Improv on a theme by Xenakis

[tehpro]

I just love this theme by Xenakis. It always makes really happy. I really hope that I captured the spirit of the theme with this improv.

[counterpoint]

Xenakis would be jealous 

[pianowolfi]

And Nancarrow as well

[Derek]

Here's a response, on one of my own favorite themes by Xenakis. I'm not sure I quite expressed what I was really looking for in this one,...could someone more educated than me give me some advice?

[pianowolfi]

Here's a response, on one of my own favorite themes by Xenakis. I'm not sure I quite expressed what I was really looking for in this one,...could someone more educated than me give me some advice?

 

[tehpro]

Haha, well done! I think you totally captured the inner reality and profoundness of that beautiful theme!

[quantum]

I have tried to express some of the joy this music brings to me.

[quantum]

Here's a response, on one of my own favorite themes by Xenakis. I'm not sure I quite expressed what I was really looking for in this one,...could someone more educated than me give me some advice?

I think it came out quite well    Just a response to your improv   

[Derek]

I think it came out quite well    Just a response to your improv   

Cool! I'm enjoying this one a lot....you totally pwn xenakis.

[retrouvailles]

What about the real thing?

[Derek]

quantum's music is about 300x more enjoyable than that.

[quantum]

I guess I'll take that as a compliment 

Congrats on 1k posts BTW.

[Derek]

I guess I'll take that as a compliment 

Congrats on 1k posts BTW.

I'm totally sincere about that. I personally believe there is a vast chasm between Xenakis' music, and my friends here on pianostreet that improvise. Your music makes sense to my ears and has a lot of expression in it...but Xenakis sounds very dry and boring to me. I think the classical music world is too obsessed with having idols in every era. Baroque idols, classical idols, romantic idols, and now even modern idols. I don't know why it is so important to people to idolize composers as VISIONARIES and PIONEERS etc. I can see schoenberg was a pioneer..but Xenakis was just more of the same, and very boring more of the same as far as I'm concerned. quantum, mayla, pianowolfi, ted, and others are way, way more creative than he was. They genuinely create music from the heart.  I can't really back that up but that's what I believe, in total sincerity.   

[retrouvailles]

*resists temptation to get pissed off and start another thread-long argument*

It's ok, Derek. I excuse your ignorance. Carry on.

[dnephi]

*resists temptation to get pissed off and start another thread-long argument*

It's ok, Derek. I excuse your ignorance. Carry on.

I'll say that the condescending attitude is more offensive than his level of "ignorance." 

[retrouvailles]

Yeah, indeed it is. This whole thread is offensive.

[yuc4h]

Quantums second improv was actually really good but I don't think it was random enough to represent the real thing.

Retrouvailles since you are (according to your profile) 19 years old, it takes away the credibility that you apparently understand and enjoy those random piano 'pieces'. There is no way a 19 year old would really listen to that.. eh whatever that might be called... or profoundly understand it either for that matter.

[Petter]

I have tried to express some of the joy this music brings to me.

this is very fitting music for playing arathi basin in world of warcraft

[ctrastevere]

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the improvisations.

Though I'm not exactly a "fan" of Xenakis, I do enjoy some of his works immensely. To name a few, I've liked most of his percussion music that I've heard (it's a good place to start if you're willing to be open-minded about his work) and I find Evryali to be a lot of fun (it's rather short and has a lot of really interesting stuff going on, a lot of which I wouldn't even hesitate to call "tonal"). Synaphai is decent too, though I feel that it becomes monotonous due to its length. Many of his other orchestra pieces that I've heard use some really strange effects, and I do genuinely have fun listening to them.

Honestly, I can't see what is so polarizing about Xenakis's music. I like it because it amuses me and because it's something out of the ordinary. To be honest here, I don't know much about how stochastic music works, nor do I really give a damn when I listen to it. If the music is enjoyable to me... well that's all there is to it. If I'm curious enough, I'll delve further into it's creation.

There was a time when I would feel compelled to attack someone for their disagreement with me regarding issues like this. But I soon found that if you support a cause, no matter how passionately, if you attack people and resort to name-calling purely based on a difference of opinion, you'll just turn them even further away from the cause. Why don't the Xenakis supporters provide some links to his more accessible works and possibly explain his compositional process, rather than saying, "you ignorant idiot, why can't you like what I like?!" Do you honestly think that's going to attract them to his music? I don't.

