Linda M.
Arsenault
Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Toronto
linda.arsenault@utoronto.ca
Music scholars have written about the creative
game strategies employed by Iannis Xenakis in his
compositions based specifically on game theory
(Schmidt 1995; DeLio 1987), but the implementa-
tion of similar tactics adopted elsewhere in his oeu-
vre has remained largely unexplored. Nonetheless,
Xenakis uses strategic maneuvres and invents vari-
ous ‘‘rules of the game’’ in every instance of apply-
ing probability theory. This is obligatory because,
apart from the mathematical characteristics of any
probabilistic distribution or stochastic process, the
rules of the game are a concomitant feature of an
application.
One such conspicuous case occurs in his 1957
composition Achorripsis (Greek for ‘‘jets of
sound’’), scored for 21 instruments. In this piece,
the second work in which Xenakis experimented
with stochastic methods, every musical element is
stochastically determined—including the overall
form—and it is the overall form that provides the
focus for this article. Despite his description of the
method for realizing the form as ‘‘a game of chess
for a single player who must follow certain rules of
the game’’ (Xenakis 1992), musical scholarship has
not investigated Xenakis’s game matrix—neither
the complexity of its mechanics, nor its signifi-
cance as a 20th-century compositional device.
In pages 29–37 of Formalized Music, Xenakis of-
fers a brief glimpse into the techniques and proce-
dures he employed to produce Achorripsis. His
abstruse text is divided into two main sections.
The first section is devoted to the mathematical
strategies involved in using Poisson’s law to create
Matrix M for the formal structure of the piece; the
second section (beginning at ‘‘Hypothesis of Calcu-
lation’’ on page 32) deals with the complexities in-
volved in using the Gaussian, exponential, and
uniform distributions to generate music for the
string glissandi in measures 103–110. From his
opening gambit, ‘‘The analysis that follows is taken
from Achorripsis,’’ followed immediately by the fo-
Computer Music Journal, 26:1, pp. 58–72, Spring 2002
䉷 2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
58
Iannis Xenakis’s
Achorripsis :
The Matrix Game
cus on Poisson’s formula, the reader may deduce
that Poisson’s law is in some way related to the
musical notes for the score. This is not so. Xenakis
refers to Poisson’s formula only in the context of
the rationale and of the process for manufacturing
the template into which music is to be placed. The
present study, limited in scope to the role of Pois-
son’s law in generating Matrix M, is based on the
information Xenakis imparts in Formalized Music.
This focus on the formal organization highlights a
fundamental and critical aspect of Xenakis’s com-
positional technique, namely, that ‘‘stochastics can
lead to the creation of . . . new forms’’ (Xenakis
1992, p. 43).
Overall Matrix Structure
In essence, Achorripsis is a study in varying densi-
ties of sounds, described by Xenakis as ‘‘clouds of
sounds.’’ In this composition, the various events
are defined by units of density, such that a zero
event has no sounds, a single event is a cloud with
a particular density of sounds, a double event is a
cloud with a density of sounds double that of a sin-
gle event, and so on. Using probability theory to
furnish the architectural structure for Achorripsis,
Xenakis chose the distribution formulated by the
Swiss mathematician Siméon Denis Poisson (1781–
1840). The Poisson distribution may be used to de-
scribe a variety of applications, primarily those in
which events are rare and involve both space and
time, such as the rate at which radioactive materi-
als decay, the number of machine breakdowns in a
day, the number of telephone calls received
through a certain switchboard in one minute, the
number of simultaneous ‘‘pops’’ per second when
popcorn pops, or the number of animals sighted per
day in a certain location. In the instance of the for-
mal design for Achorripsis, Xenakis elected to use
the Poisson distribution to determine the matrix
for the distribution of clouds of sounds to occur
during a particular period of time. His Matrix M,
reproduced in this article as Figure 1, shows a dis-
Computer Music Journal
Figure 1. Xenakis’s Matrix
M. (Reproduced from
Xenakis 1992, p. 28. Used
by permission of
Pendragon Press.)
tribution of no events, single, double, triple, and
quadruple events in a matrix consisting of 28 col-
umns (representing units of time) and 7 rows (rep-
resenting musical timbres).
According to the sequence of his text, he first ar-
bitrarily assigned two important numbers. The first
of these numbers is a value for lambda (k) to plug
into the Poisson formula. (The reason Xenakis
chose k ⳱ 0.6 is not entirely clear; his only expla-
nation is that it provides ‘‘convenience in calcula-
