Talk:Freitag aus Licht

Discussion August 2009
"This sounds like an interpretation contrary to the description in the synopsis. Whose is it?" I chose the word holocaust because it best describes what happens in the end as the bastard pairs ascend in a pillar of fire to the beyond in penance for the sins of the couples. The imagery is clearly that of a holocaust, but if another word would better suffice, that's fine. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, congratulations on a very nice job with this article. About this interpretation, I was thinking principally of Stockhausen's own description of this scene being like watching the massed devotional candles in the Milan Cathedral, but this was from a conversation I had with him once, so I can't very well reference it. But there is also the perhaps less vivid description in his synopsis of the final scene (I quote from the version in the programme book of the Leipzig premiere): "the 6 hybrid couples with their 6 candle flames unite into a beautiful new form as a towering candle flame, as they sing CHOIR SPIRAL. The large flame, in which the singing hybrid couples gradually start to glow, rises up in a slow spiral movement and vanishes into the heights." You have done a perfectly good job of paraphrasing this, but it sounds peaceful and joyous to me, not much like a sacrificial holocaust, and it is not at all clear that the miscegenation of the couples is to be regarded as sinful—merely grotesque. A source that I can cite in this regard is Stuart Gerber's 2003 DMA dissertation ("Karlheinz Stockhausen’s Solo Percussion Music: A Comprehensive Study", University of Cincinatti), where he says on p. 160: “The final outcome represented in the final scene is a beautiful one; all of the hybrid couples begin to meld together into one flame and spiral toward heaven as one entity. The meaning is clear: to achieve a united world we must be supportive of the inevitable mixing of people and cultures, for that is the only way to reach heaven”. For sure, the interpretation of the tone scenes and the "hybrid couples" has been a matter of controversy, and this should probably be discussed in this article. Juxtaposing this quotation from Gerber with Robin Maconie's interpretation (in Other Planets) would make the point rather well, I think. Bernard Pulham's interpretation at http://homepage.mac.com/bernardp/Stockhausen/Freitag.html is close to Gerber's, also.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. If the miscegenation of the couples isn't sinful, though, why would Elu & Lufa ask if they repent? Further, why would they reply, "Yes, we repent?" As the only thing we've seen them doing onstage is copulating and switching partners, it's logical to conclude that the sin for which they repent is their fornication. The purifying flames of a holocaust can be quite beautiful, which Stockhausen's imagery conveys. I don't quite agree that the scene is joyous, at least musically. The Choir Spiral is slightly ominous music, at least to my ear.


 * I did wonder about that interpretation by Pulham, because it seems impossible to support. I wonder how he came to that conclusion, which Stuart cites. I settled on the word holocaust because it accurately conveys the disappearance completely of the bastard pairs by fire in a penance ritual for the sins of the 12 couples, echoing Eve's earlier penance ritual. I'm fine with a different wording, but I don't see how the penitential aspect of the Choir Spiral can be ignored.


 * And I don't mean to complicate things with a Urantia reference, but the coupling of Caino and Eve is clearly sinful. It's counter to God's plan, and it is the Urantian version of Original Sin. Eve clearly has torn apart the fabric of the universe (red stripe) by mating with Caino, and she repents. It doesn't make much sense that the couples' doppelganger function would cease at the final act. I did hem and haw about whether or not to use the term bastard instead of hybrid. It's curious that Stockhausen would translate bastard paare as hybrid couples, but so many of his translations are curious. Anyway, taking the function of the couples in the opera as a grotesque greek chorus and the fact that his original term for their offspring is bastards, it seems too big a stretch to say that there is some kind of hidden endorsement of interbreeding in the opera. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I need to consult the score more closely. I did not remember Elu and Lufa having any words at all, let alone the exchange with the hybrid pairs (the English word "bastard" has a strong tone of disapprobation not quite matched by the German word Bastard, which is why the official translation is "hybrid"). If you are right (and, considering the trouble you have taken creating this article, I must assume you know your onions), there is still the question of "fornication" vs. the entirely different matter of "miscegenation" (which is where Maconie and Stuart come in). The real problem with the word "holocaust" is the inevitable association, especially in connection with a German composer, with The Holocaust. The question of the musical character of the final scene is an interesting one, for a host of reasons (I am particularly thinking of the imagery the Brothers Quay conjured up in response to the music of Zwei Paare), but your and my subjective reactions to the music are not necessarily the same as Stockhausen's intended message. In the interview with Hermann Conen published in the programme book for the premiere of this opera, Stockhausen compares this scene with the end of Dienstag aus Licht, as an ascension to "the beyond". Considering that the six hybrid pairs already carry candles with them, their joining together into a single "towering candle flame" (not a roaring funeral pyre, in the manner of an auto da fé—keep in mind that the element of fire belongs to a different opera in this cycle) seems to me ("original research", of course) more an image of merger of individual souls into a collective whole.


