From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: How does one compose?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:50:21 GMT

In article <85767@ut-emx.uucp> james@astro.as.utexas.edu (James McCartney) writes:
>        1) From the vantage point of the late twentieth century, it is perhaps
>        unclear what distinguishes orthodox 12-tone composition from a multitude
>
>        of equally plausible systems, and in particular
>        2) it is not clear what musical problem is solved by the method of
>        composition with 12-tones.
>-----
>   When I said a few months ago that I thought that the 12-tone system
>was an arbitrary one which explained nothing about how we hear music
>I was flamed. I still believe that it is an arbitrary system, esp. since
>Forte's book seemed to present a much more open system for 12-tone
>conceptualization. My critique of Forte's book is that it gets too much
>into the numerology of it all and fails deal enough with harmony. It 
>also takes the 12-equal temperament as a given on which to base all
>analysis, and since I deal only in just or 72-equal temp. these days,
>much of his stuff is useless to me. Though I have been influenced by this
>book in that I prefer to think of inverval complexes than chords.
   
>   I think the question is whether a new compositional device is used
>out of expressive need or just because it can be done. I think both are
>valid. Though if someone continually produces pieces of the second type
>I would say they are a compositional geek. The Schoenberg 12-tone system
>was useful as a hammer. It did open new territory. But I think that once
>the wall is broken, the hammer should be thrown away.

>   --- james mccartney

I continue to disagree with this, and to claim that the motivation for
serialism a la Schoenberg arose purely from his musical, not mystical or
numerological tendancies, and that the ideas embodied in serialism work
naturally in a variety of tuning systems, not in any way limited to 12-tone
equal temperment---although the details of what's possible and available
are as different in 12-tone serialism within 12-tone equal temperment and
e.g. 21-tone serialism within 72-tone equal temperment as are the differences
in tonal harmonies and enharmonic proximities/identities available within
each such tuning system.

But I'll be writing a bit about my perspective on serial materials (plural!)
and what they offer to who, in my final GEMS article, which I hope to finish
early in January 1993.

In answer to David Feldman:
1) serial materials ARE intentionally an inclusive, varied, loose bunch of
ideas, which include some extremely restrictive, and some not so restrictive
approaches;

2) the objectives which are addressed by using serial materials are as well
known as those which are addressed by using tonal counterpoint.  I'll be
addresssing them briefly in my article.  These deal mainly with maintaining
the integrity of various motives and motivic chords (these two categories merge
fluidly into each other through the device of arppegiation [broken chords]).

An interesting consequence will be that the more freely you stretch the
techniques and materials to accomodate gestures that you have in mind, the
harder it becomes to keep your motives and motivic chords vivid in the ear.
Musically exciting stuff, from the Schoenberg Op.25 on down, pretty much all
pulls the material right up to the point where its specific identity begins
to break down... So, as with romantic style, an important part of strict
orthodoxy is that there cannot be a strict orthodoxy :-)

Groove on the Berg Violin Concerto, e.g. Then realize that "orthodox"
serialism is essential to its groove.  But pulEEEZe do it in that
order---let your ear draw you to the material and make you curious how
it works before analyzing.