4 ms·

> There's an argument that serialism forces composers to use those operations instead of falling back towards conventional theory. But in fact the opposite happ

> There's an argument that serialism forces composers to use those operations instead of falling back towards conventional theory. But in fact the opposite happened. It didn't take long for serial composers to start mining serialism for tonal elements. Nothing of this sort happened except in very exceptional cases where it's very obvious and clearly intentional, such as Alban Berg (who chose adversarially tonal tone rows). Besides you assume the only benefit you get from serialism is atonality but that makes no sense because many composers used tonal rows too (i.e. tone rows with 7 or 9 pitch classes in the Major or Minor system). Not only that but different composers used serialism for different purposes. You are however right that Schoenberg assumed 12 tone serialism implies some form of atonality, which is incorrect. Research shows that he had a bias towards atonal tone rows. Lerdahl's criticism of serialism is also convincing, i.e. the abstract structure of music does not translate to the heard structure of music. It's fair to classify this as the "art" part of writing serialistic pieces that theory is insufficient. Besides all of this, traditional music theory teaching focuses too much on serialism as a "technique" and not enough as a "structure", which was the main point of Schoenberg. For example, Elliot Carter claims he doesn't intentionally use row vectors or row matrices in his compositions, but his works can certainly be analyzed and understood this way. It seems like for a minor subset of free atonal compositions serialism is the natural structure of this kind of music. This point is often missed. I firmly disagree with your points about Schoenberg. I think he's one of the two gigantic innovators of music in 20th century: Philip Glass and him. (I understand this is extremely controversial, opinions are mine). It really takes a lot to make artistic statements so profound your works look misplaced in your canon but are still firmly part of it.

mrob 3y ago
>gigantic innovators of music in 20th century I still hold out hope that someday Harry Partch will get the recognition he deserves. If traditional Western harmony is played out, surely the obvious solution is adding more notes? It makes more sense to me than trying to wring out the last few drops of novelty using Schoenberg's ideas. Partch demonstrated that microtonal works can sound both pleasant and novel, but musicians are strangely resistant to the idea. One exception is Sevish, who produces some of the most interesting electronic dance and ambient music I've heard. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-JZhCWsk3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-JZhCWsk3M I wish more musicians would compose stuff like this.
- vonjuice 3y ago
  I find microtonality gimmicky
  - gnulinux 3y ago
    Me too. It's not a convincing direction for art music imho. This is my biggest criticism of Ligeti. I don't think he needed that detuned flute in his Violin Concerto. Otherwise love his music to my bones.
  - mrob 3y ago
    It's true that a lot of microtonal music is gimmicky, but I think that's the fault of the composers, not the tuning systems. Do you find barbershop music gimmicky? The defining feature of the genre (harmonic seventh chords) is microtonal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seventh_chord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seventh_chord
    - vonjuice 3y ago
      I'd not consider just intonation to be microtonality. I guess it technically is? But to me it conveys something different. For example, there's period performances of Bach pieces played in harpsichords tuned in just intonation. I'd not say that's microtonality.
      - mrob 3y ago
        Just intonation is an unusual choice for Bach's works. I'm not aware of any evidence that he used it, and he certainly thought about tuning. His "Well Tempered Clavier" was meant as a demonstration of some unknown tuning system that was more flexible than the various meantone temperaments that were common in his time. But there are approximations of meantone using just intervals, so it's certainly possible that people have performed it that way. But this sort of just intonation is not like barbershop, because all the intervals can be tolerably approximated with 12-equal temperament. The mood of the piece will change somewhat as some become more and some become less consonant, but it will remain essentially the same work. The barbershop seventh chord cannot be so approximated. The "ringing" sound of the seventh chord that defines the genre doesn't occur unless the seventh is tuned very noticeably flat from the closest 12-equal temperament equivalent. If you arpeggiate a barbershop seventh chord it sounds obviously microtonal.
zozbot234 3y ago
> Lerdahl's criticism of serialism is also convincing, i.e. the abstract structure of music does not translate to the heard structure of music. There are ways to address this however. One can add small-scale atonal elements to an otherwise tonal work, in a way that can be understood by the ear. I think this may account for why Webern is perhaps the most popular among the atonal and serial composers: his works are small-scale enough that one can at least think about what grokking them musically may be like. Same for the 'freely atonal' works of early Schoenberg. So it was nowhere near the total failure some people might think it was, just not the be-all and end-all.
handy2000 3y ago
Interesting point re: technique vs structure. Structure is in general a much harder aspect to both master and innovate in. I am curious, why do you consider Glass a more innovative composer than, say, Reich? Reich's counterpoint and phase music seem to have pushed music forward more noticeably than Glass (outside of, perhaps, Einstein on the Beach).
- gnulinux 3y ago
  I don't find Reich as convincing because I don't think he was prolific enough and canonical (with respect to forms he used) enough to make the profound statement Glass was able to pull off with his Violin Concertos, String Quartets and Operas [1]. Really, I see art as a tradition and Glass managed to put WCM (mostly concertos, symphonies, quartets, operas, solo piano really...) in the most novel context since Schoenberg. Reich is a great composer, but it's a tremendously harder pursuit to innovate within the tradition rather than reject it all and restart. Also you talk about counterpoint and incidentally early Glass sounds very contrapuntal (like early Reich) but I think a core message in Glass' body of works is that this entire bike shedding on harmony is so silly. There is so much to music beyond just pitch, and you can literally pick 4 chords and go crazy with it. He treats harmony as a solved problem. I think Reich would agree with this but I don't think his message is as profound. Think about Adams' "Harmonielehre" where he claims he wanted to combine minimalism and early 20th century harmony. The problem here I see here is that common practice harmony revolves around richness and variety. Fux himself says as much. It sounds gorgeous and new, but it doesn't go a long way to innovate anything. Although Glass' music sounds unserious, he actually tried to force himself to innovate. Which is what Schoenberg tried to do. Restrictions motivate artists to be creative. Listen to Glass first string quartet, it was composed in 1966 before Reich's phase music. [1] And of course his piano etudes but pianists insist they serve no pedagogical purpose, even though I still can't find someone who can actually play them well except Maki Namekawa. Roll eyes.

