Xenakis

One of the opinions put forward on the Cage discussion thread was that composition contains a thread of human intuition, something beyond the numbers.

So I was curious. Yannis Xenakis composes music based on mathmatical and geometric forms - however, he retains a sort of "composer's choice" technique, which allows him to change instrumentation, voicing, or even alter the shape of the mathmatical process he's working with. So, where does Xenakis fall in the spectrum from "sound technician" to "composer"?

Personally, I disdain the introduction of entirely non-intuitive elements into composition. Though the fact that Xenakis then modifies what he obtains from these non intuitive processes is quite interesting, one could say he is being inspired by these things. However, upon listening to his music, I feel he has given up too much to the non intuitive.

As a result, I find myself unmoved.

As to where he falls on the spectrum of sound technician/composer, he is quite obviously a composer, like Schoenberg, who for some reason is fascinated with introducing non-intuitive elements into his music. I feel this is merely lack of taste, not a lack of the craft of composition. Though I suppose it could be argued the more non-intuitive elements one introduces into one's composition, the less of a craft it is and the more of a transcriptive process it is, though still musical in a dry intellectual sense.

The above opinion of mine is quite distinct, you understand, from the decidedly objective argument that snaps, crackles, pops, and total silence ARE NOT music. I'm hoping if I reiterate this quite stark contrast often enough someone will begin to realize what I am saying.

the difference between Xenakis and Cage is that Xenakis actually WRITES MUSIC! Yay! THat's why I like him better! (Although it will still give u a splitting headache afterwards....)

I am ignorant of the exact process Xenakis uses to compose, however I think I can make a safe assumption:

-He comes up with some arbitrary way to translate the mathematical/geometric functions/form into pitches, allowing the resulting values to be anything in the 12-tone chromatic scale.

So here is an interesting question. Why not do exactly what Xenakis did, and instead allow all the pitches generated to be within a 7 tone diatonic scale?

Why did he choose to allow the pitches to fall into 12 tone?

Finally, the order which can arise in a sequence of numbers or geometric forms will never be as organized and intentionally musical as a composition crafted entirely by the human mind. A mathematical equation does not know that humans enjoy repetition, tension, beautiful harmony changes, invigorating rhythms, face melting melodies....it cannot produce these things. Only a human mind can.

the difference between Xenakis and Cage is that Xenakis actually WRITES MUSIC! Yay! THat's why I like him better! (Although it will still give u a splitting headache afterwards....)

Quite so. Though, some of Cage's works for prepared piano are certainly music. That's why in my discussions of Cage I always qualified my assertion that he is not a composer with the exception of the various insipid new age works he wrote for prepared piano.

I'm pretty sure he allowed the pitches to fall chromatically because it allows greater geometric accuracy. I mean, think about it - if you have a sine wave, but you only have 7 points per wavelength to plot it on, it's going to be a pretty boxy shape. If you have 12, it just gets that much closer to an actual sine plot.

I believe that even though an equation does not KNOW that human minds enjoy all these qualities of music, it is still capable of producing them. If you took a random series of, say, 17 chromatic notes, chosen by algorithm, and offset them in four voices by two notes, you will wind up producing systems where you have dissonances and consonances, tension and release. Rhythm is purely up to Xenakis, really - however he wants to map his geometric forms - to what scale - and as far as repetition, mathematical patterns are repetitious. It's their nature. As far as considerations like harmony and melody - the beauty in those is really a matter of opinion.

I suppose it is a matter of opinion to a certain degree. However, when one uses a mathematical equation to generate pitches, the equation does not assume there is a such thing as true Beauty in music. It can't know that. A human being is capable of perceiving and reacting to beauty, and a composer is obviously capable of assuming that such a thing as true Beauty exists, and can actively search for this.

This, to me, is why there is such a vast, stark contrast between a work by Xenakis and a work by Rachmaninov.

Find me a set of mathematical equations that can produce a gorgeous piano concerto. I would assert this is literally impossible.

