Pablo Massa replies to me: >>I'm always wary of blanket statements about entire genres of music, >>particularly railing against specific techniques.Technique is neutral, >>I should think. > >Right, but chance is not a technique. Sounds strange, but please remember >the classical meaning of the word "technique". You're confusing performance realization with the technique of composition. An aleatoric composer builds (thus satisfying the meaning of the word "technique") a frame in which something can be realized. After all, no aleatoric composition is completely random. That is, as far as I know, no aleatoric score says "anything and everything may happen." Instead, there are certain fixed elements - at the very least, the instrumentation; often, cells of actual notes and rhythms. As for the "can you tell one composer from the other" objection, no. But then again, I often confuse Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven. Furthermore, it's an objection that ignores the essence of aleatoric composition. You're asking me to decide on the basis of listening to a realization, not on the basis of the composed elements. Steve Schwartz