Xenakis Piano Concerto "Synaphai"

[retrouvailles]

Someone, please tell me: what are we arguing about again?

[indutrial]

Would it be correct to make a distinction between atonal (i.e. without tonal center) and nontonal (i.e. pitch-independent) ?

All sounds have pitches, including sounds that can't easily be deciphered by the ear and certainly plenty that might not be possible to notate within music's notation system. With things like electronic tape and synths, I've seen a few pieces that don't use any tones and instead specify methods to be used on whatever electronic devices are requisite to the composition (some Stockhausen works of which I don't recall the titles...maybe Kontackt). In that sense, the composition is "non-tonal" but the sounds created will, to even a slight extent, have tonal qualities...just not intended ones. Atonal is just as you defined it - tones with no hierarchy, although if you do a pitch-class analysis of an atonal work, you might discover traces of a hierarchy, which gravitates you towards a "free tonal" approach.

There are varying degrees:

Atonal - Free Tonal - Defined Polytonal - Defined Tonal

There's no good or bad across such a spectrum, and a lot of the ideas that distinguish these different tonalities are sketchy at best. Any piece that utilizes chromatic shifts and key changes is "suspect" according to a strictly tonal viewpoint.

In the twentieth century, avant-garde (if we must dub them as such) composers went in all kinds of directions. While guys like Xenakis and Carter produced works that are about as atonal as it gets, Giacinto Scelsi was being considered avant-garde for writing pieces that explored single tones (!!) like his later string quartets. Yet that's considered edgy in its own right.

I would call a lot of works "relaxed tonal" in that they might sound tonal, yet at a turn they might go atonal. I think that, with most good composers these days, the dividing line is blurred. Take a composer like Gorecki, whose work ranges from the ostensibly atonal stuff he wrote in his earlier years (like his Sonata for two violins) to the minimalist spiritual simplicity of his Third Symphony (which is almost all in distinct major or minor keys). I would guess that most relevant composers nowadays really don't give a crap about arguments surrounding the pros and cons of tonality and atonality. It's inevitable that the lingo of describing artistic phenomena generally lags behind the changes wrought in artistic productivity, so maybe it's safe to say we shouldn't be gauging music in terms of tonality (or atonality).

Other relaxed tonal composers I enjoy immensely are Ligeti, Wuorinen, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, and Carter.

[counterpoint]

Someone, please tell me: what are we arguing about again?

If there is any difference between good and bad music.

[indutrial]

If there is any difference between good and bad music.

To which the answer is no. Music's becoming "good" or "bad" simply requires an idiot.

[counterpoint]

To which the answer is no. Music's becoming "good" or "bad" simply requires an idiot.

no???

[retrouvailles]

Perhaps this argument would be deserving of a new topic, perhaps in a part of the forum where it belongs. It might get more attention, rather than just from the same 5 people.

[cygnusdei]

Uh, no...Bartok managed to not be a virtuoso violinist, violist, and cellist simultaneously yet somehow wrote 6 of the most respected string quartet pieces in the entire repertoire. I could list a million other similar examples to show that that idea is nonsense.

Why would it be nonsense? If Bartok had been, as you put it, virtuoso violinist, violist, and cellist simultaneously, wouldn't your respect for him go up several notches?

[kard]

*sidesteps argument...

When the piece started, the wavelike sensation produced by the strings was awesome, and I was wondering "I wonder how he's gonna continue working this in?"
...but its like...endless. like being lost in a desert. I've heard ravel create a similar effect in his String quartet in F and Tzigane and although used sparingly, it really added something. But this is almost painful lol...IMHO.

[ahinton]

Uh, no...Bartok managed to not be a virtuoso violinist, violist, and cellist simultaneously yet somehow wrote 6 of the most respected string quartet pieces in the entire repertoire. I could list a million other similar examples to show that that idea is nonsense.

To be fair to "cygnusdei", he did write
I'm not sure if that's a fair imposition.

