Serialism

[San Antone]

A few basic works ~

Messiaen: "Mode de valeurs et dintensites"

https://www.youtube.com/v/ME5laJctGCo

Technically a non-serial work, but one which was hugely influential for the total serialists.


Karel Goeyvaerts: Sonata for two pianos

https://www.youtube.com/v/tSb4LQCRJjI



Pierre Boulez: Structures, premier livre, chapitre Ia

https://www.youtube.com/v/FIo15gWMheA



Stockhausen: Kreuzspiel

https://www.youtube.com/v/T16_lfYBsd4



Milton Babbitt: Composition for 12 instruments

https://www.youtube.com/v/W_ErRFJRL7g



Luigi Nono: Il Canto Sospeso

https://www.youtube.com/v/5q_12QsLgCc

[not edward]

That's a nice selection above.

To me, one of the signs that serialism is less restrictive than one might instinctively think comes in the contrasts between the styles of different composers. Much Italian serialism, for example, always sounds very Italian to me (perhaps most obviously in Dallapiccola, but also in the serial works of the likes of Petrassi, Nono and Maderna).

Even a work like Nono's Il Canto sospeso, which was very strictly through-composed, using various durational and registral mechanics as well as a rigidly constructivist series (A-Bb-Ab-B-G-C-F#C#-F-D-E-Eb) used only in its prime form--has an innate lyricism I find hard not to think of as Italian.

[some guy]

Indeed.

And the same could be said for tonality, which, on the face of it, is another incredibly restrictive system.

[torut]

Are there still contemporary composers who actively use the serial technique, not just for limited effects, but as the main idea of a work?

While checking Another Timbre web site, I found "the simplest twelve tone music" by Anders Dahl.
http://www.anothertimbre.com/rows.html

[...] So I set out to create the simplest twelve tone music I could think of. The solution I came up with was to play each note of the twelve tone row once and then be done.
So each row is randomly generated as a twelve-tone row with a set duration. The musicians play all the notes once and in the specified order, at any point within the time assigned to that row. The musicians can play the note however they like. Only the letter for the note is specified so they can play it in any octave. They can also skip any note or replace it with an unpitched sound or noise. In addition some of the rows have a title, which suggests a particular approach, and acts as a kind of guide which they can either follow fully, partly or not at all.
[...] So I asked the musicians to plan out ahead what to play and try to stick to that plan as much as possible. Of course I couldn't expect the musicians to succeed in this completely, but it still brought an interesting dynamic where they were trying to avoid their habit of improvising together.

I found the idea interesting: minimal music using serialism technique, chance operation and indeterminacy, but trying to avoid improvisation / interplay.

two rows from nine on the disc:
https://www.youtube.com/v/D6jbwTruyEk

[EigenUser]

It is often said (notably by Boulez) that the idea of serialism is to have things be ordered. I have always taken this at face-value, but the more I think about it, the more I disagree -- or at least misunderstand.

I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm trying to promote one thing over the other, so I'm going to use to pieces that I don't like as an example.

Take, for instance, Mozart's 40th symphony. The phrases are organized meticulously. A series of notes are chosen within a tonal context, dynamic levels are used for entire phrases consisting of several notes, and rhythms are used in recognizable patterns. To me, this is highly ordered music. On the other hand, take Stockhausen's "Gruppen". Stockhausen is careful to use every note in the set of twelve only once in a series, the dynamic levels are used only for single notes, and the rhythms/durations are chosen one-at-a-time. While the notes are in a specific order, all musical parameters come together and form what seems to be disorder.

The Mozart reminds me of ordering Skittles according to color. The Stockhausen reminds me of picking one Skittle, placing it down, and deliberately reaching for a different colored Skittle, placing it next to the first, so on and so forth until each color has been used once. Then, the next row is intelligently re-ordered retrograde/inversion/etc. Even so, they are all still mixed up. Perhaps now we can add a third example -- Cage's "Concert for Piano and Orchestra". Here, the Skittles are chosen randomly and placed next to each other. This is clearly disordered as well. What's the difference, then? The only "order" seems to be in the Mozart example.

[Mirror Image]

It is often said (notably by Boulez) that the idea of serialism is to have things be ordered. I have always taken this at face-value, but the more I think about it, the more I disagree -- or at least misunderstand.

