How Would One Approach Studying A Piece Like This

I had written a post, but I prefer to open a topic... otherwise Stellina will kill me

Here is the link

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1891-come-stabilire-se-un-esperimento-e-interessante/

RedScharlach wrote:

This argument is absolutely inconsistent. A musical piece is not the proof of a mathematical theorem. Xenakis knew mathematics: if he had wanted to proceed with the proof of a mathematical theorem, he would have used the means of mathematics.

HERMA is constructed through the application of a mathematical principle, but it remains a musical piece. You can construct a musical piece by applying a serial, narrative, architectural, mystical, etc., paradigm, but the object will always and anyway remain a musical piece.

saying that I agree is an understatement. I agree and I am moved, because I have been saying something like this for months now...

TheSimon wrote:

It is true that a musical piece is not the proof of a mathematical theorem, but if you base your composition on a mathematical theorem, its result cannot be independent of it; otherwise, why would he have used it.

and here I repeat something I am convinced of: ON THE ONE HAND there is the analysis of the piece, ON THE OTHER HAND there is the study of the compositional technique. There are techniques that greatly influence musical results, obviously. Xenakis's is one of these. But one must have the cunning, or the stubbornness, to separate result from technique. And this is because we will never know what the true steps of the compositional process were; we will never know how much the technique preceded the composition of the piece or how much the piece, in its "forming", influenced the subsequent development of the technique. Furthermore, almost no technique succeeds in accounting for all the choices faced by the composer in the composition of the piece. Why that note there? Why that pause there? Why that instrumentation? That duration? That tempo indication? In short, no piece can be reduced to a FORMULA. Because every piece is a RESULT. The mathematical error is made by us when we think that in music the result is already implicitly expressed in the formula. No! Because in music a formula cannot be expressed without a result.

If one does not want to receive criticism in this sense, then one just needs to not use mathematics. As if to say... "Yes, I based Herma on a mathematical procedure, but don't pay attention to it, think about the music". No, no and no again. All choices must be analyzed just as is done in the scores of Bach, Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven, Cimarosa, and whoever else—certainly with different premises, since we find ourselves in different realms, but always asking ourselves why in this phrase he adopted this choice? Why in Herma shouldn't we do it?? Xenakis himself writes the set-theoretic operations used in the score; the author himself thus encourages the reader to research the logical-mathematical choices of the piece... If you keep telling me no here, I will immediately ask you the following question... "If Herma is to be understood only as a musical piece, then why does Xenakis himself write for every phrase the set operations that compose the subsequent phrase?"

he writes it FOR YOU who have seen the score, i.e., for the pianist who plays it and for himself who composed it. But he doesn't write it for the listener! He does not prescribe that the piece be explained (there are authors who have done so), nor does he give specific indications regarding the place or occasion in which it must be played. Okay, the average Xenakis listener (today as yesterday) is an "informed" listener, often a professional, and it is credible to think they also know, at least in part, the compositional techniques at the base of Xenakis's pieces. But there exists a dimension of listening DIFFERENT from the dimension of score analysis. And even this dimension of listening is subject to analysis, but a different kind of analysis. I don't know if I am making myself clear, but one of the fundamental questions, for me, is: everything that is mathematical which Xenakis puts into his compositional technique, is it perceptible upon listening??

In my opinion, no! Or rather, something is perceptible, a sensation (I have already said this elsewhere), what you also cited as a desire for order.

There. I call this isomorphism. And (also mentioned elsewhere) I consider it a common element of many compositions from the second half of the 1900s. Isomorphism between mathematical principles (in a broad sense) and music. There are compositions that limit mathematics to the compositional process, "hiding it". There are compositions that express it upon listening, even if not in a clear way, because they want, precisely, to convey a pseudo-mathematical sensation of order.

I quote a piece of text from Wikipedia in the paragraph "Stochastic Music" in the entry Iannis Xenakis:

"In this context, chance becomes much more than simple 'randomness'; contrary to what happens with Boulez (Third piano sonata, or in other contemporary 'open' works), or with John Cage and his 'renunciations', for Xenakis probability is entirely calculated, the"

rules are made explicit (see Achorripsis or ST/10-1 in 1961). The global process is entirely predictable, even if the events that compose it are aleatory."

