How Would One Approach Studying A Piece Like This

Sorry TheSimon, I see that you have already responded to the "aggressive" and the "character" while I was writing

my last modest intervention.

Anyway, I take this opportunity to express all my appreciation, also thanks to you,

for this forum, where everyone expresses their own ideas, even with force, but always within the terms

of civil coexistence and mutual respect.

Don't mention it, the respect is mutual. Being able to express oneself seems like the bare minimum to me; everyone thinks for themselves, one can even discuss things heatedly, but in the end, everyone is a friend and everyone keeps their own opinion. I believe this is the basis of democracy...

Anyway, I have carefully read the set theory that Xenakis adopted...

For me, it remains a composition based on the most banal set theory of complements existing for at least a thousand years; therefore, apart from the fact that in my opinion there is nothing new except the idea of using a basis of set theory to compose music, it is not necessarily true that once a motivation is found, the result must be satisfying.

various answers...

1) underlying: that are underneath, hidden

2) some of my answers are almost offensive, I know, but when I write them I then take all the scoldings that come my way so, you can have your lovely scolding

3) I have never analyzed any composition by Xenakis, and I believe it is very difficult to do. I should have much more material... but my minimal experience, truly minimal, says that often these alternative composition techniques only lead to an "isomorphism". That is, the formal principle is almost never used strictly but there are often adjustments in progress during the work. I think, however, that such music has charm, regardless of the compositional method used to create it. I like it instinctively, I like the way events manifest in time

4)

on the issue of melody, notice how here there is a completely different sensitivity. Here the dynamic levels come out a lot, the pianos and fortes, the cloud of harmonics. With Takahashi you could almost mark the phrasing instead...

Open content (youtube)

Curious, I looked for the score, here it is

http://en.scorser.com/S/Sheet+music/iannis+xenakis/PDF/1.html

Boesendorfer wrote:

Anyway, I will take this opportunity to express all my appreciation, thanks in part to you,

for this forum, where everyone expresses their own ideas, even forcefully, but always within the bounds

of civil coexistence and mutual respect.

I quote, it is one of the reasons why I am subscribed here.

TheSimon wrote:

Anyway, I have carefully read the set theory that Xenakis adopted...

This is a great honor to you; this is why I respect the people on this forum…

TheSimon wrote:

To me, it remains a composition based on the extremely banal set theory of complements that has existed for at least a thousand years; therefore, apart from the fact that in my opinion there is nothing new, if not the idea of using a basis of set theory to compose music, it is not necessarily true that once a motivation is found, the result must be satisfying.

Given that the musician does not have to be a mathematician, their job is not to invent new mathematical theorems. Therefore, the fact that set theory is as old as the hills does not change the problem and does not invalidate my sentence regarding "inventing something."

Inventing is linked to importing a concept from another discipline into music. For example, fractals have existed in mathematics since a certain date; some scholars have theorized on the subject starting from the oldest thing in the world… snow.

In fact, the theoretical model of the fractal is, by definition, precisely the snowflake… this is a fact; this is something new in the mathematical field.

What was new in music was writing a piece by exploiting fractal theory. No more, no less, just as Bach did with the magic squares of Athanasius Kircher… so Bach did not invent anything in mathematical terms, but he made a mathematical concept his own by writing music and in industrial quantities (and without the aid of a PC, imagine what he could do today) … no more, no less than what you were "ironically" saying…

TheSimon wrote:

I could invent a program that generates mathematical algorithms and that, based on these algorithms, generates music—much more than what they have written; I could therefore make hundreds of compositions a day, but this would not make me a composer at all, even if I wrote the mathematical algorithms by hand.

Consider that only a fraction of what Bach wrote has reached us, and it hovers around more than 1000 compositions, produced with means from half a millennium ago… practically just paper and ink.

…I forgot, Bach didn't invent mirrors either… and yet many of his canons exploit this principle, which is not musical, but thanks to him (and others) it became musical.

Having said that, I do not envy composers, because today they have a big problem: what to write that is new, given what has already been proposed up to today? Consider that there is a piece where the performer has sex with a cello… so the task is truly arduous.

For this reason, seeing the tendency in these fields to "banalize" everything by saying that even a 2-year-old child could conceive an opera like the one in the topic, I invite you to try and see if with 4 formulas you can say something new, meet the star of the moment who wants to play your music, and go down in history as composer "X."

In short, I don't much love Haydn's sonatas for piano, but if someone asked me how to approach them, I wouldn't tell them… play Beethoven because I don't like those (because that is the gist of it).

Or rather, I would say:

- I am not able to

- I refuse (which is perhaps what you meant, but it is a reading between the lines of your writing), but others are free to do so

- I research in order to give my best for that student who has placed their trust in me and wants to reach their personal goal.

