Xenakis Piano Concerto "Synaphai"

[indutrial]

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.

I would argue that music has more substance to it than politics or religion. The latter two realms are just socio-spiritual catch basins for people who have given up on thinking creatively and acting individual. Since morality essentially denotes a code of conduct, I would consider my involvement with studying music and other creative human endeavors (mathematics, literature, painting, physics, chemistry, etc..) a moral obligation I aim to fulfill, at least inasfar as I impose such morality upon myself. Hence, this debate is indeed meaningful, at least to me.

[pianowolfi]

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

Are you kidding?

[ahinton]

This is getting out of hand.

I wonder why?

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.

Derek has spoken, folks. He tells us that he was being stupid and accordingly concludes that every other contributor was/is being stupid. The degree of helpfulness and constructiveness of such a remark rather speaks for itself, does it not? There are self-evidently many more than just two viewpoints on Xenakis, just as there are with every other composer, so your last sentence here comes across as grossly over-simplistic.

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.

Well, at least this seems suggestive of abit of sense at last, although it remains biased to the extent of the belief that Xenakis was (deliberately) "doing something weird", when what's far more important is that he was doing what he believed in, just as any other composer with a conscience does.

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.

What an admission! - we've had reams of material about Xenakis and Schönberg, the "avant-garde", diatonic scales and a multitude of other contentious and deeply entrenched non-evidence-based opinions-masquearding-as-factoids and now you undermine the very importance of music, the principal subject for which this forum exists! Astonishing!

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

I'm human, and you are obviously human given your last post. I for most of my life have enjoyed deliberately causing contentious debates about things, both things that matter and things that don't. It always causes me an adrenaline rush, and you could say I've been a little bit addicted to generating (what appears to be) hatred and/or scorn from other people. Well, I've decided this behavior is unhealthy, and I'm not going to make any progress to being a more reasonable human being if I perpetuate that sort of situation. And in this case, nothing could matter less than arguing about music.  Some people like Xenakis, most don't. Big deal.

I don't see how music can have anything to do with morality (unless there are lyrics that explicitly talk about morality). It exists to entertain people in some form or another. Some of it entertains some people more than others.  We could get into an argument about how on earth these sorts of debates ever even became possible, but I'm going to avoid that I think... 

[indutrial]

I don't see how music can have anything to do with morality (unless there are lyrics that explicitly talk about morality).

I've not quite taken that leap into categorizing music as simply a form of entertainment or hobby. Morality, like I said before, is a gauge of how one conducts themselves. I don't think that one's adherence to religious or political norms has anything to do with their moral underpinning. There are plenty of immoral sods in my country masquerading as religious believers and claiming morality is on their side. Some of them want to export this high-minded morality to the Iranians, even if that means killing 9 or 10 million of them. Besides, practicing politicians are almost always discussed in terms on just how immoral they acted at a given point in time. They use ideas like Christian morality to attempt to manipulate people who are unsure of their own morals.

Whether or not one chooses to adhere to popular moralities does not reduce the fact that morality is built inside the individual as a set of behavior guidelines (e.g. "I won't kill someone because I respect life"; "I will work hard on music, because human creativity is the best value one can nurture in a world that becoming increasingly stratified" etc...)

[ferret_dance]

And the topic morphs again.


I vote this thread for CG of the year.

[indutrial]

And the topic morphs again.


I vote this thread for CG of the year.

It's only morphing because it seems to be impossible for some people to discuss things with their head instead of debating with their heart. Everyone thinks that their small and insignificant individual opinion is so god-damned important that they can't approach it rationally and they attempt to steer this into asinine larger debates about right and wrong and the future of music, etc.... It's like high school English all over again. "Waaahh, I don't want to read Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, they never made a movie out of it, where are the Cliff Notes, I don't get it so I don't like it, James Joyce is ugly and his book is weird, waaaaahhh!"

[counterpoint]

"Waaahh, I don't want to read Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, they never made a movie out of it,

ROFLMAO   

[tehpro]

Hey I found more of some random crap for piano that xenakis apparently 'composed' in his great wisdom. Remember to check the highlights at 1:45 and 3:00 and the grand finale at 4:05

Even compared to Synaphai this is total nonsense and it would be a disgrace to even call this a composition. This is random notes that are deliberately made to sound as awful as possible.

I feel sorry for the pianist who apparently learned the notes to play this random shiat...