tion.’’) The formula for Poisson’s law is shown
below, where P stands for the probability of an
event, and k identifies the event.
kk ⳮk
Pk ⳱ e . (1)
k!
For example, if k ⳱ 1, the formula will calculate
the probability of single events occurring (P1). To il-
lustrate how the formula operates, it is useful to
substitute a number for k in the formula. Let us as-
sume that k ⳱ 0; this means that the probability
that a particular event will happen is 0 (P0)—or, in
the case of Achorripsis—that no sound event will
occur at a particular time. Substituting 0 for k, the
formula would then appear as follows:
k0 ⳮk
P0 ⳱ e . (2)
0!
The value of k is crucial to the outcome of the
Poisson formula: it represents a close approxima-
tion to the expected outcome of the Poisson distri-
bution. If the value of k is small, the majority of
events will be rare but, if the value of k changes,
then the nature of the distribution will also change
to accommodate the diminished or enlarged k. Sub-
stituting k ⳱ 0.6 in the formula for the case of
Achorripsis, we now have the following:
0.60 ⳮ0.6
P0 ⳱ e . (3)
0!
Recall that any number raised to the power of 0 is
always 1. Therefore, 0.60 ⳱ 1. Also recall that any
Arsenault 59
Table 1. Table of probabilities ple, substituting 1 for k in Poisson’s formula, we
P0 ⳱ 0.5488
obtain the value for P1 as follows.
P 1 ⳱ 0.3293 k1 ⳮ0.6
P2 ⳱ 0.0988 P1 ⳱ e ⳱ 0.6eⳮ0.6 艑 0.329286981. (5)
1!
P3 ⳱ 0.0198
P4 ⳱ 0.0030 Xenakis used this method of calculation to create
P5 ⳱ 0.0004 the table of probabilities for the Poisson distribu-
tion; with rounding, the results appear in Table 1.
Once these probabilities were calculated, Xe-
Table 2. Application of probabilities for 196 cells nakis arbitrarily chose the second important num-
Calculations for Final Number ber—196—to represent the total number of ‘‘cells’’
Distribution of of Cells for his composition. He was then able to calculate
196 Cells (with rounding) the probable number of zero, single, double, triple,
quadruple, or quintuple events that would occur
P0 ⳱ 0.5488 ⳯ 196 ⳱ 107.5640 107
within the 196 cells. To apply the probabilities cal-
P1 ⳱ 0.3293 ⳯ 196 ⳱ 64.5428 65
P2 ⳱ 0.0988 ⳯ 196 ⳱ 19.3648 19
culated above for a total of 196 individual cells, one
P3 ⳱ 0.0198 ⳯ 196 ⳱ 3.8808 4 must simply multiply the product of each calcula-
P4 ⳱ 0.0030 ⳯ 196 ⳱ 0.588 1 tion by 196; Xenakis then rounded the numerical
P5 ⳱ 0.0004 ⳯ 196 ⳱ 0.0784 0 results, as shown in Table 2.
Xenakis sought a way to distribute clouds of
Total 196
sounds of varying densities, so he selected a num-
ber of cells, 196 of them, and then calculated the
number of the various sound densities to be distrib-
number accompanied by the symbol ! signifies a uted among the 196 cells. His calculations yielded
factorial number in mathematics, and designates a Poisson distribution of 107 zero or ‘‘no sound’’
the number of permutations or the number of ways events, 65 single events, 19 double events, 4 triple
in which things may be arranged. For example, events, and 1 quadruple event. (The value for a
given two items A and B, there are only two ways quintuple event was too small to be considered sta-
of arranging them (AB and BA), so 2! ⳱ 2 ⳯ 1 ⳱ 2. tistically relevant.) We know that a ‘‘no sound’’
Given three items A, B, and C, there are six ways event represents silence in music, but we still do
of arranging them (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, not know what constitutes a single sound event, a
and CBA), so 3! ⳱ 3 ⳯ 2 ⳯ 1 ⳱ 6. There is only double sound event, and so on. These are issues
one possible way of ordering one item and zero that will be addressed toward the end of this arti-
items, so 1! ⳱ 1, and 0! ⳱ 1. It is now possible to cle. Of interest here is that Xenakis does not allow
calculate P0 as follows: any variation from the probabilities expected: he
1 ⳮ0.6 insists on using the exact numbers yielded by the
P0 ⳱ e , or P0 ⳱ eⳮ0.6. (4) Poisson formula. In the spirit of Poisson’s law and
1
in the spirit of the word ‘‘stochastic,’’ a mathemati-
The value of the irrational number e, the base of cian may well take exception to this insistence, ex-
natural logarithms, is approximately 2.718, with an pecting Xenakis to use some sort of random device
infinite number of digits following the decimal (which would account for deviations from the ‘‘ex-
point. The value of eⳮ0.6 is approximately pected’’ values) to determine the number of the
0.548811636; with rounding, the value of P0 is then various sound events.
0.5488. Once the number of each kind of sound event
With the value of P0 ascertained, it is now neces- was calculated, Xenakis arbitrarily chose to arrange
sary to calculate the values for P1, P2, P3, on so on, the 196 cells in a particular design consisting of 28
consistently using the value of k ⳱ 0.6. For exam- columns (which ultimately represent successive