All written hoping not to offend anyone, but trying to express only one of the points of view on the matter.

Great topic, many insights; I can only add, given Xenakis's reference to composers who, in reality, over the last 30 years at the conservatory (I am referring to advanced courses), "seem" to have forgotten that there is the path of musical instinct which cannot be harnessed into a project that has strong correlations with extramusical environments.

However, I say "seem" because from a certain point of view it might be right for it to be so, because at school you can delve deeper into what has already happened and therefore, looking back into the recent past, this is a genre of music that is being explored in depth.

In short, the courses are pervaded by post-structuralism.

That said, a composer must have their own say and not that of others, so it is right that they know everything that has happened, but then express themselves in their own contemporaneity, which is made of something else.

Today this genre of music, but also things like Fedele (to name one), sound quite old... the direct link with musical instinct, with the sphere of perception, has been rediscovered, whereby composition must take the ear into account. This does not mean that today one must go back to writing tonally, but rather to say something through one's own approach and style.

Xenakis's compositions are sometimes extreme; Donatoni spoke of machines... meaning automata that lead to generating music. However, when the machine is one's own mind, one's own style emerges and perhaps something is said.

Even with a "project-based" approach, the composer must leave themselves the possibility of choosing something... as the good Berio used to do. Grids upon grids, but then which row of the table to use, he would decide himself.

This certainly involves a greater effort; sustaining a project that has extramusical dynamics while taking the ear into account is not easy. Because the ear is perhaps governed by other laws... therefore, the task is arduous, but it has completely shifted the approach and thus the ways and techniques for producing music.

Nothing is thrown away; I won't hide that I have written pieces based on combinatorial calculation, but the combinations of elements arrived when I said so and not by chance... so the pieces hold up musically as well and are at the limit of being listenable. Something that, I emphasize, they tell you to forget at school... fortunately it only lasts 3 years.

The classic phrase is: "it doesn't matter how it sounds" ... it must be coherent and cool "graphically"...

I find Herma interesting; beyond the limit of being listenable, I like it not so much for listening satisfaction but for intellectual satisfaction. Two different types of pleasure; today one must find the balance... a bit like how once the balance had to be found between counterpoint and harmony.

... now you can massacre me

I forgot to mention the Jazzisti, the only ones who have found a way to stay connected to tradition, moving it forward and codifying everything with a system that I even find more effective than the one used by the traditionalists.

Frankly, it still seems to me like an environment that has reached saturation; people "hide" behind arrangement, but the truth is that even there, a good jolt of life would be needed.

I find the field of film music and the fusion between traditional instruments and electronics to be very open instead. An area where surely, nowadays, one needs to invest...

Lestofante wrote:

Curious, I searched for the score, here it is

http://en.scorser.co...akis/PDF/1.html

You'll say, thanks Lestofante... the first thing is to get the score

Even though I didn't exactly take home a method, I received a lot of ideas... thank you so much. Clearly the discussion is still open... if one truly wanted to persevere ....

Inventing is linked to importing a concept from another discipline into music. For example, fractals have existed in mathematics since a certain date; some scholars have theorized on the subject starting from the oldest thing in the world... snow.

In fact, the theoretical model of the fractal is, by definition, precisely the snowflake... this is a fact, this is something new in the mathematical field.

Ok, in fact, I do not judge that knowledge from other fields can be used to arrive at a new solution; in my opinion, this theory is at the base of human progress; whoever discovers something always relies on other discoveries in other ranks of human knowledge, but the important thing is to observe the quality of the product. As I have already said, I repeat: using ideas from other branches of knowledge does not ensure that the product is of quality; therefore, for example, I could think of using a gala lunch menu by comparing ingredients to notes, cooking times to duration, and the amount of salt to dynamics. Is it an innovative idea? I think so; it doesn't seem to me that anyone has conducted such an experiment, but if it exists, let me know and I will provide other examples; as I had already said, this probably won't make me an innovator, it won't make my composition a masterpiece, and it won't make me a composer.

What was new in music was writing a piece by exploiting fractal theory. No more, no less than Bach did with the magic squares of Athanasius Kircher... so Bach didn't invent anything in mathematical terms, but he made a mathematical concept his own by writing music, and in industrial quantities (and without the aid of a PC, imagine what he could do today)... no more, no less than what you were "ironically" saying...

You can see that that worked...

Think about it: less than what Bach wrote has reached us, and it amounts to more than 1000 compositions, produced with means from half a millennium ago... practically just paper and ink.

...I forgot, Bach didn't invent mirrors either... and yet many of his canons exploit this principle, which is not musical, but thanks to him (and others) it became musical.

