serial composition.

[reith]

Until recently I've rejected serialism outright, partly because, as I understood it, it chains a composition down to a set of rules. Once a serial row is established the composition can be resolved with little concern for expression or larger aspects of form.

However, I'm now looking at a series as a simple way of unifying a work rather than generate it, the importance shifting to preservation of stylistic continuity through the piece.

I'm not doing anything new but perhaps coming to a deeper understanding of resources.

Have others had dealings with serial composition, perhaps establishing their own working practices?

[crimson]

I have never tried atonal composition practises myself, but they have recently caught my interest after I read an article about set theory on the web. It's still a bit unclear to me how one would use the stuff to produce a piece, but I feel like I'd like to give atonality and set theory a try sometime.

I, too, am against too much rules that hinder creativity when it comes to composition. What I've thought to do with set theory would be to pick an interesting pitch class set and use the set as a kind of scale/mode by limiting myself to using just the tones in the set. I wouldn't probably use the tones in an orderly fashion if it went against where I'd like to take the piece to. I think I'd try to put some musical sense into a composition despite the atonality, so as to make the listener think that they're listening to something meaningful rather than a mess of sounds (ever heard Erkki Sven-Tüür? ).

[stevel]

Until recently I've rejected serialism outright, partly because, as I understood it, it chains a composition down to a set of rules.

This shows though Reith, a complete misunderstanding of what "serial" has meant, and may mean (though I realize you are just relating an experience and explain your current views below). For example, the idea of "serializing" elements really just means "putting them in a fixed order". The following all have serialized elements: Fugue Subjects, Canons, Isorhythmic Motets, Parody Masses, Passacgilia, Ostinati, 12-Bar Blues, Rhythm Changes, Cycle of Fourths progression, etc.

12 Bar blues is one of the best examples - you are "chained" in a way to a set chord progressions - but look how many interesting works have been created working within that limitation. Obviously, as an art form, people have decided how strictly to adhere to that progression - the same is true for serial music.

Once a serial row is established the composition can be resolved with little concern for expression or larger aspects of form.

Again Reith, I think this shows two misundertandings: 1 that use of serial elements automatically negates some of these other aspects, and 2, that composers using serial elements feel the need for those other elements in their work.

Part of the Pandiatonic Atonal Serial mentality is to eschew traditionalism. However, it does not mean that 12-Tone, Atonality, or Serialism necessarily must be applied in that manner. The trick is, if one wants to have something like, say a formal consideration, one must build this into the pre-compositional elements. For instance, a Round must be designed so that it can continually repeat - while there's "no form" in the traditional sense, it wouldn't be a round if it didn't keep going round! Likewise, things like Cancrizans Canons must be built in such a way that the mid-point crossing is effective (otherwise you get an obviously repeated set of elements which may not be desirable) - this also must be factored into the pre-compositional work. Canons in Augmentation might be structured such that it takes exactly 2 of the normal part to equal one of the Augmented part, and this may provide an inherent bi-partite structure. Again, needs to be worked out ahead of time.

However, I'm now looking at a series as a simple way of unifying a work rather than generate it, the importance shifting to preservation of stylistic continuity through the piece.

Ahh, exactly. And that shows a deeper understanding of what's going on in "real" serial music. It's no different then how many composers see the scale or the key as the generating factor in Tonal music - very typically it's not - the key is just representation of what notes you're going to use, in a HIERARCHICAL ORDER (thus making one tone the highest - the Tonic). Serial works usually use a OCCURRENCE ORDER - they are ordered in when they happen. So we might say in Tonal Music:
C
B
G
D
F
A
E
Are the most important to least important in defining the key (the E is unimportant for key - it merely defines mode - and I would say this hierarchy is different for melody and harmony so this is merely an "average").
In Serial music, the order is instead:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T E (assuming a 12 note series)

I think the mistake people make is they think of "series" (or row, or set) as a "scale", but in many ways, it's more like a "motive". For example, we might say the "series" of Beethoven's 5th is G-Eb. Then we have permutations of that series - intervallic compression (F-D), inversion with intervallic expansion (G up C) and so on. Now obviously, we don't tend to think in those terms for Tonal music because there are so many other factors at play. But serious study of Serial music ("modern") will show that there are just as many factors going on - trichord, tetrachord, and hexachord division, inversional symmetry, all-interval structures, etc. etc.

