Talk:Serialism

message: I think some attention should be given to how a listener perceives serial music.  Information from the field of music cognition offers great insight into how serial music is interpreted by a listener. For example, labarotory tests conclude that professional musicians and non musicians alike do very poorly recognizing and remembering passages of serial music. The listener does not infer any large scale schemata of serial works according to such studies. This may be of benefit to the article.
I wholeheartedly agree.Colbyhawkins (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Listener

message: As someone who has devoted a good part of his life to understanding the compositional practice of a number of composers who can be described as practitioners of serialism, I just want to say (civilly) that two days ago we had an article that dealt with this difficult topic pretty well. I regret that the article which, for no discernible reason, has entirely replaced it - why did the writer think this was necessary? - does not (and I'm still being civil) do so nearly as well. The number of basic spelling and syntax errors in themselves require a rather large amount of labour to correct before we could even start on the content, and it looks like that would be labour spent in vain. A pity.
Cenedi 
:The previous page was well below the standards of wiki content - it was POV, personal essay, unorganized, contained unencyclopediac content, it did not cite sources, it adopted POV naming conventions. The behavior of the previous editor/editors has violated a raft of standards for wikiquette and wikistyle. The characterizations of the changes made are inaccurate, bordering on the mendacious. This article needs further work, including descriptions of techniques, works, performances and performance history and influence of serialism as a technique and as an idea. I object both to the abombinable quality of the article as it stood when I began working on it, and to the absolutely unacceptable personal actions of the previous editors. Stirling Newberry 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: I've scribbled a bit about the problems of this subject before on Talk:Tone row, but I thought it best that I try to quickly explain the changes I just made here:
Serialism and twelve-note music are not strictly speaking the same thing. Twelve-note music is a subset of serialism, really. It doesn't make sense to speak of the two as the same, because you might have a serial piece which uses a scale with 41 notes to the octave and serialises them - such a piece is serial, but not twelve-note music in any sense. Likewise, you might have a piece that serialises dynamics, durations, accents and instrumentation, but not pitches - such a piece would also be serial, but not twelve-note music. This is a bit of a chewy problem, because the best known serial composers (Schoenberg, Berg and Webern) serialised only pitches, and so the two terms become confused. However, there's no question of somebody calling a totally serialised work like Pierre Boulez' Polyphonie X "twelve-note music" - it's serial, and that's all there is to it.
Here's a quote from the Harvard Dictionary of Music which I just copied from , which probably puts the problem better than I could:
:"[serial music is] music constructed according to permutations of a group of elements placed in a certain order or series. These elements may include pitches, durations, or virtually any other musical values. Strictly speaking, serial music encompasses twelve-tone music as well as music employing other types of pitch series, ie., those containing fewer than twelve pitches (e.g., certain "pre-twelve-tone" movements from Schoenberg's Five Piano Pieces op. 23 and Serenade op. 24; Stravinsky's In Memoriam Dylan Thomas) and those containing more than twelve pitches (e.g., Messiaen's Quator pour la fin du temps). Normally, however, the term is reserved for music that extends classical Schoenbergian twelve-tone pitch techniques and, especially, applies serial control to other musical elements, such as duration. Such music, mainly developed after World War II (although there were also earlier tendencies in this direction, notably in the music of Berg and Cowell), is often distinguished from twelve-tone serialism as "integral" or "total" serialism. It is usually characterized by a high degree of precompositional planning and thus also of compositional determinacy.
OK, after all that, the other edits I made are quite simple: first, serial music is not always atonal - quite a lot of Berg's serial passages, for instance, are definitely in a certain key. Secondly, I don't think Stravinsky's Fanfare for a New Theatre is a good example of a serial composition: it's a pretty small piece for just two trumpets, which hardly ever gets heard. Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra is a far better known piece (as well as being an excellent example of what you can do with the twelve-note technique). --Camembert
:OK, I've finally taken the plunge and moved the specifically 12-tone stuff (which was most of the article) to twelve-tone technique. Hopefully I'll be able to expand this article soon. --Camembert 19:33 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the serialism is a "development" of the 12-tone technique, but to say that Schoenberg, Webern, and Alban Berg, in particular, were serial composers is just not accurate and they should not be cited as such. I mean, in my opinion, Alban Berg's music is the complete antethises of serialism - compare a work as moving as Wozzeck or his Violin Concerto with, let's say, Structure 1a and you will hear that they just can't be grouped in the same school of composition. Well, it's only my opinion, I guess.  Grcruz (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Serialism vs twelve tone

