To learn about serialism

I know you want to know more about serialism right? That's why you're taking a look at this thread. Serialism is a method of composing music that usually uses math to back up the composition (in a very VERY obscure description). And since there is not a lot of atonal music on this forum, I figured Hell, why not!

The man for this kind of music is Karlheinz Stockhausen. Check him out.

Kontakte - Electronic Music

Enjoy.

Stockhausen did use serialism. But I feel the "big three" of serialism remains Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg, if only for name-recognition and "origination."

But I maintain (without reading any books) that most music is serial to some degree or another.

I think you're just not using the same definition of Serialism there.

In one sense, the term "Serialism" is used synonymously with Dodecaphony, i.e. Schönberg's 12-tone technique.

In another, it's reserved for the developments in the 1950s, that started out from Messiaen's Mode de Valeurs et d'Intensités, combined with Webern's serialism, to create a form of composition in which not only pitches were serialised, but durations, dynamics, articulations, etc. as well.

In German (and probably some other languages as well), "Serialism" always means the latter thing, which centers it around people such as Stockhausen, Boulez, and Nono. In English, it is often used for the first thing, making Schönberg, Berg, and Webern the central/original figures.

Ah silly terms that aren't compatible. But then I'd personally turn to Babbitt as my go-to example. But maybe that's another Euro v. US thing.

Weird. I thought I had replied to this thread a couple of hours ago, but my reply seems to have vanished. Or did some other mean mod delete it? :unsure:

I'll just try to restate:

As for Babbitt: Yes, you're completely right. Of course I should have mentioned him as well, especially seeing that he did similar stuff even before the ones I mentioned. And you're also right that the reason I didn't think of him right away is probably an Euro/US thing too. His name is fairly well known here too, but his music or ideas much less so.

Anyways, to get back on topic: I'm quite torn when it comes to Stockhausen's music. There's some of it I absolutely love. And then there's stuff I find rather bland, particularly a lot of his late works.

The two pieces you have presented here exemplify those two aspects rather well for me. I find Kontakte a truly marvellous piece (I prefer the version with piano/percussion/electronics to the one posted here though), but the helicopter quartet I find already too "spaced out" into Stockhausen's late mysticism and can't really enjoy it.

(It should also be noted that while Kontakte is a serial work, I'm fairly sure the helicopter quartet isn't. In fact, a great proportion of Stockhausen's works have next to nothing to do with serialism.)

(It should also be noted that while Kontakte is a serial work, I'm fairly sure the helicopter quartet isn't. In fact, a great proportion of Stockhausen's works have next to nothing to do with serialism.)

Stockhausen is an interesting character, and a lot of his work, I'm not horribly interested in because it's (to be frank) un-enjoyable. I find it boring and unnecessarily complex. Take for example In Freundschaft. I think the only thing I like about it is that i get to dress up as a teddy bear.

And the helicopter string quartet. Why? honestly why did he write that ridiculous piece? Don't answer that question. I already know the answer and I saw the documentary about the Helikopter Streichquartett