitical"?? "Secret knowledge"?? If you like, I can find some elementary physics texts to cite in this article, which will explain the differences between "pulse", "frequency", and "pitch", and perhaps also some beginning music-theory texts for the distinction between "note" and "tone" (for example), but this is not the subject of this article, and is (I trust) amply covered in dozens of other articles around Wikipedia. This is hardly arcane knowledge, and Stockhausen had more than a passing acquaintance with all of this, even if he was called to task on occasion for misusing the terminology of psychoacoustics or even misconstruing facts. However, it is simply not true that he "uses the terms interchangeably" or "conflates" them. You are simply confused about what he is describing. Let me try once again to clarify some of these basic facts.
 * A pulse is a momentary entity in a group of such entities equally spaced in time. A pitch is a periodic vibration, which requires more than one pulse for its definition, and has no specified duration in itself (how long is the D above middle C?). Stockhausen describes relationships of periodic rhythms (which in special circumstances may be manifested as pitch), which in themselves are defined in terms of these periodicities (referred to here as "tempos"; the interval between two of these pulses is a "duration"). Those periodicities may be manifested in a composition in a variety of ways, including the use of sustained tones or noises, or momentary clicks, or the alternation of sound and silence. In Cosmic Pulses (as I have already said) these spans of duration are mostly marked by changes of pitches (there is one exception), but as the pitches change within any given loop, the periodicity remains the same. In the initial stage of composition, these changes occur only from loop to loop, though in the final production variations in tempo (amongst other things) are introduced manually (accelerandos and decelerandos). Stockhausen describes the relationships among the tempos in two terms: first, the rate of periodicity and, second, the metronomic tempos. This, I think, is where you are getting confused: the articulation of the pulses (instants of change) within a loop is usually but not always made by changing the pitches. The exception I mentioned is loop 2, which has only one designated pitch (E7), so that in this case articulation is made by repeated attacks of the same pitch, but also at a tempo so fast that the periodic pulse rate is 25.333 per second. This can be heard as a second pitch (approximately A♭ below the bottom string of a double bass) made out of the first one. All of this will eventually be published by one or more of the four authors to whom I previously alluded, and of course all of these relations of periodicities or durations can be described in numeric ratios, as Stockhausen does.
 * Now, all of this is simply to explain why an "(im)pulse" cannot sensibly be equated to a "pitch" and, further, why the numeric relations you keep quoting at me do not describe pitch relations (intervals), even if the duration and tempo relations themselves are expressed by the periods of duration within sets of from 1 to 24 different pitches. Whether Stockhausen "conflates" the terms "pitch" and "impulse" somewhere is an entirely separate matter, but pointing to his use of numbers to describe the relationships of durations and tempos that happen to be defined by the continually changing pitches in the loops of this piece simply does not demonstrate this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see, if you bothered to read my many earlier comments, I have no confusion whatsoever about the difference between a pulse and a pitch. You are being Jesuitical about the fact that Stockhausen never manifestly confesses to conflating the two. For Wikipedian concerns of verifiability, I can understand this concern. What you have outlined in your florid 2nd paragraph is precisely the 'secret knowledge' which you are withholding from this article, and which is nowhere to be found in the sources that I cited. In more direct terms: You are aware of facts about the piece that I am not and no one in possession of the cited sources can be.
 * However, and most importantly to this present discussion, what can be found is Stockhausen's conflation of the term 'tone' and 'pulse'. This is a verifiable fact, as exhaustively demonstrated by me throughout this discussion. Your quibble is with the published materials, not with me. Perhaps when these new publications come to the fore, you will update this article. For now, as I said earlier, I think it best to either amend the parenthetical note or leave it as it is. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am becoming very weary of this but, as you persist, let us examine your evidence. You cite from the text of Orvonton, with your own emphases:
 * Layer nineteen has twenty-three tones as sound loop.
 * In the basic tempo 3.75 each tone lasts 2 seconds,
 * and therefore the loop lasts 23 x 2 = 46 seconds.