60 Computer Music Journal

Table 3. Master plan of Achorripsis
Columns 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Row I
Row II
Row III
Row IV
Row V
Row VI
Row VII

Table 4. Values of k for all events for columns 4, and 1) for each kind of event (zero, single, dou-
Total Number k: Total
ble, triple, and quadruple, respectively) and divide
Kind of Of Events Number these numbers by the number of columns (28).
Event in Matrix of Events/28 Each calculation yields a different value for k, as
shown in Table 4.
Zero 107 3.82 Then, using each new value of k, all of the values
Single 65 2.32
for P0, P1, P2 and so on must be recalculated, just as
Double 19 0.68
Triple 4 0.14
the value of k ⳱ 0.6 events per unit was calculated
Quadruple 1 0.04 originally to determine the Poisson distribution. In
Formalized Music, Xenakis does not offer a step-
by-step demonstration of his calculations, but he
units of time, each approximately 6.5 measures does submit the results of one such application,
in length), by 7 rows (each of which ultimately namely, the distribution of the single events among
represent a different musical timbre), as shown the columns, and his results provide a useful start-
in Table 3. ing point for the series of calculations that must be
With these basic procedures accomplished, the undertaken.
next step was to solve the problem of deciding how To calculate single events for columns, we set
to distribute the zero, single, double, triple, and k ⳱ 2.32 in Poisson’s formula. Then, k is succes-
quadruple events throughout the matrix. Should sively substituted in the formula with the values 0
they, for example, simply be placed randomly? Or, through 6 and the results computed. (After k ⳱ 6,
should there be rules to guide the placement of the results are insignificantly small.) For example,
events? Xenakis’s solution to the problem was to for k ⳱ 0, the calculation is:
reapply Poisson’s law for each kind of event in or- 2.320 ⳮ2.32 1
der to establish general rules to govern the distribu- P0 ⳱ e ⳱ eⳮ2.32 艑 0.098. (6)
0! 1
tion of the 196 events, first among the 28 columns
and then among the 7 rows. In order to reapply Multiplying this probability by the number of col-
Poisson’s law, it is necessary to calculate new val- umns, 28, yields the value 2.75. Similarly substi-
ues of k for each kind of event for both the col- tuting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for k results in P1 ⳱
umns and the rows. 0.228, P2 ⳱ 0.264, P3 ⳱ 0.205, P4 ⳱ 0.119, P5 ⳱
0.055, and P6 ⳱ 0.021. Multiplying each of these
probabilities by 28 columns gives the values 6.38,
Distribution of Events According to Column 7.39, 5.74, 3.33, 1.54, and 0.59.
It is interesting to compare the results of these
To distribute the events among the columns with a calculations, rounded to the nearest whole number,
mean density in accordance with Poisson’s law, it with those in the table given to us by Xenakis. For
is necessary to take the total numbers (107, 65, 19, ease of comparison, Xenakis’s results enumerating

Arsenault 61
Table 5. Xenakis’s table (left) versus actual values (right) computed for Poisson distribution of single
events (columns), k ⴔ 2.32
Xenakis’ Values for Distribution
of Single Events, k ⳱ 2.32
No. of Columns
Containing No. of Events
Frequency k k Events (k ⳯ No. of Columns)
0 3 0 0
1 6 6 1
2 8 16
3 5 15
4 3 12
5 2 10
6 1 6 6
7 0 0
Totals 28 65
the Poisson distribution for single events and the
computed values for the same Poisson distribution
for single events are shown in Table 5.
Before turning to the implications of the discrep-
ancies between the two tables, it is necessary to
understand how to interpret Xenakis’s table. Of the
28 columns that comprise the matrix of 196 cells,
there are 3 columns containing 0 single events, 6
columns containing 1 single event, 8 columns con-
taining 2 single events, 5 columns containing 3 sin-
gle events, 3 columns containing 4 single events, 2
columns containing 5 single events, 1 column con-
taining 6 single events, and 0 columns containing 7
single events. Since the purpose of the enterprise is
to distribute 65 single events among 28 columns,
the sum of the columns must equal 28, and the
sum of the total number of single events must
equal 65.
It is important to note, however, that the num-
bers obtained by strict application of Poisson’s for-
mula, as demonstrated by the computations above,
do not yield the desired numbers of 28 columns
and 65 events. In fact, these calculations, rounded
in the traditional manner, yield a total of 28 col-
umns with 66 single events. Thus, it seems clear
that Xenakis adjusted the mathematics, albeit only
slightly, to make the numbers suit his purpose and
62
Poisson Distribution of
single events (columns), k ⳱ 2.32
No. of Columns
Containing k Events
Pk ⳯ 28 No. of Events
Frequency k (with rounding) (k ⳯ No. of Columns)
3 0
6 6
2 7 14
3 6 18
4 3 12
5 2 10
1 6
28 66
scheme. By rounding the value for P2 (7.39) up to 8
and the value for P3 (5.71) down to 5, he was able to
make the sum of his columns equal 28 and the
sum of his single events equal 65. For the musician
whose training has emphasized the significance of
slight variations (for example, a single semitone
creates an immense difference between the sound
of major and minor chords) such mathematical ma-
nipulations may seem foreign. Given the present
context, however, Xenakis’s adjustments are rea-
sonable. To begin with, the results are consistent
with the spirit of the stochastic element in Pois-
son’s law and with the spirit of the word ‘‘stochas-
tic.’’ Secondly, he used the Poisson process
primarily as a guide, and it should be remembered
that the process is an infinite series (i.e., k theoreti-
cally assumes an infinite number of values) and
must account for fractions that are not applicable
to a host of situations.
Xenakis does not offer tables for the probabilities
of distribution of zero events, double events, triple
events, or quadruple events for the columns, but
these probabilities must be calculated for each kind
of event. Once the computations are realized, amal-
gamation of the results in a compact table facili-
tates comparison with the actual numbers of
events Xenakis used in order to create the matrix
Computer Music Journal
Table 6. Values computed for distribution of total events for columns
Frequency Zero Events Single Events Double Events Triple Events Quadruple Events

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of
Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events
Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No.
K k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns)

0 1 0 3 0 14 0 24 0 27 0
1 2 2 6 6 10 10 3 3 1 1
2 5 10 7 14 3 6 0 0
3 6 18 6 18 1 3
4 5 20 3 12
5 4 20 2 10
6 3 18 1 6
7 2 14

