# Myths About Serial Music



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

From Joseph N. Straus' book "Twelve Tone Music in America," in which he explodes *all *of these myths:

Composition:
The Myth of Serial Orthodoxy
The Myth of Serial Purity
The Myth of Non-Repetition
The Myth of Anti-Tonality
The Myths of Math and Overdetermination
The Myth of the Matrix

History:
The Myth of Serial Origins
The Myth of Integral Serialism
The Myth of Serial Tyranny
The Myth of Serial Demise
The Myth of the Academic Serialist
The Myth of Un-Americanness

Reception:
The Myth of Imperceptibility
The Myth of Theory
The Myth of Inexpressiveness
The Myth of Unnaturalness
The Myth of the Lost Audience
The Myth of Autonomy

Such a refreshing book, which clears away all the same-old invalidations of serial music!
Would anyone like to continue on any of these points?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I read that book a few years ago, but am not interested in discussing these myths. While it was a pretty good read - his book will not stop anyone from believing any or all of these myths.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

He left out the chapter titled "The Myth of Listenableness"


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

pianozach said:


> He left out the chapter titled "The Myth of Listenableness"


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

My day has been brightened up considerably. Cheers.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Well I’ve spent the day grappling with Gruppen, which is totally serial. This may be music for studying, it may be music for watching, it may be music for playing, but I don’t think it’s music for listening to on a stereo system. 

Quite the opposite for Structures 1a, which is also totally serial, and which, IMO, in a good performance, has the poise and brilliance of a diamond. Beautiful. 

So I guess that, where total serialism is concerned, like everything else, how you experience it is a matter of what you’ve had for lunch.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

pianozach said:


> He left out the chapter titled "The Myth of Listenableness"


this type of music is an acquired taste, like beer


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

pianozach said:


> He left out the chapter titled "The Myth of Listenableness"






Jacck said:


> this type of music is an acquired taste, like beer


I'd like another beer, please.

Joe Straus is a rock star in the music theory world. Thanks for posting this, millionrainbows! This release had escaped my notice.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I don't think its primary intent is to be listenable. I think it's primarily an intellectual thing, like chess openings or end games, and as such it can be fascinating.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

consuono said:


> I don't think its primary intent is to be listenable. I think it's primarily an intellectual thing, like chess openings or end games, and as such it can be fascinating.


This is a false statement.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Knorf said:


> This is a false statement.


Is it really? Prove it.

If the primary goal is listenability, and the majority of listeners find it unlistenable, then we would have to say that the style is a failure, wouldn't we?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

One thought is that it was aimed at an audience of cognoscenti who could appreciate its construction intellectually, the Darmstadt audience. I can enjoy it in some performances, but I have no interest in the way it’s been made. This, if true, is about its origins. The important thing for me is its interest today. 

I think a good performer can take something like Strictures 1a and make it beautiful - just by applying all the performance embellishments that musicians know about - rubato, tone colour, tempo and voicing, holding on to notes and silences, all the usual stuff.

I’m talking about Boulez’s and Stockhausen’s 1950s music here, not about Webern! And then not all - Stockhausen’s Gesang Der Jünglinde and Boulez’s Pli selon Pli seem to me instantly accessible to anyone with a soul and anyone with ears.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> One thought is that it was aimed at an audience of cognoscenti who could appreciate its construction intellectually, the Darmstadt audience. I can enjoy it in some performances, but I have no interest in the way it's been made. This, if true, is about its origins. The important thing for me is its interest today.
> 
> I think a good performer can take something like Strictures 1a and make it beautiful - just by applying all the performance embellishments that musicians know about - rubato, tone colour, tempo and voicing, holding on to notes and silences, all the usual stuff.
> 
> I'm talking about Boulez's and Stockhausen's 1950s music here, not a Webern!


I agree. I find some serial music to be not only listenable but often beautiful. But there is also some that I do not enjoy. But I can say that for all music, from all periods, and all genres. From the late-20th into the 21st century, *Charles Wuorinen* (who just died recently) wrote some serial music I've enjoyed quite a lot.

But from what I can tell of the music being written by composers under 50, serialism is not a style used much, if at all, anymore.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> I think a good performer can take something like Strictures 1a and make it beautiful - just *by applying all the performance embellishments that musicians know about* - rubato, tone colour, tempo and voicing, holding on to notes and silences, all the usual stuff.


Sounds rather unfortunate to imply that this is _needed _to make a piece beautiful.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

consuono said:


> Is it really? Prove it.
> 
> If the primary goal is listenability, and the majority of listeners find it unlistenable, then we would have to say that the style is a failure, wouldn't we?


The myth of the non sequitur?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Sounds rather unfortunate to imply that this is _needed _to make a piece beautiful.


It always is IMO. That's to say, the move from score to sound always requires the musician to be creative. The score does not determine the sound of the music. In this way, Structures 1a is no different from a Mozart piano sonata or a piece by Scarlatti.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> But from what I can tell of the music being written by composers under 50, serialism is not a style used much, if at all, anymore.


It's so old fashioned!

I don't know, I think that Richard Barrett uses total serialism creatively - but don't ask me to justify it!

ADDED: Ah - he's over 50. You're right.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

HenryPenfold said:


> The myth of the non sequitur?


What non sequitur? My statement was said to be false. I asked for proof that it was false. I haven't seen any.

It's getting to be quite a thing to Google "logical fallacies" in order to sidestep questions.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Serialism seems a technique, one of many possible, to achieve an art work where "sound" is the main component -- what we call music.

Would anyone who follows this Forum be satisfied had the technique never advanced past Gregorian chant? What was it they said back then? The new composers, with their harmonies and their counterpoint were obscuring the words of praise? And wasn't that the real purpose of musical art? To praise God?

Contemporary composers have the techniques of the past to utilize in ever more creative ways. I even hear Gregorian chant-like lines in contemporary music. Passages that sound like Bach canons, fugues, and other counterpointal issues are there, along side Haydn-Mozart classicism, Romantic orchestration, Impressionist harmonic underpinnings, and Stravinsky-like rhythms. Even Cageian silence. 

