The General Chat Room

[Serial_Apologist]

It's a "dead end" matey

[ahinton]

Yes, I have to admit that I didn't understand that either; time for a tam-tammed explanation, methinks...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I assumed that MrGG was "explaining" the absence of RS-B's work from broadcasts as being due to the oft-expressed slovenly presumption that Serialism is a "dead end" - and that MrGG's own exasperation with such slovenliness was expressed in his (with which I fully agree and would merely supplement with a )

[Serial_Apologist]

I assumed that MrGG was "explaining" the absence of RS-B's work from broadcasts as being due to the oft-expressed slovenly presumption that Serialism is a "dead end" - and that MrGG's own exasperation with such slovenliness was expressed in his (with which I fully agree and would merely supplement with a )

Ah yes, indeed.

[ahinton]

I assumed that MrGG was "explaining" the absence of RS-B's work from broadcasts as being due to the oft-expressed slovenly presumption that Serialism is a "dead end" - and that MrGG's own exasperation with such slovenliness was expressed in his (with which I fully agree and would merely supplement with a )

Ah, I see; that could well make sense as what motivated his post (although doubtless he'll be back to confirm or deny)! I would, however, be more inclined to take a middle view in that serialism can be or become a dead end whenever it does so and to whomsoever it becomes such for whatever reason. I wish, for example, that the young Boulez had expressed his polemic about composers and serialism in different words. I certainly do not regret my own early musical education in a largely serialist environment, in that at least it helped not only to sharpen the ears but also - and perhaps even more importantly - to focus attention upon melodic contouring in a way that might not have occurred in a different situation, even though the ultimate effect of it was that I eventually felt as though I had arrived at just such a dead end and accordingly had to try to start all over again.

[MrGongGong]

I was merely referring to the oft stated bollocks that "serialism was a dead end of music history"
It wasn't and I would also add a

[Serial_Apologist]

I was merely referring to the oft stated bollocks that "serialism was a dead end of music history"
It wasn't and I would also add a

[Richard Barrett]

"serialism was a dead end of music history"

Not from where I'm standing. I spent a lot of time with RS-B's book back in the day and no doubt learned a great deal from it, although it does contain some strange ideas like organising serial sequences of pitches so as to create harmonic tensions and relaxations by moving between more and less dissonant combinations. I remember thinking even then that if you want such pseudo-tonal structures why not just write tonal music, which can articulate them much better - part of the point of seriality as far as I'm concerned being precisely to do away with such things. Maybe he got this idea from Dallapiccola, whose music I don't know very well, but that kind of falling between two stools does feel like a dead end to me.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ah, I see; that could well make sense as what motivated his post (although doubtless he'll be back to confirm or deny)! I would, however, be more inclined to take a middle view in that serialism can be or become a dead end whenever it does so and to whomsoever it becomes such for whatever reason. I wish, for example, that the young Boulez had expressed his polemic about composers and serialism in different words. I certainly do not regret my own early musical education in a largely serialist environment, in that at least it helped not only to sharpen the ears but also - and perhaps even more importantly - to focus attention upon melodic contouring in a way that might not have occurred in a different situation, even though the ultimate effect of it was that I eventually felt as though I had arrived at just such a dead end and accordingly had to try to start all over again.

Interesting, because I'm thinking that that might correspond to the way Zemlinsky might have viewed his slightly younger contemporaries of the Second Viennese School in their turn away from tonality, and drawing from their enlargement of harmony in his own music from the Second String Quartet onwards rather than joining with them wholeheartedly in their partaking of that air from another planet. I've often felt that his later works sound like Mahler's might have done, had he lived to a decent age, and wondered if he might instead have cottoned on to so-called atonality.

About 10 years ago Radio 3 broadcast a programme entitled "Serialism's Sons and Daughters", in which Ivan Hewett talked to Alexander Goehr, Gunther Schuller, Unsuk Chin, Tansy Davies and that other Welsh composer Dai Fujikuru about what they felt to be the impact of serialism on their compositional approaches and music in general. One remark which sticks in my memory from it, possibly from Ms davies, was that one can always tell from the details of a composer's music whether or not he or she has used serial methods.

[Serial_Apologist]

Not from where I'm standing. I spent a lot of time with RS-B's book back in the day and no doubt learned a great deal from it, although it does contain some strange ideas like organising serial sequences of pitches so as to create harmonic tensions and relaxations by moving between more and less dissonant combinations. I remember thinking even then that if you want such pseudo-tonal structures why not just write tonal music, which can articulate them much better - part of the point of seriality as far as I'm concerned being precisely to do away with such things. Maybe he got this idea from Dallapiccola, whose music I don't know very well, but that kind of falling between two stools does feel like a dead end to me.

