Austenite Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Obviously, you have not been involved in the conversation up until the post I quoted. The majority of that was directed at the crowd of people chiming in on Crt's side that serialism is no longer relevant or actively being pursued. The fact that you chimed in to voice your disinterest in the named serialists alligned you with that crowd. No. I'm aligned with the "crowd" that flatly doesn't have any interest in pursuing serialism as an artistic goal. I'm not giving any opinion about it being "dead" or "alive". Let other composers be influenced by it or even put it into practice if they believe it's alive and worth further development. I'm not likely to follow suit, but since I'm already as irrelevant a composer as I can be, it's a moot point nonetheless. I was expressing my frustration that someone who claims to be well informed on the modern music scene seemed to be confident in his assertion that there is not a single well known respected composer that specializes in serialism. We all could see how good you are at expressing your frustration. Besides, Bob, I'm pretty sure you're a pedophile. Besides, Chris, I'm positively sure that, no matter how hard you try not to be a jerk, it's just beyond your reach. Better luck the next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U238 Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 No. I'm aligned with the "crowd" that flatly doesn't have any interest in pursuing serialism as an artistic goal. I'm not giving any opinion about it being "dead" or "alive". Let other composers be influenced by it or even put it into practice if they believe it's alive and worth further development. I'm not likely to follow suit, but since I'm already as irrelevant a composer as I can be, it's a moot point nonetheless. We all could see how good you are at expressing your frustration. Besides, Chris, I'm positively sure that, no matter how hard you try not to be a jerk, it's just beyond your reach. Better luck the next time. I understand that you do not subscribe to the words of the opposing side of this discussion. However, you stepped into the middle of it and my comments were directed at the opposition as a whole, not specifically at you. I feel likeI already expressed that, but whatever. Everyone loves having arguments on the interwebs. Your individual viewpoint seems much more reasonable than several other people. If I was wrong to quote you specifically as I replied to your comment as well as many others that preceded it then you have my apologies, Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boulez25 Posted September 20, 2014 Author Share Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) x Edited April 10, 2015 by boulez25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonataform Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 The most important question has to be "What is it time for now?" but never "What do I believe in?" because an artist must be passive, and react to the culture rather than trying to form the culture to himself. There is no answer to the question "what is it time for now?" If composing "new" music is contingent on receiving the most approval by the largest audience then you better get with the times and ask Taylor Swift for composing lessons buddy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boulez25 Posted September 20, 2014 Author Share Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) x Edited April 10, 2015 by boulez25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonataform Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 And that is exactly what people seem to be doing - Steve Reich takes influence from electronic/hip-hop music, Turnage from jazz, Danielpour from classic rock, the list goes on. And people turn to more popular mediums (film, video games) for their audience. This isn't a new thing - in Bach's day the church was popular, so he wrote for the church. In Ravel's day, jazz was hip, so he borrowed from it. Takemitsu wrote hundreds of film scores. Franz Liszt was a womanizing superstar. I could keep going. To thine own self be true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojar Voglar Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Serialism was a fashion throughout 1950's. But when fashion dissapears, results of pure quality remain. Most of composers maintained dodecaphonic organisation of pitches later throughout 20th century but not other parameters to create purely serial works. And lots of them abandoned atonality from 1970's onwards. Peter Maxwell Davies writes in neoromantic style, so does Penderecki. Lutoslawski started to create ear-pleasant music in 1980's and used 12-tone dodecaphony less and less (although it never fully dissapeared - Lutoslawski is a rare true master of dodecaphony). Rautavaara made a huge turn in late 1960's to favour Romanticism - try his first piano concerto and cello concerto. Sallinen also became a Romantic composer - check his operas and symphonies. Also Joonas Kokkonen. John Adams used dodecaphony or a close-up to it as a style imitation (Chamber symphony, Harmonielehre, which is mostly eleventone music, not twelvetone) but it never became his frequent approach. Experimental composers (Messiaen, Cage, Globokar, Carter, Brown, also Stockhausen) began to explore other stuff: silence, aleatorics, theatre, metric problems and expansions, space. No dodecaphony nor serialism. So again, with big letters so everyb(lo)ody will undestand: NAME SOME SIGNIFICANT COMPOSERS WHO HAVE BEEN WRITING SERIAL MUSIC IN LAST 30-40 YEARS, PLEASE. COMPOSERS OF REAL IMPORTANCE! THANKS! