Twelve-tone technique and my beginner's prejudice

[Linus]

Now, I haven't heard much Schönberg et. al., so this post won't have much of an empirical foundation. This is just a quick reflection on twelve-tone technique in theory.

(--- WARNING: The following content may repeat ideas used by many a newcomer and may annoy the heck out of veterans tired of newcomers' baloney. ---)

So, TTT abandoned one "formula" (tonality) and went for another. My predictable question: Isn't this idea (of having no note repeated within a row of the chromatic scale) unnecessarily limiting emotionally?

I imagine a composer using TTT and he's on the brink of writing a profound melody if only he were allowed to use C# again. But no, C# was already used, say, nine notes before, so he'll have to do something else.

Also, doesn't TTT make it very difficult to maintain a mood and develop the same? Atonality is one thing, but to force music to stay this "free" even if it makes no "emotional sense" (take me away from all these quotation marks!) seems to approach the territory of different for different's sake, no?

I appreciate any comments/ideas/comfort/rebuttals.

[jochanaan]

As Arnold Schoenberg developed it, twelve-tone serialism limits only the "named" notes.  The rhythmic, dynamic and "orchestrational" (to coin a term) elements of music are not limited, and thus serialism allows considerable freedom in emotional expressiveness.

Have  you come across Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra?  There's a good example of the twelve-tone method resulting in dynamic, expressive music.

(Milton Babbitt and Pierre Boulez are among the practitioners of "total serialism," in which series, or "rows," govern not only the notes but the rhythms, dynamics and many other musical elements.  I myself, despite my love of the avant-garde, am not particularly comfortable with this method, but I'm not about to dismiss it out of hand.)

[Karl Henning]

Cheers, Linus!  I appreciate the open-minded tone of your query!

So, TTT abandoned one "formula" (tonality) and went for another. My predictable question: Isn't this idea (of having no note repeated within a row of the chromatic scale) unnecessarily limiting emotionally?

I think it a good question;  only I question the adverb unnecessarily.  Probably any method has its emotional limitations, and in fact I see that as part of the artistic drive behind the development of the new method:  to express emotions for which tonality is perhaps limited.

"Limitations" must be understood with a grain of salt, I think:  no one yet has found the emotional limitations of either method.  And famously (perhaps you've already heard or read this) Schoenberg opined that there is still "plenty of good music to be written in C major."  And since throughout his career he continued to write in both methods, it wasn't just talk!

I imagine a composer using TTT and he's on the brink of writing a profound melody if only he were allowed to use C# again. But no, C# was already used, say, nine notes before, so he'll have to do something else.

Schoenberg, the inventor (!), would have been the first to say "throw out the method if the music requires something else."

Also, doesn't TTT make it very difficult to maintain a mood and develop the same? Atonality is one thing, but to force music to stay this "free" even if it makes no "emotional sense" (take me away from all these quotation marks!) seems to approach the territory of different for different's sake, no?

Writing good music by what method soever is a challenge for anyone.  When one has mastered the tools, the tools do not determine the range of possible work.  And, however one chooses to write music, the method and content must come from unshakeable conviction.  In Schoenberg's work, it is no matter of doing something merely for the sake of being different.

[Dax]

Webern probably offers a more immediate and persuasive entry into 12 note music than Schoenberg. A work like the Concerto for 9 instruments op 24 is crystalline and based quite clearly on the kind of limitations which the discipline can offer: a particularly individual solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-52m1Najw

Another entry may be via jazz (in the widest sense), although I suspect not many others would agree. Leaving aside the bass part, David Shire's theme music for The taking of Pelham 123 (the original film) uses a note row almost identical to that of Webern's Concerto. It's worth asking yourself why he made that particular choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kYR3lxQti4

[Linus]

Thank you all for your input!

As Arnold Schoenberg developed it, twelve-tone serialism limits only the "named" notes.  The rhythmic, dynamic and "orchestrational" (to coin a term) elements of music are not limited, and thus serialism allows considerable freedom in emotional expressiveness.

Have  you come across Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra?  There's a good example of the twelve-tone method resulting in dynamic, expressive music.

(Milton Babbitt and Pierre Boulez are among the practitioners of "total serialism," in which series, or "rows," govern not only the notes but the rhythms, dynamics and many other musical elements.  I myself, despite my love of the avant-garde, am not particularly comfortable with this method, but I'm not about to dismiss it out of hand.)

But considering that non-serialist music is not very limited in terms of rhythm, dynamics or orchestration either (right?), it seems to me that we don't really "gain" anything from serialism as method (except originality).

