>When listening to the sound material, we metamorphose the inside into an outside. This notion of metamorphosis is one of the principles that leads the course of the musical suite, reflecting changes (fluid-solid passages: water/ice/fire) or movements (ebb/flow/wave, inspiration/expiration) or inside-outside passages (door/individual/crowd). (Parmegiani)
Sound materials, or sonority instances, whatsoever, are all about to be abandoned, and it should be done. The development of this line is doing meaningless researches in sound psychology.
Risset, John Chowning etc. were on another level.

This's just boring as hell.

Evola could enjoy Pierre Schaeffer, Cage. This is naive :
>The limit is crossed by the so-called musique concrete of Pierre Schaeffer, with its “organization of noises” and “montage” of environmental and orchestral sounds. A typical case is that of John Cage, a musician who declares explicitly that his compositions are no longer music. Going beyond the disintegra- tions of traditional structures through serial music and leaving behind Webern and his school, Cage mixes music with pure noise, electronic sound effects, long pauses, random insertions, even spoken ones such as radio transmissions. The goal is to produce disorientation in the listener in the same way as dadaism, so that one is hurled toward unexpected horizons, beyond the realm of music, and even of art in general.

Really, one has to at least think outside of this historical and cultural nature when listening to a piece of music, otherwise its conclusions will be funny. The point of making music is not to combine a thing with another thing. I put the pdf at: https://deep-swarm.xyz/share/archive/Evola.Modern_Music_and_Jazz.pdf

>>34
It's not a denial of your point. He's writing in a cultural-historical context, and depth manifest themselves also through culture-history, not only through, so to speak, the spiritual, the "immanent" and the "internal". Likewise when Xenakis was arguing about the "validity" of his stochastic music he frequently went in to cultural-historical mode of thinking. Stockhausen was much worse in this regard.
There's something external, but also something internal. To stress the external in a certain context doesn't mean the denial of the internal facet. I always think being charitable and try to view things from their point of view - which doesn't mean agreeing, is crucial when reading things written by others, otherwise you'll always find them stupid, while they're simply putting the stress on something different from what you are concentrating on.

>>35
>Likewise when Xenakis was arguing about the "validity" of his stochastic music he frequently went in to cultural-historical mode of thinking.
I'll lose interest when he talked about that. At the moment, Xenakis is still captivating me with the sound of his works themself. I'm obsessed with things to do with the sound itself (especially the timbre aspect), and the way the sound is made, technically, the way it's composed, or non-technically, the factors in the composer's real life that lead him to use a particular method, and so on. Also the relationship of succession between composers.
Some of Adorno's writings, such as The Absolute Music book, would be of great interest to me if some of the philosophical concepts were explored in them, and some of the exact works discussed. Mostly something that's closely related to the musical work itself. So when I saw that Doctor Faustus had a large section devoted to Op. 111, I've never been more excited at that time.
This's why I did not read through the entire Paul Henry Lang book, I spend most of my time falling into the abyss of certain works, rather than thinking about them from a historical perspective. As a listener, this is often the case for me:
>It is dawn at Jerusalem while midnight hovers over the Pillars of Hercules. All ages are contemporaneous.
I'm actually upset about Evola's words here not because I don't like this historical-cultural perspective, (which I'm slowly trying to think from this view and make it relevant to certain works, Dahlhaus and Adorno's writings were full of this), but his argument on music seems really shallow, I doubt he has any real taste in music. Can't believe every single word he said in this article:
>One can see The Rite of Spring as the conclusion of this stage. It represents the almost complete triumph over nineteenth-century bourgeois music;
>the existential revolt being expressed here as the atonal revolt against the “common chord,” a symbol of bourgeois idealism), to a phase of dodecaphony (twelve-tone system)
With all due respect, this's a kind of wikipedia-esque language, objective, rich in cultural thinking, the author's character hides behind these cold words. Also, I don't really believe there's such a thing called bourgeois music, and similarly people might also say Novalis' poetry is bourgeois poetry. This kind of linking of bourgeois, revolt etc. things with music is something that I may not feel exactly what it means for music itself. So, the book written by Cardew that was used to attack Stockhausen was ridiculous, it's almost become a musical sociological joke. The avant-garde has always focused on this kind of stuff, and of all the kinds of avant-garde, I prefer the futurist, is simply because they used a poetic and crazy language to describe the same points, to against bourgeois music. Evola was a dada when he was young, but he chose to describe this music point in such direct terms, when he got old. This may have been the very reason for his later criticism of the dada or similar futurists, who felt that the poeticised art movement had lost its relevance. He needs the kind of depth you're talking about to spread himself really horizontally over the length of history.

