*A few ancillary notes:* *1)* The title of the video never actually made it to the video itself, but it should be self-explanatory in that composers were attempting to organize number patterns in much the same way that anyone that likes a Sudoku puzzle has to figure out the solution. *2)* For the serial enthusiasts: I hope I made it clear that I don't dislike the ideas and concepts (as I've actually used them in my music!) but rather have something against the complete takeover of the field that serialism exhibited at the height of its influence. I take special umbrage at the figures who took it upon themselves to equate "serious" music with serialism as an artistic philosophy, which is wrongheaded and harmful to general classical-music literacy in the general public since the mid-20th century. With that, welcome to 2018! Classical Nerd grew 931% in 2017, and I'm thrilled to get started on a whole bunch of new things for the channel in the coming year.
Serialism, tonality, atonality or whatever, Schoenberg is simply one of my favorite composers, the music is beautiful, exciting and expressive, and I love it like I love Beethoven.
Here is what hte composer Robert Simpson said about the unnaturalness of atoniality: "The human sense of tonality has many times been modified, but cannot be abolished. To attempt to abolish it is to cease to be comprehensive, to be narrowly exclusive. If I appreciate the kind of expression Schoenberg achieved (I hap-pen to dislike it), my sense of tonality, though it may be deliberately anaesthetized for the time being, is by no means abolished…. I cannot feel that such music is comprehensive. It is certainly concentrated, but that alone will not make it “symphonic”; if you lose a leg, you have to concentrate in order to move about without it, but however hard you concentrate, you cannot escape the conclusion that it is better to have two legs…. With one leg you can hop about, but will find it difficult to invent new dance steps that have more than the temporary appeal of oddity."
As an anecdote: I recently relistened Bouléz’s Répons after many years and found myself humming along most of the first half! (Post-)Serialist or not, it was easy to enjoy it in a very straightforward manner, and it was very salient in the sense of following the harmony and having a sense of where the it was going. As always, thank you for the content
I don’t think atonality will disappear. It will just be another kind of tonality a composer can use. Free Jazz and Third Stream are direct results. There will always be a side of the tradition that revels in the fascinating complexities one can arrange music in, it just won’t be mandatory for composers to compose that way.
One -of the things about the history of 12-tone and serial music that has puzzled me for a long time is that, as a group, they seemed to be uninterested in the melodic potential of a row. Rows can be sung if you just take them and sing them within a restricted range; say within a 10th. And some of Schoenberg's works, like the 4th string quartet, seem to bring forward the melodic aspect. But I don't hear that this was picked up. Instead they seem to have become fascinated with math-based techniques, leaving the melodic potential behind.
Luigi Dallapiccola's music is a wonderful antidote to this-Berg, too, but he plays faster and looser with row forms. The ideological roots of those who were attracted to serialism were typically anti-Romantic, thus skeptical (at best) of melody and lyricism.
It's astounding how far academia will go, in the name of finding something new and beyond, to avoid incorporating jazz theory and the theories of different world musics into the classical Western concept system.
And yet, Jazz learns from Stravinsky and Schoenberg colour and method that they have yet to find elsewhere. (Bitonality, Serialism just to name a few) And for what matters, European musician has been more open to the sound world in the 20th (still until now) century than they have ever been. You are making a hefty claim, a hefty generalisation.
not at all. citation on who exactly in the early jazz world "learned" from Schoenberg? If you say Gershwin I'll laugh - there's a big difference between taking a few lessons and actually affecting someone's style or output. (I do remember Monk mentioning Ravel as an influence.) or at least name one serial or bitonal Jazz piece.
Serialism of various parameters is great but I personally think if, in the process of composition, you think something non-serialized sounds better, you should go with that.
Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism.
Serialism is always of interest to me. I discovered it when listening to the album the last conducts Zappa, emi angel. Zappa used this a great deal in works even in rock as you noted yourself in the Zappa video. Do you like the band Autecre? Lastly, would you consider doing a video on Pierre Schaeffer? The establisher of musique concrete. Much thanks to you for all your work. Sincerely, Sal
Very interesting! I'm a huge fan of music history, and I'm always amazed by just how much of it your videos expose. Thanks! (also congrats on basically 2k subs)
at the beginning I hear Schoenberg's Opus 25 in the background! I can't tell which recording you used, but check out Florent Boffard's recording if you haven't already- it's the best performance I've ever heard of that piece.
