Yes,.... very much so. It being a matter of taste, cultural frame of 
reference and all is one thing. The "no reason to exist" comment shows 
a lack of reason, logic, and a justifiable rational behind the 
statement (made in haste without forethought maybe?). That's like 
saying the universe has no reason to exist, which it probably doesn't,
but it does. So we deal with it and go about our business and be what 
we are, existing until our time is up. No particular reason to exist, 
we just are what we are. Such is life (se la vie?), such is art, no 
reason, we do 'cause we like it and enjoy it. And maybe, if we're 
lucky, we find or impress some deep significance to it all. And maybe
that becomes the reason. 

It's an artifact of existance, and wherever there are humans, there 
are artifacts, and some get left behind for others to mull over and 
ponder.

Kind of ironic when you consider "probability density" used in
Xenakis' "indeterminancy compositions". Talk about "no reason" to 
exist except in the indeterminant probabilistic world of a 
Xenakis composition. Kinda' makes you go,.... hmmmmmm!

In the words of that immortal cartoon character 
"Popeye the Sailor Man"---- "... I am's what I am's, and that's all
that I am's". 


Thought for the day to ponder, enjoy.


Cheers,
-Partev   :-)


============================================================


--- mddemers@hotmail.com wrote:

From: Caecos 
To: 
Subject: [Csnd] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Xenakis etc
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:26:39 -0500

I'm always disturbed when I read such things as: this composer has no reason
to exist. For me, it's short view...

Brahms is one of the major composer in music. Everyone that has studied
composition in university understand what I mean...

That someone is not found on Brahms, that's O.K., but saying that there is
no reason for his existence, it's another story.

Marc

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Richard Dobson [mailto:richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Envoyé : 11 janvier 2011 09:38
À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Objet : [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Xenakis etc

On 11/01/2011 14:01, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Yes; Brahms is just so dull, maundering stuff.  Never listen to it
>> intentionally.  No reason for its existence; so unlike his
>> contemporary Bruckner
>>
>
> I strongly disagree!! Brahms is one of my favorite composers!
>
Same here. And I would recommend anyone who would like to hear what a 
romantic symphonist's anticipation of ambient-ish electro-acoustic music 
sounds like should try out the slow movement of the third Symphony. 
Every time I listen to it I find it astonishing. And I can claim the 
almost certainly unique distinction of, as a schoolboy, switching 
between flute and timpani in a performance of the German Requiem. The 
timp obbligato (as I saw it, anyway) in the 2nd movement would be the 
pride of any 20th Century composer. "Brahms the Progressive"? 
Absolutely! Great tunes too. Unfortunately, just as it is impossible to 
ruin Tchaikovsky, it is rather easy to ruin Brahms; it has to be played 
in a "certain way".

Richard Dobson



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
csound"




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"





_____________________________________________________________
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"