To reconnect with Xenakis, I believe (and I think Michael touched on this)
that of the music being created today, Xenakis comes close to presenting
music with a minimum of musical context and perspective. Of course Xenakis
is aware of "The Canon", and of course some of his audience is aware of The
Canon as well, but Xenakis' techniques, material, form, structure, source
material, etc. (grab the terms we use to describe The Canon) often have no
precedent, and cannot be perceived in the context of intentions or
perception.

Does this come close to an absolute type of music? For me, this is one of
the aspects of Xenakis' music that makes it so fascinating. For all the
non-naive perception I have because of my vast baggage in music, and my
awareness of the issues of perception, each time I hear a Xenakis I have not
heard before, I have the pleasure of hearing something (or the perception
that I am hearing something) that approximates absolute music (or an
absolute construction of sound and time).

I think this is what draws so many of us to the music of Xenakis, why some
are ambivalent about learning more about his work, and (perhaps as a stretch
or a corollary) why he has so few imitators.

Grant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gogins [mailto:gogins@nyc.pipeline.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 8:23 AM
> To: Tobias Kunze
> Cc: Csound (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Recommended Xenakis?
> 
> 
> I appreciate the opportunity to engage your arguments.
> 
> It is true that there is no naive perception - I am 
> completely with you on
> that. Let's say that listening to various pieces of music is 
> like listening
> to campaign promises and arguments in an election year. I 
> want to get rid of
> false promises and lies and bullshit that has nothing to do 
> with the music.
> Therefore, I want to pare back the extra-musical information.
> 
> Analogy: performance auditions. I understand that initial rounds of
> auditions for orchestral seats in the USA involve the players 
> sitting behind
> a screen or curtain: truly, blind auditions. Another analogy: 
> peer review in
> academic journals and conferences (such as the ICMC, for that 
> matter). When
> candidate A takes the stand, the context is that he is 
> supposed to play
> Mozart or Mahler well, and I have plenty of context for that. 
> I don't want
> to be distracted by the wart on his nose or the color of his skin - or
> whether he is really a robot from Yamaha, for that matter. 
> All I care about
> is how well he plays.
> 
> I'm quite aware of the German idealism behind the idea of 
> absolute music and
> have read some of the relevant sources (includijng Dahlhaus). 
> I share some
> of these views. I think for example that music can be 
> "sublime" in the old
> sense and lead to a shared intuition of the Absolute. This is 
> exactly what I
> love about music.
> 
> I also think, as a corollary of this, that there is such a 
> thing as "good"
> music that becomes gradually apparent with historical perspective and
> judgement from generations of critics, hopefully from 
> different cultures and
> presuppositions.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Kunze 
> To: Michael Gogins 
> Cc: Csound (E-mail) 
> Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 9:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Recommended Xenakis?
> 
> 
> >Uh.  I'm not sure you really mean what you say, but in case you
> >do, please allow me to clarify a few points here.
> >
> >While aesthetics overall is a muddy field, it has been clear now
> >for centuries that there is no such thing as naive perception.
> >Unless you invest concepts in the first place, you don't perceive
> >at all.  Your idea of such a "pure" perception only works in an
> >ontologically naive world without various candidate frameworks.
> >At times, the natural sciences still try to convey such an ontology
> >of "absolute" natural laws.  However, a glimpse at the history of
> >science shows that this framework has always been elusive at best.
> >Surely, the domain of the arts would be even less disposed to
> >support that notion!
> >
> >The case in point is that, simply, "x" is very different from "`x'".
> >In musical terms, very different things "happen" depending on
> >whether you consider intension or not, even for basic "sounds",
> >say, a gun shot,  To be belunt, quite different would "happen"
> >depending on whether you hear this shot in a shooting range, a
> >movie, or your garden variety high school shooting, even if they
> >were identical "on tape".
> >
> >Finally, as a correction: the idea of absolute music last century
> >does exactly *not* refer to the naive interpretation you suggest.
> >Quite contrarily, "absolute music" follows german idealistic
> >philosophy.  Roughly, Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer had promoted
> >music--qua its abstractness and immaterial nature--as the highest
> >art form and positioned it right underneath the "absolute" form of
> >Geist, philosophy itself.  The idea idea of "absolute music" is
> >thus an expression of the desire of composers and theories in that
> >time to live up to these standards.  For the complete rundown on
> >that topic, see Carl Dahlhaus' "The Idea of Absolute Music".
> >
> >
> >-Tobias