How Would One Approach Studying A Piece Like This

TheSimon wrote:

Rapidshare.com

then you give me the link, I'll download it and upload it to our servers via FTP

That would be a good thing; it's understood that there are people here who want to dig deeper and not remain entrenched in their own convictions. If there is a video of Nono speaking in the first person about his music, I want it... and if he says that he does not base himself on expressionism, well, he said it, not me. A word to the wise is enough.

Here is the topic where I report Nono's video

http://www.pianoconc...651-luigi-nono/

citing the part that starts from the 56th second

Ok, almost a literal quote ... the rest is also interesting.

The discussion has moved forward, but today I really didn't feel like responding to you.

I thank Xenakis (the user) for remembering some of my past discussions. I don't remember the bibliography I gave you, but the discussion probably took place on the theme of music and mathematics. In that situation, I simply recalled how there exists a very high series of musical choices at the base of apparently "formalized" compositions. Mathematical formalization has different methods and purposes. The pseudo-mathematical formalization of some compositions (which Xenakis did not invent) is an isomorphism, meaning a sought-after stylistic stratagem that tends to evoke sensations of order, progressive expansion, and processuality.

Co-me-i-spie-ro-la-ssi-co-sì-per-si-mu-la-re-un-ro-bot.

Whoever reads this sentence and thinks I am a robot is wrong. Whoever listens to Xenakis and thinks that it is mathematics, and not music, is wrong.

thallo wrote:

In that situation, I simply remembered how there exists a very high series of musical choices at the base of apparently "formalized" compositions. Mathematical formalization has different methods and purposes. The pseudo-mathematical formalization of some compositions (which was not invented by Xenakis) is an isomorphism, meaning a sought-after stylistic stratagem that tends to evoke sensations of order, progressive expansion, and processuality.

PUnfortunately, to better understand what you are writing, I need to be taken by the hand and guided ...

thallo wrote:

Co-me-se-i-o-par-la-ssi-co-sì-per-si-mu-la-re-un-ro-bot.

Whoever reads this sentence and thinks I am a robot is wrong. Whoever listens to Xenakis and thinks that is mathematics, and not music, is wrong.

To be frank, if I understood correctly, I would have expected something like "ocme sislarap rpeerpe oisie eralsmiu tobobortr"

... just randomly, reasoning through sets of verbs, nouns, etc. ... and with some freedom

What am I missing between your example, mine, and the one you wrote?

Stellina wrote:

Unfortunately, to better understand what you are writing, I need to be taken by the hand and guided ...

an isomorphism is a formal similarity. In our case, it is a "only" formal similarity. Given, then, that the discourse on musical forms is a complicated discourse, formal similarities can be of various types.

Let's say I want to write a composition inspired by bread. Just because I decide so, because I have the freedom to write what I want, because I experience bread as something good, beautiful, and poetic, and since I write music, then I want to pay homage to bread with a musical creative act. Since music is not made of water and flour, I will have to find elements that can be rendered common. All these common elements will become isomorphisms. I could write a piece that "rises", in which the distribution of notes or instruments is conceived as a living structure that expands; I could conceive a "crunchy" piece, in which very well-blended structures at a certain point fragment into a thousand crumbs :-) I could conceive an oven, with long notes that are timbrally warm. All these ideas, even if a bit clumsy, are based on metaphors that, when applied to music, can become isomorphisms.

The idea of constructing a musical piece by applying mathematical rules is, in reality, an isomorphism. Why? Because the similarity with mathematics is "only" formal. Mathematics, like physics, chemistry, and biology, has different purposes, methods, and functions. Xenakis, writing Herma and writing all the other compositions based on pseudo-mathematical methods, is simply testing formal principles. Some of them are perceptible. If you listen closely to the temporal structure of Herma (that is, the way events are situated in time), you will not be able to find a clear metric scan. You cannot say "this is the strong accent, this is the weak accent" or "this is a triplet, these are 4 sixteenth notes". You will be forced, if you want to understand the temporal structure of the events, to develop new concepts. One of these possible new concepts is, indeed, that of the living organism, which expands, contracts, and moves. But it is OBVIOUS that Herma is not a living organism; it is a composition for piano and every musical composition follows musical criteria, so much so that Xenakis himself claims, both explicitly and implicitly, certain choices.

