True Serialism

Yea I think that makes more sense

Is this a real-life, for serious question?

Well to be more clear, I mean that is it right that composers can just plunk some numbers in a computer program and then call it their own? Perhaps "socially accepted" was a poor phrase to use

But who is or who has done this? I don't know of anyone who has simply typed some numbers into a computer and claimed it was a composition. If you mean having a complex set of rules to determine pitch, register, rhythm, dynamics, tempo etc., I can guarantee that you could give the exact same set of rules and limitations to two different composers and the two resulting compositions would be completely different. 

in his sumptuous new york city mansion, charles wuorinen sits rubbing his aged, gnarled hands with a wicked smile atop his towering pile of ill-gotten riches, pondering to what new devious ends he can put the nefarious twelve-tone system invented his brethren in the academic illuminati....

 

to be continued

Brilliant. I have just finished reading Wuorinen's "Simple Composition," which is anything but simple. I really like his music (some) very much. I think I just wasn't interested in methods I would never, ever use to compose.

Serialism will retain its place in the composer's tool kit, but it will not supersede the tonal. Yes, I love the excitement of the dissonant harmonies. But the serial paradigm is too strict, in any of its forms, and that ultimately renders it a distant choice for repeated listening, in other words, boring. When music acquires such a uniformity, what is the point in pleasure or study? Do NOT waste you time studying Wuorinen or any other 12 tone disciple. Just carry a 3X5 index card in your pocket with the rules.

Here are some of the more accessible serial works in my opinion:

Berg: Violin Concerto

Dallapiccola: Piccola Musica Noctturna

Stravinsky: Requiem Canticles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=668QWMK-maQ

Webern: Symphony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKD_tZr-ZpY

Notice how they all sound completely different to each other. Serialism is a just a compositional method. It has little bearing on the aesthetic of a piece. There's a lot more to it than writing 12 notes in a certain order. If you think that any of these pieces sound like mathematical computer music then I give up.

yeah, serialism is hardly "scary modern music" anymore. we have http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B_0EOOEz7s'>this now. :>

I dunno....sounds like Boulez Premiere Sonate to me ;)

 

Brilliant. I have just finished reading Wuorinen's "Simple Composition," which is anything but simple. I really like his music (some) very much. I think I just wasn't interested in methods I would never, ever use to compose.

 

Serialism will retain its place in the composer's tool kit, but it will not supersede the tonal. Yes, I love the excitement of the dissonant harmonies. But the serial paradigm is too strict, in any of its forms, and that ultimately renders it a distant choice for repeated listening, in other words, boring. When music acquires such a uniformity, what is the point in pleasure or study? Do NOT waste you time studying Wuorinen or any other 12 tone disciple. Just carry a 3X5 index card in your pocket with the rules.

 

 

Studying serialism is just as much a waste of time as studying modal counterpoint.

Or the forms of the Common Practice era.

Or the tonal structure in the Prelude to Tristan und Isolde.

I don't have the time to post an enormous response, but this (brilliant) essay by Glenn Gould goes well in the context of the discussion being held:

http://kunsthistorie.kunstakademiet.dk/mortlake/pdf/2011/gould1994a.pdf

 If you're writing a play in a genuine attempt to replicate the style of Voltaire, or a novel in the style of Goethe (as opposed to a play that imitates Voltaire in a postmodern-ish way, or a novel that's just as much about Goethe's style as in it) you can't have the subject be a parable about global warming or occupy new york or something. that would be obviously anachronistic. music doesn't get a free pass here; there's no such thing as music that's independent of its time.

There are many ways to imitate while incorporating something which did not exist in the original (assuming one wishes to do this) but which could still maintain a high degree of similarity on some level or another.  You could, theoretically, write a sonata with five themes which presented them in reverse order in the recapitulation, thereby creating something of an arch structure, but which was as diatonic as anything in the Classical era.  You pointed to Brahms as one example, but I think it's clear that some people on this board would have been among his detractors if they had lived in his time. 

Music (that is, instrumental music) is more abstract than the other arts, which is why it can get...more of a free pass.  People ascribe all sorts of historical meaning to this and that, but when I listen to some great concerto or symphony by Mozart or Beethoven, I don't have images of wigged aristocrats or burgeoning bourgeoisie in my head.  I do, however, get more of that impression when I listen to the lesser composers of the times. 

Funny thing, an artist who derides artistic freedom.

Not funny thing: deliberately misquoting.

A bit funnier thing: an artist who proclaims artistic freedom - but also claims for himself the right to dismiss others' works as outdated worthless pastiches unless they fit his (very narrow) tastes ;) .

Ah the classic misconception that 'responding' is the same as 'prescribing'.

Michelangelo created worthless pastiches.  So did all those other Renaissance and Enlightenment ancient Greek/Roman copycats.  Nothing of value, what a waste of hundreds of years.

I haven't misquoted, although I have removed some content to make the statement more concise.

Removing crucial content and thus altering the whole meaning of the statement.

And again, you must remember there is a difference between creating music and listening to it. When I dismiss worthless pastiche I do so as a listener, which is mutually exclusive from me being an artist.

If so, then you can't claim your opinion or taste is of any more value than that of any other listener - especially one that actually likes the very much traits that you're dismissing. You can't be right both ways.

  So did all those other Renaissance and Enlightenment ancient Greek/Roman copycats.  Nothing of value, what a waste of hundreds of years.

That's a really bad example to use because clinging on to the philosophies of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle did actually set us back a long way for a long time in pretty much every way possible. Granted, it's not art but I felt I should point that out. 

That's a really bad example to use because clinging on to the philosophies of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle did actually set us back a long way for a long time in pretty much every way possible. Granted, it's not art but I felt I should point that out. 