 * and then conclude: "That's pretty clear". Where does this "conflate" pulse and tone? All it does is establish a duration, which is not applied to one tone, but to each of twenty three tones. It is of course perfectly true that in the basic tempo the "(im)pulses" by which the tempo is measured are two seconds apart, but the tones are not two seconds apart, they are two seconds long. There is a huge difference. Stockhausen is in no way "conflating" anything, at least, not by this text he's not.
 * As to my second paragraph, there is absolutely nothing in of which I am aware and you are not (because you possess copies of all the sketch material that I have), though it is true that the so-far cited sources alone do not supply some of the information. However, this is the case only because there are available, published sources that have not yet been cited. For example, the specific pitches (or rather, pitch classes) in the various loops can be found on the cover of the score of Paradies (where they are labled "24 Ritornelle von COSMIC PULSES"). A second way of finding these pitches is more laborious, but not impossible, and that is to listen to the analytical tracks that accompany Cosmic Pulses on the CD recording, which also has not yet been cited, but is available to anyone who is interested. I have deliberately not included in that paragraph anything that relies on the sketches of which you and I both have copies.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is casuistic, and again, you are clinging to a definition that is wholly absent from the cited material. If you have grown weary of the discussion, why not do as I ask and amend the problematic statement or add a citation that supports your point of view?
 * And I don't know how to answer the question you pose to me in the beginning of your latest response other than to point you to my earlier comments, where it has been answered. You could also consult the score to Orvonton where Stockhausen replaces the word "tones" where he has used "pulses" only 21 lines earlier in the same column of the same page. Again, this has been asked and answered. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not understand which part of my reasoning you find to be based on the case at hand, but if it is, I don't understand why you should be having a problem with that. One assumes that the lines in question from the score of Orvonton include these (from the English version) which you quote:
 * Layer nineteen has twenty-three tones as sound loop.
 * In the basic tempo 3.75 each tone lasts 2 seconds,
 * and therefore the loop lasts 23 x 2 = 46 seconds.
 * The corresponding 21 lines earlier in the same column are:
 * COSMIC PULSES consists of 24 layers, 24 melodic loops, each of
 * which has a different number of pitches between 1 and 24, rotate in 24
 * tempi and in 24 registers within a range of circa 7 octaves. The tempi
 * With all due respect, I fail to see the words "tones" and "pulses" interchanged anywhere there. In fact, I don't even see the word "pulses" at all. Please do correct my misunderstanding.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Postscript: I have accepted your suggestion, and amended the problematic statement, by removing it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing is different from amending, but now I'm being Jesuitical.
 * Your counting is wrong. The passage you quote is 3 lines higher. The crucial passage comes in the next sentence, but again, this is ground incredibly well covered.Trumpetrep (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to admit that your explanation here was vague. I triple-checked my counting, and those three lines are precisely 21 (not 3) lines each before the three cited lines. Are you telling me those were not the lines you meant, or that I should have been looking just 20 lines, or 24 lines higher? The simple thing would be for you to quote here the pair(s) of lines to which you are trying to draw my attention. The trouble with ground covered this well is that there are bootprints and tire marks everywhere. You are correct about one thing, though: it is incredible. I still can't believe it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume at this point that you are in an Inspector Colombo routine of deliberate obtuseness, and I have no idea what else to say aside from directing you (as I have repeatedly) to my previous comments. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To judge from your most recent edit, I would guess that what you have been trying to say all along is not that Stockhausen claims somewhere that pulses and pitches are equivalent, but rather that Stockhausen defines tempo not in terms of single beat values, but in groups of eight beats (so that, in order to calculate the lengths of individual notes, it is necessary to divide the usual metronome calculation by eight). In this case, it doesn't matter whether you reckon beats according to pulses or according to notes (not necessarily tones or pitches, since seven of the loops involve fewer than eight pitches). Now, if that is all you have been trying to say, I can supply ten or a dozen sources to confirm it. If not, then we are back to square one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaker diagram
It's a square, not a circle or polygon. The illusion of those other shapes are from the lines Stockhausen drew between the channels, which indicate the angling of the speakers. Referencing this diagram should be sufficient to include this fact in the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps (it does seem to show the walls of the room as a square, at any rate), and there is nothing more that will stand as a reliable source, since there is no published score, but as far as I am aware that configuration has not ever actually been used, and Bryan said in his seminars in 2008 that Stockhausen himself decided on the 22.5-degree rotation—resulting, even in square rooms, in having speaker-group I in the left-rear corner, II halfway along the left wall, III in the front-left corder, etc. This was the configuration actually used by Stockhausen at the German premiere in 2007 (I remember all too well being seated way too close to speaker-group VII, in the right-rear corner of the "square", though of course that room is not square, so the walls at left and right were quite a distance away from the line of speakers I-II-III and V-VI-VII), and by Bryan and Kathinka the next year in Kürten. It was also the way Bryan had the eight channels configured in Boulder (I was there, and assisted with the setup).
