I have got a larger view into the very new music which comes from and inspire the composer student by the time. I went to a composer soire few weeks ago, and the program was really mixed and generelly a lot of it was quite tonal and simple. Even the electronic stuff was extremely simple and banal. It was far away from the 60ths and 70ths, and there were no signs left of serialism. The only danish serialist I know is 83 years old.
Serialism is not only a style/technique like 12-tone music, as I see it, but rather an approach to the art. Why is it not trendy to be academical or mathematical anymore?
styles, techniques, and trends change.
Is it, perhaps, that Serialism doesn't appeal to the heart in the same, immediate way that more tonal music can?
Quote from: mikkeljs on March 17, 2008, 08:47:24 AM
Why is it not trendy to be academical or mathematical anymore?
"Academic," when applied to art, is generally a negative term, denoting an uninspired adherence to a set of rules.
As to "mathematical," well . . . if composition is only a matter of mathematics, then any mathematician who can whistle can be a composer 8)
Quote from: Mark on March 17, 2008, 10:04:10 AM
Is it, perhaps, that Serialism doesn't appeal to the heart in the same, immediate way that more tonal music can?
I don't think there's any reason why this should be the case (I can think of many serial pieces that do, at least for me).
I think it's more a change of fashion, which isn't to say that there's not good music around that has taken lessons from serialism without using it per se.
Quote from: Mark on March 17, 2008, 10:04:10 AM
Is it, perhaps, that Serialism doesn't appeal to the heart in the same, immediate way that more tonal music can?
Depends on the particular heart.
Quote from: mikkeljs on March 17, 2008, 08:47:24 AM
Serialism is not only a style/technique like 12-tone music, as I see it, but rather an approach to the art. Why is it not trendy to be academical or mathematical anymore?
Because 99% of it is extraordinarily unpleasant to the ear.
Quote from: btpaul674 on March 17, 2008, 09:14:19 AM
styles, techniques, and trends change.
But generel serialism... I think is different from other trends. It´s more like a certain religion or philosofi, that matches the whole western culture.
Quote from: James on March 17, 2008, 10:27:02 AM
it helped open new pathways and was something that was bound to happen and absolutely needed to be done...it's old news now, and was fully exploited by Webern & others... it's been assimilated into the musical lexicon...
But that was an early state, I think. The later princip of counting every parameters in rows, that doesn´t have to be 12-tone rows, does reflect a way of thinking that goes beyond style and aesthetics...
Quote from: Sforzando on March 17, 2008, 10:23:16 AM
Depends on the particular heart.
Quite so. This heart is accustomed to, if not in love with, some Serialist music. Many hearts aren't ...
Serialism has many "conventions" such as species counterpoint, though that is not the best example. Some say that serialism was taken as far is ever was going to go. At least that what i was taught. I may be wrong, some teachers are not always right.
Quote from: c#minor on March 17, 2008, 03:02:37 PM
Serialism has many "conventions" such as species counterpoint
Of course, invented by that ascetic serialist, Joseph Johann Fux.
No way, wow i never knew Fux was a serialist. Interesting stuff.
Quote from: gmstudio on March 17, 2008, 10:55:39 AM
Because 99% of it is extraordinarily unpleasant to the ear.
This man speaks truth.
Though some people will say, "not to my ear, it doesn't!"
But consider how often it's the case that such works get programmed on an "affirmative action" basis--sandwiched between Brahms and Beethoven so the audience has no choice but to endure it.
Wasn't there a noted serial/12-tone composer whom on his death bed recently underwent profound regret in regard to his work?
There's a lot of bad serial music, to be sure, and I think that it tends to give the good stuff a bad name.
The type of 'affirmative action' type situation that -abe- mentions is the worst way to programme this music. I once attended a sublime concert given by countertenor Christopher Field, with associate artists Samantha Cohen (theorbo) and Geoffrey Morris (guitar). On the whole this was one of the finest concert experiences of my life, and the programme took account of a range of lyrical, transcendent repertoire ranging from Dowland, through Copland, and on to Finnissy. Sandwiched in the middle of the programme, however, was a solo guitar piece by Elliott Carter. Now, I love Carter, and this piece was really good, but it was completely inappropriate to the context, and the entire audience suddenly got very fidgety.
I don't think serial music is dead, but it has evolved somewhat. Many composers (including myself) 'serialise' certain paramaters of their music, but to extremely varying degrees of rigorousness. On the other hand, I think there are very few composers using anything like what Schoenberg would have regarded as a tone row.
The problem that serialism ran into was, in my opinion, the problem of tradition. The great serial works (both 'Schoenbergian' and 'integral') are great not because of serialism itself, but because they were composed by 'good composers' who were entrenched in the Western European tradition (despite, in some cases, actively trying to negate that tradition). There is, therefore, a kind of innate musicality in these works that allows them to be great. On the other hand, during the late 50's and 60's a generation of composers came to maturity who did not speak the musical languages of the past with the same degree of fluency. The musicality is not so innate in their music. I think this was particularly the case with the American serialists.
Serialism did, however, pave the way for some musical developments that seem to me altogether more exciting. The innovations of Xenakis or Lachenmann, for example, would be unthinkable without the democratisation of pitch offered by serial practices.
Quote from: -abe- on March 17, 2008, 04:50:35 PM
This man speaks truth.
Though some people will say, "not to my ear, it doesn't!"
But consider how often it's the case that such works get programmed on an "affirmative action" basis--sandwiched between Brahms and Beethoven so the audience has no choice but to endure it.
