RE: [microsound] process [was :new autechre]

[Paulo Mouat <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> His critique is that:
> 
> "In general they remain ignorant of the substratum on which 
> they found this or that theory of action."
> 
> And that his concept of stochastic music, "this new, 
> mass-conception with large numbers was more general than 
> linear polyphony, for it could embrace it as a particular 
> instance (by reducing the density of the clouds)."

I agree that what drives Xenakis is the idea that stochastic processes are
more general than whatever self-imposed ordering procedures of notes to form
a tone row can be and I actually mentioned this in my original post.

> So, in effect, Xenakis IS making the claim that Klavierstuck 
> I, to cite your example, could have been achieved via his 
> proposals. 

I strongly disagree.  It makes sense only once a certain threshold of
complexity is reached, but certainly not in all cases.  You can't really
replace a slow exposition of a tone row that explicitly and judiciously
presents its notes in a specific order by something that generated them at
random.  For one, there are concerns about avoiding certain intervals in
chords or in sequence.  The concepts of sound masses and clouds only make
sense if the density of information is such that the individuality of each
of the notes or events doesn't matter anymore--or if this is not a concern
at all to start with.  In Klavierstuck I this is not the case, and the end
result would be negatively affected if the notes didn't follow the strict
procedure of serial ordering.

Cheers,
//p
http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org