The freely atonal music that Schoenberg wrote before he went serial is terrific because he was using his ear to guide his compositional process. Once the Sudoku set in, the ear went out the window and that's when music became cerebral instead of emotional. Those of us who studied in college music departments in the 1950s learned all about serialism. Many of us soon realized that we could not out serialize Boulez so the limits of complexity had been reached. That is why we drifted to minimalism. Interestingly, the minimalists quickly divided into two groups: the morons and the innovators.
About the infamous Babbitt's article, apparently the controversial title was added by the publisher without Babbitt being consulted before. Babbitt has expressed is disagreement to this title.
The title engages in a bit of proto-clickbait, but having read it, I can very much understand how the editor got that impression. Babbitt favored music as a theoretical, research-fueled exercise, which I respect, but disagree with all the same.
It's very interesting, but I was expecting you to mention sudoku at some stage. I started watching the video thinking you were going to describe at some stage a serial technique related to a sudoku table.
I'm more of a mid-late romantic era guy, but I actually like a lot of 20th century music even if it's fairly dissonant. Stravinsky and Scriabin are two of my favorite composers, but I find that going past that level of dissonance is pointless most of the time. Spicing things up with atonal moments is great, but full blown Serialism is absolutely useless musically. The same can be said of set theory, math beyond dealing with time signatures really has no place in music. And I say that as an engineering major with a comp sci minor who has taken 2 classes on discrete math and 2 on linear algebra. They are fascinating topics, but the music they result in is almost always unlistenable. Serialists weren't even rule breakers, they just created a new set of absurd rules that they adhered to more strictly than classical composers ever did to the rules of their time.
There is nothing that has no place in music. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. And saying serialism is all cerebral mathemathics is completely ignorant. Pieces like pli selon pli by Boulez and basically any stockhausen piece are full of expressivity and showcase emotions that can't be expressed in standard tonal music.
hey guys where can i find a community for this topic in a sense of music and more because there is much more than we might be able to think of honestly!
I've heard from people who knew him that Milton Babbit had a semi-secret life of loving (and composing!) straight-up, completely tonal Broadway-style show tunes.
I'm subscribed and I watch frequently - thank you for the excellent content! Do you happen to have a list of all your books - I keep trying to see what we have in common and what I might be missing 🙂 Best Regards
@@robertridley9279 Considering the funkiness of French pronunciation rules, that _would_ make sense ... but I based this pronunciation off of people who actually had met him, who have universally pronounced the Z.
04:50 i could be completly mistaken but isnt the a flat only four half steps away from D instead of 6? or am i misunderstandig half steps... otherwise extremly well made video that was easy to follow and understand. Thanks for helping me prepare a presentation!
No my friend, half steps are, as the name, half a note and if you look to a piano half steps are the distance between a white note and a black one and viceversa (except for E going to F and B going do C) they are the smallest interval in modern music. So if you count all these half steps from D to Ab you would find D, Eb, E, F, Gb, G and Ab which gives us 6 half steps ;)
You are doing fine in wrapping up the basic developments and I understand your critisism. But there is something important missing here: In what way are the people different who really like some of those pieces? There’s beautiful music by Webern or Boulez, especially his orchestral pieces. And its not important if those pieces are serial or not, it was never intended for the method to be audible! The very surface of the sound matters and that can be very interesting and beautiful. You only have to hear enough of that music. People are often too impatient training themselves to like new stuff. You can come to the point where you really enjoy ALL music and then you won‘t understand how you could ever have limited yourself so much before ;)
Lets be honest right here (my opinion, still...) Why would you play music on piano or on any instrument in general if its not to be heard and liked by the audience? whats the point in creating music nobody and I mean literally nobody, not even the composer itself, wants to listen too.
@@johannesf1373 I have never encountered such a situation and don't believe that is ever the case. What music are you referring to that "nobody not even the composer likes"? Surely that isn't the case for serial music, neither for audiece nor for the composer. There may be better and worse pieces, but that has nothing to do with the serial technique. And there is always music that is more easily consumable and there is music that can be quite exhausting listening to, both of which are totally accetable forms of listening experiences.
