# Aural Perception of Serial Music



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Aural Perception of Serial Music*

The following is an excerpt from the text *Theories and Analyses of Twentieth Century Music* by J. Kent Williams:

(quote)
The fact that laymen and some musicians find serial music difficult to comprehend has been acknowledged by a number of writers. Meyer and Lerdahl, for example, contend in separate essays that for music to be meaningful, a listener must be able to deduce its hierarchical structure through listening. Lerdahl does not claim that listeners are unable to infer any structure whatsoever from serial music, but he does wonder why competent listeners do not hear tone rows. He attributes this to the fact that serialism is a _permutational _rather than _elaborational_ system of pitch organization. Pitch relations in elaborational systems are relatively easy to hear and remember; those generated through permutations are more difficult.
Lerdahl also notes that Schoenberg tried to "emancipate" dissonant intervals by freeing them from a need to resolve to consonant intervals. Though well-intentioned, this practice led Schoenberg and his followers to deny that intervals are intrinsically consonant or dissonant and, hence, to create "musical contexts that are not apprehended hierarchically."
Finally, Lerdahl asserts that the system of pitch space induced by serial music does not correlate well with the mind's preferred methods of measuring distances between pitches. The distinction between steps and skips, our most fundamental criterion of intervallic size, is not reinforced in the structure of a 12-pc series. It is unclear, for example, whether a step in serial music should be regarded as the distance from one pc to the pc that lies a semitone above or below in the chromatic scale, or to the pc that lies before or after in the series. Because of this ambiguity, "The listener...has difficulty locating a pitch as close to or far from another pitch."
Several researchers have devised experiments to test whether listeners can perceive serial operations. While a thorough review of their findings is not possible here, some general principles can be summarized.

1. Serial relations are more perceptible when musical units are smaller. Thus, relations between 3-, 4-, 5-, or 6-element sets are perceived more easily than those between larger sets.
2. Serial relations are more perceptible when pitches are presented slowly, and less perceptible at faster tempos.
3. Serial relatins are more perceptible when other aspects, especially duration, are held constant.
4. Pitch relations are more perceptible than pitch-class relations, since the former preserve melodic contour.
5. T relations are more perceptible than I relations, which are more perceptible than RP relations, which are more perceptible than RI relations. RP and RI relations make especially high demands on short-term memory because they require the comparison of sounds heard most recently to those heard least recently.
6. Whem hearing a prime form and two variants, listeners are often unable to distinguish between the variant that preserves the exact interval size and the one that preserves overall melodic contour but varies interval size.
7. With sufficient knowledge and exposure, listeners can develop strategies for hearing serial music on its own terms rather than those of functional tonality.
(end of quote)

So what are your reactions to this? Is it accurate and fair? Are the criteria for comprehensibility tha same in tonal and serial music, or should we, as it says, " develop strategies for hearing serial music on its own terms rather than those of functional tonality?'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think my first hearing of anything serial was Berg's Lulu Suite, and I recall hearing it simply and merely as 'just music,' and it was a very rich and initially 'exotic' sounding music at that.

This has me on the outside -- completely -- of why 'people' have trouble with it.

I think the whole 'why they have trouble recognizing the structure' very much has to do with their repeated immersion in mainly, or only, common practice music. I recall a good percent of the music majors in undergrad having also 'a hard time' with musica ficta in some of the earlier examples of that style, and that same roomful of undergrad music majors very nervously tittering and giggling upon their first hearing of the opening bars of Stravinsky's (pretty damned tonal) Le Sacre.

A colleague told me that a professor of his said that most people heard bi-tonal and polytonal music as more a music of extended triadic chords vs. music in two or more simultaneous keys, and I would say that is probably how most people hear it. (Milhaud is a composer whose bi / polytonality strikes me as very clearly written in, and sounding like, separate strands in different keys readily and clearly heard as operating independently.) 

Whatever the semi-technical breakdown, I'm convinced it is more habit, people entrenched in tonality and older forms only who find atonal music, and other contemporary, as music with a real barrier, not 'accessible,' and all the rest.

Some tell me it is my primary exposure in childhood to Bartok (MicroKosmos) hand in hand with Bach that 'made my ears different,' but I don't think that is 'cause' enough to explain why music other than tonal was 'just more music' to me and is so often not to others.

Under the professorial cant and points made by Lehrdal, I have to think that is still miles away from how many a layman approaches classical music, or 'hears.'


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

PetrB puts in nicely above.

I listen to much serial music, and I don't ever recall overtly listening for a tone row. Rather, I tend to enjoy the "sound" of the piece, and serial music tends to present a lot of interesting sounds (as an abstract painting presents a lot of interesting color patterns). But then, I don't recall listening to a Beethoven symphony in order to hear melodic intervals or harmonic structures. Rather, I try to take in the whole rather than the bits and pieces.

Some "bits and pieces" present themselves more easily in traditional harmonic music -- structures such as sonata form, which, of course, is quite a large "bit" or "piece", and I can certainly listen for that. Or for theme and variations, or fugue, or rondo.... But the music of serial composers is often more elusive form-wise, but that's certainly okay. (I certainly don't look for triangular geometries in Jackson Pollock's paintings, while I may well do that with Renaissance art.)

Orchestral color, generally, is more important to me when listening to serial music than is, say, tone row structure. But then, orchestral color is also great in Berlioz's non-serial _Symphonie fantastique _and Rachmaninoff's _Symphonic Dances_. In solo piano music, where the "color" is limited, I tend to pay more attention to things like contrast and volume and overall splashes of sound.

In any case, serial music is great stuff, and I'm glad Schoenberg offered it up as another "means" to an end.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Edited -- duplicate of above post.

The site is acting wacky today.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, now's as good a time as any to post this, I suppose.

http://johncroft.eu/Memory_complexity.pdf

This is a thesis that utterly tears apart the supposed objectivity of Lerdahl's theories. The only logical reason, the author concludes, for anyone to accept Lerdahl's ideas about serialism as being unnatural is because they already agree with the conclusion he draws, namely that tonal music is inherently natural.

