Xenakis Piano Concerto "Synaphai"

[counterpoint]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Wanna take this outside so we can settle this like men?

If you could hear yourself...   *shaking the head*

[ahinton]

Perhaps the two of you might care to "take this outside" and resolve it in whatever ways you might choose, while leaving the actual discussion to continue here undeterred by any potential or actual infighting by forum members seemingly more intent thereon than in contributing to the subject matter of the dicussion; I hope that this suggestion is deemed to be both OK in itself and neither compromising nor suggestive of the authority of the forum's moderator...

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

If you could hear yourself...   *shaking the head*

Why come into this thread if you have nothing pertinent to say? Did you just come in to insult me? You should just stay out unless you have something intelligent to say. Now before you say that I haven't said anything intelligent, remember that I have had more usernames than this one.

[ahinton]

Why come into this thread if you have nothing pertinent to say? Did you just come in to insult me? You should just stay out unless you have something intelligent to say. Now before you say that I haven't said anything intelligent, remember that I have had more usernames than this one.

There is evidently now something of a "counterpoint" going on in this thread and perhaps it therefore behoves one of us here to "find it again" and identify it before the thread itself can resume and progress towards some conclusive arguments...

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

Well, I will end this nonsense and will await Derek's reply.

[ahinton]

Well, I will end this nonsense and will await Derek's reply.

Fine; let's just do exactly that and see what he may have to say.

Best,

Alistair

[emill]

hi! .. feels warm in here....

I may have an advantage over most of you in the sense that I am
a total ignoramus to the norms, elements and structure of music, whether
"modern" or otherwise.  In that sense I am not shackled by rules, standards
and tradition.  My appreciation is more dictated by how the music affects
my mood in general.

Now to Synaphai by Xenakis - - - I LIKED IT !!!! 
With eyes closed it took me to sci-fi scenarios with a very sinister plot.
It has an approach which many will consider as noise; but for me it
builds up the mood.  Oh well, that's just me.

[Derek]

I really don't have much else to say, except that the vast responses to my pointing out that the vast majority of people, myself included, find this sort of music repulsive, are proof that there is a great amount of indulgence in intellectualism going on for it's own sake. Yeah, I agree there's an intellectualism behind Bach's and Chopin's music to a degree, but to me it is truly genuine intellectualism, in that the basis for everything they made sounded good without throwing something artificial into it. When these modern guys create music just to thwart the old rules or just to make something as hideous as possible, and then pass it off as a genuine work of art...I don't know. I don't even care. The din of justification of Xenakis's even more hideous din proves my point I think. Nobody writes reams of justification about Chopin. His music just IS good.

I used to dislike all modern, atonal, dissonant music. I've warmed up to some of it (and write it, often). I enjoy Charles Ives, Keith Jarrett, Stravinsky, Quantum (heh)... it isn't the dissonance. It's more where I draw the line.  I guess it may be unreasonable of me to suggest that others couldn't draw the line even further from tonality than I have, at Xenakis.  But every time I listen I just think: there's nothing for the brain to grab onto here, at all. Maybe that is my failing, I don't know.

I'd like to repeat that yes, I do in fact find that making sounds which strike me as similar to Xenakis, Schoenberg, and others, is remarkably easy compared to writing a really good melody using a 7 tone scale (or perhaps a really good melody using something more dissonant, like polytonality, or pantonality, or whatever else---though I never think about these terms actively when I am writing).  Perhaps if someone were to hear my atonal music they might say: oh you're doing it all wrong, THIS retrograde inversion of your tone row would have sounded JUST RIGHT!,  but somehow......I sincerely doubt it.

[retrouvailles]

This isn't musical intellectualism, whatever you mean by that. Those of us that do like Xenakis like it for far different reasons than one would like, say, Chopin. I can't say that all people have a true justification for liking his music, but I like it because of the atmosphere that it presents to the listener, which is often a turbulent one that many other composers cannot reproduce. I am not listening for some nice, flowing melody because that is not how you listen to all music. For music like Xenakis, the best way to listen to it is to just listen to it, discard all your views about disliking dissonance, and see what jumps out at you (emotion-wise or atmosphere-wise). For some people, they really like it because of what they can find in it. For others, it just doesn't work.

