# Could Total Serialism just have been a "bad dream"?



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

I hate to add even further to this controversy, and this is in no way saying personally that I think Serialism is a degenerate art form (I love the music of Babbitt and Reich equally), but Couchie made a comment earlier today that interested me greatly; that the Post-1945 era, and total serialism in general, is akin to the Brutalist period which is now seen as "what the **** were we thinking" moment for architecture. I was aware that a period such as this, where the achievements of an artistic movement were completely ignored, existed, and I wonder now if Total Serialism would have to stand the same fate. Are the achievements of Babbitt and post-Webern composers just going to be "ignored" in the grand scheme of things? I hope not, but given such public disapproval I seem to think this is the case. I'd love to hear your thoughts, hope this won't start any personal arguments, I mean it with the greatest sincerity.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I doubt they will be ignored. Even though integral serialism did reach a dead end, it was an important development in atonal music that gave it rules and specific structure just like tonal music has had for centuries.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I doubt they will be ignored. Even though integral serialism did reach a dead end, it was an important development in atonal music that gave it rules and specific structure just like tonal music has had for centuries.


I think that's a great way of putting it; I also love the structure of total serialism, as unlike tonal music it isn't a way of dramatic organization, but more of a geometric one. how music can be seen as a sort of "mathematics of sense", a way to explore it as an abstract, geometrical concept rather than an expressive, emotional one. Some might find this a bit disheartening, but I have a great interest in mathematics and also see a strong comparison between the two and their general abstractness. To me, a lot of geometrical concept hold incredibly well with mathematics. I hope, if anything, the music of the future taps into that very deep intellectual structure of music; it's a philosophy I find oft-ignored when talking about music and it being a "true language of the soul and the human spirit" and all nonsense.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I agree with CofAG. I don't quite agree with SV. I'm a physicist, I'm not a mathematician, but I know a great deal of mathematics. Although I can see your point, I think it is only a superficial relation (music-mathematics). Mathematics is a discipline which uses formal logic to study the properties of some elements, previously defined. Those properties are presented in the form of theorems, for example. The value of such theorems resides in the fact of their rigurosity. Now, I can't say "I don't like that theorem", if this theorem was derived correctly. In music, you certainly can define your own rules and make music following strictly those rules. The result is obviously music. Now, unlike mathematics, I can say "I don't like your music", and this is independent of the fact that you have followed your set of rules strictly. Music has that new element, which is common to all the arts. Sincerely, I like music because of that. I look in music for that "irrational" element. Not necessarily "emotions", it is more complicated than that. Mathemathics does not have that dimension. On the other hand, music will never be completely rational, in the sense of mathematics. Although they may be "complementary" in some senses, they are completely different. If you want mathematics, go to study mathematics then . I find the idea of "mathematical music" quite ridiculous. This does not mean that you can't appreciate the structure of music, which can be very rational sometimes (like in serialism).


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

aleazk said:


> I agree with CofAG. I don't quite agree with SV. I'm a physicist, I'm not a mathematician, but I know a great deal of mathematics. Although I can see your point, I think it is only a superficial relation (music-mathematics). Mathematics is a discipline which uses formal logic to study the properties of some elements, previously defined. Those properties are presented in the form of theorems, for example. The value of such theorems resides in the fact of their rigurosity. Now, I can't say "I don't like that theorem", if this theorem was derived correctly. In music, you certainly can define your own rules and make music following strictly those rules. The result is obviously music. Now, unlike mathematics, I can say "I don't like your music", and this is independent of the fact that you have followed your set of rules strictly. Music has that new element, which is common to all the arts. Sincerely, I like music because of that. I look in music for that "irrational" element. Not necessarily "emotions", it is more complicated than that. Mathemathics does not have that dimension. On the other hand, music will never be completely rational, in the sense of mathematics. Although they may be "complementary" in some senses, they are completely different. If you want mathematics, go to study mathematics then . I find the idea of "mathematical music" quite ridiculous. This does not mean that you can't appreciate the structure of music, which can be very rational sometimes (like in serialism).


