Improv on a theme by Xenakis

[ctrastevere]

I really can't claim to see what everyone's problem with Derek is. He's entitled to his opinion, and isn't insulting in his presentation of it. He's explained his views calmly and politely. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with him (I, for one, don't), I don't believe he's acted irrationally or rudely in any way. If he doesn't like Xenakis, he doesn't like Xenakis... it's as simple as that. Does it really matter that much?

[thierry13]

I really can't claim to see what everyone's problem with Derek is. He's entitled to his opinion, and isn't insulting in his presentation of it. He's explained his views calmly and politely. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with him (I, for one, don't), I don't believe he's acted irrationally or rudely in any way. If he doesn't like Xenakis, he doesn't like Xenakis... it's as simple as that. Does it really matter that much?

The FACT is that he doesn't like Xenakis but for the wrong reasons. I'll make again a good analogy to illustrate that : you go to Cuba looking for a good ski ride, but you can't find a snowy mountain there so you say you don't like Cuba, and then you go to alaska to get a nice sunny day at the beach, but you can't do that because there's snow everywhere, and because of that you don't like Alaska. THIS is irrational, and this is EXACTLY what Derek does with Xenakis.

[ctrastevere]

The FACT is that he doesn't like Xenakis but for the wrong reasons. I'll make again a good analogy to illustrate that : you go to Cuba looking for a good ski ride, but you can't find a snowy mountain there so you say you don't like Cuba, and then you go to alaska to get a nice sunny day at the beach, but you can't do that because there's snow everywhere, and because of that you don't like Alaska. THIS is irrational, and this is EXACTLY what Derek does with Xenakis.

Hmm, no that's not how I see it.

Derek sums up his point in this thread as:

Your music makes sense to my ears and has a lot of expression in it...but Xenakis sounds very dry and boring to me... Xenakis was just more of the same, and very boring more of the same as far as I'm concerned. quantum, mayla, pianowolfi, ted, and others are way, way more creative than he was. They genuinely create music from the heart.  I can't really back that up but that's what I believe, in total sincerity.

You then say:

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

Now Derek freely admits that he can't back up his opinion. However, what's the difference? He never claims that what he's saying is "factual." He ends practically every one of his ideas with phrases such as "to me" and "as far as I'm concerned," indicating subjectivity. If he was attempting to write a thesis that promotes his opinion as objective fact, the claims of "ignorance" and so on would be more justified, but I don't see that as applicable to this situation.

So what you're basically saying is that in order for me to be able to say I don't like Xenakis' music, I have to go out of my way to read Formalized Music, purchase twenty different recordings of Herma and be able to recite the laws of Boolean algebra while standing on my head and making a cup of tea?? Give me a break here! I certainly don't condone making rash generalizations through a lack of knowledge, but you can't possibly be suggesting that I must first be familiar with a composer's entire catalogue of works and the mathematic principles of which they're all based before I can have an opinion as basic as I don't like his/her music.

Everyone seems to be so scared of those who dare to disagree with them. The former group preaches tolerance and such, yet they are the first to attack someone for nothing other than a slight difference of musical taste. Way to go, guys -- you sure portray lovers of modern music in a good light!

[thierry13]

Now Derek freely admits that he can't back up his opinion. However, what's the difference? He never claims that what he's saying is "factual." He ends practically every one of his ideas with phrases such as "to me" and "as far as I'm concerned," indicating subjectivity.

Those key words are not subjectivity but ignorance : as far as HE knows. He explained very well the FACTS of why he doesn't like it, and based on THOSE facts, and only this, I could tell he was ignorant on the subject ... not by lack of interest/listening, but by simple lack of knowledge. And YOU give me a break with your stupid "I'd have to read whole books or whatever". It's really not complicated, and I certainly didn't study it very far, but still can say Derek's opinion is very biased. A simple short explication ( verbal one, less than 10 minutes, but by reading it would be much longer) could teach you what those composers tried to do. By his explanation of why he doesn't like the music, I can obviously tell his lack of knowledge. There is no problem in itself in a lack of knowledge, if one CAN open himself to that knowledge and not continue to promote opinions backed by this same ignorance. The fact is that Derek apparently wants to stay ignorant and THAT is the problem.

[Derek]

The fact is that Derek apparently wants to stay ignorant and THAT is the problem.