The superstitions of the Middle Ages were better?  What you're not realizing is that the rediscovery (or reinvention, since they were not always sure about how it actually existed in ancient times--e.g., the birth of opera) of ancient thought and culture led people down a new path that blended the old with the new.  

People may have clung on to their philosophies because better ones did not yet emerge, but you are about the first person I've ever seen who appears to be attempting to dismiss what came out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment.  

Yes I can, just because I am responding as a listener and not an artist does not mean I am not a well informed listener.

 or...

... come across as a hypocrite or anything. 

The superstitions of the Middle Ages were better?  What you're not realizing is that the rediscovery (or reinvention, since they were not always sure about how it actually existed in ancient times--e.g., the birth of opera) of ancient thought and culture led people down a new path that blended the old with the new.  

 

People may have clung on to their philosophies because better ones did not yet emerge, but you are about the first person I've ever seen who appears to be attempting to dismiss what came out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment.  

I'm dismissing the clinging to ancient Greek thought. Any advancements from the enlightenment were in spite of Greek philosophy, not because of it. Aristotle's views on nature, science, political and economic theory, metaphysics and literary criticism were considered fact because, unlike the views of other great philosophers, they didn't directly contradict Christian theology. Any advancement in these areas had to begin with a rebuttal of Aristotle which was viewed as being synonymous with a rebuttal of Christianity so these advancements were actively discouraged and suppressed. Aristotle's philosophy was hijacked by the church to unwittingly support their middle age superstitions and suppress advances in virtually all areas.

On the opera thing, Aristotle's influence was minimal anyway. His only contribution was a short passage where he recalls drama with the words being sung by the chorus but things were naturally heading towards opera in Italy anyway with the intermedi. Aristotle sort of vindicated the idea of musical drama for those who wished to and were going to introduce it anyway. Sure, Greek mythology was and still is an important subject for opera, but in its absence we would've just created operas about something else.

My point is, looking backwards in that example held us all back. The great achievements of the enlightenment were achieved in spite of people who were too concerned with the past.

I'm not saying that's the case with all things, I just thought that ancient Greek influences on the enlightenment was a really poor example for you to choose because it was more of a hindrance than anything. 

Any advancements from the enlightenment were in spite of Greek philosophy, not because of it. Aristotle's views on nature, science, political and economic theory, metaphysics and literary criticism were considered fact because, unlike the views of other great philosophers, they didn't directly contradict Christian theology.

First time I hear this kind of account of the Renaissance and the Enlightment.

And among the first times that I hear that Aristotle didn't contradict at all Christian theology (possibly because the Catholic theology also contradicted Christ's teachings quite often).

it may be time to move this discussion of the renaissance elsewhere... for instance to the wise theologians of landoverbaptist.com who i'm sure can answer any questions you might have about aristotle

it may be time to move this discussion of the renaissance elsewhere... for instance to the wise theologians of landoverbaptist.com who i'm sure can answer any questions you might have about aristotle

Holy crap, I've been trying to remember the name of that place for so long!

First time I hear this kind of account of the Renaissance and the Enlightment.

 

And among the first times that I hear that Aristotle didn't contradict at all Christian theology (possibly because the Catholic theology also contradicted Christ's teachings quite often).

Well, yeah, Aristotle actually does contradict Christian theology or at least offers nothing that really supports it, but Thomas Aquinas cleverly managed to reconcile Aristotle with Roman Catholicism with talks of prime movers, avoiding infinite regresses, "you only get nothing from nothing" etc., completely ignoring the fact that Aristotle constantly contradicts himself to present both sides of the argument while rarely specifying one side as absolute truth.

Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the thread like this (or at least sidetrack it more than it already has been sidetracked). I was just pointing out that using Greek influence on the enlightenment as an example of past influences being beneficial is stupid. There are better examples of the point that was made.  

Serialism is more maths than music. I like maths, but I prefer music.

Serialism is more maths than music. I like maths, but I prefer music.

What aspect of serialism is mathematical? Are you adding, subtracting.....multiplying? Dividing?

I think by math maybe Antonio means algorithm. Music by rule rather than ego or emotion. Charles Wuorinen described 12-tone music as the process of creating a system of rule, sort of like an infrastructure.  In other words, like a road. You cannot drive your car unless the road exists. If it does not exist, you must put off driving until you build the road. Conversely, with tonal music, the road has been laid down over centuries of time, and all you need to be concerned about is driving.

I think by math maybe Antonio means algorithm. Music by rule rather than ego or emotion. Charles Wuorinen described 12-tone music as the process of creating a system of rule, sort of like an infrastructure.  In other words, like a road. You cannot drive your car unless the road exists. If it does not exist, you must put off driving until you build the road. Conversely, with tonal music, the road has been laid down over centuries of time, and all you need to be concerned about is driving.

After you have a plan to accomplish whatever it is you want to do (precomposition), then you can write music. You're starting from the same place as someone who might choose to write a piece in the style of Mozart (though maybe a little exhausted).

I'm with Ravel's law on this one: the starting points and the compositional thought processes are pretty much the same for serial, tonal and other musics, but I would add that serial music, for the most part, isn't even that far removed from past music as people seem to think.

The focus is still very much on motivic development and variation. There are also similar melodic principles to those found in tonal music in play for the most part such as period form melodies, wave and arch-shaped melodic contours, sequential writing etc. In terms of form, most serial music isn't that far removed from the past either. Every single serial piece written by Webern is in either sonata, rondo, binary, ternary or variation form, except for his vocal music which still makes heavy use of imitative writing and canon.

I'll grant you that some of the Darmstadt composers created some absolute monstrosities that aren't worth the paper they're written on, but they are not representative of all, or even most, serial music.