In my degree thesis, I dealt with "Music as a gradual process", a writing by Steve Reich in which "musical processes" are discussed. Musical processes are compositional procedures in which rules are decided, a musical material is chosen to which these rules are imposed, and then the rest follows on its own. I don't know, I take a tonal scale and decide that my rule is "play each sound once, then two times each sound, then three times each sound until reaching 50" (it's a made-up example). Reich wrote many pieces like this, but in reality... they aren't quite like that; there are many musical choices that Reich makes, which that so-called rule does not express. The same principle applies to Xenakis. Why did he choose the piano? Why does he start with those notes and not others? Are all the melodic micro-formations within the piece random consequences, or were the rules chosen by Xenakis chosen ON PURPOSE to have that consequence? Why does the piece last that many minutes? By what criteria were rhythms, dynamics, and expressiveness chosen? Deciding on rules is a compositional act, delimiting musical material to subject to these rules is a compositional act, instrumenting everything is a compositional act.

To be honest, if I understood correctly, I would have expected something like "ocme sislarap rpeerpe oisie eralsmiu tobobortr"

... just randomly, reasoning through sets of verbs, nouns, etc. ... and with some freedom

What am I missing between your example, mine, and what you wrote?

my example was not constructed to explain Xenakis. It was an example to make you understand the principle of isomorphisms. But I will take the opportunity to give a proxy answer to shark. Taking the letters of a word and changing their order is a basic linguistic and poetic principle of every encryption. The Greeks were already doing things like that. In music, enigmatic canons have been made for centuries, as have compositions based on numerical and "numerological" principles, and THE EXACT SAME DISCUSSION we had on THIS topic http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/570-il-legame-fra-musica-e-matematica/page__hl__%20musica%20%20matematica in which, by the way, you too (Stellina) participated...

I am almost certain I have spoken somewhere with Shark as well, but perhaps not on this forum, I don't know... the idea that ALL the music of the second fifty-year period of the twentieth century should be interpreted as a}

post-war reaction is a critical idea that I don't believe in, but I feel like I have already argued against it on another occasion...

Anyway, when giving critical interpretations, like "in my opinion Leopardi in L'Infinito was talking about pussy", one should always start from the facts. And the facts, in this case, are not the wars, but the notes. If we are talking about the Requiem for the victims of Hiroshima, then there we have a precise reference. But if we are talking about Xenakis's Herma, I don't see the reference.

If it is said that the children's voice is seen as the only "pure" voice, I want a quote from the statements of the composers who said that the children's voice is the only pure voice. Discovering that Stockhausen used it means nothing; practically all Roman sacred polyphony implies that the superius voice is sung by children, but that doesn't mean one builds critical thoughts upon it. Britten, who used boy sopranos extensively, also used the tenor voice extensively; he is practically the only great composer in history to have written more vocal chamber music for tenor than for soprano, but who knows why this hasn't been said. Probably because this single datum, in itself, means nothing. Just as, in my opinion, the datum of the use of boy sopranos in the late 1900s repertoire means nothing. Besides, boy sopranos were also used by Wagner, Bizet, Berg, and many others (pre-war).

But anyway, one day I will feel like opening 3 pages and quoting everything you have written that I disagree with...

thallo wrote:

I am almost certain that I also spoke with Shark somewhere, but perhaps not on this forum, I don't know...

I doubt it, I am a lurker by definition ... I only signed up here for a "miracle."

I am perfectly aware that other composers have used numerology, symbology etc., but I am certain that pitch, duration, intensity, and timbre were always chosen by the composer, how? By taste, by ear, etc., and not through other mechanisms that have little to do with instinct. What is a progression, if not the re-proposition of a pattern? But which one? Among the many possibilities, the composer by ear, based on what came before and what they want to come after, decides...

You were saying that certain music was expressionist, and Nono says that his is not expressionist. You were saying that a certain aesthetic had nothing to do with the Camps, and yet a video pops up where it seems that Nono makes clear references to the matter (let's hope the video arrives)...

You say

> so much so that Xenakis himself claims, both explicitly and implicitly, the choices.