I will check out the Variations for Orchestra, thanks for the tip.

Cheers, Linus!  I appreciate the open-minded tone of your query!

Thanks, I'm trying.

I think it a good question;  only I question the adverb unnecessarily.  Probably any method has its emotional limitations, and in fact I see that as part of the artistic drive behind the development of the new method:  to express emotions for which tonality is perhaps limited.

A good point, I think.

This is something that appeals to me very much when discussing music: different emotional landscapes.

If, as you say, this new method wishes to express emotions which tonality may be insufficient of doing, how do these emotions differ from those of traditional tonality? What does the "emotional landscape" of the new method look like? Are they possible to conceptualise?

"Limitations" must be understood with a grain of salt, I think:  no one yet has found the emotional limitations of either method.  And famously (perhaps you've already heard or read this) Schoenberg opined that there is still "plenty of good music to be written in C major."  And since throughout his career he continued to write in both methods, it wasn't just talk!

I suspect that, theoretically, there must be close to an infinite amount of good music still to be written using any method. The trouble, it seems to me, is that the practical probability of actually producing good music (as I see good music at this time) using TTT seems less likely than when using traditional methods. I suppose what I'm asking is whether we/I can really expect TTT composers to produce something artistically equal of, say, a Beethoven sonata. And this would also go for Beethoven himself if he were to travel forwards in time and compose serialist music.

Schoenberg, the inventor (!), would have been the first to say "throw out the method if the music requires something else."

Ah, that demolishes one of my prejudices altogether. I had (unconsciously) assumed that the TTT was something its adherents thought should be followed at all costs, rather than as a sort of guiding principle.

Correct. We can't really have a sound discussion if you haven't heard much 2nd Viennese School. (Schoenberg/Berg/Webern) .. even explore late Stravinsky. All of this music so incredibly rich, and it renovated harmonic thinking ..

Well, saying that this music renovated harmonic thinking is a good theoretical point, in my opinion.

In any case, if one is to discuss the theory of TTT I suspect any hints at the actual production of TTT might risk justifying its theory on the basis of subjective impressions of the music, which takes us even further away from the question of how we to evaluate TTT as method.

As Pierre Boulez also said (or very similar) ... you have to have passed through "the threshold" to hear Schoenberg / 2nd Viennese School Music ... by which he meant you must be harmonically evolved / sophisticated enough to appreciate the continuum of constant modulation - note by note vertically & horizontally - that is the article of faith built into the Serial technique ... a technique that is nothing like as predetermined or mechanical as many assume it to be. It seeks to halt HARMONIC TIME ... to defy tonal gravity. It's a strange thing the "threshold' ... and passing through it is more about not letting all previous experience of 'harmonic narrative' blot out this other way of hearing ... a way that could only have evolved and get it's meaning out of what went before anyway.

Again, very good theoretical points, this works splendidly, I think.

I should probably point out that predetermination is not one of my worries with TTT. If anything, I'm worried that it is too random.

I had suspected that there was a threshold of sorts. To be pedantic, I believe we pass through thresholds every time we manage to adjust our mind to the logic of something new, when it suddenly "clicks". It wouldn't surprise me, however, if the threshold of TTT is rather thicker to get through than most other musical thresholds.

To me personally, it helps getting theoretical "hints" like these, they help me adjust.

Always remember : Rules are for the guidance of wise men, but the obedience of fools.

Agreed.

Ironically it was Webern - his pupil - who is thought to have better applied & impemented the theories ... I love Webern ... if you want to experience, and pass through that "threshold" ... he will show you that portal ... and - if you have ears to hear - take you through. Bear in mind that Webern's output is so compressed & concise that it fits on 3 cds. Get the Sony complete Webern, very well priced - from the 1970's - but great performances & recordings. There's also the newer DG Boulez integral version. I'd say go for the Sony though ... cheaper and less ambient sounding, unless you're into that. If you end up buying this i hope you like it (in fact you can get things from the Sony set here for free >> http://www.antonwebern.com/ )... you might not "hear it" at first ... you have to remember that the specific aim is to subvert the functional gravity / narrative of western modal & diatonic tonal systems ... so it's like trying to stop time (musically speaking) ... to redefine harmonic narrative with a focus on the now ... but with forensic detail and restraint.[/font]

I very much appreciate this recommendation, Webern is now on my "to hear" list.