I know for my part that the first time I encountered Schoenberg's music, I heard it as music. I didn't care about, much less understand the theoretical workings of it, and that didn't matter at all, because it was rewarding as music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> Edited -- duplicate of above post.
> 
> The site is acting wacky today.


I've had actual experiences of electronic lag being the culprit, but am soooo tempted to say, "No, it is just you"


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I know for my part that the first time I encountered Schoenberg's music, I heard it as music. I didn't care about, much less understand the theoretical workings of it, and that didn't matter at all, because it was rewarding as music.


This was my experience exactly. I knew it was different (that appealed to me) and I enjoyed it, because I heard strange repeating and shifting patterns and a lot of pleasurable tone colours. I knew absolutely nothing about the formal aspects of music then, and I still only understand rudimentary principles of music theory (although I am working on acquiring the vocabulary and a better understanding).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You mean, there is no difference whatsoever in tonal music and this piece by Schoenberg? Somebody needs to step up and explain this.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

The viennese trichord strikes me as so beautiful when employed in serialism, always an oasis of calm and beauty. Like the presence of a perfect cadence is in the most pained and dissonant of tonal music.

In terms of analysis though, I don't know why I like serial music, its just so exciting, fresh and exotic sounding for the most part. It gives me so much raw pleasure hearing a good piece by Webern, for example.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think that instead of trying to 'defend' serial music as being 'no different' and just as 'musical' as tonality, we need to listen and accept it on its own terms, and admit that those terms are different.

1. Do we really need to "recognize" smaller six-note sets in serial music? In many cases, I say no. It depends on the row and how it's structured. 
For example, a row might be constructed so that adjacent pairs of notes emphasize a certain interval over others, such as a fifth, and when inverted, these remain the same, unlike in tonality, where an inverted fifth becomes a fourth. 
Therefore, as in some *Webern* I've heard, you can become aware of an "area" or movement of a work which abounds with certain sonorities, created by the prominence of a particular interval.

2. Even though pitch relations (melodies) are more recognizable than "pitch-class" relations (where register doesn't matter, only the pitch, and lines might make great leaps), this is really only true in melodic/tonal lines, where contour is important. There is a basic truth in this, though; octave displacement can render even the most familiar melody unrecognizable. *Stravinsky *demonstrated this in his piece composed for Pierre Monteaux, where the familiar _Happy Birthday_ is rendered almost unrecognizable by octave displacement:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You mean, there is no difference whatsoever in tonal music and this piece by Schoenberg? Somebody needs to step up and explain this.


First, there are distinctly tonal elements in Schoenberg's String Trio, although these are derived from the row.

Second, we are not saying that there is no difference, merely that there is no stark difference that could or would make tonal music sound like music and non-tonal music sound like non-music. Serialism is not something that is readily heard at any rate.

If you would read the article I linked to, it doesn't claim that tonal and non-tonal musics sound alike (although differences are primarily gradation), but more that there is no case to be made that the one is more inherently natural than the other.*

*Edit: Or rather, that the case has not been made in a convincing way that is not question-begging.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You mean, there is no difference whatsoever in tonal music and this piece by Schoenberg? Somebody needs to step up and explain this.


Yes Million, that is literally what everybody said.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> You mean, there is no difference whatsoever in tonal music and this piece by Schoenberg? Somebody needs to step up and explain this.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EoV0ympfCo#t=86


millionrainbows, I have to thank you for this post, I've discovered a new Schoenberg piece. It perhaps wasn't your intention but I'm thoroughly enjoying it! By the way, this may be off topic, I am listening to this and to me it sounds "of tradition", I mean that in the same way Beethoven expanded and pushed the boundaries of the classical traditions that came before him. This sounds like Schoenberg was pushing the boundaries of the traditions before him (but still in the same line of Mozart to Beethoven to Mahler to...). It sounds like music to me.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Who actually listens for the row? Schoenberg never intended for people to try to follow rows, just like I doubt Beethoven intended people to follow the technical tonal procedures of his work, or Stravinsky intended people to analyze what modes he used in his pieces. Its not about that, those technical things really mostly important if you want to learn how the music works in a technical manner, and this is mostly useful for composers wishing to learn from these older colleagues.

Of course, learning the technical aspects of a piece can make one see something clever or inventive the composer has done. For instance, learning by ear a piece by Nobuo Uematsu and figuring out its harmonic structure gave me an increased appreciation for his inventiveness, and I fell even more in love with Ives's Concord Sonata when I read through the score and noticed all the layers of thematic material, and how these small melodic ideas were re-used in a litany of ways that made them sound totally different. So this manner of appreciation does have its place, but understand that I loved this music before really thinking about how it worked. On the other hand, there are certain older pieces, especially the more conservative works of the Baroque period, and works from the Classical period, where its so obvious how the tonal procedures work that you can practically predict the melody and where the piece is going to go harmonically on a first listen, and I don't think that's a good thing, but by the logic of Lerdahl, this must be the perfect music, because you don't even need to think to see how it works. And yet many purport this sort of music to be inherently superior to say... Chopin, or Debussy, or Wagner, or Tchaikovsky, or even The Beatles.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think this is a fascinating subject. Ever since I first heard certain music by Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and others, I was struck by how different it sounded. The notes _sounded_ random to me (I know they _are_ not random). I know many other people have similar experiences with serial and 12 tone music. The question is why a significant number of people _perceive_ the music as so different. It seems there are 2 types of reasons.

1) Serial or 12 tone music is inherently different or less natural. Something in the physics of sound and the biology of human perception is fundamentally different when hearing and processing serial or 12 tone music.

2) Music perception, as with many other things, depends strongly on one's history (i.e. one's experiences of listening to music). One's history of listening can make a significant difference in how one perceives a given piece.

Obviously there are inherent differences in some sounds (very high frequencies cannot be heard by humans), but are there any inherent differences that are relevant to serial or 12 tone music? Perhaps. My guess is that brain processes involved in music perception are too complex for us to tease out any potential inherent difference at this time. We do know that listening history can make large changes to how we respond. Most of us are aware of people who disliked certain music, but after listening in specific ways for some length of time, found their response to the music that they previously disliked had changed.