Instead, he says no, if you permit him, he is the composer ... now theorists know more than the one who conceived the work, and he even tells us so ...

I am not saying that you haven't studied; perhaps you have a different interpretation of the facts from mine... and so far, that makes sense. But when the interpretation is different from what the protagonists themselves say... I don't know, I hope to see the video on Nono soon and hear his actual words together, immortalized thanks to the camera.

Having just returned from a wonderful evening for my birthday, kindly offered by my girlfriend and dedicated to listening to Beethoven's Fifth performed by the Rome Symphony Orchestra, I am even more convinced that there is absolutely nothing musical in Herma; therefore, I can start with the three pages of Clà, then whenever you want, you can add yours too...

Tantamount to making a point...

Xenakis wrote:

... in the meantime you could read

http://www.mtosmt.or...wannamaker.html

In response to the request for arguments, Xenakis pulls out this link about Herma; 16 printed pages in English concerning the mathematical treatment of Herma.

Boesendorfer wrote:

How to approach the study of a composition like this?

Starting from listening, studying and analyzing other pages by the same Author, who was not only

a composer, but also an architect, friend, and collaborator of Le Corbusier.

As a composer, he applied probability theory and mathematical logic to compositional technique,

consistent with his conception of music as an agglomeration of masses and sound lines.

Boesendorfer here clearly cites that Xenakis was not only a composer but also an architect, and that as a composer he applied probability theory and mathematical logic—and mathematics is not an 'opinion', far from being mere isomorphism! What comes out of mathematics is a numerical result that is very precise, unambiguous, and possesses a certain logical order.

Xenakis wrote:

... in the link you will find many answers, have you had a chance to read it?

Xenakis presses again on reading the link... I read the link which does nothing but confirm what I already thought beforehand... The treatment of the analysis of Herma is practically 90% mathematics.

Xenakis wrote:

Invention 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 by definition is indeed the snowflake... this is a fact, this is something new in the mathematical field.

What was new in music was writing a piece using 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...

We continue to talk about mathematical concepts... In particular, it is emphasized that Xenakis used an existing mathematical concept to use it as a cornerstone for Herma. Thus, mathematics is used to compose.

Tiger wrote:

Do we all know that Xenakis was a "scientist", so to speak? I ask because he deluded himself into thinking he was bringing acoustic, scientific principles, etc., into music... a bit better than Stockhausen, but in the end, his texts seem (and not just to me) self-referential.

Here instead Tiger wants to imply that Xenakis tries to achieve something with mathematics but that practically only he believed in it, because math wasn't his strong suit... The other side of the coin. Here another impression is provided...

thallo wrote:

perhaps it is better if I don't comment on shark's messages... but linking Xenakis with Lager, so to speak, seems a tad excessive to me. And, this too, is offensive to those who like this music (and they like it with their ears, not with mathematics. Note how I rarely justify the fact that I like something by talking about mathematical references... I am even "dyscalculic", an ugly word meaning I have small problems reasoning with numbers)

Nono's videos seem to say the opposite.

And then, I really don't understand this part... Random notes please your ears only because they repeat with a certain frequency and organization... I just can't understand. Are you saying that my little cousin doesn't please you because she plays random notes not organized in blocks, but if she played the same random notes arranged in blocks you would like it... Boooh

thallo wrote:

Oh no, I am a musicologist and I know that everything you are saying is FALSE.

Give me the bibliography and we will discuss it.

The 1900s were not just expressionism, and expressionism was born before the war (go see when Buechner wrote Woyzeck), just like boy sopranos, which were not used much at all in the 1900s.

It seems that Nono also says the opposite here.

Xenakis wrote:

From the link

Iannis Xenakis: structuralism and the poetics of objective sonority.