[retrouvailles]

Retrouvailles since you are (according to your profile) 19 years old, it takes away the credibility that you apparently understand and enjoy those random piano 'pieces'. There is no way a 19 year old would really listen to that.. eh whatever that might be called... or profoundly understand it either for that matter.

What is all that supposed to mean? I don't understand what you are getting at. And no, Xenakis's music is far from random. It's the extreme amount of mathematical calculation in the music that makes people think that it is random. And did I ask for your opinion on my credibility? I think not. So please keep quiet. I can enjoy whatever the hell I want to enjoy for whatever reason, despite how "random" it sounds.

[rhapsody4]

...it takes away the credibility that you apparently understand and enjoy those random piano 'pieces'.

Random is a very overused word and in current contexts tends to be used as an adjective to describe anything that the user of that word does not understand.

In any case, it seems to me that it is a rather closed minded approach to completely disregard and mock the work of something on the basis that you do not understand the work. As with most threads on here which discuss the realms of Sorabji, Ligeti, Xenakis, Stockhausen, and so on, I am surprised at how much non-tonal music is criticised without substantial reasoning behind the opinion.

[yuc4h]

Sorry retrouvailles, that was completely unreasonal comment from me...

But the thing most of the people that don't like Xenakis' music criticize is that the music should be pleasant to listen to. Not music composed for other composers (meaning that you can only begin to appreciate it if you know hell a lot more about music theory than most of musicians).

The other thing criticized is the fact that there are people who say they understand or like certain pieces of music to make others think they're clever or something. ( I can't see why anyone would do that but well, there are always the people who understand everything for the sake of understanding)

Anyways, I managed to found a piece of music that I actually like and I want to share it with you although the most of you must have already seen it

[ctrastevere]

As with most threads on here which discuss the realms of Sorabji, Ligeti, Xenakis, Stockhausen, and so on, I am surprised at how much non-tonal music is criticised without substantial reasoning behind the opinion.

Right. I would like to add to my previous post -- ignorance, in itself, is excusable. But the choice to remain ignorant and not progress mentally beyond one's initial reaction to something falls under the category of intellectual laziness, which makes the publicized opinions of those not only inappropriate but distasteful. If one decides, through thorough investigation and research, that they've come to the conclusion that they don't like something, that's their prerogative, of course. But when one makes broad (and completely inaccurate) statements about something without substantial knowledge to back up their opinion, then their atrocious behavior most certainly should not be condoned.

However, keep in mind what I said before: personally insulting these people will never cause them to change their opinion. If they're reasonable at all (which many of them are, I'm sure) they will respond to politeness and rethink their stance. If they choose to remain ignorant, one simply shouldn't give them the satisfaction of a response, especially in anger -- they feed off of that, and will use it as further evidence to support their uneducated opinion.

[ctrastevere]

But the thing most of the people that don't like Xenakis' music criticize is that the music should be pleasant to listen to.

Does it? I think, if anything, music should be about self-expression. Take Penderecki's "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" for instance. Listening to that piece is the furthest thing from a "pleasant" experience that I can think of. But it accomplishes its goal. Many have written grand, romantic pieces about similar topics that are not at all realistic. The bombing of Hiroshima isn't a pleasant subject, and giving it a (for lack of a better word) "pretty" soundtrack doesn't do it justice in my opinion. You see, that's one of the great things about modern music -- it can portray violent, unpleasant things in a realistic manner. And oftentimes, its effect on the listener can be shattering and even life-changing.

The other thing criticized is the fact that there are people who say they understand or like certain pieces of music to make others think they're clever or something. ( I can't see why anyone would do that but well, there are always the people who understand everything for the sake of understanding)

What's wrong with that? When I first read Joyce's Ulysses I did it for similar reasons. But I later found it to be a brilliant book and a very enjoyable reading experience. I made the effort all along to understand what I was reading, researching the background behind practically every paragraph so I could understand what Joyce was alluding to. And in the process, I ended up accomplishing a lot more than simply reading a novel -- I learned a hell of a lot about literature, Irish history, and psychology.

Listening to modern music has had a similar effect on me. Through understanding what makes modern music what it is, I've learned so much about the history of music, the lives of different composers, and different ways to compose. And, by originally causing me to call into question everything I thought I knew about "art," it also taught me how to think in a completely different way, something that I welcome whether I agree with the way of thinking or not. I am a lover of knowledge, and anything that leads me to expanding my own horizons is OK in my book.