There is a thread on TC that discusses a study of dissonance showing that listeners' response to dissonant chords can change over time as they hear those type of chords more frequently. There seems to be a lot of evidence that many of our music perceptions can change due to listening and perhaps other experiences. Maybe someday there will be evidence that there is also some inherent differences as well. _If_ there are inherent differences leading to less enjoyment when listening, can they be overcome by further listening (or other actions)? For many the answer appears to be yes.

Back to the question of why serial and 12 tone music sounded so different to me - I believe it is due to my lack of experience listening to this music. The more I listen, the less unusual that music sounds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> First, there are distinctly tonal elements in Schoenberg's String Trio, although these are derived from the row.


You must mean "_tonal-sounding_ elements," because if they are row-derived, they are essentially non-tonal.



Mahlerian said:


> Second, we are not saying that there is no difference, merely that there is no stark difference that could or would make tonal music sound like music and non-tonal music sound like non-music. Serialism is not something that is readily heard at any rate.


I think it would be better to attack Lerdahl's contentions in a more specific way. His criterion that musical meaning be experienced as a "sequence of events" is easily destroyed by the music of Messiaen and his concept of "moment time."



Mahlerian said:


> If you would read the article I linked to, it doesn't claim that tonal and non-tonal musics sound alike (although differences are primarily gradation), but more that there is no case to be made that the one is more inherently natural than the other.


I fully agree with most of the refutation of Lerdahl, but I see a flaw in the definition of "natural" on both sides. Lerdahl should have abandoned his "sequence of events" contention, and re-defined what "natural" means. The _vertical _harmonic model is what tonality is really based on, and the _horizontal_ through-time aspect of tonality is secondarily derived from that.

In other words, a fundamental tone and its harmonics are 'natural,' and our ears hear this way. This is an hierarchy. I find it hard to dispute that natural, physical fact, so I am forced to see "natural" as a non-issue when considering serialism.

I see serialism as structural, based generally on "invisible" or inaudible structural principles, but I don't consider that to be its deficiency when compared to tonality.

Tonality's (horizontal)* structural* hierarchy is self-evident in this sense, since it is based on *sensual* (vertical model) harmonic hearing; but other "non-tonal" music without a harmonic hierarchy can still exploit the ear's tendency to hear harmonically, by using harmonic devices, as Debussy did. And serial music, as it was pointed out, can use intervallic relations to create its colors.

The 'advantage' of tonality is that its horizontal/structural aspects are derived from the same kind of hierarchical model that its vertical/harmonic aspect is based on.

Serialism, and other non-tonal musics, can only use these "harmonic" aspects as adjuncts, not as intrinsic elements of their basic structure.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You must mean "_tonal-sounding_ elements," because if they are row-derived, they are essentially non-tonal.


Why? You have not proven this. A tonal element is an element that draws upon traditional tonality and its hierarchical relations. Other than your saying so, you have not given us any reason why row-derived music absolutely _cannot_ be tonal. Your contentions that rows are based on different ordering principles from tonal music are nonsense. Tonal music's ordering principles are in a different dimension from rows, which are more like a gamut of material from which a piece can be created; your insistence on saying that because these principles are different they are necessarily incompatible is not proof. The fact that elements perceived as tonal can be derived from rows, on the other hand, is proof against this idea.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Why? You have not proven this. A tonal element is an element that draws upon traditional tonality and its hierarchical relations. Other than your saying so, you have not given us any reason why row-derived music absolutely _cannot_ be tonal. Your contentions that rows are based on different ordering principles from tonal music are nonsense. Tonal music's ordering principles are in a different dimension from rows, which are more like a gamut of material from which a piece can be created; your insistence on saying that because these principles are different they are necessarily incompatible is not proof. The fact that elements perceived as tonal can be derived from rows, on the other hand, is proof against this idea.


Wonderful points on how slightly-arbitrary all schema can be; since all classification is relevant to _some_ standard.

A hierarchical order of classification, whether of traditonal tonality or of the tone row-- is a set of _tools_ to bring about an intended effect. They are a sort of short-hand to enable an artist to more fully express himself. They're not infallible though. One can, for instance, learn all there is to be learned about harmony and counterpoint and fuguing and still not equal the ingenuity of Bach.

So with this said, I ultimately judge the aesthetic quality of a piece of music by the impression the logically-integrated collage and flow of sounds can impress upon me.

I'm an Impressionist to the tips of my fingers. I'm fully aware that I'm not experiencing 'color' or 'sound' in some absolute, unfiltered, Kantian _ding-an-sich_ sense; but rather that I'm experiencing the_ effect _of my senses interpreting the world around me.

This is an important point in my view.

Composers like Berlioz, Debussy, and Wagner have this uncanny ability to discern how groups of sounds can make very nuanced and finessing impressions on people. No rule book showed them this. They intuited it from within; from within their own highly-developed sensory apparatus of 'what it means to be and feel like a human.'

Abstract stuff, I know. And I'm not the best one to explain it; in fact, I'm probably the worst. But I think a fabulous work in theoretical and clinical psychology to elucidate what I'm lamely pointing at is Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek's book _The Sensory Order_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> A tonal element is an element that draws upon traditional tonality and its hierarchical relations.


I agree with that, of course, but you failed to get my point when I make a distinction between _structural_ aspects of a system, and how that _structural_ aspect is inherent in tonality because of the harmonic model, and absent in serialism because of its lack of an intrinsic _structural_ harmonic aspect:



> _*millions said: *The 'advantage' of tonality is that its horizontal/structural aspects are derived from the same kind of hierarchical model that its vertical/harmonic aspect is based on.
> 
> Serialism, and other non-tonal or non-harmonic musics, can only use these "harmonic" aspects as adjuncts, not as intrinsic elements of their basic structure._


Serial or 12-tone music is _melodic; _that's what the ordering does. Like Gregorian chant, harmony is created in this system by the congruence of separate lines, polyphonically. This harmonic sound occurs by creating combinations and careful manipulations of different forms of the row, and results in "harmonic" chordal effects.