The art participates in a"}

inferential mechanism that constitutes the basis upon which all theories of mathematical, physical sciences 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 such as games of topological essence that are all produced on the ground of this inference, in the strict sense of logic.[1]

I think that art lives apart and is not part of an inferential mechanism with the mathematical sciences. They are two different concepts that can embrace each other perhaps only in some cases. When it is said that music is mathematics, this is a falsehood !! Music is born as art; it is then the scientist who finds mathematical motivations to justify some of the composer's choices. Like this: the apple falls from the tree without knowing that its equation of motion is s = (-1/2)gt^2. Then the scientist observes, theorizes, measures, experiments (what is called the empirical method) and finally verifies. In music, in my opinion, the same thing happens. The genius creates, the ear corrects, the mind writes and imagines. That those harmonic ratios are correct is then experienced by the scientist, but they already exist without the scientist laying a hand on them and everything works.

Xenakis wrote:

Xenakis has everything except for the scientific; in this regard, Thallo himself could re-propose the rich bibliography he listed to me at the time to make me change my mind

Here suddenly the idea changes completely. Until a second ago Xenakis was a "mathematical Experimenter", but suddenly he has "everything except for the scientific".

Come on, let's re-read each other and try to be a bit consistent, otherwise the argument doesn't hold up.

I read literally from Wikipedia: "Iannis Xenakis (Brăila, 29 May 1922 – Paris, 4 February 2001) was a Greek composer, architect and engineer naturalized French...."

but "has everything except for the scientific"... Are we joking?

and again

"In 1956 Xenakis publishes a theory of stochastic music, which relies, among other things, on John von Neumann's Game Theory. Chance becomes in this context much more than simple 'chance'; 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. With this compositional philosophy, Xenakis seeks to approach biological phenomena and the natural events of the living world."

As you can see, this (the sixties) is the period of Xenakis's Stochastic music, which is what I have been asserting since my first post! (I swear that before now I hadn't read the Iannis Xenakis entry on Wikipedia).

thallo wrote:

The discussion went on, but today I really didn't feel like answering you.

I thank Xenakis (the user) for remembering some of my past discussions. I don't remember the bibliography I gave you, but probably the discussion took place on the theme of music and mathematics. In that situation, I simply remembered how there exists a very high series of musical choices at the base of apparently "formalized" compositions. Mathematical formalization has different methods and purposes. The pseudo-mathematical formalization of some compositions (which Xenakis did not invent) is an isomorphism, i.e., a sought-after stylistic stratagem that tends to evoke sensations of order, progressive expansion, of processuality.

Co-m-e-s-e-i-o-p-a-r-l-a-ssi-co-sì-per-si-mu-la-re-un-ro-bot.

Whoever reads this sentence and thinks I am a robot is wrong. Whoever listens to Xenakis and thinks that it is mathematics, and not music, is wrong.

Co - me - se - io etc. etc. is an ordered set that is segmented and reordered. Here the point is quite different and looks much more like what stellina reported instead. If we speak of stochastics organized in sets, then we should rather think of words made up of letters placed randomly that are organized into "ordered" groups and superimposed with a certain MATHEMATICAL logic, coincidentally.

In another post that I forgot to quote, you ask for a judgment that is not mathematical but musical. I am sorry, but I simply cannot see anything that is anything, not even a note that is musical. All I see is just mathematics and groups, used poorly at that.

I made this brief excursion because in this pleasant game of poisoned ball—pleasant because I want to hope that if we were speaking in person, it would all be possible over a good cup of tea; where the two teams ("pro herma" and "anti herma") are [incomplete]"}

they challenge each other with keystrokes; it seems to me that the "against Herma" faction is well-aligned in its convictions and in the few but firm ideals that are contested against it, whereas it seems to me that within the pro-Herma team there are divergent opinions, at times somewhat inconsistent; essentially everyone is saying their own thing, but if one wants to convince a group, I believe the ideals should be—I won't say common—but at least a little closer together...

I forgot to comment on Nono's video.

In this case as well, when speaking of contemporary music we are talking about new languages, and here it seems to me that there is originality and no ambiguity in Luigi Nono's words. He literally cites his search for new sonorities thanks to the use of electroacoustics. His is an experimentation. He records sounds outside the studio and processes them inside the studio. Here we see how a NEW technology is used in order to create a NEW language inspired by what the composer feels he expresses; thus, we witness innovation, something that takes shape from the need to express something new by exploiting means and languages that no one had used before. Taking mathematical theorems and saying: "let's try to use them by putting some notes inside" is NOT innovation, it is not making music because there are no contents thought out and directed towards musicality; this is just experimenting without success.

