But earlier, in the years you said "he was pretty sure about his politics", many of his own side or field denied that his music had any chance to influencing the workers, or to propel a revolutionary process, or to "raise conscience", because, "workers can't understand tape music". (Mikis Theodorakis said that in a debate with Nono, held here in Chile in 1971).
I think that silence was for Nono, apart from what you rightly say, the field of the possible (that is, of a revolution not yet imagined), of possible listening(s); in some text Deleuze talks about "an impossible ear".
Agree with this 100%, beautifully stated.
I don't know about "truly understood", but many composers were investigating improvisation (Maderna, Earle Brown, Johannes Fritsch, Erhard Karkoshka [teacher of M. Spahlinger]) and others abandoned composition altogether (Franco Evangelisti of Gruppo di Improvvisazione Nuova Consonanza, was a sort of "role model" to Cardew.)Gil Sansón wrote:Nono was also perhaps the only main composer of his generation to have truly understood the possibilities of free improvisation when gathering material for a composition, and the direction to where his last works seem to point is not far from what you actually find on labels like Another Timbre (Roberto Fabricciani was the original player in both tape and premiere of A Pierre, Dell'azzurro Silenzio, Inquietum), so it wouldn't be too wild a guess to imagine that he would have remained relevant today if he was still with us.
As for Nono's presence today: I remebered a concert set up by Antoine Beuger in Düsseldorf, in 2012: first ...sofferte onde serene..., second Non consumiamo Marx[/quote]
Yes, that paragraph was a bit misleading, but I used the term "main composer" to suggest that short list that includes Boulez, Stockhausen and a few others. I was referring to the main composers of his generation. Brown, Evangelisti and Cardew are from the nest generation.