[retrouvailles]

Dude, this debate has been quiet long enough and we have already seen who is stupid and who isn't. We don't need to continue this mindless drivel, so leave.

[tehpro]

Ah, I didn't wish to continue any debate about the synaphai, the link I posted above was just to prove that synaphai actually is good music compared to some other things xenakis composed.

[indutrial]

I feel sorry for the pianist who apparently learned the notes to play this random shiat...

I'm certain your feelings of sorrow would mean sooo much to that poor, unlucky pianist  who was apparantly tricked or unwillingly forced to play that piece. Give me a break. Nobody with a learned background gives a shiat what you think is random and what you think isn't.

[retrouvailles]

I'm certain your feelings of sorrow would mean sooo much to that poor, unlucky pianist  who was apparantly tricked or unwillingly forced to play that piece. Give me a break. Nobody with a learned background gives a shiat what you think is random and what you think isn't.

By that logic, many people here would give a shiat. Most people here in this thread don't seem to have a learned background in the topic at hand. What a shame.

[pies]

a

[thierry13]

And the topic morphs again.


I vote this thread for CG of the year.

Concurred 

[i heart xenakis]

Like I said on the new Xenakis thread, I'm not going to get back into the fray of things this time.  (just in case it hasn't gotten out yet, this is ferret_dance, soliloquy, I love xenakis, skeptopotamus etc. )

Instead I would just like to draw all of the nay-sayers' attention to something.  If there really were nothing in Xenakis, then how could this thread have nearly 14000 and counting views?

Xenakis is not a Monet or a Michelangelo, for universal viewing pleasure.  He is a Kandinsky or a Rothko.  He causes controversy; he makes you ask whether or not it's real art.


And that.  That is undeniably art.

[cygnusdei]

And that. That is a straw man.

[i heart xenakis]

And that. That is a straw man.

The definition of straw man argument:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

So.  No.  You're wrong.  Your guys' argument is often that Xenakis' "sound creations" are not real music.  Shall I copy/paste the 100+ times that has been said in this thread?  Music is a form of art.  I assert that, due to the facts I had illustrated in my previous post, his works are in fact art thusly.  Therefore I am directly refuting your statements, and am in no way convoluting your arguments.  Therefore, it is not a straw man.  But wait, here's you and your buddies, and this is just off the top of my head, but so far I've seen from you and derek alone: naturalistic fallacy, ad nauseam, argumentum ad ignorantiam, proof by assertion, ignoratio elenchi, argumentum ad metam, horse laugh, wisdom of repugnance, Schadenfreude, argumentum ad antiquitatem, Bulverism and ipsedixitism.  Don't mess with me; I was in the NFL for 3 years. (national forensics league)


And that's just in general; I could, if you beg good enough, probably find literally every single logical fallacy between the posts of you two when quoting other posts.


Oh and also.  Your lack of response to the point I just made that you quoted?  That's called argumentum a silentio.

[cygnusdei]

If there really were nothing in Xenakis

Quote someone other than yourself with that claim.

[i heart xenakis]

Quote someone other than yourself with that claim.

Are you futily attempting to straw man me?  It is blatantly obvious my comment refers to the aforementioned derogitories in Xenakis' direction regarding his output as not being art.  And really?  That is like... so easy.

atonal music appears to be not 'music' at all but mere noise.

...whether or not one can enjoy or appreciate random noise created by orchestra?

Pointing out a few incidental major chords won't be enough to convince anyone that it is anything but nonsense.

Wouldn't you rather be listening to an orchestral whoopie cushion?

The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul.

Oh, here's one of my favorites.

Schoenberg had already composed orchestral farts,  Xenakis just ate the baked beans, as it were, rather than just a couple of hot dogs.

... stochastic music has not value, purpose or importance.

Another gem in the rough.

Like I've said many times, pointing out that Xenakis used a lot of mathematical theory of some sort in his composition is comparable to a hypothetical scenario where an artist arranges a bunch of turds in a geometric pattern. If you are interested in math you might find the geometric pattern interesting,  but for the rest of us it is just a bunch of turds.

I refer to my previous point. There may be an abundance of quality, but it may not be musical quality.

I'm going to go listen to some real music now.

...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)

Ok that's only about half-way through the thread.  And I'm bored with it now.  Reading all of this ignorant garbage is just making me pissed off.  I don't have the stomach to go through "tehpro"'s crap.