You really think this is any kind of gauge for determining quality music? What the suits dole out to the mainstream public?
I can't stand serialism, to me it sound as if random sounds have been put together. But i realize there has to be some validity to it, it couldn't have gained the popularity it has.
First of all, let me get this misconception out of the way: serialism is NOT a style. It is a technique and only a technique, just as 16th, 17th, or 18th century counterpoint is a technique and only a technique. The good or bad qualities of a piece written with serial technique should be attributed to the composer and not to serialism.
Second, this birth/death analogy for musical techniques and harmonic systems (tonality, serialism, minimalism, etc.) is fundamentally flawed, for these things are not born and they do not die: they evolve. Serialism emerged, quite logically, from Wagnerian chromaticism. Since the 1970's and 80's serialism has evolved into what is called set theory, in which composers use smaller groups of notes (usually 3-6) to compose. Sets can be manipulated in all of the same ways as 12 tone rows, but have more transpositional possibilities.
Maybe some composers would like people to listen to their music? I'm still waiting for someone to have the courage to just write a good tune.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 17, 2008, 10:46:10 PM
Maybe some composers would like people to listen to their music? I'm still waiting for someone to have the courage to just write a good tune.
I'm sure every composer wants people to listen to their music. But the key word here is '
their'. A composer should express themselves in the language with which it seems least contrived. There's a (necessary, I think) tendency when starting out as a composer to imitate other composers whose work you respect, but one certainly shouldn't write music that some percieved 'audience' might like, for that reason alone.
For many (good) composers, I think, the experience of creating music is significantly more elemental than 'writing something that I (the composer) want to listen to'. I think the act of composition is the act of exploring the implications of a burning musical question. The nature of music is that no 'answers' exist,
per se, so the exploration of 'questions' is invariably an interraction with the incomprehensible and the sublime.
If that makes any sense.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 17, 2008, 10:46:10 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to have the courage to just write a good tune.
You mustn't have listened to a lot of contemporary music then... There are plenty of composers who write "good tunes".
Quote from: MahlerSnob on March 17, 2008, 08:58:43 PM
First of all, let me get this misconception out of the way: serialism is NOT a style. It is a technique and only a technique, just as 16th, 17th, or 18th century counterpoint is a technique and only a technique. The good or bad qualities of a piece written with serial technique should be attributed to the composer and not to serialism.
Second, this birth/death analogy for musical techniques and harmonic systems (tonality, serialism, minimalism, etc.) is fundamentally flawed, for these things are not born and they do not die: they evolve. Serialism emerged, quite logically, from Wagnerian chromaticism. Since the 1970's and 80's serialism has evolved into what is called set theory, in which composers use smaller groups of notes (usually 3-6) to compose. Sets can be manipulated in all of the same ways as 12 tone rows, but have more transpositional possibilities.
That´s exactly why it seems vierd in my opinion, if serialism have lost its popularity among composers today. But perhabs it´s only a question about 10 years before it will get regularly trendy again. Maybe also strict counterpoint will inspire the next composer generation more than today. :D
Quote from: eyeresist on March 17, 2008, 10:46:10 PM
Maybe some composers would like people to listen to their music? I'm still waiting for someone to have the courage to just write a good tune.
Listen to music much? Each era, each culture, has its own criteria for what makes "a good tune."
Quote from: mikkeljs on March 18, 2008, 02:31:57 AM
Maybe also strict counterpoint will inspire the next composer generation more than today. :D
yeah, cuz contemporary music sounds to me like some of the least contrapuntal music in history..... it's like it died with serialism.
There's exceptions, like Reich, but not much, really. There's not actually any counterpoint going on with the spectral composers, either (and not much with the minimalists, or anyone else).
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on March 18, 2008, 07:17:03 AM
yeah, cuz contemporary music sounds to me like some of the least contrapuntal music in history..... it's like it died with serialism.
And that's where
I come in! hahahah! ....which reminds me...I must post a few of my more recent compositions here.
:)
Quote from: Norbeone on March 18, 2008, 07:28:36 AM
I must post a few of my more recent compositions here.
:)
I hope you will!
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,6749.0.html
- themes
- counterpoint
- good? dunno
Quote from: Sforzando on March 17, 2008, 10:23:16 AM
Depends on the particular heart.
Hahahahaha, I just made this exact same point not more than a week ago, on another forum!!
So I guess I'm saying "we agree"!!
Truly, listening to music of any complexity requires some background. With tonal music, a lot of background is a given, a social, cultural, historical thing that's just pretty much just there. That's not all the story by any means. But tonal music seems easier than serial, at first, because it carries with it centuries of familiarity.
Non tonal musics are just as beautiful, just as listenable, just as valuable as any tonal musics.
Given trained ears, there's lots of music that will "speak to your heart," as it were.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on March 18, 2008, 07:17:03 AM
yeah, cuz contemporary music sounds to me like some of the least contrapuntal music in history..... it's like it died with serialism.
Not sure. It seems to me the counterpoint found in new music has more in common with the Renaissance polyphonists than those of the Bachian variety. More of a loose association of musical lines rather than strict counterpoint. </pseud's observation>
Quote from: Corey on March 18, 2008, 01:32:12 PM
Not sure. It seems to me the counterpoint found in new music has more in common with the Renaissance polyphonists than those of the Bachian variety. More of a loose association of musical lines rather than strict counterpoint. </pseud's observation>
Exactly. I would suggest that a great deal of good contemporary music is much more highly contrapuntal than anything from the Classical or Romantic eras. Check out Ferneyhough, Dench, Barrett, et al. Although perhaps 'counterpoint' is a term less useful than 'polyphony', in this case.
