A question about Xenakis
Matthew H. Fields
I think there's been two things supporting Xenakis over the last 15
years: political "correctness" with lots of references to his role in WWII,
and a desire for composers at scientifically-oriented institutions to
declare themselves scientists.
Otherwise, it seems to me that most of what he does was done more
practically by Penderecki 20 years ago.
--
_ || Composer and educator
/ \ * || URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
* | * || URL:mailto:fie...@umich.edu
Dr. Matthew H. / ields || Phone 313-936-7579 days, 313-769-4836 eves.
Gerald Brennan
: Hallo
: Can you tell me what, exactly, is it about Xenakis and his works
: that make them so special.
He combines the loftiest mathematical conceptions with the smell of the
earth. Also, he's ruthless.
Gerry
zn...@teleport.com
: If there's one composer I'm positive will be forgotten (if not outright
: laughed at) it will be Iannis Xenakis. For the record, I've heard
: approximately 30 pieces by him and have not been overwhelmed by one. My
: fave is Metastasis, but this pales in comparaison to a master like
: Lutoslawski and Livre. To compare him to a master like Messiaen is
: bizarre; Messiaen's praise was likely due to his interesting textures. To
: tell you the truth, I consider him a fraud; and I've heard this from many
: composers both American and European. The avant-garde (as much as we can
: have today) still intimidates real criticism of new music. The one thing
: that he can do is be truly new. For this he must be praised and then
: tossed into the waste bin...
: I've no intention in participating in a debate; just wanted to add my
: perspective, one from a musician.
I once went to an electronic music concert featuring a work by Xenakis.
I don't remember the name, but, having heard some of his earlier works,
I went to the concert. The piece was indescribable. It was all one
texture, and it grew louder and louder. As the sound level began to
rise to various individuals' threshold of annoyance or pain, people
started walking out of the auditorium. Some of us stayed around in the
hope that it would change, but eventually even I gave up and walked out.
A fair number of the audience members stayed around outside, sharing
their anger at what was to most of us nothing more than an assault. The
sound was at a level which could cause hearing damage towards the point
where people started to walk out. I have never gone to a Xenakis work
since, nor will I ever buy a recording of any of his works. This piece
was an affront.
Who will the musicians of the 24th century remember from the 20th?
Among classical composers, certainly Shostakovich and Stravinsky,
Britten and Vaughan Williams, Cage, Stockhausen and Varese. But they
will also remember the wealth of popular music -- jazz and rock -- that
arose in this century. Bob Dylan, Duke Ellington and the Beatles will
be in the Hall of Fame, Xenakis, if he is remembered at all, will be
remembered as the guy who pissed off all those folks at UC San Diego in
1977.
--
zn...@teleport.com (M. Edward Borasky) http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb
The American people are tired of being told what the American people
are tired of.
Jeff Beer
I agree. With Xenakis, there is an edge that is much like what
I find in Cecil Taylor. His works are extremely
focused and to the point, in addition to the wild and new sounds
he comes up with.
He was one of the first contemporary classical composers I liked,
and now many years later, after having discovered more and
vastly different composers, he still is interesting for me.
He hasn't dropped by the wayside.
Jeff
Maria Anna Harley
Xenakis was doing what he does long before Penderecki was
doing anything (in spite of what Mr. P. claims).
Dr. X. is also well known for the extreme levels when he
plays back a piece over loudspeakers. It's perhaps not
much fun, but the basic reason is that, from the war,
he is partially deaf (upper frequencies).
His orchestra music goes way out there, equally as far
as anything else he has done. Anyone who heard the
recent concerts in Pittsburgh and New York with
"Dammerschein" from 1994 will be able to attest to
that (and look out for that CD next year: with new
recordings of Metastasis and Pithoprakta along with
the new piece).
He, in fact, has over 40 orchestral works, and they
are central to his output. It's truly a shame they
are not out on disc. The other one not mentioned so
far is "Kraanerg" - which is for chamber orch and
tape (processed orch. material); 75 minutes of
continuous full-frontal...
As for the slander being tossed about here, well,
it would be nice to have a bit more discernment
in the criticism -- perhaps we could learn something.
As it is, I'm amazed at the level of ignorance regarding
an important and influential composer.
Jim Harley
Xenakis fan, will even stoop to listening to Messiaen!
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
rus...@nntp.best.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
> I feel I should at least offer a different perspective to the praise.
> Frankly, I consider him a joke. (....) If there's one composer I'm
of such opinions is nothing but the proof of Xenakis' importance.
Modest composers are praised by everybody at his/her time, and
will be forgotten soon.
--
Y.Nonomura
sluttman
> Dr. X. is also well known for the extreme levels when he
> plays back a piece over loudspeakers. It's perhaps not
> much fun, but the basic reason is that, from the war,
> he is partially deaf (upper frequencies).
Three comments:
(1) So what?
(2) Quelle surprise.
(3) Doesn't sound like a very ethical aesthetic to me.
> As for the slander being tossed about here, well,
> it would be nice to have a bit more discernment
> in the criticism -- perhaps we could learn something.
> As it is, I'm amazed at the level of ignorance regarding
> an important and influential composer.
We were hoping maybe you would provide some discerning criticism, but all
you've done is offer a flimsy excuse for painful dynamics and imply that
since he's written a bunch of orchestral works, he (and they) are pretty
cool. Perhaps you could raise the level of discussion--with some actual
discussion? Assuming, of course, there is anything to say.
sluttman
> I feel I should at least offer a different perspective to the praise.
> Frankly, I consider him a joke. He's perfected the art of generating
> interesting textures through algorithms complex or simple (as in the case
> of the charcoal tape piece on Nonesuch). He cleverly generates momentum,
> typically through simplistic texture thinnings and thickenings; throwing
> in a few surprises from time to time to simulate drama. He relies on
> similar textures throughout the length of a movement, never attempting
> transition or goal-oriented movement. Stories of his famous incompetence
> abound, such as his inability to follow his own scores.
Fascinating! You make him sound like a minimalist--and this would
explain his relative popularity these days. You think maybe there are
connections (in terms of style and interpretive communities)?
> Stories of his famous incompetence
> abound, such as his inability to follow his own scores.
Not coincidentally, I've heard rumblings to this extent about Glass, too.
Kurt Rongey
> Hallo
> Can you tell me what, exactly, is it about Xenakis and his works
> that make them so special. You see, a few months ago there was a
> thread at rec.music.classical in which people discussed which
> 20th century compositions will be remembered around the year
> 2300. Almost everyone mentioned Xenakis ! I do like Xenakis'
> works, but it might be nice to know what you people that
> have at least some kind of musical education think of his
> works.
> -Hannu
Well, for me, Xenakis' music often has a higher degree of intensity
and individuality of expression. I know that many people think this
is ridiculous when they're aware of the degree to which pure
mathematical concerns figure into his compositions. Despite this,
Xenaxis' pieces very often have a Beethovenian strength and focus of
emotional expression.
Perhaps because of the clarity of thought, and because of the
elaborate planning and careful manipulation of broad but intricate
textural transformations and contrasts, his messages are clearer.
This can have a threatening effect, as in Bohor, the electronic work
which I presume the poster from San Diego is talking about.
Xenakis' work also has the capacity to be quite joyful and uplifting,
a quality which most contemporary composers don't achieve unless it's
a kind of mystico-religious joy as with Messiaen.
If one accepts his aesthetic terms of his music, one finds an amazing
consistency of quality that few other contemporary composers achieve.
Especially those of the postwar avant-garde. Xenakis is prolific, yet
his works hit their mark much more often, and in a more musicianly way
than Stockhausen, who often seems to be grasping at nothing. While
Boulez gets older, seemingly scared silly just to write a few notes
down, Xenakis quietly keeps generating new, satisfying, exquisitely
crafted compositions.
Another point. His early embrace of computer technology gives him
"contemporary relevance." I have no idea whether he'll be remembered
by the mass public or by college professors. I'll remember him and
I'll remember the amazing sound and force of his music.
============================
Kurt Rongey ===============
l...@fastlane.net ==========
http://www.fastlane.net/~ldm
============================
Jeff Harrington
: it would be nice to have a bit more discernment
: in the criticism -- perhaps we could learn something.
: As it is, I'm amazed at the level of ignorance regarding
: an important and influential composer.
What I posted was sincere musical criticism; I probably shouldn't have
said that stuff about fraud, yet it is a discerning characteristic
mentioned in conversation with *many* composers both European and American
I've had about the gentleman. The stories about his inability to follow
his own scores are famous. For that matter, Shapey has also had these
(ahem) public relations difficulties of this type. Stories about his
books being rife with error point to the depth of understanding he has
about math; all while he positions himself as a mathematician. His
political position does not permit these critical attitudes from being
outed.
The comments about the way he creates movement were the gist of my
criticism. I find the movement in his music to be arbitrary and
obviously the product of dull algorithm. And the reasons, I believe are
obvious.
I'm convinced that Xenakis writes from a super-human perspective. That
is, although the textures he creates (and he is primarily a textural
composer) are primal and violent, the strategy he uses is one of
mathematical modelling - for the purpose - of creating distance. Distance
from the vulgarity of music written by people. Distance from the street,
the tune, the beat. Certainly his music is violent. It is this aspect
that is interesting. But it his pretense of superiority over the
vulgarity of the tune and the beat which I find supercilious. I know, I
know, he uses tune fragments sometimes in his pseudo-minimalist pieces.
I've got an old girl friend who loves to send me Xenakis tapes. But in
these pieces the beat is employed not as a dance-producing effect, but as
in Boulez's Rituel, as a mechanical process.
I see a tendency in much post-50's art similar to this. The utopian
vision that the human (the smelly dirty over-sexed human) can be
transcended throught the use of complexity. When you read his own
writings it's quite obviously an interest of his. The reduction of
massacre to sound effect and complex sound structure is interesting - but
it is so distanced from the reality of the human. THe blood, the guts all
over the street, the screams. His reduction of his scene to
stochastic clouds tells much about the man. It is not new or innovative
to be alienated enough to see such events as mere phenomena.
There's also this lame idea out there that music can be reduced to
atemporal sonic sculpture; that complexity itself can be a symbolic model
for *everything*. Give it a good old greek title and zillions of notes
and hell, it can symbolize anything.
It is for these reasons that I believe Xenakis will not be remembered, and
if he is, will be considered the quintessential 20th century composer
charlatan. The composers that will be remembered well will be people who
were enriched not by algorithm nor attempts at pure modelling, but by the
street, by love, by dance, and all that is human. It may be produced with
the aid of computers and mathematical process but first and formemost it
will be a celebration of humanity and not mere complexity.
Jeff Harrington "Art does not make peace...
je...@parnasse.com That is not its business...
http://www.parnasse.com Art is peace." -- Robert Lowell
Jeff Harrington
: Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
: > I feel I should at least offer a different perspective to the praise.
: > Frankly, I consider him a joke. He's perfected the art of generating
: > interesting textures through algorithms complex or simple (as in the case
: > of the charcoal tape piece on Nonesuch). He cleverly generates momentum,
: > typically through simplistic texture thinnings and thickenings; throwing
: > in a few surprises from time to time to simulate drama. He relies on
: > similar textures throughout the length of a movement, never attempting
: > transition or goal-oriented movement. Stories of his famous incompetence
: > abound, such as his inability to follow his own scores.
: Fascinating! You make him sound like a minimalist--and this would
: explain his relative popularity these days. You think maybe there are
: connections (in terms of style and interpretive communities)?
Exactly! I'm convinced that a connecting tissue between both these camps
is the *lack* of musical content. The music is driven by texture and
contrasts between texture. Salient moments often seem arbitrary and
overly-planned in both types of music. (In Xenaskis' music there's often
the *token* big blat or bang).
I think he's popular now because he allows all us alienated intellectuals
an acoustic field to escape in. His violence provides us with the
adrenalin of spectator sport while in a safe surrounding. All the while
he says and does nothing. That is, except pretend to be a model of
something or another.
Matthew H. Fields
I've always ignored the "degree of pure mathematics" in Xenakis:
the music didn't interest me much. On the other hand, I've seen some
of the amazing mathematics that go into works like Stan Krupowiecz's
Also Sprach Bosch, and this work---which features a crescendo to
sudden silence slightly reminiscient of Bohor---fascinates me, whereas
Bohor really doesn't.
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
> I once went to an electronic music concert featuring a work by Xenakis.
> annoyance or pain, people started walking out of the auditorium.
> an assault.
They will say the same thing when they go to a live house and
listen to gigs of noise bands.
> I have never gone to a Xenakis work since, nor will I ever buy
> a recording of any of his works. This piece was an affront.
I recommend you to listen to the same piece (maybe Bohor, 1962)
in your room with an acceptable level. You will find this piece
is carefully composed.
I just agree he likes too loud sound level. I once went to his
lecture and he played some recordings there. It was more than
ten times louder than real stage performances, and finally
the amplifier was broken. I suspect he dameged his ears
during his anti-facists fights around 1945.
>> about 20th-century pieces remaining in the 24th century
> But they will also remember the wealth of popular music
> -- jazz and rock -- that arose in this century. Bob Dylan,
> Duke Ellington and the Beatles will be in the Hall of Fame,
I 100% agree, and none of "tonal contemporary music" will remain.
> Xenakis, if he is remembered at all, will be remembered as the
> guy who pissed off all those folks at UC San Diego in 1977.
This is a typical Xenakis-bashing article.