I know that reaction to beauty or lack thereof is a matter of opinion to a degree but, well, do you personally find turds to be as beautiful as roses?

I think you should carefully think about what it means to be open minded. It is good to be open minded, as it can teach you things you might not have learned otherwise, but don't you think once you take open mindedness beyond a certain degree you are simply being open minded for its own sake? Is that really valuable? I'm not criticising you as I think open mindedness is a good thing, just cautioning you about determining what can really provide you with true intellectual value.

I find your turds/roses analogy to be flawed, for one basic reason. Neither the turd nor the rose can be controlled in any way. To compare a Rachmanianoff piece, for example, to a rose, is saying that its beauty is not a product of its composition, but just the random way it is (and since it's not random...). Similarly, to compare a turd to a Xenakis piece is to say that a turd can be shaped and molded in its creation. Show me the person who can spontaneously create star-shaped turds, and I will concede the point. By making such an analogy, you implicitly devalue one while valuing another.

Suppose we use visual arts as a metaphor. Consider a rose. In actuality, the Xenakis piece may be closer to the rose itself, because it is direct tranference of natural mathematics (the golden mean, fibonacci numbers, etc.). The Rachmanianoff piece, while classically beautiful, may be considered more a Picasso painting of the rose, for its language is abstract.

In actuality, music is not a language, because it lacks universal equivalency. This is the primary issue with bringing beauty into a debate such as this - since there is no quantifiable standard, it becomes useless.

So it wasn't a perfect analogy, but I think most people know what I mean, one is inherently aesthetically beautiful, the other is ugly. I really think subjectivity can only go so far in music. Obviously there is a tremendous amount but I believe there is a core of objectivity upon which musical creation must be based, otherwise there would be no such thing as the word "beautiul" to begin with!

Beautiful doesn't only describe music! It's doubtful it arose to describe music at all.

I think Xenakis' pieces are inherently beautiful. I think some of his pieces are ugly. But I think some of Mozart's music is ugly too. Such things are so inherently opinion-based that it's impossible to debate them.

However, truth is a different story. As I have pointed out, I believe Xenakis' music is truer, because it more closely mirrors nature, while purely composed music is more abstract. Discuss.

What you're trying to say is Xenakis music mirrors nature more closely because it is mapped out from mathematical equations?

But it seems to me that there is an inherent nature to music which only a human mind can exploit. Again, only we know that we enjoy beautiful harmonies, melodies, and rhythms. A mathematical equation cannot know what causes human emotion. We can. Only our own craftsmanship can expoit the Nature of music.

To use something ELSE in nature, namely a mathematical equation, and insert it into something which has an inherently different nature, is simply what I have said before---introducing the non-intuitive into the compositional process.

Anyway, we have indeed entered subjective ground. I do believe there is an objective core to music, but it is, of course, quite possible to train oneself to enjoy things in music which are unnatural or different from normal. This, however, does not refute the idea that music can be based on an objective core. If it were not based on an objective core, then I don't think I would enjoy music from all different cultures as I do.

I do not know anything about Xenakis, does he shape his music? While tones are important, Schoenberg made a system where he did not have to rely on tonality but merely the way he shaped his pieces, his form is what is more key, the way he shapes the notes he is given.

Did Xenakis do as Schoenberg?

Cage, while his prepared piano pieces do have form, I question some of his electronic pieces having it. Though Cage was trying to make a point, and basically living his life to the fullest within it.

I do not know anything about Xenakis, does he shape his music? While tones are important, Schoenberg made a system where he did not have to rely on tonality but merely the way he shaped his pieces, his form is what is more key, the way he shapes the notes he is given.

Did Xenakis do as Schoenberg?

Cage, while his prepared piano pieces do have form, I question some of his electronic pieces having it. Though Cage was trying to make a point, and basically living his life to the fullest within it.

"I have nothing to say, and I am saying it." - John Cage.

Yep. Sounds full alright. ;)

That is a tricky one liner ;)

Maybe we should open up another thread on the that quote? or discuss it in Xenakis? or discuss it in John Cage?