I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying music can be studied objectively as mathematics is, I'm saying that some abstract properties of mathematics seem to express themselves through music. This is not a concept that I've come up with myself; there's very interesting stuff in Dmitri Tymoczko's _Geometry of Music_, where he finds a lot of four-dimensional concepts of geometry in tonal music especially. Anytime anyone mentions anything outside of the realm of the arts or humanities to try to understand music, they always pull out the 'every art is subjective' card. I'm not trying to say that music is the same as mathematics, which is why I don't like "mathematical music". Of course music is subjective, and holds a lot of expression. I'm trying to say that there are a lot of mathematical properties to music, which has no objective content but which hold a lot of beauty to them, and they are very unappreciated. Just like you said, the rational side of music seems to be a lot less seen than the irrational, expression point of music. I study music and mathematics, and I find a lot of things in music that I don't find in mathematics. I'm not sure why I can't study both and find connections between the two, because there obviously are some. I think the reason why aspects of rhythm, for example, can be so effectively controlled is because of it's great mathematical property, and I think a lot of interesting and expressive rhythms can be found through mathematical analysis. I'm not saying the rigorous method of objectively should be placed on music as it is on math, I'm saying that the way of mathematical thinking can open up a grand array of possibilities of music


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying music can be studied objectively as mathematics is, I'm saying that some abstract properties of mathematics seem to express themselves through music. This is not a concept that I've come up with myself; there's very interesting stuff in Dmitri Tymoczko's _Geometry of Music_, where he finds a lot of four-dimensional concepts of geometry in tonal music especially. Anytime anyone mentions anything outside of the realm of the arts or humanities to try to understand music, they always pull out the 'every art is subjective' card. I'm not trying to say that music is the same as mathematics, which is why I don't like "mathematical music". Of course music is subjective, and holds a lot of expression. I'm trying to say that there are a lot of mathematical properties to music, which has no objective content but which hold a lot of beauty to them, and they are very unappreciated. Just like you said, the rational side of music seems to be a lot less seen than the irrational, expression point of music. I study music and mathematics, and I find a lot of things in music that I don't find in mathematics. I'm not sure why I can't study both and find connections between the two, because there obviously are some.


Well, I think that the subjective card is a pretty important thing. Yes, there's a lot of mathematical properties in music. Personally, I don't think they are as relevant as the subjective aspect, which I think is central, that's all.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Well, I think that the subjective card is a pretty important thing. Yes, there's a lot of mathematical properties in music. Personally, I don't think they are as relevant as the subjective aspect, which I think is central, that's all.


Yeah, I can understand that. Personally, I've always looked at music as a very structural thing; Goethe said that "architecture was frozen music", Russell called it the "mathematics of sense" and William Pater said that it "seems to bind form and subject matter into one". I've of course never seen it as an objective thing, but I find what it does to the intellect is as important as what it does to the heart. There are thousands of Greek allusions to music as intellectual, the concepts of the "music of the spheres" and "nous" were central to Greek metaphor (and you know how good Greeks were with their metaphors!). Both the intellectual and emotional side of music seem inseperable to me, and music I think would be greatly diminished without the other.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> Yeah, I can understand that. Personally, I've always looked at music as a very structural thing; Goethe said that "architecture was frozen music", Russell called it the "mathematics of sense" and William Pater said that it "seems to bind form and subject matter into one". I've of course never seen it as an objective thing, but I find what it does to the intellect is as important as what it does to the heart. There are thousands of Greek allusions to music as intellectual, the concepts of the "music of the spheres" and "nous" were central to Greek metaphor (and you know how good Greeks were with their metaphors!). Both the intellectual and emotional side of music seem inseperable to me, and music I think would be greatly diminished without the other.


I agree 100% with that. And, in fact, Ravel too. He said that, in his music, he always looked for the balance between emotion and intellectuality. In that way, you cover all the dimensions of music.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

aleazk said:


> I agree 100% with that. And, in fact, Ravel too. He said that, in his music, he always looked for the balance between emotion and intellectuality. In that way, you cover all the dimensions of music.


Agreed, and I think every art form has an intellectual component to it; for literature, it is more critical thinking, as it deals with more philosophical thinking with it's themes and general concrete experience and painting a picture of the world. I think the intellectual side of music however, is largely that kind of abstract thinking of musical "ideas" and "concepts" that hold no representation in the world but gain through self-reference, that you find in mathematical thinking. I find even a lot of the material used in mathematics and music the same; you find circles and sounds both in the general nature, but you don't find a perfect circle or a E-Flat Major Chord generally inside of nature. It could be that I'm carrying the analogy too far, and I hate to bring up more talking heads, but Leibniz (very famous mathematician) said that "Music is a hidden arithmetic exercise of the soul, which does not know that it is counting.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

What's wrong with brutalist architecture? I got my PhD in one:
View attachment 5546


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> What's wrong with brutalist architecture? I got my PhD in one:
> View attachment 5546


What the **** were you thinking?


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

aleazk said:


> What the **** were you thinking?


I think it's supposed to be a frog, or a tortoise, I'm not sure which.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Yeah, N American campuses were hit hard.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Behold, one of the most beautiful modern-designed music schools in America today:









I my humble opinion of course. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

_No more than Beethoven's Ninth, Wagner in large or small part, Bruckner, Scriabin, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Bach, Rameau, etc. is *Some One's "Bad Dream.*"_

I also find nothing to equate 'brutalism' with about the most highly ordered and structured music we have yet had on the planet - I think that comparison was unfortunately very glib and not well thought out


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

aleazk said:


> What the **** were you thinking?