Quite subjective and filled with dirty words.
I would not blame you. I just feel you are like the person who
disputes Beethoven only listening to "Triumph at Werrington".
--
Y.Nonomura
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
>What I posted was sincere musical criticism; I probably shouldn't have
>said that stuff about fraud,
Or "I consider him a joke" etc :-). One needs to learn to read Jeff's
articles. There are usually interesting points, but it's sooooo easy
to get caught up in the loose cannon rhetoric :-)
>I see a tendency in much post-50's art similar to this. The utopian
>vision that the human (the smelly dirty over-sexed human) can be
>transcended throught the use of complexity. When you read his own
>writings it's quite obviously an interest of his. The reduction of
>massacre to sound effect and complex sound structure is interesting - but
>it is so distanced from the reality of the human. THe blood, the guts all
>over the street, the screams.
I don't know about you, Jeff, but every time I listen to Oresteia,
all I hear are the smell and the dirt and the sex, and not the
mathematics.
Bill
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
>> plays back a piece over loudspeakers.
slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (sluttman) writes:
>(3) Doesn't sound like a very ethical aesthetic to me.
I thought we were discussing whether Xenakis will be remembered.
What does ethics have to do with it?
Bill
Jeff Harrington
: rus...@nntp.best.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
: >What I posted was sincere musical criticism; I probably shouldn't have
: >said that stuff about fraud,
: Or "I consider him a joke" etc :-). One needs to learn to read Jeff's
: articles. There are usually interesting points, but it's sooooo easy
: to get caught up in the loose cannon rhetoric :-)
Uh... so you want a little less cayenne in yo gumbo? Damn
Californicators...
: >I see a tendency in much post-50's art similar to this. The utopian
: >vision that the human (the smelly dirty over-sexed human) can be
: >transcended throught the use of complexity. When you read his own
: >writings it's quite obviously an interest of his. The reduction of
: >massacre to sound effect and complex sound structure is interesting - but
: >it is so distanced from the reality of the human. THe blood, the guts all
: >over the street, the screams.
: I don't know about you, Jeff, but every time I listen to Oresteia,
: all I hear are the smell and the dirt and the sex, and not the
: mathematics.
But I don't hear math either! I hear nothing. Really, just cold blunt
nothing. The math, the intricate interlocking beauty of structure is why
I like some Babbitt. You can hear the math. It's like Bach in that
respect. I wish I could hear the math in X.
Actually you know what I hear in X? I hear war, today's war. Cold
mechanical working out of a logic which is inhuman. A logic which to me
is a bit nightmarish in the purity of its simulated violence. And it's
the coldness of the simulation which is boring to me. If it was real
violence, like say gangsta rap, or
say the sounds I heard the other night on PBS of a chimpanzee tribe being
murderous that would be exciting. X is just bland and calcuating.
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
>
>I've always ignored the "degree of pure mathematics" in Xenakis:
Me too.
>the music didn't interest me much.
I've listened to Tetras, Oresteia, Evryali, and some other Xenakis
pieces many times now, and they still excite me.
>On the other hand, I've seen some
>of the amazing mathematics that go into works like Stan Krupowiecz's
>Also Sprach Bosch,
Has this been recorded? I'd be interested in hearing it.
Bill
Anthony Cornicello
> I agree. With Xenakis, there is an edge that is much like what
> I find in Cecil Taylor. His works are extremely
> focused and to the point, in addition to the wild and new sounds
> he comes up with.
I'm not a big fan of his, but there are some pieces of his that are unique.
The percussion pieces (with the possible exception of "Okho") are all major
additions to the repetoire. Every percussionist should play "Psappha" and
"Rebonds", just like all pianists should play the WTC...
As for the new sounds, he does write computer music that does not sound at
all like instrumental music. The UPIC system is ingenious - actually drawing
waveforms! I guess he has taken the Futurist manifesto to one possible
extreme.
Anthony Cornicello
Anthony Cornicello
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
> last 15 years: political "correctness" with lots of references
> to his role in WWII, and a desire for composers at scientifically-
> oriented institutions to declare themselves scientists.
BEFORE THAN 15 (or 25) years ago?
> Otherwise, it seems to me that most of what he does
> was done more practically by Penderecki 20 years ago.
I do not know any tape works by Penderecki which can
be compared with Xenakis' earliest one, Diamorphoses,
which is much more boring than his later tape works.
Xenakis' first "tone-cluster" piece, Metastasis, was
written in 1954, four years earlier than Pederecki's
first corresponding piece. YOU ARE KIDDING!!!
--
Y.Nonomura
Marc Couroux
> typically through simplistic texture thinnings and thickenings; throwing
> in a few surprises from time to time to simulate drama. He relies on
> similar textures throughout the length of a movement, never attempting
> transition or goal-oriented movement.
Well, this comment would imply that Xenakis SHOULD write goal-oriented and
"dramatic" music. This would be implying that the works of Debussy (Jeux),
Stravinsky (everything) and Messiaen have also failed in this regard. One would
have to be pretty confident to make THAT kind of statement. In fact, Xenakis
situates himself very nicely in that Western continuum of non-teleological
compositional rationale (not to mention the much longer EASTERN tradition of
said n-t music!). As to the question of "drama", well, the drama in Xenakis is
very real (whether or not you want to read wartime-anecdotes into it or not is
beside the point), though it is not a 19th century based "drama". There does
exist a wider definition of this term which encompasses more than just the
rather narrow European continuum (take NOH theatre as just one example of an
alternative "drama").
Stories of his famous incompetence
> abound, such as his inability to follow his own scores.
>
Wait a minute. Whose responsability is whose? Did Xenakis ever say that he
was a conductor or a performer? It's the performer's responsability to follow
the score and to make music from it. The composer's job is OVER at that point.
Besides, I hesitate to put much faith into comments the source of which seems
rather dubious and bitchy. I would really like a definition of the word
"incompetence" as it relates to composers. (Performative incompetence is a much
clearer issue!!). Besideswhich, Xenakis is notorious for living "in the
moment" (as John Cage was also). A work which is finished, is FINISHED and
belongs to someone else. This is his conception. I'm not saying it's the
only one, but it does merit a little consideration when one is on a
rampage. Play
fair.
My
> fave is Metastasis, but this pales in comparaison to a master like
> Lutoslawski and Livre.
Luto could NEVER have written his texture-based works of the 1960's if he
had not experienced Xenakis and Cage (for the aleatoric component). (The
same
applies to Penderecki--although I'm quite sure he would deny it!!!)
More later!
Marc
--
Marc Couroux
Pianist, 20-th century music promoter
Marc Couroux
> I'm convinced that Xenakis writes from a super-human perspective. That
> is, although the textures he creates (and he is primarily a textural
> composer) are primal and violent, the strategy he uses is one of
> mathematical modelling - for the purpose - of creating distance. Distance
> from the vulgarity of music written by people. Distance from the street,
> the tune, the beat. Certainly his music is violent. It is this aspect
> that is interesting. But it his pretense of superiority over the
> vulgarity of the tune and the beat which I find supercilious.
Xenakis uses mathematical modelling to DISCOVER new ways of hearing, to
provoke new responses in human consciousness. Therefore, if anything,
Xenakis' music
is deliberately "human". Xenakis believes, as well he should, that we are
capable of far more in terms of perception. I don't know anyone who would
disagree with that. Xenakis is a humanist, who puts much emphasis on the human
element in music. Think for example of all the works for soloists, in which the
performer is forced to transcend limits he might have previously thought
inviolable. I know, I've performed his piano work Evryali. The end result of
such an Olympian struggle with the material, is intensely humanizing. You should
try it someday!
I think the concept of "distance" relates more to the fact that Xenakis uses
"extra-musical" structures to generate, or discover material, rather than use
intra-musical methods. Well, a composer's method is his or her business. What
counts is the result. You find Babbitt interesting, so do I. What I care
about is the way in which Babbitt forces you to rediscover certain things about
pitches. I don't care about how he gets there (i.e. serial technique). That's
a personal matter and shouldn't be held against the composer, at any rate.
Xenakis's music is immediate. It provokes a gut-response, rather than an
emotional one. If that's distance, then I'm all for it! (read Milan Kundera's
illuminating essay in the liner notes to Xenakis' Kraanerg CD).
I know, I
> know, he uses tune fragments sometimes in his pseudo-minimalist pieces.
> I've got an old girl friend who loves to send me Xenakis tapes. But in
> these pieces the beat is employed not as a dance-producing effect, but as
> in Boulez's Rituel, as a mechanical process.
>
Let me get this straight. Dance-producing effect is good, mechanical process is
bad. This shameless pigeon-holing of composers is rather ridiculous. But I
would disagree with your assessment anyway. Listen to the percussion pieces
"Psappha" and "Rebonds". If those are not "danceable", I beg your forgiveness.
> I see a tendency in much post-50's art similar to this. The utopian
> vision that the human (the smelly dirty over-sexed human) can be
> transcended throught the use of complexity. When you read his own
> writings it's quite obviously an interest of his. The reduction of
> massacre to sound effect and complex sound structure is interesting - but
> it is so distanced from the reality of the human.
The "reality of the human" is absolutely pointless to try and define. Everyone
has his or her owh "reality" which is just as "real" as your "reality". If
Xenakis is a little optimistic (as Cage) or utopian in seeing the human as
capable of growing and learning from experience, well damn it, we could all use
a little optimism now and then. It's pretty easy to sit back and comment
apathetically on "the reality of the human", while people like Xenakis and the
late john Cage actually tried to do something which would advance the state of
humanity (I won't even say music). This is why Xenakis and Cage will be
remembered, as they are the forefathers of musical humanism in the latter
part of the 20th century.
Marc Couroux
Marc Couroux
> But I don't hear math either! I hear nothing. Really, just cold blunt
> nothing. The math, the intricate interlocking beauty of structure is why
> I like some Babbitt. You can hear the math. It's like Bach in that
> respect. I wish I could hear the math in X.
>
OK, now be honest. Can you REALLY hear the math in Babbitt? I don't mean to be
facetious at all. This is a serious question. Can you hear the rotational
arrays? I mean, if you train yourself to hear them that's fine, and, as such,
that could be an interesting discipline. But I find much more interesting (and
musically relevant) to consider a Babbitt piece the same way one considers a
Cage piece, that is to say, phenomenologically. You get some pretty wierd
pitch-connections. It's actually very mysterious (and Milton is conscious of
that aspect of his music as well, believe me). When you say "I wish I
could hear the math in Xenakis", you're in fact doing the very opposite of
what you
preach: making the music a cerebral experience instead of a visceral one. I
mean, the best experiences combine both of course, but the term "hear the math"
seems to priviledge one over the other.
X is just bland and calcuating.
OK. Now I have to ask myself if you haven't been dragged into a discussion
the subject matter of which (a first hand experience of Xenakis' music) is
rather foreign to you. If you have indeed heard 30 Xenakis pieces than
you
cannot possibly think that his music is bland. Sure, there are certain works
from the 60's which are excessively "stochastic" and dry (ST-10 for
instance), BUT...have you heard: Jonchaies, N'Shima, Evryali,
Pithoprakta, Eonta,
Palimpsest, Rebonds, Psappha, Pleiades, Dox-Orkh, Bohor.....????? The word
"bland" just doesn't apply.
Marc, begging an end to this silly discussion.
David V Feldman
A recent post asks us now to reject the music of Xenakis on the grounds
that it will have no currency for the good citizens of the 24th century,
and will thereby fail the all-important "test of time." The poster invokes
the authority of these future listeners without first obtaining their
permission, knowing that they will not soon complain. The implicit
presumption, of course, is that the taste of the future will be the
poster's taste. With this conviction the test of time takes no time at
all, so we are exhorted to forget Xenakis now, thereby sparing those
poor 24th century folks the trouble.
To stop here would be to cede the basic point, the primacy of the "test of
time", however woeful this misapplication. But the assumptions that
underlie the "test of time" are bogus and pernicious. We must reject, for
example, the assumption underlying the "test of time" that somehow
the human race is steadily universally improving, ensuring that taste
three centuries hence will be the manifestation of superior intellect and
sensibility. When we do tend to regard our own sensibilities as
superior to that of our ancestors, this is collective egocentrism
(chronocentrism?); typically, however, those who hold up the "test of time"
do so exactly because they feel they are living through a period of aesthetic
decay. Yet how else to justify as objective our rejection of formerly
popular art and music? Of course the reputations of artists and their
works do not follow monotonic trajectories determined purely by abstract
intrinsic merit. Individuals and groups construct, recreate, shape,
interpret and forget the past for the sake of their current ideologies.
Whether or not anyone is listening to Xenakis far in the future
will depend on whether promulgating his music serves purposes that we
cannot even begin to imagine. Consider how the reputation of
Mendelssohn would have fared if the Nazi's had triumphed universally,
to say nothing of, say, Schreker. Thus the "test of time" fails
twice, first because it can never be applied in the present moment
and second because if would be irrelevant to our present situation
anyway. (It might be argued but that we do indeed value that which
has _already_ stood the test of time. This too is circular, for if
a long popular work has just lately fallen out of favor, we may
pronounce it has having just failed the test, if a long forgotten
work becomes the vogue, we may pronounce it has having just lately
passed the test. So we are not bound by history after all.)
