Hands off Xenakis!

[ahinton]

A plea to all reasonably members of this forum (i.e the majority, I'm sure!)...

There have been - or rather still are - at least two threads on this forum which have incorporated numerous vitriolic exchanges about the music of Xenakis and contained some profoundly gratuitious and insulting remarks about the composer and what he sought to achieve; most such observations appear to have emanated from people who know and are prepared to learn little about his work and how and why it came into being, so a distinctly unwelcome impression of insensate bigotry has been fostered which can do and has done no good whatsoever.

Each composer has his/her own paths to discover and forrows to plough; we cannot all warm to everyone's music, but we can at least try to be dispassionately critical and address and assess music whether or not it may happen to appeal to us personally.

Our responses to music as humans are primarily intellectual and emotional - which is as it should be - but whilst we will each accordingly develop our individual personal opinions on all sorts of things, we should at least try to dissociate these from what we present as though factual; quite a few remarks about Xenakis have recently failed quite dismally and dismayingly to make any genuine attempt to do this.

It's not up to me, of course, but I would like to see some more temperate and properly considered remarks about composers such as Xenakis in place of the uninformed/uninformative and respect-free barbs that some of us have been observing here of late.

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[thierry13]

XENAKIS sucks

Jazz sucks.

[Derek]

I apologized in the xenakis piano concerto thread, and since then (in the latest thread) I have indeed made a genuine attempt to qualify my positions as opinion. I don't want to just stop at: "I dislike Xenakis' music" because I find it more interesting to try to describe why I dislike it. And in this particular case there happens to be an easily describable reason why I dislike it. Much of his music (not all, I do find Psappha pleasant at least) appears to have been created with some sort of theory which I personally believe to be artificial. All the music which I enjoy the most was created intuitively somehow, whether composed on paper or in someone's head, or improvised, etc. A common trait which Cage and Xenakis seem to have is they introduce non-intuition into their music. Either chance, or some sort of application of mathematics or serialism.  I see this as very different from the composer who just loves the sound of the instruments he composes for and does it out of simple, intuitive, human joy. If Cage's or Xenakis' methods ever DO come up with something I like (and I'm not sure if Psappha counts in this category or not...I don't mind it, but it doesn't excite me that much), perhaps my opinion will change. But so far, non intuitive methods being used to write music have failed to please my ears. Schoenberg is at the very border of not being able to please my ears, but I have grown to enjoy the sound of some music which employs tone rows. I like to improvise on them, also.

I grant that what Xenakis has made is art, but I do not like it, and I have offered a very clear explanation for why not. I am not trying to convince you this is fact...just trying to explain why I don't like it. If this isn't good enough for you, then probably nothing is. I feel like a heretic in the Church of Xenakis or something, with Ahinton as its high priest and "I heart xenakis" as the uhh....altar boy?   Oh dear...

[cygnusdei]

Should we commission Chris Crocker for a Youtube video?

[ahinton]

I apologized in the xenakis piano concerto thread, and since then (in the latest thread) I have indeed made a genuine attempt to qualify my positions as opinion. I don't want to just stop at: "I dislike Xenakis' music" because I find it more interesting to try to describe why I dislike it. And in this particular case there happens to be an easily describable reason why I dislike it. Much of his music (not all, I do find Psappha pleasant at least) appears to have been created with some sort of theory which I personally believe to be artificial. All the music which I enjoy the most was created intuitively somehow, whether composed on paper or in someone's head, or improvised, etc. A common trait which Cage and Xenakis seem to have is they introduce non-intuition into their music. Either chance, or some sort of application of mathematics or serialism.  I see this as very different from the composer who just loves the sound of the instruments he composes for and does it out of simple, intuitive, human joy. If Cage's or Xenakis' methods ever DO come up with something I like (and I'm not sure if Psappha counts in this category or not...I don't mind it, but it doesn't excite me that much), perhaps my opinion will change. But so far, non intuitive methods being used to write music have failed to please my ears. Schoenberg is at the very border of not being able to please my ears, but I have grown to enjoy the sound of some music which employs tone rows. I like to improvise on them, also.