One reason why "modern, atonal, and dissonant" music came about, in my mind, is that composers wanted to find a way to more accurately describe or convey certain emotions. For example, I will always find Penderecki's St. Luke Passion more emotional and "truer to the text" than, say, Bach's St. Matthew Passion simply because the types of dissonances used in the piece reach out to one's emotions more intensely than Bach did (both are amazing masterpieces in my book, though). Xenakis had a similar motive for writing the way he did. And no, it isn't necessarily easier or harder to write something like that. Writing a "beautiful melody with a 7 tone scale" has its own difficulties and writing an extremely dissonant stochastic piece has its own difficulties. There is much more to composing this piece beyond making some violins screech and writing tone clusters in this piece by Xenakis, but you wouldn't know because I take it that you haven't studied stochastic composition or Xenakis's music in depth.

Right now, people look at Xenakis's music at sometimes call it trash. We are simply not used to this style of composition because it is drastically different than most things we have heard before (including Ives, Jarrett, Stravinsky, et al). People thought the same about music 75 years ago that was drastically different than anything of the time. For example, people thought Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was trash and riots ensued. Nowadays, people think it is a masterpiece and a true work of art. In 75 years, people will hopefully think that Xenakis's music is a masterpiece and it won't be "hated on" as much. The way I see it, Derek, you're just another rioting audience member in this concert hall we call the 'Xenakis Piano Concerto "Synaphai"' thread. You probably just have the wrong image of his music.

Sorry for ranting, but I have a lot to say on this matter.

Also, random and curious question. How much training have you had as a composer?

-------------------------------------------------

Now to Synaphai by Xenakis - - - I LIKED IT !!!! 
With eyes closed it took me to sci-fi scenarios with a very sinister plot.
It has an approach which many will consider as noise; but for me it
builds up the mood.  Oh well, that's just me.

That is a good description of it. I think that is the way people should think of it: with closed eyes and an open mind full of imagination. That is the way I have come to enjoy a lot of music that many others would find repulsive.

[pies]

a

[ahinton]

I really don't have much else to say,

Sadly that does indeed appear to be the case, from the evidence of what follows, much of which reveals that your entrenchments and obstinacy might be the envy of the average Christian fundamentalist. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, as it is not meant to, as I do realise that it should not be left to stand without justification as to why I say so - which I will now endeavour to give. In what you write, you ignore and/or decline to respond to most of the points made to you and the questions asked of you, preferring instead to repeat your apparent beliefs like a mantra. Let's have a look at what you write now on the subject - and please note that I am wholly prepared to take on board all that you write and then respond to it rather than be conveniently selective about it.

except that the vast responses to my pointing out that the vast majority of people, myself included, find this sort of music repulsive, are proof that there is a great amount of indulgence in intellectualism going on for it's own sake.

I defy you to prove that over-indulgence in any kind of intellectualism is the sole or even principal reason behind most people's dislike of Xenakis's music. Most untrained listeners would not be made aware of any intellectualism in his music merely by listening to it. You write of intellectualism "going on for its own sake", which appears to suggest that you believe that Xenakis worked in such a way as to produce pieces to which the only conceivable and intended response was an intellectual one; I can assure you that any such notion would have been more repulsive to Xenakis than his music is repulsive to you. Who, in any case, is to determine - and how and by what standards - that any intellectual thrust behind a piece of music is or is not "going on for its own sake"? - i.e. that in Die Kunst der Fuge it's acceptably inherent whereas in Synaphai it is not; you clearly draw this distinction, yet you omit to tell us by what means you arrive at such a conclusion.

This problem leads us to another issue on which you lightly touch but which you then conveniently avoid - and that is the motivations of the composer. You have written of composers deliberately making music outrageously dissonant as though they do so just to be different or draw attention to that difference; should one assume from that and other similar comments you make that the integrity that I ascribe to Xenakis is something that you would wholeheartedly deny? If so, I would ask again on what specific grounds you would do so.

