Re: serialism

>The purpose of musical processes is not always to convey the underlying
>structure directly. It is virtually impossible to directly hear (especially
>for the non-specialist) all of the "rules" involved in common-practice
>counterpoint/harmony, and yet the application of that process creates a
>very compelling sort of musical effect -- full tertial harmonies,
>resolution of dissonances, independence of lines, and so on.

I think there's an important distinction overlooked here. The "rules" of
conventional theory were made up to describe music that had already been
written. The music always came first, which may explain why "breaking all
the rules" is almost required for significant historical music.

But the rules of serialism were made up, and then music was based on them.
As Carlos, Erlich, Grady and others have pointed out, you don't need cheesy
rules to avoid tonal center. And anybody who needs rules to manipulate
tempo and dynamics in a random way...

Carl

>
>Yes, they do use the techniques.
>I'm thinking "Chamber Symphony" which uses
>all forms of row, etc. great combinations.
>rick S.

One of Johnston's piano pieces, the suite or the sonata, uses serial
techniques in one or two movements, on the disc played by Bush
(Philip?).

Message text written by c. lumma

>But the rules of serialism were made up, and then music was based on
them.<

Please let us know what those 'rules of serialism' are.

I am aware of some ideas and conventions widely but not universally used by
twelve-tone and serial composers, but have never encountered any strict
rules akin to those for species counterpoint exercises or Gedalge fugues.
There are many composers who work strictly within sets of rules that they
have developed for a given work, but that's true for _all_ composers trying
to create coherent works, regardless of the style or tradition in which
they work. While one might distinguish between those composers who
consciously articulate rules and those for whom the rules remain
unarticulated, and one may often wish to say that 'this work was
over-planned' or that work 'lacked coherence', it's doubtful that this can
be generally held to have any relevance to the comparison or evaluation of
the completed works.

[Carl Lumma, TD 174.25]
> Like deconstruction, serialism may be cool in its own right,
> but nobody to my knowledge has ever come forward with any
> reason why serializing things should be interesting.

Are you kidding? (!!!)

There's a loooooooooooooong list of people who've written on this.
Here they come...

For starters, you might try reading Schoenberg's original essays
on the subject: 'Composition With Twelve Tones (1)' and '(2)',
in _Style and Idea_ [2nd ed., 1975, Faber], p 214-249.

BTW, altho the original of '(1)' was written in German, it was
translated for a lecture given in English by Schoenberg himself,
and '(2)' was apparently written by Schoenberg in English when
he was living in Los Angeles.

(I include that comment because Daniel Wolf has criticized the
fact that my knowledge of Schoenberg is based almost entirely
on English sources.)

*The* follow-up would be Webern's _The Path to the New Music_,
taken from notes from his 1932-33 lectures, published by
Universal Edition. (English version distributed by Theodore
Presser - right here in our own Pennsylvania!)

This could be followed by the many writings of Babbitt, Forte,
Lewin, etc. etc. Look into any 1970s or 1980s issue of
_Journal of Music Theory_ or _Perpectives of New Music_.

A few specific recommendations:

These four papers are from
_Perspectives on Contemporary Music Theory_ [1972, W. W. Norton]:

- Babbitt, 'Past and Present Concepts of the Nature and Limits of Music'
- Babbitt, 'The Structure and Function of Musical Theory'
- Babbitt, 'Set Structure as a Compositional Determinant'
- Pousseur, 'The Question of Order in New Music'

Also:

Forte, Allen. 1973. _The Structure of Atonal Music_.
Yale U. Press.

Berry, Wallace. 1976. _Structural Functions in Music_
[inexpensive reprint by Dover], especially p 171-179 and 408-417.

Perle, George. 1981. _Serial Composition and Atonality_.
U. of California Press.

And again, since you're a JIist, Carl, read that Steven Elster
article on Johnston's '6th Quartet', for an interesting study
of how Johnston combined serialism with JI.

I think the Webern book in particular can give a sense of
'why serializing things should be interesting', altho you'd
probably be most interested in the Elster article and
Johnston's techniques.

And if you've never been moved by Webern's music, [plug alert]
give a listen to my MIDI sequence of the first movement
of his piano variations:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/webern/webern.htm

I hope there to have achieved an expressivity that I've never
heard in anyone's performances of Webern.

-monz

S A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S

'The sower Arepo keeps the work circling'

Joseph L. Monzo monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]