I feel that the enthusiasm with which I enjoyed Vivaldi, Beethoven, Bach, at age 13 when I was first getting into classical music was not at all improved by understanding form, harmony or anything else from a theoretical perspective. I get the same feelings of joy from listening to that music now that I did then (not to mention I enjoy much more music than that now...I owe that to being a very open minded person). Since then I have read about traditional theory, and found it amusing to think about simply because "I can" but it has not really helped me to appreciate the music any better or make me like it more, or even help me compose it better. I have found it to be completely useless when applied to listening, playing and composing.

Since this is the case, I can't imagine how reading "Formalized Music" or any other treatise of modern music theory could possibly change my opinion of the music---and that is it doesn't seem to me to be created by a mind intuitively searching for beauty. Which is my explanation for why I do not enjoy the music. Anything that is introduced which is not a human mind reacting to the flow of musical ideas as they develop, whether composed or improvised, tends to pollute my ability to enjoy it, depending on the degree to which the composer abandons his own honest search for beauty. I'm sure Cage and Xenakis and others were nice guys and may have been kind of gutsy to put up with criticism...but their music completely, totally stinks. In my opinion. 

At that point you might say, well, you, Derek, have an anachronistic view of the purpose of music. And to that I say, if you would like to make music, for yourself, synonymous with ambient noise, synonymous with silence, synonymous with the overtone series or anything else which previously had its own dictionary entry---go ahead and do it! I'll just start referring to music as: "The sort of sound created by humans, for humans, with an intent to satisfy and delight and inspire."  Which takes a few more words....  I'd really like to just continue referring to it as music, personally, though. 

[thierry13]

I feel that the enthusiasm with which I enjoyed Vivaldi, Beethoven, Bach, at age 13 when I was first getting into classical music was not at all improved by understanding form, harmony or anything else from a theoretical perspective.

And that is normal because their music is very instinctive, but if you say your enjoyment of beethoven as not improved from understanding form harmony and anything else, then I think you simply didn't study/made links to the music with it enough.

[Derek]

And that is normal because their music is very instinctive, but if you say your enjoyment of beethoven as not improved from understanding form harmony and anything else, then I think you simply didn't study/made links to the music with it enough.

I just don't see how knowing some conscious fact about form or harmony could possibly change how the sound makes me feel. As though I could simultaneously hear some beautiful moment in a piece, and think about its conscious, theoretically labeled function at the same time and get an increased sense of elation from it? I'm not convinced.  I guess I just don't believe those Masters sat around thinking about theory as much as we do today. I am willing to bet they spent the vast majority of their time composing at a keyboard instrument, having the time of their lives (combined with the discipline of writing down their ideas, of course), listening, playing and experimenting with intense enthusiasm, probably not once referring to a composition or theory reference book.

[ctrastevere]

Those key words are not subjectivity but ignorance : as far as HE knows. He explained very well the FACTS of why he doesn't like it, and based on THOSE facts, and only this, I could tell he was ignorant on the subject ... not by lack of interest/listening, but by simple lack of knowledge. And YOU give me a break with your stupid "I'd have to read whole books or whatever". It's really not complicated, and I certainly didn't study it very far, but still can say Derek's opinion is very biased. A simple short explication ( verbal one, less than 10 minutes, but by reading it would be much longer) could teach you what those composers tried to do. By his explanation of why he doesn't like the music, I can obviously tell his lack of knowledge. There is no problem in itself in a lack of knowledge, if one CAN open himself to that knowledge and not continue to promote opinions backed by this same ignorance. The fact is that Derek apparently wants to stay ignorant and THAT is the problem.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm merely saying -- what's the difference? Let him have his opinion. The fact that you are so willing to attack him (and now even me, someone who does enjoy a good amount of Xenakis' music) indicates a large amount of insecurity on your part.

As for my "stupid" statement you cited, I think it would be crudely obvious to most rational people that I was being facetious, but then again, most rational people wouldn't have reacted the way you have, so...

Feel free to attack me further if you so desire. It merely proves the points I made earlier in the thread.

[thierry13]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm merely saying -- what's the difference? Let him have his opinion. The fact that you are so willing to attack him (and now even me, someone who does enjoy a good amount of Xenakis' music) indicates a large amount of insecurity on your part.

As for my "stupid" statement you cited, I think it would be crudely obvious to most rational people that I was being facetious, but then again, most rational people wouldn't have reacted the way you have, so...

Feel free to attack me further if you so desire. It merely proves the points I made earlier in the thread.