Yeah, I agree there's an intellectualism behind Bach's and Chopin's music to a degree, but to me it is truly genuine intellectualism, in that the basis for everything they made sounded good without throwing something artificial into it. When these modern guys create music just to thwart the old rules or just to make something as hideous as possible, and then pass it off as a genuine work of art...I don't know. I don't even care. The din of justification of Xenakis's even more hideous din proves my point I think. Nobody writes reams of justification about Chopin. His music just IS good.

"To a degree"?! Are you serious? Again, one does not think immediately or primarily about intellectual disciplines when listening to Bach, Xenakis or Chopin, but just look at what went on in those composers' workshops! Chopin's remarkably early maturity didn't preclude him from making an in-depth study of counterpoint and older music towards the end of his life; Schubert did the same thing, actually - and the music of both composers broadened and deepened as a consequence. I neither know nor care to whom you refer with your vague term "these modern guys", but your stuff about overthrowing rules and making things hideous for the sake of so doing simply does not stand up. Even Xenakis, whose work perhaps has the least obvious connections with the past of any composer in history, did not seek the overthrow of Brahms or the breaking of past "rules" so much as the making of rules that would help him write in the way that he wanted to write. Would you have composers all writing tonal, melodic music along mainly 19th century lines under a belief that deliberately to go against such an aim is to "overthrow rules" and create" hideous din"? In other words, are you genuinely seeking the expressive stagnation of Western music? No one writes "reams of justification" about Xenakis either, although much has indeed been written about the compositional processes and working methods of both Xenakis and Chopin, which is not necessarily the same thing at all.

I used to dislike all modern, atonal, dissonant music. I've warmed up to some of it (and write it, often). I enjoy Charles Ives, Keith Jarrett, Stravinsky,

Excuse me? This is bordering on the risible! Most of the music of those three is tonal! Atonality is usually relative. So is dissonance. All depends to a large extent upon the experiences of the listener and the extent of his/her familiarity with what they are listening to at any given time. I can remember listening to a Mozart piano concerto for the first time when I was about 15 and reacting in a way broadly similar to the "funny modern music" reaction that we've all observed in people; this was because I was wholly unfamiliar with that kind of writing and it sounded strange to me after a diet of music in which the oldest had been the ninth symphony of Mahler...

it isn't the dissonance. It's more where I draw the line.  I guess it may be unreasonable of me to suggest that others couldn't draw the line even further from tonality than I have, at Xenakis.

With momentary sanity comes generosity of spirit, fortunately...

But every time I listen I just think: there's nothing for the brain to grab onto here, at all. Maybe that is my failing, I don't know.

Well, I am pleased that at least you DO listen, that you do occasionally think and that you are also prepared to consider the possibility that your reactions may in part be due to a failure of your brain to engage. No one is expecting you necessarily to want to listen to the music of Xenakis - it's certainly not for everyone, but then nor is that of Mozart! All I would ask is that, when you do listen to Xenakis's music, you approach it with no prior prejudices and simply ask yourself afterwards (a) what effect does this music have on me? and (b) what motivated the composer to express his thoughts in this particular way?

I'd like to repeat that yes, I do in fact find that making sounds which strike me as similar to Xenakis, Schoenberg, and others, is remarkably easy compared to writing a really good melody using a 7 tone scale (or perhaps a really good melody using something more dissonant, like polytonality, or pantonality, or whatever else---though I never think about these terms actively when I am writing).

The very fact of your citing Xenakis and Schönberg in juxtaposition reveals the sheer paucity of your thoughts on the music of the past century or so. These two composers were just SO different from one another! - the one embarking on a new and unusual journey almost right from day one and the other heavily steeped European compositional traditions (not for nothing is Brahms the Progressive by far the largest chapter in Schönberg's book Style and Idea). Did not Schönberg demonstrate amply his ability both to write long, sweeping tonal melodies and to take Lisztian thematic/motivic transformational processes and Brahmsian form developments to a hitherto unprecedented degree? Do you suppose that Schönberg would have been able, let alone motivated, to develop his system of compsoing using twelve tones (etc.) had he not first been steeped in the traditions of Western tonal music? And what do you make of his composing his Chamber Symphony No. 2 in E flat minor AFTER establishing that system?