 * I'm also surprised at your editorial comment about subwoofers in Boulder. I didn't think you were there. I was, and in fact helped cart the two (not four) subwoofers into the hall and into place. They were real monsters. If there were any malfunctioning subwoofers, they had failed before the equipment was transported by the supplying firm to the Boulder campus. Bryan of course would know, but he cannot be cited here as a source. In any event, there have never been eight subwoofers, which would be a colossal waste of money because those low frequencies convey very little spatial information.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In a series of emails with Paul, he stated multiple times that there were 4 subwoofers at the Boulder performance.
 * As for the speaker array, the only reason I was in Kuerten in 2008 was to get permission to present the US premiere of Cosmic Pulses. I had to sign a contract and take the courses, and all of this specified that the speakers be arranged according to the diagram. When you receive the DVD with the sound files, the diagram is on the front cover. Moreover, during those sound projection courses, Bryan and Kathinka repeatedly stressed that the channels should each have 1 subwoofer and 2 mids and be set up according to the diagram.
 * Furthermore, in Warsaw, the piece was performed by musikFabrik with 8 subs, and the speakers were arrayed according to Stockhausen's diagram. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak to the Warsaw performance, nor to the one in the Royal Albert Hall (which, because of the size of the room, must have involved extraordinary amounts of sound equipment), since I did not attend either of those. I shall have to consult with Paul to find out why his memory (which is surely more reliable than my own, since he had to settle the account with the rental agency) is different from my own. I was also in Kürten in 2008, as you know, but not solely for the purpose of dealing with Cosmic Pulses, and I have no copy of the contract used by the Verlag so, if it says eight subwoofers (and not just eight woofers), then I must take your word for it. This is not what I recall Bryan saying in the seminar, but I would have to check my notes from 2008 to see whether I wrote any of this down. The diagram, of course, does not indicate types of speakers at all—not even the fact that each station must consist of at least two speakers, set at an angle to optimize coverage of the hall, and that they are to be raised on stands at a minimum of … how many meters above the floor is it? As a matter of fact, now that I am looking at the diagram again, I see where you get the idea of two points on each side of a square: those circled Arabic numerals. But those are not the speaker stations. They are only reference point from which to draw the octagon and two overlapping squares that establish the positions for the eight stations, indicated by the Roman numerals. In fact, it is not even clear whether the surrounding (solid-line) square represents walls, or if it, too, is merely a referential framework for establishing the shape of the loudspeaker array around the central mixing-desk (on a flat floor, presumably, but this is not specified either). Square concert halls are certainly a rarity—even rarer, I should think, than round ones. The infuriating thing about all of this is that there is material out there (even in your hands and mine), but not published material that can be cited, in order either to corroborate or correct our memories.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the pleasures of the aural tradition that Kuerten prefers...But don't get me started.