This excerpt is extremely interesting because it says what I said in six pages in just two lines. Predictable global process (which Xenakis achieves through divisions of set elements and operations between sets), aleatory events that compose it (the elements that compose each set); this is how he attempts to order the unorderable. Philosophically speaking it is correct, but it is not correct at the level of the result; Ligeti also tells us this by using the example of Plasticine. Everything mixes together and the colors can no longer be distinguished.

i agree with some of the conclusions you have reached (you and Ligeti) but I criticize somewhat the (winding) idea that Xenakis had not calculated it. Not being an expert on Xenakis, I cannot say for certain, and so, to avoid putting words in Xenakis's mouth that Xenakis did not say, I shift everything to the analysis of listening. That is to say, even if Herma has a "cumbersome" compositional technique, let us remember that the listening experience of Herma yields results quite different from its analysis. And it is not Ligeti who says this, anyone who listens to Herma says it. Even though Herma is not a formula, every result is internal. Therefore, if we want to be fair, we must give Xenakis the benefit of the doubt and believe that he too had thought about the "color mixing" effect.

RedScharlach wrote:

Nuper rosarum flores is an isorhythmic motet written by Dufay on the occasion of the consecration of Santa Maria del Fiore. According to one musicological interpretation—which is, moreover, disputed—the proportions of the motet reflect the proportions of Brunelleschi's project. The paradigm is thus architectural. However, the measurements of the transept of Santa Maria del Fiore deviate by about 3% from the proportions indicated by the motet. If we were to apply the proportions indicated by the motet with "rigor," Santa Maria del Fiore would not stand up. The architectural paradigm is not followed with rigor (with the rigor due to the laws of statics, I might say). Ergo, should we deduce that Nuper rosarum flores is crap?

Emotion and [expletive]... because when I cited Nuper rosarum flores, nobody gave a damn about me...

that being said, let's take the opportunity: who, while listening to Nuper rosarum flores, noticed the pseudo-mathematical procedures at its base? I think no one. Because it is one thing to use mathematical compositional techniques, and quite another to use mathematical compositional techniques with the explicit intent of giving an "isomorphic" sensation to mathematics.

thallo wrote:

Emotion and shock... because when I cited Nuper rosarum flores, nobody paid attention to me...

...but it was in the topic regarding the link between music and mathematics

It would have been "premature" anyway; in the topic, there has been a maturation on the subject ...not to be underestimated.

@Thallo

I must have missed your reference to Dufay; in any case, the distinction at this level is auditory. The reason one does not think there is a mathematical reasoning behind Nuper Rosarum Flores is because the auditory material remains musical regardless, which is not what happens in Herma, and you provide the proof yourself in the question... "Who listening to Nuper rosarum flores noticed the pseudo-mathematical procedures at its base? I think no one".

And then you quote: "Because it is one thing to use mathematical compositional techniques, and another thing to use mathematical compositional techniques with the explicit intent of giving an 'isomorphic' sensation to mathematics."

That is true, but in fact from the beginning I have been talking about results, so in the end I also include taste. My criticism was based on mathematical grounds since FOR ME the mathematics of Herma is not correct, and a mathematician would define all the various efforts to impose order as even useless, but I appreciated the philological idea that was at its base and that, yes, is something permitted by art. Ultimately, however, I do not appreciate the musical results at all. That is where taste comes into play.

thallo wrote:

Emotion and outrage... because when I cited Nuper rosarum flores, nobody paid me any attention...

Don't fret! Instead of Nuper rosarum flores, I could have thought of another example. Perhaps I could have taken a symphonic poem inspired by a novel... let's say Richard Strauss's Don Quixote. The paradigm is no longer mathematical or architectural, but narrative. Even in this case, Strauss is not "rigorous," because he does not retrace Cervantes's narration step by step. However, that is not the reason why we evaluate his symphonic poem as aesthetically satisfying - or unsatisfying.

"I respond" only as a listener in this case: I have listened to many Xenakis compositions, many for piano, but also for percussion and strings, such as Metastasis.

At this moment, without going into details because I am speaking months after these listenings, the impression that some pieces gave me is one of "confusion," "randomness," but this is obviously an impression not supported by a study (which I imagine is at the very least a web) of the pieces, as well as the motivations that led to the compositions.

The two terms I used refer to what I perceived, and it is logical to think that I myself, not having the means to understand certain types of music, evidently

cannot understand it, but if I were to "stop" at impressions, both for Xenakis and for others like Sciarrino or Maderna, just as examples, sometimes, despite there being some

fascinating parts, some that induce peace and tranquility in me (this is the effect I have when listening to this type of music), other times annoyance or heaviness, it seems to me that I can discern

some "standard" procedures; for example, in some piano pieces there is this contrast between low and high registers, all appearing random at a level but, as I said, I imagine it isn't, yet this is the impression one gets (which I have had sometimes), which does not mean that a passage of a few seconds cannot please or inspire me; paradoxically, I have happened to sense a coherence in writing, even through listening alone, but it was a perception, perhaps a feeling, but always without theoretical and technical means for deeper understanding.

