My favorite is kind of obvious but, Schoenberg's stuff does it pretty well for me. You can tell in his works that he was relentlessly creative which of course drove his experimentation with atonal structures. He also has some really good tonal work. I haven't heard many other composers of this type though. Which would you recommend?
Great Music of the Twentieth Century (2018), by Robert Greenberg B.A. music (magna cum laude) from Princeton, Ph.D. music composition from U.C. Berkeley. Lecture 14 "The World Turned Upside Down". 41 min 30 s.
His transcript sometimes differs from, and this quote doesn't appear in his, Course Guidebook.
>As we observed a few moments ago, Babbitt's Three Compositions for Piano [1947] is understood to be the first totally serialized music composition. What that means is that pre-compositional formulas were used to create every aspect of the work. The temptations to analyse such a work by simply describing the formulas Babbitt used to create it, is [are], well almost overwhelming. For example, I could point that in the first movement, all the prime set forms have a dynamic of mezzo-piano; all the notes of the inversion are forte; the retrogrades are mezzo-forte; and the retrograde inversions are piano. But what in heaven's name does such information tell us about Babbitt's music? It tells us nothing; as listeners we don't need to know about the "mechanics", the formulas, despite the fact that on paper, the formulas and the music would seem to be one and the same. But in fact, in Babbitt's music, the formula is not the actual music; the actual music is greater and much more interesting than the formulas used to create it. And that, my friends, is Babbitt's alchemy.
45 min 40 s
>Do we need to "know" the mechanics with which Babbitt built the piece? No, we need only listen!
-
What would a devil's advocate say? What are the benefits of doing the opposite of what Dr Greenberg instructs not to do?
-
Doesn't this instruction belie music theory? Isn't a point of music theory to probe the structure behind compositions, even if they're not mathematical?
As soon as I got the package I was giddy af. I ripped it open and inside was another package! Check it out! When I saw the little sock I squeed so hard and squeed even more when I realized it was filled with stuff. I may or may not have had to exercise some self-control with the chocolate. The package smells so good, too! In addition to chocolate my little sock had a full size Crow & Pebble lipstick in Hippolyta and some perf samples. A reeeeeeally good smell is coming from the Arcana!
I tried on the lipstick (I'd taken a pic but I don't want to show my face D:) and it is a bit darker than my natural lip color. It's the perfect neutral for me. /u/serialist MUST BE PSYCHIC!!! How did you know!?!?!? I'm scared, yo. The lippy smells like those fruity Tootsie Rolls an gave me some hardcore nostalgia. The box also had a mini-card with a pengy on it and a sweet note. PENGY!
Now lets get to the box. I carefully removed the adorable af sock and tore into that mofo. Something was lovingly packaged with paper, more paper, and bubble wrap. As soon as I saw the head of the bird I started to squeal. I love birds. Well, birbs. I've had at least one birb since I was 9 (I'm almost 34!) and have been involved in parrot rescue. Birbs are love. Birbs are life. The macaw is brightly colored with glitter and sequins. I may have said "It's perfect!" out loud a few times and squeed a bit more. Then I shoved the chocolate into my face hole.
This made my whole damn day. This morning was rough and this just blasted that shit into oblivion. I'm so happyyyyy!!! Thank you so much to the bestest swap-mate ever: /u/serialist AKA Karen from Crow & Pebble. :) :) :D :D
I've never tried to share images on reddit so lets see how this goes! My hands still smell amazing from the package...deep inhale
ETA: I just realized the sock is the DIY she was talking about. THE SOCK IS HANDMADE! It's so CUTE!!!
So my girlfriend was looking through my phone yesterday (I didn't know) and she saw a text message from my classmate who's gay. We've been talking for a while, I just wanted to know how he came out and how it worked out and we became friends. That's all. Friends. But she doesn't believe that and has told all her friends that I'm gay. And just like that a secret I've been struggling with for years went out in the open and I didn't have a say in how it went down. Not sure what to do anymore Edit : add to that that she made people online send me death threats for nothing.
There's nothing as depressingly hilarious as artists getting their panties in a bundle when one of their contemporaries finds popularity or commerecial success.
So, the links
About the influence of Schönberg
About how musical establishment can be especially hostile if you don't write serial music.
(Unrelated, but since there's been pony drama all up in here) "Mahler devotees are bronies of the classical world"
www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/vpcln/classical_music_you_hate/c56npkz?context=1
I'm not extremely well versed in jazz, but I grew up listening to musicians like Stan Tracey, Ronnie Scott, John Dankworth and Humphrey Lyttleton and even a few American artists like Dave Brubeck and a bit of Miles Davis (that is before he 'went electric' in the late 1960s), but some of my favourite music in the world is atonal, especially 12 tone serialist music. I know about modal jazz and enjoy Kind of Blue and A Love Supreme but even though modes predate common practice tonality it functions the same for the listener.
So do you know of any atonal, particularly 12 tone serialist jazz?
I would be very surprised if there weren't any 12 tone serialist jazz pieces, the framework makes improvisation quite simple.