The Simon, perhaps I expressed it poorly but I meant to say that he had scientific convictions that were unconvincing, ranging from acoustics to mathematics ... in other words, the math doesn't add up

Better than Stockhausen because he sold his own principles (in short, subjective ones) as scientific; Xenakis at least tried… in my opinion, his statements to deny error or subjectivity are simply oriented to give coherence to what was supposed to be his aesthetics during that period. That is, not putting his hand in it as a man, but he was also a musician, so, as always, syntax became a pretext.

Anyway, I am neither pro nor against Herma; I have indicated concrete material to allow everyone to form their own idea, which seems to me a bit like Frank's position. It's just that he said it seems beyond the limit of what is listenable, whereas I can listen to it.

However, I would rather read material posted by Thallo, because that way we can at least close the circle. I repeat, I am here to learn and deepen my knowledge; I leave the cheering to the stadium

Un giorno vi risponderò, ma non sarà una cosa facile... conto di studiarmi anche questo http://www.ex-tempor...tague/index.htm perché, sinceramente, di fare l'analisi di Herma da solo non ne ho voglia, ci metterei troppo tempo...

... e cito subito una frase...

Herma is not the only piece of Xenakis's in which difficulties arise between the realities of the score and the composer's explanation of it. In a penetrating analysis of the 'cello piece Nomos Alpha, Jan Vriend has exposed the astonishing number of ways in which the actual finished music differs from the account given by Xenakis of its composition in Formalized Music.^[20] Xenakis, when taxed by Vriend with these inconsistencies, gave three reasons for their existence: slips of the pen; theoretical or computational errors; and details changed for the ear.^[21] It is difficult to give the first two reasons much credence in the case of Herma. The sheer volume of "dual pitches" in the score would require an outrageously careless pen. And it seems even less likely that "theoretical errors" lie behind the pitches: it would be incredible to suggest that an engineer of Xenakis's achievements could be guilty of distributing the same pitch to both a set and its complement through mathematical mistakes. One motive remains, then: the alterations in the logical structure were made "for the ear."

Interesting question....

Here you find the other video

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1651-luigi-nono/

I will try to provide a series of answers to what has been said and what has been said "to me."

It will be hard, tiring, and long work, so I will divide the response into several messages. I hope this does not disturb and, on the contrary, helps anyone who wants to read the messages.

Let's start with a summary of the entire discussion.

FIRST SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION

Stellina asks how to study Xenakis's "Herma". The first responses seem embarrassed, then TheSimon butts in, essentially saying that the composition is ugly and:

I wonder what interest a composition can arouse that has the same "contents" as the keys stomped on by a 2-year-old on the piano (...) I am quite sure that if Xenakis's name hadn't been written on the score but mine, nobody would give a f*** about it...

Xenakis counters; Boesendorfer (who so far is the only one to have given an answer to Stellina) says diplomatically that much music from the second half of the 1900s is strange, but that even great classical performers have dealt with it (and, this too, is an ON-TOPIC reflection).

TheSimon specifies his thought, which can be summarized more or less in these sentences:

Creating algorithms that generate a composition is not making music (...) For ME, art is something else entirely. (...) I have the impression that many of those who claim many of these compositions are moving only say so to avoid being criticized and to not seem inferior to those who, like you, support them tooth and nail.

I am not quoting everything, but in the original message TheSimon goes very hard on those who appreciate this music and on those who, it seems out of fear, do not express their dissent. In doing so, he awakens the user Fantasy, who in just 5 messages on this forum has already distinguished himself by linking Allevi's name to the definition "modern composer". I intervene by saying that, so far, none of TheSimon's messages are ON TOPIC, that, in my opinion, those who hate "this" contemporary music do not miss an opportunity to say it (and I am willing to write another message with ALL THE NECESSARY QUOTES to prove it) and by giving Stellina an opinion on how to approach the study of such a piece. TheSimon, although proposing to get on topic, actually raises another question: who can analyze this piece? And he does so in various messages, in the sense that he continues to ask for it for a while...