I grant that what Xenakis has made is art, but I do not like it, and I have offered a very clear explanation for why not. I am not trying to convince you this is fact...just trying to explain why I don't like it. If this isn't good enough for you, then probably nothing is. I feel like a heretic in the Church of Xenakis or something, with Ahinton as its high priest and "I heart xenakis" as the uhh....altar boy?   Oh dear...

Well, much of this is certainly more rational, considered and honest than some of what has been written previously by you and certain othes on the subject, but what I still take issue with here is the implication that, for a composer, the intuitive and the systematic are necessarily incompatible. I accept that the manner in which and the extent to which certain composers have devised systems and systematic procedures within which to work varies greatly (after all, one has only to examine dodecaphonically based works by 20 different composers, for example, to see how very differently the 12-note disciplines have been applied in practice), but one has only to consider how composers down the ages have created specific procedural disciplines to realise that this is nothing new, nor is it anything specific to the age of Xenakis or that of Schönberg who even spoke about wishing to be remembered as a twelve-tone composer and not as a twelve-tone composer (which, given the date of his splendid Second Chamber Symphony, is perfectly understandable). One could similarly berate Elliott Carter for constructing "artificial" problems for himself in the way he worked on his pieces in the latter 1960s and early 1970s, but the very fact that he is turning out piece after piece, instinctively and intuintively, in his hundredth year surely establishes that whatever he felt he needed to go through 40 years ago has left him well able to flex his compositional muscles indefinitely (has any other composer continued to compse at such an age? - if so, I am unaware of it). What in any case is so "simple" about intuitive human joy? And why should music, or its creative processes, be specifically confied to joy when the human condition knows so many other emotions as well? You have now clearly moved away from accusing Xenakis of dehumanising music by providing a more bland and less castigatory account of your stance here, but although I appreciate that you've done this, I'm still uncertain that you've got this right yet. You seem not to take on board the rôle of mathematics in nature, preferring to regard it as something which is by its very nature only artificial; do you really believe that mathematics is nothing more than a science devised solely by humans? You finally let yourself down by making a stab at returning to the previous Derek in your last sentence, where your references to the "Church of Xenakis" (how Xenakis would have laughed at so preposterous an idea!) and to the notion of me as a "high priest" of anything are equally gratuitious and pointless.

There are plenty of pieces by Xenakis to which I am not at all keen to listen, but I formed my opinion on them only after hearing each of them several times each and have not allowed that opinion to diminish my respect for the composer and what he set out to do.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

There are now three threads running concurrently on the subject of Xenakis (and, whilst I am aware that I may not have helped matter by starting this one, I do wonder if they might usefully be merged - Nils?) which each sadly evidence a phenomenon that I feel certain would have dismayed Xenakis himself - the galvanising of entrenched and inflexible positions that generate often overheated exchanges.

Why Xenakis? And why now, several years after his final works were composed and well over half a century after his first major pieces emerged? In addition to the more balanced and less bigoted attitudes that I sought to commend here and elsewhere, it woudl surely be helpful to all concerned if the music of Xenakis was first recognised as a vital thread in the fabric of 20th century composition, just as is the music of Britten, Carter, Shostakovich, Henze, Varèse and many others of almost entirely different persuasions. It is generally agreed that Xenakis occupies an important place on the musical map of the past century, so it would be sensible if any and all comment at least bore that fact in mind. As others have rightly observed, we don't have to want to listen to some of his music if it does not itself make us want to listen to it. For example, for all that I admire Elliott Carter very much and enjoy many of his works, I really cannot get into his Third String Quartet at all - and that's after about 50 listenings to it over the past 30+ years; it conveys no more to me now than it did when first I heard it and, for all that it earnt him his second Pulitzer Prize, it still strikes me as a kind of enterprising and inventive experiment that ultimately failed as a piece of music (although that, of course, is very much a personal opinion with which I'm sure others will disagree).

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Well, I mean what other than religious fervor can cause so much fury at a couple of rude comments by a young amateur? That's beside the point though...

I don't see what I can "get right" here. After all, you pointed out that my position is an opinion and that I shouldn't try to say that it is fact. I've learned, internally that it is in fact an opinion. Because, as you admitted, these composers do use some non intuitive ways of composing. That is the common trait the composers I dislike share---thus I pointed it out. I have been very open minded all the years I've listened to music, I used to dislike anything that was "harshly dissonant." But when I suddenly realized that I was listening to death metal while criticizing harshly dissonant classical music I realized I had thoughtlessly jumped on the bandwagon of individuals who only listen to pre-modern tonality. After that I began to enjoy a much larger variety of music.   I've even given Cage, Xenakis, and others a chance by listening to their music at various times, and so far they've failed to interest me. Thus I offered an explanation.

