Well, I also recall reading years ago in more than one interview that the two attended Stockhausen's courses, which doesn't mean they were his "students." On the other hand, that's what the text says, and it doesn’t claim they were students, so I don't see any inaccuracies. - As for the long-standing (and tedious) issue of "music history," the importance of this and that in comparison to yet another, namely the equating of different worlds into a single all-encompassing pot, it’s important to proceed with distinctions that do not arise from personal tastes or definitions (which are only destined to increase confusion by piling up subjects without continuity) but are based on historical and technical data. On the other hand, it would be wise to take into account the undeniable transformation that has occurred with the advent of the reification of music. Considering this decisive element, one views a term like "consumption music" in a different light (otherwise interpreted, as is done by novecentristi, in an exclusively negative sense, as a pejorative term used by an elitist circle of pundits), and a method is established, in my opinion, for analyzing the phenomenon more correctly. The reification of music allows for its perpetuation in a definitive form, from which substantial changes arise both in the act of listening and in the production of sound material itself, right from its composition. It is evident that even this mere fact (the fact that for most of the time since music emerged, it was conceived, performed, and listened to under unique and unrepeatable conditions and only for a present audience, and that only recently, at the end of the 1800s, techniques of recording and reproducing sounds have allowed it to be expanded, delayed, repeated, recorded, disseminated, listened to) determines an impossibility of comparison, if one wants to be correct starting from its premises. -
@[nes]: whatever one means by "art music," I don't understand why just those two names come to your mind, or poor Eno, who is always brought up. One can acknowledge that there is a "musical world" that does not align with one’s own listening experiences, which has different intents, instruments, horizons, and enjoys no "visibility," yet it exists nonetheless. I believe there is a lot of interesting music that we don’t have the means to know and listen to (listen to, not merely hear in a whirlwind of skipping and downloading) and that simply exists elsewhere. I don't know if it is "art" (a term I never use, which gives me hives due to its frequent and blatantly improper use), but I know that some musicians are trying to explore less obvious or frequented solutions and visions. Sometimes with good results, other times in ways I find incomprehensible.