There is no insecurity in anything I said in this thread, and I know what I'm talking about on this whole matter. I understood that you were being facetious, but the message was that NO it is not AT ALL complicated to understand at least the basis of what Xenakis tried to do. As far as I can see your post says nothing more than "you are not a rational being" and has no argumentative value. And I did NOT attack you on your "appreciation of Xenakis' music", I said it was stupid to think there was a big study behind understanding the very essence of Xenakis.

[retrouvailles]

I just don't see how knowing some conscious fact about form or harmony could possibly change how the sound makes me feel. As though I could simultaneously hear some beautiful moment in a piece, and think about its conscious, theoretically labeled function at the same time and get an increased sense of elation from it? I'm not convinced.  I guess I just don't believe those Masters sat around thinking about theory as much as we do today. I am willing to bet they spent the vast majority of their time composing at a keyboard instrument, having the time of their lives (combined with the discipline of writing down their ideas, of course), listening, playing and experimenting with intense enthusiasm, probably not once referring to a composition or theory reference book.

One question. Why do you think that all music has to be about "beauty" (however you define it)? Why can't it be some other type of emotion? Perhaps one that cannot be defined easily? A lot of 20th century music, Xenakis and Cage included, explores emotions and points of view that aren't found otherwise in music. They aren't famous simply because of their innovations. They also communicate something to the listener (that is worth communicating) that they wouldn't otherwise get. Sure, beauty is a great thing, and there is an abundance of pieces that have it, but why not explore other things? I think it is a big mistake to listen to purely "beautiful" music. Sometimes it is meant to be "ugly" to the listener.

[Derek]

One question. Why do you think that all music has to be about "beauty" (however you define it)? Why can't it be some other type of emotion? Perhaps one that cannot be defined easily? A lot of 20th century music, Xenakis and Cage included, explores emotions and points of view that aren't found otherwise in music. They aren't famous simply because of their innovations. They also communicate something to the listener (that is worth communicating) that they wouldn't otherwise get. Sure, beauty is a great thing, and there is an abundance of pieces that have it, but why not explore other things? I think it is a big mistake to listen to purely "beautiful" music. Sometimes it is meant to be "ugly" to the listener.

The reason I dislike Xenakis, Cage and others who introduce non-human-ness into their music is not because I find their music ugly, but because I find it vacuous.  It's just boring. It doesn't make me feel a sensation of "darkness" or "ugliness" or beauty or anything at all. And I've already offered and explanation of why I react that way: I feel that they have introduced something non-human into their music, to the point where it doesn't move me either to react to something ugly or to something beautiful.

So to answer your question "why not explore other things?" I'd say I really don't think they are exploring other things. They've stopped exploring, by abandoning (or perhaps not even starting) their own intuitive search for those other things.

I have heard much music which I think was intended to communicate darkness or ugliness but I would also consider that music beautiful...my personal concept of beauty isn't a simple matter...nor do I think it is for anyone...if we are to discuss that I think we should start a new thread.

[i heart xenakis]

Which of Xenakis' themes is this based on?  Boolean Algebra or Markov Chains?  Either way, very impressive one could improvise on one of those themes 

I have to agree with JRE that this thread is quite offensive.  Besides, this thread already exists; I also feel a little bad for Quantum that his thread has been destroyed like this.  I think all of this should just move over to the Synaphai thread which has already been completely obliterated by badgering people.  I'm not even going to bother getting into it this time.  I have decided I'd actually prefer Derek was unable to enjoy Xenakis, because Xenakis is an acquired taste, requiring intellect and palatte like a fine red wine, and if it weren't for people like Derek I wouldn't have a way to know... well I'll follow the theme of the posts in this thread so far and not finish that sentence, because I'm sure it's obvious.

[ahinton]

The reason I dislike Xenakis, Cage and others who introduce non-human-ness into their music is not because I find their music ugly, but because I find it vacuous.  It's just boring. It doesn't make me feel a sensation of "darkness" or "ugliness" or beauty or anything at all. And I've already offered and explanation of why I react that way: I feel that they have introduced something non-human into their music, to the point where it doesn't move me either to react to something ugly or to something beautiful.

So to answer your question "why not explore other things?" I'd say I really don't think they are exploring other things. They've stopped exploring, by abandoning (or perhaps not even starting) their own intuitive search for those other things.

I have heard much music which I think was intended to communicate darkness or ugliness but I would also consider that music beautiful...my personal concept of beauty isn't a simple matter...nor do I think it is for anyone...if we are to discuss that I think we should start a new thread.