Each era of art has its experiments with new techniques. The masterpieces remain few in all fields of artistic endeavor. But they are there, and worth one's time and attention. It's still rather early for us to sort out what are the great representatives of the serial music era or serial music techniques, but they will be known, and revered alongside the great musical artworks of the past.

Meanwhile, we move onward, awaiting the next crop of creative musical geniuses who will define the new techniques that allow us to expand our artistic visions and grow as a creative culture.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> Serialism seems a technique, one of many possible, to achieve an art work where "sound" is the main component -- what we call music.
> 
> Would anyone who follows this Forum be satisfied had the technique never advanced past Gregorian chant? What was it they said back then? The new composers, with their harmonies and their counterpoint were obscuring the words of praise? And wasn't that the real purpose of musical art? To praise God?
> 
> ...


Right. So how do we know that what we think is "progress" isn't actually a regression?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

consuono said:


> Right. So how do we know that what we think is "progress" isn't actually a regression?


Well ... refer me to a serial-like piece from before the Schoenberg era.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> Well ... refer me to a serial-like piece from before the Schoenberg era.


No, I'm just curious about this faith that everything is going to be a progression (with "improvement" implied) of some sort.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

consuono said:


> No, I'm just curious about this faith that everything is going to be a progression (with "improvement" implied) of some sort.


I don't think music progresses but rather changes. I would guess that the majority of TC members do not believe music has progressed (in the sense of being better) in the past roughly 200 years. The 3 favorite TC composers all lived roughly 200 years or more ago.

Many of us find the changes appealing. Perhaps not all of them, but we like to hear new ideas, new components to music.



Mandryka said:


> Well I've spent the day grappling with Gruppen, which is totally serial. This may be music for studying, it may be music for watching, it may be music for playing, but I don't think it's music for listening to on a stereo system.


Given that Gruppen is performed with 3 separate orchestras spaced around the audience, it likely is a different experience than hearing it from a stereo system. Still it was the first work by Stockhausen that I learned to like, and I find it rather enjoyable when I hear it on my home systems.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Knorf said:


> I'd like another beer, please.
> 
> Joe Straus is a rock star in the music theory world. Thanks for posting this, millionrainbows! This release had escaped my notice.


Thanks, Knorf. I would have figured that you read this book several years ago. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I agree. I find some serial music to be not only listenable but often beautiful. But there is also some that I do not enjoy. But I can say that for all music, from all periods, and all genres. From the late-20th into the 21st century, Charles Wuorinen (who just died recently) wrote some serial music I've enjoyed quite a lot.
> 
> *But from what I can tell of the music being written by composers under 50, serialism is not a style used much, if at all, anymore*.


This would fall under the category of *History: The Myth of Serial Demise*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

consuono said:


> Is it really? Prove it.
> 
> If the primary goal is listenability, and the majority of listeners find it unlistenable, then we would have to say that the style is a failure, wouldn't we?


This falls under the categories of:

The Myth of Imperceptibility
The Myth of Inexpressiveness
The Myth of Unnaturalness
The Myth of the Lost Audience


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> This would fall under the category of *History: The Myth of Serial Demise*


I am only basing my opinion on the new music I've been hearing over the last few years. I'd have to find the book and look it up, but if there are younger composers working in a serial style, I am not aware of them. Of course I am no expert in this area, I also am not interested in what method a composer uses.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Fabulin said:


> Sounds rather unfortunate to imply that this is _needed _to make a piece beautiful.


Not necessarily; Boulez' scores look beautiful to me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I am only basing my opinion on the new music I've been hearing over the last few years. I'd have to find the book and look it up, but if there are younger composers working in a serial style, I am not aware of them. Of course I am no expert in this area, I also am not interested in what method a composer uses.


*David Froom* comes to mind, as well as Wuorinen (relatively speaking since serialism's inception). After reading the Cambridge book Serialism, I'm more hesitant to draw such strict lines around serial thought. It's influence has "trickled down."


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

consuono said:


> No, I'm just curious about this faith that everything is going to be a progression (with "improvement" implied) of some sort.


I don't believe I implied "improvement" at all. I certainly didn't use the word in my post. I did suggest "expansion", with an implication of "development". I never saw art development as any sort of "improvement" or competition where "My art is better than your art" holds any kind of sway. Frankly, I'm pleased we have expanded music with the techniques of serialism, just as I'm pleased someone earlier did so by inventing harmonies, tempered tonality, fugal development, sonata form, modal tonalities, chance operations ....


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> *David Froom* comes to mind, as well as Wuorinen (relatively speaking since serialism's inception). After reading the Cambridge book Serialism, I'm more hesitant to draw such strict lines around serial thought. It's influence has "trickled down."


Wuorinen was in his 80s when he died last year. I said composers under 50, today. I'm not familiar with David Froom, but a quick check shows him to be 69.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> This would fall under the category of *History: The Myth of Serial Demise*


There's a comment I once heard a professional musician make. He said that the much of the last half of the c20 was about taking apart aspects of music which had been previously connected. In serial music, for example, pitch and timbre and duration were disconnected from each other totally. You see this so clearly in Stockhausen's lectures on Mantra, and Boulez in Structures 1a had series for pitch, attack, duration etc. But think also of the way Feldman span out a trivial little motif to four hours, a total disconnection between content and scale.

And, he said, modern music is about putting these things back together again in new exciting ways.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> I don't believe I implied "improvement" at all. I certainly didn't use the word in my post. I did suggest "expansion", with an implication of "development". I never saw art development as any sort of "improvement" or competition where "My art is better than your art" holds any kind of sway...


Maybe not a "competition", but art has always "grown" or "expanded" by building on the achievements of predecessors, not dismantling them.


Mandryka said:


> There's a comment I once heard a professional musician make. He said that the much of the last half of the c20 was about taking apart aspects of music which had been previously connected. In serial music, for example, pitch and timbre and duration were disconnected from each other totally. You see this so clearly in Stockhausen's lectures on Mantra, and Boulez in Structures 1a had series for pitch, attack, duration etc. But think also of the way Feldman span out a trivial little motif to four hours, a total disconnection between content and scale.
> 
> And, he said, modern music is about putting these things back together again in new exciting ways.


