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

[Christos Carras <ear@xxxxxxxxx>]

i think that one of the major differences between Xenakis and Cage is 
that the former did not want to relinquish control. On the contrary, if 
you read his first text in the Gravesaner Blaetter (sorry, no umlaut in 
thunderbird...) in 1955 ("the crisis of serial music") Xenakis (as i 
read it) concludes that integral serialism and aleatoric composition 
lead to a similar bypassing of the composer-subject. 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.

process is not always a way to escape the commodification (?) of works 
of music, as Jeff suggests. Integral serialism was definitely process 
oriented, but i don't think that any of those composers saw this as a 
way of levelling the playing field. furthermore, Cage's chance 
operations - theoreticaly easy to be implemented by anyone - haven't 
prevented Cage from retaining star status (at least within the 'avant 
garde'). so there's a danger of simplifying the political repercussions 
and implications of an overall approach to making music. the same goes 
for open works and improvisation.

cc



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