It must be a crashed UFO ship that is attached to that building in the left to add more space to the building!


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Behold, one of the most beautiful modern-designed music schools in America today:
> 
> View attachment 5553
> 
> ...


Looks beautiful. Looks like it's far too easy to get lost in.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Anyway, responding to the thread title:

I won't be able to say until I wake up. :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have read various descriptions and responses to total serialism. I'm sure there's much I'm missing, but I have a general question. Apparently composers originally wanted to extend serialism (of pitch) to other aspects of music (duration, dynamics, timbre, etc.). In this manner the music becomes more ordered but also more defined by rules. There seemed to be a backlash based on that fact that the particular rules of a given piece left too little room for the composer. 

My question involves the potential effect of the rules on the musicality (how the music would make listeners feel). Did composers feel that specifying the relationships between pitches, duration, dynamics, etc. before the construction of the work left them less able to produce music that had the musical effect they wanted? In other words, was the musical effect on listeners (including the composer) too divorced from the rules? The music may be highly structured, mathematically interesting, but less able to produce the desired (emotional?) response. If so, why didn't composers simply break the rules more often (as others in the past always did).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Serialism of the 2nd Viennese School opened up many possibilities. But after 1945, 'total' serialism attempted to lock things down, some called it_ the new Fascism_. Especially with the types of things coming from Boulez's mouth back then, things that he'd rather forget now. Even Stockhausen disagreed with him, saying an artist's creativity cannot be fettered by imposing rules in a one size fits all type of approach. In any case, some of my favourite composers integrated serialism freely into their music, they didn't care much for 'total' serialism. Sure, they may well have known it's rules, but rules are meant to be broken and toyed with to create something unique and individual, imo. Such composers I like include Walton, Ginastera, Dutilleux, Australians like Richard Meale, also Elliott Carter, Carlos Chavez, and of course Stravinsky, who really bought his innovations in rhythm and pulse together with his modern concepts of tonality with aspects of seralism. That was back in the 1950's, by doing that he challenged the dogmatists, and from my point of view looking back today, I think his flexible approach was right.

If anyone knows of any post-1945 works that were composed in the 'total' serial technique that have entered the repertoire, please let me know. As far as I can see, yes it was a blind alley, even Boulez didn't compose much with this rigid technique (do as I say, not do as I do?). Messiaen wrote the first 'total' serialist work to be studied in universities, a short piano piece. He only composed it for teaching purposes, he certainly did not go the 'total' serialist route (yet one of his big influences was Webern, but he did not aim to rehash him).

So yeah, I think it was kind of a thing speaking to dogma and all up an unneccesary direction. Serialism was never a dogma, Schoenberg himself said things to this effect, and certainly his music attests to this. The most rigorous of the three was Webern, but his approaches where no more or less valid than the other two. They were all unique, they were expressive and creative, not about arid dogmas as in a desert.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I agree with CofAG. I don't quite agree with SV. I'm a physicist, I'm not a mathematician, but I know a great deal of mathematics. Although I can see your point, I think it is only a superficial relation (music-mathematics). Mathematics is a discipline which uses formal logic to study the properties of some elements, previously defined. Those properties are presented in the form of theorems, for example. The value of such theorems resides in the fact of their rigurosity. Now, I can't say "I don't like that theorem", if this theorem was derived correctly. In music, you certainly can define your own rules and make music following strictly those rules. The result is obviously music. Now, unlike mathematics, I can say "I don't like your music", and this is independent of the fact that you have followed your set of rules strictly. Music has that new element, which is common to all the arts. Sincerely, I like music because of that. I look in music for that "irrational" element. Not necessarily "emotions", it is more complicated than that. Mathemathics does not have that dimension. On the other hand, music will never be completely rational, in the sense of mathematics. Although they may be "complementary" in some senses, they are completely different. If you want mathematics, go to study mathematics then . I find the idea of "mathematical music" quite ridiculous. This does not mean that you can't appreciate the structure of music, which can be very rational sometimes (like in serialism).