In my opinion, it is important to bring taste into play, for the reasons mentioned above. The physical phenomenon of wave refraction is something that works in music. Why does it work? Because taste suggests it to me. And because there is a crowd to whom it is suggested.

That said, I do not envy composers, because today they have a big problem: what to write that is new, given what has already been proposed until today? Consider that there is a piece where the performer has sex with a cello... so the task is truly arduous.

But this is exactly the difficult part. So what do we do? Do we pass off garbage as high-caliber art just because at its base lies the innovative idea of relying on an old mathematical model? Then I say again, tomorrow I will make a composition with recipes; at its base is the innovative idea and must I be immolated like Xenakis?? In my opinion, that's absurd!

This is why I invite you, given the tendency in these fields to "banalize" everything by saying that even a 2-year-old child could conceive an opera like the one in the topic, to try it and see if with 4 formulas you can say something new, that meets the star of the hour who wants to play your music, and pass into history as composer "X."

Now let me tell you an anecdote... For university, I went to do internships at the INFN (National Institute for Nuclear Physics) at the Frascati National Laboratories. Knowing that I was a pianist, they asked me to create a composition for a conference at the INFN. Given that I am not a composer, I told them I could exploit some typical sounds from the operating organs of the electron synchrotron. In some cases, I would have based it on mathematical theories and detections of events in the detectors; for others, I would have had to record sounds produced acoustically, for example by the power supplies of the LINAC, which with every insertion of new packets of Positrons and Electrons produced a sound similar to a bass drum. Obviously, all this was not possible due to lack of funds; at the time I had nothing to record with and the laboratory would have had to buy the equipment (coincidentally we are in Italy), I didn't have HDD Recording skills and my only thought was university. All this to say that it would have been a beautiful experience that would not have created a quality product regardless, even though it would have been veeeeery innovative. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to use a file reporting the collisions between matter and antimatter (coincidentally the oldest fundamental components of the universe we know and the first to appear, it is thought,"},

in equal quantities after the big bang)...

In short, I don't much love Haydn's piano sonatas, but if someone asked me how to approach them, I wouldn't tell them... play Beethoven because I don't like those (because that is the crux of it).

Or rather, I would say:

- I am not able to

- I refuse (which is perhaps what you meant, but it is a reading between the lines of your writing), but others are free to do so

- I research in order to give my best for that student who has placed their trust in me and wants to reach their own personal goal.

Everything written hoping not to offend anyone, but trying to express only one point of view on the matter.

But it's not true, I didn't tell Stellina to give up playing Xenakis, everyone can study whatever they want, let alone that! Why would it bother me? And in fact, in the next post, perhaps I will give some study advice since it is the topic that represents me most closely as a pianist; certainly, I would never waste time studying something like that, I wouldn't even spend that same amount of time studying anything else, but rather go for a walk or lie on the grass, I would find it much more productive! But I want to express my personal thought which certainly may not be shared, but which must be motivated with solid foundations, which for me is not seeing the exploitation of mathematical theorems as innovation. Okay, it is an innovation to use mathematical theorems in music, but is the result qualitatively up to the standard of such innovation? For me, no... Not at all.

In any case, I have read and understood the theory behind this composition; you who defend it tooth and nail, have you understood?

@ Stellina

In the afternoon I will take a look at the score and tell you how it would be best to proceed, or at least how I would proceed...

Sorry, but at the link provided by Lestofante I am always redirected to a 404 when I try to download the score.

Is there anyone who can provide a working direct link?

Me after 30'' I had to change the channel

TheSimon wrote:

Finally, I would like to launch an appeal to those who think that tracks like this are, as Fantozzi used to say, "insane sh*ts," to manifest their TRUE idea and not remain silent just because 4 out of 100 people would otherwise consider them obtuse.

I don't think anyone will call me obtuse if I don't like something; I don't have the expertise to say whether this is (or is not) a valid track.

I certainly don't like it

Stellina wrote:

How would one approach the study of a piece like this?

Like all other pieces, score in hand, analyze, listen to great performers, make your own choices ... apply them

thallo wrote:

2) some of my answers are almost offensive, I know, but when I write them I then take all the scoldings that come my way so, you go ahead and take your lovely scolding

But indeed, I'll take it without argument

TheSimon wrote:

Excuse me, but at the link provided by Lestofante

It works for me, here it is

The score is absolutely awesome...

i would study it a lot "a secco", without hands on the piano. You need to get to the bottom of it, take notes. In the introduction, there are complex indications on how to understand the tempo and dynamics. You can't get there immediately with your hands; you have to get there with your head first. I would hum it, even without precise notes

Has anyone following the score managed to understand if the pianist in the video played all the right notes?