That does not, nor is it intended to, undermine your point, however...

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

Why would it be nonsense? If Bartok had been, as you put it, virtuoso violinist, violist, and cellist simultaneously, wouldn't your respect for him go up several notches?

I would be impressed, yes, but my point remains that a person's virtuosity does not qualify any aspect of his compositional prowess nor does it work the other way. Of course, a composer like Hindemith could write astounding viola pieces because he was a brilliant violist, but he also wrote equally excellent pieces for all of the woodwinds, cello, trumpet, brass quintet, organ, chorus, and the heckelphone (Trio op. 47) without being an adept performer at any of them.

Composers' prowess as performers is not all that important, especially since there are plenty of performers out there who can do the job better and maybe bring more to it than the composer expected. I'm certain that Finnissy's piano works have been strengthened by the fact that stellar performers like Ian Pace and Marilyn Nonken are interpreting them instead of just Finnissy himself. Indeed, I've even heard some people say that Finnissy's renditions of his own works pale in comparison, though he may indeed be very good.

[Derek]

I love Opeth. Somewhat (or rather, completely) off-topic, but what is your favorite album by them?

That's a hard one, I love all their albums very much. I think perhaps Ghost Reveries, the newest one. It has such marvelous contrasts of mood, melody, rhythm, harmony...its as much a feast for the ears as Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto is. I love "Atonement." The mixolydian mode can be so beautiful! (I hope you agree, ahinton, being scottish..!) And I love the rhythms there.  I'd say Mike Akerfeldt is a musical genius...his music is always so expressive and melodic, but never overtly show-offy as a lot of metal bands are (which isn't a bad thing necessarily, just as long as they don't neglect the quality of their music...). I'm probably not giving enough credit to his band mates, all of whom seem to contribute something special to their overall sound.

[ahinton]

I love "Atonement."

Perhaps not enough for some of us here - at least not demonstrably...

The mixolydian mode can be so beautiful!

Wow! - here's apparent progress, since that at least appears to imply some degree of reduction in abject adherence to the perceived gold standard of major/minor modes...

Best,

Alistair

[ctrastevere]

That's a hard one, I love all their albums very much. I think perhaps Ghost Reveries, the newest one. It has such marvelous contrasts of mood, melody, rhythm, harmony...its as much a feast for the ears as Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto is. I love "Atonement." The mixolydian mode can be so beautiful! (I hope you agree, ahinton, being scottish..!) And I love the rhythms there.  I'd say Mike Akerfeldt is a musical genius...his music is always so expressive and melodic, but never overtly show-offy as a lot of metal bands are (which isn't a bad thing necessarily, just as long as they don't neglect the quality of their music...). I'm probably not giving enough credit to his band mates, all of whom seem to contribute something special to their overall sound, even the drummer.

I absolutely agree with you there. I remember when I first heard Ghost of Perdition, having only heard a small amount of their music prior to it. After listening to it, I decided I had to get all of their albums.

How do you like The Roundhouse Tapes? I think all the performances on that CD are quite inspired.

[indutrial]

I'm probably not giving enough credit to his band mates, all of whom seem to contribute something special to their overall sound.

I'll join this deviation.

As a bassist, I find that Opeth's bass player does nothing more than what he's told to do by the singer/guitarist/songwriter. Any long-haired metal dude with two years bass training could assume that role. I appreciate their music, and I'm glad that the singer has acknowledged his appreciation of the 70s British band Camel. Like most black metal groups, however, they are exhaustingly trapped in their own genre and seem way too hooked on the same old gloom-and-doom harmonic minor metal aesthetics that their fans never seem to grow tired of. Songs about the moor, the moon, sorrow, suffering, death, and hallow's eve are starting to get a little played out now that only about 100,000 bands are basically variations on that tired thematic scheme.

Same with Porcupine Tree, who's made a career of ripping off loads of other 1970s artists and re-selling it as some sort of new progressive rock.