And what was the purpose and cause of all this dismantling and putting back together? There's also the disconnect between composers and audience.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> And what was the purpose and cause of all this dismantling and putting back together? There's also the disconnect between composers and audience.


Well before thinking about that interesting question let's all agree that my description is correct, just as a factual statement about what was going on from, say, 1960 or even before with Webern to the 1980s or thereabouts with Feldman long form music.

(May have dates wrong, it's late here and I've drunk half a bottle of Rhône.)


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

pianozach said:


> He left out the chapter titled "The Myth of Listenableness"


I find the following serial works to be quite listenable:

1. Schoenberg: _Serenade_
2. Stravinsky: _The Flood_
3. Boulez: _Hammer Without a Master_
4. Berg: _Violin Concerto_
5. Any number of works by Dallapiccola


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Serial composers I find listenable include:

Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Carter, Sessions, Schuller, Riegger and many others.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The reason I don't like serial music in general is because I don't think it sounds good. Whether or not there are a bunch of myths surrounding serialism has no impact on why I don't like it. I wasn't frightened away by any of the myths. I listened to the music, used my ears and came to the conclusion that I don't like it. To each their own.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

tdc said:


> The reason I don't like serial music in general is because I don't think it sounds good. Whether or not there are a bunch of myths surrounding serialism has no impact on why I don't like it. I wasn't frightened away by any of the myths. I listened to the music, used my ears and came to the conclusion that I don't like it. To each their own.


This is exactly the same process in which I came to like some serial works. I have never been interested in methods and information about a work other than the work itself. It either lands with me or not. Your response is absolutely true, and it is refreshing for you to say you don't like it and leave it at that.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> And what was the purpose and cause of all this dismantling and putting back together? There's also the disconnect between composers and audience.


The purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads. No composer needs your, or anyone's, permission to write the kind of music they wish to compose.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> The purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads. No composer needs your, or anyone's, permission to write the kind of music they wish to compose.


No they don't, and I like many others can choose not to listen. But I thought they *wanted* me to listen. I guess not, then. Today, anyway.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Serial VS Tonal*

Debate on whether or not serial music is classical had been going on in this forum for over a decade.

According to most of the polls that have appeared here the majority of the members like atonal music as well as tonal. I found this one:

https://www.talkclassical.com/42961-atonal-tonal-poll.html?highlight=poll+atonal

There are many others.

In all of that time I do not know of a single instance where a person convinced a member that followed serial music (or any other form of modern music) that it was not classical.

The bottom line is that no one is holding a gun to a member's head and forcing them to like serial music. One had the right to like or dislike serial of any other form of classical music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> No they don't, and I like many others can choose not to listen. But I thought they *wanted* me to listen. I guess not, then. Today, anyway.


Not you, obviously, since you have a strong animosity to what many of them are doing. They put their music out there for anyone to enjoy, anyone who has the kind of temperament and curiosity to give it a fair hearing.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Not you, obviously, since you have a strong animosity to what many of them are doing. They put their music out there for anyone to enjoy, anyone who has the kind of temperament and curiosity to give it a fair hearing.


I wouldn't call it animosity as much as indifference. And that indifference that the majority of even classical music fans just *might* be caused by what they hear.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

consuono said:


> I don't think its primary intent is to be listenable. I think it's primarily an intellectual thing, like chess openings or end games, and as such it can be fascinating.





Knorf said:


> This is a false statement.





consuono said:


> Is it really? Prove it.
> 
> If the primary goal is listenability, and the majority of listeners find it unlistenable, then we would have to say that the style is a failure, wouldn't we?





Mandryka said:


> One thought is that it was aimed at an audience of cognoscenti who could appreciate its construction intellectually, the Darmstadt audience. I can enjoy it in some performances, but I have no interest in the way it's been made. This, if true, is about its origins. The important thing for me is its interest today.
> 
> I think a good performer can take something like Strictures 1a and make it beautiful - just by applying all the performance embellishments that musicians know about - rubato, tone colour, tempo and voicing, holding on to notes and silences, all the usual stuff.
> 
> I'm talking about Boulez's and Stockhausen's 1950s music here, not about Webern! And then not all - Stockhausen's Gesang Der Jünglinde and Boulez's Pli selon Pli seem to me instantly accessible to anyone with a soul and anyone with ears.


I can certainly appreciate the piece on an intellectual level, just like *No. 5, 1948* by Jackson Pollock, or *Well Well Well* by John Lennon, but I wouldn't decorate the house with No. 5, nor would I play Well Well Well at dinner.

A giant "anything shredder" may not be much to look at, but I can appreciate it intellectually.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

pianozach said:


> I can certainly appreciate the piece on an intellectual level, just like *No. 5, 1948* by Jackson Pollock, or *Well Well Well* by John Lennon, but I wouldn't decorate the house with No. 5, nor would I play Well Well Well at dinner.
> 
> A giant "anything shredder" may not be much to look at, but I can appreciate it intellectually.


I'm not a rock-n-roll guy. Even so, I do like most of what the Beatles did, but I still wouldn't listen to _Well, Well, Well_in any case because I don't like it. And since Gal Gadot and those Hollywood clown ruined _Imagine_ for me,that makes TWO John Lennon songs I'll never hear again unless the I find myself being tortured by the enemy.

As for Jackson Pollack as wall art, it depends. I'm very interested in fine art reproductions as part of interior decorating. My wife and I placed a Grandma Moses reproduction in the living room and it gave off an instant feeling of domestic bliss and quaint New England charm. I have a Seurat and a Picasso reproduction in my office to give it that sophisticated and intellectual look. I think a Pollack reproduction would go well in a bachelor pad to give it that wild and free look.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*Jackson Pollock* is among my favorite painters. My wife and I went to the retrospective in 1998 at MoMA and it was fantastic. We bought a large poster (6' X 4') of _One: Number 31, 1950_ and it has hung in our home ever since.

Don't know the Lennon song "Well, Well, Well."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Wuorinen was in his 80s when he died last year. I said composers under 50, today. I'm not familiar with David Froom, but a quick check shows him to be 69.