[pies]

a

[ahinton]

It is blatantly obvious my comment refers to the aforementioned derogitories in Xenakis' direction regarding his output as not being art.

Derogatories, actually...

I'm bored with it now.  Reading all of this ignorant garbage is just making me pissed off.  I don't have the stomach to go through "tehpro"'s crap.

...not to mention certain statements made by others, some of which you quote above, one may presume. I have to say that I am relieved that you now propose to desist from further comment on this kind of thing, because whilst reading it in the privacy of one's own space is one thing, taking people to task for such insensitive and thoughtless bigotry is surely not worth the negative energy required, especially since the examples that you cite are themselves supremely capable of exposing their authors' blinkered and often intransigent viewpoints for precisely what they are.

I, too, am tired of witnessing Xenakis being turned into some kind of stick with which to beat those who seemed determined, for whatever reasons or none, to refuse to appreciate his art. Yes - ART. Xenakis's music is obviously not likely to appeal to the majority of serious listeners to music, but there is quite simply no denying that his was one of the most unusual and original musical minds of the 20th century. Apart from a small handful of Greek folk-inspired early pieces written during his 20s, what he composed from the early 1950s onwards might reasonably be said to have come almost out of nowhere other than his own unique imagination. He stated that he wrote music not so much to challenge others but to challenge himself. He also felt that he was a kind of ancient Greek living centuries out of his time. In this alone he makes an interseting foil for Skalkottas, who was very much a Greek composer of his time (I am no Xenakis scholar, so I don't know how aware he was of Skalkottas's work or what he thought of it - perhaps someone with such knowledge might care to expand upon this - but I digress). It is perhaps no surprise that Xenakis appreciated in Brahms the notion of the composer arriving already "fully formed", so to speak; Xenakis did not quite achieve that himself, but right from almost the start he established ways of working and sound formations that were nevertheless almost unprecedented (Varèse perhaps comes the closest to what he was doing, but even this distance was already large and rapidly becoming greater). One does not necessarily have to "enjoy" listening to Xenakis or Brahms to be capable of according to each the respect that they richly deserve; if only people stood back and engaged their intellectual and emotional capabilties sufficiently to do just that, most if not all of these often puerile slanging matches that purport to pass for debate would simply evaporate - a welcome prospect, I humbly submit...

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Are you futily attempting to straw man me?  It is blatantly obvious my comment refers to the aforementioned derogitories in Xenakis' direction regarding his output as not being art.  And really?  That is like... so easy.


Oh, here's one of my favorites.

Another gem in the rough.


Ok that's only about half-way through the thread.  And I'm bored with it now.  Reading all of this ignorant garbage is just making me pissed off.  I don't have the stomach to go through "tehpro"'s crap.

I can see that in this particular thread I did not explain my position very clearly (judging by the quotes you picked). In the more recent thread about Xenakis, I was able to explain it much better. Have a look:

My opinion on Xenakis

Part 2

Part 3

[ahinton]

I can see that in this particular thread I did not explain my position very clearly (judging by the quotes you picked). In the more recent thread about Xenakis, I was able to explain it much better. Have a look:

My opinion on Xenakis

Part 2

Part 3

You didn't need to. You had already done this. Quoting your earlier observations serves only to emphasise your views. What you perceive as Xenakis's disregard for any concern to create some kind of beauty (and who in any case is authorised to be the ultimate arbiter of what that may be and what form/s it may take?) and his alleged use of arbitrary use of mathematical procedures and chance this-and that, show that you have little appreciation of what Xenakis was about. I nevertheless feel as though I'm interloping here, at least to the extent that I wish you'd had instead an opportunity to put your supposed concerns directly to Xenakis himself, who would, I'm sure, have taken them on board with no lack of sympathetic understanding and who - provided that you had the ears and willingness to listen to what he'd have had to say - could and almost certainly would have put you right about what he was doing, why he was doing it that way and what he sought to achieve by so doing. Now I am not for one moment suggesting that even this exchange would necessarily have warmed you to his music, but it might perhaps have helped you to respect what he was and what he stood for. I disagree with you that you have no reason to have to respect any who composes; if their work is deserving of respect, you can try to give it that, even if you do not like the sound of what he/she whas written. I've already stated (and do not wish again to feel obliged to repeat) that such an attitude of mind could help to dispel all this kind of unnecessarily combative exchange and leave each composer to compose as best they see fit (which is his/her duty) and each listener to absorb it in his/her own way (which is his/her prerogative).