But these harmonic results are not part of the _intrinsic_ structure of serialism, but are _structurally created_ after the fact of the row. Also, these resulting chords do not have functions, as in tonality, because there is no hierarchy to relate them to; _serialism is non-hierarchical._ Each relation stands on its own, "related only to each other" as Schoenberg stated in his definition of the system he created.



Mahlerian said:


> Other than your saying so, you have not given us any reason why row-derived music absolutely _cannot_ be tonal...


The reasons are stated above; take them or leave them.



Mahlerian said:


> Tonal music's ordering principles are in a different dimension from rows, which are more like a gamut of material from which a piece can be created;


I agree, but you need to see the difference in created structures and principles which are inherent in a system. Serialism is a melodic rather than a harmonic system.



Mahlerian said:


> ...your insistence on saying that because these principles are different they are necessarily incompatible is not proof.


I refute that. Serial music does not have harmonic function as an inherent aspect; illusion of harmony is created by congruence of separate lines, polyphonically. The ear may hear this as harmonic, but that is illusory, and no sustained or stable harmonic function can be derived from serial principles, except in the most arbitrary and rudimentary intervallic sense, which the row gives us.



Mahlerian said:


> The fact that elements perceived as tonal can be derived from rows, on the other hand, is proof against this idea.


I fail to see the use of trying to "apologize" for 12-tone and serialism by trying to make it seem "tonal." Perception of tonality can be created by careful manipulation of separate lines, but this is totally arbitrary, and does not reflect a sustained, inherent harmonic hierarchy, like tonality has. Whatever "tonality" is perceived in a serial work is not true tonality in any sense, and this tonal effect is really not what serialism was designed to do.

I think you need to accept 12-tone music on its own merits and characteristics, instead of trying to "stuff a melodic horse into a harmonic suitcase."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> A hierarchical order of classification, whether of traditional tonality or of the tone row-- is a set of _tools_ to bring about an intended effect.


But in tonality, the hierarchy of horizontal function is intrinsically based on the model of a vertical model: a fundamental tone (the key note) and its lesser partials (functions: I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii). These harmonic aspects of tonality are not "put there" as tools by the artist; they are inherent to the system, and exist _before_ music is created from this.



Marschallin Blair said:


> So with this said, I ultimately judge the aesthetic quality of a piece of music by the impression the logically-integrated collage and flow of sounds can impress upon me...*I'm an Impressionist to the tips of my fingers.* I'm fully aware that I'm not experiencing 'color' or 'sound' in some absolute, unfiltered, Kantian _ding-an-sich_ sense; but rather that I'm experiencing the_ effect _of my senses interpreting the world around me.


Then you are saying that music, for you, is a sensual experience of the ear, which hears harmonically. *Impressionism* is harmonic music by its nature. Oftentimes it does not have "horizontal function" as in traditional tonality, but it is definitely harmonic, because it uses harmonic structures: triads, seventh chords, ninth chords, scales, temporary key areas, etc.

So if we give tonality a broader, less academic, more general definition, Impressionism is a "generally tonal" music which is often "tone-centric" and has a tonal center, if not a "key area." This "tonal-centric" aspect is what makes it possible to have harmony, because there is a harmonic hierarchy.

Serialism, by contrast, has no_ inherent, built-in_ harmonic basis. It is totally melodic in structure. That's because the row is ordered.

A tonal scale is not ordered; it is an "index" of notes. But a scale refers to a key note. A tone row does not refer to anything except its own internal relations.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Serialism, by contrast, has no_ inherent, built-in_ harmonic basis. It is totally melodic in structure. That's because the row is ordered.


*SO WHAT?*

The fact that it doesn't inherently generate a harmonic structure doesn't mean that one cannot be generated from it, nor that any such structure generated thereby is somehow irrelevant.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)




----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> *SO WHAT?*
> 
> The fact that it doesn't inherently generate a harmonic structure doesn't mean that one cannot be generated from it, nor that any such structure generated thereby is somehow irrelevant.


The fact that serial methods can be used to create harmonically-perceived structures does not mean that these effects are "irrelevant;" I never said that. But neither does it mean that they are "tonal."

Our ears can perceive harmonic constructs, such as triads and centers of tonality, but this implies a reference; harmony is based on a fundamental and its lesser constituent partials/harmonics. This is an hierarchy of reference, with the central, fundamental note as the main reference.

Serialism is *not* a music based on harmonic principles; it is based on melodic and intervallic principles. Any "harmonic" structures which result, or are perceived as 'tonal' _(bad use of the term) _are heard by our ears as such, because* hearing is based on harmonic principles.
*
Thus, the 'tonal-sounding" structures we might hear in serial music are not "irrelevant,'_ but neither are they *"tonal"* in any real sense._

A composer such as *Berg* used serial methods in this way, to _"simulate"_ tonal structures such as I-Vs and such, but he also tended to mix his tonal ideas in with serial ideas, so his example only obscures the issue.

Berg used many of the same "quasi-tonal" principles that Bartok used, such as the whole-tone scale, in his transitional *Four Songs Op. 2, No. 2,* and the way it can be used to generate two "dominant" areas, accessible by half-steps. In this song, there is only one Bb chord with a stable fifth above the bass, which indicates the unstable harmonic nature of most of the chords, and this b5 is in keeping with the b5 of the whole tone scale, C-Gb or F-B. The song has no key signature, and almost all notes have accidentals.

But this kind of quasi-tonal or "freely atonal" transitional style is still "tonal" or tone-centric in nature, and thus, is inherently *harmonic,* because it still uses a harmonic hierarchy/reference to a center note, even if that centric "seed" is localized and fleeting, to generate its structures. 
A whole-tone scale is still a _*scale*_, which is an index of notes with _no ordering,_ *not* a tone row. It still can reference a local tone center, however shifting or ambiguous that center may be.