I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm trying to promote one thing over the other, so I'm going to use to pieces that I don't like as an example.

Take, for instance, Mozart's 40th symphony. The phrases are organized meticulously. A series of notes are chosen within a tonal context, dynamic levels are used for entire phrases consisting of several notes, and rhythms are used in recognizable patterns. To me, this is highly ordered music. On the other hand, take Stockhausen's "Gruppen". Stockhausen is careful to use every note in the set of twelve only once in a series, the dynamic levels are used only for single notes, and the rhythms/durations are chosen one-at-a-time. While the notes are in a specific order, all musical parameters come together and form what seems to be disorder.

The Mozart reminds me of ordering Skittles according to color. The Stockhausen reminds me of picking one Skittle, placing it down, and deliberately reaching for a different colored Skittle, placing it next to the first, so on and so forth until each color has been used once. Then, the next row is intelligently re-ordered retrograde/inversion/etc. Even so, they are all still mixed up. Perhaps now we can add a third example -- Cage's "Concert for Piano and Orchestra". Here, the Skittles are chosen randomly and placed next to each other. This is clearly disordered as well. What's the difference, then? The only "order" seems to be in the Mozart example.

And just like tonal music, there's good and bad serial music. For me, it doesn't get much better than Schoenberg and Berg. This is serialism with a heart and a purpose.

[EigenUser]

And just like tonal music, there's good and bad serial music. For me, it doesn't get much better than Schoenberg and Berg. This is serialism with a heart and a purpose.

I listened to the Berg VC again a few weeks ago. Also, tonight I saw the "Three Pieces for Orchestra" -- nothing (although, the Mahlerian hammer was entertaining ). I actually liked the VC less this time. On the other hand, I felt quite sad listening to Webern's "Six Pieces for Orchestra". His music was much more enigmatic for sure, yet it seemed very sad to me. I expected to appreciate Berg before Webern. I can't say I appreciate Webern yet, but I somehow related to his music more.

I was referring more to total serialism, though (i.e. early Boulez and early Stockhausen).

[Mirror Image]

I listened to the Berg VC again a few weeks ago. Also, tonight I saw the "Three Pieces for Orchestra" -- nothing (although, the Mahlerian hammer was entertaining ). I actually liked the VC less this time. On the other hand, I felt quite sad listening to Webern's "Six Pieces for Orchestra". His music was much more enigmatic for sure, yet it seemed very sad to me. I expected to appreciate Berg before Webern. I can't say I appreciate Webern yet, but I somehow related to his music more.

I was referring more to total serialism, though (i.e. early Boulez and early Stockhausen).

Well, the serialism I like is from Schoenberg and Berg. Don't care anything about Webern or his off-spring (Boulez, Stockhausen, etc.).

[ibanezmonster]

Well, the serialism I like is from Schoenberg and Berg. Don't care anything about Webern or his off-spring (Boulez, Stockhausen, etc.).

I'm almost the same way. I like Webern and Boulez (Webern much more), but enjoy Schoenberg and Berg much more easily.
Actually, the only Darmstadt-ish/Webern-style composer I'm a big fan of is Lachenmann, but not sure you could lump him in with that style save for his earlier music.

Webern's music is most easily enjoyed when you aren't looking for something emotional. His music says something different which can be enjoyable in its own way.

[Mirror Image]

Webern's music is most easily enjoyed when you aren't looking for something emotional. His music says something different which can be enjoyable in its own way.

I certainly can understand this and this is the very reason as to why I can't enjoy Webern much, because, for me, I must get something emotional, as well as intellectual, from music in order for me to love it.

[torut]

I certainly can understand this and this is the very reason as to why I can't enjoy Webern much, because, for me, I must get something emotional, as well as intellectual, from music in order for me to love it.

What do you think of George Perle's music? I think his music is lyrical and emotional. However, his "twelve-tone tonality" technique is different from Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique.

[jochanaan]

...On the other hand, I felt quite sad listening to Webern's "Six Pieces for Orchestra"...

...which, BTW, is not serial.

[amw]

Webern's music is most easily enjoyed when you aren't looking for something emotional. His music says something different which can be enjoyable in its own way.