If you think that writing "like" Xenakis or Schönberg is comparatively "easy" (not that there'd be any reason to do so other than as some kind of exercise), why was it so hard even for Xenakis and Schönberg?! And why do you bang on so incessantly and insistently about "melody" when it is but one of the constituent parts of music (albeit one of vital and immense importance)? Likewise, what's with this obsession with major and minor scales? - these established themselves over many decades from a time when they were but two of a entire series of modes, so should one assume your trenchant adherence to the notion of the superiority of major and minor modes as indicative that you frown upon medieval and Renaissance music just as much as some "modern" music just because they do not prioritise thes modes?

One of your problems here is evidently that of what you deem to be acceptable and unacceptable musical language; another, which is closely connected to it, appears to be that of what does and does not constitute acceptable musical expression. Here are some questions arsing from this.

Has it not occurred to you that the new linguistic departures over the past 100 years or so have never overthrown, or sought to overthrow, those that have gone before?

Can you cite any composer in the past 100 years who has genuinely and deliberately sought to compose music specifically to replace, rather than enhance, our library of available music?

Have you thought about the rise of equal temperament around 300 years ago which, whilst arguably not quite as different from what had gone before as Schönberg's "system" was from Brahms, say, actually did come eventually to "replace" what had gone before, in that it became the standard for Western music for many years thereafter?

On the subject of intellectualism, have you ever made an in-depth study of 16th century counterpoint? - if so, you will surely be all too well aware of the immense intellectual disciplines involved in such writing and would accordingly accept that these are in some sense analogous to the discplines in Schönberg's serial procedures.

As to dissonance, what of the grinding dissonance towads the close of Chopin's Scerzo No. 1 in B minor? - a chord containing E#s, F#s and Gs that, not content with pounding it out fortissimo, the composer then repeats eight times just to hammer it home.

And what of the passages in Tristan und Isolde and, before that, many instances in Chopin from his early piano trio onwards, that threaten not to undermine tonality altogether but certainly to destabilise it?

Are these and other things not all part of an ever-expanding expressive language?

Perhaps if someone were to hear my atonal music they might say: oh you're doing it all wrong, THIS retrograde inversion of your tone row would have sounded JUST RIGHT!,  but somehow......I sincerely doubt it.

I doubt it, too. I've never heard any of your music, so I could not make any comment in any case. As you are referring specifically to 12-note serialism here (and that is but one of countless compositional disciplines and procedures that have been followed in the music of the past century or so), Schönberg himself regarded this kind of thing as a means to an end rather than an end in itself, which is how you should also regard it; indeed, were you to regard not only his "methods of composing" but those of all other composers - including "these modern guys" (whoever they are - and are there no gals as well?) as means to an end rather than ends in themslves, you might start to get somewhere and develop your judgemental faculties sensibly.

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

A simple thumbs up/down vote would settle this argument.

[ahinton]

A simple thumbs up/down vote would settle this argument.

That's just what it wouldn't do. "This argument" appears to centre on one person's contentions about Xenakis in particular and many other contemporary and recent composers in general, so it is not amenable to any kind of black-and-white, yes-or-no resolution. Derek has made numerous statements which he does little or nothing to explain or justify; several points and questions have consequently been put to him, to most of which he has yet to respond, so let's consider his responses if, as and when he makes them.

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

I think he realizes the stupidity of his statements and no longer wishes to make a fool of himself, which is a smart decision if you ask me.