The true significance of serialism, by ordering the notes of the row, precludes any real, permanent, lasting "hierarchy of reference" to any note except the one preceding or succeeding; so any reference to a specific pitch is automatically absent. a tone row is not about "pitch identities," but distances and intervals._That's why the row can be transposed and inverted and reversed: it is meant to be seen and used as a template of interval relations not referring to any specific pitch, but only relations._

You can't hang on to "pitch identities" in listening to serial music, because "pitch identities" (specific pitch names like A, B, C, etc) do not exist; only relations and intervals exist structurally. All else is illusion.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The fact that serial methods can be used to create harmonically-perceived structures does not mean that these effects are "irrelevant;" I never said that. But neither does it mean that they are "tonal."
> 
> Our ears can perceive harmonic constructs, such as triads and centers of tonality, but this implies a reference; harmony is based on a fundamental and its lesser constituent partials/harmonics. This is an hierarchy of reference, with the central, fundamental note as the main reference.
> 
> ...


It depends on your conception of musical time.

As a whole a piece can be tonal or atonal, but atonal pieces can have passing moments of tonality, absolutely. How can a musical moment not be 'real', even if it establishes a tonality only to destroy that tonality a beat later? That is perhaps why atonality cannot really exist in 12 tone music, because it relies on passing moments of implied tonality to function.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2014)

How about we just forget about theory for just a second or two and consider the perception of serial music. (Why "aural perception"? Is that anything like the visual perception of paintings? Or the gustatory enjoyment of food?)

And, with anything else, it depends. And it depends less on the characteristics of serial music (which we're having the devil of a time agreeing about) than it does on the experiences and abilities of an auditor.

When I was first listening to 20th century music, I was first attracted to asymmetry, in rhythm and in melody. So of course, I liked Bartok and Stravinsky and Prokofiev. I moved from there to electroacoustic music, starting with Varese. Who was also pretty asymmetrical, come to think of it. And I moved from there to experimental music, referring to the indeterminacy of Cage and others as well as the products of the Fluxus folks.

Only after some serious exploration of turntablism (starting with Christian Marclay) and other kinds of eai, did I seriously try any serial music, which, coming after the likes of Mumma and Karkowski and Ferrari, sounded quite ordinary and normal. The stuff for orchestra sounded like orchestral music. The stuff for smaller ensembles sounded like chamber music. And so forth. It all seemed to move through time much like 18th and 19th century music does (and like experimental and eai and the non-repetitive kinds of minimalism largely do not). It is fun to listen to an early piece by Schoenberg and then a late(ish) one, to an early work by Petrassi and then a late one. Same for Wellesz and Krenek (sort of) and Gerhard. But underneath all the obvious and inarguable differences between the pre-serial works and serial ones, what I was most struck by was how each of these people each sounded like their own sweet selves, early or late. (So it's not just Stravinsky, you see. It's everyone.)

I perceive serial music as consisting of all the familar elements of 19 century music except for not having keys. And the rows are an ordering principle not all that much different from a key. Maybe million is absolutely correct in everything he says about the technical realities of keys and rows. To my ears, coming to serialism quite late (I was in my fifties) and only after experiencing quite a lot of other things that have little or nothing to do with pitch relations or harmonic functions, serialism sounded quite a lot like tonal music. All the elements of pulse and timbre and development, all the ordinary sounds of instruments as played within the familar constraints of 19th century practice, all that is there in serial music as it is in tonal music.

I've even entertained the idea that the kerfluffle over pantonality, dodecaphony, and serialism was manufactured by people who had no interest in actually listening to the music (a sense I also get when I read Lerdahl) but only in advancing some agenda or other. I was at a concert in Portland a couple of years ago in which a Fred Sherry ensemble played Schoenberg's third string quartet. t sounded very pretty. It had pleasant and easy to follow melodies and motifs. My oldest son and I, when it was over, looked at each other and grinned. Then something peculiar happened. A guy a couple of rows ahead of us turned to his partner and said, "Yeah, Schoenberg isn't really for listening to; it's more for studying."

I almost said something to him, but my son, who is wiser and calmer than I, dissuaded me. It was clear, though, that we had heard two completely different things. And I believe (with no basis for my belief) that what that guy heard was what he had gathered from reading critics or talking to conservative musicians. Too bad. He could have heard a quite pleasant piece. If only he had just let it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Jobis said:


> It depends on your conception of musical time.
> 
> As a whole a piece can be tonal or atonal, but atonal pieces can have passing moments of tonality, absolutely. How can a musical moment not be 'real', even if it establishes a tonality only to destroy that tonality a beat later?


Just as long as you don't call an serial-derived passage which alludes to a tonal effect "tonal."

For example. I could make a tone row of triads, like C-E-G, D-F-A, G-B-D#-C#-D#A#, but it wouldn't be "tonal." There is no harmonic function to this series.

Likewise, I could make a row out of the whole tone scales, both of them: C-D-E-F#-G#-Bb, C#-D#-F-G-A-B, and it would not be "two whole tone scales," because they are ordered.

They are not an "index" of notes, like all scales are, which can be drawn from as an unordered set; and that's what it takes to have a tonal hierarchy: all notes are to be related to one key note.

There can be no key note here; the ordering insures that no note will be dominant.

In this sense, the Berg song I cited, *Four Songs Op. 2, No. 2,* is *tonal *because it can draw _freely _(in any order) from the two whole tone scales. Thus, even as whole-tone scales are tonally ambiguous, they are still *tonal *because they are unordered scales; and as such, they imply and relate to various tone centers in a very flexible way. Thus, the Berg song is a "transitional tonal" work, called "free atonality." But this approach is still "tonal" in the general sense, in that various "tone centers," even if localized and fleeting, can be implied.

These are "fleeting tonality" in a structural sense, not an illusory sense.

If you want to hear atonal music structures as "tonal," that's like looking at clouds and saying "I see a ducky! I see a man walking!" Who am I to argue with imagination?



Jobis said:


> How can a musical moment not be 'real', even if it establishes a tonality only to destroy that tonality a beat later?


I never said the resulting illusion would not be "real" or audible as music; just that it should not be analyzed as "tonal."