Anyways, I managed to found a piece of music that I actually like and I want to share it with you although the most must have already seen this

Good for you! You have proven my point -- you are obviously a reasonable individual who has made the effort to learn about something that you might not have originally liked, and in the process you discovered something that you enjoyed.

I enjoy that piece too, by the way.

[thierry13]

I enjoyed very much Quantum's improvisation, and I think he would be quite skilled at composing such music. Derek's tought on the original Xenakis piece are a bit ... no comment, tough. He obviously does not know a single thing of what he's talking about and there his opinion is more than stupid. For an opinion to have a minimum of validity it must be backed with knowledge ... in this case, there is 0 knowledge. Sorry but try to understand it at least minimally before judging it.

[cygnusdei]

Poor Derek ... he's ignorant and stupid.

I suppose the Prix de Rome judges were too stupid and ignorant to understand Ravel's music as well.

[thierry13]

Poor Derek ... he's ignorant and stupid.

I suppose the Prix de Rome judges were too stupid and ignorant to understand Ravel's music as well.

Indeed ... it's like saint-saens giving bad review on Debussy's prelude a l'apres midi d'un faune ... being written with no purpose no reference no language, random notes ... etc. ... even great minds have their weaknesses!

[Derek]

Only this time, the critic is right.    All those other men used their own minds and judgement to create something of beauty (Debussy, Ravel, etc.), Xenakis applied artificial theories to create his.  By contrast, I'll state again, quantum and others on this website as an example use their own minds and aesthetic judgement of beauty to write music. This is why I oppose stochastic music and any music which over-uses some sort of artificial amusical theory: it invariably produces very boring music. I suppose I can see the "fun" element of it, both on the playing side for the challenge, and on the listening side for the novelty, but, I highly doubt 100 years from now we'll remember Xenakis for his music the same way we remember Ravel for Gaspard de la Nuit.

[retrouvailles]

Let's stop trying to talk sense into Derek and leave him with his stupidly formed opinions. Perhaps he is happier knowing that Xenakis is a charlatan at composition than what is really true.

[cygnusdei]

Indeed ... it's like saint-saens giving bad review on Debussy's prelude a l'apres midi d'un faune ... being written with no purpose no reference no language, random notes ... etc. ... even great minds have their weaknesses!

You mean Saint-Saëns was ignorant and stupid.

[thierry13]

Only this time, the critic is right.    All those other men used their own minds and judgement to create something of beauty (Debussy, Ravel, etc.), Xenakis applied artificial theories to create his.  By contrast, I'll state again, quantum and others on this website as an example use their own minds and aesthetic judgement of beauty to write music. This is why I oppose stochastic music and any music which over-uses some sort of artificial amusical theory: it invariably produces very boring music. I suppose I can see the "fun" element of it, both on the playing side for the challenge, and on the listening side for the novelty, but, I highly doubt 100 years from now we'll remember Xenakis for his music the same way we remember Ravel for Gaspard de la Nuit.

You are, again, mistaken, and misses the point. Xenakis did not try to apply artificial theories to create his "beauty". And it is stupid to think that. Xenakis wanted music to express what emotions he felt exactly as they are, often in the most ugly way : violence, sadness, rage, fury, very dark emotions especially. Believe me xenakis will be remembered, if not more so than Ravel. I would like to know what do you consider an "artificial theory" on music. Not as if the tonal system was not invented by men ...

[thierry13]

You mean Saint-Saëns was ignorant and stupid.

Not at all. He was simply close minded about music/ tonality and did not try to look into Debussy's music before judging it. It's like if I told you a girl with a lot of buttons and a mustache is beautiful ...... tomorrow. You may think i'm stupid ... but maybe in 100 years, the standards of beauty will have changed and it WILL be beautiful. My only point is not that girls with buttons are beautiful(far from it), but that big changes in things like music takes time to appreciate. Excuse me again Derek, but you said the critic is RIGHT ... yeah, right, but you're saying just after that Debussy and Ravel were good. How stupid is that.

[Petter]

Oh god why did I have to be born in a post modern world 

So whats next? 

[cygnusdei]

So ...  if you don't like Xenaxis' music you're ignorant and stupid.
If you don't like Debussy, or if you're Saint-Saëns, 'close-minded' will suffice.

Thank you for the enlightenment.

[Derek]

I just want to point out that I've been thinking very hard about these issues for years, I did not blindly commit to these positions.