That would be entirely uncharacteristic of him.  I also find it depressing he calls his emotional, uneducated tirades "debating", as if he is furthering some philosophical quest for the ultimate truth on Xenakis' works, when of course there isn't one, because it falls to preference, the preference he cries on pleadingly for as if he's some martyr Malcolm-X for the right to hate all music dissonant, but then bashes anyone who does like it.  He also seems to be under the dellusion that the only reason anyone would listen to a piece of music is to experience some smoozy, romantic swoon that Liszt or Chopin elicits.


Which I find entirely hypocritical and self-serving, considering he made a thread entitled "What's your favorite Death Metal song?"

[ahinton]

I also find it depressing he calls his emotional, uneducated tirades "debating",

Uneducated, apparently, but "emotional"? That would give the word a bad name!

as if he is furthering some philosophical quest for the ultimate truth on Xenakis' works, when of course there isn't one, because it falls to preference, the preference he cries on pleadingly for as if he's some martyr Malcolm-X for the right to hate all music dissonant, but then bashes anyone who does like it.

Unfortunate use of "X" here, methinks! He doesn't seem to be on any quest for anything, as far as I can tell and he certainly seems so far to prefer to dispense his own perceived truths than take on board and respond to the remarks that others have made about his writings.

He also seems to be under the dellusion that the only reason anyone would listen to a piece of music is to experience some smoozy, romantic swoon that Liszt or Chopin elicits.

Except, of course, that these composers do far more than that, as I'm sure you appreciate.

Which I find entirely hypocritical and self-serving, considering he made a thread entitled "What's your favorite Death Metal song?"

Indeed! - but then it would still come across to me that way even if he hadn't started any such thread, frankly...

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

Don't need calculus to appreciate this one; you either like it or not.

Sounds like the original poster would appreciate a thumbs up/down vote.

[retrouvailles]

Sounds like the original poster would appreciate a thumbs up/down vote.

I don't think so. I think he very well knew what he was getting himself into because he knows how the majority of this forum is when it comes to this type of music.

[mephisto]

But why is this in the audition room when the original poster can't play the piano?

[indutrial]

Why does it matter where the thread is?  The current resurgence of posts is like a separate entity within the post. Isn't there a huge date gap somewhere?

[cygnusdei]

bump

let the argument continue 

It's all Pies' fault.

But seriously, I'm contemplating putting up a thumbs up/down poll, if Soliloquy lets me. The point being that while appraising a musical work based on merit may not be feasible due to the subjective nature of music appreciation, objective appraisal of popularity is most certainly feasible. As he puts it, either you like or not. Plus, the results will put the preceeding discussion into proper perspective ......

[retrouvailles]

I think we shouldn't get off topic right now. We are eagerly awaiting Derek's response to our comments. We want to bring closure to that issue before we move on to something else.

And besides, we all know how a thumbs up/thumbs down poll will end up, so it would be pointless.

As he puts it, either you like or not.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple.

[planete]

Newbie here. Came across this thread.  Downloaded the music from curiosity.  Read some of the posts.  If this goes to a poll, I like this piece of music.  I am a sixty year old housewife, like Beethoven,etc.. Your arguments are way above my head and I would not dare enter the argument, but I definitely like the inventiveness and unpredictability of such music.  For me, it is exciting and challenging.  
This is my first post on this forum.  I hope your first impression of me is not going to be that I am subnormal or deranged!

[Derek]

So, I have an interesting question to add to this debate. Let's cut out all the intellectualism for a little bit.

What's your favorite part of this piece? I'd like...at least 5 people to tell me a precise time in minutes:seconds which part of this piece is your favorite and why. Maybe I'll learn something.

[cygnusdei]

So, I have an interesting question to add to this debate. Let's cut out all the intellectualism for a little bit.

What's your favorite part of this piece? I'd like...at least 5 people to tell me a precise time in minutes:seconds which part of this piece is your favorite and why. Maybe I'll learn something.

My favorite passage is 16:24 to the end.

[retrouvailles]

So, I have an interesting question to add to this debate. Let's cut out all the intellectualism for a little bit.

What's your favorite part of this piece? I'd like...at least 5 people to tell me a precise time in minutes:seconds which part of this piece is your favorite and why. Maybe I'll learn something.

