>>11
Snobbery. They prefer things exclusively academic, high-brow. High-brow in the sense of being widely accepted by the so-called high culture. So on one side of the spectrum you get these art students who think ECM is highbrow, who think, say, Glass, is highbrow, and on the other side you get these snobs who think ECM is lowbrow, and prefer things muh German and academic and serious and "higher". Kairos is the favorite of the latter. Both side of the spectrum represents a lack of selfhood, in that they cannot decide for themselves what's valuable, but can only paraphrase and worship.

>>12
I hate to put it like this but I think the owner of the site musicknachmahler.xyz belongs to the latter side of the spectrum more or less. It feels like that. There's no distinctive identity, a thisness, that can individuate the stance hold by that site from a mere cultural background. It's a symptom of lack of thoughtfulness, but I guess he/she is still young. In their early twentieth I guess.

>>12
Yeah, I think I know what you mean. But imo, this is just not that simple. I checked their website, they actually say
>we olely publish monographic composers' portraits, and only contemporary and avant-garde art music.
this somewhat >avant-garde art music is not actually a kind of academic lexicon.
And, basically, Xenakis has been recognized all over the planet, including, of course, those music academies and major labels. Francisco López has even been accepeted by Kairos as what they call >avant-garde art music (https://www.kairos-music.com/cds/0012872kai). Electronic musician like López are doing a complete extension of field recording, even though there's a lot of electronic/acoustic, it doesn't sound like something Kairos would accept. This López-Kairos album sounds like drone music, sound-art and not that sophisticated. (No doubt, in the genre of field recording, I'm quite love his works.)
My guess is that Xenakis' org, may not able to work with Kairos at the moment for some reason. Copyright or something mystical. So there're pieces that perhaps still in the pipeline. Another possibility is, Xenakis' org CEMAMu or that Xenakis-centre thought that they would never accept Kairos, since it is too academic, too Ircam etc. That is, his org is too punk to reject Kairos, but that's basically impossible. Xenakis' org has already full of some kind of sound soyence as I observed.
Tbh, I don't really know the inside story, just guessing. But it's also almost impossible that Kairos would deliberately reject Xenakis' work.
Musicologists are not sober. An earlier quote >>9 was came from the most famous Xenakis researcher. They're literally doomed, and they're literally the academies…

>>14
Hope to hear more. Maybe you know some of the Kairos core staffs in person. Since No.14 was totally my guess.

>>13
The owner of musiknachmahler.xyz is my friend (one of the very few), who always support me in some ways. I can be totally honest with you, if you want to talk about this. And I'm sure he is not totally belongs to the latter side. I'll affirm him in my own way. Generally, if I actually accept one person and make him/her as my friend, I'll see him/her as a whole.
He is passionate about working on wikipedia-zh, recently the Medieval zh entry was all edited/translated by him, seemingly in the first place, he shared this news with me. And he also scaned many books, Denken hören hören denken, for example.
I've always thought that he enjoys doing something that is perhaps more holistic, and working with many friends, like engaging in the set up of an independent classical music label (Janus), doing some LateX typesetting works for the label, and being a sincere editor. I really admire what they've done for this label. The releases were mostly historical recordings, and they did some re-mastering work. Independent publishing is something good, for me.
He does thinking about music all the time, and as I know, he begun to read philosophy books around 2 years ago. Carl Dahlhaus wouldn't be a stranger to him. Though he should be more opposed to some kind of metaphysical interpretations of music at the moment. Recently, I was just about to share some of your essays with him and ask for his opinions, and thoughts.
>There's no distinctive identity, a thisness, that can individuate the stance hold by that site from a mere cultural background.
As a friend, his distinctive identity must be there and is constantly evolving. I was once suggested him to post some of his essays to a personal blog, hope he's thinking and preparing about it.
Btw, I'm really in a relaxed mood :-D. I wouldn't even worry about him being offended due to me discussing him with someone else here (dear you), since I don't avoid any conversations, and I never in any group, any SNS, too, literally anarchic.
Please let me know if you don't want to talk about this any further! Or if you really want to say something about it privately, you can send me an email.

>>15
No, I don't. I actually nearly never care about this kind of… social aspect. I know people, because they come to me, and I don't choose, they're in a sense all equal to me. I avoid being influenced by any of these… gangs, but it just feels like that. Xenakis is surely much more widely recognized by e.g. Lachenmann, but he is in a sense destructive to that academic tradition if they accept him into their line. You don't see Varese either. You don't see Dusapin.
He's not only not in that tradition, not in that gang, he's too influential at that. And in particular it seems that the two form gangs, a broadly speaking "sonic, acoustic" gang and a broadly speaking "traditional music & conservatory" gang, that are clearly demarcated. You see Denis Dufour there, well, he's a conservatory graduate, and he really took part in some muh composition competition. They might have experimented once with Lopez, but you don't see others coming.
So I don't really think academic means sophisticated. There is no real measure of sophistication, and as far as I can tell sometimes they're just exhibiting snobbery, and people fall for that snobbery without actually knowing things. It always seemed to me that, for example, these composers know really nothing about German idealism, even if he's a German, but they keep on repeating it. They're participating in an epic cycle of obvious snobbery. It's a sham elite in a sense, which doesn't necessarily means that their art is meh. It's understandable since you also see tons of stupidity and unlearnedness present in e.g. Thomas Bernhard's or Cormac McCarthy's works, I guess some degree of mediocrity is needed for you to be accepted by the so-called high culture in the cultural climate of nowadays.
Think about 8chan, about installgentoo, all kinds of stupid brainlets intermingle with really bright fags. Xenakis is more in this category, rather than in that "academic" "high" recognized-by-the-cultural-elites category. There's something raw, primordial, decisively un-sophisticated in his composition that is in tension with the main audiences of the label Kairos.