[Derek]

I absolutely agree with you there. I remember when I first heard Ghost of Perdition, having only heard a small amount of their music prior to it. After listening to it, I decided I had to get all of their albums.

How do you like The Roundhouse Tapes? I think all the performances on that CD are quite inspired.

Ghost of Perdition is gorgeous. I love the melody that comes in near the end when Akerfeldt is singing the word "higher." It's long, flowing, and beautiful like a Rachmaninoff piano concerto theme. And when that melody comes back in with the entire band, its like a symphonic finale, only in the context of a metal band. Really awesome.

[iumonito]

I'll join this deviation.

As a bassist, I find that Opeth's bass player does nothing more than what he's told to do by the singer/guitarist/songwriter. Any long-haired metal dude with two years bass training could assume that role. I appreciate their music, and I'm glad that the singer has acknowledged his appreciation of the 70s British band Camel. Like most black metal groups, however, they are exhaustingly trapped in their own genre and seem way too hooked on the same old gloom-and-doom harmonic minor metal aesthetics that their fans never seem to grow tired of. Songs about the moor, the moon, sorrow, suffering, death, and hallow's eve are starting to get a little played out now that only about 100,000 bands are basically variations on that tired thematic scheme.

Same with Porcupine Tree, who's made a career of ripping off loads of other 1970s artists and re-selling it as some sort of new progressive rock.

And yet, does their emotional content approximate something like Pierrot Lunaire, which by now is old news from an avant garde point of view?  Me thinks not.

[cygnusdei]

Here's a humorous take on the debate (clip from Friends episode):

https://www.cygnusdei.com/friends.html

[ahinton]

And yet, does their emotional content approximate something like Pierrot Lunaire, which by now is old news from an avant garde point of view?  Me thinks not.

Er - no - and Pierrot Lunaire (which must by now have received thousands of performances) has indeed been around for little short of a century and was greatly admired by, among many others, Ravel and Puccini. I have to admit that it's never done as much for me as certain other works by Schönberg, but it does what it sets out to do marvellously.

Anyway, isn't this thread supposed to be about Xenakis? Whatever happened to Johnny, our little stranger?!

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

Here is a video on youtube of this piece, if anyone is curious:

I personally think its a better, more intense performance than the one here.

[indutrial]

Here is a video on youtube of this piece, if anyone is curious:

I personally think its a better, more intense performance than the one here.

I've not seen or heard that many interpretations of Synaphai, but this one is definitely something to behold. I'm certain that seeing/hearing this piece live would make an even larger impression. I'm definitely going to check out the score for this work again.

I'm all the more impressed to hear sounds like this coming from a group that requires no electronic tape or sound manipulation beyond the faculties of the performers themselves. In that sense, this is really a stellar group of players (with an excellent conductor). After watching the dedication of these players (despite anything their individual tastes might harbor), I'm finding the sentiments of the naysayers on this forum all the more inappropriate. Why don't you guys travel over to Japan so you can try to convince this group (and their sizable-sounding audience) that they're all mistaken and that this performance somehow wasn't music worth paying attention to.

Here's hoping you someday realize that your Beethoven-Liszt-Rachmaninoff-Opeth tonal comfort zone is just that.

[ahinton]

I've not seen or heard that many interpretations of Synaphai, but this one is definitely something to behold. I'm certain that seeing/hearing this piece live would make an even larger impression. I'm definitely going to check out the score for this work again.

I'm all the more impressed to hear sounds like this coming from a group that requires no electronic tape or sound manipulation beyond the faculties of the performers themselves. In that sense, this is really a stellar group of players (with an excellent conductor). After watching the dedication of these players (despite anything their individual tastes might harbor), I'm finding the sentiments of the naysayers on this forum all the more inappropriate. Why don't you guys travel over to Japan so you can try to convince this group (and their sizable-sounding audience) that they're all mistaken and that this performance somehow wasn't music worth paying attention to.

Here's hoping you someday realize that your Beethoven-Liszt-Rachmaninoff-Opeth tonal comfort zone is just that.