Years ago, I thought I disliked anything that smacked of 20th century style: Stravinsky, Schonberg, Debussy (sort of), and others. Once I heard Keith Jarrett's improvisations, exceedingly dissonant, dark, and frenetic 20th century style music really grew on me, and now I like it a lot. I love quantum's improvisations, and I am totally sincere about that.  I've listened broadly. Once someone has done that, I think it is fair for them to form their own opinion.

Xenakis bores me. Cage bores me. These men have introduced something other than their own mind into their music.  I LOVE, by contrast, Scriabin, including his late sonatas and much of his other late piano pieces. I hear a very obvious presence of a human mind in this music, with something very profound and moving to say. I do not hear this in Xenakis or Cage.  I'm sorry if my opinion frustrates any of you but you'll just have to deal with the fact that I've been avidly listening to music for years, and have come to this conclusion after very careful thought, and after having expanded what I listen to gradually over time.

[thierry13]

So ...  if you don't like Xenaxis' music you're ignorant and stupid.
If you don't like Debussy, or if you're Saint-Saëns, 'close-minded' will suffice.

Thank you for the enlightenment.

You miss the point completly too ... it's like if I told you I won't eat this apple because the tree it came from had a strange form ... compltely stupid and biased refusal. Somebody who DOES know something about Xenakis, and does understand it, and says he doesn't like his works can say it and get away with it. Derek said many, MANY things that proved his ignorance on the topic and gave pointless argument on why he didn't like it. Saint-saens lived 100 years ago, that was my point, hello there. The fact is that Derek looks for the same thing in Scriabin Debussy Ravel and XENAKIS, who is compltely different and retought music, much more so than Debussy or Ravel. It's like, dude, compare apples with apples, not oranges. Do not put every organized sound in the same bag and judge it all with your view on "music". It's like going at Cuba to ski and then saying Cuba is the worse piece of crap country ever because there is no mountain. Or going to Alaska to get some sun, go to the beach and do some surf. You're just not looking for the good thing in it. You must listen to it with a totally different, non-subjective ear. Now, one's ignorance is not bad in itself, but backing stupid opinions with this very same ignorance IS wrong.

[cygnusdei]

Somebody who DOES know something about Xenakis, and does understand it, and says he doesn't like his works can say it and get away with it.

You mean I have to go through all this trouble before I can call someone stupid and ignorant? Ah forget it...

[thierry13]

You mean I have to go through all this trouble before I can call someone stupid and ignorant? Ah forget it...

You do not really think before posting, do you ? ... by calling someone stupid and ignorant, I assume you are talking about Derek. NOW, the quote you used refers to Xenakis' music, making your post completly irrelevant. Anyways, YES you have to go trough all the trouble of understanding Xenakis' music if you want to JUDGE it. The fact is that Derek OBVIOUSLY does not know a SINGLE thing about it (proving he thinks things that are in fact contrary to the reality in his post), AND he still judges it. And if he someday understands it, he may even like it! If not, too bad for him, but I mean he's not going to have a stupid opinion anymore anyways.

[cygnusdei]

Let me clarify. I thought you had compiled a list of adjectives for people who don't like certain composers' work. That's great because I would want to use appropriate ones as well, mostly to make me look smart! But now it turns out that I'd have to figure out whether the person understand the music. Boy - that's too much work for me. Sorry.

[thierry13]

Let me clarify. I thought you had compiled a list of adjectives for people who don't like certain composers' work. That's great because I would want to use appropriate ones as well, mostly to make me look smart! But now it turns out that I'd have to figure out whether the person understand the music. Boy - that's too much work for me. Sorry.

You are arrogant for the sake of arrogance and every reply you did was ironic and insignificant. It is obvious Derek does not know what he's talking about and I did not need any work to see that. Anyways, you can't get everything without any work, can't you?

[cygnusdei]

Thank you.

[pianowolfi]

All this is quite pointless after all. Enjoy what you like and let others enjoy what they like. Listen, stay open. 

[Derek]

All this is quite pointless after all. Enjoy what you like and let others enjoy what they like. Listen, stay open. 

Yes, it is pointless, especially because nobody bothers to read my posts. The moment that these guys figure out someone doesn't like Xenakis, they make a quick judgment of the person.  However in my case, I have in fact thought carefully about what I like and don't like, and I happen to very much dislike music that was not created intuitively by a human searching for something expressive and beautiful. From what I presently understand, even though Cage and Xenakis obviously use their brains to organize their scores and instructions and so forth, they introduce such a large element of non-human musical decision making that their music becomes very boring.