Jobis said:


> That is perhaps why atonality cannot really exist in 12 tone music, because it relies on passing moments of implied tonality to function.


That's hilarious. Can I quote you on that?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> There can be no key note here; the ordering insures that no note will be dominant.


No it doesn't. That's the whole point of my disagreement with you. The ordering ensures no such thing, and can be utilized to make any of the 12 pitch classes a center.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The following is an excerpt from the text *Theories and Analyses of Twentieth Century Music* by J. Kent Williams:
> 
> (quote)
> The fact that laymen and some musicians find serial music difficult to comprehend has been acknowledged by a number of writers.


You just can't trust those laymen, can you, to listen to music properly, and have an honest response to it. But I suppose if you contend that music isn't for the layman in the first place, you needn't write a book analysing the responses you get from them, since the professionals will get it straightaway!



millionrainbows said:


> Meyer and Lerdahl, for example, contend in separate essays that for music to be meaningful, a listener must be able to deduce its hierarchical structure through listening.


I don't need to read any further. For music to be 'meaningful' it has to be listened to by a mind that wishes to engage with it. For a film to be meaningful, you need to want to watch it; you don't need to understand how it has been put together. The same can be said of all artistic endeavour.

There is, I think, no need for _deep _technical analysis of why some people say they find 'serial music difficult to comprehend'. Just get a range of listeners to experience a piece and explain their responses. Compare and contrast and you'll find an explanation that doesn't require a debate about whether "_ordering insures that no note will be dominant".

_I should add, I suppose, that of course there are artists who have produced work for other artists, not for the plebs, and for them, the subsequent debate about meaning and structure is, I'm sure, very satisfying and the whole point of the exercise. But the rest of us just want to listen (or not). That's the point of aural, isn't it?


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2014)

One of my favorite Feldman anecdotes:

A student brought a new piece to Feldman, asking him what he thought about its structure. Feldman's response was to place each page on the floor of his office and walk on them, saying "Structure? Structure? Structure is for bridges. This is a piece of music."

(Neither Feldman nor the student being an example of a pleb, just by the way.)


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Just as long as you don't call an serial-derived passage which alludes to a tonal effect "tonal."
> 
> For example. I could make a tone row of triads, like C-E-G, D-F-A, G-B-D#-C#-D#A#, but it wouldn't be "tonal." There is no harmonic function to this series.
> 
> ...


I think its more absurd to say that because a tone row is laid out in a linear way that it cannot produce music that functions harmonically. Serial music is far more than just the product of a tone row. The tone row is raw material, it is up to the composer to derive harmonic relationships and melodic lines from this material.

I feel like we don't understand each other at all, because I am quite bad at expressing this, or maybe the idea I'm trying to express is just bogus anyway but here goes.

Atonality cannot exist as long as tones interact with each other harmonically. To say that tonality relies on a tonal heirarchy is like saying society relies on a social hierarchy. Even supposing that were the case, you cannot say that serialism does not inevitably produce certain hierarchies from moment to moment.

To quote Schoenberg:
"The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone... to call any relation of tones atonal is just as far-fetched as it would be to designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary. There is no such antithesis"

Since composers were able to modulate they could change the tonal centre of a piece. We also know that all 12 tones can be derived from the overtone series of a single compound pitch. Why is it so bizarre to say that perhaps tonality is unavoidable because of this?

I know you talk of functional tonality, but functional tonality is just a description of that types of laws that governed music before 'atonality' arose, not a concrete, absolute principle.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

This seems like another 'serialism is against physics and nature' argument... meh...

It's made of sounds. And sounds are physical and part of nature. That's enough for me.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Some serial music can, on first hearing, sound random. That is partially what disconcerts people. But even a truly random string of notes, when listened to repeatedly, can grow on one, and even take on an appearance of structure, With music that actually has structure, this can eventually be apprehended -- even if only subliminally. A piece that has merit requires repeated listenings, which many people won't give something that is initially offputting.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> How about we just forget about theory for just a second or two and consider the perception of serial music.


How about we don't.



some guy said:


> (Why "aural perception"? Is that anything like the visual perception of paintings? Or the gustatory enjoyment of food?)


That's an interesting "aside." The textbook's chapter title "Aural Perception" suggests that "sensual" input is the focus, emphasizing the way the ear hears and de-emphasizing any cerebral, intellectual, or theoretical considerations. After all, that's the primary way we listen, isn't it? Aurally, sensually, and only secondarily theoretically or intellectually?

The thing everyone seems to have trouble seeing, even Mahlerian (who is grounded in theory), is that we always hear things *harmonically.* That's the way our ears work.

And tonality is based on a harmonic hierarchy. It "models" the natural way we hear a fundamental (key note) and its partials (other scale member functions).

Serialism does not incorporate this harmonic model, by design, into its structure; but _the caveat_ is that, regardless, we always hear harmonically.



some guy said:


> And, with anything else, it depends. And it depends less on the characteristics of serial music (which we're having the devil of a time agreeing about) than it does on the experiences and abilities of an auditor.


"Everything is subjective" is a justification for the fact that we hear harmonically. Even Mahlerian has fallen prey to the misconception that "musical" music is "tonal" or "sounds tonal" even if it's serially-based. That's confusing tonality (a system based on a harmonic model) with "harmonic hearing," which is purely sensual, based on the way we hear a fundamental & its partials. We always hear harmonically; that's why Debussy works for us, even at his most radical; but that's not "tonality," that is harmonic. All music is harmonic in its effect on our ears, but not in its structure.



some guy said:


> When I was first listening to 20th century music, I was first attracted to asymmetry, in rhythm and in melody. So of course, I liked Bartok and Stravinsky and Prokofiev. I moved from there to electroacoustic music, starting with Varese. Who was also pretty asymmetrical, come to think of it. And I moved from there to experimental music, referring to the indeterminacy of Cage and others as well as the products of the Fluxus folks.