 * If the speaker cabinets are the massive ones you describe, it's quite possible that they split the signal between the two heads inside of them, yielding a total of 4 subwoofers, from the 2 cabinets. Each head would get 2 channels from the mix. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense, though I am at a loss to explain why that might be done, given the non-directional character of those low frequencies. The units required two people to lift, and stood about waist-high from the floor, as I recall—maybe a bit higher. There might well have been space inside each cabinet for two sub-woofer speakers, presumably facing in opposite directions. This would explain the difference between Paul's account and my own.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the score for Orvonton and Jerusem spell out the sound system requirements as 8X2 with 8 'bass loudspeakers'. So, I replaced the original reference to the subwoofers with a citation of the Orvonton score. Surely we will not cavil over the fact that these scores are not for Cosmic Pulses, since the projected material is from Cosmic Pulses and these scores reflect the performance practice of that piece.Trumpetrep (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct (and this is also true for the scores of Havona, Uversa, Jerusem, Nebadon, Urantia, and Paradies). More important, though, is that the German text uses the terms Baßlautsprecher and Baßboxen, which are the equivalent of "subwoofer", whereas the English "bass loudspeakers" used to translate both German terms is (in my experience) a non-standard term that could be mistaken to mean ordinary woofers, rather than subwoofers. And, no, we will not cavil about the applicability of these score prefaces to Cosmic Pulses, as well. This is nevertheless most peculiar, and I am going in search of my notes from Bryan's seminars, to see whether my recollection that Stockhausen approved fewer subwoofers is mentioned there or not (irrelevant to the present article, of course).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception
I know you object to this category, but it is a standard section on Wikipedia, and I think it's tremendously important to have it as a part of the article. I'd prefer to keep the name 'Reception', because it is the standard employed across Wikipedia.

As to Collins' derision, he is not "describing" the synth sound when he calls it "cheap" and "bad". Those are pejorative words. He's clearly making a critical assessment of the synth sound with those word choices. No reason to gloss over it. It's a curious revision to make. Why not then change the phrase "Paul Driver dismissed Klang as 'portentous'" into "Paul Driver described Klang as 'portentous'"? Neutering all such language makes these Reception sections far less helpful, in my view. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a "reception" section is standard, but in order to keep the word (which I do not object to in principle), it had better actually deal with reception, and not just superficially report press reactions. There is, after all, a widely recognized methodology for this. The audience response part is already a little bit better, but needs to sharpen the focus on demographics (comparison of differences in reaction of the different audiences: nationalities, age groups, etc.). The problem with the press reactions is that there is no attempt to sort out the differences between various kinds and nationalities of critics—which of course would be original research if done by you or me, so sources must be found for this. Then a section needs adding on the response of other composers (as reflected in their own compositions, as well as in comments), the academy, and any other segment of society that can be identified. It is way too early to start dealing with the change of reception over time in these various segments, of course.
 * It could be true that Collins is deriding the sound by calling it "cheap", but the opinion that this is "bad" is attributed by him to other members of the audience ("In the post- mortem discussions among attendees, … those who had heard more recent electroacoustic music were slightly perturbed by the bad timbre"). Yes, of course, he seems to share this opinion, but this is interpretation of his text, and should be left up to the readers of Wikipedia to decide. This is also true for the expression "slightly perturbed", which might be taken as "on inconsequentially ruffled" or "really annoyed". The former does not constitute "derision" ("ridicule", "mockery"), the latter may do. To decide for the reader which is meant is editorial interpretation, and not a neutral point of view—or what you call "neutering".
 * You may be correct about the quotation from Paul Driver, but so far I have gotten only as far as checking the Collins. Give me time, it's early days yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that's an incorrect reading of Collins. What he is reporting in that second passage is that the listeners were "slightly perturbed". He takes the "bad timbre" as a given, based on his earlier, critical assessment. If he were, as you read him, reporting "bad timbre" as the perturbed listeners' point of view, he would have formulated it as such. You are inserting a layer of meaning that isn't there on its face. To mean what you have in mind, Collins would have had to say something like, "[listeners] were slightly perturbed by what they perceived as a bad timbre."
 * As to the methodology for reporting on a work's reception, what you describe is quite foreign to Wikipedian shores. The section as I drafted it is modeled after similar sections in other articles, and as I understand the guidelines, that's what the editors have in mind.
