Xenakis wrote:Returning to the topic
Iannis Xenakis: structuralism and the poetics of objective sonority.
Art participates in an inferential mechanism that constitutes the basis upon which all theories of mathematical sciences, physics, and living beings move.
Its proportions are reducible to number games (…) in architecture, literature, music, painting (…) games of continuity, of proximity, in time or out of time as games of topological essence that are all produced on the ground of this inference, in the strict sense of logic.[1]
Etc.
It will also be very useful for Stellina and those interested to get to the heart of the piece
This is what Campaner says...
"Now, faced with these works, there certainly exist problems of correspondence due essentially to a gap, or error between the hors-temps origin and the incarnation on the sensible plane (algorithm, correspondences between sound sets and movements of solids). These are differences that play out from a point of view of macroscopic organization, or an unforeseen local freedom that Xenakis does not justify coherently with the initial hypothesis.
Yet the author himself warns against an operation of deconstruction of the theoretical framework of his own music starting from these errors, denying that they constitute a "choice," or in some way a local freedom granted by virtue of a stylistic requirement:
This is said by Xenakis himself!
In action, my pencil may slip, and I realize it too late, after publication; sometimes I change certain details (...), I commit theoretical errors that entail errors in the particular. I have done everything possible to be perfectly consistent in what I write."
Which is exactly what I have been trying to maintain since the beginning of the conversation. A mathematical approach which means formality! I do not want to engage in abstruse syllogism and I do not even want to sin with presumption, but here there is a serious underlying problem. Choosing the path of music or that of mathematics. If one chooses the path of music we have nuances; if one chooses the path of mathematics we have only black or white. Now, if I must judge a composition on a mathematical basis since that is what is being discussed, I must observe that what is called an "application" in mathematics is respected—that is, the application passing from one system to another must produce unambiguous results, otherwise the entire mathematical theory collapses. I gave a very fitting example yesterday with the Fibonacci series.
This series always returns an unambiguous result. If we call "N" the set of input numbers and "I" the image set of the produced numbers by appropriately substituting within the series, if within "I" there exists only one number different from those produced by the Fibonacci series, I can assume that THE WHOLE is not the image of the Fibonacci application and therefore that set contains presumably stochastic elements. And therefore the set produced by Xenakis, if not formally correct based on mathematical principles, is simply stochastic, and we return to my very first post in this discussion.
I hope that this time my point of view is clear; I truly do not know what other terms to use to explain it."},