My favorite part of the piece is from around 9:55 to 10:50. The intensity of the piece builds starting when the strings and brass are cut off to signal the start the cadenza. Chords in all registers of the piano further build up a to a climax, and then a short caesura, which adds to the suspense and tension that had built up. After this, all energy seems to be released through the piano and the cadenza ends. This part is really enjoyable to me because it is where I feel you can feel the most tension and drama in the piece.

You should return to the other responses sometime. Once you've had enough "favorite parts" responses.

My favorite passage is 16:24 to the end.

Very funny. Please provide a serious response or just stay out of this thread if you have nothing of value to say.

[counterpoint]

I just want to make clear, that I do not disagree with Derek's arguments (except the one with the difficulty of composing). Of course Xenakis' Synaphai fits wonderful as a noise track to a science fiction or horror film, but it isn't what I understand as "music" either. For me at least one of the following phenomena is required to label it as "music": 

- rhythm

- sort of melodic line (tonal or atonal)

- harmony (may be dissonant of course)

[pies]

a

[cygnusdei]

Very funny. Please provide a serious response or just stay out of this thread if you have nothing of value to say.

So you admit that my response has comedic value. Thank you!

[indutrial]

- rhythm
- sort of melodic line (tonal or atonal)
- harmony (may be dissonant of course)

I've seen the score for Synaphai and it does include rhythm in it's notation. The rhythm is difficult as hell and very intricate, but it's still there. For all the definition that an abstract concept like melody can be granted in textbooks and by virtue of examples from songs and pieces geared towards melodically-used instruments (violin, flute, etc...), it is absolutely not necessary for music. A large portion of cinema music, minimalism (whether one likes it or not), and electronic genres is based on music that focuses strongly on rhythmic ideas and orchestrated textures. A piece like Steve Reich's "Nagoya Marimbas" functions pretty well without having a melody that can be differentiated easily from the piece as a whole. If harmony's allowed to be dissonant, than where is the line drawn?

Whether a piece appears to fitwell as a soundtrack piece for a sci fi movie or as any form of incidental music does not say much to describe anything about the piece's musical value and sounds like just another form of genrefication-based typecasting. If this only sounds like noise to you, than your standards are too rigid and you might just be putting your musical sensibilities in a box and taping it shut.

It's okay to not like this piece, but to say it's not music is far from convincing.

[retrouvailles]

So you admit that my response has comedic value. Thank you!

No, I don't. I admit however that it has "smart ass" value and not comedic value. The "very funny" that began my post was a remark of sarcasm rather than enjoyment. Now leave the thread. You have not contributed anything useful to the thread, which is in dire need of something useful. I (and the others who have contributed useful information) have enough to contend with here.

[counterpoint]

I (and the others who have contributed useful information) have enough to contend with here.

I'm searching for "useful information" in this thread, but I can't find it.

[Derek]

I'm still waiting for those other 3 people to tell me what their favorite part of the piece is...! And it has to be different. Remember to include why... why did it move you, why did you find it beautiful? 

I found retrouvailles post about which part of the piece he liked useful, this will help me find nuggets of beauty in the piece that I perhaps missed the first few times I listened.

[retrouvailles]

I'm searching for "useful information" in this thread, but I can't find it.

Well, if everything in this thread is useless, your posts are definitely the most useless. You have done nothing in this thread but distract the "less useless contributors" from the topic at hand, however useless you claim it is.

I'm still waiting for those other 3 people to tell me what their favorite part of the piece is...! And it has to be different. Remember to include why... why did it move you, why did you find it beautiful?

Why should it be different? Perhaps people have the same favorite part in this piece. Or is it just a ploy to prove that this piece is hard to prove as "music" or "beautiful"? It shouldn't take this much discussion to prove to a truly open minded person that this piece is not a piece of trash and does have some musical value worth noting and respecting, no matter how much they dislike it.