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojar Voglar Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 This is likely to be my last post in forums for unknown time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U238 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 NAME SOME SIGNIFICANT COMPOSERS WHO HAVE BEEN WRITING SERIAL MUSIC IN LAST 30-40 YEARS, PLEASE. COMPOSERS OF REAL IMPORTANCE! THANKS! I mean, I did. There was two big ones you have failed to address. And then I taunted you about it, remember? I saracastically said let's pretend like your point still stands. Milton Babitt Charles Wuorinen Nah, let's ignore those names and pretend like your point still stands. It's not like they're pulitzer prize winning composers specifically noted for their adherence to serialism. Oh, wait... Bummer, indeed. Unless, of course, pulitzer prize winning composers don't count as having real importance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowwolf3689 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Composers like Brian Ferneyhough, Heinz Holliger, Wolfgang Rihm, Harrison Birtwistle and Hans Werner Henze have been building on the serial tradition during the last 40 years (in quite different ways—sometimes incorporating different influences as well). Traditions don't crystallise, they evolve. You can't claim Beethoven abandoned sonata form when he got rid of the repeats and put the second theme in the mediant and added an extra long coda. Magnus Lindberg composed serial music between about 1975 and 1989, as did Esa-Pekka Salonen. They both became quite renowned during this time. Another well-known (underrated IMO) serial composer who died fairly recently is George Perle. And in Germany & Austria there are plenty of relatively minor composers still carrying on: Yörk Holler, Robert HP Platz, Johannes Schöllhorn, JM Staud etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuohey Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 This really is a tired argument. The answer depends upon how you define serialism. Personally, I like Milton Babbitt's definition: '… a serial relation is one which induces on a collection of objects a strict, simple ordering; that is, an order relation which is irreflexive, nonsymmetric, transitive, and connected over the collection. The term ‘serial’ designates nothing with regard to the number of elements, or the operations—if any—applicable to the elements or the relations among them. A musical work, then, can be described as serial with regard to, say pitch, if the pitch content is most completely and most simply characterized as fulfilling such an ordering with regard to temporal and/or spatial precedence.’ By this definition, you could argue that it isn't really dead. Granted, you're unlikely to find a contemporary composition that strictly follows some sort of serial organisation from beginning to end, but you will find many localised instances of serial ordering within a contemporary composition. I suppose you could argue that Thomas Adès' use of interlocking interval cycles is an example of serial ordering. A simple canon could even be classed as an example of serial ordering. In fact, you could even argue that an isorhythmic motet from the 14th century is a serial composition. Bell changes are a form of serial ordering. Early minimalism is often serial, in the sense that it relies on process. Some spectral music is serial in a sense, as musical decisions are often dictated by the data from a Fast Fourier Transform. In my opinion, serialism has always and will always be used by composers of all styles of music in some form or other, whether they're aware of it or not. It's not dead or alive; it's just a set of tools that have been absorbed into a larger musical lexicon. I suspect that the real question is this: is the musical aesthetic that is most commonly associated with serialism, i.e. music created roughly between 1920-1960 that uses serial organisation as a means of creating a sort of "anti-tonality" that explicitly seeks to avoid any form of tonal reference, dead? For most people, the answer to that is probably yes. Though you can't ignore the fact that there are a lot of composers still around who are about 60+ who still adhere to this aesthetic. They may not be "important" but they certainly exist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Giovanni Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 It's not dead at all, there are still composers using the technique in their music. A lot of those composers are in academia and you are most likely to not be aware of them because they are protected behind the walls of music libraries and one bedroom apartments. The composer that uses serialism is still alive and thriving, yet to be extinct. Also, the matrix can manipulate your melodies in unique ways and I encourage anyone to try serialism out :) :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treyhunneddollas Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 After a year hiatus, it's nice to see people here arguing about the same scraggy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken320 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I concur that Charles Wourinen is the last best proponent of serial music, who specifically wrote serial music and has written a book on the subject. However, serial music composition these days is dated. Composers looking forward into the future are using technology and multi media along with software and computers (Max/Msp/Jitter). See below. The "gesture" has replaced the tone row as musical glue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqZNeDGmgVY&index=18&list=WL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.