If I can respect your opinion - which, though I disagree with it very strongly in its application to Xenakis, I am prepaqred to do at least in principle - then you should be able to do the same and at least make the effort to learn to respect Xenakis for what he sought to achieve, which, I might remind you, was very clearly NOT to dehumanise the act of musical composition and thereby be vacuous; your suggestion that this is what Xenakis did would, I suppose, have to be acceptable as your personal opinion but it is absolutely unacceptable as you appear to present it - i.e. fact. Your remark as expressed is therefore deeply offensive to the intelligence of the reader here, not to mention to the memory of Xenakis himself, who is not even able to answer back.

Best,

Alistair

[i heart xenakis]

Oh haha listened to this for the first time.


This truly opens my eyes to what people like Derek and tehpro are capable of understanding in modern music.  This doesn't even remotely resemble anything Xenakis ever has or would ever even contemplate writing.  It sounds like a bad impersonation of Babbitt.  And apparently you guys can't distinguish anything beyond "dissonance" and "atonality".

[pies]

a

[Petter]

HI GUYS!

[thierry13]

To say Xenakis is an acquired taste requiring intellect is an over-generalization.
Watch this video from 20' to the end:

...and you will see that even a random group of middle-schoolers can appreciate his music, and even think of it as 'cool.'
My theory: those who hold these profoundly irrational opinions of Xenakis and his music are dumber than middle-schoolers.

There is a huge difference between appreciating(or even liking) and understanding. To refer to wine like i hear xenakis did, a normal person who likes wine but does not know a lots of things in wine etc. will not see THAT much difference between a 100$ and a 2000$ bottle of wine. The persone who does know wines tough, will see huge difference.

[tehpro]

Oh haha listened to this for the first time.


This truly opens my eyes to what people like Derek and tehpro are capable of understanding in modern music.  This doesn't even remotely resemble anything Xenakis ever has or would ever even contemplate writing.  It säääounds like a bad impersonation of Babbitt.  And apparently you guys can't distinguish anything beyond "dissonance" and "atonality".

I'm sorry that you fail to appreciate our art. Maybe you are just not sophisticated enough. I would suggest that you study at least 13 more books about modern music so you can understand what I am trying to say with my improvisation. You also might want to consider the fact that to be able to properly appreciate my improvisations you need to understand the equation that decides angular momentum density of classical electromagnetic waves and how it affects the note intervals and tempo in this particular improv.



In the second half of the piece I used even more profound mathematical concepts so be sure to study the sinusoidal plane wave angular momentum as well.






Come back when you know more about modern music.

[dnephi]

possibly if you lyked zcrib you would unleahz da fury for uz.

[pies]

a

[i heart xenakis]

I'm sorry that you fail to appreciate our art. Maybe you are just not sophisticated enough. I would suggest that you study at least 13 more books about modern music so you can understand what I am trying to say with my improvisation. You also might want to consider the fact that to be able to properly appreciate my improvisations you need to understand the equation that decides angular momentum density of classical electromagnetic waves and how it affects the note intervals and tempo in this particular improv.



In the second half of the piece I used even more profound mathematical concepts so be sure to study the sinusoidal plane wave angular momentum as well.

I never said I was incapable of appreciating it.  I simply said that it did not resemble the works of Xenakis.  Although, I will say that I do not appreciate it, because it is mindless and boring.  Also, it is impossible to "improvise" something based on mathematics, not only because of how impossibly difficult it would be, but also because if you're following a formula that determines the sequence of notes you hit, it is no longer an improvisation.


But none of this matters because you didn't improvise anything at all; that is blatantly a MIDI file pushed through a converter.  I can't believe you don't have better things to do with your time.

[mcgillcomposer]

I never said I was incapable of appreciating it.  I simply said that it did not resemble the works of Xenakis.  Although, I will say that I do not appreciate it, because it is mindless and boring.  Also, it is impossible to "improvise" something based on mathematics, not only because of how impossibly difficult it would be, but also because if you're following a formula that determines the sequence of notes you hit, it is no longer an improvisation.


But none of this matters because you didn't improvise anything at all; that is blatantly a MIDI file pushed through a converter.  I can't believe you don't have better things to do with your time.

Genau. Also, just because a work is based on a complicated mathematical formula doesn't make it 'ingenious'. If that were the case, we'd all be capable of writing music for the ages. So, I would venture to say that understanding the particular formula at hand is much less important than recognizing where Xenakis succeeds as a superb craftsman.