Boesendorfer tries to defuse the tension, noting how almost all of us are trying to manage the various fronts, and that his (TheSimon's) tone continues to be a bit aggressive... TheSimon calms down, and finally, it seems the discussion finds a common musical ground:

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.

Even if not yet on topic, positions are becoming clearer and clearer. Frank appears, who generally always waits for a calm moment to speak, and says how, in reality,

over the last 30 years at the conservatory (I am referring to advanced courses) it "seems" they have forgotten that there is the path of musical instinct which cannot be harnessed in a project that has strong correlations with extra-musical environments.

Relying especially, I imagine, on composition and music history classes (and, as far as I am concerned, he is right). He says that composers have the right to do what they want and (AS A COMPOSER) asks for an explanation of his own poetics and of the use he happened to make of mathematics as a compositional principle. Nice, many insights. Ignored.

The positions repeat themselves and we clash with the download file that doesn't work.

Natan writes

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

Incidentally, the pianist in the video is the dedicatee of the score and the absolute first performer. I get angry because I experience it as a callback to the message about TheSimon's niece, after several messages talking about music. Stellina counters by writing:

I find Natan's question similar; indeed, if one already knew the piece (and had studied it), one would notice the nuances ... but on the first listen, and perhaps without the support of the score, I doubt anyone would notice... the harmonic scope is not so defined as to say "by ear"... that one missed a note; ... and even the melodic one isn't really that "singable".

considerations that, in reality, apply to most works of art in human history. TheSimon, in fact, puts back"} , "quality":{"meaning_preserved":true,"instructions_ignored":true,"confidence":1.0}}|] {

in the field, the idea that alea and stochastic music are the same thing, at least upon listening. I respond as I usually do by bringing it down to ethics, getting angry because IF Chopin does not need to be performed by Pollini, then fine, but if the first performer misses the notes, then it is XENAKIS and THE COMPOSITION that are bad/nonsensical... I am not satisfied with the crazy number of open fronts; TheSimon brings in the formal and mathematical problems of the piece, just like that, because obviously we are all capable of responding mid-message to problems of this magnitude, but he also writes this

Whoever listens to it experiences it, for him it exists; for those who do not listen to it, it does not exist. That is why it seems foolish to me, with all due respect, to try to convince me of the importance of something that, for me, does not exist.

which, in addition to being the essence of Babbitt's famous article "Who cares if you listen?", should lead me to the fundamental question: but then, why are you writing on this topic?

(To be continued)

(continued)

SECONDARY SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION

Shark appears in the discussion. Saying:

i am looking for musical pleasure through music, through one of the senses which is hearing and not through the intellect as someone mentioned.

using as an example of non-intellectual pleasure:

Scriabin, Bartok, etc.

which, in itself, would deserve a discussion apart...

what musical instinct did Xenalis put into it? What did he put in that suggested it to his ear?... just for the fact that there are theorems and everything would be "explainable" denies the work of the ear and therefore musical.

This syllogism is false. And banal. But for now I am in the summary... and I also quote:

everyone enjoys as they can, there are those who like to be whipped... let alone listening to random notes. Because this is stochastics, randomness, chance, nothing that a man, a musician, can choose.

phrases that have, so far, the semantic weight of a discussion in a Bergamasque tavern, and which, for a change, are off-topic and serve only to add not just more meat but entire herds of dying animals onto the fire. Then comes the generalist act, the moment in this discussion where from Xenakis's "Herma" one officially moves to the generic definition of "this music" or "this period"

A man who perhaps (did it!) also created the camps.. so the piece is in line with the aesthetics of a certain historical period, which rejected precisely the idea of man, the fact that one could fall back (even in music) into the past that led to certain results. We are therefore talking about music born from a somewhat extreme human situation; too bad that humanity is also made of ears.

A bit tired of being taken for someone who doesn't listen with their ears (but who knows with what), a masochist, and stunned by the idea that Xenakis composed stochastic music to prevent genocide from repeating (...), I respond somewhat angrily...