Totals 28 102 28 66 28 19 27 3 28 1

for Achorripsis. To calculate zero events for col-
umns, k is set to 3.82 in Poisson’s formula. Succes-
sively substituting k in the formula with the values
0 through 7 yields probability values of P0 ⳱
0.0219, P1 ⳱ 0.084, P2 ⳱ 0.16, P3 ⳱ 0.204, P4 ⳱
0.195, P5 ⳱ 0.149, P6 ⳱ 0.095, and P7 ⳱ 0.052.
Multiplying these probabilities by the factor of 28
columns gives the values 0.6, 2.35, 4.48, 5.71, 5.44,
4.17, 2.66, and 1.46.
For the double event calculations, k is set to 0.68
in Poisson’s formula. Again, successively substitut-
ing k in the formula with the values 0 through 3
(after k ⳱ 3, the results are insignificantly small)
yields probability values of P0 ⳱ 0.507, P1 ⳱ 0.345,
P2 ⳱ 0.117, and P3 ⳱ 0.03. Multiplying these proba-
bilities by the number of 28 columns, the values
14.2, 9.7, 3.3, and 0.8 are obtained. For the triple
event calculations, k is set to 0.14; substituting k
in the formula with values 0 to 2 yields probability
values of P0 ⳱ 0.869, P1 ⳱ 0.12, and P2 ⳱ 0.009.
Multiplying these probabilities by the number of
28 columns yields 24, 3.4, and 0.3. Finally, for the
quadruple events, k is set to 0.04, and substituting
k in the formula with values of 0 and 1 yields prob-
ability values of P0 ⳱ 0.96 and P1 ⳱ 0.04. Multiply-
ing these probabilities by the number of 28
columns, the values of 27 and 1 are obtained.
As stated earlier, Xenakis did not construct a ta-
ble or disclose how he arrived at the numerical
conclusions for each kind of event for the columns
in Formalized Music. However, his Matrix M (re-
produced in this article as Figure 1) clearly indi-
cates the distribution of events he used, and, from
his matrix, a table showing the distribution of
events may easily be assembled. Table 6 displays
the results given by application of Poisson’s for-
mula computed above (with numbers rounded to
the nearest whole number), and Table 7 enumer-
ates the actual numbers Xenakis used for his two-
dimensional portrait of Achorripsis.
The similarities and differences between the two
tables are striking: in two instances—double events
and quadruple events—the results coincide exactly,
which indicates Xenakis’s willingness to accept
numbers if the calculations generate numbers ap-
propriate for his scheme. The triple events are sim-
ple to adjust, requiring the addition of only one
single event; and the case of the single events has
been discussed above. The distribution of the zero
events, however, which is much more complex, de-
mands particular attention.
Computed by Poisson’s formula, the combina-
tions of results for the various probabilities for zero
events (listed under the heading of ‘‘Computation’’
in Table 8) yield the correct number of columns,
while the number of events is deficient by 5. The
easiest way to alter the numbers to conform to 28
columns with 107 events is to delete 1 P0 and add 1
P5, shown in Table 8 under the heading ‘‘First Pos-
sibility.’’ Of course, there are various ways to redis-

Arsenault 63
Table 7. Values used by Xenakis for distribution of total events for columns
Frequency Zero Events Single Events Double Events Triple Events Quadruple Events

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of
Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events
Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No.
K k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns)

0 0 0 3 0 14 0 24 0 27 0
1 2 2 6 6 10 10 4 4 1 1
2 6 12 8 16 3 6
3 5 15 5 15 1 3
4 5 20 3 12
5 4 20 2 10
6 4 24 1 6
7 2 14

Totals 28 107 28 65 28 19 28 4 28 1

Table 8. Various ways to distribute zero events for columns

Frequency Computation First Possibility Second Possibility Xenakis’ Choice
No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of
Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events Columns Events
Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No.
k k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns) k Events of Columns)

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 5 10 5 10 4 8 6 12
3 6 18 6 18 7 21 5 15
4 5 20 5 20 6 24 5 20
5 4 20 5 25 4 20 4 20
6 3 18 3 18 3 18 4 24
7 2 14 2 14 2 14 2 14
Totals 28 102 28 107 28 107 28 107

tribute the probabilities to generate a total of 28
columns with 107 events; my preference is for the
‘‘Second Possibility,’’ because it yields the highest
number of events (24) with k ⳱ 4 closest to the
value of k ⳱ 3.82. What is fascinating here is the
manner in which Xenakis elected to redistribute
these zero events, as shown in Table 8 under the
heading, ‘‘Xenakis’s Choice,’’ because it suggests
that the composer may have had specific musical
considerations in mind. From the decision to in-
crease P6, for example, it would seem that Xenakis
prefers each of four columns in his matrix to have
six zero events. This would enable the sounds of
four—rather than three—distinct timbres to be
heard without competition from other instruments
(see his Matrix M: Pizzicato strings, column 1; Per-
cussion, column 12; Brass, column 14; Pizzicato
strings, column 21), so he may have manipulated
the numbers to suit an aesthetic goal.
The calculations for the columns (including the
mathematical manipulations to make the scheme
work), summarized in Table 7, represent the first
set of critical rules by which the matrix game is to
be played. How should these rules be interpreted?