>>35
Similarly, this might belong to a same line with Evola's kind of culture-history view:
>作为公共空间的广义音乐现场，包括音乐厅、歌剧院、livehouse，不仅仅是无论从阶层上还是在心理上都中产或者小资的人所理解的那种下班/周末去看看娱乐一下自己但除此之外与自己的生活毫无关联的东西。
These're indeed the reality, because normies are uninformed and also incapable of being informed. In my case, if I go to a club or a concert hall to listen to something essential, I'll stop thinking about this kind of stuff, provided I can really isolate myself from extraneous surroundings and just experience the soundscape of live music directly (as opposed to PC-hifi), which is what I want to be able to do. Tbh, I've never been to a concert hall afa I can remember, but I did see Gamelan at a hall once in Indonesia when I was a kid; The Autechre show at Barbican that I went to, although it was also in a concert hall, but was not typical as the lights were all off.
A special case is that I once went to a church to see Klaus Lang's work, and btw, that was the first time I went to a church to listen to modern music. Although the work was very average for my ear (just as I can't get interested in people like Cage, Lang follows Cage's methods. I don't like Zen & nihilism, Scelsi surpassed those), everything was more than appropriate, and since everyone was quiet and no one was going to like to show off as much as the kids in the livehouse did, isolating myself from the other environment, making a face-to-face meeting with the work and immersed in the soundscape, the real echoes of a church, made the isolation possible.
>the presence of the outdoors sound-world is replaced by the magnifying reverberation of the indoors within the hard tall walls of the edifice
That's why I'm not really against concert halls or cinemas, in a sense a church intended to be used for a live performance is likewise to me, except that its reverberation equipment is inborn. Whether I make a payment for a live concert hall, sit in it, and enjoy live music (which is actually a temporary rental of a perfectly tuned sound system), or whether I pay for Hifi equipment and CDs (also use streamrip) to enjoy music at home depends on what kind of acoustics I want and I can reach at the moment, instead of a historical-social-culture reflection. The reality is that, a live performance has more dimensions to really place you in a direct connection with the work (the whispers of the other audience members are even included in the complex soundscpae), the people playing the music are standing on you, and you can see their faces and gestures.
Of course, anyway, while I do hold this view, most of the time I choose to PC-hifi at home, due to the fact that I don't really rely on that kind of physical resonance between the body and the sound, and I don't want to do online ticketing, which is so dumb, people need to fill in a bunch of personal information before they can pay a ticket. Had to endure this real aversion to the bourgeois music production style while I had to buy a ticket to fulfil the thing I described above. In the same way that I have to put up with plastic-wrapped food, once I buy it at home I have to forget how it was packaged and just enjoy it.

>>37
I don't understand. This can easily be traced back to perception. Is human perception eternal? Doesn't it get influenced by cultural-historical factor? Namely, with or without knowing a certain fact about a certain historical period, the perception itself should be different. Sure you can argue that you don't care about perception but the metaphysical/logical order that a piece of music embodies, but that seems too much for me, and I can even argue that logic itself is time-dependent. Purity always has a bound so long as you're not an angelic being.
And, even without this kind of question. It's plain that when a composer composes a symphony he has a totally different mental state that the audience is in, in his mind, from when he's composing a solo piece.

As for the previous post. You might doubt it, but what I'm stressing is that, there are always multiple ways of looking at things. Wittgenstein once called Ramsey a bourgeois philosopher, and I totally get what he's talking about, despite the fact that when you look at Ramsey's work there's nothing really bourgeois since he's largely a mathematician (or this maybe the bourgeois-ness since he's not at all deep, but just technical).
I always see people without actual taste that boast about their taste, and they're constantly seeking out social-cultural factors to justify their view against what they sense as low-brow and "fake", while when it's put on their lips they'll talk about pure music or so. I've once seen on the little green site a moron continuously shit-talk about Keith Jarrett, out of some stupid reasons that can be refuted with one line of words, like "real intention of the composer". This sort of snobbery and essentially cultural-historical criticism I cannot tolerate. But in Evola things are different. After all his starting point is cultural-history, and when he's writing he doesn't really care about music per se, but it's external manifestation, it's metaphysical (in the archaic sense) "meaning". When he's doing it, he's just doing it. Maybe the proper way to criticize should be that one should never write about music external to music, but that seem too much, and it seems largely a prejudice in a form akin to romanticism, or more essentially in a form derived from a very singular variety of pietism. What you're encountering is a totally different mindset, a totally different order of words, and a totally different route to interpretation, a meta- level diagreement about, say, how an interpretation should begin. It's OK that you don't like it, but to say that it's simply naive I disagree. There are multiple ways of looking at things, and each of them provides a facet of, say, reality. And a particular way cannot be refuted with a logic that's external to that particular way, you can only destroy it and critique about it internal to that particular way, otherwise it's not a fair game at all.

>>38
>What you're encountering is a totally different mindset
I won't ignore him for sure. Haven't started reading more Evola yet, at first I just found that article, I was surprised to see he talked about jazz. I saved a picture.

>>39
To be clear I don't think Evola is deep at all and I've never thought he's worth reading. He's just an esotericist who's extremely sensitive to degeneracy. But this superficiality itself is also worth studying, since it's superficial in a way very different from those Marxists (I think his words reminded you of those Marxist cultural critics). Similar to Spengler how he's mind functions is way more interesting than any particular stance he held or words he wrote, and factually Spengler, who wrote things like "the mathematics of night", is more interesting. Both of them cannot think deeply, cannot reflect and argue in a totally abstract manner, but they have exceedingly good intuitions, in particular the latter.
By the way neither do I think Nietzsche is deep, and by being deep I think Schelling, Fichte, Novalis, L. E. J. Brouwer, etc. are entitled to the word; those outside the broad romanticist tradition are totally different matters, but certainly Grothendieck, not a philosopher but more than a philosopher, is absolutely deep. If thing doesn't descend to the innermost core, to logic and metaphysics (in its proper sense, either that of Jena romanticism, or logico-mathematical, not in the sense of those conservative revolutionaries), it's quite impossible for real depth to emerge.