[ahinton]

Well, I mean what other than religious fervor can cause so much fury at a couple of rude comments by a young amateur? That's beside the point though...

I don't know, Derek, since I've not exuded any "fury" myself and am not in the habit of doing any such thing; if you do not accept that, you must have a very different idea of fury to mine.

I don't see what I can "get right" here. After all, you pointed out that my position is an opinion and that I shouldn't try to say that it is fact. I've learned, internally that it is in fact an opinion. Because, as you admitted, these composers do use some non intuitive ways of composing. That is the common trait the composers I dislike share---thus I pointed it out.

But you omit to mention those composers who could reasonably be said to have taken advantage of what you call "non-intuitive ways of composing" but to whose music you probably do enjoy listening - unless, of course, you also dislike the music of, for example Byrd, Palestrina, J S Bach and others. I think that this may stem from some kind of shortfall in your understanding and acceptance of what actually constitutes "non-intuitive" compositional processes and the extent and nature of their rôle in the overall act of composition. Do you believe that 16th century composers who wrote within the strict disciplines of what we now tend to term "species counterpoint" were accordingly working largely or entirely in "non-intuitive" ways? Do you believe that Die Kunst der Fuge is overly "non-intuitive"? and, if so, do you think that it is more so than, say, Schönberg's Violin Concerto? As a composer myself, I would say that the processes involved in almost all written musical composition worthy of the name involve a variable mixture of what you call the "non-intuitive" with the intuitive and instinctive.

I have been very open minded all the years I've listened to music, I used to dislike anything that was "harshly dissonant." But when I suddenly realized that I was listening to death metal while criticizing harshly dissonant classical music I realized I had thoughtlessly jumped on the bandwagon of individuals who only listen to pre-modern tonality. After that I began to enjoy a much larger variety of music.   I've even given Cage, Xenakis, and others a chance by listening to their music at various times, and so far they've failed to interest me. Thus I offered an explanation.

OK, I can accept all that you say here; at least you've given these composers a chance, just as I have with Carter's Third Quartet...

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

But you omit to mention those composers who could reasonably be said to have taken advantage of what you call "non-intuitive ways of composing" but to whose music you probably do enjoy listening - unless, of course, you also dislike the music of, for example Byrd, Palestrina, J S Bach and others. I think that this may stem from some kind of shortfall in your understanding and acceptance of what actually constitutes "non-intuitive" compositional processes and the extent and nature of their rôle in the overall act of composition. Do you believe that 16th century composers who wrote within the strict disciplines of what we now tend to term "species counterpoint" were accordingly working largely or entirely in "non-intuitive" ways? Do you believe that Die Kunst der Fuge is overly "non-intuitive"? and, if so, do you think that it is more so than, say, Schönberg's Violin Concerto? As a composer myself, I would say that the processes involved in almost all written musical composition worthy of the name involve a variable mixture of what you call the "non-intuitive" with the intuitive and instinctive.
OK, I can accept all that you say here; at least you've given these composers a chance, just as I have with Carter's Third Quartet...

Best,

Alistair

That would be like saying that boogie woogie artists of the mid 20th century were using non intuitive methods because they used the 12 bar blues style. The composers you mentioned use what I would call traditions, not non-intuitive methods. There's nothing non-intuitive about a fugue, I don't think, in fact it is one of the most intuitive forms of music in existence, because of its self-referential nature. This is especially the case when an entire fugue is based on a catchy melody, then it's like echoing catchiness all over the place.

