True Serialism

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

Serialism works based on matrices.

Matrices are Algebra.

Algebra is Maths.

Matrices are Maths.

Serialism is Maths!

It's so clear!

Serialism works based on matrices.

Matrices are Algebra.

Algebra is Maths.

Matrices are Maths.

Serialism is Maths!

It's so clear!

Anyone who has an agenda could argue anything from anything to anything. 

Anyone who has an agenda could argue anything from anything to anything. 

Exactly, which is why cute chains of non-exclusive relationships don't prove anything.

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. 

These should be more of 'serial killers' instead ;).

I think you're confused about the difference between 'math' and 'music'. One could very well attempt to argue that the music of J.S. Bach is simply 'maths' if they had an agenda...

Yes, it is true! Bach has maths in music. But Bach is more music than maths. True serialism is based purerely in matrices. Serialism is maths with music notation. But Bach is music that simplely can be simplified in maths models, but with Bach is clearly not maths who rule.

Yes, it is true! Bach has maths in music. But Bach is more music than maths. True serialism is based purerely in matrices. Serialism is maths with music notation. But Bach is music that simplely can be simplified in maths models, but with Bach is clearly not maths who rule.

I'm sorry, but you clearly know nothing of serialism. It is not based purely on matrices, but you wouldn't know that because I doubt you have ever even listened to any serial works, never mind analysed one with a score to see what is actually going on.

These should be more of 'serial killers' instead ;).

I think I did actually wonder at one point whether the term had its origins in serial music.

Yes, it is true! Bach has maths in music. But Bach is more music than maths. True serialism is based purerely in matrices. Serialism is maths with music notation. But Bach is music that simplely can be simplified in maths models, but with Bach is clearly not maths who rule.

Saying 'serialism is just math' is no different than saying 'motivic development and variation is just math'.

So.... many....semantic....misconceptions!

So.... many....semantic....misconceptions!

I know, right? Kids these days throwing around words like 'matrices', 'maths' and 'semantics' like they know what they mean.

I'm not sure how creating your own rules makes you prioritize them over the resulting music. It certainly takes a lot more time (unless you have a means to generate entire pieces of 'music' and are willing to consistently recycle them, as Wuorinen does).

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 agree that there is a sort of musical relativism when it comes to rules. But you're not creating your own rules in serialism. That's the point. You're bound by Scheonberg's from the get go. Required: use all 12 tones. Required: create an order an adhere to it. I admit that the Devil is in the details after that, but I find it limiting and dated. Wuorinen used the term tonal as the opposite of serial technique, but now we're in the post-modern period and ANYTHING goes. So, "real serialism," as the original poster put it, may be an impediment to creativity, as is Mozart. Maybe some of you live by it, maybe not. I mean no offense.

My professors in school were smitten by Scheonberg, to the extent that they derided those who disagreed with serialism. One said, and I quote: "Stravinsky would be nothing without the repeated note."

As if ostinato is just a cheap trick.

I agree that there is a sort of musical relativism when it comes to rules. But you're not creating your own rules in serialism. That's the point. You're bound by Scheonberg's from the get go. Required: use all 12 tones. Required: create an order an adhere to it. I admit that the Devil is in the details after that, but I find it limiting and dated. Wuorinen used the term tonal as the opposite of serial technique, but now we're in the post-modern period and ANYTHING goes. So, "real serialism," as the original poster put it, may be an impediment to creativity, as is Mozart. Maybe some of you live by it, maybe not. I mean no offense.

My professors in school were smitten by Scheonberg, to the extent that they derided those who disagreed with serialism. One said, and I quote: "Stravinsky would be nothing without the repeated note."

As if ostinato is just a cheap trick.

Dodecaphonic serialism isn't the only brand: one could easily work with a smaller pitch space and do other things than what Schoenberg did. It is indeed an older approach to writing music, not one that I have any intention of exploring further for myself, however it's good to have an accurate understanding of an important development in 20th century music.

Curious, how does someone manage to 'disagree' with serialism? I couldn't wrap my head around that one.

Wait, wait, wait..... I agreed with Phil on something?! Stop the presses!

serialism has no emotions it just numbers kompozers should write from the heart with romantic and expressivion!!!

serialism argue only maths and ugly important but i say NO to serialism UR WROMG

serialism has no emotions it just numbers kompozers should write from the heart with romantic and expressivion!!!

 

serialism argue only maths and ugly important but i say NO to serialism UR WROMG

62 likes

We cannot be relativists. Serialism is a failure. They try to create something new. They indeed create something new, but destroying all the musicality. The ear needs references of stability; serialism destroys all the harmony laws, and all the symmetric laws of beauty. The result is a non sense music. Yes it is interesting. Yes it is motivated principally by maths. Schonberg and his friends tried to expand the musical language breaking the principal law. The true is that they couldn’t expand the musical language as they aim, they simple went out music, and we can say that they create a new art. You can like serialism if you want (of course), but you cant say that is music, it is less music than a car's engine.

We cannot be relativists. Serialism is a failure. They try to create something new. They indeed create something new, but destroying all the musicality. The ear needs references of stability; serialism destroys all the harmony laws, and all the symmetric laws of beauty. The result is a non sense music. Yes it is interesting. Yes it is motivated principally by maths. Schonberg and his friends tried to expand the musical language breaking the principal law. The true is that they couldn’t expand the musical language as they aim, they simple went out music, and we can say that they create a new art. You can like serialism if you want (of course), but you cant say that is music, it is less music than a car's engine.