Best,

Alistair

[i heart xenakis]

You didn't need to. You had already done this. Quoting your earlier observations serves onoy to emphasise your views.

ONLY Alistair, ONLY.


Did you miss me? 

[ahinton]

ONLY Alistair, ONLY.

Indeed - and thank you for pointing this out (I've now corrected it) - but then since when did I ever manage not to create typos(?!). You may or may not be interested in the Hands off Xenakis! thread which (unusually for me) I initiated earlier today. If you have any comments either about what I have written in this and in that other thread, you might care to make them; whether or not you choose to do this, I wish to add that I am heartily sick and tired (or at least I might be if I only I could take some of the people concerned seriously) of those who seem to enjoy making some kind of spectator sport out of pillorying certain composers of their choice for the purpose of attempting to claim (usually on the basis of woefully scant knowledge of their work) that they are mere noisemongers whose compositions cannot be considered as music and are devoid of humanity. Xenakis devoid of humanity - after all that he went through, both creatively and otherwise; what kind of gratuitous insult is that?

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

Are you futily attempting to straw man me?  It is blatantly obvious my comment refers to the aforementioned derogitories in Xenakis' direction regarding his output as not being art.  And really?  That is like... so easy.

It is blatantly obvious that you are unable to produce a single quote saying 'there is really nothing in Xenaxis'. I suggest you carefully reword your claim to 'if Xenaxis music were not real art', as you have conveniently revised yourself. Even then, it is a false premise that whether something is real art is indicated by the number of views a thread is viewed. Please.

[i heart xenakis]

It is blatantly obvious that you are unable to produce a single quote saying 'there is really nothing in Xenaxis'. I suggest you carefully reword your claim to 'if Xenaxis music were not real art', as you have conveniently revised yourself. Even then, it is a false premise that whether something is real art is indicated by the number of views a thread is viewed. Please.

You're.

Nevermind.  *struggles to restrain himself*


How can you with any pride attempt to accuse me of using a logical fallacy when you are being blatantly, obviously (obvious to absolutely everyone) and ridiculously hyper-semantic.  If you want to take your arguments onto a linguistics forum then let's go; I'm a member of three.  But in the realm of even minute logic and the most basic and primitive deduction skills, I have proven myself correct.  Let me go ahead and do it again, just to humor you:

atonal music appears to be not 'music' at all but mere noise.

Pointing out a few incidental major chords won't be enough to convince anyone that it is anything but nonsense.

Now.  Are you going to try to tell me that I was arguing that Xenakis' music was LITERALLY nothing, IE non-existent and fictitious?  There.  I just quoted people saying it wasn't music.  Are you now going to try to say I was saying it wasn't even sound at all?  Well... then what is it?  A light-show?  And I'm not exhibiting contextivism, because I assume you have at least some sort of level of human logic.


OH WAIT sh*t!


I better be more clear for you!  Because I am obviously not accusing others of saying his music to literally be nothing in the most basic and mathematic sense, you must then assume I refer to, as I said, that I refer to their inferrences that it is not music.  Music is a form of art, and this is of course the form of art I refer to.  Or did you think I was talking about sculpture?  I just gave you an assload of quotes saying that his work is not indeed real music.  And this one, even in your convoluted and pathetically evasive "argument", proves me point:

Like I've said many times, pointing out that Xenakis used a lot of mathematical theory of some sort in his composition is comparable to a hypothetical scenario where an artist arranges a bunch of turds in a geometric pattern. If you are interested in math you might find the geometric pattern interesting,  but for the rest of us it is just a bunch of turds.

There.  A direct simile comparing his output to art in general as opposed to simply in the musical sense.  Your posts here are made of epic fail.

Even then, it is a false premise that whether something is real art is indicated by the number of views a thread is viewed. Please.

Well that's an entirely different subject.  And you call ME a revisionist?  That is laughable.  And ok, since you seem to want to show off your debating skills (which you have none of, and thus I allow you to step into suicide which is my normal M.O. but your ego is so massive you will attempt to anyway even as I tell you what I'm doing) I want you to prove that statement incorrect, and please, use at least some level of logic and don't tell me that because so many people watched the Superbowl I am incorrect, because that makes you look a lot more stupid than it does smart.