You might also see a parallel betwen series and "key". For example, modulating from C to G might be seen as a parallel to using a row in its prime form versus using it in its retrograde inversion. Obviously though, it depends on how the composer is implementing these things.

So, in a sense, many serial elements supplant traditional elements, while other serial elements enhance them.

I'm not doing anything new but perhaps coming to a deeper understanding of resources.

Exactly. And that's what learning about music with an open mind is about. People who love the Art of the Fugue or the Musical Offering and say they hate serial music really shows nothing more than prejudice and ignorance. Understanding is the key.

Serialism, Atonality, Pandaitonicism, and all other manner of things are simply TOOLS one may choose to use or not in the creation of a work of art. It is absolutely ignorant to limit oneself to traditional Tonality in this day and age. It is a different matter to decide that a particular composition will be most effective if written in a traditional tonal style. But ignoring the fact that a piece might be more effective if it is in a non-traditional style shows a prejudice. Basically, you might find you rarely need an angle screwdriver, but if you keep one in your toolbox then you'll have it if you do need it. And like they say about tools - you need to choose the right one for the job. A Duct Tape and Vise Grip solution may work, but it's never better than fixing it correctly. Learn about all the tools you have, and then decide when and how to implement each one.

Have others had dealings with serial composition, perhaps establishing their own working practices?

I've never written a serial piece in the style of the Second Viennese School other than as exercises in composition courses. But I have used serial type elements frequently - Isorhtymic principles in a melody (or maybe they might be called Rotational instead, which I understand is the way Stravinsky thought about them at some point); "Code" composition where the melody was dictated by a name that was encoded with pitches;etc.

I'm not really interested in composing like Mozart, and I'm not really interested in composing like Schoenberg either. I'm interested in trying to absorb all the information I can from everyone, and trying to find what I can use effectively in my own creations. Mozart deals with transistions wonderfully. Schoenberg deals with musical space (registrally and temporally) wonderfully. Debussy deals with harmonic colors wonderfully. Monteverdi deals with consonant/dissonant balance wonderfully. I'd like to take all of those things and be able to use them when I want to (though it ain't easy, and I don't know if I'm ever remotely successful, but I keep trying).

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by crimson

I have never tried atonal composition practises myself, but they have recently caught my interest after I read an article about set theory on the web. It's still a bit unclear to me how one would use the stuff to produce a piece, but I feel like I'd like to give atonality and set theory a try sometime.

May I offer some experiments:

1. Atonality:

Choose two harmonic complexes - two "chords" that you like the sound of. Use these as the basis for a short study. One chord is "home" the other is "not home" (and musically they should be presented in such a manner as to support this). Obviously in Tonal Music, I and V hold this position. But use two chords that don't promote a typical tonality, For example, try:
Home- C-D-E
Not Home = B-C#-F or B-D#-F (or you could combine the two or have three chords total, etc.)

Then draw melodic ideas from these two sounds (Hint: Home is a subset of one Whole Tone Scale, Not Home is a subset of the other Whole Tone Scale).

The purpose of this experiment is to give you some of the traditional elements you're used to - two chord heirarchcy (T/D relationship if you will), Melody with Accompaniment, Scales from which material is drawn, and so on, but give you a set of sounds that you're probably not used to.

There is no traditional Tonality but this exercise is designed such that you don't have extreme atonality - there's still an idea of "centiricty" where one chord is the "goal" or "home".

Then the typical thing to do is since Tonality and harmonic Goal are not important elements, is to come up with material that doesn't worry about those aspects (and in fact, even tonal music isn't always at all concerned about getting to the goal - sometimes it's put on the back burner). Look for ways to derive melodic material out of the harmonic material (the "sets") you have at your disposal (for example, you may choose to ignore the Whole Tone scale factors and concentrate instead on finding notes that work well with both sonorities so rather than "opposites", you have "unification" - or you might incorporate both elements).

Remember, this is only an experiment so it's OK if it's like "here's a traditional tonal piece which I simply changed the 4th and 6th scale degrees to be flat and sharp to produce funky chords" - obviously that's an oversimplification of what Atonality is about, but part of the key of understanding Atonality is getting used to how both traditional and non-traditional , melodic and harmonic elements fit into the scenario.