I'm pretty much with you here until that last bit, where I got abit concerned; did you mean that you hope that those "naysayers" "someday realize that (their) Beethoven-Liszt-Rachmaninoff-Opeth tonal comfort zone is just that" - "that" being something that "wasn't...worth paying attention to"? The comfort zone itself isn't worthy of attention, to be sure, but the music? No, I don't think that you meant that, did you?! Maybe I just read it wrongly...

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

I'm pretty much with you here until that last bit, where I got abit concerned; did you mean that you hope that those "naysayers" "someday realize that (their) Beethoven-Liszt-Rachmaninoff-Opeth tonal comfort zone is just that" - "that" being something that "wasn't...worth paying attention to"? The comfort zone itself isn't worthy of attention, to be sure, but the music? No, I don't think that you meant that, did you?! Maybe I just read it wrongly...

No, it's certainly worth attention and appreciation. It just takes on the appearance of a comfort zone amidst all of this bashing of music that dares to deviate from the norms of the major scale and the harmonic minor scale (and their modes). Opeth's music, for all of its drama and strong studio production value, is very in-the-box theoretically, the most daring moves being the occasional incorporation of odd time signatures. I'm not saying that simplicity, directness, or tradition are bad things in anyway, but in the context of this thread they appear more and more to be musical security blankets. It tells me that some listeners are only interested in listening to music that fits into their delineated critical rubric, which is a short-sighted approach to something that really should not be delineated.

To use metaphor, if a scientist is truly impassioned about working on something like discovering new subatomic particles, and spent his whole life describing the intricacies about how and why the proton, nuetron, and electron are the smallest particles (let's pretend for argument's sake) in the known universe, he or she is not going to balk (if he sticks true to proper scientific behavior) when other research appears that proves that his work was worthwhile but that there are indeed smaller constituents such as quarks that are more fundamental and create a whole new dimension of understanding. To set cut-off points for one's appreciation of musical pieces is no different and equally fruitless.

By appreciation, I mean a balanced assessment that attempts to contextualize the piece in some way, perhaps drawing from the composer's other works or from an examination of the person's influences.

[ahinton]

No, it's certainly worth attention and appreciation. It just takes on the appearance of a comfort zone amidst all of this bashing of music that dares to deviate from the norms of the major scale and the harmonic minor scale (and their modes). Opeth's music, for all of its drama and strong studio production value, is very in-the-box theoretically, the most daring moves being the occasional incorporation of odd time signatures. I'm not saying that simplicity, directness, or tradition are bad things in anyway, but in the context of this thread they appear more and more to be musical security blankets. It tells me that some listeners are only interested in listening to music that fits into their delineated critical rubric, which is a short-sighted approach to something that really should not be delineated.

To use metaphor, if a scientist is truly impassioned about working on something like discovering new subatomic particles, and spent his whole life describing the intricacies about how and why the proton, nuetron, and electron are the smallest particles (let's pretend for argument's sake) in the known universe, he or she is not going to balk (if he sticks true to proper scientific behavior) when other research appears that proves that his work was worthwhile but that there are indeed smaller constituents such as quarks that are more fundamental and create a whole new dimension of understanding. To set cut-off points for one's appreciation of musical pieces is no different and equally fruitless.

By appreciation, I mean a balanced assessment that attempts to contextualize the piece in some way, perhaps drawing from the composer's other works or from an examination of the person's influences.

All fully understood and accepted - and succinctly and clearly expressed, too...

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

Though it is likely buried in the 7 pages of debate surrounding this piece, whose performance of the piece is posted on the top message? Like retrouvailles, I found the Youtube video a little more exciting, but the recorded one has a really good balance between the pianist and various orchestra sections, so both are strong. I am especially impressed by how good the trombones come out on the mp3. Another interesting Xenakis work is his trombone concerto Troorkh, which a brilliant trombonist named Christian Lindberg recorded for BIS, along with other trombone/orchestra works by Berio and Turnage.