Incidentally, one can logically discard the "test of time" without
necessarily embracing a totalizing relativism. Indeed, relativism is
often misunderstood as implying an artistic universe with no standards at
all, aesthetic chaos, a view distasteful to many. The relativist,
however, need only hold that aesthetic questions should rightly be
addressed not to autonomous works of art, but to works and the functions
they might serve. The question thus moves from "is it good?" to "for what
is it good?" The latter might seem so obviously the right question that
we could wonder why everyone isn't a relativist. Many people, however,
seem to hold the tenant that all (good) music, perhaps all art, ultimately
serves some single categorical essential function. They might express
this with a slogan such as music (or art in general) must "uplift" or
"communicate" or "stir the emotions" or whatever. But functions such as
these are all too vague to form any basis for aesthetic debate. (If we
are both absolutists, and one of us says a certain piece of music is
uplifting and one of us says its not, we can agree that one of us must be
right and one of us must be wrong, but how do we proceed from there?)
However commonplace they are, I regard these slogans as symptomatic of the
need for a subtle, common language for formulating the many different ways
each of us uses and values different musics. Of course if all music
really only could serve one ultimate function then relativism versus
absolutism would be a distinction without a substantive difference.
In reality, the lack of a suitably rich means for addressing aesthetic
function forces a false choice between absolutism and chaos.
David Feldman
Jeff Harrington
: He cleverly generates momentum,
: > typically through simplistic texture thinnings and thickenings; throwing
: > in a few surprises from time to time to simulate drama. He relies on
: > similar textures throughout the length of a movement, never attempting
: > transition or goal-oriented movement.
: Well, this comment would imply that Xenakis SHOULD write goal-oriented and
: "dramatic" music. This would be implying that the works of Debussy (Jeux),
: Stravinsky (everything) and Messiaen have also failed in this regard.
I see we have different definitions of goal-directed momentum. To my way
of thinking Jeux has multiplicities of goals; same with Igor. Xenakis has
no goals or to me, arbitrary goals.
: One would
: have to be pretty confident to make THAT kind of statement.
That's me. As a composer, I'm obsessed with controlling musical momentum.
I enjoy fooling the listener by establishing expectaions and then denying
them, like Debussy, Stravinsky and Haydn often do.
: In fact, Xenakis
: situates himself very nicely in that Western continuum of non-teleological
: compositional rationale (not to mention the much longer EASTERN tradition of
: said n-t music!). As to the question of "drama", well, the drama in Xenakis is
: very real (whether or not you want to read wartime-anecdotes into it or not is
: beside the point), though it is not a 19th century based "drama". There does
: exist a wider definition of this term which encompasses more than just the
: rather narrow European continuum (take NOH theatre as just one example of an
: alternative "drama").
I understand his strategies and just don't buy them; can't experience
them; they don't work for me. I find whatever dramas Xenakis concocts to
be arbitrary in fact I feel an extremely arbitrary quality about them. As
if they could practically happen at any time. This because what he's
doing essentially is spitting out notes froma machine to produce
interesting textures. All I'm saying is -> so...
I enjoy what Noh I've seen. I'm a big big Beckett fan; Kurtag and
Ustvolskaya are two of my favorite composers (as far as alternative
dramatic musics go).
: Stories of his famous incompetence
: > abound, such as his inability to follow his own scores.
: >
: Wait a minute. Whose responsability is whose? Did Xenakis ever say that he
: was a conductor or a performer? It's the performer's responsability to follow
: the score and to make music from it. The composer's job is OVER at that point.
: Besides, I hesitate to put much faith into comments the source of which seems
: rather dubious and bitchy. I would really like a definition of the word
: "incompetence" as it relates to composers. (Performative incompetence is a much
: clearer issue!!). Besideswhich, Xenakis is notorious for living "in the
: moment" (as John Cage was also). A work which is finished, is FINISHED and
: belongs to someone else. This is his conception. I'm not saying it's the
: only one, but it does merit a little consideration when one is on a
: rampage. Play fair.
OK, that was a hard hit... yet as I mentioned in my less slanderous
followup it's a quality that has informed practically every conversation I
have about the gentleman with other composers.
That and the math mistakes. I think that many
composers, me included, believe that if you can't follow your own scores;
if you don't even see where the piece is in rehersal, you don't know what
the hell you're doing. It's like a big game; a composer taking graphics
and slabbing them into sound. Combined with the effect of non-goal
directed movement and arbitrary quality to the drama, it does not create a
feeling I crave in all musics - inevitability, competence, confidence.
: My
: > fave is Metastasis, but this pales in comparaison to a master like
: > Lutoslawski and Livre.
:
: Luto could NEVER have written his texture-based works of the 1960's if he
: had not experienced Xenakis and Cage (for the aleatoric component). (The
: same
: applies to Penderecki--although I'm quite sure he would deny it!!!)
That's absolutely the case. But for that matter, would these musics have
existed without the architecture of Gropius? (Since we're going back to
roots).
Jeff Harrington
: > But I don't hear math either! I hear nothing. Really, just cold blunt
: > nothing. The math, the intricate interlocking beauty of structure is why
: > I like some Babbitt. You can hear the math. It's like Bach in that
: > respect. I wish I could hear the math in X.
: >
: OK, now be honest. Can you REALLY hear the math in Babbitt?
In my favorite pieces, I believe (although I could be wrong) that I do.
I'm thinking of the shorter piano pieces.
: I don't mean to be
: facetious at all. This is a serious question. Can you hear the rotational
: arrays?
No way. Maybe a few years back I might have struggled to do that; but
I've ceased my solfege practices. I hear connections between moments,
which probably have more to do with how Babbitt's using the process to be
musical. THe way he uses the rows to extend a basically Bach-like
monothematicism into 20th century musical discourse.
: I mean, if you train yourself to hear them that's fine, and, as such,
: that could be an interesting discipline. But I find much more interesting (and
: musically relevant) to consider a Babbitt piece the same way one considers a
: Cage piece, that is to say, phenomenologically. You get some pretty wierd
: pitch-connections. It's actually very mysterious (and Milton is conscious of
: that aspect of his music as well, believe me). When you say "I wish I
: could hear the math in Xenakis", you're in fact doing the very opposite of
: what you
: preach: making the music a cerebral experience instead of a visceral one. I
: mean, the best experiences combine both of course, but the term "hear the math"
: seems to priviledge one over the other.
: X is just bland and calcuating.
: OK. Now I have to ask myself if you haven't been dragged into a discussion
: the subject matter of which (a first hand experience of Xenakis' music) is
: rather foreign to you. If you have indeed heard 30 Xenakis pieces than
: you
: cannot possibly think that his music is bland. Sure, there are certain works
: from the 60's which are excessively "stochastic" and dry (ST-10 for
: instance), BUT...have you heard: Jonchaies, N'Shima, Evryali,
: Pithoprakta, Eonta,
: Palimpsest, Rebonds, Psappha, Pleiades, Dox-Orkh, Bohor.....????? The word
: "bland" just doesn't apply.
:
It does; it absolutely does. To me it's just drab, boring stuff. Sure it
gets wacky and wild and loud and violent. But the discource,the actual
musical thing he's doing leaves me so so cold that it ruins the
extraordinary violence and the beautifully ripe textures. It just leaves
me going "huh?" why'd he do *that* *then*???? To me it truly feels
incompetent.
As I typed earlier, I want to experience an inevitability. Without that,
I'm just so skeptical about 20th century composers and their intentions
that I lose interest. I get this in the best Messiaen, Lutoslawski,
Kurtag, Ustvolskaya, some Petrassi, Carter, some Babbitt, Ligeti, some
Boulez (Pli and ...explosante fixe...).
: Marc, begging an end to this silly discussion.
Sorry, but this newsgroup exists to share opinions. So far I've read
nothing new or interesting from any of the posters, just the usual old
fashioned moment-based/alternative drama justification for a tired
experimentalism. As if musical criticism was unwanted if it did not agree
with today's consensus about X. Silly discussion it may or not be, but we
can ignore discussions we disagree with without characterizing them.
Jeff Harrington
: A recent post asks us now to reject the music of Xenakis on the grounds
: that it will have no currency for the good citizens of the 24th century,
: and will thereby fail the all-important "test of time."
Sorry, that's an absolute mis-characterization. I was exploring why he
bores *me*, not urging others to reject his music outright. I find it
enjoyable to be challenged by other's critiques of new
music. Your mileage may vary.
I'm very interested in how we as 20th century music listeners are engaged
or not engaged by new qualities of musical momentum and texture. This is
why I find Xenakis interesting.
The gentleman who initiated the thread mentioned that X had come up in a
rmc discussion about whose music will be interesting in 2300. I concluded
two posts with that remark as a parting gesture, not as an absolutist plea
to ignore his music.
Ipsifendous Archilochus
Matthew H. Fields <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>I think there's been two things supporting Xenakis over the last 15
>years: political "correctness" with lots of references to his role in WWII,
>declare themselves scientists.
>
>Otherwise, it seems to me that most of what he does was done more
>practically by Penderecki 20 years ago.
Then, he lost interest in it and moved on. X. is still there.
>--
> _ || Composer and educator
> / \ * || URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
> * | * || URL:mailto:fie...@umich.edu
>Dr. Matthew H. / ields || Phone 313-936-7579 days, 313-769-4836 eves.
Herb Levy
Harrington) wrote:
> I've no intention in participating in a debate; just wanted to add my
> perspective, one from a musician.
Jeff -
Since this is how you closed the first of your four (at this server so
far) entries in this thread, I can only interpret this as your (late)
acknowledgement of some sort of post-Cageian non-intention in your own
thinking.
Herb Levy
he...@eskimo.com
Kurt Rongey
>sluttman (slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
>: > I feel I should at least offer a different perspective to the praise.
>: > Frankly, I consider him a joke. He's perfected the art of generating
>: > interesting textures through algorithms complex or simple (as in the case
>: > of the charcoal tape piece on Nonesuch). He cleverly generates momentum,
>: > typically through simplistic texture thinnings and thickenings; throwing
>: > in a few surprises from time to time to simulate drama. He relies on
>: > similar textures throughout the length of a movement, never attempting
>: > transition or goal-oriented movement.
These are all generalizations that in my experience do not hold.
Particularly the last point about goal oriented movement. In fact, I
can't think of many pieces that strike me as more goal-oriented than
Bohor. Love it or hate it.
>: >Stories of his famous incompetence
>: > abound, such as his inability to follow his own scores.
Could be. I still don't know what this has to do with the aesthetic
value of the sound and expressive content of his music.
>: Fascinating! You make him sound like a minimalist--and this would
>: explain his relative popularity these days. You think maybe there are
>: connections (in terms of style and interpretive communities)?
>Exactly! I'm convinced that a connecting tissue between both these camps
>is the *lack* of musical content. The music is driven by texture and
>contrasts between texture.
I'm sorry, your argument is unclear. How can you refer to something
that lacks musical content as music? Go the distance. Proclaim
minimalist music and the works of Xenakis "non-music." In this case,
we can drop the subject and you can quit getting so aggravated,
because there will be no need for you to make comparisons between this
"non-music" and your music. Perhaps Trevor Wishart was right. We
should start referring to it as "sonic art."
Anyway, I think (I hope) you mean melodic content or perhaps thematic
content instead of "musical content." As far as I'm concerned,
texture *IS* a type of musical content. Contrasts between texture are
therefore, in my mind, dynamic musical devices. I enjoy and am
fascinated by hearing Xenakis' manipulations of texture. If I
understand you correctly, you do not consider this textural
craftsmanship to be of any worth in musical discourse. Am I right?
This would help me to see your point of view more clearly.
>Salient moments often seem arbitrary and
>overly-planned in both types of music. (In Xenaskis' music there's often
>the *token* big blat or bang).
>I think he's popular now because he allows all us alienated intellectuals
>an acoustic field to escape in. His violence provides us with the
>adrenalin of spectator sport while in a safe surrounding.
What you interpret as violence is heard by me as something more akin
to passion.
>All the while
>he says and does nothing. That is, except pretend to be a model of
>something or another.
Again, I think this is vague.
>Jeff Harrington "Art does not make peace...
>je...@parnasse.com That is not its business...
>http://www.parnasse.com Art is peace." -- Robert Lowell
Justin Rubin
follow his scores with competence, but he is impeccable: he even
noticed when a soprano was dropping too low for an eighth-tone in
Akanthos! You
must not also forget that he is half blind and over 70 years old.
Justin Rubin
define the so-called math in Bach/Sweelinck/Ockeghem? Is it audible
beyond hearing that canons have the right sonorities at the right times?
Please help me hear and don't use any words such as 'perfect' or other
rhetorical statements.
sluttman
> slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (sluttman) writes:
> >(3) Doesn't sound like a very ethical aesthetic to me.
> I thought we were discussing whether Xenakis will be remembered.
> What does ethics have to do with it?
Maybe nothing--but that doesn't deprive me of a right to deplore an
aesthetic of pain, even in this thread. On the other hand, maybe
something, and strange it didn't occur to you. Combine your own two
sentences and you'll have it.
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
In article <4r0qhl$n...@news.eecs.umich.edu>
Who cares J.S.Bach's symbolic usage of numbers in listening
to his religious works?
> the music didn't interest me much.
I just think you are not lucky. Only 20-25% of his outputs are
masterpieces, and about half of his outputs are nothing but
garbage. I'm an objevtive fan, not at all Xenakis fanatic.
However, his masterpieces have uncomparable quality.
Composers should be remembered for his/her best outputs,
not for the "averaged quality" of his/her whole outputs.
