Iannis Xenakis- "Herma" Musique Symbolique [VIDEO]

[Derek]

PS- it says the determinism of the non-Serialists.  Pro tip: read things more carefully when they're above your head.  You might miss . . . I don't know . . . entire prefixes, and subsequently form "arguments" based on the exact opposite of what you've (mis)read.

No, it really does say neo serialists. You sure you read the book yourself? I'd try to answer the rest of your post, but it looks like I made you so mad you mis-read something you thought I mis-read. I've already made my points, I don't know how Xenakis could be more clear than he was in the short paragraphs I quoted. His way of thinking is alien to mine and it results in music that fits well pretty much only in horror movies. Which, would be an excellent use of it.

Actually, that little quote from you is rather telling. Xenakis keeps re-iterating that the serialists reached a sort of dead end. If you were who you seem to imply you are---a sincere and thoughtful follower of Xenakis' music, you would have known right away that I didn't mis-read that passage. Interesting.

You know---one thing which could make me really appear hypocritical is that I used to like death metal and black metal. But I've recently reached a stage of life where I've been thinking, do I really want my future children to find this on the shelf? The answer was quite easily no, so I've gotten rid of all but the most life-affirming metal that I own. I guess this view has spilled into classical music, too. I don't want to fill life with horror movie soundtracks---life is too short for this. But, even if I did want to make horror movie soundtracks...it's just far too easy. In other words, it is both unpleasant, and easy to create...neither of which result in life affirming sensations. Maybe Xenakis made it difficult for himself (by inserting arbitrary "intelligence" into his music to create the illusion of value or validity), but as I cannot tell the difference between easily made similar sounds and his own compositions, I cannot understand why it is valued (in other words, why all this theory, why all the math?). Thus, I have no interest in trying to convince myself that it has value. I guess if you want to do this and are dead-set on posting on forums filled with people you feel are stupid and below you, more power to you but I'll never understand the music (except as horror/war/death/volcano soundtrack), nor this behavior.

I think if the only answer I had received was ahinton's balanced response, I'd be less inclined to suspect insincerity in many of xenakis' followers.

[pies]

These threads are the only ones I'm attracted to whenever I visit this place.  Kind of sad.

Anyway, I think I'm one of the few here that likes Xenakis but still laughs at him and his music.  Some French dude once said that if you look for ridiculousness in everything, you'll find it.  With Xenakis you don't have to look too far.  Applications of stochastic processes/stochastic calculus/whatever he used is so flippant and ridiculous that I can't take it seriously.  I mean, there are lots of ways to make interesting music, but when you have to resort to the tools used in financial time-series analysis, I just can't help but laugh.

[john11inc]

No, it really does say neo serialists.

That's very nice and all, but regardless of how much you might be compelled to disagree, given the extremely underhanded nature you have exhibited on this matter previously (and in the capacity of which I am forced to and will divulge), your statements are moot, as they are all based upon the validity of the statement I have specifically quoted above.

In fact, what is patently clear - and while I can't definitively prove this, most anybody of the crowd who responds to these types of threads who isn't already aware can probably infer with a fair bit of impunity that I am correct, given my response and the way in which I respond to people such as you - is that you got a rather nice, little break, thanks to me not seeing the necessity in quoting the passages from Xenakis' book.  Whereas you have edited your post to contain "neo serialists," it before said, "non-serialists."  With the hyphen, specifically.  While I have read the work (and more than once, although it's been several years) I didn't really bother to memorize the two-letter variations of prefixes (hyphenated or otherwise) that were attached to every word in the broad and wholly unimportant (given the specificity available deeper into the document) introduction.  So when I completely disregarded the notion that they are "neo" or "archaeo" Serialists and responded regarding "Serialist" or "non-Serialist," and in a post of my own which you can't edit, I think it becomes quite clear how entirely uninterested that you are in any real debate.  The fact that your entire post consists of derogatory, off-topic ranting about a response to your own typo, or, if you prefer to be humored (not that your stupidity is more funny than it is obnoxious), to my misreading of that which you wrote, it was clear that it would have merely been a misreading of your own post (it wasn't), and would have only been a single paragraph in what was otherwise a rather massive post, which contained a huge number of statements which you apparently have no response to.  Not that your statement is a response to even that which you claim it to be: it is nothing but ridiculous showmanship that will only fool people even dumber than you are.  A typo?  I must be wrong.