64 Computer Music Journal

Table 9. Values of k for all events for rows event is distributed among the 28 columns accord-
Total Number k: Total
ing to Table 7, the composer has the latitude to
Kind of Events Number of place the events as he chooses.
of Event in Matrix Events/7
Zero 107 15.3 Distribution of Events According to Row
Single 65 9.3
Double 19 2.7 Of course, if the task involved only the distribution
Triple 4 0.6 of events into columns, the compositional ‘‘game’’
Quadruple 1 0.14 would be straightforward. This game, however, is
not trivial: it requires that the events also be dis-
tributed according to the dictate of the calculations
Table 10. Results of calculations for zero events for for the seven rows. To distribute the various events
rows, k ⴔ 15.3 in the rows of the matrix according to a mean den-
sity in accordance with Poisson’s law, it is neces-
Probability
Value ⳯ sary to repeat the same process exactly for each
Probability Factor of kind of event that was employed above for the col-
k Value 7 rows umns. The process begins with calculating the
value of k for each kind of event, this time based
11 0.06 0.42
on the number of rows, as shown in Table 9.
12 0.08 0.56
As we can see in Table 9, the values of k for the
13 0.09 0.63
14 0.10 0.70 zero events and the single events are quite large.
15 0.102 0.714 Thus, in these cases, we can expect the average of
16 0.098 0.69 the highest probabilities to be approximately 15
17 0.088 0.62 and 9, respectively. (In the Poisson distribution, the
18 0.075 0.53 value for k most often reflects the highest expected
19 0.06 0.42 value of probable occurrences.)
To calculate zero events for rows, we set k ⳱
15.3 in Poisson’s formula as follows:
Looking at the top of the ‘‘Zero Events’’ column
15.30 ⳮ15.3 1
and moving downward, the numbers can be read as e ⳱ eⳮ15.3 艑 0.00000023. (7)
follows. For the distribution of the 107 zero events 0! 1
among the 28 columns there must be: 0 columns Multiplying this probability by a factor of 7 rows
with 0 zero events (every column will contain a gives 0.0000016. The reader will see immediately
zero event); 2 columns with 1 zero event; 6 col- that the value of P0 multiplied by 7 rows is too
umns with 2 zero events; 5 columns with 3 zero small to be considered probabilistically significant,
events; 5 columns with 4 zero events; 4 columns thus, it must be eliminated. In fact, all the calcula-
with 5 zero events; 4 columns with 6 zero events; tions obtained from P0 through P10 multiplied by
and 2 columns with 7 zero events. Distributions of the factor of 7 rows may be rejected, because their
the single, double, triple, and quadruple events into values are too small to be significant. (This is reas-
the 28 columns are to be interpreted similarly. It is suring, because we are expecting the highest proba-
important to notice that in this system of dispers- bility in the vicinity of 15 or P15.) Successively
ing events, there is a great deal of freedom: of the substituting k in the formula with the values 11
28 columns, no specific column number, for exam- through 19 yields probability values which are
ple, ‘‘column 4’’ or ‘‘column 16’’ or ‘‘column 25,’’ then, in turn, multiplied by a factor of 7 rows. For
has been designated to receive any specific number convenience, these values are shown in Table 10.
of zero events, single events, double events, and so To calculate single events for rows, k is set equal
on. As long as the correct number of each kind of to 9.3 in Poisson’s formula:

Arsenault 65
Table 11. Results of calculations for single events For the triple events calculations, k is set to 0.6
for rows, k ⴔ 9.3 in Poisson’s formula. Again, successively substitut-
Probability
ing k in the formula with the values 0 through 3
Probability Value ⳯ Factor (after k ⳱ 3, the results are statistically insignifi-
k Value of 7 rows cant) yields probability values of P0 ⳱ 0.55, P1 ⳱
0.33, P2 ⳱ 0.1 and P3 ⳱ 0.02. Multiplying these
6 0.082 0.57 probabilities by the number of 7 rows, the values
7 0.109 0.76
3.9, 2.3, 0.7, and 0.14 are obtained. Lastly, for the
8 0.127 0.89
9 0.131 0.92
quadruple events calculations, k is set to 0.14; sub-
10 0.122 0.85 stituting k in the formula with values 0 to 2 yields
11 0.103 0.72 probability values of P0 ⳱ 0.87, P1 ⳱ 0.12, and
12 0.080 0.56 P2 ⳱ 0.009. Multiplying these probabilities by the
13 0.057 0.40 number of 7 rows gives 6.1, 0.84, and 0.06.
Once the results for the placement of the various
kinds of events into rows have been calculated, it
Table 12. Results of calculations for double events is interesting to observe once again the similarities
for rows, k ⴔ 2.7 and differences between the computations and the
actual values Xenakis used, as deduced from his
Probability
Matrix M. The manipulation of the zero events is
Probability Value ⳯ Factor
k Value of 7 rows
the most interesting, so let us begin with these.
The correspondence between the values Xenakis
1 0.182 1.3 used and the computed values is shown in Table
2 0.245 1.7 13, where it may be easily seen that the computa-
3 0.220 1.5 tions yield the correct number of rows (7) while the
4 0.149 1.0
number of events is deficient by 2 (105).
5 0.08 0.56
6 0.04 0.28 Certainly, the easiest way to alter the numbers
to conform to 7 rows with 107 events is to delete
one P17 and add one P19, as shown in Table 14 with
the events highlighted under the heading ‘‘First
9.30 ⳮ9.3 1
P0 ⳱ e ⳱ eⳮ9.3 艑 0.000091. (8) Possibility;’’ or to exchange one P13 for two in-
0! 1
stances of P15 as shown under the ‘‘Second Possibil-
Multiplying this probability by a factor of 7 rows ity.’’ Of special interest here are the mathematical
gives 0.00064. Once again, the value of P0 multi- manipulations Xenakis imposed on the rows; these
plied by 7 rows is too small to be significant, as are are highlighted under the heading, ‘‘Xenakis’s
the products of the calculations from P0 through to Choice.’’ In fact, his substantially altered version
P5 when multiplied by a factor of 7 rows. Succes- for the distribution of events no longer resembles
sively substituting k in the formula with the values the Poisson distribution. As we have seen, some of
6 through 13 yields probability values that must, in Xenakis’s choices were dictated by the three re-
turn, be multiplied by a factor of 7 rows. For conve- quirements: the number of columns, the number of
nience, these values are shown in Table 11. rows, and the numbers in the overall distribution
To calculate double events for rows, k is set to of events that make up his scheme. However, at
2.7 in Poisson’s formula, yielding 0.067. Multiply- this point in the process, he would have realized
ing this probability by a factor of 7 rows, the sig- that he was moving away from the most probable
nificant value of 0.5 is obtained. The results of the values of the Poisson distribution. In this instance,
calculations for the probability values successively it seems reasonable to infer that Xenakis made ar-
substituting k in the formula with the values 1 tistic decisions motivated by a preconceived notion
through 6 are shown in Table 12. of the densities for the music he had in mind.