@@MSchultheis This composing style is the flagship of not being made because it sounds good. Some Composers or some pieces sounded good for sure, but this technique is literally made because it doesn't care if its harmonic if anyone likes it. There are so many pieces that were hated because the human mind cant process all this terrible notes... xd
@@johannesf1373 If you argue with what "sounds good", then you have to first define that, which is impossible. You can answer that for yourself of course, but even that changes during your life time. "Sounds good" is not a criteria that has any meaninful value in judging music, because there is no such thing as universal understanding of what sounds good. The composer might have a very diffrent opinion than you do, and so might I. So, serial music is not made to sound good in a way YOU define sounding good, that may be true. The idea in the 20th century was to widen the spectrum of what are acceptable sounds to be used in music. Today we are even much much farther in this regard, so much of todays contemporary classical music works with complex sounds that barely remind their instrumental origin. Things change and one can adapt to this, there is no right or wrong. It's like using a palette with 6millions colours instead of just 16. And serialism is way of making these new colours available. If you want to hear music thats fit in your more conventional expectation of music, than these palette is not what youre looking for. I was not always so open minded, but the more I got used to it, the more interesting I found it and the more limited the idea of using only sounds that were described "good" centuries ago. This composing style offered so much new possibilities to break out from that postromantic idiom of those days where everything had been said. And this idea today still is an incredibly effective tool for composition, with very different possible outcomes! Stay open-minded!
@@MSchultheis i actually dont wanna argue because you trained yourself into liking it which is not the same what I mean.. just for e.g. you can even train yourself to like pain. What I mean is that without training you like it. And obviously not everybody has the same taste which is completely fine but there are even scientific studies that in many seriel composition because of the tone sequence your brain cant process you are not even able to produce the happy or "liking" hormones. And I´m not saying that every piece is bad or that I personally dislike every piece. But why would you stick to a composing style in which many cases the outcome is very hard to listen to and actually many (besides you who "trained" to like it" ) cant really enjoy that. U can for sure compose some pieces that sound good, written with the "serial style" just without having to stick to any style because you are free and you can try anything you want. This simple "sticking to the method" logic makes no sense for me when you cna create something beautiful instead of making something which u didn't even really compose because its just a coincidence ton sequence...
Do you know how Charles Wuorinen was able to get those beautiful tonal colors from what is supposed to be a 12-tone structure in his "Mass for the Restoration of St. Luke in the Fields"? ruclips.net/video/lSsw-H_3DoE/видео.htmlfeature=shared
I have a whole Wuorinen video in the works right now! Just waiting on a few things to come in on ILL for B-roll purposes. (I don't get into the details of that particular piece-he wrote over 200, after all!-but it should give some insight into his serial thought processes.)
Any idea where I could find that Penderecki thing you mentioned, where he said music history should go back to Mahler? I’d be really interested to see it. Was it in an interview or something? I’ve tried googling but I got no results.
I want to say that quote was in a book by New Yorker music critic Alex Ross in his 2007 book _The Rest is Noise,_ which I do not possess, but read through when I borrowed it from my composition professor several years ago.
Aha! The achievement "equal importance" of the notes by playing only once is massively inadequate. The time each is in play must also be constrained if this is truly the reasoning. I therefore challenge the claim of "equal importance" - it sounds like an attempt to artistically justify an algorithm. NOTE: I'm 70 which is probably part of the problem.
Hi Classical Nerd. I couldn‘t help but notice Mozart wasn‘t yet in one of your „great composer“-vids. How come? Is it just a personal disdain against him or his music? And even if, don‘t you think it would be appropriate to still make a video on him? Even if you don‘t like him I think his impact on classical music in general is undeniable. Best regards from Switzerland :)
I don't have any personal disdain towards Mozart; there have just been a lot of requests! Mozart was already in the pool of requests, and your request [ at lentovivace.com/requestqueue.html ] has been noted.
More episodes are forthcoming! I've made a lot of progress and right now I'm basically trying to figure out the best way of relaying what I've been up to in a succinct manner.
While the "official music" of communist regimes was Socialist Realism, which was the opposite of serialism, what I'm talking about are the attitudes of Western composers writ large in the serial heyday. It's communism in the sense of a model of social conformity. Communism is a very collectivist mentality, and it's a profound irony of music history that composers in a supposedly anti-communist West followed in such lock-step with the serial establishment. Many composers in this era were not accepted by academic (or otherwise "serious") circles if they weren't serialists (or not serial _enough,_ as was often Boulez's complaint). George Rochberg is a good example of someone who went against this serialist collectivism and paid the price in the press and in terms of his overall reputation.