So, what distinguishes the new method from the old in your opinion is (primarily) that the new method does not focus on narrative and context, but on evoking in the listener a sensuous immediacy of sorts and have him/her "lose" him/herself in the music?

Webern probably offers a more immediate and persuasive entry into 12 note music than Schoenberg. A work like the Concerto for 9 instruments op 24 is crystalline and based quite clearly on the kind of limitations which the discipline can offer: a particularly individual solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS-52m1Najw

Another entry may be via jazz (in the widest sense), although I suspect not many others would agree. Leaving aside the bass part, David Shire's theme music for The taking of Pelham 123 (the original film) uses a note row almost identical to that of Webern's Concerto. It's worth asking yourself why he made that particular choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kYR3lxQti4

Thanks, Dax, I'll check these out!

[NorthNYMark]

I just  wanted to take a moment to thank every single contributor to this thread for providing such thoughtful and eloquent posts.  I've seen this topic in other forums devolve into sneering condescension from both "sides," and also seen discussion hinge on highly technical descriptions.  The questions and answers here, on the other hand, seem to illuminate, rather than obfuscate.

For what it's worth, when I was younger I strongly preferred atonal and dodecaphonic/serialist music (which to me sounded pretty indistinguishable from "free" atonality in practice, if not in theory) to more conventional classical music.  I sought the exhilaration of having little sense of how the music would move forward, yet also seeking to make a kind of intuitive "whole" of the seeming unpredictability (or, perhaps, to find the "invisible connections" between the notes). I also appreciated the gloomy, edgy, Kafkaesque atmosphere that such music (often) evoked. I was approaching it from an avant-rock direction, having listened to a lot of music like King Crimson's early '70s improvisations. It took me a bit longer to learn to really appreciate more conventional, tonal classical traditions, and I still struggle somewhat with 18th century musical conventions in particular (so perhaps Linus and I are trying to achieve the same goal, though from somewhat opposite directions). 

[Cato]

Greetings Linus, NorthNYMark, and other newer members!

Schoenberg's method allowed all sorts of creativity, and not all of it of the "darker" kind: check the works of Nikos Skalkottas and the later piano concerti of Alexander Tcherepnin for a different taste.

My favorite example: Charles Wuorinen's Grand Bamboula !

Wuorinen said of this extroverted work that "the notes of the Bamboulaare my own, and the work is composed in a variant of my characteristic manner. The locations of events in it, and thus the larger pace by which the work proceeds, are all determined by translating the pitch-intervals of the composition's twelve-tone set into time-intervals -- lengths that separate events from each other. Normally in my practice, I would consider these 'events' to be single notes and the time-intervals the distances among them. But here, the 'events' are actually motivic in themselves: they are short musical gestures, phrases, textures, juxtaposed to make the composition's tonality."

The piece contains one movement of six minutes and is considered one of the composer's "lighter" works. Wuorinen also explained that his Grand Bamboula demonstrates his attitude toward the organizing powers of the twelve-tone system as a musical formula that could merge with the tradition of tonal music. The basic tenets of the twelve-tone system, such as aggregate formation and clear presentation of sets or segments of them in the foreground are not of greatest importance in the Grand Bamboula; instead, Wuorinen allows the set to be "shape defining, harmony-determining, and gesture-unleashing."

See:

http://www.allmusic.com/composition/grand-bamboula-for-string-orchestra-mc0002448849

[EigenUser]

I should probably point out that predetermination is not one of my worries with TTT. If anything, I'm worried that it is too random.

I share this similar concern with you, even though I do enjoy some 12-tone works. I think of it as sorting m&ms according to color in some really elaborate and mathematically brilliant way. They probably would look random to those who didn't know the pattern.

I very much appreciate this recommendation, Webern is now on my "to hear" list.

I highly recommend Webern, too. In a way, he is the most difficult and enigmatic composer of the three, but his music has the greatest emotional impact on me. While not twelve-tone, his Six Pieces for Orchestra are a good starting point (no one does it like Rattle with the CBSO!). Then maybe the Symphony or the Concerto for Nine Instruments.

My entryway into this kind of "organized" music was Boulez's Derive I. It is a short work (about 7 minutes) for an ensemble of six instruments. It has a very "bubbly" feel to it and it helped me realize that twelve-tone (in this case, six-tone, actually) music can create different kinds of "feels" or "aesthetics".
http://www.youtube.com/v/nu1u5uBe9So

[Ken B]

I suggest you google what George Rochberg, at one time one of America's most acclaimed serialists, said after the death of his son. Then seek out some of his later music, such as Black Sounds or the Violin Concerto.