66 Computer Music Journal

Table 13. Xenakis’s values versus actual values for Poisson distribution of zero events, k ⴔ 15.3
Xenakis’ values for Poisson Actual values for Poisson Distribution
Distribution of zero events, k ⳱ 15.3 of zero events, k ⳱ 15.3.
No. of Rows
No. of Rows No. of Events Containing k Events No. of Events
Frequency k Containing k Events (k ⳯ No. of Rows) Frequency k Pk ⳯ 7 (with rounding) (k ⳯ No. of Rows)
11 1 11 11 0 0
12 0 0 12 1 12
13 1 13 13 1 13
14 0 0 14 1 14
15 1 15 15 1 15
16 2 32 16 1 16
17 1 17 17 1 17
18 0 0 18 1 18
19 1 19 19 0 0
Totals 7 107 7 105

The computed results for the single events yield
the correct number of rows (7) while the number of
events (63), like the zero events, are deficient by 2.
In this instance Xenakis chose the path of least re-
sistance: he simply deleted P12 and added P14, as
shown in Table 15. Note, however, that with these
single events any one of the frequencies could have
been exchanged for another frequency, two num-
bers higher. For example, one P6 could be deleted in
exchange for an extra P8, one P7 for an extra P9, and
so on. Xenakis’s decision to delete P12 without ad-
mitting any other changes necessitated the imple-
mentation of P14, a frequency of events which was
not even computed in our calculations because its
value was considered too small to be significantly
probable (the value of P13 multiplied by a factor of 7
rows, .40, was already rounded down to 0).
The frequency of events Xenakis used for the
double, triple, and quadruple events agrees very
well with the calculations computed in accordance
with Poisson’s formula. Table 16, which compares
the distribution of double, triple, and quadruple
events between the computations calculated above
and Xenakis’s results, discloses that only the dou-
ble events required 1 deletion; Xenakis elected to
delete P1.
For the sake of convenience, Table 17 summa-
rizes the way Xenakis distributed the 196 events in
the matrix according to row specification, and is to
be interpreted similarly to Table 7. For example, for
the distribution of the 107 zero events among the 7
rows, there must be: 1 row containing 11 zero
events, 1 row containing 13 zero events, 1 row con-
taining 15 zero events, 2 rows containing 16 zero
events, 1 row containing 17 zero events, and 1 row
containing 19 zero events.
The Matrix Game
The calculations for the distribution of events ac-
cording to a Poisson distribution and their place-
ment into appropriate columns and rows in
accordance with the distributions (summarized in
Table 7 and Table 17) are the rules that must be
implemented to play the matrix ‘‘game.’’ When
these rules have been applied to the 196 cells, one
of the possible results is Xenakis’ Matrix M, shown
below in Table 18. This is the matrix that deter-
mined the placement of various densities of clouds
of sounds for Achorripsis.
It is important to observe in this system of dis-
tributing events that there is no mechanism for dis-
tributing the 196 events into specific columns or
rows; hence, the composer is permitted a great deal
of freedom. As long as the correct number of each

Arsenault 67
Table 14. Various ways to distribute zero events (rows)
Frequency Computation First Possibility Second Possibility Xenakis’s Choice
No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of
Rows Events Rows Events Rows Events Rows Events
Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No.
k k Events of Rows) k Events of Rows) k Events of Rows) k Events of Rows)

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11
12 1 12 1 12 1 12 0 0
13 1 13 1 13 0 0 1 13
14 1 14 1 14 1 14 0 0
15 1 15 1 15 2 30 1 15
16 1 16 1 16 1 16 2 32
17 1 17 0 0 1 17 1 17
18 1 18 1 18 1 18 0 0
19 0 0 1 19 0 0 1 19
Totals 7 105 7 107 7 107 7 107