Re My previous post and responses;
Can anyone name some contemporary composers who are talented melodists?
Quote from: eyeresist on March 19, 2008, 01:22:15 AM
Re My previous post and responses;
Can anyone name some contemporary composers who are talented melodists?
I find that harder to define. But what do you think about Stockhausens Tierkreiz?
Quote from: eyeresist on March 19, 2008, 01:22:15 AM
Re My previous post and responses;
Can anyone name some contemporary composers who are talented melodists?
Very difficult to define. First you would need to spell out the criteria of a 'good melody'. Perhaps the issue you have is that your criteria are just
different from those of many composers.
But off the top of my head I would say that composers still living include:
Brian Ferneyhough
Michael Finnissy
Chris Dench
Per Nørgård
Heinz Holliger
Elliott Carter
Gyorgy Kùrtag
Mauricio Kagel
many many many others
If you wish to cast the net further back I would say:
Ives
Schoenberg
Berg
Skryabin
Nono
Berio
Feldman
Bernd Alois Zimmerman
Claude Vivier
Quote from: eyeresist on March 19, 2008, 01:22:15 AM
Re My previous post and responses;
Can anyone name some contemporary composers who are talented melodists?
Sure - but don't expect Bolero-like tunes that you can whistle after one hearing .
Olivier Messiaen : several of his early works ( Poèmes pour Mi, Trois petites liturgies...) have very recognisable melodies/tunes. In his last (unfinished) composition, Concert à quatre he used a (1938) "Vocalise" that is achingly sweet and beautiful ( flute, oboe, piano, cello & orch.)
André Jolivet : Messiaen's composer-friend . Many of his works have strong, long-lined lyrical melodies that summon incantation, mystery, prayer...( celloconcerto nr 1, Incantations for flute solo, the slow movement of trumpetconcerto nr 2...)
Jean Louis Florentz, Thierry Escaich, Phillippe Hersant, Nicholas Bacri, Phillippe Fénelon, Guillaume Connesson...are all fairly young French composers who write in a "free tonal" manner. Florentz ( who sadly died far too young) wrote several large scale orchestral works that abound with ( what I find as) gorgeous melody ( l'Enfant des iles, lAnneau de Salomon etc). He was also a biologist & ethno-musicologist ( African & Arab music) and that is reflected in his work as well : lush ,almost Romantic ( cfr. Villa Lobos...).
Berio's Sinfonia, Dallapiccola's Canti di prigionia....
Anyway, I'm listening to Berg, Webern, Schoenberg, Penderecki etc for more than 30 years now: I know many works almost by heart and can "sing" them . try Webern's Cantata nr 1 : Kleiner Flügel Ahornsamen".... that's as elegant and refined as a Schubert song....
Quote from: pjme on March 19, 2008, 03:19:04 AM
Webern's Cantata nr 1 : Kleiner Flügel Ahornsamen".... that's as elegant and refined as a Schubert song....
or the finale of the 2nd Cantata!
(humming to that one)
Quote from: eyeresist on March 19, 2008, 01:22:15 AM
Re My previous post and responses;
Can anyone name some contemporary composers who are talented melodists?
The Adagio from Bergs Lulu! I´m humming it often (all the voices by changing between them very fast. ;D)
Start at the top - Boulez. There are few more memorable melodies than e.g. the opening vocal line of Pli Selon Pli or the soprano's 'lizard' recitatives in Le Soleil des Eaux. Once heard, never forgotten - pure melody regardless of questions of era, style, a/tonality.
John Adams: Harmonlielehre (particularly the sweeping melody of part III-- VERY hummable).
Messiaen, Takemitsu & Feldman are very melodic.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 19, 2008, 01:22:15 AM
Re My previous post and responses;
Can anyone name some contemporary composers who are talented melodists?
If by contemporary you mean anything in the past few decades (i.e. you are using the label to make it clear that you're not talking just modern) then--
Arnold, Glass, Gorecki, Penderecki, and Schnittke should fit the bill for melodic music.
Quote from: James on March 19, 2008, 01:46:27 PM
limiting music to just easily-digestable simple direct easily recognizable tunes is narrow (& becomes boring) if that is all you want best stick with pop music perhaps...obviously music is far more expansive to keep it to just that, and there is plenty of mediocre tonal & modal stuff also, like serial ...if one has been exposed to lots of music from all periods of classical music you'd soon realize that melody can come in a multitude of guises, perspectives, shapes & sizes so to speak...this makes it all the more fun for the listener IMO. For me, I don't think there really is such a thing - in isolation - as a beautiful melody....more beautiful harmonization/melody...the horizontal & vertical in different perspectives and working beautifully together.
Is this a good characterization of the stretched tonality that's produced so much good music in the last century? I don't think it is. I can usually tell pop music from tonal classical music, and the latter doesn't seem to be trying to conform to the standard of the former. And it doesn't bother me much if no very bright line can be drawn between the more ambitious forms of popular music and some forms of classical.
Likewise I don't care whether classical works fit into a modernist framework or a traditional one. What I respond to is not something easily resolved into categories like that. When I hear something that sounds theory-driven I tend to lose interest, because something is in the way of me appreciating what I hear. The music can be strange and unfamiliar and I will give it a hearing, so long as some overriding concept isn't interfering. If you like these concepts, I can see how you might feel differently.