ANYTHING FOR ORGANIZATION!

I thought that math is nature... The only true universal language....

Even the human brain works in a logic mathematic way...

Everything from the rotation of the atoms, to the rotation of our milky way galaxy...

A mathematical equation can know what causes human emotion very well... Much better than we do! Because, because of that mathematical equatation we can feel.

Maybe we should focus on the way "this is made from math" this is not... but why we (and IF) enjoy both....

What if our brain was made this way so that Beethoven's music is "cr*p" to our ears, and pure noise is heaven...

As long as something is OK with the "laws of harmony" then it's good...

that is my opinion, badly spoken, but I donot seem to be very good with english. I hope you understand

I thought that math is nature... The only true universal language....

Even the human brain works in a logic mathematic way...

Everything from the rotation of the atoms, to the rotation of our milky way galaxy...

A mathematical equation can know what causes human emotion very well... Much better than we do! Because, because of that mathematical equatation we can feel.

I hope you are not reducing the miracle of life to a set of mathematical equations. We have absolutely no idea how we feel, why we feel, or how our brains work. How can you assume that we feel because of mathematical equations? Do you honestly believe we would ever be able to describe our emotional responses with mathematical equations? This would then imply that a computer could write music just as well as a human can.

To rephrase, do you believe that our thinking is the result of a strictly deterministic physical system? If you believe this then you also do not believe we have Free Will. Free Will would be an illusion if we are 100% deterministic physical systems.

The truth is we do not know at this point whether that is the case. Though, to me I feel it is quite nearly self-evident that we are not 100% deterministic physical systems. Our behavior and choices transcend logic and mathematics, though I suppose certain aspects, such as picking up a heavy object, could be described with Newtonian physics.

In fact, I do not think we could discover any truths about mathematics if our minds did not transcend a strictly algorithmic, logical process.

Maybe we should focus on the way "this is made from math" this is not... but why we (and IF) enjoy both....

What if our brain was made this way so that Beethoven's music is "cr*p" to our ears, and pure noise is heaven...

I am of the conviction and belief that there is a such thing as absolute truth, and a such thing as objective Beauty though response to surface details may be subjective ( I like Rachmaninov and Meade-Lux Lewis, you might like Mozart and Art Tatum ).

Because of this conviction I cannot accept the suggestion that the way our brains respond to reality is entirely arbitrary. For example, I say I see the color blue. Is the way it "shows up" in my consciousness an arbitrary wiring up of neurons? Maybe what you see as blue is what shows up in my brain as red. I highly doubt this is the case. I believe our perception of reality is a direct result of what reality IS. That is to say, no matter how life evolves, an eyeball capable of seeing color will see the same colors no matter what ( unless an evolutionarily unnecessary translative system is in place).

Allow me to make an addition pertinent to earlier in the conversation.

How did music first arise, most likely? Someone shouted some words and it felt good, and the pitches they used sounded good and felt good also. Then someone probably hit something, maybe a big barrel or bowl or something that made a nice tone. He hit it again, and it felt good.

Basically I am speculating that it is part of human nature to make music. Our affinity with rhythm, with pitches, with melodies, is actually built in.

It seems to me all forms of music from all cultures, extending all the way up to the present, are a result of this basic tendency to make music. Until recently, this has all been totally intuitive, with perhaps pepperings of theorized summaries of the practice of a particular group of composers in a particular era.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that music is something which has its own nature. Part of this nature reflects human nature, and part of this nature reflects the acoustics of sound. Mathematical equations can be rhythmic, I suppose, but no set of mathematical equations can develop motivic material that the human mind can grab onto, it can't deliberately use polyrhythms, syncopation, or chord progressions, or anything FOR THE PURPOSE of intellectual satisfaction or enjoyment by a human being. Why, then, is this considered interesting or valuable at all? (Xenakis' compositional method)

Also, I find it very odd that anyone would say a piece of music is beautiful purely because of its architecture. If you're fascinated with permutating 12 pitches around and it makes ugly or boring music, might as well permute 12 colored bouncy balls and invert and retrograde them. The architecture would be exactly the same. In fact, permuting 12 colored bouncy balls would probably be more aesthetically pleasing than 12 tone serialism, since it does not violate the Nature of the Aesthetics of Bouncy Ball Arrangement.