I would understand that, but sometimes I wonder if it's about that or just in order to do something new for the sake of doing something new, lol...originality for originality's sake...I wonder if much anyone really enjoys such music, lol, or if it's just an intellectual exercise for the composer...
This seems to me a personal view on the music-history, and this video tells absolutely nothing about the technique of serialism, actually to me it seems like there is a lack of knowledge on the concept of serialism. Technique can be used in any musical and artistic environment. If you understand it, you can see how classical composers and pop musicians are into it. It can be tonal, can be whatever you want. I think the title should be matched with the content. (I hear a huge load of offense as well, I think in 2018 you should get over these, musical pioneers of the last century made an important job, we should understand their results, and surely not misslead people who might learn from it)
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
*A few ancillary notes:*
*1)* The title of the video never actually made it to the video itself, but it should be self-explanatory in that composers were attempting to organize number patterns in much the same way that anyone that likes a Sudoku puzzle has to figure out the solution.
*2)* For the serial enthusiasts: I hope I made it clear that I don't dislike the ideas and concepts (as I've actually used them in my music!) but rather have something against the complete takeover of the field that serialism exhibited at the height of its influence. I take special umbrage at the figures who took it upon themselves to equate "serious" music with serialism as an artistic philosophy, which is wrongheaded and harmful to general classical-music literacy in the general public since the mid-20th century.
With that, welcome to 2018! Classical Nerd grew 931% in 2017, and I'm thrilled to get started on a whole bunch of new things for the channel in the coming year.
Serialism, tonality, atonality or whatever, Schoenberg is simply one of my favorite composers, the music is beautiful, exciting and expressive, and I love it like I love Beethoven.
Here is what hte composer Robert Simpson said about the unnaturalness of atoniality:
"The human sense of tonality has many times been modified, but cannot be abolished. To attempt to abolish it is to cease to be comprehensive, to be narrowly exclusive. If I appreciate the kind of expression Schoenberg achieved (I hap-pen to dislike it), my sense of tonality, though it may be deliberately anaesthetized for the time being, is by no means abolished…. I cannot feel that such music is comprehensive. It is certainly concentrated, but that alone will not make it “symphonic”; if you lose a leg, you have to concentrate in order to move about without it, but however hard you concentrate, you cannot escape the conclusion that it is better to have two legs…. With one leg you can hop about, but will find it difficult to invent new dance steps that have more than the temporary appeal of oddity."
As an anecdote: I recently relistened Bouléz’s Répons after many years and found myself humming along most of the first half! (Post-)Serialist or not, it was easy to enjoy it in a very straightforward manner, and it was very salient in the sense of following the harmony and having a sense of where the it was going.
As always, thank you for the content
I don’t think atonality will disappear. It will just be another kind of tonality a composer can use. Free Jazz and Third Stream are direct results. There will always be a side of the tradition that revels in the fascinating complexities one can arrange music in, it just won’t be mandatory for composers to compose that way.
The joy of form in the classical period was when the rules were broken - the same can be said with serialism
"sudoku" is such a funny way to put it, I wish I'd thought of it before getting this video in my recommended
One -of the things about the history of 12-tone and serial music that has puzzled me for a long time is that, as a group, they seemed to be uninterested in the melodic potential of a row. Rows can be sung if you just take them and sing them within a restricted range; say within a 10th. And some of Schoenberg's works, like the 4th string quartet, seem to bring forward the melodic aspect. But I don't hear that this was picked up. Instead they seem to have become fascinated with math-based techniques, leaving the melodic potential behind.
Luigi Dallapiccola's music is a wonderful antidote to this-Berg, too, but he plays faster and looser with row forms. The ideological roots of those who were attracted to serialism were typically anti-Romantic, thus skeptical (at best) of melody and lyricism.
Great video, I'm fairly new to your channel but so far it's been great. I love serialism and cant want to try some of these techniques out
It's astounding how far academia will go, in the name of finding something new and beyond, to avoid incorporating jazz theory and the theories of different world musics into the classical Western concept system.
no kidding. they missed the entire 20th century in a way visual artists did not.
