Xenakis: Rebonds

I don't know about you, but I struggle to follow ... fantastic piece!

Destroyed wrote:

I don't know about you, but I struggle to follow ... fantastic piece!

Yes, very beautiful, this is a track that I like!

I say this for those attempting to follow it who are not very practiced... The video in Frank's file performs part 'b'.

I am asking, is this also stochastic?

If that were the case, what's the story?

This Stellina was composed between 1987 and 1989. In practice, it is an aggressive rhythmic ostinato. Its development is based on the interpolation of violent accents and is progressively interrupted by fast figurations (those played by the wood blocks), leading to a progressive disintegration into heavy rolls.

At the end, the initial ostinato overlaps with an additional line of wood blocks... it is practically a sonic expiration of a rhythmic counterpoint

Ergo, it has nothing to do with Herma's construction method...

Interesting translation of the title: "Rimbalzo"

http://it.glosbe.com/fr/it/rebond

Similar phrases in the French-Italian dictionary.

Fondu, effacement par rebonds Dissolvenza avanti e indietro

rebond zéro bogue (ZBB) stato senza bug

I am asking, is this also stochastic?

If that were the case, what is the story?

http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/PAS/ed5fde94-e779-49f5-9331-47aa0cb1e9a1/UploadedFiles/f0d5b71ae8c94c6780618f39ce3e304b.pdf

http://old.hfm-detmold.de/schlagzeughaus/rebonds%20A%20and%20B%20a%20short%20analyses.pdf

Dino wrote:

This Stellina was composed between 1987 and 1989. In practice, it is an aggressive rhythmic ostinato. Its development is based on the interpolation of violent accents and is progressively interrupted by fast figurations (those performed by the wood blocks), leading to a progressive disintegration into heavy rolls.

At the end, the initial ostinato overlaps with an additional line of wood blocks... practically it is a sonic expiration of a rhythmic counterpoint

Ergo, it has nothing to do with Herma's construction method...

As luck would have it, this one that works is built on a musical principle as old as the hills: the ostinato (used for compositions like passacaglia, chaconne ...).

As can be seen, it is not a problem of syntax but of musicality; here there are no external principles to "respect"... do you think Puccini or Sciabin had to justify themselves when they wrote their music?

ttw wrote:

As it happens, this one that works is built on a musical principle as old as time: the ostinato (used for compositions like passacaglia, chaconne ...).

As you can see, it is not a problem of syntax but of musicality; here there are no external principles to "respect"... do you think Puccini or Sciabin had to justify themselves when they wrote their music?

it seems to you that tonality is a system that does not have to "justify itself". Come on... it is THE system par excellence that must "justify itself".

every composition system—tonal, modal, serial, stochastic, the more the merrier—has its weak points and leaks somewhere, which is why sooner or later it is abandoned! but from somewhere else it also has virtues! as demonstrated by the pieces written in each of these systems!

that there might also be music less successful than others... well, that is the most obvious thing in the world!

scelsi wrote:

that there might also be music less successful than others... well, it's the most obvious thing in the world!

Oh no! Tell that to all the great pre-avant-garde composers. It doesn't seem to me that from the Flemish to Bartók there is anyone who has proposed unsuccessful pieces.

Chopin wrote only one fugue and thank God he stopped immediately, Verdi did suffer a bit actually, as for Bach nothing comes to mind (perhaps among the 50% of works that have been lost ...)

Mozart? Beethoven? Scriabin? Stravinsky? Messiaen? Wagner? Palestrina? Frescobaldi? Scarlatti? Schumann?

Where is all this failed music?

scelsi wrote:

it seems to you that tonality is a system that does not have to "justify itself". Come on... it is THE system par excellence that must "justify itself".

I suspect that you know a lot; Scriabin is only briefly tonal, so he doesn't fall under your criticism; Turandot is "worse" than Berg... Puccini was good at smoothing things over with orchestration, but it is truly "angular" music.

Tiger wrote:

I suspect ttw knows best, Scriabin is only briefly tonal, so he doesn't fall under your criticism; Turandot is "worse" than Berg... Puccini was good at smoothing things over with orchestration, but it is truly "angular" music.

eheheh in effect during that period, the so-called "free atonality" is perhaps the system in the history of Western music that has the least to "justify itself" in the sense mentioned before...

@ttw

all the authors you cited have more successful pieces and others less successful. not to mention all that production of music throughout the centuries that was simply lost as "scrap". you have no idea of the amount of... "written paper" for example among the fully tonal music of the nineteenth century. it wasn't just Schumann!

and anyway, the comparison between Bach and his century and the last one is truly difficult... not to say impossible! I mean... if the criticism is: Xenakis is not like Bach... ok you're right! eheheh

scelsi wrote:

@ttw

. it wasn't just Schumann!

So there wasn't just Xenakis!... but what does that mean? If someone is classified among the greats, they must be compared with them. Otherwise, they should be resized. Since they don't want to be that way, let them deal with it if they write an unlistenable piece of junk.... which Herma, which is an indefensible experiment, something I have noticed they try to do in several [works].

How is it that this (Rebonds) works, Scelsi?

scelsi wrote:

... if the criticism is: Xenakis is not like Bach... ok you're right! eheheh

... maybe Bach used his ears too

ttw wrote:

... maybe Bach used his ears too

if you think xen didn't use his "ears" then we are no longer in agreement!!!

ttw wrote:

So there wasn't just Xenakis!... but what does that mean? If someone is classified among the greats, they must compare themselves to them. Otherwise, they should be resized. Since they don't want to be that way, let them deal with it if they write an unlistenable piece of garbage.... which Herma is, being an indefensible experiment, something I have noticed many try to do.

How is it that this one (Rebonds) works, Scelsi?

look... there would be a lot to say about Herma. It was a period, a collective feeling that pushed one to write pieces like that. And if you insert it into its context, you can even understand the reasons that led to its composition and appreciate the result. Which doesn't mean it would make sense to continue writing in that way, no more and no less than it wouldn't make sense to continue writing with the musicality of Bach today!

so the fact that Rebonds works and Herma does not... well, it's a bit too simplistic, and I don't quite agree. We can criticize that particular way of writing if you want... and much more distinguished personalities have already done so, if that's what it comes down to!!!

Herma has its own "why" too!

scelsi wrote:

if you think xen didn't use his "ears" then we are no longer in agreement!!!

In reality, it's not my thought, he writes it himself... just study his texts. In the links posted by someone, everything is written quite clearly. I am always talking about Herma; find me a link that says the opposite, where he admits that subjectively, thanks to musical instinct, he chose something ... and we are in agreement

ttw wrote:

Actually, it's not my thought, he writes it... just study his texts. In the links posted by someone, everything is written quite clearly.

it's not exactly as you say... but oh well!!!

scelsi wrote:

it's not quite as you say... but oh well!!!

In fact, I invited you to let me read where it says otherwise; I am very willing to change my mind. As long as Xenakis says he went by ear for Herma, so then we can also understand what kind of musicality he has... no one in the Herma topic has written that they like it. Not even you, Scelsi