That being said, linking back to what I wrote a moment ago, that in piano pieces, for example, one finds "modalities" used by many (although I cannot help but agree with Frank when he says that hearing a few notes you immediately recognize the composer—in this case Xenakis; for this, hats off to Xenakis himself, as well as to anyone else who knows how to make themselves recognized despite such an arduous and sometimes almost paradoxical language, which seems sterile) in the treatment of "counterpoint" understood as the contrast between the various registers of the piano, with those notes often in staccato, barely "touched," "grazed," a use of the pedal to emphasize the resonances (which is something I like very much) of specific notes, and other "effects"; I do not want to use complex academic terminology; I want to express myself with obvious and simple words so that the thoughts of someone writing their opinion (which serves no purpose, only to add numbers, I know) after listening alone are better understood.

Regarding Sciarrino, for example, I like the 6 Capriccios for solo violin (I looked for the scores years ago); I like the use of the instrument even in an alternative way, all always linked to a need to transpose one's own needs into music.

At the end of all this "talk," sometimes even I feel like thinking "this piece is ridiculous," no matter how much I try to think about the motivations that led to its composition; but let us clarify this too: if I say "ridiculous," it is not because I think I write better, because I already crucify myself for nonsense, so it is not an opinion from above; on the contrary, I am certain that not knowing (as I said before) the structure well, and having no other elements besides perception (now), I feel able to say this.

Simone is right: just because a person has a certain name now, everything they write is automatically gold; same goes for "faking"—in fact, I think that if I had passed off a composition I wrote as a piece by Jarre, comments would have poured in (not here, on the internet), but it can happen to anyone, provided, of course, that the piece was composed decently.

Have you listened to anything by Delz?

Sorry, but I stumbled upon this by chance... damn, what a collection of thoughts..

Perhaps among all things I found myself pulled in by Simone ....those who think like me but don't have the balls etc ...well, in short... I think I have the balls and I don't believe the issue is so complex.

After 20 years of discussions on the contemporaneity of art etc etc ...I can't take any more of these endless chats where everyone looks out for their own interests and where no way out is reached.

Perhaps it is not clear that the contemporaneity of a work of art does not lie in novelty... but in seeing in a new way.

With the passing of centuries, man has sought and will always seek to do less while achieving more...

So it is in painting, in music, in literature etc etc

Once there were stricter grids to judge whether something was good or bad, but this proved very inconvenient for those who were not capable of doing it well; at this point, with great effort (facilitated by the increase of minds that are increasingly less profound and increasingly more plagiarized by communication systems of the past or present... mass media...) these people, unaware of what they were creating, fought to have their place like everyone else, chipping away day after day at "the hated wall of wise judgment."

In this way, the modern tribunal of art was born...

It wasn't about removing the judges... but... about making them work without laws...

At this point, every creature of good will felt free to say and do anything under the pretext that no one would be able to judge their actions given the lack of laws.

Thus, the....anesthetic condition of the modern era was reached... where everything falls asleep and everyone sticks to their own idea, whether wrong or right, but ....without reaching the fundamental thing... a true opinion!!, that which is recognized by mankind itself ....called.. truth.

In my opinion, it is the fans who created Allevi, just to mention one. And... even worse is... that Allevi emerged precisely for them... called by them.

In a sort of internal osmosis.

Today, unfortunately, many poetic statements as well as many lines of taste are confused, abstract, conceptual, but... where is the truth?

Expressing an aesthetic opinion on an ugly work by judging it beautiful says nothing.

Listing the phantasmagorical possibilities of a work of art, praising its aesthetic/formal or formative or intellectual aspects to other individuals who grimace and look around doubtfully... will not make them demented or stupid in favor of that much-vaunted work.

A work of art is extracted from the pain of a human being (I always remember Beethoven's phrase) who has somehow given themselves... it is not a game or a diversion... even if we can have fun with art... but today this reflective and respectful attitude is branded with the name of....pathos... perhaps precisely by Maria De Filippi...

In the end, I think that everyone in their own conscience knows... whether to believe in the right things or the wrong ones.

The right things... are those that never make you feel comfortable, that always make you want to be better and more prepared, that always make you take a leap into the unknown to test whether you were right or not, and when you don't feel the effort..... I believe that ....you will not be able to learn anything from that experience..

I conclude that nowadays we are full of talented young people who shun this talent for shorter and more illuminated paths, leaving behind many of the precious objects that were placed in your bag at the start.

I am not even afraid to assert that good and bad works of art exist.. and surely those who lash out to defend the bad ones by passing them off as good do nothing but highlight their own naivety.