True Serialism

 Not to mention the gorgeous violin concerto

 

Definitely a matter of opinion. Overly sentimental schlock is what it is to me.

I'm interested in knowing your works!

 

I think that we are reaching the point.

I don’t say that some composers that also use serialism don’t follow also the tradition. But what I say is that if they follow the tradition is despite using serialism. I said that serialism throw out the harmonic tradition, that doesn’t forbidden anyone of mix traditional stuff with serialism!

I am not a serialism fan, but I think that it is an interesting idea; I also few times use it in my works, but tonalism and modalism are richer, because they have all the tradition of siècle’s and great genius behind them.

If you indicate me some of your works that you advise for me I really appreciate!

I'm interested in knowing your works!

I think that we are reaching the point.

I don’t say that some composers that also use serialism don’t follow also the tradition. But what I say is that if they follow the tradition is despite using serialism. I said that serialism throw out the harmonic tradition, that doesn’t forbidden anyone of mix traditional stuff with serialism!

I am not a serialism fan, but I think that it is an interesting idea; I also few times use it in my works, but tonalism and modalism are richer, because they have all the tradition of siècle’s and great genius behind them.

If you indicate me some of your works that you advise for me I really appreciate!

I'm starting to suspect you have never even heard, much less studied any serial pieces. Dodecaphony didn't destroy tradition, it grew out of it. At the end of the 19th century, there was a lot of motion towards more chromatic and more unstable music. Serialism had to have had happened (or at least, the 'emancipation of dissonance'). Nothing was 'destroyed', but something became unrestricted. Music doesn't have to obey anything: you keep saying "the harmony has to obey this, the form has to follow these rules!". No. It doesn't.

I encounter this kind of whining far too much, "oh Schoenberg destroyed the precious traditions, everything was good for white European males befor then". You operate under the impression that tonal music was some faberge egg that the SVS destroyed. If you simply try to compose, setting aside your fear that Schoenberg's ghost will come to haunt you, you will find that you can still write 200 year-old music.

I'm starting to suspect you have never even heard, much less studied any serial pieces. Dodecaphony didn't destroy tradition, it grew out of it. At the end of the 19th century, there was a lot of motion towards more chromatic and more unstable music. Serialism had to have had happened (or at least, the 'emancipation of dissonance'). Nothing was 'destroyed', but something became unrestricted. Music doesn't have to obey anything: you keep saying "the harmony has to obey this, the form has to follow these rules!". No. It doesn't.

I encounter this kind of whining far too much, "oh Schoenberg destroyed the precious traditions, everything was good for white European males befor then". You operate under the impression that tonal music was some faberge egg that the SVS destroyed. If you simply try to compose, setting aside your fear that Schoenberg's ghost will come to haunt you, you will find that you can still write 200 year-old music.

That is the typical error - You have finished to say that tonalism is music from the past, and now serialism rules. I'm not against serialism, I'm against this idea.

Serialism is not the victory over the rules, it simply destroys the past rules and create new ones. 

I will propose to you a simple exercise. Listen to Bach, and after listen to Brahms (more than 100 years separate them). And after listen to Brahms again, and after listen to A. Schoenberg (near 50 years separate them). Curiously who must be closer is farther! This is not following the path! 

The new rules of serialism dont put it in the same musical language from Bach-Haydn-Beethoven-Brahms, it simply creates a new are. In some way we can say that Coldplay is closer to Haydn, than SVS.

Tonalism is not a secondary thing in music, for the contrary it is a main aspect!

 

Thank you.

That is the typical error - You have finished to say that tonalism is music from the past, and now serialism rules. I'm not against serialism, I'm against this idea.

Serialism is not the victory over the rules, it simply destroys the past rules and create new ones. 

I will propose to you a simple exercise. Listen to Bach, and after listen to Brahms (more than 100 years separate them). And after listen to Brahms again, and after listen to A. Schoenberg (near 50 years separate them). Curiously who must be closer is farther! This is not following the path! 

The new rules of serialism dont put it in the same musical language from Bach-Haydn-Beethoven-Brahms, it simply creates a new are. In some way we can say that Coldplay is closer to Haydn, than SVS.

Tonalism is not a secondary thing in music, for the contrary it is a main aspect!

 

Thank you.

Serial music is OLD. You're belief that it's a current trend is a testament to how little you know on the matter. Guys like Babbitt and Wuorinen were/are remnants of a tradition that lost out in 1960s. You have a lot of learning to do, it's important that you understand the historical significance of this development in the beginning of the 20th century, unless you're satisfied with sounding uneducated and presumptuous whenever the matter might come up.

And no: 'tonalism' is not the 'main' aspect of music. Nothing is the 'main' aspect of music.

I always have a lot olf thinks to learn.

But you also have.

And giggle as you wish!

I always have a lot olf thinks to learn.

But you also have.

Like what?

Music history.

And you in some way I have the presumption of change the course of music.

Music history.

Coming from someone who believes dodecaphony is a 'recent' development, I can only interpret this as a joke.

I didnt saiy that serialism is a new thing! Please dont put words thatI dint say in my mouth. I just said that it waste the heritance Baroque-Classical-Romantic, because it destroys tonality, which is a key on classical music. I know very well that Schoenberg was born on 1874 and not in 1974...

I didnt saiy that serialism is a new thing! Please dont put words thatI dint say in my mouth. I just said that it waste the heritance Baroque-Classical-Romantic, because it destroys tonality, which is a key on classical music. I know very well that Schoenberg was born on 1874 and not in 1974...

tonalism is music from the past, and now serialism rules

For the umpteenth time: dodecaphony grew out of your prized traditions. Nothing was 'thrown out'. Nothing was 'destroyed'. You should, you know, maybe learn a thing or two about these things before attempting to have a discussion on them with people who have taken the time themselves.

It'll be good for you.

" dodecaphony grew out of your prized traditions"

 

I think we reach an agreement.