--
Y.Nonomura
sluttman
> I can understand this kind of opinions, and I think the existence
> of such opinions is nothing but the proof of Xenakis' importance.
> Modest composers are praised by everybody at his/her time, and
> will be forgotten soon.
Strange reasoning, based more than anything else on a sanitized version
of (Western) music history that seems to begin with Beethoven and ignores
most minor figures. Before Beethoven, after all, it wasn't just the "modest
composers" who were "praised by everybody at his/her time"; the major
ones were universally praised, too, at least to the degree they were known.
In the same way, many "modest composers" were universally ignored in
their own time--isn't this what usually happens to composers anyway?
One might also do well to remember that Beethoven was himself quite a
crowd pleaser, with only a few stodgy nemeses in the press. The idea
that an artist's greatness can be measured in the degree of controversy
his work causes among the musically educated probably dates back no
farther than the old Brahms-vs.-Wagner division, largely demarcated by
amanuenses and critics anyway.
But not even this seems to offer compelling support for the
notion that today's controversial composer is tomorrow's immortal
composer. I myself don't presume to judge what the future will find
worthwhile.
Jeff Harrington
Herb Levy (he...@eskimo.com) wrote:
: In article <4qsktk$m...@nntp1.best.com>, rus...@nntp.best.com (Jeff
: Harrington) wrote:
: Jeff -
Like most compositional models, this one obviously was abandoned after its
usefulness was outlived. I'm trying to not get sucked into debates; I've
got a deadline hovering...
;-)
Jeff Harrington
Kurt Rongey (l...@fastlane.net) wrote:
: rus...@nntp.best.com (Jeff Harrington) wrote:
: >sluttman (slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: >: Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
: >: > He's perfected the art of generating
: >: > interesting textures through algorithms complex or simple (as in the case
: >: > of the charcoal tape piece on Nonesuch). He cleverly generates momentum,
: >: > typically through simplistic texture thinnings and thickenings; throwing
: >: > in a few surprises from time to time to simulate drama. He relies on
: >: > similar textures throughout the length of a movement, never attempting
: >: > transition or goal-oriented movement.
: These are all generalizations that in my experience do not hold.
: Particularly the last point about goal oriented movement. In fact, I
: can't think of many pieces that strike me as more goal-oriented than
: Bohor. Love it or hate it.
But if a big moment, to me, doesn't seem inevitable or conclusive to the
other musical processes that have been taking shape, I can't consider it a
goal. It's just a big whatever. Maybe a number that showed up in his
algorithm which was big. To me a goal implies establishing and then
delivering upon expectations. We both know, that X's strategy is much
more (ahem) advanced. He is attempting to produce new kinds of musical
discourse through process.
: >Exactly! I'm convinced that a connecting tissue between both these camps
: >is the *lack* of musical content. The music is driven by texture and
: >contrasts between texture.
: I'm sorry, your argument is unclear. How can you refer to something
: that lacks musical content as music? Go the distance. Proclaim
: minimalist music and the works of Xenakis "non-music." In this case,
: we can drop the subject and you can quit getting so aggravated,
: because there will be no need for you to make comparisons between this
: "non-music" and your music. Perhaps Trevor Wishart was right. We
: should start referring to it as "sonic art."
It's not non-music, but it is built with intentions of achieving such
vastly different goals than the music I write and enjoy. The lack of
content to me is about persistent melodic and rhythmic gestures that
create gestalts. Both types of music attempt to deny these processes for
the sake of the field of sound without melodic memory. This can work;
Ligeti certainly can do it, one of my favorite composers, James Drew can
do it. I believe that X is too caught up in the algorithm to reach down
from the cloud and participate in the listening experience - with the
listener - to engage musically in establishing or thwarting musical
expectations.
: Anyway, I think (I hope) you mean melodic content or perhaps thematic
: content instead of "musical content." As far as I'm concerned,
: texture *IS* a type of musical content. Contrasts between texture are
: therefore, in my mind, dynamic musical devices. I enjoy and am
: fascinated by hearing Xenakis' manipulations of texture. If I
: understand you correctly, you do not consider this textural
: craftsmanship to be of any worth in musical discourse. Am I right?
: This would help me to see your point of view more clearly.
No, I find Ligeti's music engaging. I feel confident about the process; I
can reliably participate in imagining the future of the process. I don't
feel the victim of a process which is humorless; maybe lacking in
humanity, like I do in Xenakis' music.
: >Salient moments often seem arbitrary and
: >overly-planned in both types of music. (In Xenaskis' music there's often
: >the *token* big blat or bang).
: >I think he's popular now because he allows all us alienated intellectuals
: >an acoustic field to escape in. His violence provides us with the
: >adrenalin of spectator sport while in a safe surrounding.
: What you interpret as violence is heard by me as something more akin
: to passion.
Wait a minute now... you know that he creates these pieces with complex
processes; you know that the salient features are blips on the screen; yet
you allow yourself to be fooled into believing it is a musical symbol for
passion?
Jeff Harrington
Justin Rubin (j...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: Who in the world hears math in music? What does that mean? Can you
My comment about Babbitt was that I can hear the process. With Xenakis
the process, to me at least, is too distant from the outcome of the piece,
except for pieces like Metastasis, where I can see on the score the
beautiful string sculptures.
With Babbitt or Bach or Ockeghem, you've got imitation - obvious math.
Justin Rubin
What pieces would you consider garbage? I only consider about 25% to be
under his normal masterwork quality!..then again, I am an IX nut.
jhr
StoOdin101
Since all the Xenakis fanatics are keeping up with this thread, maybe
someone can tell me if "Terretekhtorh" --- one of his finest, strongest
pieces IMO --- has ever been released on CD. My ancient Candide vinyl
desperately needs upgrading. Likewise "Akrata", which I have on an old
Nonesuch LP.
As for whether Xenakis' output is "mathematical", "ugly",etc. etc., I must
say, when I hear him at his best, like the pieces above, "Thallein",
"Jalons", "Kraanerg"... I think of his music in EXACTLY the same way as I
do Debussy. I dont hear the math, I dont hear ugliness, I hear strange and
beautiful dissonaaces in a kind of amorphous state. I rather imagine
Debussy's dissonances and departure from classical form were heard the
same way by listeners of his day.
"We Know you Can Hear Us, Earthmen"...a C-45 of electronic music with
influences as diverse as Raymond Scott, Magma and Tangerine Dream...
available now...email StoOd...@aol.com for more info.
Justin Rubin
As of today there are no plans on rerecording Terretektorh,
unfortunately. However, ST/X Ensemble Xenakis USA has just recorded
Akrata and will be released when Mode is able to (it needs more
recordings of different works for the CD)
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
In article <4r4qv4$c...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (sluttman) writes:
Nono>> I can understand this kind of opinions, and I think the existence
Nono>> of such opinions is nothing but the proof of Xenakis' importance.
Nono>> Modest composers are praised by everybody at his/her time, and
Nono>> will be forgotten soon.
> who were "praised by everybody at his/her time"; the major ones were
> universally praised, too, at least to the degree they were known.
> In the same way, many "modest composers" were universally ignored in
> their own time--isn't this what usually happens to composers anyway?
e.g. Telemann vs. J.S.Bach, Salieri vs. Mozart, D'Indy vs. Debussy.
> One might also do well to remember that Beethoven was himself
> quite a crowd pleaser, with only a few stodgy nemeses in the press.
However, "Triumph at Werrington" was regarded as his best work
and more subtle pieces such as later SQs or PSs or even PC#4,5
were not successful at his time.
Similar things occur every time---Frank Zappa is now highly
recognized for his serious acoustic pieces, but in 1970s
he was popular mainly for his sex songs or shit songs.
> The idea that an artist's greatness can be measured in the degree of
> controversy his work causes among the musically educated probably
> dates back no farther than the old Brahms-vs.-Wagner division,
> largely demarcated by amanuenses and critics anyway.
The notion of "pure art" was invented in the 19th centyry,
and before that serious dabates on music which may result
in controversial evaluations would not have happened.
> But not even this seems to offer compelling support for the notion
> that today's controversial composer is tomorrow's immortal composer.
I would NOT say ALL today's controversial composers are tomorrow's
immortal composers. In mathematical words, controversial reputation
is a necessary condition, but not an satisfactory condition for
immortal value.
I do not know any representative composers of the first half of
this century who did not have controversial reputation at their
time, except for a few who completely ignored at their time.
--
Y.Nonomura
Coquet
In article <NONO.96J...@frank.riken.go.jp>, no...@frank.riken.go.jp
(Yoshihiko NONOMURA) wrote:
> Similar things occur every time---Frank Zappa is now highly
> recognized for his serious acoustic pieces, but in 1970s
> he was popular mainly for his sex songs or shit songs.
>
Just a word to mention that, in my knowledge, FZ never wrote any shit song
(however, he did a lot sex songs and that does not break your
reasonning...)
Salut et fraternite,
Francois
Jeff Harrington
: On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Yoshihiko NONOMURA wrote:
: > I just think you are not lucky. Only 20-25% of his outputs are
: > masterpieces, and about half of his outputs are nothing but
: > garbage. I'm an objevtive fan, not at all Xenakis fanatic.
: >
: > However, his masterpieces have uncomparable quality.
: > Composers should be remembered for his/her best outputs,
: > not for the "averaged quality" of his/her whole outputs.
I would be interested to see a list of what you think are his
masterpieces.
I'll be attending some of the MOMA garden concerts this
year (they're featuring the French 20th century this year) and I noticed
two Xenakis pieces, "Rebonds" and "Paille in the Wind". Any opinions on
these pieces and a list of his masterpieces would be appreciated.
These concerts are free, btw, take place Fridays and Saturdays at 8:30 and
are performed by Juilliard Students under the direction of Joel Sachs
(Continuum director). They get a little hot sometimes, in August and
they're outdoors (traffic noise) but they are always interesting.
The scheudle is in this Sunday's (yesterday's) NYT.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <4r1ejq$m...@nuke.csu.net>,
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu <h...@walnut.SFSU.EDU> wrote:
>>On the other hand, I've seen some
>>of the amazing mathematics that go into works like Stan Krupowiecz's
>>Also Sprach Bosch,
>Has this been recorded? I'd be interested in hearing it.
It was on the Music from CCRMA Volume II casette, which (I think)
is out of print now. Perhaps the folks at CCRMA.stanford.edu will
know of an existing sound file... or will know where Stan is now.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960629...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Justin Rubin <j...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>Who in the world hears math in music? What does that mean? Can you
Hmmm, I've heard several compositions that use quadrophonic space to
audibly illustrate the Towers of Hanoi, but none of them attempted
to demonstrate the recursion in the definition of the solution.
>define the so-called math in Bach/Sweelinck/Ockeghem? Is it audible
>beyond hearing that canons have the right sonorities at the right times?
>Please help me hear and don't use any words such as 'perfect' or other
>rhetorical statements.
Hmmm, most folks who have used "mathematics" in music have done
so for musical purposes---they explored patterns (e.g. perceiveable
patterns in Z12, in the case of Babbitt) for the perceivable consequences
of such musings.
Here's one way to get at something that we could probably agree was
"audible mathematics in music": take an interesting theorem and a paper
discussing how it's proved and what are it's corollaries; now set that
to music. It could be set any way you want, even disco. OK, ok,
that's "in the text", not "in the music". Or must we separate the two
that much?
Matthew H. Fields
In article <coquet-01...@mac-maths3-2-18.univ-rennes1.fr>,
He did write something about yellow snow, though.
Martin Herman
I am late to this thread, but I'd like to add my 2 cents on a couple of points.
I was lucky enough to have been able to sit in as an auditor in Xenakis's Form
class at the Sorbonne in 1986. There was certainly a large share of time spent
with X. presenting stochastic procedures, math written all over the board, all
relating to his music. Occasionally, he assigned pieces that we were to write
using some procedure he had presented that week. I remember one time in
particular when a student came in with such a piece which adapted a spatial
algorithm which X had presented. It was a rather big piece, chamber group,
ambitious, elaborately worked out. Xenakis's comments in class were striking.
He said things like "the piece is rapidly static", drawing a distinction
between surface rhythm and deeper layers of rhythm - phrase - and harmonic
rhythm - which give a work motion and shape. He also said "what you have
written here suggests a second movement", which led to a discussion of setting
up expectations with given material, shape, balance, climax, i.e. FORM. The
issues which were important to him had nothing to do with the math or with
purity of the algorithm in the case of this piece by this student. I would not
be so didactic as to draw the inferrence that this would be true for all of X's
music, but I do believe that the algorithm is intended to be invisible and that
X. is ultimately obsessed by those same issues which have preoccupied composers
for centuries: balance, shape, movement, climax, in short, form. But I would go
further because it is too glib to dismiss his pitch structures as textures. He
talked often of involving all instruments in the dialectic of the piece. He is
concerned with pitch, with what the 16th violin in a massive string divisi
texture is playing - with the obvious caveat that his approach to pitch
structures favors statistical clouds - but this does not mean he does not hear
what each player has been given to play. In fact, my sense of him from that
course was very much a musician first and foremost when it came to discussing
pieces in the class.