 Brian Ferneyhough, representing "The New Complexity," is a new rallying point.
Joseph Schwantner (b. 1943)
Peter Lieberson (b.1943)

Jonathan Dawe, Louis Karchin, Andrew Mead, Robert Morris, Jeff Nichols, David Smalley, Judd Darby, Dan Welcher

Of course, these are all mature composers, but this is no reason to perpetuate the myth of "serial demise" unless we delete a substantial segment of history.

Serialism certainly went out of fashion by around 1980, but the older composers continued to write (Elliott Carter: Night Fantasies). It can even be said it's "old-fashioned" since it has been around for a century, but we can't ignore the later works produced by Babbitt, Wuorinen, Carter, Shapey, and Donald Martino unless we want a falsified view of American musical history.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> You didn't specify "composers under 50." Still, that doesn't prove that there are no young composers using serial ideas.


Here's my original post:



SanAntone said:


> I agree. I find some serial music to be not only listenable but often beautiful. But there is also some that I do not enjoy. But I can say that for all music, from all periods, and all genres. From the late-20th into the 21st century, *Charles Wuorinen* (who just died recently) wrote some serial music I've enjoyed quite a lot.
> 
> *But from what I can tell of the music being written by composers under 50, serialism is not a style used much, if at all, anymore.*


Which I guess you didn't read.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Well I would expect there are some active young composers who have used klagfarbenmelodie or isorhythm. Can’t think who though. Barrett composes like Stockhausen in a way - all the elements of the music are broken down and treated equally. But he’s not a young composer, I think he worked with Stockhausen in fact. 


If or me it’s a minor issue, whether a work is serial or not. It is about how it was made. What matters most to me is whether there is anything exciting which is happening in sound.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Well I would expect there are some active young composers who have used klagfarbenmelodie or isorhythm. Can't think who though.


Matthias Pintscher?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Here's my original post:
> 
> Which I guess you didn't read.


No, I just forgot it, since that was post #12 way back on page one.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Brian Ferneyhough, representing "The New Complexity," is a new rallying point.
> Joseph Schwantner (b. 1943)
> Peter Lieberson (b.1943)
> 
> ...


IMO "New Complexity" is almost as old fashioned as Total Serialism. New Simplicity is where it's at, man. And structured improvisations.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Well I would expect there are some active young composers who have used klagfarbenmelodie or isorhythm. Can't think who though. Barrett composes like Stockhausen in a way - all the elements of the music are broken down and treated equally. But he's not a young composer, I think he worked with Stockhausen in fact.
> 
> If or me it's a minor issue, whether a work is serial or not. It is about how it was made. What matters most to me is whether there is anything exciting which is happening in sound.


I think you have a wise view, Mandryka, in seeing how composers "break down" the elements of pitch, rhythm, etc. and treat them separately. As I said earlier from the Cambridge book _Serialism_, its influence has had a "trickle down" effect.

The stricter view of defining serialism might be OK to use as a platform for argument, but like you, I feel it's not the central issue. There is still exciting "modernism" happening which owes a substantial debt to serial thought and its offspring.



Mandryka said:


> IMO "New Complexity" is almost as old fashioned as Total Serialism. New Simplicity is where it's at, man. And structured improvisations.


I take that to mean you esteem the *simplicity* of Glass, Reich, and Minimalism, and the *improvisation *aleatoric/chance methods developed by John Cage, Ligeti, and Feldman, above serial innovations? Those trends are rather dated as well.

We can chase trends here, or try to establish a 'history of thought' in American music history.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Well I would expect there are some active young composers who have used klagfarbenmelodie or isorhythm. Can't think who though. Barrett composes like Stockhausen in a way - all the elements of the music are broken down and treated equally. But he's not a young composer, I think he worked with Stockhausen in fact.
> 
> If or me it's a minor issue, whether a work is serial or not. It is about how it was made. What matters most to me is whether there is anything exciting which is happening in sound.


That's right. It is the music itself that I am interested in, not what method that produced it.

Throughout the history a style of composition lasted for a few decades and then evolved into a new style. Bach's contrapuntal style became the Gallant style promoted by CPE Bach and others. Then, Haydn and Mozart wrote in the Classical style, which Beethoven began in but then was a transitional composer to the Romantic style.

I don't have an agenda (as does the author of the book) of maximizing the importance of the serial style.

As I wrote in my post, I listen to a good amount of new music written by composers in their 20s - 40s and none, as far as I can tell, write in a serial style. They are more concerned with sound for its own sake, texture, advanced instrumental techniques, and sometimes referencing and combining various styles.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I wouldn't consider Elliott Carter writing in a serial style. Wuorinen and Babbitt, for sure; not sure about Shapey and Martino. But again, this is an earlier generation of composers. The active composers today have moved on, again, based solely on what I listen to from various YouTube channels that feature very new music, i.e. written in the last decade.

But who cares?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> ...I listen to a good amount of new music written by composers in their 20s - 40s and none, as far as I can tell, write in a serial style. They are more concerned with sound for its own sake, texture, advanced instrumental techniques, and sometimes referencing and combining various styles.


That's not really a crucial point, since the influence of serialism has already influenced the entire gamut of musical thought. In that sense, "Serialism" is a more expansive concept, as the Cambridge book _Serialism_ makes clear.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> That's not really a crucial point, since the influence of serialism has already influenced the entire gamut of musical thought. In that sense, "Serialism" is a more expansive concept, as the Cambridge book _Serialism_ makes clear.


I tend to think of serialism in its original context: music written from a group of series originally controlling pitch, but later rhythm, and other aspects of the composition. I don't think any young composer uses 12-tone rows any more, and as far as the "influence of serialism" as a "more expansive concept," these are vague ideas.

And since I won't spend the time to find the Cambridge book somewhere on my shelves, I'll take your word for it, for what it's worth.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> I wouldn't consider Elliott Carter writing in a serial style. Wuorinen and Babbitt, for sure; not sure about Shapey and Martino.


If you look into Carter, he was interested in set theory, using the entire chromatic set. He was specifically interested in what are known as "all-interval rows" which contain symmetries and can be inverted and manipulated in novel ways. His list of possible sets, which he figured out on his own, are 99% identical to the index of possible sets listed by John Rahn and Allen Forte's books.