[pianowolfi]

Pianowolfi, my friend. I'm quite alright with you liking this piece. But personally, I find your numerous poignant piano improvisations superior to this piece musically, expressively, and in terms of how much I enjoy it. I have a cd with your music on it, burned from iTunes. Boy, I sure hope you like your own music better than Xenakis...

(quote from Derek)

It's interesting because my own improvising brought me to liking "atonal" music more than before. I sense that as an improvisor and composer I need all possibilities and I don't want to limit myself. So for instance I actually *hate* serial music. But...one day I might want or even need to use serial techniques in my music. It depends of the idea and if it's "right" it will fit.

Of course I appreciate very much your comments on my music 

[retrouvailles]

Would you all just let this thread die (again) already? It has done nothing but create tension and bad blood within the forum.

[Derek]

(quote from Derek)

It's interesting because my own improvising brought me to liking "atonal" music more than before. I sense that as an improvisor and composer I need all possibilities and I don't want to limit myself. So for instance I actually *hate* serial music. But...one day I might want or even need to use serial techniques in my music. It depends of the idea and if it's "right" it will fit.

Of course I appreciate very much your comments on my music 

I agree on all points. I didn't like atonal music before I attained some facility with improvisation, either. I like some of it now. People here seem to think I'm Mozart's lapdog just because I think Xenakis is absolutely terrible. That's the last I'll say---I've learned all I can from this thread.

[retrouvailles]

Sure, you may think he is terrible, but do you at least respect his artistry? Doesn't mean you have to like it.

[pianowolfi]

I agree on all points. I didn't like atonal music before I attained some facility with improvisation, either. I like some of it now. People here seem to think I'm Mozart's lapdog just because I think Xenakis is absolutely terrible. That's the last I'll say---I've learned all I can from this thread.

Hee hee, Mozart's lapdog, that's funny 

[ahinton]

Sure, you may think he is terrible, but do you at least respect his artistry? Doesn't mean you have to like it.

He's said his last and learnt all that he can here - or so he says; one may therefore assume that your question will go unanswered; I wouldn't worry about it, though, for we've also learnt plenty about what Derek thinks in this thread...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Hee hee, Mozart's lapdog, that's funny 

I don't know about funny, but since Derek claims already to have learnt all that he needs to from this thread, it might be reasonable for me to observe that what I've learnt here is that Mozart had one, a fact of which I confess to have been previously unaware; isn't Pianostreet wonderful?! - never a day goes by without the opportunity to learn something...

Now, unless everyone feels that there's no more to be said about Synaphai, might it not be too much to ask for the thread to return to that subject? (and what Synaphai committed in asking that?)...

Best,

Alistair

[tehpro]

Synaphai = random noise that has nothing to do with music.

[thalbergmad]

Oh dear, that will start things off again.

Thal

[mephisto]

Synaphai = random noise that has nothing to do with music.

Hasn't this already been settled?

I think at this point we can all agree on these points:
1. Xenakis and Schoenberg are the same composer.
2. Everybody can comnposer in the style of Xenakis.
3. Xenakis' music is noise.
4. Xenakis "music" is actually not really music.
5. All atonal music is bad, exept if you just improvise...
6. Poeple who say they like Scriabin or late Beethoven are just saying it so that they can pretend that they are smart.
7. Xenakis is leik omg what OMG x2 rolfmao juzz WOW really bad.

[ahinton]

Hasn't this already been settled?

I think at this point we can all agree on these points:
1. Xenakis and Schoenberg are the same composer.
2. Everybody can compose in the style of Xenakis.
3. Xenakis' music is noise.
4. Xenakis' "music" is actually not really music.
5. All atonal music is bad, except if you just improvise...
6. Poeple who say they like Scriabin or late Beethoven are just saying it so that they can pretend that they are smart.
7. Xenakis is leik omg what OMG x2 rolfmao juzz WOW really bad.