Thanks for all the suggestions, guys! This should keep me busy for a week or two ;)
I should clarify that by 'melody' I don't just mean a catchy anthem. I guess I mean a capacity for gorgeous musical phrases, brilliantly employed (Bruckner being my personal exemplar of this). As James points out, there's a lot of mediocre melodic music, though fortunately posterity has weeded out most of the older stuff. Modern mediocrities, on the other hand, are still alive and being praised by critics, and picking through the dross can be a drudge.
Quote from: drogulus on March 19, 2008, 02:27:46 PMLikewise I don't care whether classical works fit into a modernist framework or a traditional one. What I respond to is not something easily resolved into categories like that. When I hear something that sounds theory-driven I tend to lose interest, because something is in the way of me appreciating what I hear.
That's part of the reason I've rejected much music, modern and ancient. I also judge by a criterium I can't really describe except as 'musical intelligence' (as opposed to technical virtuosity).
I also hope I will avoid being painted as a philistine or wimp who only likes simplistic pop stuff. In modern music, I've found that some hardcore techno beats most "art music" in terms of imagination and 'musical intelligence' (though, again, there's the problem of picking through the dross). There's also a 'black metal' band called Emperor whom I admire - although the vocals consist largely of hissing, shrieking and screaming, there's obviously a powerful talent at work. Their final album, written and recorded entirely by one person, is packed with invention almost to the point of insanity, though sadly it, and the other albums, have very compressed, "flat" production.
Sorry, got slightly off-topic there... . 0:)
Quote from: James on March 19, 2008, 03:09:35 PM
Generally speaking the romantic mediocrities that tend to fill up the concert space... much easier to get the wider appeal with all that sentimentality. People (inc. musicians) very often need some crutch / diversions to help them stomach pure art. This crutch or diversion manifests itself in a different way - in much contemporary music - with the 'novelty noise' factor. Musical fashion victims are often attracted to it, and we all know the BS factor is high. For many it is easier to find some resonance in what is so often "sound & fury signifying nothing". But this is usually just transient stuff - which of course has it's relevant place for we who are contemporary with it - but is not usually to be confused with the serious stuff...
Well, I'm confused....do you have to look on the bottom to find the "serious stuff" label?
Fashion plays a role, but theory is often behind what looks like mere fashion. The theory might say that music is supposed to develop in a certain way, and if it doesn't it somehow doesn't count. The 20th century was a massive refutation of every such idea, if the ideas are to be understood as predictions. If they are just seen as spurs to creating in a new direction they have a role, but I don't see how you need such ideas since music can't help changing organically anyway, just by the process of composers trying new things in an ad hoc way like they've always done. So what's the theory for? In any case, if it
is useful it's still better to avoid distracting listeners with it.
Quote from: James on March 19, 2008, 03:09:35 PM
People (inc. musicians) very often need some crutch / diversions to help them stomach pure art.
Unlike we
ubermenschen!
I think serialism was "held on to" by the post WWII generation because it had been previously banned. Ligeti is a good example of a composer who so valued it, in the face of State censorship. This made him & others like it even more.
Serialism seems to have been defended as a fort in academic settings. Charles Wuorinen was a champion, and guys like this worked out of different universities...not in Oklahoma, but other places.
Maybe America has gotten more conservative and religious, and all the universities want more normal choral music and stuff like that.
I still like non-harmonically-derived music. Tonality is everywhere, and it is boring.
Anything different is discouraged these days. Be a good little citizen, or you're a sociopath with mental problems, according to Dr. Phil. I saw it on TV. ;D
Serialism is a bit like Tonality, in that there is wide (possibly, infinite) variety in the ways a composer may work within the soundworld. Pronouncing its "death" is wanking tendentious, tunnel-visioned, and wishful. As may be judged from the outset (Schoenberg and his two great pupils), there was never "only one way" to compose via the method of twelve tones. The Darmstadters notwithstanding, there was never going to be only One Path Forward with the 'system'. I compose all the time, governing pitch in ways which were illuminated by the 12-tone method; it has become part of the language.
Get over it.
Serialism can't die - when it gets to the end it just turns around and goes back to the beginning
(* chortle *)
Serialism died because it was always only about the ism.
I think serialism is hard to grasp for most people because it is a music which is chromatic, and tends to use all 12 notes most of the time. This is a consideration based on a formalized, conscious use of all 12 notes; most other primitive, folk, and ethnic and otherwise tonal musics are mostly informally derived harmonically, from sound phenomena gathered by the ear, when making or playing instruments, or singing.
When instruments are constructed, there are naturally-occuring harmonic phenomena which are encountered, which usually guide the results in directions which are harmonically-related, such as mouth-cavity resonances, string harmonics, and the acoustic properties of pipes and tubes.
It's no wonder that mankind has universally created harmonically-based music for the most part; I've never heard of 'tribal' serialism, or folk, popular, or ethnic music which uses all 12 notes, or a 12-note division. There is melodic music which is not harmonically derived, such as the 7-note equally-divided octave scale.
When considering the arbitrary nature of the 12-note division of the octave, this puts serialism and chromatic music into its own uniquely Western context, and the comparison with other cultures becomes absurd.
So, I am forced to conclude that, 12 notes or not, most Europeans and Americans are just like any other human species in their fondness for harmonically-derived music which is harmonic and based on sensual, visceral factors of consonance and tone-centeredness.
