Is Serialism Dead?

x

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.

It's dead in the sense that it's pretty much played out, and today, it would be difficult to exceed the works of webern, dallapiccola, boulez, etc. etc. since they did it so well. Also, there are some weaknesses to the technique (including a kind of homogeneity of sound) that need to be worked around.

It's as dead as, say, romanticism, or renaissance counterpoint, or classical form, and for the same reasons.

It's not dead, just out of fashion—the people who like harsh, discontinuous music have moved on to fanboy over Helmut Lachenmann and his disciples, the soulless academics now write soulless neo-romantic music (Corigliano, Higdon etc), the orchestral world limits itself to composers who already have at least 100 recordings of their music on the market and the 'average listener' is listening to Hans Zimmer or whatever. 

So I'm a huge fan of composers like Boulez and Webern, but whenever I talk about them with music teachers/professors, they act as if their music is "old hat" and no longer influencing the music composers are making today.  When they see a row matrix in my binder of compositions, it's like they discovered some kind of illegal substance, as if I were selling drugs.  What's up with this?  Am I really wasting my time studying these composers, or is there still a school of thought that believes in the avant garde?  Opinions on this matter are greatly appreciated.

You must have some scraggy teachers.

I agree about the teachers, they should, you know, help you develop what you're passionate about. 

Personally, I've done nothing to help prolong it's life.

It's dead in the sense that it's pretty much played out, and today, it would be difficult to exceed the works of webern, dallapiccola, boulez, etc. etc. since they did it so well. Also, there are some weaknesses to the technique (including a kind of homogeneity of sound) that need to be worked around.

 

It's as dead as, say, romanticism, or renaissance counterpoint, or classical form, and for the same reasons.

To which I say: don't let the past existence of masters in each of those genres discourage you from trying to reach the same heights.

I tried it once... but it wasn't my thing. I think perhaps it is kind of dead in a way. It isn't a big thing anymore from what I can tell. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't compose it if you have a real passion for it. I would encourage you to do what you love. Anything else does not matter when it comes to composing.

Serialism was a one-day fashion. I personally don't see it coming back. It was unique and brought up some interesting (although user-non friendy) compositions by Boulez, Stockhausen and some others and that was it.

Serialism was a one-day fashion. I personally don't see it coming back. It was unique and brought up some interesting (although user-non friendy) compositions by Boulez, Stockhausen and some others and that was it.

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.

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.

Name one famous composer who is writing serial music for the last 30-40 years. I don't know him/her and I follow world contemporary music scene all the time.

Name one famous composer who is writing serial music for the last 30-40 years. I don't know him/her and I follow world contemporary music scene all the time.

Pierre Boulez

Karlheinz Stockhausen

Walter Piston

Krzystof Penderecki

Luigi Nono

Charles Wuorinen

Milton Babbitt

Roger Sessions

In fact, pretty much any major name is either influenced, has written, or is actively writing serial or serialesque music.

Let's see what wikipedia has to say...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialism#Notable_composers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dodecaphonic_and_serial_compositions

The fact that you can't seem to think of a single living composer utilizing a technique that is one of the most ubiquitous techniques in modern composition demonstrates, yet again, just how ignorant and ill-informed you are.

Pierre Boulez

Karlheinz Stockhausen

Walter Piston

Krzystof Penderecki

Luigi Nono

Charles Wuorinen

Milton Babbitt

Roger Sessions

 

In fact, pretty much any major name is either influenced, has written, or is actively writing serial or serialesque music.

 

Let's see what wikipedia has to say...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialism#Notable_composers

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dodecaphonic_and_serial_compositions

 

 

The fact that you can't seem to think of a single living composer utilizing a technique that is one of the most ubiquitous techniques in modern composition demonstrates, yet again, just how ignorant and ill-informed you are.

 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.

 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.

He may have gotcha there, U-ie  

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 :)

12-tone music is only but a fraction of true serialism. Rautavaara's only sort-of serial piece is Fourth Symphony, not the Third where dodecaphony is involved. Other organization is absent. One of rare true examples of serialism are Structures by Boulez, some early works by Stockhausen where organization of 12 tones also involves dynamics, duration, articulation and timbre.

12-tone music is only but a fraction of true serialism. Rautavaara's only sort-of serial piece is Fourth Symphony, not the Third where dodecaphony is involved. Other organization is absent. One of rare true examples of serialism are Structures by Boulez, some early works by Stockhausen where organization of 12 tones also involves dynamics, duration, articulation and timbre.

Good point. I guess I was referring to it in the broader sense (serialism of pitches/dodecaphony)... maybe the original poster was talking more about "true" serialism, now that you mention it. If that's the case, I guess my original post still stands (but less emphatically)

 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.

 

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.

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.

x

As were a few other guys I don't really care about.

As were a few other guys I don't really care about.

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.

I'm not the one calling anything "dead". I just stated that I don't really care about its followers. Just that. Very simple. So you might as well stop pontificating about what is into the discussion and what not. Do you even read what you write?

Now you can save your pompous arrogance and your outmatched social skills for anything else.

I'm not the one calling anything "dead". I just stated that I don't really care about its followers. Just that. Very simple. So you might as well stop pontificating about what is into the discussion and what not. Do you even read what you write?

 

Now you can save your pompous arrogance and your outmatched social skills for anything else.

Obviously, you have not been involved in the conversation up until the post I quoted. The majority of that was directed at the crowd of people chiming in on Crt's side that serialism is no longer relevant or actively being pursued. The fact that you chimed in to voice your disinterest in the named serialists alligned you with that crowd.

I was expressing my frustration that someone who claims to be well informed on the modern music scene seemed to be confident in his assertion that there is not a single well known respected composer that specializes in serialism.

Besides, Bob, I'm pretty sure you're a pedophile.