Yes, that's right! Let us detain ourslves no longer with silly arguments that fail fully to appreciate any or all of these points. Perhaps you could even strengthen them by reposting them translated into Norwegian for the benefit of all the Norwegian forum members.

Johnny Jewel and Arnie Stranger. Yes. One and the same person, as you say.

Yawn...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Oh dear, that will start things off again.

Hopefully not, as you may agree from what I've just written...

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Sure, you may think he is terrible, but do you at least respect his artistry? Doesn't mean you have to like it.

I respect his right to organize sounds however he pleases, but I feel no moral obligation to call it "artistry."

[counterpoint]

Hasn't this already been settled?

I think at this point we can all agree on these points:
1. Xenakis and Schoenberg are the same composer.
2. Everybody can comnposer in the style of Xenakis.
3. Xenakis' music is noise.
4. Xenakis "music" is actually not really music.
5. All atonal music is bad, exept if you just improvise...
6. Poeple who say they like Scriabin or late Beethoven are just saying it so that they can pretend that they are smart.
7. Xenakis is leik omg what OMG x2 rolfmao juzz WOW really bad.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in the last weeks. And so true 

[Derek]

Here's a good article...

The Irrelevance of the Avante-Garde

[retrouvailles]

Here's a good article...

The Irrelevance of the Avante-Garde

It's an extremely biased article that says that so called "avant-garde" composers write the way they do just to "be hip and find a place in history". I don't think that's entirely the reason. There is much more to that type of music than just "being hip".

[ferret_dance]

Sometimes, I improvise in an extremely loud, frenetic, atonal manner.   TO ME, this sounds exactly like Xenakis' solo piano writing, or Schoenberg. I can barely tell the difference between the styles, or my own recording of such music.

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.

[ahinton]

Here's a good article...

The Irrelevance of the Avante-Garde

I fail to see what's "good" abot it; I can see what's wise about it, however - that its author preserves his/her anonymity...

Best,

Alistair

[tehpro]

I really don't understand what is with you all wannabeoverintelligent people. Why should anyone appreciate 'music' that has been deliberately composed so that >99,99% of the population would think it sounds absolutely horrible.

Even if the ever-so-complicated composing principle was based on Gell-Mann matrices of quantum chromodynamics it would still be inferior to actual pieces of music since it even fails to fulfill the basic definition of music (Generally considered to be the enjoyment - not the headache one gets from listening to it.)

Derek's article was great. I wish the 'sophisticated' people would regain their sanity and stop being like pianistimo in their own small world.

[ahinton]

I really don't understand what is with you all wannabeoverintelligent people.

Since few if any serious respondents to this thread fit into such a category, we must assume that such a category is of your own making and to suit your own agenda rather than being of relevance in the context of this thread. Each member here is possessed of whatever intelligence he/she happens to have. If you can't accept that, it's no wonder that you can't understand it either.

Why should anyone appreciate 'music' that has been deliberately composed so that >99,99% of the population would think it sounds absolutely horrible.

Have you actually conducted a survey of the entire world population that has led you to cite this particular statistic (which, taken literally, would mean that 600,000 people think otherwise, which I'm sure is a gross underestimate but it's not that small a number anyway); if not, please keep your guesswork to yourself or at least have the grace to admit that your figures are entirely random rather than scientifically provable. Furthermore, what is the evidence for your claim that Xenakis "deliberately composed (Synaphai) so that >99,99% of the population would think it sounds absolutely horrible"? Did you know Xenakis personally and did he tell you that (and, if so, did you believe him?); do you, on the other hand, have access to correspondence or other documentation that supports such a claim? If so, please declare it and, if not, please withdraw your claim.

Even if the ever-so-complicated composing principle was based on Gell-Mann matrices of quantum chromodynamics it would still be inferior to actual pieces of music since it even fails to fulfill the basic definition of music generally considered to be the enjoyment - not the headache one gets from listening to it.