Quote from: millionrainbows on May 05, 2017, 11:51:37 AM
I think serialism is hard to grasp for most people because it is a music which is chromatic, and tends to use all 12 notes most of the time. This is a consideration based on a formalized, conscious use of all 12 notes; most other primitive, folk, and ethnic and otherwise tonal musics are mostly informally derived harmonically, from sound phenomena gathered by the ear, when making or playing instruments, or singing.
When instruments are constructed, there are naturally-occuring harmonic phenomena which are encountered, which usually guide the results in directions which are harmonically-related, such as mouth-cavity resonances, string harmonics, and the acoustic properties of pipes and tubes.
It's no wonder that mankind has universally created harmonically-based music for the most part; I've never heard of 'tribal' serialism, or folk, popular, or ethnic music which uses all 12 notes, or a 12-note division. There is melodic music which is not harmonically derived, such as the 7-note equally-divided octave scale.
When considering the arbitrary nature of the 12-note division of the octave, this puts serialism and chromatic music into its own uniquely Western context, and the comparison with other cultures becomes absurd.
So, I am forced to conclude that, 12 notes or not, most Europeans and Americans are just like any other human species in their fondness for harmonically-derived music which is harmonic and based on sensual, visceral factors of consonance and tone-centeredness.
So your argument should apply to non serial dodecaphony. And it doesn't.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 05, 2017, 05:16:00 AM
Serialism is a bit like Tonality, in that there is wide (possibly, infinite) variety in the ways a composer may work within the sound world...As may be judged from the outset (Schoenberg and his two great pupils), there was never "only one way" to compose via the method of twelve tones.
That's true in a certain way, but might be misleading. Serial music deals with the total chromatic, so it's going to sound chromatic; and serialism does not create tonal hierarchies out of harmonic resources, so it's going to be linear, contrapuntal, and thematic/motivic.
Other forms of harmonically-derived modernism are going to sound like some form of tonality, because that's what they are; hybrid, mutated forms of different 'tonalities.'
Of course, the more chromatic the "tonality" is, the more localized and involuted it's going to sound, because that's what happens in chromatic divisions: the recursive patterns get smaller and more in-octave.
No music outside of the Western tradition uses a similar systematic harmony, the textures are monophonic, polyphonic or heterophonic. Anyway, who cares if serialism is 'unnatural'? - so is living past 40 or arguing on the Internet
The death of serialism?
Serialism isn't a method bound to time, if Bach is still relevant than something from 50 years must still be as relevant or moreso.
If we're talking in terms of the social/historical context, sure I'll say it isn't primarily situated as the big "this is new" minded revolution it once was.
Regardless, it still remains an important part of music
Quote from: Webernian on May 08, 2017, 03:40:15 PM
The death of serialism?
Serialism isn't a method bound to time, if Bach is still relevant than something from 50 years must still be as relevant or moreso.
If we're talking in terms of the social/historical context, sure I'll say it isn't primarily situated as the big "this is new" minded revolution it once was.
Regardless, it still remains an important part of music
All of these "blind alley" remarks are even more ludicrous given the fact that the 12-tone method in its most strict form still survived longer than the high classical era lasted, and this amid a time of much more rapid aesthetic change.
In my opinion the world of art music is a bit in a stagnated state. To break free from that state new ways of doing things is needed. I predict that the next big step will be a real incorporation of electronic music into classical music. All the "electroacoustic" experiments and works we have are pretty lame and silly in this sense. People need to stop thinking instruments as acoustical, electric and computer-created. There's only instruments based on different technical principles. There a huge mental gap between electronic music and classical music and in my opinion hardly anyone is building a real bridge to connect these two worlds, but the bridge is needed for the next step. Yes, classical music composers use electronics and computers, but they force that stuff into the classical world. They are only looking over the mental gap, not walking over it. Similarly computer nerds force classical music into the synthetic world again only watching over the mental gap. The result is that the forced combination of the two worlds does not give anything, on the contrary it often takes away!
The reason, why nobody is building the bridge is because it takes an Einstein-level genius to do it. One of the biggest problems is that electronic and especially computer-based music is extremely accurate in nature while classical music is fluid in nature and contains a "random" incredient called artistic expression. The concept of "accuracy" are completely different in these worlds. Accurate tempi changes of classical music are pretty meaningless is the world of computer world often dominated by constant tempo clocked at an accuracy of nanoseconds. On the other hand, the accuracy of timbral fine-tuning or "track" level adjustment is meaningless in classical music. In classical music instruments aren't isolated "tracks". They are parts of an ensemble or orchestra. Classical music composers work with ensembles and orchestras while computer music composers work with "tracks". The philosophy is fundamentally different. Classical music is ever-developping and changing in nature, while computer music is often based on loops and the ideas of repeating optimized "blocks of music" such as sampled riffs many times. Computer music contains informational redundance that is not supposed to be taken negatively but as a "primordial" force.
So, we need a music style combining "fluid accuracy", "bit accuracy", "orchestra philosophy", "track philosophy", "ever-change" and "repeated blocks". That may take more than an Einstein of music! Only when we know how to do this the next step can be taken and the stagnation ends. In the past mental gaps were always much much smaller and music styles evolved constantly. Now we are in a situation where the gap is huge. Artists such as Stockhausen, Autechre and Tangerine Dream are perhaps partial solutions of the problem?