Music appreciation is the application of aesthetics to notes (as opposed to random "noise"). The notes themselves can be explained with reference to mathmatics e.g. 2:1 = octave. However, aesthetic appreciation and the ascribing of symbolic meaning to music is culturally specific, as indeed is the meaning we derive from metaphor drawing on the language analogy. We are to a certain extent when discussing the aesthetic merits (or lack there of) of a piece of music locked into a kind of aural hermeneutic circle circle, (some would say spiral). Following on from this rational, in the case of atonal music one is required to adopt a new set of musical values that allows us to compare one atonal piece meaningfully with another without reference to the world of tonality. Just saying...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KRoad said:


> Music appreciation is the application of aesthetics to notes (as opposed to random "noise"). The notes themselves can be explained with reference to mathmatics e.g. 2:1 = octave. However, aesthetic appreciation and the ascribing of symbolic meaning to music is culturally specific, as indeed is the meaning we derive from metaphor drawing on the language analogy. We are to a certain extent when discussing the aesthetic merits (or lack there of) of a piece of music locked into a kind of aural hermeneutic circle circle, (some would say spiral). Following on from this rational, in the case of atonal music one is required to adopt a new set of musical values that allows us to compare one atonal piece meaningfully with another without reference to the world of tonality. Just saying...


I understand the first part of your comment and I agree. The 2:1 = octave, that's not mathematics, I mean, that's not a signal of a mystical relationship between music and mathematics. It's obvious that the frequency of two notes will be related by some proportion, but the fact that this proportion is a "nice" 2:1 ratio does not mean anything, that would be numerology...

edit: Oh, I see, this hermeneutic circle (or spiral) will be a mathematical realization of the process of music appreciation, so, at the end, music is mathematical! :lol:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> What's wrong with brutalist architecture? I got my PhD in one:
> View attachment 5546


usually it's dark, cold and really oppressive. It could be very spectacular but in a way i'd like to see in a painting or in a Lovecraft's book. So in a sense i feel that the comparison is really appropriate.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*I think the mid-to-late Romantic era (the space between Schumann and Mahler) was THE BAD DREAM of music history to date!* That whole emo thing almost killed classical music, and that era produced monumentally boring and insufferable pieces of music.

Now that, that IS A Bad Dream.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Oh, I see, this hermeneutic circle (or spiral) will be a mathematical realization of the process of music appreciation, so, at the end, music is mathematical! :lol:


You have _nearly_ got it - but not quite...

Aesthetic judgment will and must remain culturally and historically bias (in a way analogous with Gadamer's pronouncement on the historicity of understanding). But this is something quite independent of the modus operandi employed to create atonal music by say, Schoenberg. 
Hence your conclusion: _...will be a mathematical realization of the process of music appreciation_, is indeed amusing. Well done, sir!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

PetrB said:


> *I think the mid-to-late Romantic era (the space between Schumann and Mahler) was THE BAD DREAM of music history to date!* That whole emo thing almost killed classical music, and that era produced monumentally boring and insufferable pieces of music.
> 
> Now that, that IS A Bad Dream.


Calling Romantic era "Emo", is the biggest nonsense, only can be said by insane and cynics.

Sorry, but at least 2/3 classic lovers, love Romantic Branch.

The Serialism/Atonality branch is hardly listened to by 1/5 classic lovers. And Expressionism is nothing but a dynamite that has exploded arts and ruined them.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Arsakes said:


> And Expressionism is nothing but a dynamite that has exploded arts and ruined them.


well, i hope you're not talking about art in general, because some of the greatest modern artist were expressionists or influenced by expressionism.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

_"I think the mid-to-late Romantic era (the space between Schumann and Mahler) was THE BAD DREAM of music history to date! That whole emo thing almost killed classical music, and that era produced monumentally boring and insufferable pieces of music.

Now that, that IS A Bad Dream."_



Arsakes said:


> Calling Romantic era "Emo", is the biggest nonsense, only can be said by insane and cynics.
> Sorry, but at least 2/3 classic lovers, love Romantic Branch. The Serialism/Atonality branch is hardly listened to by 1/5 classic lovers. And Expressionism is nothing but a dynamite that has exploded arts and ruined them.


Well, I fished you out, at least. My post was a parody of the ridiculousness of the OP.... Gotcha


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Well, I fished you out, at least. My post was a parody of the ridiculousness of the OP.... Gotcha


That's all very well, but Arsakes has a good point. The majority of people don't care for the Total Serialism approach. Many living composers, including Reich, have spoken out against the mania for serialism in the 50s and early 60s. Minimalism and Reich's work are more listenable, but still not fully mainstream when compared to more tonal work. I try it out (and enjoy it to a degree) for the sake of curiosity, but lets not lose perspective here. Total Serialism was a dead end. It took freedom away from performers in terms of interpretation. It took some element of creativity from a composer. It translated an art into a science. Melody is not king, but neither is it irrelevant.

But this has all been said before.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> Looks beautiful. Looks like it's far too easy to get lost in.


Indeed, it's a maze I alone can cross through. Those who don't spend like everyday in it would get lost.


----------