Er - whose definition of music is that, then? Music can generate all kinds of emotional states, which is one of its great strengths, not just that of what you call "enjoyment" - and this is hardly anything new; in seeking from music something that seems to be akin to mere light entertainment (of which certain music is, of course, amply capable - that's to say the kind of music designed for such a purpose), your prioritising of "enjoyment" might appear to exclude works or parts of works from almost all period in music that set out to do something other than provide mere "enjoyment". Do you consider, for example, that the provision of "enjoyment" alone was the object in the finale of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony, the first movement of Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony, Pettersson's Ninth and Tenth Symphonies, the close of Mahler's Sixth Symphony, Chopin's Second Piano Sonata, Musorgsky's Night on a Bare Mountain, the opening fugue of Beethoven's C# minor Quartet, the middle movement of Alkan's Grand Duo for violin and piano (subtitled l'Enfer) and so and and so on? (and you may care to note that all of the above examples are tonal works)...

Derek's article was great.

Which particular articel are you referring to here?

I wish the 'sophisticated' people

Who exactly are they and how are you seeking to define their "sophistication"?

would regain their sanity

On what grounds do you claim that any (unspecified) people here have lost it in the first place?

and stop being like pianistimo in their own small world.

I don't think that pianistimo has anything to do with this, frankly - and as to this "small world" of which you write, how do you know what worlds anyone inhabits in terms of musical taste? It might seem as though you are implying that certain people who appreciate Xenakis are incapable of appreciating and/or unwilling to appreciate Mahler, Brahms, Beethoven, Haydn, Bach, etc., to which I could respond only that I've yet to encounter any such person...

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

I really don't understand what is with you all wannabeoverintelligent people. Why should anyone appreciate 'music' that has been deliberately composed so that >99,99% of the population would think it sounds absolutely horrible.

Good, that leaves about 6 million people for me to appreciate it with while you go listen to Green Day and American Idol on your IPod with the masses. You should have your post limited to the first line which stated that "I really don't understand..." because that's the only thing about your post that seems to make sense to me after reading through the rest.

If your close-minded, self-centered, and puerile reasoning actually had any qualifying power, the arts and music would quickly disappear. Thankfully, most good artists (many who are heavily appreciated in the future) don't rely on such a stupid thing as public desire to guide their hands. And whereas a minute fraction of artists take a dadaist route which would conform with your idea of "deliberately" unsettling work, that is hardly critical approach that can used as a blanket definition to be stamped upon any work that simply happens to be unpopular. Your idea brings to mind an idea that Xenakis was pacing around in his death fortress twisting his waxed moustache and thinking "nyah, how can I scare the public now. It's time to unleash my next musical doomsday device. I call it 'Synaphai' Mwahahahahaha!!!"

There's a spectrum of how people can interact with musical phenomena. On the one end is what I would consider proper music appreciation that attempts to explore ideas, increase musical understanding, and (god forbid) transcend the limits of individual opinions and tastes (which can have only imagined value anyway). Without this element, music would never change. Next to that is unfocussed musical enjoyment, which is all well and good, but relies completely on popular tastes and can only be occupied by whatever a fickle public shows interest in. This is certainly an important component of music, but it is not to be relied upon, since it is unpredictable and shifty. It's only use seems to be for marketing, which traditionally has caused nothing but trouble for the arts. At the far end of the spectrum are people who want to turn music into politics and decide that it's their divine right to tell people what is right and wrong in music. Your approach to Xenakis seems to fall flatly here. Not only do you dislike him (something that would fall in the 'musical enjoyment' portion of the spectrum) but you feel it's necessary to demonize him and use the fickle public as your critical 'big club.' This is the type of reasoning the socialist realists in Eastern Europe used to repress tons of great composers and it proved to not work in the end (though it caused considerable lag to the cultures of those countries). It's annoying that so many kids have to be moody, paranoid, and bratty enough to prematurely take such an agenda-setting approach to music they clearly haven't given a proper chance. Sorry, but your politics are ultimately worthless. It's just a slimy bog that real artists and artistic appreciators that to trod through once in a while.

