Leaderboard

All your comments are interesting. I agree that serialism in its original (Schoenberg) form is no longer common, and I also agree that serialism in this sense produces works which can sound "the same". However, it is not "dead" (as JairCrawford points out, "dead" is maybe not an appropriate term for any kind of music). It still has some merit. What interests me about it is the contrapuntal element: it uses transformations which were applied in the work of Bach for instance, but in a dodecaphonic context. I admit that I personally do have an "intellectual pedagogical bent" and perhaps that is why I still find serialism of interest. That said, I believe that a composer has to be careful with this kind of work, because although it is an intellectual challenge, that should not detract from writing something which sounds good (of course opinion on what sounds good is varied). Many composers have enjoyed an intellectual challenge, and have played with different structures, but the best works have an undefinable quality which makes them appeal to "the ear". What is important is not the technique, but how it is used.

Time constraints do challenge many of us to dig deep down and be extra-creative, but I believe that creativity also depends on the composer himself (or herself). For instance, I could still write a piece of music that's 5 mins long, or one that's 15-20 mins long, but if I'm just not a good composer, then it's a piece of crap regardless. The "fair playing field" is, in fact, that variation in time limit. Maybe some people are better at writing shorter pieces, and some people are better at writing longer ones; their level of compositional acumen will (or should) show through any constraints thrown at them. If 5 mins is enough for you to write a knock-out piece, then I'm sure the judges would love to hear it, and judge you fairly based on the content! Honestly, I'd rather hear a shorter piece that's halfway decent than a really long, atrocious piece...

I think the best book you can use to learn composition is a phone book. Metaphorically maybe nowadays. Because then you can find a teacher, and that is not only the best way to learn music, especially in the beginning, but probably the only way.

Well, I think the idea of the twelve tone row is definitely dead. Ligeti wrote an article about how serialism engineered its own demise by placing an arbitrary emphasis on the tone row even though it is only perceptible when treated with extremely simple means. Perhaps it has a similar status as the cantus firmus in old music, which disappears into the background very easily and was eventually done away with as the counterpoint became more important than the "material". However, the basic philosophy of working with abstract material via transformations is something that is still practiced today and is at the center of many schools of thought in contemporary music. I attached the Ligeti article to this post, it is a very good read and very neatly explains why everybody jumped ship after the war.