kind of event is distributed among the 28 columns
and 7 rows according to Tables 7 and 17, the com-
poser can place the events at will. Furthermore,
note that once the events have been successfully
placed in the matrix, both the columns and the
rows are interchangeable and may be moved to suit
the composer’s intentions. For example, Column 6
may be exchanged with Column 28, or Row II may
be exchanged with Row IV. These latter options
take on special significance when the composer de-
cides which instruments to assign to the rows, the
length of time or number of measures to assign to
the columns, and the inner form of the piece. From
Xenakis’s matrix, it is clear that Achorripsis is to
be scored for 7 different instruments or instrument
groups, but only recourse to the final score reveals
that the 7 distinct timbres are comprised of 21 in-
struments arranged in groups of three different in-
struments, as shown in Table 19.
It is interesting to note that, in assigning instru-
ments to rows, Xenakis assigned the pizzicato
strings to the row with the highest number of
sounds (Row V, equivalent to 21 single events) and
the brass instruments to the row with the lowest
number of sounds (Row VI, equivalent to 12 single
events). Also notice how, in following the rules,
Xenakis placed the 2 columns of 7 zero events in
columns 8 and 24, thereby dividing the piece into a
tripartite structure with a fairly even density distri-
bution in the first and third sections. (The first
seven columns contain the equivalent of 29 single
events, and the last four columns contain the
equivalent of 26 single events.) Columns of zero
events represent silence in all the instrumental
parts and create major points of articulation in the
overall form.
Having constructed a matrix and assigned instru-
ment groups, it is necessary to define the parame-
ters for the various events. Xenakis established the
duration of the composition at 7 minutes and fur-
ther stipulated that each time unit or each column
of cells should contain 6.5 measures of music. To
define the density for the clouds of sound, he speci-
fied that the density of a single sound event should
average five sounds per measure. (With the excep-
tion of the glissando sounds, all sounds comprise
one note of music.) Thus, each single-event cell
will contain a cloud of sounds with an average den-
sity of 32.5 sounds; each double-event cell will av-
erage 10 sounds per measure and contain an
average density of 65 sounds; the triple-event cells
will contain an average density of 97.5 sounds; and
the quadruple-event cell will contain an average
density of approximately 130 sounds.
The substitution of numbers for the designations
of single, double, triple, and quadruple events pre-

68 Computer Music Journal

Table 15. Xenakis’s values versus values computed for distribution of single events, k ⴔ 9.3
Xenakis’s Values for Distribution Values computed for Distribution
of Single Events (Rows), k ⳱ 9.3 of Single Events (Rows), k ⳱ 9.3
No. of Rows
No. of Rows No. of Events Containing k Events No. of Events
Frequency k Containing k Events (k ⳯ No. of Rows) Frequency k Pk ⳯ 7 (with rounding) (k ⳯ No. of Rows)
6 1 6 6 1 6
7 1 7 7 1 7
8 1 8 8 1 8
9 1 9 9 1 9
10 1 10 10 1 10
11 1 11 11 1 11
12 0 0 12 1 12
13 0 0 13 0 0
14 1 14
Totals 7 65 7 63

Table 16. Distribution of double, triple, and quadruple events for rows: computations versus Xenakis’s
values
Frequency Double Events Triple Events Quadruple Events
k Computations Xenakis Computations Xenakis Computations Xenakis
0 1 1 4 4 6 6
1 1 0 2 2 1 1
2 2 2 1 1 0
3 2 2 0
4 1 1
5 1 1
6 0
Totals 8 7 7 7 7 7

viously assigned gives rise to the tiny circled num-
bers in each occupied cell of Xenakis’s Matrix M:
these are the numbers which designate the specific
assignment of average sounds per measure for a
given cell. The single cells, for example, have a
range of 2.5 to 6.5, while their average remains 5.
This means that the composer is at liberty to
choose where to place a sparsely populated 2.5 sin-
gle cell in contrast to a more heavily-populated 6.5
single cell, and this choice, presumably, is in-
formed by artistic judgements. The imposition of
an additional rule governing the overall average
density within the cells offers the composer an-
other variable, that is to say, an enlarged degree of
freedom in which to make choices. Do the individ-
ual numbers placed in the cells represent the aver-
age sounds per measure in accordance with
Xenakis’s specifications? Indeed, they do. Table 20
lists all the numbers for the single, double, and tri-
ple events and shows the average of their sums;
this table is arranged to enable the reader to check
the numbers (read across from left to right, row by
row) against Xenakis’s Matrix M.
Before bringing this article on Achorripsis to a
close, it is appropriate to examine the significance
of the rules of the game as outlined in Tables 7 and

Arsenault 69
Table 17. Summary of Xenakis’s distribution of total events according to row
Frequency Zero Events Single Events Double Events Triple Events Quadruple Events

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of

No. of Rows Events No. of Rows Events Rows Events Rows Events Rows Events
Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No. Containing (k ⳯ No.
k k Events of Rows) k Events of Rows) k Events of Rows) k Events of Rows) k Events of Rows)

0 1 0 4 0 6 0
1 0 0 2 2 1 1
2 2 4 1 2
3 2 6
4 1 4
5 11 5
6 1 6
7 1 7
8 1 8
9 1 9
10 1 10
11 1 11 1 1
12 0 0 0 0
13 1 13 0 0
14 0 0 1 14
15 1 15
16 2 32
17 1 17
18 0 0
19 1 19
Totals 7 107 7 65 7 19 7 4 7 1

Table 18. Matrix showing Xenakis’ distribution of zero, single, double, triple, and quadruple events
Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Row I S S D D S D S S S S S S S S D
Row II S S S S S S S S S Q S
Row III S S S D T S S S D S S S
Row IV D D D S S S D S S S D S
Row V S S S S S S S S S S S T D D S S S
Row VI D S D S S S S D S
Row VII S T S D S D S S S S D S T
Blank ⳱ Zero Event; S ⳱ Single Event; D ⳱ Double Event; T ⳱ Triple Event; Q ⳱ Quadruple Event.