I think Webern's music is a lot more emotional than that of Berg (or even Mahler, his closest musical relative in some ways). I think that's part of the reason people don't like listening to it actually—emotions are not always comfortable or enjoyable, and comfort and enjoyment are what people usually seek from entertainment. The Grosse Fuge has a similar predicament. For unemotional music you could try selected works of Satie or Nancarrow or Ligeti.

[Mandryka]

I agree with amw about the emotional content of Webern (though not about Ligeti), but I do think that you need the right performance to reveal it. You know, if you listen to Arditti or La Salle in op 28 you may agree with Greg and Mirror Image. If you listen to The Schönberg Quartet or ABQ you may wee where amw is coming from.

Berg and Schoenberg are more like Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler. Webern sounds as though he's completely different, more French (Debussy) than German.

[EigenUser]

...which, BTW, is not serial.

...this I did not know. Thanks! I know that Berg's and Schoenberg's "X Pieces" aren't, but for some reason I assumed Webern's were.

I think Webern's music is a lot more emotional than that of Berg (or even Mahler, his closest musical relative in some ways). I think that's part of the reason people don't like listening to it actually—emotions are not always comfortable or enjoyable, and comfort and enjoyment are what people usually seek from entertainment. The Grosse Fuge has a similar predicament. For unemotional music you could try selected works of Satie or Nancarrow or Ligeti.

I think that Ligeti's music has some of the greatest emotional content out of his contemporaries .

I certainly can understand this and this is the very reason as to why I can't enjoy Webern much, because, for me, I must get something emotional, as well as intellectual, from music in order for me to love it.

I feel the same way, except with an addition: I occasionally like listening to things that are totally "out there" (e.g. Stockhausen) just because it is interesting to me. Do you ever do that?

Edit: By the way, have you heard Stockhausen's "Tierkreis" for orchestra? I find it enjoyable, surprisingly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=718J9pmDFZM

[torut]

an interesting paper.

Serialism and dodecaphony before Schönberg's Opus 23
Mike Krzyzaniak
http://michaelkrzyzaniak.com/Research/EarlySerialism/

[Mandryka]

I'm just going to plant this interview with Gordon Downie here because it looks interesting

https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2008/03/05/gordon-downie-interview-part-one-forms-7/

[Mandryka]

@Florestan What do you make of this, from the above interview with Gordon Downie

 Much of this discussion boils down to what one considers the function of aesthetic objects to be. Most of the time, there appears to be a tacit understanding between cultural producer (or artist), consumer, and various administrative intermediaries about what such objects should do. In the main, and to varying degrees, this is an agreement that prioritises the mimetic or representational function of art objects, in which the art object must signify or be about something external to itself.

I'm interested in self-referential work that seeks to foreground the medium, so that the subject of an art object, if it has one, is the formal and technical means of its production. Much hostility toward this programme is based around the extent to which it seems to demote subjectivity. But in the current socio-political context, I find the notion of the subject so problematic that, at this juncture, I see no alternative to a more or less strict formalism. Methods of rationalisation – integral serialism being the most well known – enable us to externalise creative action in order to subject it to thorough critique.

Parametric composition – building the art object from the ground up – strikes me as the most efficient means to control the signifying capacity of artworks. The alternative – which is the norm – is to construct music from other music, or from compound, ready-made material the contents of which are more or less out of the composers' hands. This practice explains, in part, the routine explanation of artists' work with reference to other artists' work, rather than in terms of more fundamental, medium-specific criteria. This is the staple critical diet of much work in academia.

I have no responsibility for listeners or performers that aren't interested in this perspective, but I think they need to consider the relationship between composer and auditor much more seriously, to be sure that they are content with the levels of exploitation associated with work of a more immediately accessible complexion – they should ask themselves why they find a given work easier; they should ask themselves how the composer achieved this, and why the composer achieved this; they should ask themselves why, when we are surrounded by complexity in all other spheres, music should be any different. I'm not interested in art as escape.

[Karl Henning]

Interesting. 

[Mandryka]

I think the key sentence in it -- and I don't understand it really -- is this:

But in the current socio-political context, I find the notion of the subject so problematic that, at this juncture, I see no alternative to a more or less strict formalism.