[mephisto]

I'm still waiting for those other 3 people to tell me what their favorite part of the piece is...! And it has to be different. Remember to include why... why did it move you, why did you find it beautiful? 

I found retrouvailles post about which part of the piece he liked useful, this will help me find nuggets of beauty in the piece that I perhaps missed the first few times I listened.

Probably the very begining. It puts me in the same kind of emotional modus as I get when reading a novel by Hamsun - especially "Sult", "Hunger" in english.

Also the solo piano part from 5.00-5.05 amazing to me ( I am now refering to the youtube version).

[cygnusdei]

It shouldn't take this much discussion to prove to a truly open minded person that this piece is not a piece of trash and does have some musical value worth noting and respecting, no matter how much they dislike it.

It's funny (note sarcasm) how a person who values open-mindedness should be so quick to deem other people's opinion worthless. And it's laughable how you, out of nowhere, assumes the authority to ban people from this thread. I have lost respect for you. Please don't bother replying because to me you are now invisible.

[retrouvailles]

It's funny (note sarcasm) how a person who values open-mindedness should be so quick to deem other people's opinion worthless. And it's laughable how you, out of nowhere, assumes the authority to ban people from this thread. I have lost respect for you. Please don't bother replying because to me you are now invisible.

It was easy to deem your opinion as worthless because you said that the last few seconds of the track, which were completely silent, were your favorite part of the piece, when there clearly was nothing there and the piece had already ended. And I never assumed authority to ban people from the thread. I was telling you to leave simply because you weren't taking this matter seriously. It just shows how open-minded you are, when you would indirectly bash a piece like this without any justification for what you have said. When I told you to leave the thread, I at least justified the reason for what I said. It's much more than what you have done. And you can keep the respect. I don't go seeking respect from people and i couldn't care less if people respected me or not. I know you will read this, even though you said you wouldn't, so I'm posting anyways. You may not reply, but you will at least get the message and know the method behind my madness.

--------------------------------------------------------

cygnusdei      01:05:43 PM     Viewing the topic Xenakis Piano Concerto "Synaphai".

See? I was right. I knew you would at least look at this post. Let's see if you can go one step further and reply to it.

[Derek]

You know what I think? I think everyone in this thread has been listening to Xenakis a little bit too much---it would explain all the anger! 

I can see that the virtuosity of this piece is impressive, certainly. Both that Xenakis took the time to notate such complex rhythms and orchestrations, and the performance of the players. It definitely has a "wow" factor. If that's what you're all listening for I can't really argue with that.

The reason I ask for favorite parts of the piece is that, this would indicate that without any extraneous notions or prejudices (such as feeling superior for liking something obscure and inaccessible to the general public), the piece has moved some people on its own as it were.

By the way, I agree it would be an excellent soundtrack for a horror movie.

[ahinton]

You know what I think? I think everyone in this thread has been listening to Xenakis a little bit too much---it would explain all the anger! 

No, it wouldn't - because I, for one, am not angry, nor have I been so at any point while responding in this thread.

Why don't you answer the points and questions put to you, Derek?

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

I think it might just be the strings I hate. I love the following piece... (I'm well aware it is not Xenakis...so shoot me for not staying on topic)

Corigliano

[ahinton]

I think it might just be the strings I hate. I love the following piece... (I'm well aware it is not Xenakis...so shoot me for not staying on topic)

Corigliano

No, Derek, we won't give you that satisfaction; we'll merely NOTE that you have deliberately moved away from the topic while we also observe that you continue to avoid responding to those remarks that have been put to you...

Best,

Alistair

[m1469]

...so shoot me for not staying on topic

*cleans gun*

[retrouvailles]

I think it might just be the strings I hate. I love the following piece... (I'm well aware it is not Xenakis...so shoot me for not staying on topic)

Corigliano

I love this piece too, but it isn't in any way similar to Xenakis. Corigliano is basically just an extension of Barber to me. Xenakis is in his own little world, one could say. And it is a lot easier to like Corigliano than Xenakis as well. Why would you mention it in this thread? It seems a bit random.