I will reiterate that 12-tone and serial music assume a musical language not built on hierarchies created out of harmonic considerations. It is based on the discreet pitches of the 12-note chromatic gamut, and as such it is approached that way, in set theory, as sets of pitches. We can say that intervals are the 'harmonic' content of serialization, as relationships abstracted from specific pitch identities. These intervals will also be discreet and separate from any hierarchical reference to a single pitch or pitch station.
As such, serial music and music based on the above principles will always sound "atonal" and will not create an overriding sense of tonality. If it does produce emphasis on localized tone centers or pitch-centricities, these will also be discreet as "intervallic shapes," independent from any single pitch reference. As such, these will be independent templates which move freely. There will be no dominating pitch reference or "tonality" in this kind of music.
Otherwise, music created from harmonic considerations, creating an hierarchy of reference, will always sound like some form of tonality.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2017, 12:05:28 AM
In my opinion the world of art music is a bit in a stagnated state.
I'm writing a piece I am very happy with, so stagnation is not my experience 8)
Quote from: millionrainbows on May 11, 2017, 11:17:36 AM
I will reiterate that 12-tone and serial music assume a musical language not built on hierarchies created out of harmonic considerations. It is based on the discreet pitches of the 12-note chromatic gamut, and as such it is approached that way, in set theory, as sets of pitches. We can say that intervals are the 'harmonic' content of serialization, as relationships abstracted from specific pitch identities. These intervals will also be discreet and separate from any hierarchical reference to a single pitch or pitch station.
Not sure I agree, but granting everything you say - so what? Should I listen to Webern's or Babbitt's music differently?
QuoteAs such, serial music and music based on the above principles will always sound "atonal" and will not create an overriding sense of tonality. If it does produce emphasis on localized tone centers or pitch-centricities, these will also be discreet as "intervallic shapes," independent from any single pitch reference. As such, these will be independent templates which move freely. There will be no dominating pitch reference or "tonality" in this kind of music.
Otherwise, music created from harmonic considerations, creating an hierarchy of reference, will always sound like some form of tonality.
This part is a mess as you can't keep making up your own definitions in your attempts at music dogmatism. Most music around the world has no concept of harmony but is tonal. The concept of harmony really came about in the 17th century and carried through contemporary popular music and other genres. Carter's music is very harmonic but certainly atonal under any definition of the word. Any music based on symmetrical scales, like Debussy's whole tone pieces or Messiaen's early music will necessarily lack a tonal center, but wont be fully chromatic. The tonality of many late romantic pieces like Liszt's Nuages Gris is also debatable. Also, its not that difficult to write a rigorous 12-tone piece that uses conventional triads and melodic movement and make it sound like late romantic chromaticism. Even simpler, just play some rows over a drone.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 11, 2017, 12:50:33 PM
Not sure I agree, but granting everything you say - so what? Should I listen to Webern's or Babbitt's music differently?
There is often quite a clear harmonic hierarchy in Webern, regardless of the use of tone rows. Babbitt follows suit for the most part too.
One only needs to read the scores to see the way he progresses through different harmonic stabilities, just like the renaissance music he was influenced by, or even Bach. It doesn't take a completely different approach, not at all.
If you wanted to truly understand what is going on, try a Schenker analysis.
Quote from: Webernian on May 11, 2017, 02:35:06 PM
There is often quite a clear harmonic hierarchy in Webern, regardless of the use of tone rows. Babbitt follows suit for the most part too.
One only needs to read the scores to see the way he progresses through different harmonic stabilities, just like the renaissance music he was influenced by, or even Bach. It doesn't take a completely different approach, not at all.
If you wanted to truly understand what is going on, try a Schenker analysis.
Schenker is sceintistic reductionist garbage, developed to show the supposed superiority of German music. It 'findings' are trivial, who cares about the reduction of a Beethoven symphony to a fundamental line? That's not what makes the music. It is completely worthless on modern period music
Quote from: Webernian on May 11, 2017, 02:35:06 PM
There is often quite a clear harmonic hierarchy in Webern, regardless of the use of tone rows. Babbitt follows suit for the most part too.
One only needs to read the scores to see the way he progresses through different harmonic stabilities, just like the renaissance music he was influenced by, or even Bach. It doesn't take a completely different approach, not at all.
If you wanted to truly understand what is going on, try a Schenker analysis.
You've given the game away. I said serialism was really about the ism, and you have confessed as much. If you need something like "a Schenker analysis" to understand the music then the music is really an exercise in the application of an applied theory -- the ism.
I have become so fucking jaded with music forums lately.
Quote from: Ken B on May 11, 2017, 03:35:28 PM
You've given the game away. I said serialism was really about the ism, and you have confessed as much. If you need something like "a Schenker analysis" to understand the music then the music is really an exercise in the application of an applied theory -- the ism.
You need theory to understand the construction of Bach or Mozart too. What's your point?
You dont need theory to listen to Webern, just open ears. The sense of time, phrasing and space that stems from the compostional techniques becomes apparant and requires no knowledge of tome rows, Schenkerian analysis or anything else. The phrasing is gestural and once you get that, it all falls in place
Quote from: Ken B on May 11, 2017, 03:35:28 PM
You've given the game away. I said serialism was really about the ism, and you have confessed as much. If you need something like "a Schenker analysis" to understand the music then the music is really an exercise in the application of an applied theory -- the ism.