Note I recognize this is subjective ground. Concluding that John Cage's 4'33" is NOT music, I still maintain, is an entirely objective conclusion.

It is about shaping the tones, orchestration, what is it going to do next?

A person could be given a sequence, which could have been from mozart lets say, the strength and skill of the composer to wield that sequence is what counts. Obviously the better composer will show, if your working with a Schoenberg sequence or a Mozart Melody, they pretty much are the same thing.... :D .....with slightly altered theories. Schoenberg was asking the question, why are these the tones that you chose? Basically, in music we have built a system, and to deny Schoenberg's or anybody else's as being better is futile.

Like I have said before, we are putting 18th century ideals into 21st times.

If the music was purely mathetmatical then a computer would do it, and we wouldn't have composers today that slave away.

No... computers wouldnot be able to do it... Even if it was nothing more than mathematic equatations...

We are the ones who set the limits and the problems, and the computer answers, never thinks of his own...

You say to the computer 5 + 5 and it replies 10. That is pure math. Deny it ?!!

But the computer will never EVER ask us that, because it cannot think. It can only perform what we program it. It will never create anything! Just do some binary actions. 1 or 0, yes or no. that's it.

That way music cannot be 100% created by Computers... Thus Computer's can translate equatations into music. Of course every system could give different answers dependent on it's creator. The computer is just there to do the translation... not to writte the code.

And that is what Xenakis and Cage did.

But please donot the pitches the tones, the way that are formed are all about math. (remeber the doppler effect and the f = (u + (or - ) u)/ u + (or - ) u ) * f type). Or at least... it can be expressed using math.

I still do believe that everything can be express with math. From the ammount and bonds of proteins within our DNA, to the rotation of atoms, and... galaxies. That's the way it works. And Sound, tones, etc........ not an exception.

mathematics is a symbolic description of abstract ideas usually having to do with logic and numbers. It is not a living thing capable of creating life, or creating music.

Mathematics in some fields (like physics) is a symbolic description of specific natural characteristics. Music is, in many cases, a symbolic description of specific natural characteristics. See Smetana's "The Moldau" for instance - see also Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. See John Adams' "Short Ride in a Fast Machine". See Edgar McDowell's "To A Wild Rose" or Saint-Saens' "Carnival of the Animals." There's nothing wrong that I can see with combining the two symbologies.

Mathematics in some fields (like physics) is a symbolic description of specific natural characteristics. Music is, in many cases, a symbolic description of specific natural characteristics. See Smetana's "The Moldau" for instance - see also Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. See John Adams' "Short Ride in a Fast Machine". See Edgar McDowell's "To A Wild Rose" or Saint-Saens' "Carnival of the Animals." There's nothing wrong that I can see with combining the two symbologies.

(FACT)Music does not describe anything. It cannot communicate meaning or semantics by any stretch of the imagination. Whether or not a composer assigns a particular programme to his work has absolutely nothing to do with the musical content (objectively). That is, it is the composer's opinion that his music means something. It does not, objectively, mean anything.

(PERSONAL IDIOSYNCHROSY) In fact, whenever I listen to a piece that has been assigned a programme, I typically ignore this and form my own imagery or react to it entirely abstractly.

(FACT)On the same token music is not symbolic, nor does it contain any symbols, axioms, or theorems. Music *theory* attempts to describe music by analyzing common compositional practice just as mathematics describes truths about numbers. Mathematics can be compared to music theory in its purpose, but certainly not to music itself. Actually, music theory can't even be compared to mathematics. There's no such thing as the truth of "parallel fifths are wrong." That isn't a truth---it is an opinion, which for some mysterious reason people still seem to think is important even today.

(OPINION) On the same token, music could be better compared to NATURE itself, however music's nature is intertwined with human nature, that is, only humans make music and respond to music in an emotional way.

