OK.

If ever there was a composer of whom it might plausibly be said that some of his scores are more interesting to look at than to hear (the very situation parodied by Schnebel in his MO-NO, a musical 'score' (or rather book) only intended to be read, not played), then I suppose Bussotti, for a few works, might fit the bill. Nonetheless, I do think that he has produced some extraordinarily stimulating work. In the case of the highly indeterminate works, how much this is due to the performers, and how much inherent in the compositions, is at least open to question (are David Tudor's performances of the pieces dedicated to him as much his own compositions as those of Bussotti?). I don't subscribe to the opinion that says that if a performer can make a piece sound good, then it is by necessity good - that depends on the extent to which the performance in question is predicated on that which is implied by the score.

Whilst disagreeing very strongly with teleplasm's points, he is perfectly within his rights to comment on work to which he is unsympathetic - after all, most of us on here do that at some point. It would be hopelessly narrow to deem the only valid (or valuable) commentary on any music to be that from those who think positively of the work in question.

We regret that we are unable to agree with the Member on this point. "Scores" such as those we reproduce could have been - and are - produced by lunatics in the course of only one or two hours of play. The score of a proper piece of music usually - if the composer is not Bach or Mozart - takes at least a month to complete.

It is impossible to imagine sensible Granny Smith sitting down at the piano to entertain herself with one of these efforts. They are frightfully perverse, as a couple of Members have already implied.

Can't find any pics of his paintings from a brief look online? Anyone else?

Oops ws looking at his site earlier, just not hard enough. thx.