Musicality wasn't destroyed with serialism. The works of Webern are just as poetic and musical as any other composer. Contrary to your beliefs, the ear in fact does not 'need' stability. The ear doesn't 'need' anything. Serialism doesn't 'destroy' anything and it's funny you would say that it is in opposition to the 'symmetric' laws of beauty, when the seminal serial compositions were very much concerned with symmetry. Serial music is objectively music. The fact that you don't like it and can't coherently articulate why that is, doesn't negate it. You'll find that having such radical and unfounded views will land you in hot water. There is still time to educate yourself. The more you know.

We cannot be relativists. Serialism is a failure. They try to create something new. They indeed create something new, but destroying all the musicality. The ear needs references of stability; serialism destroys all the harmony laws, and all the symmetric laws of beauty. The result is a non sense music. Yes it is interesting. Yes it is motivated principally by maths. Schonberg and his friends tried to expand the musical language breaking the principal law. The true is that they couldn’t expand the musical language as they aim, they simple went out music, and we can say that they create a new art. You can like serialism if you want (of course), but you cant say that is music, it is less music than a car's engine.

You're just repeating what fsevent said two posts ago. Originality, man.

Serialism throws out all the tradition! All the heritance that we have from the medieval age. And not use that tradition is not a smart think. It is like have a huge heritance from your father, a fantastic firm, lots of money, and burn it all. That is what I think that is wrong on serialism. It's good to reform like Beethoven and Wagner did, but it isnt good to waste like serialism did.

It is important to give importance to the audience, all the great composers did that. It is also important to have more criterios than popularity. But it should be always a criterio.

Ian: I prefer to have reason, than originality.

Serialism throws out all the tradition!

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Schoenberg is the ultimate consequence of a tradition that ties back to Bach-Beethoven-Brahms

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Schoenberg is the ultimate consequence of a tradition that ties back to Bach-Beethoven-Brahms

Not at all! Bach-Beethoven-Brahms built over tonalism, Schoenberg destroys the tonalism. 

If Brahms didnt aprove Liszt-Wagner inovations, we would vomit if he listen to Schoenberg.

I'm not against serial music, I simply think that it is limitated, and it is only an interesting idea from the past.

Not at all! Bach-Beethoven-Brahms built over tonalism, Schoenberg destroys the tonalism. 

If Brahms didnt aprove Liszt-Wagner inovations, we would vomit if he listen to Schoenberg.

I'm not against serial music, I simply think that it is limitated, and it is only an interesting idea from the past.

Wrong again.

Tradition is more than harmony or tonalism. Schoenberg stands firmly in the Bach-Beethoven-Brahms tradition in terms of motivic coherence and economy of material.

I know that Brahms was rather conservative for his time. He didn't like Bruckner and Liszt and Wagner. But I very much doubt whether that has to do their highly chromatic language; as Brahms himself was quite good with harmony, innovative even. The war of the romantics has much more to do with Form than with Harmony. You should know (as noted above) how many of the 2nd Viennese school works are written in classical forms like Sonate, Rondo, etcetera. Speaking of tradition!

I don't mind (so much) if you are a fervent defender of some aesthetic, but please get your facts straight, before you start shouting nonsense...

Yeah how dare people evolve things! Gregorian chant ftw

Wrong again.

 

Tradition is more than harmony or tonalism. Schoenberg stands firmly in the Bach-Beethoven-Brahms tradition in terms of motivic coherence and economy of material.

I know that Brahms was rather conservative for his time. He didn't like Bruckner and Liszt and Wagner. But I very much doubt whether that has to do their highly chromatic language; as Brahms himself was quite good with harmony, innovative even. The war of the romantics has much more to do with Form than with Harmony. You should know (as noted above) how many of the 2nd Viennese school works are written in classical forms like Sonate, Rondo, etcetera. Speaking of tradition!

 

I don't mind (so much) if you are a fervent defender of some aesthetic, but please get your facts straight, before you start shouting nonsense...

I know the facts. 

I know the forms behind Viena II, for example I know very well the classical structures behind Wozzeck,

But this is not a discussion about what I know.

Ok form is important. But harmony is a key part. Because even form must obeys to the harmony. The melody also obeys! And contraponto. Then, if you don’t follow the traditional path of harmonic language, all that you create is out of this precious heritance, even form becames out in some way, independently you use some aspects of it or not, just because you haven’t a crucial key point –  tonal-modal harmony! 

Wagner Tristan and Isolde is revolutionary more because of the harmony, than for the form.

Yes Brahms has many chromatic language, but he is always tonal (rarely modal), but never atonal.

I think that follow and utilize this fantastic heritance that is modal-tonal language is an advantage, that serialism simply doesn’t use, and that is a disadvantage for this theory.

My point was to show the error in your quote "Serialism throws out all the tradition!"

You seemed to back that up with a hint to the opposing parties in romanticism, which I in turn questioned. Sorry, but so far you didn't show having your facts right. There are many dumb shouters here. If you are not one of them, even better. :)

It is interesting to me that you seem to know Alban Berg. If there is one of the 2nd Viennese School that should be accessible to tertiary conditioned ears, it should be him. Triadic implications all over the place. Not to mention the gorgeous violin concerto, which shamelessly quotes a Bach chorale (Nota Bene: tradition !). Not as mockery, but it fits and blends perfectly in that work, as the first notes of the melody equal the last of Berg tonerow, 4 rising wholetones.

It is via Berg that I left my old (and honestly rather immature) critiques on twelve-tone music; critique, that in the core was just a lack of understanding.

Berg showed me, (and I mention Dallapiccola and Barber here as well) that is is very well possible to make use of some tonal structure if you want to, with the use of serial techniques. (If you want I can show you some of my work which is serial and tonal at the same time, or refer to work of others where this applies). I love interesting harmonies. It is a huge factor that determines whether I like a piece or not.