Martin
Maria Anna Harley
extremely impressed with his "performance." I've heard the
stories about "incompetence", and as it turns out, they are mostly
perpetuated by people who have never had anything to do with
the composer, just heard it from someone else (or from disgruntled
orchestral musicians who don't like being asked to stretch their
technique a bit). That said, there are many anomalies in X.'s
scores (the high C#s in "Evryali", for example!) which are
certainly puzzling. Everyone who performs his music finds
ways to deal with that, and virtually everyone I have had
contact with have said that they are better musicians for having
had to come to grips with performing X.'s music.
It's been an interesting discussion. Thanks to everyone for
expanding on their points of view. Just a few points, though.
Xenakis has never claimed to be a mathematician. The mistakes
in his book are at the same level as the copying mistakes in his
scores. If you want to find something to criticize him for, you've
got it; otherwise, they haven't really held anyone back from either
following his discussion or performing his music.
As for his music being spit out of a machine, well, it's been quite
a few years since X. has done that; he's been cruising on intuition
(one informed and shaped by his "formalizing").
And for the comment of his music not being rhythmic (or something
like that), I'm not sure what pieces you would have heard. I have
a friend who used to play "Psappha" before his rock gigs in clubs,
and the people loved it. At the recent concert in Pittsburgh, someone
came up to Xenakis to show him a bootleg single of Psappha -- can't
think of many other composers who would have bootlegs circulating on
the underground circuit!
I would think that the best thing for all of us would be for all of
Xenakis's music to be available on disc (there are almost 150 pieces!),
so we can better evaluate his contribution. bravo to MODE and the
ST/X Ensemble for undertaking to record a good chunk of all that
music!
Jim Harley
StoOdin101
>>> would think that the best thing for all of us would be for all of
Xenakis's music to be available on disc (there are almost 150 pieces!),
so we can better evaluate his contribution. bravo to MODE and the
ST/X Ensemble for undertaking to record a good chunk of all that
music!<<<<
I just ordered the CD that started all this, so I'll post a review here as
soon as I get it. Right now, though, I'm going to put on "Pleiades".
Ipsifendous Archilochus
In article <4r8q0r$6...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
I can remember several rectally-oriented songs, but not much that struck
me as directly scatological. Hmm.
Ipsifendous Archilochus
In article <NONO.96Ju...@frank.riken.go.jp>,
Yoshihiko NONOMURA <no...@frank.riken.go.jp> wrote:
>In article <4r0qhl$n...@news.eecs.umich.edu>
>fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
>> I've always ignored the "degree of pure mathematics" in Xenakis:
>I, a Xenakis fan, also ignore them when I listen to his music.
>Who cares J.S.Bach's symbolic usage of numbers in listening
>to his religious works?
>
much effect on any listener apart from one who has been digging into
the numerological things Bach did, and is specifically looking for
something to happen at measure n.
Bach's music does, however, seem to have a tightly woven musical 'logic'
to it, which has, I believe, much more to do with the common perception
of Bach's music as being 'mathematical' in its beauty. In contrast,
many of the attempts to write 'mathematical' music in the 20th century
do not inspire this response-- at least, not in me-- and I think that's
because their logic is almost *purely* extramusical. (Admittedly, this
use of the word 'extramusical' bespeaks a rather narrow notion of
'musical' logic. I apologize for any inconvenience.)
>> the music didn't interest me much.
>I just think you are not lucky. Only 20-25% of his outputs are
>masterpieces, and about half of his outputs are nothing but
>garbage. I'm an objevtive fan, not at all Xenakis fanatic.
>
Not *that* seems fitting, somehow, for a composer who based so much of
his work on probabilistic calculus. I wonder what percentage of a
composer's output would have to be good to statistically significant at
the .05 level.
>However, his masterpieces have uncomparable quality.
>Composers should be remembered for his/her best outputs,
>not for the "averaged quality" of his/her whole outputs.
>--
> Y.Nonomura
Exactly. How often does one hear any of Mozart's first 20 symphonies?
What about all the stuff Brahms decided to burn... ?
-G
--
ipsi...@iastate.edu
David Sherman
>>Just a word to mention that, in my knowledge, FZ never wrote any shit song
>>(however, he did a lot sex songs and that does not break your
>>reasonning...)
>He did write something about yellow snow, though.
Well, a guy's gotta be able to make a living!
PS - Don't go where the huskies go! <g>
sluttman
Yoshihiko NONOMURA (no...@frank.riken.go.jp) wrote:
> I agree my statement was too rethorical. Just consider typical cases:
> e.g. Telemann vs. J.S.Bach, Salieri vs. Mozart, D'Indy vs. Debussy.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with these oppositional pairs.
> However, "Triumph at Werrington" was regarded as his best work
(well, it might be useful to know who regarded it as his best work)
> and more subtle pieces such as later SQs or PSs or even PC#4,5
> were not successful at his time.
Well, "not as successful", perhaps, in the case of the concerti. Your
argument is certainly true, at least up to a point. Difficult works may
not be crowd-pleasers at first, but usually there is a small number of
cognoscenti that will recognize their merit more or less immediately.
> The notion of "pure art" was invented in the 19th centyry,
> and before that serious dabates on music which may result
> in controversial evaluations would not have happened.
"Debates" and "controversial evaluations" didn't occur--this is true--but
I'm not sure this had anything to do with the absence or presence of a
"pure art" concept. To some degree, at least, I suspect they didn't
occur because aesthetic standards were, within a given era, pretty
unambiguous. There were rules; everyone accepted them; good music could
be separated from bad music on the basis of adherence to them.
> I do not know any representative composers of the first half of
> this century who did not have controversial reputation at their
> time, except for a few who completely ignored at their time.
But surely if just about every composer whom anyone finds worthy of note
manages to raise *some* controversy nowadays, then controversy isn't much
of a criterion for greatness. "Controversial composer" becomes a
redundant expression.
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
In article <4r1gjj$q...@nntp1.best.com>
rus...@nntp.best.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
> I hear nothing. Really, just cold blunt nothing. (....)
> Actually you know what I hear in X? I hear war, today's war.
> Cold mechanical working out of a logic which is inhuman.
I'm not interested in this kind of "religious" arguments.
Stravinsky, Varese, Cage,.... were criticized as such.
--
Y.Nonomura
John Fitch
I am not a musical critic, nor a trained musician. I liked Xenakis
from the first work I heard, about 15 years ago. I have followed the
group transformations is a harpsicord piece (forget the name), so
unlike Jeff I have heard the mathematics, and I adorded it. I have
heard the mathematics and the music at the same time. I have never
attempted to explain why I like it, and why to me IX has written
pieces amongst the best works I have heard.
The question as to who will be remembered is odd in many ways. I
would like to think that those I rate will survive and those who sound
to my untrained ears trite and pointless will vanish. As with most of
my strong views, the majority do not agree with me (I suspect
Xenakis, Birtwistle, Tippett, Lansky, Kurtag, ...... etc will vanish
without trace soon :-)
==John ffitch
Jeff Harrington
sluttman (slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: But surely if just about every composer whom anyone finds worthy of note
: of a criterion for greatness. "Controversial composer" becomes a
: redundant expression.
When I look to the reputation of a composer for a new listen, I'm
extremely skeptical of composers with reputations which are
"controversial." All of my favorite recent composers (Kurtag,
Ustvolskaya, Ivanovs) were unknowns. I'm convinced that a composer who is
truly great, in today's incompetent critical clime, will be an unheard of,
a nobody, if anything. Maybe a name you'd heard of (like Kurtag)
for years, but never had the reason to investigate.
They will have been quietly writing music
for years which blows some people away and probably doesn't impress a bit
the hyper-avantgardists at all - that typically drive the controversial
strategists in the press. They probably are not blowing people's
ear drums or employing novel algorithms or computer systesm. They might
be teachers at some unknown music school or live in Alaska. Quiet
competence is today's norm for excellence, that is, as far as I can tell.
sluttman
Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
> When I look to the reputation of a composer for a new listen, I'm
> extremely skeptical of composers with reputations which are
> "controversial." All of my favorite recent composers (Kurtag,
> Ustvolskaya, Ivanovs) were unknowns. I'm convinced that a composer who is
> truly great, in today's incompetent critical clime, will be an unheard of,
> a nobody, if anything. Maybe a name you'd heard of (like Kurtag)
> for years, but never had the reason to investigate.
>
> They will have been quietly writing music
> for years which blows some people away and probably doesn't impress a bit
> the hyper-avantgardists at all - that typically drive the controversial
> strategists in the press. They probably are not blowing people's
> ear drums or employing novel algorithms or computer systesm. They might
> be teachers at some unknown music school or live in Alaska.
(could I nominate Don Freund, who was at an unknown music department in
Memphis until he was hired at Indiana U.?)
> Quiet
> competence is today's norm for excellence, that is, as far as I can tell.
I see your point, but I'm not sure that "quiet competence" is any more a
guarantee of anything than controversy. Of the three composers you
mention, I know Kurtag and Ustvolskaya only by name; and if the Ivanovs
you refer to is Janis Ivanov(s), then I'm not at all convinced of his
greatness. He's good at affects, but some of his structures are
notoriously weak (the first movement of the Fifth Symphony, for
instance), and his sense of orchestral color nothing to write home about
either. I have a number of LPs of his music--there are plenty of nice
ideas in his pieces, but I find myself mentally rewriting them.
Jeff Harrington
sluttman (slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
: > When I look to the reputation of a composer for a new listen, I'm
: > extremely skeptical of composers with reputations which are
: > "controversial." All of my favorite recent composers (Kurtag,
: > Ustvolskaya, Ivanovs) were unknowns. I'm convinced that a composer who is
: > truly great, in today's incompetent critical clime, will be an unheard of,
: > a nobody, if anything. Maybe a name you'd heard of (like Kurtag)
: > for years, but never had the reason to investigate.
: >
: > They will have been quietly writing music
: > for years which blows some people away and probably doesn't impress a bit
: > the hyper-avantgardists at all - that typically drive the controversial
: > strategists in the press. They probably are not blowing people's
: > ear drums or employing novel algorithms or computer systesm. They might
: > be teachers at some unknown music school or live in Alaska.
: (could I nominate Don Freund, who was at an unknown music department in
: Memphis until he was hired at Indiana U.?)
Absolutely, I had the good fortune of studying briefly with him while at
LSU in the 70's hes was composer in residence for a bit... He's a solid
composer although I haven't heard anything by him since 76.
: > Quiet
: > competence is today's norm for excellence, that is, as far as I can tell.
: I see your point, but I'm not sure that "quiet competence" is any more a
: guarantee of anything than controversy.
All there really is - is the music, of course. All I'm saying is that to
expect the famous to be great in today's incompetent musical critical
world is just wishful thinking.
: Of the three composers you
: mention, I know Kurtag and Ustvolskaya only by name; and if the Ivanovs
: you refer to is Janis Ivanov(s), then I'm not at all convinced of his
: greatness. He's good at affects, but some of his structures are
: notoriously weak (the first movement of the Fifth Symphony, for
: instance), and his sense of orchestral color nothing to write home about
: either. I have a number of LPs of his music--there are plenty of nice
: ideas in his pieces, but I find myself mentally rewriting them.
I agree about his color and form, but I think he has an oomph which is
lacking in much orchestral music; a visceral quality that I find in Bartok
and Lutoslawski but seldom in other musics. He also really climaxes;
doesn't pretend climax or prematurely climax. Maybe I'm so hungry for a
good climax that I'm less concerned with perfection in form. And of
course, he needs good momentum in order to get these big moments.
Might as well cover my bets and say that I feel that Kurtag's forms are
a little minute and precious in a Webernian sense and Ustvolskaya's
brutalism sometimes pedantic and tiresome.
I like my music the best... but who would respect a composer who didn't?
Andy Groves
In article <couroux-2806...@132.206.141.59>,
cou...@music.mcgill.ca (Marc Couroux) wrote:
> Sure, there are certain works
> from the 60's which are excessively "stochastic" and dry (ST-10 for
> instance), BUT...have you heard: Jonchaies, N'Shima, Evryali,
> Pithoprakta, Eonta,
> Palimpsest, Rebonds, Psappha, Pleiades, Dox-Orkh, Bohor.....????? The word
> "bland" just doesn't apply.
>
About 10 years ago, I heard a piece by X for piano and orchestra with a
name approximating to 'Keqrops". Roger Woodward was the soloist. Has
anyone else heard this? Has it been recorded? I was very impressed with
it. (The second half of the show had a great performance of Birtwistle's
"Triumph of Time", btw).
Andy Groves
Division of Biology, 216-76
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena CA 91125 USA
Chris Koenigsberg ckk@pobox.com
Xenakis' Nomos Alpha is an amazing solo cello piece, I saw Rohan
whats-his-name (the Sri Lankan guy) play it at the Pittsburgh New
Music Ensemble's international new music festival, I think in 1987.
Also around the same time, at the 1987 International Computer Music
Conference held at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana,
Iannis Xenakis was featured as a composer, and a number of his
electro-acoustic works were played. I don't know of any other ICMC
where a single composer was featured, to that same extent.
One of the works I remember being particularly moving, though I don't
remember the title, was a dramatic piece, some kind of anti-war
mini-operetta, with several vocalists on stage, male and female, and
of course some very loud intense electronic sounds on tape. Anyone
remember this title, who still has a copy of the 1987 ICMC concert
program notes?
Xenakis' doctoral thesis book is very good reading, again I forget the
title unfortunately, something like "Alloys: Art/Science"?