Prof. Dan Román MM DMA (Hartt School of Music) from Rethink: The Abyss of Music in the 20th Century: (Paraphrased by reason of poor audio quality)
> It [a Pierre Boulez's serialist piano composition] sounds even more chaotic. I had a college professor in music who loved to demonstrate a kind of competition: He recorded a performer just improvising notes and rhythms at random. Then he would play the random sample and the Boulez piece back-to-back to a room of students. To the students, both examples sounded the same.
> So we have here an example of a composition which is completely structured - all its music determined by a discreet series of numbers, and another piece of music that is virtually unstructured entirely, yet to the listener, they sound the same.
David Bruce MComp, PhD in Composition at King's College London in Music vs. Pattern:
>09:02 Of course we can also take things
09:04 too far the other way. Around the same
09:06 time as those total serial pieces John
09:08 Cage was writing his music of changes. I
09:11 say writing, but he was actually using
09:12 chants based on the Chinese I Ching to
09:15 dictate the score. So you could say this
09:17 is the total removal of pattern. Now what
09:20 has struck many people is how similar
09:21 these two apparently polar opposite
09:23 approaches end up sounding. This is
09:25 Stockhausen's Klavierstück III,
09:27 the completely patterned
09:30; and this is Cage's Music of Changes, the
9:33
completely patternless.
Why do random notes and a highly structured Serialist composition sound the same to some listeners? oughtndn't a structured composition always sound different than random notes?
I have listened to Bill Evans' "T.T.T.", but I'm looking for (if it even exists) more serialist focused songs. Not necessarily that they are using Schönberg's exact method, just a bit more of approach to "organized" atonality.
Learn how to approach atonality in an organized, mathematical way by using these easy-to-learn serialization techniques. These techniques will help you spice up your atonal phrasings and expand your understanding of music theory beyond the tonal system.
https://www.myguitarworkshop.com/pauljones/lessons/476/serialist-guitar-techniques
I was wondering if anyone is aware of any pieces (composers) of serialist music for the treble/alto recorder?
I really enjoy atonal music for wind instruments but I've never come across any specifically for the recorder.
Any suggestions would be great.
This is the kind of sound I'm looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUEj5q43nec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3h4JBbTEIA
Now I'm finishing my first year as a composition major, my perception and beliefs about composition have been somewhat flipped upside down, and I strongly believe now that whatever you're composing, your musical material has to relate to the main idea in some way to create a convincing whole. Now back in the day, composers had quite clear motivations as to why they used certain techniques. Schoenberg moved to atonal music because he saw that as the only logical continuation on the past. This created problems with structure, and thus serializing or ordering musical paramters created a different take on structure. Minimalism came as a reaction against the abstract expressionism and spectralism came with the rise of electronic music and sound analysis.
I strongly believe in a postmodern era, where there are all these techniques at our disposal, and we can combine everything freely. However, you can't just mix everything blindly, just like ice cream with tomato sauce, spinach and beans probably won't result in a great dish to my own taste.
Maybe I'm hitting the extreme too much at the moment, but did you use any specific technique from last century (serialism, spectral techniques, minimalism, chance. etc.) or even older techniques (counterpoint, fugue, (neo-)classicistich techniques) and what was your motivation/reason to use those techniques specifically?
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
Do your worst!
I'm surprised it hasn't decade.
For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.
I said "hey look, an escaPEA"
No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!
Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂
It really does, I swear!
Buenosdillas
They’re on standbi
Pilot on me!!
Great Music of the Twentieth Century (2018), by Robert Greenberg B.A. music (magna cum laude) from Princeton, Ph.D. music composition from U.C. Berkeley. Lecture 14 "The World Turned Upside Down". 41 min 30 s.
His transcript sometimes differs from, and this quote doesn't appear in his, Course Guidebook.
>As we observed a few moments ago, Babbitt's Three Compositions for Piano [1947] is understood to be the first totally serialized music composition. What that means is that pre-compositional formulas were used to create every aspect of the work. The temptations to analyse such a work by simply describing the formulas Babbitt used to create it, is [are], well almost overwhelming. For example, I could point that in the first movement, all the prime set forms have a dynamic of mezzo-piano; all the notes of the inversion are forte; the retrogrades are mezzo-forte; and the retrograde inversions are piano. But what in heaven's name does such information tell us about Babbitt's music? It tells us nothing; as listeners we don't need to know about the "mechanics", the formulas, despite the fact that on paper, the formulas and the music would seem to be one and the same. But in fact, in Babbitt's music, the formula is not the actual music; the actual music is greater and much more interesting than the formulas used to create it. And that, my friends, is Babbitt's alchemy.
45 min 40 s
>Do we need to "know" the mechanics with which Babbitt built the piece? No, we need only listen!
-
What would a devil's advocate say? What are the benefits of doing the opposite of what Dr Greenberg instructs not to do?
-
Doesn't this instruction belie music theory? Isn't a point of music theory to probe the structure behind compositions, even if they're not mathematical?