I regard the tradition of fugue, the tradition of 4 part harmony, and perhaps even the tradition of using ABA form and others to be "natural" in a certain sense, since they either rely on self-reference, or some kind of harmonic consistency that can be objectively observed. At the same time, I don't believe that such "naturalness" means that we shouldn't try to use crazy harmonies, rhythms or forms...I think all is freedom in music.  Thus, I do not disparage Xenakis or Cage or others just because they are exploring other methods at all. It is just, the methods they used produced music that does not interest me. And examining what little I've been able to learn about their methods, it appears to me there is much less of just "having fun at a keyboard instrument" in their music.  For now this satisfies me as an explanation for why I don't like their music much.  Perhaps I'm biased because I like to "have fun at a keyboard instrument"  and I have so much fun at it, I can't imagine what benefit my own music would acquire by trying to make the rhythms sound like the fibonacci sequence or by sticking spoons and bottle caps into the strings of my piano. While the resulting sounds may be interesting to some people, they don't interest me anywhere near as much as music made without any regard to introducing something other than music itself:  melody, harmony, rhythm...and above all: FUN (otherwise known as joy, elation, satisfaction, etc.).

Also I would take issue with your suggestion (made elsewhere I believe) that because I say I like "beauty" and "fun" that somehow I don't like music that expresses fear, angst, anger, darkness, etc. Paradoxically, some of the music I like which I feel does express those negative emotions satisfies me in a similar way to the kind that is happy/heroic, etc. I haven't thought all that much about that subject...I would just say I have heard music which expresses feelings of anger/frustration much more convincingly, for me, than Xenakis has.

[thierry13]

That would be like saying that boogie woogie artists of the mid 20th century were using non intuitive methods because they used the 12 bar blues style. The composers you mentioned use what I would call traditions, not non-intuitive methods. There's nothing non-intuitive about a fugue, I don't think, in fact it is one of the most intuitive forms of music in existence, because of its self-referential nature. This is especially the case when an entire fugue is based on a catchy melody, then it's like echoing catchiness all over the place.

I think he was refering more to the use of the name BACH in Kunst der fuge ... if I am not mistaken in understanding what mr. Hinton was trying to say ...

[minor9th]

I love most of his instrumental music (not on a 24/7 basis, though), but I just can't get into his vocal works. Honest to god, one piece for baritone and orchestra sounded as if the man were barking!

I agree that people should not attack a composer just because they don't like his/her music and simply dismiss it as worthless.

[ahinton]

I think he was refering more to the use of the name BACH in Kunst der fuge ... if I am not mistaken in understanding what mr. Hinton was trying to say ...

Well, I was not referring only to that, but it is indeed one example of what I meant.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

Do you believe that Die Kunst der Fuge is overly "non-intuitive"? and, if so, do you think that it is more so than, say, Schönberg's Violin Concerto?

It was not me, to whom this question was directed,  I didn't want to write anything in a thread which has the name of Xenakis in his title - but anyways...

I think, "Die Kunst der Fuge" is Bach's most boring composition. Not from the view of a musicologist, but from the view of a listener to a performance of this work.

The value of a musical piece does not depend of it's architectural construction, but on it's sound. Bach has composed so many wonderful works that do not use all these theoretical tricks but are just music, that is fun to hear.

Same for Schönberg. His atonal composition, which are not "serial", are much more interesting and expressive than the serial ones.

The most important value of music lies in how it sounds.

Okay, finally, I will be killed 

[ahinton]

That would be like saying that boogie woogie artists of the mid 20th century were using non intuitive methods because they used the 12 bar blues style. The composers you mentioned use what I would call traditions, not non-intuitive methods.

Er - no. In saying this, however, I rather suspect that you may be falling (albeit unwittingly) foul of Busoni's barb about tradition as a stultifier - more specifically in the sense that you appear to regard a tradition as something that has always by definition possessed some kind of immutability and immemoriality, whereas in fact every tradition has grown from somewhere rather than having always been there. You seek to draw a distinction between what you call "traditional" and "non-intuitive" ways of working yet, even if one accepts these terms in the way that you use them, it is abundantly self-evident that there is no clear dividing line between the two. I mentioned, for example (although you did not respond) that some of what you call "non-intuitive" phenomena are indeed naturally occurring; I am no mathematician, yet I do know that mathematics is a science developed by humans to account for naturally occurring phenomena rather than for the sake of self-serving intellectual number-crunching. I do accept the premise that it is at least theoretically possible for a composer to allow him/herself to become a slave to procedure and, when this occurs, the results are likely to be counter-intuitive, but let is not forget that there is such a thing as mathematical intuition and that there is accordingly no obvious reason to claim that musical intuition is, in principle, any different; why otherwise would you suppose that so many mathematicians from the present day at least as far back as Pythagoras have been so preoccupied with music?