How about the 2nd edition revision of "Formalized Music", how
different is it from the 1st edition? I heard it was going to include
a new chapter on his "Stochastic Synthesis" software, which Marie-Helene
Serra was working on at CEMAMU until she left for IRCAM around 1992?
Another Xenakis pure electronic tape piece, using the aforementioned
Stochastic Synthesis software, was premiered at the ICMC in either
Montreal (1991) or San Jose (1992), I forget which?
I just found one of the ST/4 Ensemble CD's, and the Arditti Quartet
CD, of Xenakis' music, now I have some great new X. stuff to listen to.
Also note that if you dig Xenakis' "UPIC" instrument, Christopher
Penrose wrote the NeXTStep application "HyperUPIC" as a "poor man's
UPIC" which interprets TIFF graphics files as audio. HyperUPIC is
available via anonymous ftp from the Princeton Sound Kitchen site
(ftp.music.princeton.edu?).
I used Penrose's HyperUpic app for my piece "The October Surprise" on
my "Brains" CD and it did some wonderful things; apparently I was
drastically misusing/abusing it and my frequency scaling factors were
set so way, way high, the theoretical frequency range was up in the
hundreds of thousands of kHz, that there was aliasing of some hundreds
or thousands of times multiplied over the actual 1-22.05 kHz range
writeable in a standard 44.1 kHz audio file, to the point where the
app gave me one of those "this error should never happen" error
messages :-) but it sure sounded great ;-) Unfortunately I think Chris
Penrose "fixed" the "bug" to prevent you from making the same mistake,
after I told him about it :-)
Chris Koenigsberg
c...@uchicago.edu, c...@pobox.com
http://www2.uchicago.edu/ns-acs/ckk/index.html
(also http://www.pobox.com/~ckk)
Matthew H. Fields
In article <4rb32g$v...@nntp1.best.com>,
Jeff Harrington <rus...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
>ear drums or employing novel algorithms or computer systesm. They might
>competence is today's norm for excellence, that is, as far as I can tell.
Which will never stop Jeff from expressing controversial opinions
very vocally. ;-)
why is it always me?
I was at the same concert. My reaction was to go out and buy some new
Xenakis CDs the next day.
why is it always me?
rus...@nntp.best.com (Jeff Harrington) wrote:
while discussing the relationship of X to Glass
>
>Exactly! I'm convinced that a connecting tissue between both these camps
>is the *lack* of musical content. The music is driven by texture and
>contrasts between texture.
Hmm. Jacob Druckman said that thing he learned with his Viola Concerto is
that texture can be the primary structural element in an effective piece.
He later (several years later in fact) went on to say that that would be
a fair discription of most of his music. Which of the above two camps do
you put his music into? -Peter
sluttman
Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
> He also really climaxes;
> doesn't pretend climax or prematurely climax. Maybe I'm so hungry for a
> good climax that I'm less concerned with perfection in form. And of
> course, he needs good momentum in order to get these big moments.
I won't even *begin* to tell you what I started thinking when I read
this. Maybe I shouldn't work so, umm, hard . . .
sluttman
(meanwhile, on a more serious note:)
Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
> Might as well cover my bets and say that I feel that Kurtag's forms are
> a little minute and precious in a Webernian sense and Ustvolskaya's
> brutalism sometimes pedantic and tiresome.
Well, I have nothing against minute forms, and I can tolerate
preciousness in small doses. The only thing that really gets on my
nerves re Webern is the way this preciousness melds into a
self-consciously otherworldly elitism. (It's no coincidence he liked
Stefan George so much.) After all, this is the aspect of Webern's
artistic psyche that made him so susceptible to Hitler-worship.
"Pedantic brutalism" sounds kind of intriguing, as most of the
brutal (or at least brutish) music I've heard (most Futurist music, some
post-Futurist Honegger, and scads of film music) didn't seem particularly
pedantic to me. But then, I find most such music so uninteresting that I
can't say I'm able to listen to it well. There are parts of Hindemith's
*Harmonie der Welt (sym. or opera, take your pick) that are both brutal
and pedantic, and wouldn't you know, the effect is pretty tiresome.
Maybe it's just not a good combination of affects.
> I like my music the best... but who would respect a composer who didn't?
Guess it depends on what you mean by "like". Brahms was pretty much in awe
of Beethoven; Tchaikovsky, of Mozart; I can imagine respecting a composer
who in some way valued another composer's works above his/her own if I
thought the valuation were sincere and the modesty genuine.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <4rbroh$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
It's just you, Luttman. Have a look at Jeff's wife's self-portraits
at his web pages.
sluttman
Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
> It's just you, Luttman. Have a look at Jeff's wife's self-portraits
> at his web pages.
Actually, all I'd meant to imply was that the prose, lifted from context,
sounded awfully purple. I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Harrington has
an erotic fondness for a certain minor Latvian male composer.
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
Jeff Harrington writes:
>My comment about Babbitt was that I can hear the process. With Xenakis
>the process, to me at least, is too distant from the outcome of the piece,
See, Jeff, if that's all you said in the first place, the traffic
on this thread would not be 10% of what it is now. (Cayenne begats
cayenne.)
But then that wouldn't be like you, would it? :-)
Bill
Justin Rubin
I believe the piece for voices and tape is called "Pour la Paix". It is
not available commercially to the best of my knowledge.
jhr
Justin Rubin
There are three such "concertos" for piano and orchestra by IX: Synaphai
(1969). Erikhthon (1974) and Keqrops (1986). There are no available
recordings as of yet, but I'm working on getting an orchestra and CD co
to do all three.
jhr
StoOdin101
>>>There are three such "concertos" for piano and orchestra by IX:
Synaphai
(1969). Erikhthon (1974) and Keqrops (1986). There are no available
recordings as of yet, but I'm working on getting an orchestra and CD co
to do all three.<<<
I remember the piano in Thallein having a heroic role...is my memory
playing tricks or is there some reason it would not count as a "concerto"?
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
In article <4r8eou$m...@nntp1.best.com>
rus...@nntp.best.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
Nono>> Only 20-25% of his outputs are masterpieces, and about
Nono>> half of his outputs are nothing but garbage. (....)
Nono>> However, his masterpieces have uncomparable quality.
Nono>> Composers should be remembered for his/her best outputs,
Nono>> not for the "averaged quality" of his/her whole outputs.
> I would be interested to see a list of
> what you think are his masterpieces.
I have posted this list about a week ago:
My best 10 of Iannis Xenakis
01. Persepolis (1971, tape)
02. Tetras (1983, string quartet)
03. Akrata (1964-65, wind ensemble)
04. Cendrees (1973, chorus and orchestra)
05. Nomos Alpha (1966, cello solo)
06. Orient-Occident (1959-60, tape)
07. Anaktoria (1969, chamber ensemble)
08. Synaphai (1969, piano and orchestra)
09. Bohor (1962, tape)
10. Palimpsest (1979, chamber ensemble)
There may be a minor change of the order :-)
> I'll be attending some of the MOMA garden concerts this
> year (they're featuring the French 20th century this year)
> and I noticed two Xenakis pieces, "Rebonds" and
> "Paille in the Wind". Any opinions on these pieces
> and a list of his masterpieces would be appreciated.
For me, the first piece is a pleasant divertimento,
though not a kind of "masterpieces". I have never
listened to the second one. A recent composition?
I have ever heard more than 100 pieces of his,
and I found about 30 of them are masterpieces.
More 20 lists of good IX (chronological order)
Pithopracta (1956, orchestra)
Morsima-Amorsima (1962, Vn.Va.Vc.Cb.)
Eonta (1963-64, piano and brass ensemble)
Terretektorth (1965-66, orchestra in audiences)
Oresteia (1966/87, chorus and chamber orchestra)
Persephassa (1969, 6 Percussionists)
Charisma (1971, clarinet and cello)
Evryali (1973, piano solo)
Phlegra (1975, chamber ensemble)
N'shima (1975, female voices and chamber ensemble)
Khoai (1976, amplified cembalo)
Akanthos (1977, soprano and chamber ensemble)
La legende d'Er (1977-78, tape)
Ikhoor (1978, string trio)
Dikhthas (1979, violin and piano)
Embellie (1981, viola solo)
Komboi (1981, cembalo and percussion)
Echange (1989, bass clarinet and chamber ensemble)
Okho (1989, 3 percussionints)
Idmen (1990, chorus and 6 percussionists)
I selected within my experiences (without reputation).
I may miss some more masterpieces, especially in the
field of theatrical works.
--
Y.Nonomura
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
In article <4r8v2a$j...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (sluttman) writes:
Nono>> Just consider typical cases:
Nono>> e.g. Telemann vs. J.S.Bach, Salieri vs. Mozart, D'Indy vs. Debussy.
> make with these oppositional pairs.
Latter: much better than former but were not
regarded as such at their times
>> However, "Triumph at Werrington" was regarded as his best work
> (well, it might be useful to know who regarded it as his best work)
You mean crowds did, but educated critics did not?
Nono>> and more subtle pieces such as later SQs or PSs or even PC#4,5
Nono>> were not successful at his time.
> Well, "not as successful", perhaps, in the case of the concerti. Your
> argument is certainly true, at least up to a point. Difficult works may
> not be crowd-pleasers at first, but usually there is a small number of
> cognoscenti that will recognize their merit more or less immediately.
This is also the case of Xenakis. His increasing reputation
shows a clear contrast to Stockhausen, Penderecki et al.,
though I appreciate Stockhausen until 1966 very much.
>> The notion of "pure art" was invented in the 19th centyry,
>> and before that serious dabates on music which may result
>> in controversial evaluations would not have happened.
> "Debates" and "controversial evaluations" didn't occur
> --this is true--but I'm not sure this had anything to do
> with the absence or presence of a "pure art" concept.
Who cares the "ultimate value" of daily objects?
> To some degree, at least, I suspect they didn't occur because
> aesthetic standards were, within a given era, pretty unambiguous.
> There were rules; everyone accepted them; good music could be
> separated from bad music on the basis of adherence to them.
"aesthetic standards" always change. I suspect you deny Xenakis
because you listen to his music on the same standards that are
only suitable for conventional composers such as Lutoslawski.
>> I do not know any representative composers of the first half of
>> this century who did not have controversial reputation at their
>> time, except for a few who completely ignored at their time.
> But surely if just about every composer whom anyone finds worthy of
> note manages to raise *some* controversy nowadays, then controversy
> isn't much of a criterion for greatness. "Controversial composer"
> becomes a redundant expression.
So will be Xenakis!! I know innovating composers
like Mussorgsky, Varese or Cage criticized a lot.
--
Y.Nonomura
Coriolan
In I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Harrington has an erotic fondness
for a certain minor Latvian male composer.
Have a care, sir! Having entertained an enthusiasm for Ivanovs'
symphonic output for well over a decade, I do not take kindly to have
his name idly bandied about. "Minor", indeed! I'd swap all my Webern,
Stockhuasen and Xenakis CDs for an LP of his 14th Symphony.
I know about 2/3rds of his 21 symphonies, a few chamber works, piano
pieces, etc. but I know nothing about The Man himself. Who was he?
What were his political views? Was he a member of the Inner Circle, or
an outcast? How did he fare during the sucessive Fascist/Commie
occupations of his home? His 15th Symphony, subtitled Symphonia Ipsa -
Symphony about Myself - how is it autobiography? what autobiographical
elements are incorporated? When are we going to get an integral set of
the symphonies on CD?
Would greatly appreciate any info on Ivanovs.
- Caius Marcius, later Coriolanus
sluttman
Coriolan (cori...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> Have a care, sir! Having entertained an enthusiasm for Ivanovs'
> symphonic output for well over a decade, I do not take kindly to have
> his name idly bandied about. "Minor", indeed! I'd swap all my Webern,
> Stockhuasen and Xenakis CDs for an LP of his 14th Symphony.
I for one didn't idly bandy his name about. Perhaps if you had anything
to say about this music, you could escape this charge yourself.
> I know about 2/3rds of his 21 symphonies, a few chamber works, piano
> pieces, etc. but I know nothing about The Man himself. Who was he?
> What were his political views? Was he a member of the Inner Circle, or
> an outcast?
Outcasts weren't frequently recorded in the old USSR, and in fact he
seems to have been enough of an apparatchik to have held a number of
official positions and win state honors. Didn't you at least read the
article in Grove? You might then try the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
> How did he fare during the sucessive Fascist/Commie
> occupations of his home?
He seems to have survived the Fascists, and done quite well under the
"Commie" occupation, which he seems to have celebrated in a few of his
works.
> His 15th Symphony, subtitled Symphonia Ipsa -
> Symphony about Myself - how is it autobiography? what autobiographical
> elements are incorporated?
The less we know about some of these composers, the better their music
sounds. I still hope that "Testimony", the purported Shostakovich
autobiography, is really a fake--his music sounds better without
knowledge that it just oozes self-pity.
> When are we going to get an integral set of
> the symphonies on CD?
Suggest it to Jarvi; he'll sight-read anything to disc.
Jeff Harrington
why is it always me? (mu...@orpheus.ucsd.edu) wrote:
Druckman? I like to listen to Druckman, it's often
gorgeous, rapturous, Lamia, especially, but I just don't come away feeling
like it meant anything. I was at the premiere of the Viola Concerto and
felt, at the time, that it was his hommage to Glass and Reich. I still
like Valentine and I suspect I would like the Animas again if I hadn't
lent my record.