Boy, I hate to hear you throw around the term "asymmetry" like that, someguy. It's the opposite: Bartok & modernists exploited *symmetry* (division of the octave at the tritone, projection of symmetric intervals), not asymmetry.



some guy said:


> Only after some serious exploration of turntablism (starting with Christian Marclay) and other kinds of eai, did I seriously try any serial music, which, coming after the likes of Mumma and Karkowski and Ferrari, sounded quite ordinary and normal. The stuff for orchestra sounded like orchestral music. The stuff for smaller ensembles sounded like chamber music. And so forth. It all seemed to move through time much like 18th and 19th century music does (and like experimental and eai and the non-repetitive kinds of minimalism largely do not). It is fun to listen to an early piece by Schoenberg and then a late(ish) one, to an early work by Petrassi and then a late one. Same for Wellesz and Krenek (sort of) and Gerhard. But underneath all the obvious and inarguable differences between the pre-serial works and serial ones, what I was most struck by was how each of these people each sounded like their own sweet selves, early or late. (So it's not just Stravinsky, you see. It's everyone.)


That's only natural, since 12-tone music is closely associated with the end results of tonality, and is concerned with pitch as its main concern. Timbre was left up to the instruments, or whatever effects could be squeezed out of them.



some guy said:


> I perceive serial music as consisting of all the familar elements of 19 century music except for not having keys. And the rows are an ordering principle not all that much different from a key.


It's the _*differences*_ that matter, though. And therein lies the subtle answer that seems to be beyond the grasp.* Simple things matter.*



some guy said:


> Maybe million is absolutely correct in everything he says about the technical realities of keys and rows. To my ears, coming to serialism quite late (I was in my fifties) and only after experiencing quite a lot of other things that have little or nothing to do with pitch relations or harmonic functions, serialism sounded quite a lot like tonal music.


Here we go again, "defending" serialism by saying "it sounds musical, like tonality." The confusion is that we always hear sustained pitches (tones, not noise) harmonically. All "sustained pitch music" is heard harmonically, whether it's tonal or not.



some guy said:


> All the elements of pulse and timbre and development, all the ordinary sounds of instruments as played within the familar constraints of 19th century practice, all that is there in serial music as it is in tonal music.


I'm not discussing those other characteristics, just tonality, harmony, and how we perceive tonality.



some guy said:


> I've even entertained the idea that the kerfluffle over pantonality, dodecaphony, and serialism was manufactured by people who had no interest in actually listening to the music (a sense I also get when I read Lerdahl) but only in advancing some agenda or other.


No, the "kerfluffle" is over the subtle differences: differences between scales and tone rows, ordered and unordered sets, harmonic function, congruence of melodic lines, and what "harmonic model" means.



some guy said:


> I was at a concert in Portland a couple of years ago in which a Fred Sherry ensemble played Schoenberg's third string quartet. t sounded very pretty. It had pleasant and easy to follow melodies and motifs. My oldest son and I, when it was over, looked at each other and grinned. Then something peculiar happened. A guy a couple of rows ahead of us turned to his partner and said, "Yeah, Schoenberg isn't really for listening to; it's more for studying."


Once again, "hearing music" is not seen as "harmonic hearing," or "just sound" which will happen regardless, but is used as a
"defense" of 12-tone music. The other guy's problem was a cerebral/conceptual one, not sensual. He has ears, but his brain got in the way. But that doesn't mean that someguy has seen the true difference in 12-tone and tonality, although, since he hears it harmonically, he thinks he has.

Still, true 12-tone and serial music will sound different from tonality, and more difficult for most, because it cannot sustain a harmonic reference as long. It is polyphonic, and whatever harmony is heard is an after-effect of those lines, not an intrinsic part of the system. If it was, it would be tonality.



some guy said:


> I almost said something to him, but my son, who is wiser and calmer than I, dissuaded me. It was clear, though, that we had heard two completely different things.


No you didn't; you just interpreted them differently, after the fact of the harmonic sound.



some guy said:


> And I believe (with no basis for my belief) that what that guy heard was what he had gathered from reading critics or talking to conservative musicians. Too bad. He could have heard a quite pleasant piece. If only he had just let it.


That's true of all sound. But apparently, he is a specialist who likes harmonically-based systems of music; whereas, someguy, you can listen to any sound put forth as music as music, and perhaps beyond that. That's good, but don't pretend to have solved the question of "what is tonality?" that I asked myself some years and many books ago.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> don't pretend to have solved the question of "what is tonality?"


You'll be relieved to find out that I have never tried to solve (or even to answer) this question, any more than I have ever tried to defend serialism. So I won't be doing any pretending, either.

I'm just not interested in tonality, you see.

I just remarked that I when I hear serial music, I hear something that's not all that different from cpt. Other's mileage may vary. The subject heading says "aural perception." So I thought I'd just offer what I perceive when I listen to serial music.

Now back to some nice erikm. (Stème.)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> One of my favorite Feldman anecdotes:
> 
> A student brought a new piece to Feldman, asking him what he thought about its structure. Feldman's response was to place each page on the floor of his office and walk on them, saying "Structure? Structure? Structure is for bridges. This is a piece of music."
> 
> (Neither Feldman nor the student being an example of a pleb, just by the way.)


Love it 

Structure is for engineered objects made of tangible materials -- which is why, maybe, that whole common practice symphonic structure strikes more than a few as severely false or at least highly synthetic. "Musical glue," a fairly intangible and variable stuff in itself, is what "holds musical pieces together."


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Love it
> 
> Structure is for engineered objects made of tangible materials -- which is why, maybe, that whole common practice symphonic structure strikes more than a few as severely false or at least highly synthetic. "Musical glue," a fairly intangible and variable stuff in itself, is what "holds musical pieces together."


The problem is that "we" constantly borrow terms from other disciplines and people often takes these analogies way too far.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> The problem is that "we" constantly borrow terms from other disciplines and people often takes these analogies way too far.