(OPINION)Well of course there is nothing WRONG with writing a piece that contains notes plotted out from a graph, but it is my opinion that this removes most traces of HUMANITY from a piece of music. It makes it boring and ugly. If there's nothing human in a piece of music, I'm not interested in listening to it, because it was not created by something which I know might have common experience of some sort.

(FACT)Music does not describe anything. It cannot communicate meaning or semantics by any stretch of the imagination. Whether or not a composer assigns a particular programme to his work has absolutely nothing to do with the musical content (objectively). That is, it is the composer's opinion that his music means something. It does not, objectively, mean anything.

I want to agree with this statement, but I can't entirely. This is like saying that language communicates nothing objectively. Perhaps it communicates nothing to a person who can't read, but to anyone who can read and recognizes the symbols, it does have meaning. When I hear a piece of music with certain recognizable characteristics to which my experience has assigned meaning, regardless of whether it has an assigned programme or not, I associate meaning to that. I don't think I'm alone in that, or composers wouldn't use those "recognizable characteristics."

Or am I missing your point somehow?

There's no such thing as the truth of "parallel fifths are wrong." That isn't a truth---it is an opinion, which for some mysterious reason people still seem to think is important even today.

I'm going to take this statement somewhat personally, though I'm sure you mean no offence and none is taken. I've never said that parallel fifths are wrong. What I have said over and over again is that if a composer is going to use the established language of Western music in a more-or-less traditional way, as most here do, s/he would do well to understand what the theory of that language is, including the rule you singled out. There are composers here and elsewhere who want their music to have a traditional sound and expect to be taken seriously, but they fall short and even fail because their ignorance of the characteristics of the music they are trying to emulate is blatantly obvious. That ignorance shows through in their music and renders the product amateurish and unpolished despite their best efforts - and it might have been avoided if the composer had made it his/her business to understand what s/he was doing. I have also said repeatedly that whether one chooses to follow the established rules of Western music theory, knowledge of what those rules are and how they operate will inform what s/he does. It's about consciousness and enlightenment.

Too many people here want to treat music as a toy and then expect to be taken seriously. That's fine, but to me it's a powerful tool not to be taken so lightly. Not everyone can create good music, so what we do is special. Those of us who aspire to this and have some talent or ability at it owe it to ourselves and to the art itself to understand its theory. It's a responsibility anyone can accept or reject, but those who accept it are the ones who make something of themselves and create works of lasting value. There are very few exceptions to this in the history of Western music, and expecting to be one of them through will alone is impractical.

AXIOM: If you don't take the time and make the effort to understand what you're doing (and why you're doing or not doing it), it will show in your work and you will be judged accordingly.

I want to agree with this statement, but I can't entirely. This is like saying that language communicates nothing objectively. Perhaps it communicates nothing to a person who can't read, but to anyone who can read and recognizes the symbols, it does have meaning. When I hear a piece of music with certain recognizable characteristics to which my experience has assigned meaning, regardless of whether it has an assigned programme or not, I associate meaning to that. I don't think I'm alone in that, or composers wouldn't use those "recognizable characteristics."

Or am I missing your point somehow?

Music does not exist to communicate meaning. I suppose if one wanted, one could come up with a system of melodic fragments, rhythms, and harmonies, and assign them meaning, just as we have assigned meaning to words and syllables. In fact, that is an interesting point because Ibelieve certain cultures actually do do this to a certain degree, in particular Indian Sitar music. They apparently have a very elaborate set of symbols in their music which they have chosen to represent various ideas.

However, though I am completely ignorant of all those symbols, I find Indian Sitar music intensely gratifying to listen to. I believe that response to music, and response to meaning are entirely different concepts.

So I suppose to a certain degree music CAN communicate meaning, but I still think this is very different from language. Do you really think that anyone would ever use music to construct sentences and paragraphs, and communicate such abstract ideas as we are discussing here for example?