message: Two quick notes/questions:  1. Did Luigi Nono develop serial principles really that independently?  As far as I know he regularly attended to the "Darmstädter Ferienkurse für Neue Musik" in Darmstadt, meeting there with Stockhausen and even Boulez.  2. It seems that John Cage (sic!) had some influence on the delopment of serialism.  Unfortunately the only source I have for that right now is an interview with the musical historian Reinhold Brinkmann (Harvard) in German <URL: http://www.beckmesser.de/themen/brink/int.html>.  Here is the relevant part of the interview with an  English translation by me below:
"Unter musikgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunkten muss heute auch einer Figur wie John Cage zentrale Bedeutung für die Entwicklung im frühen Nachkriegseuropa beigemessen werden; nach dem kürzlich veröffentlichten Briefwechsel zwischen Cage und Boulez muss er als einer Väter der seriellen Musik betrachtet werden, denn er hat bestimmte kompositionstechnische Verfahren mit Boulez besprochen, die dann direkt in die serielle Technik eingegangen sind. Man müsste eigentlich die Musikgeschichte von dieser internationalen Perspektive aus neu schreiben."
"From the point of view of musical history one must realize that even a figure like John Cage had a central role in the development in the early post-war-Europe; following the recently published exchange of letters between Cage and Boule, he has to be acknowledged as being one of the fathers of serial music, because he discussed with Boulez certain aspects of composition technique which directly became part of serial technique. Actually the history of music would have to be rewritten from this international perspective [a perspective which takes the influence of American composers on musical development in post-war Europe into account; Utis]"
That said, I am not sure whether Brinkmann puts such an emphasis on it, just because he wants to make a point.  Thus, I am not arguing for including it into the main article yet, not without further recherche/evidence.  But I thought it might be worth mentioning here on the talk page.
-- Utis 01:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nono and Cage

message: Out of curiosity as to what kind of language "Eesti" was, I clicked it while I was reading this article.  I was amazed to find numerous manuscript diagrams relating to serialism, which appear to have been drawn by composers themselves.  Not being able to speak "Eesti" (which turns out to be Estonian), I would appreciate it if a speaker of Estonian translated some of the Estonian article, at least the parts with the diagrams.  Or, if you don't speak it, have a look at the diagrams in the article in Estonian, it's pretty fascinating.
: Much of that material looks copyright. If Estonia falls into the same copyright loophole as the bulk of the former Soviet Union, material from before 1970 or so is fair game, but the copyright laws of English-speaking countries would not permit the publication of these. CRCulver 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A great way to improve this article 

message: I can't find anything in Wikipedia about the musical style pointillism.  Is that the same as what Wikipedia is calling Serialism?  If so it should be mentioned in this article and there should be a pointer page.  If it is different then pointillism should have a page too.
Lloyd
: Usually when instrumental writing is called "pointillistic" it generally means that the writing consists of individual notes, not chords. CRCulver 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pointillism" (more accurately, "punctualism") is, as you say, a musical texture or style, and is not the same thing as serialism, which is a technique of composition. However, most (not all) of the music described by the term was also created (between about 1950 and 1955) using serial techniques of one sort or another. This is doubtless why it is found in the Serialism article. An example of a non-serial punctual work is Messiaen's "Mode de valeurs et d'intensités" (1949). The term was originated probably by Herbert Eimert or Karlheinz Stockhausen, after discussion with other people working in Cologne around 1953, and so was originally a German term: "punktuelle Musik". German has a separate word for pointillism, "Pointillismus". In a certain sense, these are polar opposites, since in painting (e.g., Seurat) pointillism concerns densely packed dots (the closest musical equivalent is theTonschar or "swarm of notes" found in the so-called statistical textures of Stockhausen's music after 1954, or the "clouds" in Xenakis's music from around the same time). Punctual music, on the contrary, tends to sparse textures, though the definition usually involves the separate determination for each note of all of its various "parameters" (pitch, duration, dynamic, timbre, register, etc.). Jerome Kohl 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relation to pointillism? 