So, no, Elliott Carter never called himself, or could be classified, as a "strict serialist," since he followed a more individual path (which is why we love him). But his music is similar, in that he is interested in the total chromatic scale and its constant circulation.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> If you look into Carter, he was interested in set theory, using the entire chromatic set. He was specifically interested in what are known as "all-interval rows" which contain symmetries and can be inverted and manipulated in novel ways. His list of possible sets, which he figured out on his own, are identical to the index of possible sets listed by John Rahn and Allen Forte's books.


I have both of those (rather old) books, but Carter has made available his table of chords, which is a more relevant source for his compositional material.

I also have Carter's book of his entire sets of chords, which he used throughout his mature career. These are permutations of pitches and intervals arranged vertically, which Carter would exploit and "explode" in the course of a work. But these are not series/rows in the conventional meaning of "serialism."

He used "all interval chords" for Night Fantasies, not "pitch rows," applying various functions to them and picking and choosing which to use, and how to use them throughout the course of the composition.

Of course, a huge aspect of Carter's style is his treatment of rhythm and multiple meters.

I think it would be a mistake to describe Carter as writing in the same kind of "serial" style as someone like Charles Wuorinen.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

I wouldn't judge all twelve-tone music the same. Just because you don't like some of the pieces written with the system, doesn't necessarily mean you will not like others. There are varying degrees of quality among composers and compositions in the system just as in any other period or system. Someone doesn't blame the tonal system itself when they don't like Salieri, do they? And, IMO, twelve-tone pieces don't all sound the same. They vary widely from composer to composer.

And while I am a complete nobody, I am a composer under the age of 50 and occasionally compose with the twelve-tone system. My twelve-tone piece, _Perfervid Sonancies_, won a composition contest hosted by Alireza Motevaseli, the principal bassoonist for both the Tehran Symphony Orchestra and the Iran National Orchestra, and was performed and recorded by him.

Notable composer Colin Mathews wrote a remarkable twelve-tone, 20-minute composition less than 30 years ago for large orchestra titled _Broken Symmetry_. He was 46 years old at the time. It was commissioned, performed, and recorded by the London Sinfonietta and conducted by Oliver Knussen on the Deutsche Grammophon label.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Torkelburger said:


> I wouldn't judge all twelve-tone music the same. Just because you don't like some of the pieces written with the system, doesn't necessarily mean you will not like others. There are varying degrees of quality among composers and compositions in the system just as in any other period or system. Someone doesn't blame the tonal system itself when they don't like Salieri, do they? And, IMO, twelve-tone pieces don't all sound the same. They vary widely from composer to composer.
> 
> And while I am a complete nobody, I am a composer under the age of 50 and occasionally compose with the twelve-tone system. My twelve-tone piece, _Perfervid Sonancies_, won a composition contest hosted by Alireza Motevaseli, the principal bassoonist for both the Tehran Symphony Orchestra and the Iran National Orchestra, and was performed and recorded by him.
> 
> Notable composer Colin Mathews wrote a remarkable twelve-tone, 20-minute composition less than 30 years ago for large orchestra titled _Broken Symmetry_. He was 46 years old at the time. It was commissioned, performed, and recorded by the London Sinfonietta and conducted by Oliver Knussen on the Deutsche Grammophon label.


Good to know. I am not invested really, and only casually concern myself with whether any younger composers use 12-tone methods in any fashion. I don't think it is important whether they, or anyone, does or not. My sense is that they don't, but again, I don't care enough to find out.

So I will probably limit my involvement in this thread to the minimum.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Jacck said:


> this type of music is an acquired taste, like beer


And I've never nee able to acquire a taste for either. Both actually make me feel ill.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> ...Carter has made available his table of chords, which is a more relevant source for his compositional material. I also have Carter's book of his entire sets of chords, which he used throughout his mature career. These are permutations of pitches and intervals arranged vertically, which Carter would exploit and "explode" in the course of a work. But these are not series/rows in the conventional meaning of "serialism."


Carter was not a serialist, so this is not surprising, but it does not invalidate his interest. Carter derived his three and five-note chords from sets of notes called tetrachords. These different tetrachords had different qualities. He used "all-interval tetrachords" in generating his material, so although it is not "serial" it shares many connections. 
His piece Remembrance (1988) is based on "twenty-nine registrally ordered all-interval twelve-tone rows that succeed one another at a steady pace." (Serialism, p. 147) 
"...Carter was undeniably aware of serial principles, although he continued to distance himself..." (Serialism, p. 146)
"An especially important feature of Carter's technique is his use of the all-interval collections of pitch classes." (Serialism, p. 147)



> He used "all interval chords" for Night Fantasies, not "pitch rows," applying various functions to them and picking and choosing which to use, and how to use them throughout the course of the composition.


That is a trivial distinction, since these were derived from "all-interval tetrachords" as described above.



> I think it would be a mistake to describe Carter as writing in the same kind of "serial" style as someone like Charles Wuorinen.


Did I say that? No. 
I acknowledged at the outset that Carter was not a "strict" serialist; but his is a good example of how serial thought (the use of sets, tetrachords, and note collections based on the total chromatic) has influenced music beyond strict boundaries beyond "serialism" as a specific genre or procedure, and how "serial" has amore expansive meaning.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Carter was not a serialist, so this is not surprising, but it does not invalidate his interest. Carter derived his three and five-note chords from sets of notes called tetrachords. These different tetrachords had different qualities. He used "all-interval tetrachords" in generating his material, so although it is not "serial" it shares many connections.
> His piece Remembrance (1988) is based on "twenty-nine registrally ordered all-interval twelve-tone rows that succeed one another at a steady pace." (Serialism, p. 147)
> "...Carter was undeniably aware of serial principles, although he continued to distance himself..." (Serialism, p. 146)
> "An especially important feature of Carter's technique is his use of the all-interval collections of pitch classes." (Serialism, p. 147)
> ...


