malik@delphi.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (06/07/84)
Subj; Serialism Rejects Past! Tom Statler said - > My main objection to the serialists/expressionists/dodecaphonists (pick your >favorite name) is that fundamental to their music was the rejection of all that >had come before. I hope no one uses this newsgroup as a means of furthering their musical education. After having counted to 10 (12?), I can now calmly say that the above statement is far from accurate. Schonberg, Berg and Webern were all thoroughly trained classical composers. Their serial music is quite firmly based on the same old forms and techniques that composers had been using for hundreds of years. They wrote in traditional forms - suites, theme and variations, concerti, sonata form, etc. Their music is thematic, motivic, developmental, etc. I can't see how such works could be viewed as rejecting the past. > "As a result, their music was 'academic' in the sense that no one who had not >studied serialist techniques could understand it." Whereas, your average listener has no problem with the late quartets of Beethoven, or a sonata by Scriabin? For a good time, go the library and pick up a copy of Slominsky's 'A lexicon of musical invective' - it's a collection of reviews of classical composers. It's filled with assertions that the music of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms etc. is 'chaotic, unlistenable,overly-intellectual, unplayable, etc.' and that history will prove them right! Needless to say, it hasn't. Re; 'The New Romanticism' - I've seen this term covering a wide variety of composers. Tom said that "One of the goals of the New Romantics seems to be a synthesis of all the free experimentation that has gone on in the first 3/4 of this century.". Someone, (was it you, Jeff?) posted a list of 'New Romantic' composers recently. Can you shed any light on the subject? - Karl ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!star!malik p.s. only 3 responses to my contemporary music quiz. I'll wait another week and then post the winners (don't be intimidated, the current 'winner' didn't get that many right).
tss@astrovax.UUCP (Thomas S. Statler) (06/09/84)
OK, OK!! Two people have now seen fit to rake me over the coals for my remarks on serialism, and I deserved it, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have generalized so freely. Let me clarify the point I was trying to make... Tonality has its roots in the fact that certain combinations of sounds seem more "natural" than others, so that a tonal composition "fits the ear" better than an atonal one and hence is more readily enjoyed on a purely emotional level. By rejecting tonality, the serialist composers abandoned this level of understanding. This is why their music is so hard to listen to. Now, of course, it boils down to a matter of taste. I said before that in my opinion the best music is that which one can appreciate on many different levels. (An excellent example is Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra.) Serialism may produce such music when combined with other (more traditional?) techniques, but I don't think it can manage all by itself. Others may disagree, or argue that serialist music isn't hard on the ear at all, and they are welcome to do so. (In fact, since I'm going on vacation, they can even do it behind my back.) Looking forward to picking this up again later, Tom Statler
ahearn@convex.UUCP (06/11/84)
#R:decwrl:-122100:convex:25000002:000:297
convex!ahearn Jun 11 08:15:00 1984
I'd be interested to see a list of "New Romantic" composers and
compositions, especially if it was annotated.
Sorry to post this to the net, but a letter to Jeff Winslow was
returned (what's your real address, Jeff?)
Thanks in advance,
Joe Ahearn
{allegra, ihnp4, uiucds, ctvax}!convex!ahearn