message: In the fifth paragraph of Basic Definition, the author states:
"The most common requirement is that first half and second half of the row not be inversions of each other."
However, this was most often not the case. Schoenberg and Webern, to name two composers, often deliberately constructed 12 tone rows such that the first and second hexachords were related by inversion, retrograde or both.
In fact, in the seventh paragraph of 'Theory of Serial Music' the author states that:
"An aggregate may be divided into subsets, and all the members of the aggregate not part of any one subset are said to be its complement. A subset is self-complementing if it contains half of the set and its complement is also a permutation of the original subset. This is most commonly seen with hexachords or 6 notes of a basic tone row. A hexachord which is self-complementing for a particular permutatition is referred to as prime combinatorial. A hexachord which is self complementing for all basic permutations – Inversion, Retrograde and Retrograde Inversion – is referred to as all-combinatorial. The concepts of combinatoriality were explored by Schoenberg and Webern, but were rigorously defined and explored in the work of Milton Babbitt."
"The most common requirement is that first half and second half of the row not be inversions of each other." Not true. One has to wonder where that came from. Gingermint (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Given the number of sources could we switch the citation style over to footnotes? Hyacinth 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that today, 11 September 2007, an anonymous editor posting from ISP 66.159.185.126 added a "citation style" template, without further comment. Since there is only one style of citation currently used in the article (Harvard style), perhaps switching to footnotes is what he/she meant, but I do not see the advantage, myself. Why is the large number of sources a factor (or was this number very small in 2006)?--Jerome Kohl 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that when I wrote that the mention of the number of sources was a reference to the advice of "Wikipedia:Citing sources" or some other policy/guideline at the time. The, apparently, arbitrary advice to use footnotes when an article has many inline citations and sources has since been removed, I also believe. What a difference context makes. Hyacinth (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose switching from Harvard references to standard cite book templates. I almost added the "citation style" tag myself until I checked the talk page to see if this had been discussed. Although I am sure there are many academics who get value out of the Harvard style, I personally am not an academic and the references got in the way of my reading the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a journal, so it should inherently be tailored to the lay reader. I'd appreciate comments on this proposal. If I don't get any replies or if this page is inactive for a couple of weeks, I'll make all the changes myself in one edit which can be reverted if needs be. Icebob99 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Standard cite book templates" can be used with either Harvard-style, SFN, or full-footnote style. Since they would involve wholesale reformatting of the reference list, I see no reason to use them instead of the wikicite templates currently in use, which permit the Chicago-style formatting (without brackets around the years of publication, amongst other things). If, on the other hand, you are proposing switching from parenthetical referencing to one or another style of footnote citation, I oppose this change on precisely the grounds that I find footnote numerals obstruct my reading the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Icebob99 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This article is in dire need of more specifics, and fewer vague generalities. I just read the whole thing, and I don't believe I saw a single specific piece of music mentioned. There is also not a single example written out in musical notation. The whole thing reads like one long "he said, she said."--75.83.140.254 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has only a basic understanding of music theory I have to agree. I've read the article several times and find it difficult to envisage even a simple theoretical example of serialism that I can be confident meets the "correct" definition (whatever that is). Imagine you had to show a young student a simple example of serialism such that they could go away and mimic the premise and come up with their own example that fits within the definition of serialism (even if it sounded awful). What example would you provide to this end? I'd love to contribute such a sentence but am unqualified to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.7.39 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of examples and specifics

message: Glenn Gould is listed under important serialist composers. While he was a great advocate of serialism, and occasionally made his own compositional attempts in this style, none of these were published/recorded; his main published work, the String Quartet, was influenced by the "achievement of Schoenberg in unifying unifying motivic concepts," but didn't use the serialist method.
Thus, unless I am forgetting something, GG should probably be removed from the list of important serialist composers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanneShade (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've put them all back. Hardly any of the composers you removed are "merely composers who once had a serial idea." Most are major composers whose work includes numerous important serial compositions. If you wish to debate the relative merits of each composer you think is not sufficiently notable—or sufficiently notable as a composer of serial music, by all means let us do so. I suggest we start with Robert Gerhard, one of the names you deleted, whose work from 1950 onward was almost entirely serial, including his four completed symphonies.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn Gould? 