In Druckman, there's also a noticeable lack of salient rhythmic and
melodic shapes (maybe that oboe melody in Windows being the exception). I
can't buy the argument that textural shapes exist which can become
formative, textures to me usually seem the result of rhythmic and melodic
processes and when there's nothing strong going on, to me, the music often
seems a little pointless. The episodes in Lutoslawski which employ the
aleatoric rhythms sometimes seem aimless. As backgrounds they work
completely differently, but texture as the only foreground to me is
tricky.
I really crave in all musics, feelings of inevitability, directions,
simplicity, coherence. I want to be taken somewhere and not just given a
place to wallow in. Texture-based composition (with the exception of
Ligeti, for some reason) usually leaves me bored.
These are my biases... and they're bound to change tomorrow.
Jeff Harrington
William Tsun-Yuk Hsu (h...@walnut.SFSU.EDU) wrote:
Why have a newsgroup without the process? For me, typing is like talking
(probably because I can type 85 words a minute). So, it's not like I'm
"writing" more like I'm just hanging out with someone and ranting...
Maybe their back is to me as they grab another beer...
I think its fun to be challenged; to be forced to question my opinions.
It caused me to dig into my record collection again. Don't think anyone's
losing any sleep over some guy's differing opinion are they?
Anyway, maybe if the Tabasco folk hadn't start watering down their sauce,
I wouldn't feel the need for this kind of spice. We've switched to
Crystal now, a pale flavoring compared to the Tabasco of 15 years ago...
Jeff Harrington
ndiana.edu>
Distribution:
sluttman (slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
: > He also really climaxes;
: > doesn't pretend climax or prematurely climax. Maybe I'm so hungry for a
: > good climax that I'm less concerned with perfection in form. And of
: > course, he needs good momentum in order to get these big moments.
: I won't even *begin* to tell you what I started thinking when I read
: this. Maybe I shouldn't work so, umm, hard . . .
And of course, if you didn't come to the concert at all, then no one would
come. Tree in the forest thing...
StoOdin101
>>It caused me to dig into my record collection again.
That's all too true...I just finished giving "La Legende d'Eer", a 45
minute electronic piece by IX, the listen. One of his best works in that
field and one that proves him a master of timbre composition, IMO. Puts
most of today's "industrial" music to shame, too. Haven't played that for
a while.
AS far as "humanity" in IX, I recommend the BIS cd with the percussion
works "pleiades" and "Psappha". The patterns are easily recognizable and
can be followed, elements do return and repeat, there's a feeling of
virtuosity in the music, and it isnt as out there as some of his work,
making it probably a good album to introduce his music.
ALTHOUGH if "terretekhtorh" was available on CD, I'd recommend it above
any other of his pieces. It took me 10 playings to decide if I liked it or
not, but it eventually became my favorite IX work.
Justin Rubin
On 2 Jul 1996, StoOdin101 wrote:
>
> >>>There are three such "concertos" for piano and orchestra by IX:
> Synaphai
> (1969). Erikhthon (1974) and Keqrops (1986). There are no available
> recordings as of yet, but I'm working on getting an orchestra and CD co
> to do all three.<<<
>
> I remember the piano in Thallein having a heroic role...is my memory
> playing tricks or is there some reason it would not count as a "concerto"?
>
>
>
>
> "We Know you Can Hear Us, Earthmen"...a C-45 of electronic music with
> influences as diverse as Raymond Scott, Magma and Tangerine Dream...
> available now...email StoOd...@aol.com for more info.
>
Thallein is more of a "concerto grosso". In the Xenakis catalog he
distinguishes it between his three concertos and chamber pieces such as
Thallein, Eonta, etc.>
Matthew H. Fields
In article <4rdr5e$a...@nntp1.best.com>,
Jeff Harrington <rus...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
>
>ndiana.edu>
>Distribution:
>
>sluttman (slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
>
>: > He also really climaxes;
>: > doesn't pretend climax or prematurely climax. Maybe I'm so hungry for a
>: > good climax that I'm less concerned with perfection in form. And of
>: > course, he needs good momentum in order to get these big moments.
>
>: I won't even *begin* to tell you what I started thinking when I read
>: this. Maybe I shouldn't work so, umm, hard . . .
>
>And of course, if you didn't come to the concert at all, then no one would
>come. Tree in the forest thing...
I dunno, I'm pretty careful where I put my tree.
sluttman
Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
> : > He also really climaxes;
> : > doesn't pretend climax or prematurely climax. Maybe I'm so hungry for a
> : > good climax that I'm less concerned with perfection in form. And of
> : > course, he needs good momentum in order to get these big moments.
slut...@indiana.edu wrote:
> : I won't even *begin* to tell you what I started thinking when I read
> : this. Maybe I shouldn't work so, umm, hard . . .
to which Mr. Harrington:
> And of course, if you didn't come to the concert at all, then no one would
> come. Tree in the forest thing...
Reminds me of one of my favorite egg jokes:
What's so rotten about being an egg?
--you come only in boxes of 12.
Marc Couroux
> : Well, this comment would imply that Xenakis SHOULD write goal-oriented and
> : "dramatic" music. This would be implying that the works of Debussy (Jeux),
> : Stravinsky (everything) and Messiaen have also failed in this regard.
>
> I see we have different definitions of goal-directed momentum. To my way
> of thinking Jeux has multiplicities of goals; same with Igor. Xenakis has
> no goals or to me, arbitrary goals.
Why think of goals at all? Milton Babbitt doesn't really (except maybe
for some very abstract pitch goal), nor
does Cage...and this makes for fascinating music just the same. I think
it's important to approach any composer
on their own turf. I understand perfectly how, as a composer, you have a
VERY clear idea of what you want to
hear, but to make generalized polemical (yes) statements on other
composers music based on your personal
compositional goals, seems to be a little narrow-minded. As a performer,
I don't have the problem of having to
assert myself stylistically...but, why should this attitude be only proper
to performers?
> : One would
> : have to be pretty confident to make THAT kind of statement.
>
> That's me. As a composer, I'm obsessed with controlling musical momentum.
> I enjoy fooling the listener by establishing expectaions and then denying
> them, like Debussy, Stravinsky and Haydn often do.
> I understand his strategies and just don't buy them; can't experience
> them; they don't work for me. I find whatever dramas Xenakis concocts to
> be arbitrary in fact I feel an extremely arbitrary quality about them. As
> if they could practically happen at any time. This because what he's
> doing essentially is spitting out notes froma machine to produce
> interesting textures. All I'm saying is -> so...
You have to understand that Xenakis has not been "spitting out notes from
a machine" for about 25 years!
Unfortunately, much of this recent music has not been recorded, but this
is about to change, thanks in part to
the St-X Ensemble in New York. Good for them! A reappraisal of Xenakis'
compositional methods is in
order.
Marc Couroux
Jeff Harrington
Marc Couroux (cou...@music.mcgill.ca) wrote:
:
: > : Well, this comment would imply that Xenakis SHOULD write goal-oriented and
: > : "dramatic" music. This would be implying that the works of Debussy (Jeux),
: > : Stravinsky (everything) and Messiaen have also failed in this regard.
: >
: > I see we have different definitions of goal-directed momentum. To my way
: > of thinking Jeux has multiplicities of goals; same with Igor. Xenakis has
: > no goals or to me, arbitrary goals.
:
: Why think of goals at all? Milton Babbitt doesn't really (except maybe
: for some very abstract pitch goal), nor
: does Cage...and this makes for fascinating music just the same. I think
: it's important to approach any composer
: on their own turf. I understand perfectly how, as a composer, you have a
: VERY clear idea of what you want to
: hear, but to make generalized polemical (yes) statements on other
: composers music based on your personal
: compositional goals, seems to be a little narrow-minded.
Uh... is that frowned upon? When someone asks what do you think and
someone else posts what they think...? ;-)
: As a performer,
: I don't have the problem of having to
: assert myself stylistically...but, why should this attitude be only proper
: to performers?
This is a stylistic problem I have? What is X's style? I don't have
a generalized aversion to complexity; I loved Boulez's new CD
...explosante... I used to write hyper-complex music. Even then I
didn't like Xenakis. Carter, Ferneyhough, Ives, yes...
I've walked the extra mile. Hell, I've actually sat through in concert
and on record 30 or more pieces by him. He's had his chance. If you're
looking for people to hide their opinions; to be politic in their musical
discussions, you might wish to avoid Usenet newsgroups.
: > : One would
: > : have to be pretty confident to make THAT kind of statement.
: >
: > That's me. As a composer, I'm obsessed with controlling musical momentum.
: > I enjoy fooling the listener by establishing expectaions and then denying
: > them, like Debussy, Stravinsky and Haydn often do.
:
:
: > I understand his strategies and just don't buy them; can't experience
: > them; they don't work for me. I find whatever dramas Xenakis concocts to
: > be arbitrary in fact I feel an extremely arbitrary quality about them. As
: > if they could practically happen at any time. This because what he's
: > doing essentially is spitting out notes froma machine to produce
: > interesting textures. All I'm saying is -> so...
: You have to understand that Xenakis has not been "spitting out notes from
: a machine" for about 25 years!
: Unfortunately, much of this recent music has not been recorded, but this
: is about to change, thanks in part to
: the St-X Ensemble in New York. Good for them! A reappraisal of Xenakis'
: compositional methods is in
: order.
Really, I'm not the only guy who
doesn't "get" Xenakis. I still don't feel like there's a real musical
mind at work behind the notes. I don't feel it. I hear the followers
preaching that he's Beethovenian in his gestures. I don't feel it. In
fact what I feel is arbitary algorithmic machine. If I knew for a fact
that he uses no system; that he just writes, like Feldman (who was from
Brooklyn like me) whatever; I still would feel nothing; cold machine.
It's just too arbitrary in its content. If it is purely out of his head,
he should be shaping it more with phrasing or dynamics... to be coherent.
In a certain sense, he's like Shapey. Loud, massive and when I sit back
and wonder what they were trying to say, I come up with this. They were
trying to be loud and massive. I want more. I want to feel every note to
be crafted to have a musical reason behind it. If that's a generalized
polemic so be it. It's a polemic that seems to work OK on almost everyone
but Cage (who I enjoy because he's just so crazy and funny).
Can't we just agree to disagree and accept my promise that I'll always
keep my ears open?
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
Hello, Justin, nice to see you on netnews again!
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960630...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu>
Justin Rubin <j...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
Nono>> Only 20-25% of his outputs are masterpieces, and about
Nono>> half of his outputs are nothing but garbage. (....)
Nono>> However, his masterpieces have uncomparable quality.
> What pieces would you consider garbage? I only consider about 25%
> to be under his normal masterwork quality!..then again, I am an IX nut.
For example, I classify his vocal&orchestral works around
1980, Nekkuia (sp?) and Ais as garbage. Maybe you do not.
One reason would be the taste to his "modal" works. For example,
you once recommended "Jonchains" (sp?, an orchestral composition),
but I cannot enjoy this kind of pieces.
--
Y.Nonomura
Marc Couroux
> Sorry, but this newsgroup exists to share opinions. So far I've read
> nothing new or interesting from any of the posters, just the usual old
> fashioned moment-based/alternative drama justification for a tired
> experimentalism.
By the way, this isn't REALLY the place to discuss which is better 1) goal
oriented movement or
2) alternative-based drama. Who cares. What works for you is just fine
by me. My objections pertain
to unsubstantiated dismissal of one of today's most important musical
minds. Period. I've been seeing a
lot of this kind of cavalier pseudo-criticism based on second or
third-hand rumors: basically, I think it's better to
reserve one's judgement until one can make cogent claims. Otherwise, this
group may just as well be
alt.fans.millivanilli.
As if musical criticism was unwanted if it did not agree
> with today's consensus about X. Silly discussion it may or not be, but we
> can ignore discussions we disagree with without characterizing them.
Marc Couroux
Marc Couroux
Marc Couroux
Matthew H. Fields
Yeah, that's all very well, but I've heard most of those Xenakis pieces,
too, and I really didn't find them interesting, thanks. <yawn>
Yoshihiko NONOMURA
In article <4r9k29$1...@news.iastate.edu>
ipsi...@iastate.edu (Ipsifendous Archilochus) writes:
Nono>> I, a Xenakis fan, also ignore them when I listen to his music.
Nono>> Who cares J.S.Bach's symbolic usage of numbers in listening
Nono>> to his religious works?
> Bach's music does, however, seem to have a tightly woven musical 'logic'
> to it, which has, I believe, much more to do with the common perception
> of Bach's music as being 'mathematical' in its beauty. In contrast,
> many of the attempts to write 'mathematical' music in the 20th
> century do not inspire this response-- at least, not in me-- and
> I think that's because their logic is almost *purely* extramusical.
> (Admittedly, this use of the word 'extramusical' bespeaks a rather
> narrow notion of 'musical' logic. I apologize for any inconvenience.)
However, "purely extramusical" logic is sometimes still useful.
We live with too much information about music, and "intuitive
writing" is so often polluted by memories of previous pieces.
Then, "purely extramusical logic" frees us of such memories.
Of course, if everything has done with such a logic,
that piece would be boring---as is Babbitt's music.
In the case of Xenakis, he used group theories and statistical
calculations for short-time (connections of each note, choices
of chords) and middle-time (textures for each "sound block",
from a few to some dozens of seconds) structures. However,
for long-time structures (assembling sound blocks into a
composition), he relied on his own feeling, and during
this process he often modified details.
In short, Xenakis utilized "purely extramusical logic"
to delete conventional elements from details of music.