[mcgillcomposer]

I really don't understand what is with you all wannabeoverintelligent people. Why should anyone appreciate 'music' that has been deliberately composed so that >99,99% of the population would think it sounds absolutely horrible.

I can't say that I love this piece, but I wouldn't dismiss it on that premise alone. A long time ago I made a very important distinction between my personal tastes and the actual quality of a piece of music. Music, to a large degree, is subjective...I don't think there is any disputing that; however, we can still devise some very basic criteria to evaluate the level of a composer's craft (as one might do for a carpenter). There is a fair amount of music by Mozart that I respect greatly because it is so masterfully composed, but personally, I do not like it much.

This said, it is much more penetrating when one provides reasons for disliking a piece that go beyond pedestrian criticisms that any Joe could come up with, even having never heard the piece. Xenakis may not be in the league of Bartók and Stravinsky, but this doesn't mean that we should dismiss him downright.

[ferret_dance]

I really don't understand what is with you all wannabeoverintelligent people. Why should anyone appreciate 'music' that has been deliberately composed so that >99,99% of the population would think it sounds absolutely horrible.

I was unaware there was such a thing as being too intelligent.  Not to say intelligence necessarily has anything to do with what musical preferences one has, but this sort of juvenile psychology would explain your proportionately juvenile view-points on music.  From your statement, are we to assume that it is a detriment to be intelligent, or perhaps that the pursuit of knowledge is in and of itself an esotericism?  What conclusions of you should we derive from such inferences?  That you have no interest in learning about a subject?  I can find no plausible alternative except an even more immature one than that of your assertion: jealousy.  But let us rule out such slander and refer to the first: in that case, your input is void.

As per the second half of your attempt at a "statement", I feel indutrial's is entirely sufficient, if not extraspecially sufficient:

Your idea brings to mind an idea that Xenakis was pacing around in his death fortress twisting his waxed moustache and thinking "nyah, how can I scare the public now. It's time to unleash my next musical doomsday device. I call it 'Synaphai' Mwahahahahaha!!!"

[Derek]

This is getting out of hand. We're all being stupid here. I was being stupid, ahinton was being stupid, everybody in this thread is being stupid. Let's just all admit it, apologize (or leave the thread), and just forget this whole mess. It is so ridiculously effing pointless it is not even funny. So some of us find Xenakis horrifying, others think he is some sort of visionary.

It doesn't matter either way. We're talking about the sounds people make with musical instruments. That can't hurt anyone (at reasonable decibel levels) regardless of how strange the sounds they make are. And though I don't personally like Xenakis (and still believe what I believe), I have to hand it to him for doing something weird. If it weren't for people doing weird things, I personally don't think Scriabin or Rachmaninoff would have written what they have written.

I am henceforth going to focus my energy on things that matter, like politics, religion, etc. things that have actual consequences in life. Music cannot and never has had anything remotely like a moral consequence in life, so there is no point in continuing contentious debate about it.

[retrouvailles]

there is no point in continuing contentious debate about it.

Oh, but it's ever so fun!

[ferret_dance]

This is getting out of hand. We're all being stupid here. I was being stupid, ahinton was being stupid, everybody in this thread is being stupid. Let's just all admit it, apologize (or leave the thread), and just forget this whole mess.

How entirely transparent in its phoniness and patheticness.  I believe we've heard this one before.  I'm glad you can admit you were (and are) being stupid; admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help.  Unfortunately no amount of insincere and blatantly politically-fueled apologies will vindicate your aforementioned stupidity, nor will the entirely concessionary and incorrect attempt to assert that anyone else in this thread is equally at fault as you, with the possible exceptions of a select two or three as close-minded and brainophobic as you.  You are being stupid.  In fact, you are being stupid for the sake of being stupid; the stubbornness to be uneducated is never very flattering.

I am henceforth going to focus my energy on things that matter, like politics, religion, etc.

Please, we beg of you, don't.