 * I must point out that Pulham's view is not cited by Gerber, nor vice-versa. They seem to have come to their "insupportable" conclusions quite independently (and I happen to share them, myself). The word "immolation" might be more appropriate than "holocaust", assuming that my understanding of Stockhausen's intentions is insupportable. Let me say also that the Urantia Book reference is entirely appropriate, and in no way a complication, and the Eve-Kaino coupling is, as you say, meant to be seen as "clearly sinful". Otherwise, why would there be the "Reue" scene?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it happens in measure 17B of Elufa. Lufa is the one to ask, "Bereut Ihr auch alle?" over a fermata rest. The 12 couples respond, "Ja wir bereun!".


 * I think 'immolation' poses the same problem as 'holocaust', because the opposing interpretation is not that these hybrids are destroyed at all, right? According to Gerber/Pulham, they ascend into the Beyond in bodily form (ie an Assumption). I think Stockhausen's language evokes something different: "the 6 hybrid couples with their 6 candle flames unite into a beautiful new form as a towering candle flame...The large flame, in which the singing hybrid pairs gradually start to glow, rises up in a slow spiral movement and vanishes into the Beyond." Moreover, when the hybrid couples first appear after the interbreeding, they appear "in a candle flame between each of the neighboring couples". So, they aren't holding candles. Rather, they are inside the fire itself. And in their union, each of the 6 tiny flames with a couple inside becomes one giant flame. The glowing of the couples inside the flame just furthers the sense that they are being ritually cleansed by the fire. So, that's the case for the scene as a holocaust. It's probably for the best to indicate that there is some disagreement about what happens in the final scene, or alternatively, to let the synopsis stand alone without a comment about what is happening in the final scene. Trumpetrep (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, I have to agree that 'immolation' is not a good word, either. However, I don't see that either Gerber or Pulham claim anything about 'bodily form'. I think it would be more accurate to describe their interpretation as an Ascension rather than an Assumption, but that is a fine point. In the meantime, I have come across a third interpretation, by Günter Peters ("Heilige Ernst im Spiel", in the Tagungsbericht of the Stockhausen 2000 Symposion, p. 167) who holds that "Die Chor-Spirale mit ihrer doppelten Schraubbewegung führt die FREITAG-Welt gleichzeitig in die SAMSTAG-Tiefe hinunter und in die SONNTAG-Höhe hinauf"—that is, it represents both an ascent (to heaven?) and a descent (to hell?).
 * The real problem here is not the quibbling over a term to describe this scene, but in the fact that the interpretation of this and other scenes in Freitag has been at the core of a fairly intensive critique (not the sort of superficial, journalistic snap judgements made at first hearing presently listed under "Critical reception" but, instead, serious attempts to critically assess Freitag's libretto), which also extends to the other Licht operas. I am not yet prepared to summarise this critique, which involves some intricate debate from a number of different authors and is—as far as I am aware—entirely confined to German writings, to not all of which I have ready access. But surely this will ultimately have to be included in this article, since it goes far beyond the "I really, really like this", "I really, really hate that", laurel-wreath-bestowing/mud-slinging level, more properly called a "review" than "criticism". However, for the time being I think it would be better to simply leave this aside, rather than trying to incorporate some of the secondary (or even more distant) byproducts of these interpretations, which are more likely to cause confusion than illumination.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)