Editing Karlheinz Stockhausen (section)

===Controversy===
Throughout his career, Stockhausen excited controversy. One reason for this is that his music displays high expectations about "shaping and transforming the world, about the truth of life and of reality, about the creative departure into a future determined by spirit", so that Stockhausen's work "like no other in the history of new music, has a polarizing effect, arouses passion, and provokes drastic opposition, even hatred".{{sfn|Ulrich|2001|loc=25}} Another reason was acknowledged by Stockhausen himself in a reply to a question during an interview on the [[Bayerischer Rundfunk|Bavarian Radio]] on 4 September 1960, reprinted as a foreword to his first collection of writings: {{blockquote|I have often been reproached—especially recently—for being too candid, and through this making not a few enemies for myself—being undiplomatic. ... It must be admitted: I am not gifted as an esotericist, not as a mystic or a hermit, and not as a diplomat; it corresponds that my love of my fellow humans expresses itself in candour ... I hope my enemies will not on this account destroy me; I also hope my enemies find forms of retort that I can find richly fanciful, witty, pertinent, instructive—that grant me respect through a noble and truly humane form of enmity.{{sfn|Stockhausen ''Texte''|loc=1:12–13}}}}
After the [[Protests of 1968|student revolts in 1968]], musical life in Germany became highly politicized, and Stockhausen found himself a target for criticism, especially from the leftist camp who wanted music "in the service of the class struggle". [[Cornelius Cardew]] and [[Konrad Boehmer]] denounced their former teacher as a "servant of capitalism". In a climate where music mattered less than political ideology, some critics held that Stockhausen was too élitist, while others complained he was too mystical.{{sfn|Kurtz|1992|loc=188–189}}

====Scandal at the ''Fresco'' premiere====
{{Main|Fresco (Stockhausen)}}
As reported in the German magazine ''[[Der Spiegel]]'', the [[première]] (and only performance to date) on 15 November 1969 of Stockhausen's work ''[[Fresco (Stockhausen)|Fresco]]'' for four orchestral groups (playing in four different locations) was the scene of a scandal. The rehearsals were already marked by objections from the orchestral musicians questioning such directions as "glissandos no faster than one octave per minute" and others phoning the artists' union to clarify whether they really had to perform the Stockhausen work as part of the orchestra. In the backstage warm-up room at the premiere a hand-lettered sign could be seen saying: "We're playing, otherwise we would be fired". During the première the parts on some music stands suddenly were replaced by placards reading things like "Stockhausen-Zoo. Please don't feed", that someone had planted. Some musicians, fed up with the monkeyshines, left after an hour, though the performance was planned for four to five hours. Stockhausen fans protested, while Stockhausen foes were needling the musicians asking: "How can you possibly participate in such crap?" ("Wie könnt ihr bloß so eine Scheiße machen!"). At one point someone managed to switch off the stand lights, leaving the musicians in the dark. After 260 minutes the performance ended with no-one participating any longer.{{sfn|Anon.|1969}}

====Sirius star system====
In an obituary in the German newspaper ''[[Die Zeit]]'', Karlheinz Stockhausen was quoted as having said: "I was educated at [[Sirius]] and want to return to there, although I am still living in Kürten near Cologne."{{sfn|Reier|2007}} On hearing about this, conductor [[Michael Gielen]] stated: "When he said he knew what was happening at Sirius, I turned away from him in horror. I haven't listened to a note since." He called Stockhausen's statements "hubris" and "nonsense", while at the same time defending his own belief in [[astrology]]: "Why should these large celestial bodies exist if they do not stand for something? I cannot imagine that there is anything senseless in the universe. There is much we do not understand".{{sfn|Hagedorn|2010}}

====11 September attacks====
In a press conference in [[Hamburg]] on 16 September 2001, Stockhausen was asked by a journalist whether the characters in ''Licht'' were for him "merely some figures out of a common cultural history" or rather "material appearances". Stockhausen replied, "I pray daily to Michael, but not to Lucifer. I have renounced him. But he is very much present, like in New York recently."{{sfn|Stockhausen|2002|loc=76}} The same journalist then asked how the [[September 11 attacks|events of 11 September]] had affected him, and how he viewed reports of the attack in connection with the harmony of humanity represented in ''[[Hymnen]]''. He answered:<blockquote>Well, what happened there is, of course—now all of you must adjust your brains—the biggest work of art there has ever been. The fact that spirits achieve with one act something which we in music could never dream of, that people practise ten years madly, fanatically for a concert. And then die. [Hesitantly.] And that is the greatest work of art that exists for the whole Cosmos. Just imagine what happened there. There are people who are so concentrated on this single performance, and then five thousand people are driven to Resurrection. In one moment. I couldn't do that. Compared to that, we are nothing, as composers. [...] It is a crime, you know of course, because the people did not agree to it. They did not come to the "concert". That is obvious. And nobody had told them: "You could be killed in the process."{{sfn|Stockhausen|2002|loc=76–77}}</blockquote>

As a result of the reaction to the press report of Stockhausen's comments, a four-day festival of his work in Hamburg was cancelled. In addition, his pianist daughter announced to the press that she would no longer appear under the name "Stockhausen".{{sfn|Lentricchia and McAuliffe|2003|loc=7}} In a subsequent message, he stated that the press had published "false, defamatory reports" about his comments, and said:

<blockquote>At the press conference in Hamburg, I was asked if Michael, Eve and Lucifer were historical figures of the past and I answered that they exist now, for example Lucifer in New York. In my work, I have defined Lucifer as the cosmic spirit of rebellion, of anarchy. He uses his high degree of intelligence to destroy creation. He does not know love. After further questions about the events in America, I said that such a plan appeared to be Lucifer's greatest work of art. Of course I used the designation "work of art" to mean the work of destruction personified in Lucifer. In the context of my other comments this was unequivocal.{{sfn|Stockhausen|2001a}}</blockquote>