And yet, Jazz learns from Stravinsky and Schoenberg colour and method that they have yet to find elsewhere. (Bitonality, Serialism just to name a few)
And for what matters, European musician has been more open to the sound world in the 20th (still until now) century than they have ever been. You are making a hefty claim, a hefty generalisation.
@@edwardgivenscomposer Oh ok. I assume you focus on the latter.
not at all. citation on who exactly in the early jazz world "learned" from Schoenberg? If you say Gershwin I'll laugh - there's a big difference between taking a few lessons and actually affecting someone's style or output. (I do remember Monk mentioning Ravel as an influence.) or at least name one serial or bitonal Jazz piece.
those theories already exist independently, why do other systems need them?
Serialism of various parameters is great but I personally think if, in the process of composition, you think something non-serialized sounds better, you should go with that.
Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism. Talking about serialism.
Serialism is always of interest to me. I discovered it when listening to the album the last conducts Zappa, emi angel. Zappa used this a great deal in works even in rock as you noted yourself in the Zappa video. Do you like the band Autecre? Lastly, would you consider doing a video on Pierre Schaeffer? The establisher of musique concrete. Much thanks to you for all your work. Sincerely, Sal
Very interesting! I'm a huge fan of music history, and I'm always amazed by just how much of it your videos expose. Thanks! (also congrats on basically 2k subs)
at the beginning I hear Schoenberg's Opus 25 in the background! I can't tell which recording you used, but check out Florent Boffard's recording if you haven't already- it's the best performance I've ever heard of that piece.
The freely atonal music that Schoenberg wrote before he went serial is terrific because he was using his ear to guide his compositional process. Once the Sudoku set in, the ear went out the window and that's when music became cerebral instead of emotional. Those of us who studied in college music departments in the 1950s learned all about serialism. Many of us soon realized that we could not out serialize Boulez so the limits of complexity had been reached. That is why we drifted to minimalism. Interestingly, the minimalists quickly divided into two groups: the morons and the innovators.
Hah! I think that polar distinction applies to pretty well EVERY musical trend.
@@fictionmusicproductions Yes, I knew exactly how JS Bach felt about his kids.
Great video! You're getting really close to 2000 subs man, I can't wait till you hit it (and to watch you go even farther)
About the infamous Babbitt's article, apparently the controversial title was added by the publisher without Babbitt being consulted before. Babbitt has expressed is disagreement to this title.
The title engages in a bit of proto-clickbait, but having read it, I can very much understand how the editor got that impression. Babbitt favored music as a theoretical, research-fueled exercise, which I respect, but disagree with all the same.
It's very interesting, but I was expecting you to mention sudoku at some stage. I started watching the video thinking you were going to describe at some stage a serial technique related to a sudoku table.
I'm more of a mid-late romantic era guy, but I actually like a lot of 20th century music even if it's fairly dissonant. Stravinsky and Scriabin are two of my favorite composers, but I find that going past that level of dissonance is pointless most of the time. Spicing things up with atonal moments is great, but full blown Serialism is absolutely useless musically. The same can be said of set theory, math beyond dealing with time signatures really has no place in music. And I say that as an engineering major with a comp sci minor who has taken 2 classes on discrete math and 2 on linear algebra. They are fascinating topics, but the music they result in is almost always unlistenable.
Serialists weren't even rule breakers, they just created a new set of absurd rules that they adhered to more strictly than classical composers ever did to the rules of their time.
There is nothing that has no place in music. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. And saying serialism is all cerebral mathemathics is completely ignorant. Pieces like pli selon pli by Boulez and basically any stockhausen piece are full of expressivity and showcase emotions that can't be expressed in standard tonal music.
hey guys where can i find a community for this topic in a sense of music and more because there is much more than we might be able to think of honestly!
Great video, thanks a lot
Thank you!
I am not awake enough to understand any of this I'll watch it later
Did you watch it later
Now this is what I need
I've heard from people who knew him that Milton Babbit had a semi-secret life of loving (and composing!) straight-up, completely tonal Broadway-style show tunes.
I've heard the same! He was apparently a fantastic jazz pianist.
I'm subscribed and I watch frequently - thank you for the excellent content! Do you happen to have a list of all your books - I keep trying to see what we have in common and what I might be missing 🙂 Best Regards
I did a massive livestream bookshelf tour earlier this year when I was packing up to move apartments.
