RE: [microsound] Is microsound boring?

["the.kurtz.quartet" <kurtz@xxxxxxx>]

why do you think xenakis was right?

but you are right, i should have written "most avantgarde *music* 
fail to communicate/connect".

the structures (or whatever) that the listener hear may or may not be 
the same ones as the composer used when producing the piece. but this 
is nothing new and is true for most music styles.

xenakis? actually i have been listening to him (both music and text) 
on and off since the early 70s. he was a cool guy.  but using 
software to compose music requires a great deal of work and most tend 
to give up early and take the easy way out by increasing the element 
of chance so much that the end result is just boring (most random 
music tend to sound the same).

i have tried myself using the more advanced stock market prediction 
models and implement them in supercollider (max/msp wouldnt handle 
it). but the only interesting to come out of this so far was that it 
helped me cash in all stocks i owned before the market collapsed ;=)

i found these models interesting to experiment with as they are based 
on human (if you think investors are humans) behaviour.




>  > From: the.kurtz.quartet [mailto:kurtz@xxxxxxx]
> >  much avantgarde fail to communicate.
>
> But does it want to communicate what and in the way you expect it to?
>
> "Music is not a language. Every piece is like a rugged rock,
> with countless grooves and carved with drawings on the surface
> and beneath, which people decipher and interpret in a thousand
> different ways, none of them being the best nor the truest."
>
>                                                 (Xenakis)
> --
>   __|__
> ___\_/___
>    ___     Paulo Mouat
>   |___|    http://www.mp3.com/0010minimal
>   |___|   
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org