Serialism is more about using the sequencing of a series to determine the ordering of melodic or motivic phrases and harmony and ultimately even rhythm and dynamics in its more absolute form. It is not simply organizing pre-compositional chords. One could say that Carter uses his tetrachords more like a composer operating in a diatonic tonal system, than Schoenbergian serialism.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

consuono said:


> I don't think its primary intent is to be listenable. I think it's primarily an intellectual thing, like chess openings or end games, and as such it can be fascinating.





Knorf said:


> This is a false statement.





consuono said:


> Is it really? Prove it.
> 
> If the primary goal is listenability, and the majority of listeners find it unlistenable, then we would have to say that the style is a failure, wouldn't we?





SanAntone said:


> *Jackson Pollock* is among my favorite painters. My wife and I went to the retrospective in 1998 at MoMA and it was fantastic. We bought a large poster (6' X 4') of _One: Number 31, 1950_ and it has hung in our home ever since.
> 
> Don't know the Lennon song *"Well, Well, Well."*


There's some *Pollack* I like, but most I don't. With him it mostly just hinges on the colors he uses for a particular work. When he's using a 'darker' palette I don't 'like' it. When it's more minimalistic with 'happy' colors I do. In fact, there are imitation-Pollack works I like better than the originals they are paying homage to.

But it's nice that you like Pollack enough to hang one in your home. I'm guessing it resonates with you on a more visceral level.

*"Well, Well, Well"* OTOH, incorporates some primal scream therapy in the middle. Very personal, but it's still screaming. Stylistically it's pretty much garage emo rock until he starts letting it his inner pain about 2 minutes in.






Lennon incorporated primal screaming in a few of his songs: He did it with *Cold Turkey* in 1969, and again in 1970 with *Mother*.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

pianozach said:


> There's some *Pollack* I like, but most I don't. With him it mostly just hinges on the colors he uses for a particular work. When he's using a 'darker' palette I don't 'like' it. When it's more minimalistic with 'happy' colors I do. In fact, there are imitation-Pollack works I like better than the originals they are paying homage to.
> 
> But it's nice that you like Pollack enough to hang one in your home. I'm guessing it resonates with you on a more visceral level.
> 
> ...


John Lennon and Yoko One went in for Primal Therapy with Dr. Arthur Janov which gained some momentum during the 1970s and in California, where people are more inclined to go in for stuff like that, and encounter groups, transcendental meditation, and the Hare Krishnas were picking up steam around the same time, too; and isn't Scientology also based in California? So Janov hit it big for a while trying to find the Holy Grail of all-encompassing psychotherapy that had perplexed psychologists from Freud and Jung on down the line to the likes of Carl Rogers and Albert Ellis. Though Lennon's term of therapy with Janov was short, it did impact some songs you mentioned, and Yoko One had already been screaming, shrieking, and moaning in her music too, so that might have influenced Lennon as well. I read that before Yoko One met John Lennon she had been among a group of artists who associated themselves with John Cage.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

From the perspective of a music student educated in the late 20thc I would say that the significance of serial composition both historically and aesthetically was comically exaggerated for decades. As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Prodromides said:


> Matthias Pintscher?


Anything particular in mind?


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> IMO "New Complexity" is almost as old fashioned as Total Serialism. New Simplicity is where it's at, man. And structured improvisations.


New simplicity is 30 years old, and begun in the same years as new complexity...


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.


Sorry to hear that. Stories of such attitudes are exactly the reason why I have never even considered going to a conservatoire.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> New simplicity is 30 years old, and begun in the same years as new complexity...


That's a really interesting post, new simplicity is a phrase I've heard in discussions and I'd always assumed I knew what it meant. But when I checked just now I found that, according to wiki, I'd got it wrong. I didn't know that it meant all those German composers.

What I was meaning was music like Laurence Crane, Howard Skempton, and maybe Chris Neumann and Jurg Frey and Manfred Beuger.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Anything particular in mind?


Pintscher (b. 1971) is the youngest composer in my music collection; I don't have any music albums from anybody born in the 1980s or later, so my referring to him is about the extent of my contribution regarding younger composers.










This disc is his work from the late '90s:

1998 Music from Thomas Chatteron
1999 Hérodiade-Fragmente + Sur Départ

No idea if any or all of the above utilize 12-tone techniques or isorhythms, though - which is why I mentioned him with a question mark.

I think the youngest composer whose music I heard in YouTube is Nebal Maysaud (b. 1995) ... and my investigating of his _Decolonized Arabesques_ (after his 'classical music should die' article) has led me to distrust any composer UNDER age 30.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> The purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads. No composer needs your, or anyone's, permission to write the kind of music they wish to compose.


I'm always disturbed when I hear this viewpoint and it always tends to show up in these threads. I have never been aware of the truism that 'the purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads'. Composers may think they can follow that dream now, but they couldn't before the early 19th century if they hoped to survive. Actually, I don't know how many composers survive today at all.

Of course, composers and other creative artists have their own unique and original artistic 'message' they want to send, but those who don't care whether their creations will have any kind of audience will often face a self-fulfilling prophecy. We see that today where there are relatively few truly broadly popular and successful classical music composers.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

DaveM said:


> I'm always disturbed when I hear this viewpoint and it always tends to show up in these threads. I have never been aware of the truism that 'the purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads'. Composers may think they can follow that dream now, but they couldn't before the early 19th century if they hoped to survive. Actually, I don't know how many composers survive today at all.
> 
> Of course, composers and other creative artists have their own unique and original artistic 'message' they want to send, but those who don't care whether their creations will have any kind of audience will often face a self-fulfilling prophecy. We see that today where there are relatively few truly broadly popular and successful classical music composers.


I always wondered why people are not content to just let the music exist in their heads. I read an interview with the jazz pianist, Cecil Taylor, who studied under Arnold Schoenberg and blended serial music with jazz. Some say that Cecil Taylor sounded as if he was playing the piano wearing a baseball glove, but I love his music, find it wild and interesting. Anyway, in this interview, Taylor turned the interview inside out just as when he played his music and turned the melodies inside-out, and HE started asking the questions to the interviewer. So the interview went something like this:

Q: What piano exercises do you do in order to strengthen your technique? 
CT: Now who would be interested in THAT?
Q: I would.
CT: Why?
Q: Because I'm a pianist myself and I can't play the music I want to play because I don't have the technique.
CT: Isn't it enough that the music exists in your head? 
Q: No, it's frustrating.