Amen to that! ... like the "Classical music tells a story" _analogy._ It is egregiously taught as near to or actually literal, and even if not wrongly taught, it is wildly misunderstood as being literal -- not taken as analogy at all -- and that makes for a stinking heap of misinformation and misunderstanding.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, don't worry about the "structure" of music; just lie back in your hot bath and let the music wash over you, and like it or not like it. Remember, in America, intelligence is seen as a hideous deformity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

millionrainbows said:"...don't pretend to have solved the question of "what is tonality?"



some guy said:


> You'll be relieved to find out that I have never tried to solve (or even to answer) this question, any more than I have ever tried to defend serialism. So I won't be doing any pretending, either...I'm just not interested in tonality, you see.


But in involving yourself, you have entered a discussion whose purpose is to question some views (some pro-serialism, some antagonistic) concerning the perception of serial music vs. tonal music, and how serial music might be more difficult than listening to tonality, just in terms of basic information and how we perceive things. To deny this seems to me somewhat disingenuous. After all, it's based on an essay by a recognized composer, and refuted by some dude working on his master's thesis.

And you did offer these observations about "asymmetry" and other aspects:



some guy said:


> ...I was first attracted to asymmetry, in rhythm and in melody...serial music...sounded quite ordinary and normal. The stuff for orchestra sounded like orchestral music. The stuff for smaller ensembles sounded like chamber music. And so forth. It all seemed to move through time much like 18th and 19th century music does...


Again, you are refusing to discuss the differences in serial music, but rather emphasize the similarities with tonality, which is a disingenuous position, and seeks to "defend" serialism by equating it with tonal music. We all know this is not true; serial music sounds quite different, because it is based on different principles than the harmonic model of tonality.



some guy said:


> ...I perceive serial music as consisting of all the familiar elements of 19 century music except for not having keys. And the rows are an ordering principle not all that much different from a key.


This sounds like much more than a "perceptual observation." You seem to be side-stepping any real issue by hiding behind vague statements or truisms...



some guy said:


> ...Maybe million is absolutely correct in everything he says about the technical realities of keys and rows. To my ears...serialism sounded quite a lot like tonal music.


Again, you are side-steeping any real substantive engagement by labeling the facts as "technicalities," but these aspects are clearly audible.



some guy said:


> ...All the elements of pulse and timbre and development, all the ordinary sounds of instruments as played within the familiar constraints of 19th century practice, all that is there in serial music as it is in tonal music.


...except tonality and harmony.



some guy said:


> ...I've even entertained the idea that the kerfluffle over pantonality, dodecaphony, and serialism was manufactured by people who had no interest in actually listening to the music (a sense I also get when I read Lerdahl) but only in advancing some agenda or other.


Or in writing music, like Lerdahl, Hindemith, Schoenberg, Boulez...but those turntable and electroacoustic guys don't have to worry about all that "tonality kerfluffle," do they? Or even with sustained pitch. :lol:



some guy said:


> "Yeah, Schoenberg isn't really for listening to; it's more for studying."


Funny how what he said fits right in to your anti-intellectual agenda. But I'm not that guy...I enjoy and understand such music.



some guy said:


> ...He could have heard a quite pleasant piece. If only he had just let it.


Again, why do we let the true understanding of music conflict with its enjoyment, as if the two things were at odds?

Having an intellectual sense of art is a large part of my listening experience, and doesn't diminish it at all.

It seems a lot of listeners like to "play dumb" as an escape from having to use their minds.



some guy said:


> I just remarked that I when I hear serial music, I hear something that's not all that different from cpt. Other's mileage may vary. The subject heading says "aural perception." So I thought I'd just offer what I perceive when I listen to serial music. Now back to some nice erikm. (Stème.)


Don't worry...Be happy....


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> ...those turntable and electroacoustic guys don't have to worry about all that "tonality kerfluffle," do they? Or even with sustained pitch. :lol:


Mocking turntable and electroacoustic musicians for not having to worry about tonality makes about as much sense as mocking string players for not having to worry about embouchure.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Again, you are refusing to discuss the differences in serial music, but rather emphasize the similarities with tonality, which is a disingenuous position, and seeks to "defend" serialism by equating it with tonal music.


It only needs defending in this thread if you are attacking it...are you?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

some guy said:


> Mocking turntable and electroacoustic musicians for not having to worry about tonality makes about as much sense as mocking string players for not having to worry about embouchure.


Drummers also don't need to worry about tonality, unless you are a freak like Ari Hönig who can play melodies on his drumkit


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> It only needs defending in this thread if you are attacking it...are you?


..............No.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Mocking turntable and electroacoustic musicians for not having to worry about tonality makes about as much sense as mocking string players for not having to worry about embouchure.


No, but I know that you listen to a lot of that, so that suggests that _you _are not concerned with tonality. Yet, here you are invalidating the subject matter contained in the Lerdahl article and the graduate student's rebuttal with the assertion that your subjective experience of what you hear is all that matters.

While I do not deny that right, this thread is not about that; it is an attempt to discuss more objective "commonalities" of experience.

"Subjective experience is inviolate" is the standard rebuttal to such attempts. Good for you, but don't pretend that such a stance negates the premise of this discussion, or that this discussion is an attempt to stereotype this sort of non-intellectual approach to listening.

It seems that the strategy is in sidestepping the question of perception in serial music, and tonal hearing in general, because it is found to be irrelevant to subjective listening habits, which consist mainly, in your case I gather, of electro-acoustic music which is totally outside the bounds of a discussion about serialism and tonality.

These electro-acoustic artists came in after recording was developed, and the 'ear' dimension could be documented. After that, any sound, pitched or not, could be considered as part of a musical composition, because there was no need to stay within the bounds of what traditional notation could do.

These types of comments thus far are more of a distraction than a revelation.

In short, I'm not interested in personal subjective reactions, unless they pertain to this thread in a more objective manner, as Lerdahl and the student-detractor have done.

Now, what was I talking about before I was so cleverly interrupted? Thwack! These mosquitoes are bothersome this time of year...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

aleazk said:


> This seems like another 'serialism is against physics and nature' argument... meh...
> 
> It's made of sounds. And sounds are physical and part of nature. That's enough for me.


And your ears hear the sounds harmonically.


----------