 * Also, having a neutral point of view, does not mean that one cannot summarize an author's opinion in setting up a quote. I wrote that Andrew Clements "wrote admiringly", which is true. Neutering that language to something like 'Andrew Clements wrote' actually does a disservice to the reader by removing valuable context from a quote. Especially when a critic like Driver has a mixed reaction, summarizing his viewpoint with context around key quotes is essential to writing a coherent passage, instead of just hashing together quotes. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Undid Kohl Revisions
"The melodic loops were performed on a synthesizer[8] by Antonio Pérez Abellán.[9]"

This sentence correctly cites Nick Collins who notes that the source for the melodic lines is a "rather cheap electric piano sound" (footnote 8). The CD liner notes are just one source that reveal Antonio to be the performer of these lines (footnote 9). Both citations were placed in one sentence to avoid a wanton charge of 'improper synthesis'. By removing them, Jerry just recreated the environment of his original challenge, wherein the loops were performed by some unknowable entity. The citations provide verifiable facts (not claims) that Antonio is the guilty culprit. Trumpetrep (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two things here, trumpetrep: First, an electric piano is not a synthesizer, though it is feasible to produce the sound of such an instrument using a synthesizer. Collins only uses the word "synthesis" once in the section of his review on Cosmic Pulses, and that is in his quick notes where he says that "even bad synthesis" could not spoil the effect of the piece. Synthesis mean a number of things, not just performance on a synthesizer. Second, as you probably remember from Antonio's seminar in 2008 (though we cannot cite unpublished sources like this), he did not create the loops by "performing" them, nor does Stockhausen's note claim that he does (and Collins never says what role Antonio had in the production of Cosmic Pulses). Further, Stockhausen's note does say what I quoted it as saying, that Antonio "realised the melodic loops and synchronisation". "Realisation" does not necessarily involve any "performance" and, even when it does, that is not usually the main part of the operation. In fact (though once again this comes from Antonio's seminar, which we have no way of citing here), the process of realising and synchronising the loops mainly involved editing using Logic Pro—this information came out when someone (it may have been you) asked Antonio what software he used in making the loops. Equally, we know from this uncitable source that the primary tone generator for the timbres was a Roland synthesizer (I cannot now recall the exact model, can you?), not an electric piano, cheap or expensive, though at the moment Collins appears to be the only citable source, so his error stands as authoritative. We also know (once again, uncitable) that Antonio used the keyboard to produce the tones, and that all of this was initially done in connection with Himmelfahrt. Those timbres were then appropriated for the loops in Cosmic Pulses. I have not been successful in finding a reliable source for any of this, however. Until such a source materializes, I think my edits must stand.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're overthinking this, and certainly, overparsing the language. If you don't like the word perform (there's more than one meaning to it, but I concede that it is a loaded term in a musical article), there are a whole host of alternatives in the English language. I have reverted to my last edit, and you can replace the word 'performed' with one that you like.
 * The importance of this sentence is twofold. First, it is the only place in the article where Antonio's involvement is acknowledged. More importantly, it efficiently eliminates a whole host of aural possibilities which are common in Stockhausen's electronic music. It tells the reader that the piece is not a collage of sound samples, nor is it ring modulated, or an exploration of oscillators. It encyclopedically narrows down the classification of the piece. This is no small matter.