The genericity continues with:

many post-WWII musicians (...) certain terms (...) certain use of the voice (...) the infant (...) anagrams (...) amenity (...)

all the opposite to

music

Ending with:

So no offense, it is just a fact written precisely in history books (it is not my vision) ... it is you who appealed to those, right? And let's read these books well or in their entirety...

indeed, no offense, you are ignorant. Here I reserve a brief comment. Can I feel a bit offended by the fact that a user, who further on defines himself as a lurker, i.e., someone who reads a lot and writes little, calls me ignorant and a masochist just like that, all of a sudden? In reality, I don't get offended, but I am sorry that people with whom I generally have an excellent relationship, even beyond differences in taste, such as TheSimon and Frank, do not read what for me are clear subtexts. With friendship and sincerity. Many know that I am able to argue my ideas, and that if I don't know something, I don't say it. And that is why I generally get angry when on a forum they call me ignorant, not because I think I am, but because I could prove that I am not, but often time and space do not allow me to. Even now, probably I will not be able to fully disprove what Shark said, because there are too many open questions.

And indeed... I think Shark is a flamer; Dino asks me to clarify the "musical instinct" issue, for which two words aren't even enough to make an introduction; he goes on the grill, along with the herd of dead animals, Luigi Nono, who is not even remotely related to Xenakis; Shark continues to talk about "period", not even of Xenakis's work, which is heterogeneous in itself, but of all the works of all the composers of the post-war period (olé); he even brings in Stockhausen, Nono's ideology and TheSimon, almost rightly, writes:

It has been about 60 posts that I have requested this specific detail. If that composition comes from mathematical principles it means that its idea of creation was not musical; if then the mathematical principle is also incongruent, then I really don't understand the sense of this composition.

Do you know why that question has been suspended for 60 posts? Because those other 60 posts opened 60 different doors, and each one seasoned their own questions with various forms of irony. And moreover, as I later said, part of this discussion, on instinct, music and mathematics, we have already had and YOU SHOULD REMEMBER IT! At least you.

In that discussion, as Xenakis repeats, I mentioned how much of the mathematical formalizations of post-1900 composers (those who made mathematical formalizations) were dismantled by critics and analysts. But to give a true key to reading all this, we would have to open another

discussion, and don't slaughter us... because my question about why you write here if you aren't interested in Xenakis remains valid between explaining it to you, since you won't change your mind anyway, and responding to Shark's attacks, or those that I experience as attacks; I prefer the latter.

Besides, even Shark seems, as they say, to be settling down/becoming more reasonable

Why are we talking about this instead of Xenakis 360°, of those compositions built in this way.

oh really?? And you say that right after talking about Berio??? Now I'm going to finish making the carbonara, I'm risking a family crisis just to write these long-winded messages...

thallo wrote:

Frank appears, who generally always waits for a calm moment to speak, and says how, in reality, referring mainly, I imagine, to composition and music history classes (and, as far as I'm concerned, he is right). He says that composers have the right to do whatever they want and (AS A COMPOSER) from an explanation of his own poetics and of the use he happened to make of mathematics as a compositional principle. Beautiful, many insights.

Ignored.

... thanks Thallo, I thought I had gone unnoticed

thallo wrote:

In reality, I don't take offense, but I am sorry that people with whom I generally have an excellent relationship, even beyond differences in taste, such as TheSimon and Frank, do not read what for me are clear subtexts. With friendship and sincerity. Many know that I am able to argue my ideas, and that if I don't know something, I don't say it.

I think I didn't understand, let me quote myself for a moment

Frank wrote:

Xenakis's compositions are sometimes extreme; Donatoni spoke of machines... namely 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 was decided by him.

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 combinatorics, but the combinations of elements arrived when I said so and not by chance... therefore 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 that Herma is 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

In other words, I close with a consideration regarding listening taste by defining the composition as interesting.

Dear Thallo, lately I am very busy and I am not emotionally disposed to engage in argumentative "battles" with my interlocutors (my "problem"/"limitation"), I said what I thought, I supported the arguments that were gradually added with a couple of videos and considerations... certainly, perhaps OT [Off-Topic], but which needed to be specified at that particular moment of the discussion. Somewhere I also wrote the imperative: "study!". If someone wants to do it well—look, in the past I paid to attend lessons, often now I happen to donate, and so far so good... but if then I also have to get angry... you will understand what I mean, I sow the seeds... whoever wants to harvest... let them harvest. As for the rest, one happens to harvest some, often here and many from you (just review your list of likes).

thallo wrote:

Many know that I am able to argue my ideas, and that if I don't know something, I don't say it.

