I would add that Xenakis' book _Formalized Music_ has been an important
guide to me in pursuing my own composition and in evaluating other peoples'
computer music as well. Xenakis cut straight to the chase, was interested
only in forms that did not duplicate the human imagination's ruts, and was
interested only in methods of synthesis that did not endlessly repeat two
PI, as he put it. In any art imitation is a dangerous game.

John Cage also had a take on music that had little to do with imitation, and
a lot to do with how to listen.

What I look for in composing systems, and what I try to make with my
systems, is a method of churning out vast quantities of music in a hurry
that I will then pick through and weed out. The method should be one that
does NOT try to imitate existing musical forms. I trust my musical taste
much more than I trust my musical imagination. Better still if the technique
is one with knobs that I can tweak. Better, better still if the knobs have
some musically intelligible meaning.

The above should not be taken to mean that I look down my nose at imitation,
and I am quite interested in work such as David Cope's _Experiments in
Musical Intelligence_, only such work so far seems musically not so good yet
as more radical approaches. I don't think this is necessarily a permanent
situation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Covell 
To: 'Michael Gogins' ; Csound (E-mail)

Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 10:42 PM
Subject: RE: Recommended Xenakis?


>You're 100% onto my point, and you said it much better. I should have been
>less glib.
>Knowing the intricacies of some Xenakis has taken the flash and bite out of
>it. But with Xenakis especially, some works (yes, I generalize) are about
>the realization of a process or complex system into music. Personally, I'm
>fascinated about the imposition of non-musical systems into music (one of
my
>compositions uses chess games translated into sound): A meaningful
structure
>in one context translated into a musical one. Sometimes it works, sometimes
>not. Xenakis does some of this, and I've been curious as to the
>how/why/what. And knowing more about some of the pieces has dissapointed me
>(Waarg, Eonta), some it has engaged me (Jonchaies, Persephassa).
>
>
>> Why should teetering anywhere remove the kick from music? Who
>> cares where
>> the sound waves come from, or how the composer corralled
>> them? At any rate,
>> I don't. I'm interested in how good they sound.
>>
>> It's true that knowing how they were made does affect my
>> perception of the
>> music, but I regard this as noise - I'm curious about how
>> music is made so I
>> want to know how it was made, but I'd almost rather not know
>> so that my
>> hearing would be colored only by the music itself.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Covell 
>> To: Csound (E-mail) 
>> Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 8:11 AM
>> Subject: FW: Recommended Xenakis?
>>
>>
>> >...discusses the UPIC software/tool he used for La Legende
>> >d'Eer. And of course Formalized Music is a major requirement for
>> >understanding just what makes Xenakis tick (though seeing
>> the line where
>> >music teeters between a realization of complex systems and
>> pure music is
>> >somewhat depressing as it takes the kick out of some of
>> Xenakis' music for
>> >me).
>>
>>