There's nothing non-intuitive about a fugue, I don't think, in fact it is one of the most intuitive forms of music in existence, because of its self-referential nature. This is especially the case when an entire fugue is based on a catchy melody, then it's like echoing catchiness all over the place.

But here you are partially confusing intuitiveness with catchiness. Fugal procedures are highly disciplined, but those disciples have undergone all manner of transformations to the point that a fugue by a mid-17th century composer and one by Sorabji or Szymanowski are of almost sufficient difference as to be barely recognisable as examples of the same persuasion. Fugues long depended in part upon tonal centre relationships, yet there have also been plenty of 12-tone fugues as well.

Do you suppose that Schönberg abandoned the intuitiveness of his early music (not only the more obviously tonally-oriented pieces but also works such as Erwartung and Funf Orchesterstücke) when he became preoccupied with dodecaphonic working? And what of other near-serialist composers such as Skryabin (in his latter years) or Roslavets (in his earlier ones)? You still for some reason seem determined to place what you call "intuitiveness" in one category and working within certain procedural disciplines in another, as though theer can be no possible compatibility between them.

I regard the tradition of fugue, the tradition of 4 part harmony, and perhaps even the tradition of using ABA form and others to be "natural" in a certain sense, since they either rely on self-reference, or some kind of harmonic consistency that can be objectively observed.

None of these things would have seemed particularly "natural" to the average 13th century composer...

At the same time, I don't believe that such "naturalness" means that we shouldn't try to use crazy harmonies, rhythms or forms...I think all is freedom in music.

But one person's craziness is another's normality...

Thus, I do not disparage Xenakis or Cage or others just because they are exploring other methods at all. It is just, the methods they used produced music that does not interest me.

Fair enough, but it does interest others; if what they produced interested no one, that might be quite a different matter.

And examining what little I've been able to learn about their methods, it appears to me there is much less of just "having fun at a keyboard instrument" in their music.

And how much of that is there in Berlioz, or other composers of the past 200 years or so whose keyboard orientation might have been somewhat less than your own?

For now this satisfies me as an explanation for why I don't like their music much.  Perhaps I'm biased because I like to "have fun at a keyboard instrument"

Yes, that does seem to be true. Paganini might have substituted the word "violin" had he sought to make a similar statement, but never mind...

and I have so much fun at it, I can't imagine what benefit my own music would acquire by trying to make the rhythms sound like the fibonacci sequence or by sticking spoons and bottle caps into the strings of my piano.

But no one is asking or expecting you to do any such thing! And just because I respect Xenakis and want to listen to some of his works sometimes doesn't in any sense mean that I want to compose music that either sounds like his or explores the same disciplines that he chose to explore.

While the resulting sounds may be interesting to some people, they don't interest me anywhere near as much as music made without any regard to introducing something other than music itself:  melody, harmony, rhythm...and above all: FUN (otherwise known as joy, elation, satisfaction, etc.).

Apart from the fact that there's more to life than fun, one person's fun, melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. is another person's - well, you surely get my drift...

Also I would take issue with your suggestion (made elsewhere I believe) that because I say I like "beauty" and "fun" that somehow I don't like music that expresses fear, angst, anger, darkness, etc. Paradoxically, some of the music I like which I feel does express those negative emotions satisfies me in a similar way to the kind that is happy/heroic, etc. I haven't thought all that much about that subject...I would just say I have heard music which expresses feelings of anger/frustration much more convincingly, for me, than Xenakis has.

That is not what I am suggesting. What I do say, however, is that one should try to open one's ears to as wide a variety of musical expression as possible and, in so doing, one's opinions become better formed and more explicable. I am not asking you to be convinced by anything that Xenakis does - merely to accept that others are so, even those who only want to listen to some of his work on occasion. What I think Xenakis has done is expand our horizons of musical expression, just as Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Schönberg, Shostakovich, Carter and so many others have done; that strikes me as exemplifying the kind of human development which perhaps only music can provide, for our intellectual and emotional capacities are - or rather can and should be - very much more heightened than once they were.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think, "Die Kunst der Fuge" is Bach's most boring composition. Not from the view of a musicologist, but from the view of a listener to a performance of this work.