Even too much; I renew my esteem for you... and for the willpower, the knowledge, and the competence you put into play to persuade your interlocutor.

thallo wrote:

You know why that question has been suspended for 60 posts? Because those other 60 posts opened 60 different doors, and each one seasoned their own questions with various types of irony.

On this I agree, we have jumped around too much from one thing to another...

The carbonara was good, but I changed the type of eggs, and it was a little less tasty...

Tantamount because Shark had softened, on the fifth page he debuts by saying

it has been understood that there are people here who want to dig and not remain entrenched in their own convictions

and then

If there is a video of Nono speaking in the first person (...) saying that he does not base himself on expressionism, well, he said it and not I. A word to the wise is enough.

Who spoke against Shark? Me. Therefore, the one who remains entrenched and has no desire to dig is most likely me. Who said that Nono is an expressionist? No one, but since I used that word, I have reason to believe that even that other reference is directed at me. Parenthesis.

Where did I speak of expressionism?

Regarding the music-concentration camp parallel, I respond that the 1900s were not just expressionism

The 1900s were not just expressionism, and expressionism was born before the war (go see when Buechner wrote Woyzeck)

I am referring to the close link between post-war avant-gardes, namely Darmstadt, so the Germanic area, and expressionist composers, especially Webern. By extension, I could also say that I throw into the expressionism cauldron composers of an expressionist aesthetic who did not belong to Schoenberg's circle, such as Eisler or Kurt Weill, those of the so-called Novembergruppe, who will be the post-war promoters of an aggressive, anti-capitalist aesthetic, however very particular and original. These composers, in my opinion, are those who in a rather explicit way have inserted social criticism and political problems into their own poetics, while remaining that everyone, consciously and unconsciously, expresses these demands. I am not speaking of Nono, but if you ask me explicitly (which no one has done) I will tell you that in my opinion even Nono is the child of an expressionist poetics, which comes to him from Dallapiccola (pre-war) and, once again, from Darmstadt (and therefore from Webern-Schoenberg). But I left all this implied in two lines where I said OTHER, meaning that there is OTHER in the 1900s, that trivializing the styles of many composers by considering them first and foremost a reaction to the war does not even account for a tiny bit of the landscape of the 1900s, first and second. Anyway, I will continue... sorry for the delay, but I had a friend to have coffee with all afternoon...

thallo wrote:

I won't speak of Nono, but if you explicitly ask me (which no one has done), I will tell you that in my opinion Nono is also the son of an expressionist poetics, which comes to him from Dallapiccola (pre-war) and, once again, from Darmstadt (and therefore from Webern-Schoenberg).

I confirm, he says it himself in his first video, but he also says that his music... I think he is referring to Fabbrica illuminata, for those who might not know it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcAzCEtAbs

which here (practically) turns the page, and is no longer expressionism. Perhaps he himself is unaware. Therefore, he says that it isn't, but in fact his music says the opposite ... at this point ...

Open content (youtube)

I am responding quickly, but reserving the right to continue this stream-of-consciousness message: what is expressionism? What is not expressionism? As far as I know, none of the composers in Schoenberg's circle considered themselves "expressionists." Expressionists are primarily painters from the early 1900s, opposed to the impressionists. But if and only if we consider expressionism as 1) the search for a strong emotional charge in art 2) often linked to expressive extremes (bright colors in painting or screams in music) 3) resulting from a ruthless analysis of real facts or recent history 4) often related to an inner torment, then in addition to having the description, I don't know, of Berg's Lulu (generally Berg's works are cited as examples of expressionism), we also have Dallapiccola's Il prigioniero, practically all of Nono, Weill, and Dessau. And we don't care much about how they felt. If we give a precise value to that definition, then we can also use it against the will of dead composers.

The important thing is to limit this definition, to give it meaning. For me, Berio also has expressionist elements, and, at least in the field of vocal music, verismo has so much in common with expressionism, and Richard Strauss is the vocal-musical dictionary from which practically everyone has learned with ease.