[Derek]

I like Psappha. I'd rather hear Opeth's drummer though, personally.

[i heart xenakis]

I like Sappha. I'd rather hear Opeth's drummer though, personally.

Psappha.

[retrouvailles]

I like Psappha. I'd rather hear Opeth's drummer though, personally.

You really can't compare the two. Opeth is pretty sick, though. I'll give them that. And yeah, I'm personally not too hot about Xenakis's percussion works. His larger orchestral works like Keqrops and some others do it for me. Have you had a chance to hear these, Derek? If you like Opeth, there is a chance for you liking these, unless you have already given up all hope on Xenakis.

[ahinton]

What a pity it is that we cannot know what Xenakis himself would have made of these various exchanges...

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

That's it? Derek claims to like something, and there is no accusation of pretenses, no insistence on understanding of the piece? Suppose he likes it for the wrong reasons? If he is not qualified to pass judgement on Synaphai, why should he be qualified to pass judgement on Psappha, even if it's a favorable one? Is he ignorant, stupid, close-minded, and irrational only when he doesn't like something?

[cygnusdei]

You're.

Nevermind.  *struggles to restrain himself*


How can you with any pride attempt to accuse me of using a logical fallacy when you are being blatantly, obviously (obvious to absolutely everyone) and ridiculously hyper-semantic.  If you want to take your arguments onto a linguistics forum then let's go; I'm a member of three.  But in the realm of even minute logic and the most basic and primitive deduction skills, I have proven myself correct.  Let me go ahead and do it again, just to humor you:

Now.  Are you going to try to tell me that I was arguing that Xenakis' music was LITERALLY nothing, IE non-existent and fictitious?  There.  I just quoted people saying it wasn't music.  Are you now going to try to say I was saying it wasn't even sound at all?  Well... then what is it?  A light-show?  And I'm not exhibiting contextivism, because I assume you have at least some sort of level of human logic.


OH WAIT sh*t!


I better be more clear for you!  Because I am obviously not accusing others of saying his music to literally be nothing in the most basic and mathematic sense, you must then assume I refer to, as I said, that I refer to their inferrences that it is not music.  Music is a form of art, and this is of course the form of art I refer to.  Or did you think I was talking about sculpture?  I just gave you an assload of quotes saying that his work is not indeed real music.  And this one, even in your convoluted and pathetically evasive "argument", proves me point:

There.  A direct simile comparing his output to art in general as opposed to simply in the musical sense.  Your posts here are made of epic fail.


Well that's an entirely different subject.  And you call ME a revisionist?  That is laughable.  And ok, since you seem to want to show off your debating skills (which you have none of, and thus I allow you to step into suicide which is my normal M.O. but your ego is so massive you will attempt to anyway even as I tell you what I'm doing) I want you to prove that statement incorrect, and please, use at least some level of logic and don't tell me that because so many people watched the Superbowl I am incorrect, because that makes you look a lot more stupid than it does smart.

You're accusing me of being hyper-semantic? Well, I'm guilty as charged. Actually I take that as compliment, thank you. Anytime someone appeals to a fictitious argument just to tear it down, it must be suspect. I'll tell you what - as you are willing to abandon your original words, I am willing to retract my straw man charge as well.

But no sir, I'm not piling just for the sake of piling on. I couldn't point out the false premise in your argument before removing the straw man. And to humor your request, I don't have to venture far for a counterargument. There is a certain thread on an improvisation which as of now has reached more view counts than your Rachmaninovs, Brahms', and Chopins:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,28549.0.html

But somehow I doubt that you would acknowledge this as an indication of the realness of the improviser's art.

[i heart xenakis]

I'll tell you what - as you are willing to abandon your original words, I am willing to retract my straw man charge as well.

I feel sort of dirty now that you would honor me with such a gesture of kindness, because any gesture from such a pompous *** such as yourself makes me want to gag.  I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

And I have never abandoned my words or changed my argument.  I, apparently, simply had to elaborate to help your feeble mind come to the logical conclusion that anyone who had any grasp on the English language whatsoever would come to instantaneously.  Other than yourself of course; tell me, do you have some sort of severe cognitive disorder?

I couldn't point out the false premise in your argument before removing the straw man.