Would you like for me to extract all of the typos from your own posts?  I'm sure I can prove that you're far more wrong than I am

[Derek]

I'm at least interested in having debates with people who are honest, and carefully read the literature they're telling everyone to educate themselves with. You've made me lose interest in having a debate with you, I'd much rather talk about Xenakis and others all day with Ahinton, but it is pretty obvious you're not interested in real debate, yourself.

Anyway, it wasn't just typos at issue. You had accused me of drawing conclusions based on the opposite of what I had read---if you understood the passage yourself you would not have accused me of this. I thought I had pointed that out already.

I'm at least mildly more interested in and or sympathetic to Xenakis's methods/music as a result of reading Ahinton's replies, so that's good. When all is said and done though...it's really not for me.

[pies]

Here are some quotes that are sort of relevant to the thread.  Maybe this can start a good discussion.

"Am I the only one who thinks Brian Ferneyhough is a bit of a put-on? I mean, have you seen the scores? There’s nothing easier than writing impossible-to-execute notation. I wrote reams of it as a student until I realized that the goal of notation is not to make things more difficult for the performer but to make things as simple as possible. Besides, big-time notation has already been done to death (see Stockhausen’s early Klavierstuck for big-deal notation that actually makes sense). Anyway, Ferneyhough’s Adagissimo throughout has pointillistic high notes over long held chords. If you like angst-ridden European dodecaphony he’s your man" (Andrew Violette)

"What an odd delusion, and how prevalent, that when some composition that one dislikes has been put on the dissecting table, one will dislike it less, or, in that singularly meaningless phrase, "understand it" better. The only result of this ghoulish process, pushed to the furthest lengths of boring absurdity in the analytical programme note, is to make one dislike it even more. It is like someone who, having introduced you to some antipatico person, shows you a radiograph of him, saying, "Oh you are ridiculously prejudiced against him! Just look at what a fine skeleton he has!"  (Sorabji)

" https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ " (Ferneyhough)

"Bang away in a manner that somewhat resembles the general visual contours of what's on the score" (Finnissy's response to an email I sent to him asking how to perform his pieces (paraphrased))

[ahinton]

"Am I the only one who thinks Brian Ferneyhough is a bit of a put-on? I mean, have you seen the scores? There’s nothing easier than writing impossible-to-execute notation. I wrote reams of it as a student until I realized that the goal of notation is not to make things more difficult for the performer but to make things as simple as possible..."

Ah, but only as simple as possible, Mr Violette - not more simple than is compositionally expedient!

"Anyway, Ferneyhough’s Adagissimo throughout has pointillistic high notes over long held chords. If you like angst-ridden European dodecaphony he’s your man"

Whilst the rôle of the violins in this brief (less than 2 minutes long) work for string quartet written to commemorate the 80th birthday of Michael Tippett(!) is quite distinct from those of the viola and cello, Mr Violette must have listened to it with very different ears to mine if he really perceives "angst-ridden European dodecaphony" as one of its fundamental constituents!

" https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ " (Ferneyhough)

Oh, I've not looked at this/these for years, at a time when I shoved them up the nose of Ian Pace who seemed quite offended at my having done so - but what's the Ferneyhough connection here? Did he once draw your attention to it/them?

"Bang away in a manner that somewhat resembles the general visual contours of what's on the score" (Finnissy's response to an email I sent to him asking how to perform his pieces (paraphrased))

And the original was...(?)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Mr Violette must have listened to it with very different ears to mine

I would be worried if he had listened to it with the same ears.

Do you hire yours out by any chance??

Thal

[ahinton]

I would be worried if he had listened to it with the same ears.

So would I, of course; that said, whilst I am not aware of the extent (if any) of your own familiarity with the work concerned but, if you have heard it, would you respond to it as Mr Violette tells us that he has done?

Do you hire yours out by any chance??

No; I don't know anyone who could afford to hire them.

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

Andrew Violette is only familiar with Ferneyhough because I showed some of Brian's works to him approximately a year ago.  His opinions are Ferneyhough are necessarily superficial at best, which should be obvious enough that I do not have to restate it.  Violette's own works are insurmountably difficult, and to pigeonhole Ferneyhough's output into having the sole quality of being an old trick involving some sort of graphic element to his notation is puerile.  But let's not forget the rather contestable amplification he gives us regarding a single, two minute piece.