[Mirror Image]

So, TTT abandoned one "formula" (tonality) and went for another. My predictable question: Isn't this idea (of having no note repeated within a row of the chromatic scale) unnecessarily limiting emotionally?

No, I don't look at as emotionally limiting. I look at it as emotionality via a different soundscape that's in a slightly different musical world altogether. It's almost like you've entered into another dimension when you listen to Schoenberg or Berg and that, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Also, doesn't TTT make it very difficult to maintain a mood and develop the same? Atonality is one thing, but to force music to stay this "free" even if it makes no "emotional sense" (take me away from all these quotation marks!) seems to approach the territory of different for different's sake, no?

Twelve-tone music develops in its own way just like tonal music would. Listen, for example, to the development in Schoenberg's Violin Concerto or the Variations for Orchestra. These works are perfect examples of the twelve-tone technique having a strong narrative, expression, and sense of purpose.

[Jo498]

I do not know enough about harmony and compositional technique.
But the 12-Tone-Method was not just conjured up out of thin air. Neither was atonality. Wagner, Debussy and others had "weakened" tonal/tonical harmony in such a fashion that atonality was for man musicians a "logical" next step.
(the dogmatism comes in when some claim that it was the *only* logical step.)
But then some apparently had the problem of "too much freedom" and wanted a method to unify pieces in a stronger fashion. Someone once tried to explain to me how the 12 tone idea and "forbidding" repetition was a rather natural outcome of the kind of chords and chord progressions the atonal composers had used anyway, but this was too technical for me, so I do not really remember the details.

You may not know that the 12-Tone-Method was developed independently (as far as I know actually a little earlier than Schoenberg) by Josef Mathias Hauer. His music is very different from the highly emotional, expressionist Schoenberg (and followers), so he used the method apparently in a different way. There are other works supposedly based on 12 tone series that sound rather "tonal" (it all depends on the series I guess), e.g. Martin's petite symphonie concertante and some pieces of Rolf Liebermann from the 1950s.

[71 dB]

I imagine a composer using TTT and he's on the brink of writing a profound melody if only he were allowed to use C# again. But no, C# was already used, say, nine notes before, so he'll have to do something else.

This repetition thing is something I have never understood. Notes have to be repeated sooner or later, otherwise we have very short compositions! So, is there some kind of temporal structure within which you should not repeate any note? What are these temporal structures? How are tone rows related to this? Tone rows obviously tell which tones are available, but how do they dictate how you can combine these notes (into chords)? I rarely get answers to my music theory questions in forms my acoustics engineer head can understand.

I don't set myself any limitations when I make my music with computer. The limitations I face are these:

1) lack of talent.
2) difficulties in producing the sounds on computer I hear in my mind (crappy sound problem).

[Jo498]

There are several dimensions to the avoidance of repetition. One is pre-12-tone based on Brahms' constant "developing variation". Do not literally repeat themes/phrases (that's lame and boring )
In 12-Tone-composition the principle is that every tone of the row should appear once before the first one is repeated. But there are some exceptions available, AFAIR, and I don't know about vertical (in different voices)  vs. horizontal (in one voice/part) repetitions.

[Karl Henning]

Ah, that demolishes one of my prejudices altogether. I had (unconsciously) assumed that the TTT was something its adherents thought should be followed at all costs, rather than as a sort of guiding principle.

Well, that absurd idea was (quite possibly remains) a big piece of propaganda for Boulez & al., so it is not a matter of prejudice on your part, only the understandable mistake of taking the loud remark of an over-confident boor as The Fact 

Schoenberg (and others) are altogether artistic;  but some composers (and their groupies) have been eager distributors of dogma.  Personally, I am suspicious of artists who feel an urgent need for their own artistic opinions to be Universal Truths.  And the non-artists who are their lackeys?  Oh, you don't want my opinion of them 

[Cato]

This repetition thing is something I have never understood.

The idea is to avoid any kind of musical attraction to a tonal center: when a note is repeated, it is emphasized, and therefore the ear can begin to perceive a central tonality.  So to keep the equality of the notes equal, no repetition is allowed until all notes have had their turn.

To be sure, 12-tone composers do not always follow this!   

1. So, is there some kind of temporal structure within which you should not repeat any note?

2. What are these temporal structures? How are tone rows related to this? Tone rows obviously tell which tones are available, but how do they dictate how you can combine these notes (into chords)?