What did I tell you about trying to use big words like "false premise"?  I told you that you have no idea how to use them, and you only look stupid when you do.  Surprise Surprise!  You look stupid   My argument could be incorrect, but it is not a false premise.  An example of a false premise would be if I said that my thread had say... 100,000 views, which would be incorrect and would possibly be the reason I would make this argument, but it would not be the argument itself.  Also, one does not "remove" an accusation of a straw man, one "retracts" it.

And to humor your request, I don't have to venture far for a counterargument. There is a certain thread on an improvisation which as of now has reached more view counts than your Rachmaninovs, Brahms', and Chopins:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,28549.0.html

As of this very moment, that thread has 781 views and mine has 14108 (and also use some level of logic; that thread is basically just an addendum to this one).  And are you saying that the improvisation in that thread is not art?

False premise.

[cygnusdei]

Being called a pompous *** and having a severe cognitive disorder by you is like wearing a badge of honor.

And perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. You asked me to prove that "view count is an indication of whether something is real art" is a false premise. I provided a counterexample with the thread on tehpro's improvisation, which has reached more views than other audition posts on Brahms, Rachmaninov, and Chopin pieces.

Then I challenged you to acknowledge that the 781 views (as you quoted) is an indication of the realness of tehpro's art.

You haven't responded to that.

[i heart xenakis]

Being called a pompous *** and having a severe cognitive disorder by you is like wearing a badge of honor.

And perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. You asked me to prove that "view count is an indication of whether something is real art" is a false premise. I provided a counterexample with the thread on tehpro's improvisation, which has reached more views than other audition posts on Brahms, Rachmaninov, and Chopin pieces.

Then I challenged you to acknowledge that the 781 views (as you quoted) is an indication of the realness of tehpro's art.

You haven't responded to that.

You have to prove it isn't art.  The burden of proof, or in this situation disproof, is on your shoulders, because it's your argument   Of course really it should be my job to prove my original argument concerning post counts and art is true, but you took me up on my offer so now finish your work.

Definition of music:

Any sound organised with the purpose of being listened to


And since music is art, now you must tell me how tehpro's "improvisation" is not that, or be incorrect.

[cygnusdei]

That's not the request you asked me originally. Your original request was for me to prove that "view count is an indication of whether something is real art" is a false premise.

Let me speculate. IF you said no, the 781 view count does not indicate that tehpro's improvisation is not real art, then the original premise is false.

What say you?

[i heart xenakis]

That's not the request you asked me originally. Your original request was for me to prove that "view count is an indication of whether something is real art" is a false premise.

Let me speculate. IF you said no, the 781 view count does not indicate that tehpro's improvisation is not real art, then the original premise is false.

What say you?

Technically it is art.

[mcgillcomposer]

Yes, and just because something is called 'art' doesn't mean that it is automatically good. I suggest we stop looking at the finger and look at what the finger is pointing at. I think centuries of debate have shown that the term 'art' is quite arbitrary.

[i heart xenakis]

Yes, and just because something is called 'art' doesn't mean that it is automatically good.

That's not what we're arguing about though

[mcgillcomposer]

That's not what we're arguing about though

I know. I just felt like saying something irrelevant in order to contribute to the overall mood of this debate. 

On a more interesting note, why did you get booted?!

[i heart xenakis]

I know. I just felt like saying something irrelevant in order to contribute to the overall mood of this debate. 

On a more interesting note, why did you get booted?!

I posted a link to something ridiculously inappropriate.

[mcgillcomposer]

I posted a link to something ridiculously inappropriate.

Oh geez...a phallus?

[Derek]

That's it? Derek claims to like something, and there is no accusation of pretenses, no insistence on understanding of the piece? Suppose he likes it for the wrong reasons? If he is not qualified to pass judgement on Synaphai, why should he be qualified to pass judgement on Psappha, even if it's a favorable one? Is he ignorant, stupid, close-minded, and irrational only when he doesn't like something?

Hahaha, very good point.

[i heart xenakis]

Hahaha, very good point.

Hahaha, not really.  It's so stupid it simply didn't require a response.

[pies]

a

[i heart xenakis]

Xenakis' friends are cooler than yours

Xenakis is funnier than you, and he's dead.

His brain function still decimates yours also.

[cygnusdei]

I thought maestros wore white bow ties.

[i heart xenakis]

I thought maestros wore white bow ties.

I honestly can't say I know anything pertaining to Xenakis being a conductor.  Was he?