2. Set Theory

Set theory involves producing a work based on a set of pitches that generate much or all of the musical material. There's no reason a set can't generate a tonal piece and there's no requirement that a set be serialized. So again, this is an experiment designed to get you used to drawing your material from a restriced set of things, but seeing in what ways you can draw things out - For example, many people do in fact (and unfortunately) simply create music which they "draw from" a scale - so most of the music we hear is actually set-based rather than having a deeper understanding of tonality. But let's try a different set:
[0,3,4,7]
Which translates to C Eb E G.
A "minor/Major chord" if you like (Stravinsky and Bartok among others liked this).

Looking at this, you can approach it a couple of ways:
Derive traditional chords: C E G, C Eb G.
Derive less traditonal chords: C Eb E, Eb E G, C Eb E G.
Look at interval content in order: m3-m2-m3 (notice this set is symmetric - the intervals would be the same in reverse, and if you mirror it - C-A-Ab-F the interval order is the same, and the result is a reversed, transposed version of the original).
Look at interval content: 1 m2; 2 m3; 2 M3; 1 P5 - seems to be a "3rd-based" sonority (but in a different way then we're used to).

Some other interesting things about this sonority is now it has also taken on a "blues" element. Another interesting element is that 7#9 chords could be seen in this light: G B D F A# - the G Bb (A#) Bn D might be seen as a subset of this harmony.

Using a set usually involves transposing it (the other operations here simply produce transposed versions so in this case they are redundant, which is why I picked this one) or otherwise dissecting it. You may derive melodies or harmonies (and if you want to, even rhythmic motives) from the set, or subsets of the set, etc.

For example, you can build larger structures from this:
C Eb E G overlapped with
E G G# B (transposed up a M3) overlapped with
G# B C Eb (again transposed up a M3)

Yields a "scale" if you like of alternating m3-m2:
C Eb E G Ab B (C).

Which you can then "rotate" like you do with modes:
Starting on note 2 (the Eb) and transposing back to C you get alternating m2-m3:
C Db E F Ab A (C).

You might at this point see this as two super-imposed Augmented triads:
C+ plus Eb+ = the first set.
C+ plus Db+ = the second set.

You might even see the original set as simply C-E coupled with a transposition a m3 up - Eb-G, or C-Eb coupled with a transposition a M3 up - E-G.

So you should hopefully see how a large amount of internal unity can be generated by a simple interval, or set, which can be expanded or compressed to create other things, or taken apart to create yet other things (by the way, traditional tertian harmony does the same thing - chords are based on on the same basic set - if you use I IV V in a piece, you're using transposed sets in a manner of speaking!). If you allow yourself a lot of freedom with the set intervallically, but keep it tonal, you have Beethoven's 5th (speaking about the single G-Eb interval at the beginning). In music based on Set Theory though, usually there's an assumption that Tonal elements will be less in force, and that one typically wants to make up for that missing unity through some other means - pitch, interval, or set unity.

If you (or anyone else who happens to read this far) would like to share these examples should you choose to write some, I'm sure they would be highly informative for others in the same situation.

Best,
Steve

[crimson]

Hey, thanks for the examples, stevel. I'll try to write some practise pieces according to them when I get a break from my current composition studies (AND comp-sci studies, AND piano lessons ).

[reith]

Hi Steve,

In reference to your reply to crimson's post, some excellent insights there. Thanks. I have that feeling I've been doing something and now you've put an explanation to it!

In response to your reply to me.



Well, I'll ameliorate it a bit! I rejected outright serialism in composition because it felt like I'd be too beholden to rules. I tended to derive material from a progression which is probably the same thing!

It is absolutely ignorant to limit oneself to traditional Tonality in this day and age. It is a different matter to decide that a particular composition will be most effective if written in a traditional tonal style.

Agree totally.

But ignoring the fact that a piece might be more effective if it is in a non-traditional style shows a prejudice.

Looks like I might have been guilty of that re serialism but like I say I've been viewing it differently. I think I posted elsewhere what happened to me when studying composition and it blighted my endeavours for a long time - almost cost me my interest in composition.

I've never been unhappy with atonality - came to it through increasing chromaticism - though I don't see a boundary between atonality and tonality. I'm now readier to adopt a serialist mentality if need be when concerned about unification. I've probably been doing it all along without realising!

It's still useful to be able to follow sets of rules for the sake of adaptability and composing 'to order', should an offer come along.

Your suggested experiments are certainly worth exploring. Let's hope people take note of them! Thank you.

regards,
reith.