RE: [microsound] Re: xenakis quote source

["Paulo Mouat" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> however i tend to disagree (as you said, it can happen...):
> i think that most of the post-digital music with all the use of
> faiulure and crashes, is almost opposite to this "intelligence" thing.

It is a totally different set of concerns.  And even then you can't say =
that
failure and crashes are devoid of "intelligence".  For one, there's the
"intelligence" (read, the groundwork, justification, stance, whatever) =
of
the composer/musician that consciously opted to do things that way.

> the stuff was analyzed and understood after (at least for the
> majority of the people doing music).=20

While this may apply to most pre-20th century music (of the "erudite" =
genre,
for lack of a better term), it definitely doesn't to a large fraction of
20th-c music, and especially Xenakis.=20

> often i find the meaning of what i've done after i look at it.
> it reveals itself to me. is it worth anything then?=20

Only you can say.  If you prize the journey rather than the destination
(which is the base principle for plenty of 20th-c erudite music), you'll
probably feel that way, when it still was something "to be discovered" =
even
after you finished composing it.
=20
> having a theorical edifice doesn't necessarily give birth to art.=20

On the other hand, not having it isn't also a guarantee of better art.
Theoretical edifices do not detract from good art nor bad art.  It's =
what
you do with them that counts -- i.e. when you set out to _make art_ with
them.

> >Shannon's model only works for networks like telephony and data
> >transfer...not humans...
>=20
> music is data transfer.=20

Nope.  There isn't a universal meaning conveyed by music;  you have a =
series
of stimuli that will reach your audience and it will have the most =
disparate
effects from one person to the next.  In that sense, you can't speak of
data.

> and from these quotes it really seems that Xenakis approves only
> music which derives from a rigid scheme on which people can have
> nice long discussions on a theorical basis.=20

No, those quotes merely reflect how tastes impose and influence our =
judgment
of music.  Instead, Xenakis' quotes call for other criteria (if any) to
judge music, such as the quantity of intelligence carried by the sounds,
i.e. what is really the reason for it being that way, regardless of =
"other",
"arbitrary" subjective criteria.  Note that the quantification procedure =
is
left unspecified, another example of subjectivity rearing up its ugly =
head.

In essence, Xenakis' criterion is no different than Stockhausen's four
criteria of electronic music.  You can disagree with them, but that's =
beside
the point.  They all work as axioms for the specific exploratory work =
the
composers are setting themselves out to do.

> music doesn't even need words to be appreciated.=20

Then what are we doing here on this list?  Xenakis' music stands on its =
own,
it doesn't require a read of _Formalized Music_ to be appreciated.  On =
the
other hand, talking about music, exchanging ideas, thoughts, only adds =
to
the whole musical experience -- at least for those that strive to =
understand
it, or seek ways in which to improve and augment that experience.

> what about all the randomness in life?=20

What about it?  Xenakis actually brought randomness to the world of =
music in
a most thorough way.

> any way, the quote by Tobias is much better than the one by Xenakis,
> which sounds so pretentious.=20

I don't see how Tobias' quote adds to or subtracts from Xenakis' quote.  =
I
still have to see it "properly invalidated".  And it only sounds =
pretentious
if you understand it as a "dogma or divine proclamation", which by now I
hope I made clear it isn't.

Cheers,
//paulo

------------------------------