Of course, I'm piecing the interview together from memory as I read the interview back in the 1980s. It was in a book that was an anthology of interviews with the great jazz pianists (It also included interviews with Teddy Wilson, Mary Lou Williams, Sun Ra, Ahmad Jamal, George Shearing, David Brubeck, McCoy Tyner, Randy Weston, Red Garland, Toshiko Akiyoshi, and more).


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I'm always disturbed when I hear this viewpoint and it always tends to show up in these threads. I have never been aware of the truism that 'the purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads'. Composers may think they can follow that dream now, but they couldn't before the early 19th century if they hoped to survive. Actually, I don't know how many composers survive today at all.
> 
> Of course, composers and other creative artists have their own unique and original artistic 'message' they want to send, but those who don't care whether their creations will have any kind of audience will often face a self-fulfilling prophecy. We see that today where there are relatively few truly broadly popular and successful classical music composers.


I'm not sure what is so disturbing about it. You're probably not aware of it because you are not a composer. You are simply not being true to yourself as an artist (nor being very original) if you are composing just to satisfy the likes or dislikes of someone else, even when they disagree with your own artistic values. We call that being a "sell out".

I don't think too many composers today survive at all, without resorting to holding down another day job, or selling out to becoming a popular composer such as for film/TV/video games or songwriting. But I personally would get no artistic or expressive satisfaction from spending weeks writing banal music just to have it turned down anyway in the final mix so Bruce Willis can shoot 50 rounds of bullets into someone and say something as riveting as "Yippee Ki-ya...mother". I don't care how much you pay me. I hate that. And I don't think too many people would survive anyway no matter what they wrote for the concert hall, no matter how "beautiful" it was. Audiences just don't care that much about classical music anyway.

Who cares if composers can't make a living from composing the music they want? They should still write what is in their heart. Zappa didn't conform to anyone with his very unpopular style and was a millionaire from his music, nonetheless. Picasso is the very face of modernity and was very popular and wealthy. So was Pollack. They didn't conform to anything. And thankfully, there were many artists and writers who were never rich or famous and never sacrificed their artistic integrity; and that allowed us to appreciate their work today (like van Gogh, Lovecraft). So it is not just about "surviving" from your art.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> I'm always disturbed when I hear this viewpoint and it always tends to show up in these threads. I have never been aware of the truism that 'the purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads'. Composers may think they can follow that dream now, but they couldn't before the early 19th century if they hoped to survive. Actually, I don't know how many composers survive today at all.
> 
> Of course, composers and other creative artists have their own unique and original artistic 'message' they want to send, but those who don't care whether their creations will have any kind of audience will often face a self-fulfilling prophecy. We see that today where there are relatively few truly broadly popular and successful classical music composers.


I think it has always been true, i.e. composers writing the music they hear in their hearts. The difference today and for some time, is that there is no prevailing style as there was during previous periods. Today there is a wide open field in which a composer can work, whereas for Haydn, there was the one style and his creativity operated in a narrower field.

Yes, all artists wish to find an audience, but on their own terms. The converse is for them to answer to market trends and to constantly chase an audience. Or some might leave the classical genre entirely.

This is not the first time I've seen someone on TC imply that some composers writing new music don't care if they have a audience or for some reason wish to antagonize the audience. This is as far from the reality that I have witnessed as can be. They all "care whether their creations will have an audience." But they are not willing to compromise their artistic goals in order to make that happen quicker or on a larger scale, at least for a time.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Torkelburger said:


> I'm not sure what is so disturbing about it. You're probably not aware of it because you are not a composer. You are simply not being true to yourself as an artist (nor being very original) if you are composing just to satisfy the likes or dislikes of someone else, even when they disagree with your own artistic values...


If you read my post carefully, that isn't what I was suggesting.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> ..This is not the first time I've seen someone on TC imply that some composers writing new music don't care if they have a audience or for some reason wish to antagonize the audience.


First of all, it was you that suggested that composers shouldn't care if they have an audience:



SanAntone said:


> The purpose for composers is to follow their artistic bliss wherever it leads. No composer needs your, or anyone's, permission to write the kind of music they wish to compose.


And second, I never said anything about composers wishing to antagonize the audience so you know what you can do with the '_This is not the first time I've seen someone on TC imply_...'.



> This is as far from the reality that I have witnessed as can be. They all "care whether their creations will have an audience." But they are not willing to compromise their artistic goals in order to make that happen quicker or on a larger scale, at least for a time.


Perhaps you should have said that the first time rather than the extreme message in the post I was responding to.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> First of all, it was you that suggested that composers shouldn't care if they have an audience:


You are misconstruing my comment, which was directed to consuono, specifically. I've said many times that avant-garde composers, as do all, want to find an audience. But they want an audience for the kind of music they choose to write and not knuckle under some pressure to compromise their artistic vision.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Serialism is more about using the sequencing of a series to determine *the ordering of melodic or motivic phrases* and harmony and ultimately even rhythm and dynamics in its more absolute form. It is not simply organizing pre-compositional chords.


Not necessarily. In serial and set theory, we can consider sets as being either ordered (like rows) or unordered (like scales). The sets don't always have to be ordered.

Carter, in this sense, is a "harmonic" composer, because he is interested in sets and tetrachords for their unordered harmonic properties, not melodic (ordered), thus his lists of "chords."



> One could say that Carter uses his tetrachords more like a composer operating in a diatonic tonal system, than Schoenbergian serialism.


Or more like the "tropes" of Hauer. Carter uses unordered sets (tetrachords), which yield various 'interval vectors' which create sonorities, not unlike scales.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> From the perspective of a music student educated in the late 20thc I would say that the significance of serial composition both historically and aesthetically was comically exaggerated for decades. As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." *I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.*


Another tragic victim of atonal music...:lol:


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> From the perspective of a music student educated in the late 20thc I would say that the significance of serial composition both historically and aesthetically was comically exaggerated for decades. As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.


