# Mystery Serial Piece



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This is for the modern and contemporary music fans. What do you think of this piece? Do you feel any emotion? Does it make sense, or flow? BTW, this is not a guessing game to see who the composer is (it could be my cat, or someone famous, which I don't want to give away yet). I'd like to hear opinions, and perceptions on the music.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Even as a non-musician, I certainly hear logic and and flow in the music at a first, quick hearing - basically it's among other things variations of a very simple dah-di-da motif, and thus there's certainly a sense of moving forward, if somewhat stumbling, in that respect. 

I'm glad that there was a moment of lyrical respite in the middle, as a contrast to this forcefulness. 

I wouldn' t call it a particularly poor piece, but the general, forceful abruptness would probably result in me not hearing it a lot.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2018)

There’s a sense of motion, the music does seem to go somewhere, but there’s a predictability in its overall pointillist style where a contrasting middle section seems like the only way to create variety without moving away from the established style. It sounds like a work from the 50s or early 60s; there’s something really quaint about it but it could also come across as quite ‘dated’ in the same way Boulez’s Structures comes across now as very dated. For me, this is not something I’d happily listen to often, as there are many other serial works that have a lot more personality from composers like Boulez, Wuorinen, Babbitt, Searle and Lutosławski


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I thought of that Boulez work too. Have an old Kontarsky LP, on the Desto label. Not one I tend to listen to, though. It may of course be another piece.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It seems to be a miniature (or was there more?). It is not particularly dense (quite airy in fact) but not without some charm. A slight piece: I wouldn't buy the CD.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Not bad, feels quite light.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It sounds like two pianos, played by two people. My guess is that it might be "Structures."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Yes, it is Structures by Boulez. I omitted the first part so it wouldn't be recognizable in a head to head comparison. The reason why I was curious on the reactions was due to how Boulez stated:

"I wanted to eradicate from my vocabulary absolutely every trace of the conventional, whether it concerned figures and phrases, or development and form"

I wanted to see how people would interpret the piece.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, it is Structures by Boulez.


Thanks for the reveal. I'm halfway into the piece. Now I don't have to finish it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Sorry for using you guys as guinea pigs, but what I gather is that even if the composer intentionally tried to remove all form, development, etc. from the "music" (basically was trying to create anti-music in my view), he would still invariably create music, that the listener would try to decipher into something recognizable. This seems to suggest that indeterminate music, like Music of Changes by Cage by applying I-Ching, is a subset of serial music.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

From where in the work is this excerpt? _Structures_ last 35 minutes. I' m a bit lazy to memorize it


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2018)

Boulez, as far as I know, wasn’t exactly happiest with how Structures book 1 turned out. He was quick to abandon this style of composing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Structures was composed in an attempt to generate every bit of the piece according to a method; in other words, a self-generating piece with no "creative decisions" made which might reflect the personality of the composer. Cage was doing a similar thing, trying to remove himself completely from the music; in this broad sense, both pieces are "indeterminate."

But other than that, there is no reason to assume that indeterminate music is a "subset" of serial music, since this serial piece is completely determined by making a system with parameters. 

"Completely determined" like Boulez' Structures can be said to be "indeterminate" only in the broadest sense, as it depends on no direct "determinations" or decisions from the composer; except that the composer has devised a self-regulating "system" which generates the material.

When I think of "indeterminate," I think of Lutislawski and Feldman (or even Brian Eno's 'Discreet Music"), and while the end result may sound similar to serialism, neither of those composers' methods, or Cage's, are "completely determined" down to the nested tuplet.

Cage's "Book of Changes" will not sound exactly the same by different performers, meaning that there will be variances due to the player (that's why I have more than one recording of "Book of Changes" and value each one for different reasons). I think that Cage allows the performer enough leeway so that it is slightly different each time it is played. 

Boulez, however, has completely scored every aspect of 'Structures' so that the most accurate performance would be the ideal; but human inconsistency, since this is played by a performer, would make this impossible. But it's still not 'indeterminate.'

But in the end, when performed, this difference is more abstract and theoretical; hence the seeming similarities.

In this sense, Boulez is more "classical" in his vision, since the "ideal" of the music exists in score, as the "gospel." But this difference exists in the abstract.

In fact, cage exploited and played with this idea in his "Freeman Etudes," where the scoring is so detailed, complex, and precise, that it is almost humanly impossible to play accurately; thus, Paul Zukofsky, for whom the Etudes were written, walked out in the middle of Cage's completion of the piece. Only later, when Irvine Arditti proved he could do it, was it completed by Cage, this time with compromises such as "as fast as humanly possible."

Like always, modern art leads us to question the most basic assumptions about music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I composed a serial piece like Structures, where all the pitches and rhythms were determined beforehand. I put it into MIDI form and had my computer play it, through electronic modules. The result was disappointing; rather flat and boring, with no surprises or twists. I think that music like this needs some sort of "chaos factor" to make it interesting. This could be the 'human' chaos factor, or maybe...built-in chaos?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It was from chapter 1a


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It just occured to me, that ALL scored music is "indeterminate" to a degree, because there will always be variants in the performances by humans.
So what do we mean by "indeterminate?" Does it mean there are larger, more significant aspects (than those small performance variants mentioned above) which remain undetermined in the score, such as pitch or rhythm? Is the term score-based, or does it refer to the methods used to create the score?


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Please could you post something by your cat? It might be more enjoyable.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, "Structures" would certainly not be confused with the incessant droning of that Scottish music.


----------

