How Would One Approach Studying A Piece Like This

Xenakis wrote:

Perhaps to get to know who Xenakis is better, perhaps it's better to delve deeper into works like Tetras... don't you think?

... it wouldn't be bad at all, but it's a huge job. Besides, it was a very innovative piece, a trademark

tetras is an absolute masterpiece!

Have you ever heard Scelsi live?

I have heard other works by Xenakis live but not Tetras!

anyway I am sure it sounds much better live than on a recording. but very...

I apologize, but I was without internet.

simon, I read the 6 pages of discussion and I don't think I answered 'spade a denari' [swords or coins]. The pseudo-randomness used by Xenakis will always remain random, but it stems from a reasoning that might be useless for you to do, but was evidently important for Xenakis! If the result doesn't please you, well, that's another story!

Also, I repeat: for me, compositional logic should be underlying and not the characterizing element of a piece's beauty, and therefore I essentially agree with what you wrote subsequently, except when you answer based on your subjectivity to the questions you ask yourself regarding the meaning and values of music. I don't have any concrete answers to these questions yet....

have a good day

micamahler wrote:

I apologize, but I was without internet.

Simon, I have read the 6 pages of discussion and I don't think I answered 'spade a denari' [suit of swords/pennies]. The pseudo-randomness used by Xenakis will always remain random, but it arises from a reasoning that might be useless for you to perform, but evidently was important for Xenakis! If the result doesn't please you, well, that's another story!

Furthermore, I repeat: for me, compositional logic should be underlying and not the characterizing element of a piece's beauty, and therefore I essentially agree with what you wrote subsequently, except when you respond subjectively to the questions you ask yourself regarding the meaning and values of music. I do not yet have such concrete answers to these questions....

Have a good day

It's not that the reasoning doesn't please me; the fact that it doesn't please me in this discussion is a minor point, it doesn't "please" mathematics. Mathematicians are very concise and rigorous. The sum of infinities of any order results in infinity; there is no way out. The organization of subsets with stochastic elements results in a set with stochastic elements—just to say that the calculations aren't even being done; steps of this nature are useless, because why have to prove something that is already very clear regardless?

So, my criticism was driven by two things and supported by two concepts.

The first, which I wrote in my last post based on Ligeti's statements... namely, that this type of composition cannot be interpreted solely through listening but cannot be separated from its logical foundations; in fact, they are the protagonists when speaking of "methods," since as Ligeti reminds us, if you mix plasticine, the contrast of colors is lost.

The second consideration is that, being unable to disregard the formal laws formulated during the definition of the piece's foundations, if these foundations are based on mathematical concepts—as banal as they are in this case, or incorrect—then the entire piece loses its meaning...

Perhaps he wanted to make the color contrast fade himself? Or perhaps you are simply right. I am trying to help Xenakis (I doubt he needs it) when in reality I don't even like the piece in question.

All this reminds me of Ligeti when he said that the quarter tone was unusable, with (his) good reason after writing Ramifications and having (himself) found that no difference could be perceived. But it is not a correct example because in stochastic music, I would say that by definition, the difference does not matter.

It would be necessary to know (and I do not know) if this of Xenakis's is just a very rigorous attempt in this direction or if other works with related construction followed.

And why wouldn't he need it? Because his name is Iannis Xenakis? He himself claimed not to be a mathematician; in many of his treatises, as clear and limpid as the water, he sought to justify certain liberties not pertaining to the standards he decided to adopt, seeking to justify unavoidable errors. As I have already said, a mathematical theory cannot have duality; it must be clear, provable, and unambiguous. Trying to justify errors in mathematical theory is equivalent to saying that the theory is full of holes. I would also like to know a physicist's opinion on the matter... Foster, are you there?

So you are saying, if you want to use mathematics, do you use it from beginning to end for what it is, or do you use something else?

TheSimon wrote:

Trying to justify errors in mathematical theory is equivalent to saying that the theory is full of holes. I would also like to know a physicist's opinion on the matter... Foster, are you there?

Hi Simone!

You have my full support regarding the theory you have exhaustively argued.

However, I also defer to what the philosopher Protagoras said:

Man is the measure of all things; of those that are, that they are, and of those that are not, that they are not.

If it interests you, in Milan during the 50s, there was a friend of my teacher who made melodies with telephone numbers.

If that's the case, there are those who dress the sound of the Tokyo Stock Exchange....

... if there were someone who follows musical requirements... oh well.

ttw wrote:

... if there were someone who follows musical requirements... well.

as if there were universal ones eheheh

foster12 wrote:

Man is the measure of all things; of those that are, in that they are, and of those that are not, in that they are not.

Protagoras' quotation is correct, but then, in music, one must see which things fill the concert halls.

TheSimon wrote:

Protagoras' quote is correct, but then, in music, one must see which things fill the concert halls.

... Allevi?

Ah ah ah ... Well then. Maybe it's us who don't understand a damn thing.

I think that once it would have met the same fate as Giordano Bruno. But perhaps I am wrong.

scelsi wrote:

as if there were universal ones eheheh

There are no universals, but it doesn't mean that a phone number is musical. Sometimes yes, sometimes no... ergo, it is not a musical criterion (a ... means "one" perhaps among many and not the only one)

TheSimon wrote:

in music, one must see which things fill concert halls.

More than anything else, which things are based on musical instinct. See composers like Messiaen

RedScharlach wrote:

... Allevi?

It's going well, the relationship must be assessed in periods. During the years of Xenakis' maximum production, Allevi wasn't even a project on the part of the parents...

The Pooh were around back in the old days.