I don't doubt your experience, but I was educated at the same time and my experience was the complete opposite. We were required to take "Contemporary Techniques in Composition I" and "Contemporary Techniques in Composition II" as the foundation of our writing courses. Serial Composition was only briefly touched upon in only about one week of classes in the second course, as I recall. It only covered two chapters in our textbook for the course (barely anything at all). I have two other textbooks for modern composition used in school and it is only in one chapter in one of them and does not appear at all in the other.

One of my teachers for the second course, Tom McGah, had this to say when we covered _Total_ Serialism: "We will not be writing compositions using this method." (We would write composition exercises in each technique and have them played live in class). "I can't stand it. If we did, we would be listening to 20 pieces that sound exactly the same." I believe he was wrong then, and I still believe so.

And in my music history courses and textbook, twelve tone music was not exaggerated but rather received a modest mention in comparison to other composers and methods.

Personally, I would say the "significance" of serialism has been "comically" exaggerated more by the haters than by the supporters. Everyone is in such a hurry to discredit all of the music in the 20th century as "dissonant" or "atonal" or "serial" and all of it "bad" when they've heard so little of it (the music of the 20th century). They seem to forget that the vast majority of it is, by far, tonal and quite pleasant to listen to. Generally speaking, for nearly the whole century, the majority of composers in the entire countries of England, Russia, America, and those of Eastern Europe were quite conservative and "behaved" themselves. I can't name any prominent serialist composers at all in England and Russia who can compare to Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Schnittke, or Vaughn Williams, Walton, Britten, Holst, etc.

Even in our own country (America), serialism really didn't become a trend until Stravinsky took it up in the late 50's/early 60's. And even then, when academia tried to push it on the younger generation, it backfired. Just 15 or so years later, by the early 70's, Minimalism and the resurgence of Neo-Romanticism began to greatly surpass the influence of serialism. 15 years isn't a long time to be in the spotlight, and even then, composers like Perle, Sessions, and Carter were already beginning to greatly change what serialism meant from the Viennese style.

The Second Viennese School itself doesn't have a whole lot of compositions in the twelve-tone method at all. Schoenberg has the most of them, but his catalogue is not very extensive.

I am sorry that you were abused regarding your decision. I wish you would have changed your mind, however. If I were in a position to take an instructional course on techniques in a system I don't like (such as minimalism or new complexity), I think I would do it for several reasons: I might learn something I didn't know before, I might discover I'm good at it, I might realize I like it after all, I might incorporate it into a style I use already and create something new, etc. This last reason can be shown useful in several examples from John Corigliano:

John does not like minimalism very much and has explained so in some detail both in lectures and in program and liner notes. However, he has actually used it to meld with his own unique style to create something new in an orchestral piece he wrote for the NY Phil titled Fantasia on an Ostinato. Also, John does not like serialism either, but I attended a lecture of his once and he described how he used tone rows blended with aleatoric procedures several fascinating ideas for his opera he wrote for the Met. He also explained that while he does not consider himself a twelve-tone composer, he quite often uses tone rows to generate pitches and ideas in his music in order to create highly chromatic sounding music that would to too long of a process otherwise-he is just mindful to change their order, occasionally leave out notes, repeat notes, repeat series of notes, use incomplete rows, etc. etc. etc. so that it is not strict serialism.

So, I think turning your back completely to learning or experiencing new things is not very constructive at all to the creative process and the creative mind.

Just my opinion of course, and you need not agree. I value your opinions very highly and your compositional talents are undeniable. Just wanted to share my thoughts.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

consuono said:


> What non sequitur? My statement was said to be false. I asked for proof that it was false. I haven't seen any.
> 
> It's getting to be quite a thing to Google "logical fallacies" in order to sidestep questions.


The buren of proof is in your court. You claimed that most people find serial music unlistenable. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Most people don't listen to classical music or jazz. Does that prove it's unlistenable? Over the years at this forum I've read comments of disgust or repulsion when Schoenberg is mentioned only to have the listener admit they've never actually listened to the music.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

starthrower said:


> The buren of proof is in your court. You claimed that most people find serial music unlistenable. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Most people don't listen to classical music or jazz. Does that prove it's unlistenable? Over the years at this forum I've read comments of disgust or repulsion when Schoenberg is mentioned only to have the listener admit they've never actually listened to the music.


I mean, have you ever tried playing the stuff for anyone who knows next to nothing about classical music? I actually like some atonal compositions (Berg's Violin Concerto, Schoenberg five pieces for orchestra, some Ligeti, etc.), what I'm kinda tired of is the denial that the vast, vast majority of the population finds or would find it terrible upon first listening to it, and that the reason for this is not somehow artificially constructed by overexposure to tonal music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Serialism (not atonality) has been around for centuries though. In the 18th century, Bach (ex. BWV869 , BWV889) and Mozart (K.428, K.516, K.550) utilized tone rows to control outbursts of chromaticism.

post1981211
post1992730

"In the first movement of the G minor Quintet, excerpts from the principal subject serve as serial bases for various formations at the second subject stage, including extended retrograde versions. The minuet is a serial orgy. The three-note row B flat-C sharp-D operates again vertically as well as horizontally and derives, moreover, from the first and second subjects of the opening movement"
< Strict Serial Technique in Classical Music / Hans Keller / P.16 >


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

starthrower said:


> The buren of proof is in your court. You claimed that most people find serial music unlistenable. How did you arrive at that conclusion?


The fact that most people find it unlistenable. :lol: Hey, I actually enjoy some atonal music. But still...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, have you ever tried playing the stuff for anyone who knows next to nothing about classical music? I actually like some atonal compositions (Berg's Violin Concerto, Schoenberg five pieces for orchestra, some Ligeti, etc.), what I'm kinda tired of is the denial that the vast, vast majority of the population finds or would find it terrible upon first listening to it, and that the reason for this is not somehow artificially constructed by overexposure to tonal music.


I must agree. My wife is not knowledgeable about atonal music (her favorite band is Little Feat), but any time I play some of it, she says that "it's beautiful" and likes it. She likes a lot of jazz, too.

Perhaps the people who don't like it have a political agenda which reads as 'conservative vs. liberal.'


----------

