Leaderboard

Tonality wasn't dead just because Boulez proclaimed it to be, and serialism isn't dead just because your professors proclaim it to be. Abstractions are notoriously difficult to "kill," especially when they have had a lasting cultural impact. In my (possibly uninformed) opinion, serialism (and romanticism, and other presumably-dead styles) are part of the 21st-century listener's "vocabulary" and are therefore valid ways of communicating with audiences. The real challenge, of course, is doing new things with them that will make your music stand out to listeners (which is maybe the subject of a different discussion). The other thing, I guess, is that serialism isn't really a style so much as a method of putting notes together. How these notes sound when put together varies tremendously: Berg and Rautavaara (3rd Symphony, I think?) wrote serial romantic music; a classmate of mine wrote a pretty convincing 12-tone funk piece, and he probably wasn't the first. The more methods of putting notes together (or ways of thinking about the relationships between notes in a concrete way), the more versatility you will have as a composer--and maybe the more options for creating a truly unique sound. So goes my stream-of-consciousness justification for exploring whatever compositional techniques you want, at least. So I guess my 2 cents' worth is: Serialism is fine as long as you're not a prescriptivist jerk about it like Boulez was :)

Now YOU have made a fool of yourself with this post. :p Penderecki is writing tonal Romantic music since 1970's. And he NEVER was a real serialist, even in his avantgarde music such as Threni. I have mentioned Boulez and Stockhausen. BTW, Boulez practicaly stopped composing since his conducting career and Stockhausen quit serialism and focused on electronic music and other experimental stuff since 1960's. Piston and Sessions have used some dodecaphonic elements in their music but they were not real serialists. Luigi Nono wrote serial music in his early period and later used different elements. Like I have written. Nobody is writing serial for last 30-40 years. You simply did not undestand my challenge. You named composers which are either dead or did not write serial for 40 years and more. Bummer.

You're absolutely right... in general, working with a pre-existing group (whether it's an orchestra, band, or a chamber group) is MUCH easier than recruiting individual performers and slapping something together. And to work with such a group, all you need is one contact (ideally the conductor), so U238's point seems like kind of a non-sequitur. Generally, community and school groups tend to be relatively open to performing new pieces (as long as they are relatively easy from a technical standpint). With professional orchestras, it's obviously a different story, but often they will have competitions where you can submit scores for readings or performances (the upside to these is that, if your music is good enough, you don't really have to "network" beforehand to get a good performance... but having the performance and recording under your belt gives you more credibility and, I think, makes it easier to get other performers interested in your work.) I feel like this leads to one of the central paradoxes of being a composer: to get good performers to take you seriously, you often need good recordings of your music, but to get good recordings, you need good performers to take you seriously. This is why competitions that offer a performance are an extremely valuable "foot in the door" to young composers... and why I think the DanDJTitchener's idea here is a very good one. On the relatively-unrelated note of young composers writing for large ensembles, I'd say that it isn't as clear-cut as U238 is making it out to be. We write what we hear, so if you grew up playing in a wind band, you're probably going to start off writing better band pieces than string quartets. Yes, there are elements of orchestration and balance that take years to master, but the same can be true for chamber music... in the latter case, you have to do more with less, which can take a lot of control-- and can be very daunting if you tend to think in broad gestures and varied colours, which you probably do if you play in bands and orchestras and are used to hearing that kind of music. (Steven Bryant, a relatively successful band composer, mentioned that he is terrified of writing chamber music and tries to avoid it at all costs.) There's no one right approach, and I think that kind of prescriptivism has led to the artistic downfall of many a young composer.

I'd be interested in trying SATB writing sometime. Your feedback would be awesome on a future choral piece. And, if I have a knack for it after several attempts, feel free to 'print 'n' sing'. :D

And when you say "valuable time," you really mean valuable time. One of the groups I sing with spent over $30,000 on the orchestra for just one concert. That doesn't include the conductor's salary, advertising, the performance space, or the lady in charge of ticket sales. $30,000 just for the orchestra for one concert. So yes. As a young composer, your chances of getting new work premiered with an established group are small. They might love the idea of helping you out, but they just can't take the chance unless you can guarantee that you will sell out all their tickets for them. Networking with other composers here is GREAT since most of us also play an instrument! Getting a teacher to use your work with their student group, or playing your own piece at a recital is really do-able. And writing pieces for smaller groups, or soloists is smart, since then you are talking about someone taking a $1,000 gamble on your piece, instead of a $50,000 gamble. (:

He may have gotcha there, U-ie

This blows my mind, because you know there are people that are still writing serial and serial inspired pieces to this day, right? That's like saying you don't see muscle cars coming back. Because of course, the heyday of the muscle car is gone. And yeah, the mainstream of automotive output isn't muscle cars. But the design concepts introduced by the muscle car era are still influencing todays designs, and there are still cars being produced that can be considered muscle cars. Serialism doesn't have to come back, it never went away. it has been fully integrated into the modern composer's array of tools available to him, and it is a fool that ignores it as a fad just as much as it is a fool that ignores tonality.

Hahaha, what a riot. Perhaps the mistake is in assigning young composers to write for full orchestra, which is just stupid. Let's go to a middle school shop class and assign them to assemble a functioning space shuttle. Or perhaps we can go to a seminar for aspiring writers and do a competition for composing an epic homer style poem. I know, we could ask an apprentice mason to construct a full size replica of the great wall of China. Of course, someone will say "Write whatever you want, the experience will be good!" That's true, experience is good. But don't you think said mason would be better off spending some time learning everything there is to know about laying a single brick before he takes on the task of laying thousands of them down in a single project? Because I'll tell you what, that space shuttle, that epic poem, or that colossal brick wall are going to be just about as piss poor quality as can be imagined from people who have no idea how to even properly construct a single element of said constructs.

If you're goal is to do something new, revolutionary or "avante garde" then yes you are wasting your time. There is nothing anyone could do that would surprise anyone anymore. But if you personally find serialism to be rewarding then what does it matter what others think? Your enthusiasm for the music you're composing will be heard in your music.