1. I would think that is entirely up to the composer, if s/he wants to play with that kind of restriction

2. Harmony is a function of the polyphony...or not!  Chords can be "dictated" by the row e.g. Let's say you have a row of C-D-F#-Bb-B-A-G#-Eb-C#-F-E-G.

You could have a chord of C-D-F# with a theme above it of Bb-B-A: the chord moves to G#-Eb-C# while the theme moves on to use F-E-G.  All twelve notes are therefore used, and one moves on to the next sequence.  Perhaps the theme now uses the notes used in the chords and the harmony uses the theme-notes from the first sequence.

Or not!   

Study Schoenberg's Third and Fourth String Quartets and other such things.

[jochanaan]

...But considering that non-serialist music is not very limited in terms of rhythm, dynamics or orchestration either (right?), it seems to me that we don't really "gain" anything from serialism as method (except originality)....

What we gain is freedom from the need for a tonal center.  Instead of being organized around a certain scale and chord structure, think of serial music as being organized around the note sequence.  It may seem artificial at first, but in practice it's no more artificial than tonality as tonality is practiced now.

[71 dB]

The idea is to avoid any kind of musical attraction to a tonal center: when a note is repeated, it is emphasized, and therefore the ear can begin to perceive a central tonality.  So to keep the equality of the notes equal, no repetition is allowed until all notes have had their turn.

That makes sense even to me.  However, if I repeat note C a lot, doesn't it mean the center of tonality could be any (tonal) scale including note C?

1. I would think that is entirely up to the composer, if s/he wants to play with that kind of restriction

2. Harmony is a function of the polyphony...or not!  Chords can be "dictated" by the row e.g. Let's say you have a row of C-D-F#-Bb-B-A-G#-Eb-C#-F-E-G.

You could have a chord of C-D-F# with a theme above it of Bb-B-A: the chord moves to G#-Eb-C# while the theme moves on to use F-E-G.  All twelve notes are therefore used, and one moves on to the next sequence.  Perhaps the theme now uses the notes used in the chords and the harmony uses the theme-notes from the first sequence.

Okay, this explains it somehow. However, this kind of thinking is quate alien to me. Are all the notes of a chord equally long? I think it's often rhytmically more interesting to have notes in a chord change at different times. So, chord C-D-F# would turn into chord C-D-G, for example, violating the tone row. Also, a "theme" of 3 notes sounds mininal. Why can't the theme share some notes with the chord under it? Perceived central tonality?

I understand why composers want to set limits and guidelines, but these limits are weird. It's as if an architects would deside that any building he/she designs can have only 10, 20, 30, 40, ... windows.

Thanks for trying to explaing these things. 

[Karl Henning]

That makes sense even to me.  However, if I repeat note C a lot, doesn't it mean the center of tonality could be any (tonal) scale including note C?

Well, as we know from the minimalists, just repeating a C is not quite the same as "establishing a tonality in C,"  any more than constantly repeating the phrase Thomas Kinkade is a great artist establishes the case 

[71 dB]

What we gain is freedom from the need for a tonal center.  Instead of being organized around a certain scale and chord structure, think of serial music as being organized around the note sequence.  It may seem artificial at first, but in practice it's no more artificial than tonality as tonality is practiced now.

Why organize music around anything? Is all art organized around something? Okay, art may become noise if it's not organized around something, but this something can be on higher level, something much more sophisticated than scales, chord structures and note rows. How about note matrixes = a set of note rows? That would be 12 x 12 note technique.

[Cato]

Okay, this explains it somehow. However, this kind of thinking is quite alien to me. Are all the notes of a chord equally long? I think it's often rhythmically more interesting to have notes in a chord change at different times. So, chord C-D-F# would turn into chord C-D-G, for example, violating the tone row. Also, a "theme" of 3 notes sounds minimal. Why can't the theme share some notes with the chord under it? Perceived central tonality?

I understand why composers want to set limits and guidelines, but these limits are weird. It's as if an architects would decide that any building he/she designs can have only 10, 20, 30, 40, ... windows.

Thanks for trying to explaining these things. 

1. The chord could be created any way the composer likes: arpeggiated or motivic or just as a chord of whole notes. 

2. The theme could share a note: the composer would need to follow the musical logic in his/her imagination!  The theme would not necessarily be perceived as 3-notes: check e.g. Tchaikovsky's opening "theme" in the last movement of the Sixth Symphony.  Depending on the composer, the entire sequence with the harmony and the two 3-note sections could be perceived as a melody.

3.  If you use these limits, and have success, I suspect they will not be weird at all!