How about a video about Boulez, Sir? Thanks for the great content!
Boulez is now in the request pool!
@@ClassicalNerd I thought his name was pronounced boo-lay, not boo-lez
@@robertridley9279 Considering the funkiness of French pronunciation rules, that _would_ make sense ... but I based this pronunciation off of people who actually had met him, who have universally pronounced the Z.
13:46
Obligatory note that he didn't title the article that himself.
TY
04:50 i could be completly mistaken but isnt the a flat only four half steps away from D instead of 6? or am i misunderstandig half steps... otherwise extremly well made video that was easy to follow and understand. Thanks for helping me prepare a presentation!
No my friend, half steps are, as the name, half a note and if you look to a piano half steps are the distance between a white note and a black one and viceversa (except for E going to F and B going do C) they are the smallest interval in modern music. So if you count all these half steps from D to Ab you would find D, Eb, E, F, Gb, G and Ab which gives us 6 half steps ;)
You are doing fine in wrapping up the basic developments and I understand your critisism. But there is something important missing here: In what way are the people different who really like some of those pieces? There’s beautiful music by Webern or Boulez, especially his orchestral pieces. And its not important if those pieces are serial or not, it was never intended for the method to be audible! The very surface of the sound matters and that can be very interesting and beautiful. You only have to hear enough of that music. People are often too impatient training themselves to like new stuff. You can come to the point where you really enjoy ALL music and then you won‘t understand how you could ever have limited yourself so much before ;)
Lets be honest right here (my opinion, still...) Why would you play music on piano or on any instrument in general if its not to be heard and liked by the audience? whats the point in creating music nobody and I mean literally nobody, not even the composer itself, wants to listen too.
@@johannesf1373 I have never encountered such a situation and don't believe that is ever the case. What music are you referring to that "nobody not even the composer likes"? Surely that isn't the case for serial music, neither for audiece nor for the composer. There may be better and worse pieces, but that has nothing to do with the serial technique. And there is always music that is more easily consumable and there is music that can be quite exhausting listening to, both of which are totally accetable forms of listening experiences.
@@MSchultheis This composing style is the flagship of not being made because it sounds good. Some Composers or some pieces sounded good for sure, but this technique is literally made because it doesn't care if its harmonic if anyone likes it. There are so many pieces that were hated because the human mind cant process all this terrible notes... xd
@@johannesf1373 If you argue with what "sounds good", then you have to first define that, which is impossible. You can answer that for yourself of course, but even that changes during your life time. "Sounds good" is not a criteria that has any meaninful value in judging music, because there is no such thing as universal understanding of what sounds good. The composer might have a very diffrent opinion than you do, and so might I. So, serial music is not made to sound good in a way YOU define sounding good, that may be true. The idea in the 20th century was to widen the spectrum of what are acceptable sounds to be used in music. Today we are even much much farther in this regard, so much of todays contemporary classical music works with complex sounds that barely remind their instrumental origin. Things change and one can adapt to this, there is no right or wrong. It's like using a palette with 6millions colours instead of just 16. And serialism is way of making these new colours available. If you want to hear music thats fit in your more conventional expectation of music, than these palette is not what youre looking for. I was not always so open minded, but the more I got used to it, the more interesting I found it and the more limited the idea of using only sounds that were described "good" centuries ago. This composing style offered so much new possibilities to break out from that postromantic idiom of those days where everything had been said. And this idea today still is an incredibly effective tool for composition, with very different possible outcomes! Stay open-minded!
@@MSchultheis i actually dont wanna argue because you trained yourself into liking it which is not the same what I mean.. just for e.g. you can even train yourself to like pain. What I mean is that without training you like it. And obviously not everybody has the same taste which is completely fine but there are even scientific studies that in many seriel composition because of the tone sequence your brain cant process you are not even able to produce the happy or "liking" hormones. And I´m not saying that every piece is bad or that I personally dislike every piece. But why would you stick to a composing style in which many cases the outcome is very hard to listen to and actually many (besides you who "trained" to like it" ) cant really enjoy that. U can for sure compose some pieces that sound good, written with the "serial style" just without having to stick to any style because you are free and you can try anything you want. This simple "sticking to the method" logic makes no sense for me when you cna create something beautiful instead of making something which u didn't even really compose because its just a coincidence ton sequence...