So why do you suppose that Busoni based his Fantasia Contrappuntistica - surely his greatest piano work - on it?

The value of a musical piece does not depend of it's architectural construction, but on it's sound.

It depends on both and more besides.

Bach has composed so many wonderful works that do not use all these theoretical tricks but are just music, that is fun to hear.

I don't happen to share your boredom with the one we're discussing here, so I cannot really comment.

Same for Schönberg. His atonal composition, which are not "serial", are much more interesting and expressive than the serial ones.

In general terms, I agree with you (except that none of them sound "atonal" to me, replete as they all are with all manner of triadic references and implications).

Okay, finally, I will be killed 

You and me both, then, it would seem (based on our view of those Schönberg pieces, at least...)

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Why are we talking about Bach now anyway? Maybe there was an element of algorithmic application of tricks to The Art of Fugue...perhaps what I'm getting at is a matter of degree rather than a black and white situation. I do not fear that will set me up for a slippery slope whereby eventually I'll like Xenakis, though.... because just on the sound alone, I do not like Xenakis' music. It seems to me whatever non-intuitive processes Bach may have employed in The Art of the Fugue were more "musical" (an opinion) than trying to shove math and physics into it. I'm just substituting musical for "natural" here. Yes there is mathematical intuition, and it is natural, but for me, when applied to music, I find it boring and not even slightly resembling music which satisfies my ears. I consider the two disciplines incompatible at least as Xenakis has tried to combine them.

I have an interesting question. It seems to me there is no "natural" mapping of any mathematical concept to the 12 tone chromatic scale. Even if there was, the composer would still have a choice of mapping his mathematical concept to the 12 tone scale or to 12 note rotations of a diatonic scale.  That is to say,  was Xenakis' math necessarily mapped to 12 tone chromatics and slides and whatever else he is employing? Or could he have easily used the same math to produce notes from a diatonic scale? Or even from just a single chord?

This could be the result of total misunderstanding of how he went about it (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but it seems to me that that choice is at least one example of how arbitrary it is to just "put some math" into a composition. I don't mean to reduce his "inspiration" or what not, especially if it was genuine (which I'm sure it was) to "just math," but...you get what I'm saying.

[ahinton]

Why are we talking about Bach now anyway?

Why not?(!)...

Maybe there was an element of algorithmic application of tricks to The Art of Fugue...perhaps what I'm getting at is a matter of degree rather than a black and white situation.

Now we're getting somewhere...

I do not fear that will set me up for a slippery slope whereby eventually I'll like Xenakis, though.... because just on the sound alone, I do not like Xenakis' music.

It is not a slope, it is not slippery and, in any case, as I have already said several times, no one is trying either to persuade you or expect you to "like" Xenakis's music.

It seems to me whatever non-intuitive processes Bach may have employed in The Art of the Fugue were more "musical" (an opinion) than trying to shove math and physics into it.

If your remark is indicative that you think that all Xenakis did was "shove math and physics" into his compositions in the kind of arbitrary and quasi-aleatoric manner that you appear to imply, you understand little of what he did and still less of what motivated - dare I say impired - him to do it.

I'm just substituting musical for "natural" here. Yes there is mathematical intuition, and it is natural, but for me, when applied to music, I find it boring and not even slightly resembling music which satisfies my ears. I consider the two disciplines incompatible at least as Xenakis has tried to combine them.

When anyone seeks to stick it on like plaster on a wound, the results would indeed most likely be both boring and unmusical, but Xenakis was a composer of far greater integrity than that. Why do you suppose that he wanted to write music at all? What do you believe his motivations were in doing so instead of just exploring, say, certain branches of pure mathematics and architecture?

I have an interesting question. It seems to me there is no "natural" mapping of any mathematical concept to the 12 tone chromatic scale. Even if there was, the composer would still have a choice of mapping his mathematical concept to the 12 tone scale or to 12 note rotations of a diatonic scale.  That is to say,  was Xenakis' math necessarily mapped to 12 tone chromatics and slides and whatever else he is employing? Or could he have easily used the same math to produce notes from a diatonic scale? Or even from just a single chord?

