heyimasockpuppetimnotreal

Whether or not they are aesthetically pleasing is not in question, their existence and their influence is. You can discredit serialism as much as you want, the voices of people influenced by it greatly outmatches you. It is ridiculous to declare a technique dead because you personally don't enjoy the results. And if you declare it dead because you think nobody uses it you are ignorant and wrong. The development of serialism was a profound development in modern music, one whose effects are still just beginning to blossom. It is pumpous arrogance that ignores this on the basis of personal taste.

Thank you, I'll check it out.

I'll also point out that I'm not an expert by any means on the prevelance of serialism in modern music, I pulled those names out of google and wikipedia. It took me like five minutes at most. I'm sure if I wanted to sit down and do some proper research on it there is a considerably larger list I could provide you with. However then we have to get into the semantics of what consititutes famous, there are certainly hundreds if not thousands of active composers currently writing serialist and serial influenced works as I type that most people have never heard of.

Milton Babitt Charles Wuorinen Nah, let's ignore those names and pretend like your point still stands. It's not like they're pulitzer prize winning composers specifically noted for their adherence to serialism. Oh, wait... Bummer, indeed.