Rubbish, that's not what I was saying. What I said is, serialism can be broken down very conveniently just like diatonic music. You don't need any specific method. But regarding Schenker, it is a form of analysis that breaks down whatever the music is, "tonal" or "atonal", to it's fundamental functions. You can do it on Mozart to understand what he's doing. You should probably do it on Bach too, you can do it on Schoenberg, Elliott Carter. The list goes on.
I never stated that it was needed, as you should have payed attention to what I wrote. You can see a linear progression just by looking at a score alone, you don't need analysis tools to realize that there is a series of developing harmonic progressions in a Webern or Schoenberg piece.
And there is no game to give away either Ken
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 11, 2017, 06:27:30 PM
You dont need theory to listen to Webern, just open ears. The sense of time, phrasing and space that stems from the compostional techniques becomes apparant and requires no knowledge of tome rows, Schenkerian analysis or anything else. The phrasing is gestural and once you get that, it all falls in place
Exactly
Quote from: Mahlerian on May 11, 2017, 06:10:40 PM
You need theory to understand the construction of Bach or Mozart too. What's your point?
You need exponentially more theory to understand either of those two, tbh. Serialism is such a simple concept by comparison.
Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on May 11, 2017, 07:14:18 PM
Amen brutha! :laugh:
Maybe you should give your contemporary forum another shot. I wouldn't mind talking about music more if so many people weren't around to reliably shit all over it.
Quote from: Webernian on May 11, 2017, 07:03:58 PM
Schenker -- is a form of analysis that breaks down whatever the music is, "tonal" or "atonal", to it's fundamental functions. You can do it on Mozart to understand what he's doing. You should probably do it on Bach too, you can do it on Schoenberg, Elliott Carter. The list goes on.
Shenker's approach to analysis is laden with the theorist's personal beliefs, and agenda / agendae.
He designed it to 'work' and show that...
1.) Tonal music was not only superior, but the only truly good music.
2.) that his method would (somehow?) reveal
that German music was far superior to any other music. [Oy, vey ist mir!]It is most useful, then, for tonal music, including, I suppose, the later phases of tonality in the late romantic vein and their denser harmonic usage and sometimes greater length.
Elliot Carter -- composer and theorist -- said he had looked into it, and found it 'useful,' to, for example, see if over the course of its duration a piece had, say, dropped down one octave; he found it of little or no other usefulness at all ;-)
'Normal' Roman numeral analysis can get you so bogged down in step-by-step details that it is possible to miss the larger point. Ergo, the premise of looking at a piece more widely and globally, i.e. more of an overview from its beginning its end, is good; following Shenker's specific methods or 'rules' is not always so applicable, or good.
Best regards.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 11, 2017, 12:50:33 PM
Not sure I agree, but granting everything you say - so what? Should I listen to Webern's or Babbitt's music differently?
When I listen to Webern, I listen for areas of intervals which seem to crop up; areas of fifths, tritones, thirds, etc, but as intervals, not as tonal steps in reference to a tonic. This is going to be the harmonic substance of 12-tone and serial music; the ordering of pitches not only creates themes, motifs, and linear entities, but the ordering also fixes interval relationships between adjacent notes. Babbitt was interested in special-case rows or sets which remained 'the same' under different transformations (inversions, etc), and "all-interval" sets. The reason for this is that it increased the 'predictability' of the material, both horizontally and vertically. This would allow him to produce areas where certain intervals would dominate or recur in the same ways, thus producing a "12-tone tonality" as George Perle called it.
Quote from: millionrainbowsAs such, serial music and music based on the above principles will always sound "atonal" and will not create an overriding sense of tonality. If it does produce emphasis on localized tone centers or pitch-centricities, these will also be discreet as "intervallic shapes," independent from any single pitch reference. As such, these will be independent templates which move freely. There will be no dominating pitch reference or "tonality" in this kind of music.
Otherwise, music created from harmonic considerations, creating an hierarchy of reference, will always sound like some form of tonality.
Quote from: bwv 1080Most music around the world has no concept of harmony but is tonal.
The only requirement for tonality is a central tonic note. Additionally, it can be tonal for other reasons that are not 'harmonic' (as in simultaneous sounding of notes). For example, Thai music is strictly melodic, but it uses a 7-note scale. Scales divide the octave, and have 'starting notes' or are presented as scales in this way. These characteristics of scales imply tonality, as well as repetition, what's the lowest note, etc. Scales are a device of harmonically based music, even if used strictly melodically.
Quote from: bwv 1080The concept of harmony really came about in the 17th century and carried through contemporary popular music and other genres. Carter's music is very harmonic but certainly atonal under any definition of the word.
I disagree that traditional harmony, based on tonal hierarchies, 'carried through' to Elliott Carter and the like.
in a strict, literal definition, "harmony" is the simultaneous sounding of more than one pitch. That's not what I mean by "harmonically based music." We must clarify the distinction between "harmony" as used in tonality with functions in relation to a key note, and "harmony" as simply meaning stacks of pitches.
Quote from: bwv 1080Any music based on symmetrical scales, like Debussy's whole tone pieces or Messiaen's early music will necessarily lack a tonal center, but wont be fully chromatic.
I've already explained the Debussy elsewhere. The whole tone scale does not "lack" a tonal center: it can have seven possible tonal centers, and no stable fifth to go with any of them, so it implies an "unstable" tonality. Debussy places a bass note under it at the end of the piece (Voilies or whatever it was).
Quote from: bwv 1080The tonality of many late romantic pieces like Liszt's Nuages Gris is also debatable.
Lizst is harmonically-based tonal music.