[retrouvailles]

From what I presently understand, even though Cage and Xenakis obviously use their brains to organize their scores and instructions and so forth, they introduce such a large element of non-human musical decision making that their music becomes very boring.

Their music is not boring because of "non-human musical decision". I don't know how you drew the connection that only "human musical decision" can yield a non boring result. I happen to find both of their music very entertaining. Not all of it though. It's quite possible that the part of their works that you have heard are not their greatest, and are judging them as a whole based on those works that you have heard, which is wrong. You are also quick to bash their music. And also, the amount of human element in music, whatever you perceive it to be or know it to be, should not have an effect on your judge of the quality of music. Xenakis is remembered and will be remembered (contrary to what you think) because of the lasting impression his better works leave on his audience, whatever it may be, and his pioneering work in the field of stochastic music. You don't have to like his music, but you are obligated to respect it.

And why did you even bother mentioning Cage? He has nothing to do with Xenakis. Are you that poorly versed in music of the late 20th century that you throw out the only other name that you know from this time period? If so, go listen to more music from 1950 onward. It will be beneficial to you, for your eyes will finally be opened and you can end this close-minded nonsense.

[Derek]

To quickly answer your question about the connection I made between Cage and Xenakis, it seems to me they each used some method to compose that did not involve their own intuitive striving for beauty, but introduced either chance, or an arbitrary application of mathematics, to produce their music, neither of which has ever successfully generated (for my ears) music worth listening to.

(responding to several like-minded posts): I find the implication that more education is required in order to form an opinion about Xenakis' music (or anyone else's for that matter) to rather obviously reveal the fact that academics (or their sympathizers) tend to think about music with external and unnecessary theories. "You must be "educated" to understand such and such about music." Since when did a listener have to refer to more than just the sound, and his own reaction to music to form an opinion about it? I don't care how much effort was shoveled into any piece of music...if it is arbitrarily applying mathematics or chance or any other non human musical choice making to create a weird looking score to create an even weirder sounding piece of music which hasn't a trace of true striving for beauty, then the result is invariably stultifying and boring.

I feel no obligation to respect any music, but from what I hear Xenakis himself was a nice guy. 

[mcgillcomposer]

Wow, you have really succeeded in the art of 'anything goes'. Bravo!

[mephisto]

I just want to point out that I've been thinking very hard about these issues for years, I did not blindly commit to these positions.

Years ago, I thought I disliked anything that smacked of 20th century style: Stravinsky, Schonberg, Debussy (sort of), and others. Once I heard Keith Jarrett's improvisations, exceedingly dissonant, dark, and frenetic 20th century style music really grew on me, and now I like it a lot. I love quantum's improvisations, and I am totally sincere about that.  I've listened broadly. Once someone has done that, I think it is fair for them to form their own opinion.

Xenakis bores me. Cage bores me. These men have introduced something other than their own mind into their music.  I LOVE, by contrast, Scriabin, including his late sonatas and much of his other late piano pieces. I hear a very obvious presence of a human mind in this music, with something very profound and moving to say. I do not hear this in Xenakis or Cage.  I'm sorry if my opinion frustrates any of you but you'll just have to deal with the fact that I've been avidly listening to music for years, and have come to this conclusion after very careful thought, and after having expanded what I listen to gradually over time.

You are obviously pretending that you are liking Scriabin's music. You want to be seen as "cool" among your friends who listen to Scriabin and Debussy and such, by pretending to like music wich is nothing but random notes.. Oh, and you're anti-semitic too....

I have been thinking abouit these issues for years.

[Derek]

You are obviously pretending that you are liking Scriabin's music. You want to be seen as "cool" among your friends who listen to Scriabin and Debussy and such, by pretending to like music wich is nothing but random notes.. Oh, and you're anti-semitic too....

I have been thinking abouit these issues for years.

Yeah, I'm just pretending I like Scriabin's music. I work so hard at convincing people I like it, that I have even hung a poster of Scriabin above my piano. I've even fooled my fiancée that I like it, by putting his music on my wish lists and listening to it frequently. Pretty good, huh?  ... 

[retrouvailles]

I think it's safe to say that Derek is an irrational character in general. We should just let this thread be and stop senselessly arguing. We already know what we need to know about certain people.

[mephisto]

Yeah, I'm just pretending I like Scriabin's music. I work so hard at convincing people I like it, that I have even hung a poster of Scriabin above my piano. I've even fooled my fiancée that I like it, by putting his music on my wish lists and listening to it frequently. Pretty good, huh?  ... 

I knew it!