[ahinton]

Violette's own works are insurmountably difficult,

Really? OK, such as I've encountered of them certainly sit awkwardly with his apparent avowed intent of not making things difficult, but "insurmountably"? - not so sure about that.

and to pigeonhole Ferneyhough's output into having the sole quality of being an old trick involving some sort of graphic element to his notation is puerile.

Well, it's not especially helpful and informative, for sure...

But let's not forget the rather contestable amplification he gives us regarding a single, two minute piece.

Indeed; that jumped out at me the moment I read the quote as a most odd choice of piece about which to make the remark with which he is credited as having made. Very strange.

On another front, I am almost reminded of that old chestnut "a pupil of Liszt" when recalling that a substantial proportion of Violette's tutelage came from Sessions (with whom he seems to have gotten on well) and Carter (with whom he decidedly didn't), for it's far from obvious in his own work; that said, Brian Ferneyhough himself has always sought to avoid creating clones of himself as a consequence of his considerable activities as a teacher, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised - and if ever there was an American composer due for serious and detailed reappraisal, it's Roger Sessions...

Anyway, guilty as charged of going way off topic!

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

Really? OK, such as I've encountered of them certainly sit awkwardly with his apparent avowed intent of not making things difficult, but "insurmountably"? - not so sure about that.

They are equatable to the difficulty of the works of Sorabji, in many cases and/or passages, and sometimes worse.  Quite literally insurmountable (or very, very close), particularly some passages in the 2nd, 4th and 6th sonatas.


By the way, did Andrew get in contact with you?  He has a piece for organ that he's having trouble getting published (a recording); told him that he might try Altarus.

[djealnla]

Totally off-topic, but since we're discussing technical difficulty, what's so hard about Jay Alan Yim's :[ten]dril?

[john11inc]

Totally off-topic, but since we're discussing technical difficulty, what's so hard about Jay Alan Yim's :[ten]dril?

:[ten]dril's difficulties are similar to those found in Wunsterwanderung, in that there are enormous and constant leaps across all registers of the keyboard which are meant to be played in a very precise, constant rhythm and very specific dynamics in order to produce different overtones in the resonance of the large, pedalled gestalts that form the majority of the work.

To askew even further, I just got a copy of the sheet music of his Timescreen II and was supposed to receive a recording of it, but didn't, and he is not getting back to me about it.  If you're suddenly interested in Yim, does that mean there's a chance that you have the recording which I know was, at one point, available online?

[djealnla]

:[ten]dril's difficulties are similar to those found in Wunsterwanderung, in that there are enormous and constant leaps across all registers of the keyboard which are meant to be played in a very precise, constant rhythm and very specific dynamics in order to produce different overtones in the resonance of the large, pedalled gestalts that form the majority of the work.

But doesn't the use of two hands make the playing of those leaps far easier? Perhaps you are referring to perfectly synchronizing the playing of the hands, in which case I get you.

[john11inc]

But doesn't the use of two hands make the playing of those leaps far easier? Perhaps you are referring to perfectly synchronizing the playing of the hands, in which case I get you.

I don't really understand your question.  Wunsterwanderung is not a one-handed piece.  Or are you not using the word "easier" to refer to the Zimmermann (randomly, yes, :[ten]dril is easier than Wunsterwanderung, which is one of the most stupidly unpianistic works I've ever seen)?

Anyway, because the tones struck in the clouds don't necessarily follow a bottom-44-keys, top-44-keys rotation (wouldn't that be convenient?), you get stuck making a lot of really awkward leaps if you don't want to make everything else in the passage even more ridiculous.

[djealnla]

I don't really understand your question.  Wunsterwanderung is not a one-handed piece.  Or are you not using the word "easier" to refer to the Zimmermann (randomly, yes, :[ten]dril is easier than Wunsterwanderung, which is one of the most stupidly unpianistic works I've ever seen)?

The following passage (as an example) simply requires some hand crossing (when the music gets fast), but otherwise it doesn't seem that bad. Perhaps it isn't one of the hardest passages in the work.

[john11inc]

The following passage (as an example) simply requires some hand crossing (when the music gets fast), but otherwise it doesn't seem that bad. Perhaps it isn't one of the hardest passages in the work.

These types of passages are not the ones that I am referring to.  I will get back to you on this later when I can look at the score at home.