Quote from: bwv 1080Also, its not that difficult to write a rigorous 12-tone piece that uses conventional triads and melodic movement and make it sound like late romantic chromaticism.
Now we are getting into gray areas of tonality in its most weakened states, and obscuring the principles which make tonality "tonal" and 12-tone music
not tonal. I've had to argue these points countless times.
Quote from: bwv 1080Even simpler, just play some rows over a drone.
This would be chromatic tonality, because the drone is a reference. Miles Davis did this on "The Cellar Door Sessions."
Quote from: Webernian on May 11, 2017, 02:35:06 PM
There is often quite a clear harmonic hierarchy in Webern, regardless of the use of tone rows. Babbitt follows suit for the most part too.
I'm skeptical of the use of 'harmonic hierarchy' in this way. It conflates the idea of a "tonal hierarchy" (which creates tonality) with an unspecified, vague use of the term as applied to Webern and Babbitt. Explanation is called for.
"Harmonic stability" is not tonality.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 11, 2017, 06:27:30 PM
You dont need theory to listen to Webern, just open ears. The sense of time, phrasing and space that stems from the compostional techniques becomes apparant and requires no knowledge of tome rows, Schenkerian analysis or anything else. The phrasing is gestural and once you get that, it all falls in place
True; you listen to Webern as music.
But when I do, I don't try to hear a tonality, and I have confidence in listening this way, gained by the knowledge that tonality is not there, regardless. I listen to Webern more linearly, for motifs, intervals, and shapes.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 13, 2017, 02:23:47 AM
Shenker's approach to analysis is laden with the theorist's personal beliefs, and agenda / agendae.
He designed it to 'work' and show that...
1.) Tonal music was not only superior, but the only truly good music.
2.) that his method would (somehow?) reveal that German music was far superior to any other music. [Oy, vey ist mir!]
Ravi Shenker?
To understand serial music, you have to understand tonal music, and what makes it tonal.
Also, you have to realize that tonal music had become more & more chromatic by Wagner's and Schoenberg's time.
Originally, tonality was based on 7-note scales, with key areas & key signatures, and modulated to different keys. Also, tonality was originally based on triads and their consonances: root, major third, and fifth.
The 12-note scale developed out of Pythagoran procedures of "stacking" fifths. At the 12th cycle (C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-F), they stopped, thinking that the cycle had overlapped on to itself, but this was merely a "close enough" stopping point, in order to "close" the octave. Thus, the Pythagoran comma, as it is called, was adjusted by 2 cents (a very small amount) to make all the notes equal.
Thus, the present day chromatic scale favors fifths (only 2 cents flat), but major thirds suffered: they became 14 cents sharp.
So "tonality" works fine if you stay in one or two keys, and maybe modulate 2 or three keys away (C-G-D-E) or (C-F-Bb-Eb). This is where Valotti and mean-tone temperaments came in, to give better thirds within a close range. Outside this range produced what are called "wolf fifths" which do not work.
So when chromaticism come in, tonality does not work as well. Its original basis of consonant triads is gone, replaced by equally "out-of-tune" triads.
With all 12 keys in use, the chromatic scale must be as even as possible throughout its range; thus the gradual rise and achievement of equal-tempered tuning, in use today.
After late Romantic tonality became almost totally chromatic, musical thinking began to turn to the 12-note chromatic scale as its starting point. This was a natural consequence of chromaticism; the reference back to tonality, cited by Wagner aficionados as "extended tonality" was only paying lip-service to tonal tradition; the "sound" of tonality was already gone, and tonality further became an abstracted, idealized idea of what it was originally intended to be: consonant sound.
If someone wants to follow-up on Shenker, Charles Rosen discusses him the in "The Classical Style". It's too long to quote here, but can be found in Part I, Chapter 2, starting on page 32. He found Shenker more useful than Carter did, but thought his method of limited use, and no use at all in nontonal works.
Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on May 15, 2017, 05:12:26 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/DlfpThd.png)
Here is the 13th note, and the 14th, and the 15th...etc.
https://www.youtube.com/v/ivsHkXY5LMk
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 15, 2017, 06:11:38 PM
If someone wants to follow-up on Shenker, Charles Rosen discusses him the in "The Classical Style". It's too long to quote here, but can be found in Part I, Chapter 2, starting on page 32. He found Shenker more useful than Carter did, but thought his method of limited use, and no use at all in nontonal works.
Now you remind me, I do recall. Entirely to the point. Worth specifically noting that even for tonal music, the use is limited. One story I remember is
Schoenberg being shown a Shenkerian graph for the
Eroica, and responding, "But where is my favorite passage in the first movement? Oh, these tiny notes over here."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 16, 2017, 02:46:28 AM
Now you remind me, I do recall. Entirely to the point. Worth specifically noting that even for tonal music, the use is limited. One story I remember is Schoenberg being shown a Shenkerian graph for the Eroica, and responding, "But where is my favorite passage in the first movement? Oh, these tiny notes over here."
Rosen included that anecdote in his discussion of Shenker.
Must be where I read it!
I always hear that saying, "There is still plenty of tonal music to compose," implying that the possibilities are endless. We can apply this same 'status quo' jingoism to serialism. As Rahn said, "We have just entered an enormous room of possibilities" in his book "Basic Atonal Theory."
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/21j37mq+zTL._AC_US218_.jpg)
I vow to continue to compose, play, and sing serial music, and I will not stop until I make it to the top 3 on "The Voice"!!!