17. First, it is interesting to know the degrees of
mathematical restriction and freedom under which
Xenakis was operating when he constructed the
form for Achorripsis. The calculations for the col-
umns and the rows demonstrate that Xenakis did,
indeed, alter the mathematics to suit his scheme as
individual situations arose. This is critical informa-
tion because, when reading Xenakis’s text with all
its formulae and statistical tables, one may obtain
the impression that mathematical computations
alone dictated the form for Achorripsis. Certainly,
Xenakis’s words support this notion:
But in this axiomatic research, where chance
must bathe all of sonic space, we must reject
every distribution which departs from Pois-
son’s law . . .

70 Computer Music Journal

Table 19. Xenakis’s instrument groups
Timbre Instruments
Flute Piccolo, Clarinet, Bass Clarinet
Oboe Oboe, Bassoon, Contrabassoon
Brass 2 Trumpets, Trombone
Percussion Xylophone, Wood Block, Bass Drum
其
Pizzicato
3 Violins, 3 Violoncellos,
String Glissandi
3 Contrabasses
String Arco
Contenting ourselves just with rows and col-
umns, we obtain a homogeneous distribution
which follows Poisson. It was in this way that
the distributions in rows and columns of Ma-
trix (M) . . . were calculated.
So a unique law of chance, the law of Pois-
son (for rare events) through the medium of the
arbitrary k is capable of conditioning, on the
one hand, a whole sample matrix, and on the
other, the partial distributions following the
rows and columns. (1992, p. 31)
In the above-quoted excerpt, there is nothing to
indicate the nature of the significant decision-
making process that Xenakis undertook to arrive,
in particular, at the distribution of zero events to
be placed according to both the 28 columns and the
7 rows. Moreover, without a thorough understand-
ing of how the matrix was constructed, it is possi-
ble to view Xenakis’s Matrix M as a rudimentary
two-dimensional structure into which zero, single,
double, triple, and quadruple events have been
Table 20. Summary of densities for single, double, and triple events
Single Events
4.5 Ⳮ 6 Ⳮ 5.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 5.5 Ⳮ 2.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ
6.5 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 5.5 Ⳮ 5.5 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 6 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ
5 Ⳮ 3.5 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 6.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 3.5
Ⳮ 6.5 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 6 Ⳮ 6 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 6.5 Ⳮ
6 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 3.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 3.5 Ⳮ 6 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 5
Ⳮ 5.5 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 5.5 Ⳮ 3.5 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 6.5
Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 5.5 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 6.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 6 Ⳮ 6.5
Ⳮ 3.5 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 5 Ⳮ 4.5 Ⳮ 4 Ⳮ 6 Ⳮ 6
Total 321.5
Average 321.5/ 65 ⳱ 4.95
somehow whimsically placed. However, it some-
times happens that phenomena that appear on the
surface to be elegantly simple possess profound un-
derlying complexity.
The condition of placing the 196 events accord-
ing to the dictates of both the columns and the
rows adds an enormous dimension of difficulty to
the task of dispersing the various kinds of events in
the matrix: both the columns and the rows with
their concomitant vertical and horizontal numbers
must reflect the final numbers for distribution. Of
course, a computer program would greatly facilitate
the calculations as well as the placement of the
various events in the matrix. However, in the years
when he was composing Achorripsis, Xenakis did
not have the luxury of computer technology; his
oversized hand-painted version of the matrix (ap-
proximately 36 inches by 30 inches) is a testimony
to the significance the composer himself accorded
his manual achievement. In fact, this colored ma-
trix appears on the covers of two publications (Xe-
nakis 1986, n.d.). For the inveterate game-player
who cannot resist the temptation to solve a puz-
zle—and in the spirit of the game involved in this
stochastic procedure—the empty matrix shown as
Table 3 offers the opportunity to play the matrix
game. Readers who decide to play the game will
find themselves fully engaged at every creative and
rational level—in the grip, so to speak, of the com-
plexity of the rules of the game. Then, perhaps, Xe-
nakis’s words concerning his matrix would be
revealed as entirely apposite:
Double Events Triple Events
9 Ⳮ 10 Ⳮ 9.5 Ⳮ 10.5 Ⳮ 10 Ⳮ 14 Ⳮ 17 Ⳮ 15 Ⳮ 16
11.5 Ⳮ 9 Ⳮ 9.5 Ⳮ 8.5 Ⳮ 10 Ⳮ
11.5 Ⳮ 10.5 Ⳮ 10 Ⳮ 10 Ⳮ 10 Ⳮ
10.5 Ⳮ 11 Ⳮ 10 Ⳮ 9
190 62
190/19 ⳱ 10 62/4 ⳱ 15.5
Arsenault 71
 It is a work of patient research which exploits
all the creative faculties instantaneously. This
matrix is like a game of chess for a single
player who must follow certain rules of the
game for which he himself is the judge. This
game matrix has no unique strategy. It is not
even possible to disentangle any balanced
goals. It is very general and incalculable by
pure reason. (1992, p. 32)
References
DeLio, T. 1987. ‘‘Structure and Strategy: Iannis Xenakis’
Linaia-Agon.’’ Interface 16:143–164.
72
Schmidt, C. 1995. Komposition und Spiel. Zu Iannis Xe-
nakis. Köln: Studio.
Xenakis, I. 1992. Formalized Music: Thought and Mathe-
matics in Composition. Stuyvesant, New York: Pen-
dragon Press.
Xenakis, I. 1986. ‘‘Espace musical, espace scientifique.’’
Courrier de l’UNESCO 4:4–9.
Xenakis, I. 1958. Achorripsis. Berlin: Bote & Bock.
Xenakis, I. n.d. Seminar in Formalized and Automated
Music. Bloomington: School of Music, Indiana Univer-
sity.
Computer Music Journal