 * I am making no assumptions or claims with this simple, doubly verified sentence. If you decide to revisit the issue of word choice, please do so in cooperation with the twofold goal I have outlined.Trumpetrep (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, it was a Kurzweil K2600X
 * If I am "overthinking" this, then you must be "underthinking" it. Your aims are laudable, but unfortunately not enough credible material has yet been published about this piece to fulfill those goals. Collins still does not anywhere say anything about a synthesizer—to the contrary, he says the sounds originated from an electric piano. Check the Wikipedia article on this instrument, which states, "Unlike a synthesizer, the electric piano is not an electronic instrument, but electro-mechanical". I have reluctantly put this untruth in place of the unsupported word "synthesizer". You and I both know that Collins's statement is incorrect, possibly even a typographical error, but where are our references to prove him wrong? I think you are correct about the Kurzweil, by the way, and I have a "sort of" reference for its use in generating the "chromatic scale of timbres" in Himmelfahrt, but I have yet to find a source confirming those same timbres were used for Cosmic Pulses, even though I know this to be true from a variety of unpublished sources, as well as the testimony of my ears. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Since you agree that "performing" is a loaded term, I have replaced it with Stockhausen's word, "realised" (which since the 1950s has also been the normal word for studio-produced electronic music of all kinds).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a way to satisfy the Wikipedian need for verifiable information without purposely using incorrect information. Thankfully, I have a source that explicitly describes the melodic loops as "24 individually composed pieces for synthesizer". So, I added that reference, and that should be the end of it.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an end to it, I'm afraid. The worst-case scenario is that Walls almost certainly used information from this article when he wrote his review, which would make it a case of Wikipedia being used as a source for itself. Fortunately, there is no direct evidence to demonstrate this is the case. There still remains the fact that Antonio is not mentioned at all in Walls's review, and he does not make explicit that the "24 pieces" are in fact the "loops" that Stockhausen says Antonio "relaised and synchronised", so this is still improper synthesis (if you will pardon the expression). At least we have now got something that contradicts Nick Collins's claim about an electric piano.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there is no possible way to read Walls' review and claim or assume that he is using this article as a reference. I have returned the format to your construction, where the synthesizer information appears first on its own as a way to explain the basic timbre of the piece. This fact, supported by the Walls citation, is then followed separately by the fact that Antonio was responsible for constructing the layers, which is verified by the CD booklet.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's better, and I agree that there is no evidence in Walls's review that he had read this Wikipedia article. On the other hand, it still does not actually solve the problem that Walls and Collins give conflicting views of the source sound, and you cannot just ignore one over the other. This is compounded by the fact that Collins is actually the more credible source (to the innocent reader, though not to you and me, perhaps), first because of the journal in which he is published, and second because of his track record as an author of books and articles on electronic music. Perhaps Walls has credentials in this area as well, but I've not heard of him before and I doubt that his CV could be so overwhelming as to put Collins in the shade. We may neither of us like it, but as Wikipedia editors we have not got the authority to decide which of these two guys is right. If Stockhausen had lived to give his planned seminar in 2008, the analysis book would obviously have been a far better source than either of these; if the substituted seminars by Richard Toop and Antonio Pérez Abellán are ever transcribed and published, they, too, would be a better source. I suspect that, when Leopoldo Siano's dissertation is finished later this year, it will include details about the production of Cosmic Pulses that will be more credible than any concert review, since his research has been in the archives and includes interviews with the people who actually produced the piece. But these are at best in the future, and this is now. I really don't know what to suggest doing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think you should lose any sleep over this. Again, it seems like you're overthinking the problem. The article now accurately cites two different sources that describe the basic timbre of the piece. Now, those descriptions might engender some confusion, but certainly not as much confusion as "cheap electric piano" by itself creates. For the record, Walls is an entirely credible freelance critic, and one of the only Americans who bothered to go over and review Sonntag.Trumpetrep (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to lose any sleep over it, but I can easily imagine some reader putting a "contradiction" tag on those two statements (though Walls does not actually say that a synth was used as the source material). As the author of a book about breadboard synthesizers Collins of course has an agenda, which explains his disparaging remarks elsewhere in the review (directed at other pieces) about "commercial synthesizers", and one can only assume that this agenda also is driving his claims about "bad synthesis" and "electric pianos". However, it is also the case that Collins was actually in Kürten for the German premiere, and could plausibly have learned about an electric piano directly from the composer or from Antonio, whereas, as far as I am aware, Walls has had no such opportunity.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll just cross that bridge when we come to it, and meanwhile, we'll look for better sources to cite. I can tell you that my agenda for getting the synthesizer info in there is because it is the most common question people ask after a performance of the piece. That, and "how did he make it swirl around the channels like that?". So, it's really helpful to have that info in the article. It would be better if we could cite the make and model of the synth and the actual source timbre Antonio used, but at least, it's a start.Trumpetrep (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I expect that better sources will be appearing in the not-too-distant future. It is useful to know your purpose in pursuing this issue with such doggedness. I am a little surprised, though, since I have not myself heard anyone ask these questions on the four occasions when I have been present after such performances, though it is true that I was not the person at the mixing board.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)