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

[Paulo Mouat <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Christos Carras [mailto:ear@xxxxxxxxx] 
> i think that one of the major differences between Xenakis and 
> Cage is that the former did not want to relinquish control.

Absolutely.  Xenakis used chance but left nothing to chance.  However, in
works such as Evryali, there are passages that are unplayable, and the
performer is welcome to leave some notes out.

> Xenakis (as i read it) concludes that integral serialism and 
> aleatoric composition lead to a similar bypassing of the 
> composer-subject.

The issue Xenakis had with serialism (not strictly integral) was the
arbitrariness of the row and its permutation straitjacket.  To him, a much
more natural law would be that of large numbers, where probabilities can be
expressed at larger scales without much interference in the individual
events.

> i think that the use of mathematics, 
> engineering models and later on computer processing 
> corresponds to a different agenda not really in reaction to 
> tonality but more to both serialism and chance.

Serialism and chance are themselves reactions to the pulverisation of
tonality.  It is only natural that the mode of thought spread like wildfire.


//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