I can understand why conventional ears hate Xenakis so much.
In conventional music, everything is constructed from some
basic elements consist of several notes, regardless that
it is tonal or serial. However, in IX's music, details are
nothing but chaos generated by statistical calculations.
--
Y.Nonomura
Jeff Harrington
Marc Couroux (cou...@music.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: > Sorry, but this newsgroup exists to share opinions. So far I've read
: > nothing new or interesting from any of the posters, just the usual old
: > fashioned moment-based/alternative drama justification for a tired
: > experimentalism.
:
: By the way, this isn't REALLY the place to discuss which is better 1) goal
: oriented movement or
: 2) alternative-based drama. Who cares. What works for you is just fine
: by me.
These topics are definitely included in the charter of this newgroups.
Maybe you should check it again.
: My objections pertain
: to unsubstantiated dismissal of one of today's most important musical
: minds. Period.
My dismissal of his music is certainly not unsubstantiated. You can
dismiss my dismissal without characterizing, also, you know. My dismissal
of his music is based on my *listening* to his music. It doesn't work for
me at all. Another poster requested opinions. I answered. I attempted
to analyze why his music doesn't work for me.
The fact that you consider his music to be important has not been
substantiated at all. In fact, no one on this thread has given reason,
(since it's impossible) to prove objectively that someone's music is or is
not important. All I've been attempting to do is describe why it doesn't
work for me. It may have been helpful earlier in this thread to describe
why the music is so important to you. I would have found that
interesting.
Frankly, it's not *just* his lack of goal-oriented movement which I find
lacking in his music. It's not just a stylistic property, as we all know
that he's changed styles throughout his career. I truly find lacking in
his music real musical gestalts/ideas of substance. I find no meat.
I need some substance; something to remember. I find Ligeti, Birtwistle,
moments of pure texture in Carter (the denouement of the Symphony for 3
Orchestras), Petrassi, and others to be much more worthwhile and
important. These composers use texture which has some salient properties
which I, as a listener, can hold onto. I get a feeling of
compositional competence; I do not get this in the music of Xenakis.
What I also find interesting is that so many people think his music is so
great while I (and otheres) find it so utterly lacking. I find this to be
an interesting property of his music unto itself.
Jeff Harrington
Yoshihiko NONOMURA (no...@frank.riken.go.jp) wrote:
: I can understand why conventional ears hate Xenakis so much.
Ugh... this is what I really hate about musical arguments related to
cutting edge music. The characterization that people who prefer this or
that genre or flavor (new or old) are conventional or closed-eared, or
just plain dull. (Not that you're going that far with this Yoshihiko,
just a bit in that direction).
: In conventional music, everything is constructed from some
: basic elements consist of several notes, regardless that
: it is tonal or serial. However, in IX's music, details are
: nothing but chaos generated by statistical calculations.
Perhaps his calculations are lacking? Maybe it's not my ear but his
numbers? Frankly, I find Xenakis' music conventional by today's
standards. It's basically a continuation of experiments he began in the
50's.
As my posting about sex and Xenakis a few weeks back explained, I think
there's a real current in all the arts to distance the artist from the
past and from the human. (Maybe the same thing). This aversion to the
past itself is unique in human history. And I think there's a certain
group of intellectual listeners that are looking for a music without
content other than textural content. Maybe there's a neurotic aversion to
content other than masses of sound in these listeners? I do believe
there is a desire to feel, by way of musical experience, that you are
sophisticated and cutting-edge; and that this experience may not allow for
memory itself to be activated; that would imply the past and the human.
And frankly, writing music with concrete musical content, that is musical
gestalts that can be grasped, is a risky business. It requires
incredible technique, imagination and taste. Process pieces are easy;
lazy, and to a certain extent I believe they are cowardly. They are
sometimes the product of an artistic temperament which doesn't really want
to say anything; doesn't really have anything to communicate. I think
dependence on process often indicates a lack of confidence in one's
musicality or compositional competence. I remain unconvinced that Xenakis
does not have these problems.
The experience I see taking place in listeners who indulge in his music is
that of wallowing or swimming. It gives nothing to hold onto by default
and urges the listener to give up all conceptions about expectations and
development. This is nothing new now. In fact, one could characterize it
as art from a 50's utopian experiential model. We'll all grow someday to
meet *its* needs.
;-)
Coventional music today *is* Xenakis. It relies on conventions; it
employs the convention of perpetual newness for its conventional
exploration of perpetual textural novelty.
StoOdin101
>However, in IX's music, details are
>nothing but chaos generated by statistical calculations.
Not chaos, for all statistical calculations tend toward a "goal" of some
kind. Chaos, to me, would indicate absolute randomness with no goal. Plus,
of course, Xenakis has taken more and more of a "hand" --- that is, in the
traditional "composer" sense -- in making his music over the past 25 or
30 years.And he has _always_ used his own choise and intuition in
realizing the data, and what data to realize.
Chris McConnell
Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) writes, among other interesting
thoughts:
>
> And frankly, writing music with concrete musical content, that is musical
> gestalts that can be grasped, is a risky business. It requires
> incredible technique, imagination and taste. Process pieces are easy;
> lazy, and to a certain extent I believe they are cowardly. They are
> sometimes the product of an artistic temperament which doesn't really want
> to say anything; doesn't really have anything to communicate.
"If I wanted to say something, I'd use words." - John Cage
Who says that "communication" has to be the reason to write music? It can
be, I suppose, but does it have to be?
--
Chris McConnell Currently at:
bc...@freenet.carleton.ca St. John's University
cdmcc...@csbsju.edu Collegeville, MN
Martin Herman
Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
: : As a composer, I'm obsessed with controlling musical
momentum.
I enjoy fooling the listener by establishing expectaions and then denying
: : > them, like Debussy, Stravinsky and Haydn often do.
: :
: :
: : > I understand his strategies and just don't buy them; can't experience
: : > them; they don't work for me. I find whatever dramas Xenakis concocts to
: : > be arbitrary in fact I feel an extremely arbitrary quality about them.
:As if they could practically happen at any time. This because what he's
: : > doing essentially is spitting out notes froma machine to produce
: : > interesting textures. All I'm saying is -> so...
: Really, I'm not the only guy who
: doesn't "get" Xenakis. I still don't feel like there's a real musical
: mind at work behind the notes. I don't feel it. I hear the followers
: preaching that he's Beethovenian in his gestures. I don't feel it. In
: fact what I feel is arbitary algorithmic machine.
How do you have an arbitrary algorithmic machine? Arbirtary suggests by his own
will, according to his own preferences even intuition, while algorithmic
suggests something different in the way you use it here : cold, calculated,
machine generated. With respect, this fundamental contradiction points to a
fundamental misunderstanding of X. in my opinion. Like I said before, judging
from his "Form" course which I audited 10 yrs. ago, X. was very much the
musician first. The algorithm is invisible and at best serves musical impulse.
He talked of basic musical issues like shape, climax, momentum, movement,
coherence - a composer first and foremost when he talked about music. Form was
THE primary issue for him. One thing I have always felt about X.'s music when
listening to it is that often the macro (background) takes precedence over
micro (surface), which is not to say I don't enjoy the surfaces of X.s music,
but that often my ear is forced into the background, and my enjoyment of the
piece to some degree depends upon making that aural leap. It's a bit like those
3-D puzzles where you have to relax the eye in order to see the hidden pattern.
(What are those called?)
The surface of that puzzle looks like an incoherent collection of color, but at
some point a hidden pattern, a form, emerges as the eye adapts and distances
itself from the surface. You might try a new hearing of X in this way, as
feeble an analogy as it is to his music. Forget algorithm. Check out Jonchaies
for orchestra if you don't know it. There's an LP.
: Can't we just agree to disagree and accept my promise that I'll always
: keep my ears open?
:
Of course. I respect your point of view, but wanted to offer another and
sincerely hope you'll give X.'s music another chance down the road.
Martin
Jeff Harrington
Chris McConnell (bc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) writes, among other interesting
: thoughts:
: >
: > And frankly, writing music with concrete musical content, that is musical
: > gestalts that can be grasped, is a risky business. It requires
: > incredible technique, imagination and taste. Process pieces are easy;
: > lazy, and to a certain extent I believe they are cowardly. They are
: > sometimes the product of an artistic temperament which doesn't really want
: > to say anything; doesn't really have anything to communicate.
: "If I wanted to say something, I'd use words." - John Cage
: Who says that "communication" has to be the reason to write music? It can
: be, I suppose, but does it have to be?
Absolutely not, but I'm certain that a lot of this experimentation now and
in the past, was frankly, because it's cool and safe to be experimental.
Maybe it wasn't in the 1920's or earlier, but now, it's the safe, easy
thing to do. It's easy to look like you're saying something when you're
actually not. It's hard, damn hard, to open your mouth and sing. Just
sing. It's easy to say nothing and then pose like you're saying something
and when somebody accuses you of saying nothing you just say, "I was
saying nothing all along. You just don't get it."
It's the prefect strategy for somebody with nothing to say all along.
;-)
It's hard to say *something* and be new. Yes, we need to know what's on
the edge of artistic experience, especially with new technologies... This
doesn't mean we have to accept this output as anything special or
indicative of
problems with other forms. We should be *more* skeptical of artistic
experiences which are distanced from our typical experience, not less.
The fellow who said that he felt great passion from Xenakis' music even
while he knew these notes were the result of dynamic extra-musical
processes is typical. There is great passion in the wind for all that
matters.
We all know, that real music innovation is driven by boredom. Boredom
in last years chords; etc... but when we're bored with the very idea of
musical gestalts, I see a pathology of sorts. It's in all the arts. I
really feel we're a people with nothing to say and we're looking for
people who've said it. Alienation taken to an experiential plane and then
regurgitated into pseudo-passion, pseudo-violence, pseudo-charisma and
pseudo-Beethoven. It's safe, it's cool, it's weird, but it's nothing,
absolutely nothing - dressed up as something extraordinary, art.
Knock yourself out; listen to what you want. This is just what I think
today about this stuff. Art is too important not to be skeptical about
new problematic forms.
Jeff Harrington
: How do you have an arbitrary algorithmic machine? Arbirtary suggests by his own
: will, according to his own preferences even intuition, while algorithmic
: suggests something different in the way you use it here : cold, calculated,
: machine generated. With respect, this fundamental contradiction points to a
: fundamental misunderstanding of X. in my opinion. Like I said before, judging
: from his "Form" course which I audited 10 yrs. ago, X. was very much the
: musician first. The algorithm is invisible and at best serves musical impulse.
: He talked of basic musical issues like shape, climax, momentum, movement,
: coherence - a composer first and foremost when he talked about music. Form was
: THE primary issue for him. One thing I have always felt about X.'s music when
: listening to it is that often the macro (background) takes precedence over
: micro (surface), which is not to say I don't enjoy the surfaces of X.s music,
: but that often my ear is forced into the background, and my enjoyment of the
: piece to some degree depends upon making that aural leap. It's a bit like those
: 3-D puzzles where you have to relax the eye in order to see the hidden pattern.
: (What are those called?)
Random 3D stereograms? Good analogy. I can see that. I'd like to see
the image of something though, pop out after listening to X.
That's what I'm not getting.
: The surface of that puzzle looks like an incoherent collection of color, but at
: some point a hidden pattern, a form, emerges as the eye adapts and distances
: itself from the surface. You might try a new hearing of X in this way, as
: feeble an analogy as it is to his music. Forget algorithm. Check out Jonchaies
: for orchestra if you don't know it. There's an LP.
I know to look for these types of generalized textural transformations. I
can hear them in some pieces. Maybe it's just not enough for this
listener to get excited about. I really get off on those moments in say,
Lutoslawski's 3rd, when a chaotic textures suddenly coalesces into
something amazing different. I suspect there maybe pieces I don't know
about where this happens in X...
: : Can't we just agree to disagree and accept my promise that I'll always
: : keep my ears open?
: :
: Of course. I respect your point of view, but wanted to offer another and
: sincerely hope you'll give X.'s music another chance down the road.
As I posted last week, I'll be going to performances of "Rebonds" and
"Paille in the Wind" (for cello and piano) in the next few weeks.
Amazing free concerts at MOMA. I actually seek out Xenakis. I'm curious
about why he's got such a following. Sometimes there are amazing moments
which leave me really feeling strangely, like was that cool or was it just
an accident of the algorithm? Again, this in itself is just not enough
for me to take him seriously.
Bad Lieutenant
In article <4refld$k...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
slut...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (sluttman) wrote:
** Jeff Harrington (rus...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
**
** > : > He also really climaxes;
** > : > doesn't pretend climax or prematurely climax. Maybe I'm so
hungry for a
** > : > good climax that I'm less concerned with perfection in form. And of
** > : > course, he needs good momentum in order to get these big moments.
**
** slut...@indiana.edu wrote:
**
** > : I won't even *begin* to tell you what I started thinking when I read
** > : this. Maybe I shouldn't work so, umm, hard . . .
**
** to which Mr. Harrington:
**
** > And of course, if you didn't come to the concert at all, then no one would
** > come. Tree in the forest thing...
Sheesh, it's one issue after another for you guys.
**
** Reminds me of one of my favorite egg jokes:
** What's so rotten about being an egg?
** --you come only in boxes of 12.
How is Woody Allen like Symantec products?
--
tagu...@nr.infinet.com
why must preconceptions be challenged?
x-no-archive: yes