The 12 tone chromatic scale and the equal temperament on which is is based is a human construct that has not been around for all time, as you know; you could therefore say that music written /performed within its confines is in some sense "artificial". 12 note serialism is another matter altogether, as this depends also upon a different set of relationships between individual notes than that which applies in tonal / diatonic / triadic-based music. The creation of a 12 note row is not necessarily dependent upon the application of or adherence to any particular mathematical principles - nor is it even predicated upon the implication of "atonality", for it is obviously possible for such note rows to provide tonal / diatonic / tradic implications. I have on occasion used 12 note themes in my work which are not then treated serially (which is another matter).

To return to your statements about the resultant sound, however (by which I'd hope you meant to include not only the responses afforded by the individual sounds themselves but the ways in which they are organised in a piece, tonal or otherwise), I for one do not accept that it is necessary to understand all the procedures adopted by Xenakis in certain works in order to appreciate (albeit not necessarily also to "like") the result; one uses ones ears and one's brain processes what the ears covey to it and the other response mechanisms work in whatever ways they do for each individual listener.

This could be the result of total misunderstanding of how he went about it (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but it seems to me that that choice is at least one example of how arbitrary it is to just "put some math" into a composition. I don't mean to reduce his "inspiration" or what not, especially if it was genuine (which I'm sure it was) to "just math," but...you get what I'm saying.

No, I don't think I do now get what you are saying any more, because it sounded to me as though you were doing precisely what you're now saying you are not doing; your position thus remains somewhat unclear (to me, at least).

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Well, maybe I am just terrible at explaining my position, then, because it is still clear to me (which is making it ever more clear that these are all opinions we are discussing, not objective truth). I don't like Xenakis or Cage, from just listening to it. From what little I've read, it sounds like they used a method other than trying out ideas at instruments (or in their head in some cases) to see if they liked them. Thus, it seems reasonable to me this is an interesting fact to point out to explain why I don't like it. If I ever end up liking Xenakis or Cage or anyone else who uses non intuitive methods of composition, I'll let you know that my opinion has changed..

[ahinton]

Well, maybe I am just terrible at explaining my position, then, because it is still clear to me (which is making it ever more clear that these are all opinions we are discussing, not objective truth). I don't like Xenakis or Cage, from just listening to it. From what little I've read, it sounds like they used a method other than trying out ideas at instruments (or in their head in some cases) to see if they liked them. Thus, it seems reasonable to me this is an interesting fact to point out to explain why I don't like it.

OK, well let me explain mine, then, from a composer's standpoint. You may know that Ravel is famously credited as having once said to Stravinsky that some composers compose at the piano and others away from the piano - and that he should do the former (in other words, Ravel believed this to be the way that best suited Stravinsky). You may also know that Schönberg, regardless, stressed the importance of being able to work away from the instrument (since this is vital if composition has to be done when no instrument happens to be available to the composer at the time). It is perhaps inevitable that composers who are particularly gifted instrumentalists may be tempted to compose at their instruments, although this does not necessarily follow in all cases. I have very little ability as a pianist, so I have to work away from the piano when composing; not only that, when I've tried to work at the piano I find the instrument at best a distraction and at worst a hindrance when trying to compose - even when I am writing for the piano, although I am glad that I've given it a try. As you know, the composer as performer was pretty much the norm before Berlioz but is a much rarer phenomenon today. The upshot of what I'm pointing out here is that we all work differently, sometimes even taking different approaches for different pieces as needed, so the physical sensations that you may get from the piano when composing may be of help to you but may not necessarily do the same for other composers. If you believe that composers who work away from the instrument are either non-intuitive by nature or, at the very least, more prone to work non-intuitively (and I'm not necessarily saying that this is what you believe), then you would assume that I am a non-intuitive composer - and you would be quite wrong about that.

If I ever end up liking Xenakis or Cage or anyone else who uses non intuitive methods of composition, I'll let you know that my opinion has changed..

This seems to be where the problem remains for you; it's not about your opinion of these composers' music but about the fact that you have chosen to brand them "non-intuitive" because of certain ways in which you assume they did things. I neither accept nor understand your stance here. By no means all of Xenakis's work, for example, falls into the stochastic category and by no means all of Cage's is aleatory (and, for heaven's sake, these two were in any case as different from one another as Haydn was from Varèse!).

Best,

Alistair