[soliloquy]

I love this piece too, but it isn't in any way similar to Xenakis. Corigliano is basically just an extension of Barber to me. Xenakis is in his own little world, one could say. And it is a lot easier to like Corigliano than Xenakis as well. Why would you mention it in this thread? It seems a bit random.

To derek and his kind, there is no distinction between Corigliano or Xenakis.


Or Finnissy and Boulez.


Or Murail and Stockhausen.


That is why this conversation is pointless.  I wish I had the patience to avoid getting into BS wars like this, but unfortunately I did not at the time all of this started, and I probably don't now, but we'll see if I can keep cool just a bit longer this time




And just to humor you, derek, my favorite part is the Cadenza at approx. 9 min.

[Derek]

I'm writing this post to apologize. Music can't hurt anyone, no matter how dissonant or loud it is. I should know that from liking death metal (as soliloquy pointed out, hypocrisy on my part). I don't care if any of you like Xenakis. I'd rather keep the respect of people on this website as a positive contributor (in general). So I hope you'll accept my apology for my childish behavior. I'm going to restrict my posts to modifications of the Improvisations thread and posts of my music from now on (since that's the only thing I really know anything about piano wise), and the occasional liberal politics bashing in the anything but piano forum.  But musical taste doesn't matter, and cannot matter, morally. So why crusade against it.

Sincerely,
-Derek Andrews.

p.s. I do genuinely enjoy Corigliano's piece, to me it is far, far more enjoyable than Xenakis. I'm not sure why. I think I just dislike strings. In fact, I recall hearing a symphony by Tchaikovsky (I forget the number), which, though tonal, I found almost as overbearing as the Xenakis piece.

[pies]

I expect the next 5 pages to be a debate over the sincerity of the apology.

[retrouvailles]

Well, i don't know about you, but I accept the apology. Strings can be an annoying thing for anyone, and they more than deliver in this Xenakis piece. I have faith that there is a Xenakis piece out there that Derek might enjoy (one without as many strings [or any at all]). He does have a background in death metal, so there is a chance for him. As a matter of fact, I would venture to guess that if Synaphai somehow didn't have strings, he would like the piece.

[emill]

Newbie here. Came across this thread.  Downloaded the music from curiosity.  Read some of the posts.  If this goes to a poll, I like this piece of music.  I am a sixty year old housewife, like Beethoven,etc.. Your arguments are way above my head and I would not dare enter the argument, but I definitely like the inventiveness and unpredictability of such music.  For me, it is exciting and challenging.  
This is my first post on this forum.  I hope your first impression of me is not going to be that I am subnormal or deranged!

our warmest welcome goes to planete !![/b]

In the heat of the interesting exchange of opinions, some here may seem to have become rude.  Let me assure you that the people who habitate pianostreet are real and nice people.  Its just that sometimes they become very passionate with their art and their views ... and these leads to some sort of interminable discussions!!

[retrouvailles]

Well, I can assure everyone that my rudeness in this thread was all in the spirit of standing firm in my views and passions and that I didn't mean to offend anyone personally. I consider topics like these a very sensitive issue, especially when the opinions presented by people cannot be substantiated with valid evidence and especially when people take this type of thing lightly.

[emill]

Just a small clarification ...

It is "customary" in many sites to welcome the new member upon their 1st post.
I was just wondering if she felt "snobbed"?   Nobody's fault really, especially considering the heated exchange.  That was the "rudeness" that I meant ... the possible "snob" due to the lack of "welcome" from us; not really referring to anyone in particular.

Thanks.... 

edit:  reading again what I earlier posted .... I could really be misunderstood.
         What i meant was this clarification, not what the earlier post seemed to convey.

[ahinton]

I expect the next 5 pages to be a debate over the sincerity of the apology.

I don't - although I cannot predict what may happen here, of course; I accept it, too, but would nevertheless appreciate it better were he to flesh it out by answering the perfectly reasonable points and questions put to him during the course of his contributions to this thread rather than merely run away with his ball to play another game elsewhere...

Best,

Alistair