mrob 3y ago

>gigantic innovators of music in 20th century I still hold out hope that someday Harry Partch will get the recognition he deserves. If traditional Western harmony is played out, surely the obvious solution is adding more notes? It makes more sense to me than trying to wring out the last few drops of novelty using Schoenberg's ideas. Partch demonstrated that microtonal works can sound both pleasant and novel, but musicians are strangely resistant to the idea. One exception is Sevish, who produces some of the most interesting electronic dance and ambient music I've heard. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-JZhCWsk3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-JZhCWsk3M I wish more musicians would compose stuff like this.

vonjuice 3y ago
I find microtonality gimmicky
- gnulinux 3y ago
  Me too. It's not a convincing direction for art music imho. This is my biggest criticism of Ligeti. I don't think he needed that detuned flute in his Violin Concerto. Otherwise love his music to my bones.
- mrob 3y ago
  It's true that a lot of microtonal music is gimmicky, but I think that's the fault of the composers, not the tuning systems. Do you find barbershop music gimmicky? The defining feature of the genre (harmonic seventh chords) is microtonal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seventh_chord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seventh_chord
  - vonjuice 3y ago
    I'd not consider just intonation to be microtonality. I guess it technically is? But to me it conveys something different. For example, there's period performances of Bach pieces played in harpsichords tuned in just intonation. I'd not say that's microtonality.
    - mrob 3y ago
      Just intonation is an unusual choice for Bach's works. I'm not aware of any evidence that he used it, and he certainly thought about tuning. His "Well Tempered Clavier" was meant as a demonstration of some unknown tuning system that was more flexible than the various meantone temperaments that were common in his time. But there are approximations of meantone using just intervals, so it's certainly possible that people have performed it that way. But this sort of just intonation is not like barbershop, because all the intervals can be tolerably approximated with 12-equal temperament. The mood of the piece will change somewhat as some become more and some become less consonant, but it will remain essentially the same work. The barbershop seventh chord cannot be so approximated. The "ringing" sound of the seventh chord that defines the genre doesn't occur unless the seventh is tuned very noticeably flat from the closest 12-equal temperament equivalent. If you arpeggiate a barbershop seventh chord it sounds obviously microtonal.

zozbot234 3y ago

> Lerdahl's criticism of serialism is also convincing, i.e. the abstract structure of music does not translate to the heard structure of music. There are ways to address this however. One can add small-scale atonal elements to an otherwise tonal work, in a way that can be understood by the ear. I think this may account for why Webern is perhaps the most popular among the atonal and serial composers: his works are small-scale enough that one can at least think about what grokking them musically may be like. Same for the 'freely atonal' works of early Schoenberg. So it was nowhere near the total failure some people might think it was, just not the be-all and end-all.

handy2000 3y ago

Interesting point re: technique vs structure. Structure is in general a much harder aspect to both master and innovate in. I am curious, why do you consider Glass a more innovative composer than, say, Reich? Reich's counterpoint and phase music seem to have pushed music forward more noticeably than Glass (outside of, perhaps, Einstein on the Beach).

gnulinux 3y ago
I don't find Reich as convincing because I don't think he was prolific enough and canonical (with respect to forms he used) enough to make the profound statement Glass was able to pull off with his Violin Concertos, String Quartets and Operas [1]. Really, I see art as a tradition and Glass managed to put WCM (mostly concertos, symphonies, quartets, operas, solo piano really...) in the most novel context since Schoenberg. Reich is a great composer, but it's a tremendously harder pursuit to innovate within the tradition rather than reject it all and restart. Also you talk about counterpoint and incidentally early Glass sounds very contrapuntal (like early Reich) but I think a core message in Glass' body of works is that this entire bike shedding on harmony is so silly. There is so much to music beyond just pitch, and you can literally pick 4 chords and go crazy with it. He treats harmony as a solved problem. I think Reich would agree with this but I don't think his message is as profound. Think about Adams' "Harmonielehre" where he claims he wanted to combine minimalism and early 20th century harmony. The problem here I see here is that common practice harmony revolves around richness and variety. Fux himself says as much. It sounds gorgeous and new, but it doesn't go a long way to innovate anything. Although Glass' music sounds unserious, he actually tried to force himself to innovate. Which is what Schoenberg tried to do. Restrictions motivate artists to be creative. Listen to Glass first string quartet, it was composed in 1966 before Reich's phase music. [1] And of course his piano etudes but pianists insist they serve no pedagogical purpose, even though I still can't find someone who can actually play them well except Maki Namekawa. Roll eyes.