Any links of serialists improvising?
Do you know how Charles Wuorinen was able to get those beautiful tonal colors from what is supposed to be a 12-tone structure in his "Mass for the Restoration of St. Luke in the Fields"?
ruclips.net/video/lSsw-H_3DoE/видео.htmlfeature=shared
I have a whole Wuorinen video in the works right now! Just waiting on a few things to come in on ILL for B-roll purposes. (I don't get into the details of that particular piece-he wrote over 200, after all!-but it should give some insight into his serial thought processes.)
This hurt my brain
Make a video about Antonin Dvorak please
It's already 8th in the queue-check it out at lentovivace.com/requestqueue.html
Any idea where I could find that Penderecki thing you mentioned, where he said music history should go back to Mahler? I’d be really interested to see it. Was it in an interview or something? I’ve tried googling but I got no results.
I want to say that quote was in a book by New Yorker music critic Alex Ross in his 2007 book _The Rest is Noise,_ which I do not possess, but read through when I borrowed it from my composition professor several years ago.
Aha! The achievement "equal importance" of the notes by playing only once is massively inadequate. The time each is in play must also be constrained if this is truly the reasoning. I therefore challenge the claim of "equal importance" - it sounds like an attempt to artistically justify an algorithm. NOTE: I'm 70 which is probably part of the problem.
Hi Classical Nerd. I couldn‘t help but notice Mozart wasn‘t yet in one of your „great composer“-vids. How come? Is it just a personal disdain against him or his music? And even if, don‘t you think it would be appropriate to still make a video on him? Even if you don‘t like him I think his impact on classical music in general is undeniable.
Best regards from Switzerland :)
I don't have any personal disdain towards Mozart; there have just been a lot of requests! Mozart was already in the pool of requests, and your request [ at lentovivace.com/requestqueue.html ] has been noted.
Mozart was "of the devil".
whats with your blackbird series?
More episodes are forthcoming! I've made a lot of progress and right now I'm basically trying to figure out the best way of relaying what I've been up to in a succinct manner.
Ending piece?
All info in the description.
By bad, Ty
I thought "C" was 0 and thus, C # was 1, etc. ?
Yes: ruclips.net/video/6BfQtAAatq4/видео.html
Boulez represents musical fascism in the guise of sonic democratization.
"a rather weak copy of real permutation and commutation theory" - Wendy Carlos
*googles communist artists*
*googles communism*
Not seeing the "musical communism"
While the "official music" of communist regimes was Socialist Realism, which was the opposite of serialism, what I'm talking about are the attitudes of Western composers writ large in the serial heyday. It's communism in the sense of a model of social conformity.
Communism is a very collectivist mentality, and it's a profound irony of music history that composers in a supposedly anti-communist West followed in such lock-step with the serial establishment. Many composers in this era were not accepted by academic (or otherwise "serious") circles if they weren't serialists (or not serial _enough,_ as was often Boulez's complaint). George Rochberg is a good example of someone who went against this serialist collectivism and paid the price in the press and in terms of his overall reputation.
So Stalin was right, after all!
At one point I think you said from right to left when you meant to say from left to right, but I think it was probably just an accident
Lol...why can't they just compose?...Why worry about things like that?...Lol...why make life so difficult?...
This is basically like madness to me...
because it creates music completely different in feel to tonal music, it's like asking Kandinsky to keep painting pretty landscapes.
Because we are always looking for new things, we always try to push the limits of what we are doing
I would understand that, but sometimes I wonder if it's about that or just in order to do something new for the sake of doing something new, lol...originality for originality's sake...I wonder if much anyone really enjoys such music, lol, or if it's just an intellectual exercise for the composer...
This seems to me a personal view on the music-history, and this video tells absolutely nothing about the technique of serialism, actually to me it seems like there is a lack of knowledge on the concept of serialism. Technique can be used in any musical and artistic environment. If you understand it, you can see how classical composers and pop musicians are into it. It can be tonal, can be whatever you want. I think the title should be matched with the content. (I hear a huge load of offense as well, I think in 2018 you should get over these, musical pioneers of the last century made an important job, we should understand their results, and surely not misslead people who might learn from it)