Dan Schmidt replies to me:

>>Furthermore, no composer that comes to mind - with the possible
>>exception of Xenakis - demands that the hearer know music theory.
>
>Can you expand on this a little? When I went to see the Ensemble
>InterContemporain recently, they played a Xenakis piece (sorry, I forget
>which one), and it seemed the least 'theory-needing' of all the pieces
>performed.  The gestures (e.g., big glissandos) were very dramatic and
>easily recognizable.  I felt more like I understood what was going on than
>in the other pieces.

Let me say at the outset that I don't care for Xenakis's music, and I have
made an effort to come to grips.  I have read that he generates his work
from applying statistical functions, so I imagine it would be interesting
to examine in detail how he does it.  But I suspect this is probably like
Schoenberg's procedures - if you don't care for the result, the procedure
doesn't mean much.  As Schoenberg said, "Of course, a soul you have to
have." I would apply this dictum to me as a listener as well.  Xenakis
just doesn't speak to me, like a whole bunch of other composers.  The only
reason I tentatively mentioned him was because I had read that his concerns
were primarily technical and because his music goes by me.  I'm very happy
to learn, however, that someone "gets" Xenakis just as other people "get"
Brahms or Schumann.

Steve Schwartz