message: I take issue with the use of the description "quasi-mathematical language" in the section "Theory of Serial Music." Is the language mathematical or not? Are permutations then only quasi-permutational? Is there any literature that describes the use of mathematical language as justifying the "quasi-" tag? Jmckaskle (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree that your point may be well-taken, there are at least two articles by one author, John Backus, that you may be interested to read: "Re: Pseudo-Science", Journal of Music Theory 4, no. 2 (November 1960): 221–32, and "Die Reihe—A Scientific Evaluation", Perspectives of New Music 1, no. 1 (Autumn 1962): 160–71. The former is a devastating (and hilarious) criticism of Joseph Schillinger's Schillinger System of Musical Composition, the latter an equally negative if somewhat more serious-toned critique of the pseudo-scientific language found in several of the earliest issues of Die Reihe. Schillinger's work is not exactly serial (at least, not by the usual definitions), but serialism was the main focus of Die Reihe, as stated on the title page of the original German edition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look. Thank you.Jmckaskle (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quasi Mathematical Language 

message: "Furthermore, the organizing principles of serialism inspired mathematical analogues, such as uses of set theory, group theory, operators, and parametrization, for example in the post-war works of Elliott Carter, Iannis Xenakis, and Witold Lutosławski."
Due to my edits of operator-related articles, operators link is now pointing on disambiguation page, and because of the widespread confusion of operator and operation I cannot infer what exactly was meant here. Please, clarify. --- Kallikanzaridtalk 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify the mathematical jargon 

message: The first sentence under this heading states, "Serialism is a method...of musical composition." The third sentence states, "However, serialism is not by itself a system of composition..." According to dictionary.com, "system" is a synonym for "method".  I hope that by making this observation I am not guilty of improper synthesis. Colbyhawkins (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Definitions 

message: This section seems to me remarkably insufficient. There is virtually nothing of the history of serialism. It seems to me this section ought to begin with Liszt and Wagner to give the motivations for serialism. The first phrase of the third sentence, "The serialization of rhythm, dynamics, and other elements of music developed after the Second World War by arguing[weasel words] that the twelve-tone music of Arnold Schoenberg and his followers of the Second Viennese School had serialized pitch," makes no sense - perhaps the author forgot "only" before the last word. Even with this addition, the word "arguing" is ambiguous at best. Under the sub-heading "Twelve Tone Music", we get exactly one sentence: "In the early 20th century composers began to struggle against the ordered system of chords and intervals known as "functional tonality", in an effort to find new forms of expression and underlying structural organizing principles". The term "twelve tone music" is never mentioned under this heading. I agree with Mark D. - this article is pitiful.Colbyhawkins (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What should be done about it? Hyacinth (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of serial music 

message: *Richard Yardumian used a unique variation of the 12-tone scale "different from Schoenberg's" in which "series were derived by alternating major and minor thirds" (Schwartz 2001).
No mention in the Yardumian article. Hyacinth (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Yardumian

message: What's Serialism? I've read the article, but I still have no idea. This has got to be one of the worst articles on wikipedia from a beginner's perspective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.147.110 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How should the article be improved? Specifically what is hard to understand? Hyacinth (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is a disaster. A method or technique (why both?) of composition (why not composing?) that uses different elements... I forget how it ends. Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (and it is probably best not to remember how it ends). There was a huge argument about this about three years ago, and we wrestled it to a standstill. Maybe it is time to fix this now, if everyone has calmed down.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're referring to #Opening definition. Hyacinth (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Sorry for any ambiguity. I assumed "the first sentence is a disaster" was sufficient identification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, almost every piece of music consists of pitches, rhythms, and dynamics, and any method of composition is...a method of composition. The article goes on to explain what distinguishes serialism from other methods and serialist music from other music.AlsoWukai (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: The list of notable composers goes on forever. As many of these alleged notable composers are downright obscure, it would be reasonable to cull many of these names. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists like this are a liability to any Wikipedia article. However, you are wrong about one thing: none of the composers in the list are "obscure"—they are all quite famous, in fact. So, the question is not one of removing names no one has ever heard of, but rather, it is one of establishing an objective rating scale by which the list can be ranked from highest to lowest, and then setting a reasonable number of names to be included. Once this is done, pruning the list becomes an automatic process, formulated by mathematical means. Simple, really.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Notables