I would assume that it comes down to whether or not one views serialism - or at least in its initial pitch-organised basis - to be an embrace of the diatonic tonal system handed down from Brahms and Wagner that follows it throught by chromatic elaboration and excision to its own demise, as I understand Schoenberg and Berg, in particular, and such followers as Dallapiccola and Schuller in their differing ways, or a method which by its own trajectory behoves its adherents to eschew formal procedures associated with the diatonic past. The latter amounted to a definitive qualitative break with previous history in that sense, while conforming to some principle that continues to adhere to some form of overarching cohering principle governing music as based within the discoveries of the 1920s of Schoenberg and his circle, plus one or two others.

[ahinton]

Interesting, because I'm thinking that that might correspond to the way Zemlinsky might have viewed his slightly younger contemporaries of the Second Viennese School in their turn away from tonality, and drawing from their enlargement of harmony in his own music from the Second String Quartet onwards rather than joining with them wholeheartedly in their partaking of that air from another planet. I've often felt that his later works sound like Mahler's might have done, had he lived to a decent age, and wondered if he might instead have cottoned on to so-called atonality.

About 10 years ago Radio 3 broadcast a programme entitled "Serialism's Sons and Daughters", in which Ivan Hewett talked to Alexander Goehr, Gunther Schuller, Unsuk Chin, Tansy Davies and that other Welsh composer Dai Fujikuru about what they felt to be the impact of serialism on their compositional approaches and music in general. One remark which sticks in my memory from it, possibly from Ms davies, was that one can always tell from the details of a composer's music whether or not he or she has used serial methods.

I wonder what she meant by that; "one can always tell" by examining the scores or by listening to performances of the music? - and how is it that "one can always tell"?

[teamsaint]

I would assume that it comes down to whether or not one views serialism - or at least in its initial pitch-organised basis - to be an embrace of the diatonic tonal system handed down from Brahms and Wagner that follows it throught by chromatic elaboration and excision to its own demise, as I understand Schoenberg and Berg, in particular, and such followers as Dallapiccola and Schuller in their differing ways, or a method which by its own trajectory behoves its adherents to eschew formal procedures associated with the diatonic past. The latter amounted to a definitive qualitative break with previous history in that sense, while conforming to some principle that continues to adhere to some form of overarching cohering principle governing music as based within the discoveries of the 1920s of Schoenberg and his circle, plus one or two others.

I Love being able to read ( and occasionally join in) a forum where this sort of discussion happens in the " General Chat room" thread.

[ahinton]

Not from where I'm standing. I spent a lot of time with RS-B's book back in the day and no doubt learned a great deal from it, although it does contain some strange ideas like organising serial sequences of pitches so as to create harmonic tensions and relaxations by moving between more and less dissonant combinations. I remember thinking even then that if you want such pseudo-tonal structures why not just write tonal music, which can articulate them much better - part of the point of seriality as far as I'm concerned being precisely to do away with such things. Maybe he got this idea from Dallapiccola, whose music I don't know very well, but that kind of falling between two stools does feel like a dead end to me.

I'm not so sure about that; for it to do so, one would presumably have to subscribe to the view that one fundamental purpose of and rationale for serialism - well, serial dodecaphony, at any rate - is indeed to dispense with the kinds of relationships that characterise tonal music, but this would surely be to undermine the work of serial composers who took a different - or at least wider - view of what was possible within the framework of serial dodecaphony, not least Berg, for example. One reason that prompts me to question this is that it is in any case obviously possible to undermine such relationships as one might expect to encounter in overtly tonal music without necessarily having recourse to serial dodecaphonic practice in order to achieve this.

[Richard Barrett]

One remark which sticks in my memory from it, possibly from Ms Davies, was that one can always tell from the details of a composer's music whether or not he or she has used serial methods.

It depends on what you mean by "the details" (where the devil is of course said to reside). It's clear for example from the texts that constitute Stockhausen's Aus den sieben Tagen that he was thinking serially when formulating them, particularly Aufwärts which is almost a brief explanation of what KS meant by serialism (ie. something deeper and at the same time more perceptible than the theory according to Boulez, who never really explained anything!), although you might not be able to tell by listening to a performance. Obviously it's possible to hear that Brian Ferneyhough's music uses serial techniques whereas David Matthews's doesn't (or any others) but always? no.

[ahinton]

Obviously it's possible to hear that Brian Ferneyhough's music uses serial techniques whereas David Matthews's doesn't (or any others) but always? no.

If you mean by this that you take the view that David Matthews's music doesn't use any other techniques (and apologies if you meant something else altogether), I will refrain from comment just as I'll desist from copying your assertion to him as a birthday present...