>>17
Btw, when I think it twice, Radulescu, a composer who much similar to Xenakis, also not in the Kairos’ catalogue. Labels like Mode would accept them.

>>18
Also no Parmegiani, Risset, etc. OK these may be too acousmatic/computer, but nevertheless. They prefer this "symphonic", "orchestral", "Siemens music prize" things. "Fine art", "classical", so to speak, vestige of the high culture that is already completely gone after WW1. It's to the taste of certain people and very snobbish. In Mode you begin to get things highly American (versus European), things that don't look that highbrow, don't correlate with what looks manifestly "higher", and held disdain by, let me put it this way, half-educated snobs.

>>19
Parmegiani's copyrights should all belong to GRM, and they have their own releases, Re-GRM and the like. Electroacoustic guy like him, and Risset, who are more electronic, generally have very few works, couldn't be reinterpreted. And if it's reissued, it's basically the same audio file, or they might do some remastering works of old recordings. Composers like Kaija Saariaho, they use a lot of MaxMsp, but also not forget to compose for instruments in one work, should be more possible to be re-interpreted, in other words, accept by the "higher culture". It's perhaps a kind of strategy to keep them from being forgotten. Parmegiani has literally been forgotten, Risset is probably better, in this sense.
I'd actually quite like to see more releases from people like Koenig, Hague branch, they're more in a purer tradition of computer music. Some of his works, well, doesn't seem to have been released, probably because it's really too primitive. The only decent release is in the Acousmatrix series. Music like Koenig' is ignored, computer music is not decent enough, although they indeed follow the spirit of UPIC, or as you guess, labels like Kairos rejects them.
I've always found that Supercollider is naturally inferior to MaxMsp to some snob academics, many of whom shouldn't even know about SC. Ircam sells MaxMsp tutorials randomly to some art students, certain some "master class", but SC, you know.
Maybe it's time to use tidalcycles again.

>>21
Yeah that copyright stuff…
So I think it's obvious now. There really is this conflict of interests between electroacoustic/computer etc. music and more conservatory oriented type. Namely the latter has connection with interpreters. With orchestras, ensembles. The latter with its tradition of being the representative of high culture really needs to preserve for themselves the status, and they should also take care of their fellow interpreters. I think the two types should also have very different sources of funding. It would be detrimental for the record label to accept works from a radically different tradition, since it blurs the identity and prevents a certain culture to be formed, those composers they're really conscious about these kinds of things. Don't know the details and never cared but it should be like that. It's largely sociology.

>>25
Anyway, Xenakis as a composer, was aware of it and did some changes. He left the nation, left corbusier, left darmstadt, left GRM, he left Ircam, he kept leaving and starting over, with mission.

>>25
brahms.ircam.fr is actually THE place to see their reception of various composers. Electroacoustic/computer composers're actually included. Those seem to have become "national symbols", art-music-technology… for french. Ircam continues to get brutal in this regard, now it filled with wearable devices, diagrams, that sort of thing.

>>27
He's too much a thing. His conversations, his writings, they're absolutely clear. He hardly ever cites, and never write trivial nonsense to exhibits snobbery in order to be seen as highbrow. And you read Stockhausen, or read Boulez, full of dumbfuck trivial nonsense. It's about intelligence. I'll say that he's literally operating at a different level. If you're too intelligent it's hard for you to actually be successful (in its banal sense) since you're just too different.

>>31
Well, Boulez's own writings and his correspondence with Cage, I may say, were full of social relationships and so on. B and X 're quite different, cannot talk and get along, I think it has a lot to do with the strong social nature of Boulez himself, and he doesn't think about anything other than music, so, X was a doomer to him, basically. I once scanned a book https://deep-swarm.xyz/share/my-scans/Boulez.pdf . Boulez was criticised him in this talk, talking about the Form, saying stochastics composing made no sense. It's too weird.
Stockhause, I haven't read any, is this book Towards a Cosmic Music worth reading?

>>33
IDK. I don't like his music, neither his writings. I think they, the latter, are almost new-age type vulgarizations of the currents of his milieu. He's more akin to Scriabin in his style of thought, and in its characteristic, actually subcultural; in the tech-gnosis spectrum. Similar to, say, Terence McKenna, associatedd with weeds and mushrooms and so on.