I'm going to take this statement somewhat personally, though I'm sure you mean no offence and none is taken. I've never said that parallel fifths are wrong. What I have said over and over again is that if a composer is going to use the established language of Western music in a more-or-less traditional way, as most here do, s/he would do well to understand what the theory of that language is, including the rule you singled out. There are composers here and elsewhere who want their music to have a traditional sound and expect to be taken seriously, but they fall short and even fail because their ignorance of the characteristics of the music they are trying to emulate is blatantly obvious. That ignorance shows through in their music and renders the product amateurish and unpolished despite their best efforts - and it might have been avoided if the composer had made it his/her business to understand what s/he was doing. I have also said repeatedly that whether one chooses to follow the established rules of Western music theory, knowledge of what those rules are and how they operate will inform what s/he does. It's about consciousness and enlightenment.

Too many people here want to treat music as a toy and then expect to be taken seriously. That's fine, but to me it's a powerful tool not to be taken so lightly. Not everyone can create good music, so what we do is special. Those of us who aspire to this and have some talent or ability at it owe it to ourselves and to the art itself to understand its theory. It's a responsibility anyone can accept or reject, but those who accept it are the ones who make something of themselves and create works of lasting value. There are very few exceptions to this in the history of Western music, and expecting to be one of them through will alone is impractical.

AXIOM: If you don't take the time and make the effort to understand what you're doing (and why you're doing or not doing it), it will show in your work and you will be judged accordingly.

I meant absolutely no offense to those who cherish the old harmonic rules and apply them to their own music. I am merely of the opinion that the presence or absence of those rules cannot be detected easily by ear, and do not affect the quality of the music. How good a piece of music is, I personally believe, has very little to do with adherance to rules. For example, I learned a Chopin Nocturne once and didn't read every note carefully. At times, I doubled the leading tone (GASP), and my piano teacher pointed this out. To this day when I try both versions, playing without doubling the leading tone in those passages, and playing WITh doubling the leading tone, I can detect no change in the quality of the music for the better or worse. What makes Chopin's Nocturne good is something that cannot be described with words. One must consider a composition as a whole, and from an intuitive perspective, to judge how good it is (subjectively).

I already mentioned this in another post Lee, but if you were to insert violations of rules into your own music, I am willing to bet that neither I, nor most people, could detect that you were suddenly violating those rules. Your composition would stll be good. Your experience with composition and knowledge of what makes good melodies, good progressions, and good form, transcends traditional harmonic rules. Whether or not you know them, it seems to me, does not necessarily indicate whether a composer's effort is that of an amateur. After all, many of the post Classical great composers violated rules all the time and we do not refer to them as amateurs.

Despite these views you may be interested to learn that I am teaching myself to improvise while following all the harmonic rules at once, however I consider this completely optional. Furtheremore, I have found this practice does not seem to increase the quality of my own response to my own music, so I am debating with myself whether I shall continue with this practice. It seems pointless.

Music describes SYMBOLICALLY what the composer wants it to describe. Whether an audience member reads the symbol the same way is not the issue.

I think in the end the debate really comes down to this:

Status, or Contract?

Or, put another way, For the composer, or for the audience? For the educated, or for the masses? However you choose to denote the issue, that's what we're all arguing.

My personal belief is that the issue of status or contract lies with the composer. If the composer chooses to implant mathematics behind the piece, such that it can only be understood by taking a close look at background information, sketches, etc., then that is the composer's prerogative. We should embrace the mental complexity of the idea, hear what we hear, and move on. Likewise, we should not denounce intuitive music as simple, if it does not contain a wealth of information.

The development of status music is very recent. It does not really show up until Stravinsky. Until that point, music was for the audience. It was designed to sound in a way that would either carry text (in the Middle Ages and church music) or would sound sweet to the ear. With the advent of status composers, though, focus shifts to what is behind the music, as well as what the ear hears (except in the case of John Cage - he's all about the hearing).

So perhaps the questions we should be thinking about are these:

What is your stance on status versus contract composing?

To what level is status composing intellectual elitism?

To what level is contract composing selling out?