Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!tss
From: tss@astrovax.UUCP (Thomas S. Statler)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: serialism & new-romanticism
Message-ID: <372@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Jun-84 16:52:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: astrovax.372
Posted: Sat Jun  9 16:52:01 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jun-84 02:12:54 EDT
References: <1221@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 20



   OK, OK!! Two people have now seen fit to rake me over the coals for my
remarks on serialism, and I deserved it, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have
generalized so freely. Let me clarify the point I was trying to make... 
   Tonality has its roots in the fact that certain combinations of sounds seem
more "natural" than others, so that a tonal composition "fits the ear" better
than an atonal one and hence is more readily enjoyed on a purely emotional
level. By rejecting tonality, the serialist composers abandoned this level of
understanding. This is why their music is so hard to listen to.
   Now, of course, it boils down to a matter of taste. I said before that in
my opinion the best music is that which one can appreciate on many different
levels. (An excellent example is Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra.) Serialism
may produce such music when combined with other (more traditional?) techniques,
but I don't think it can manage all by itself. Others may disagree, or argue
that serialist music isn't hard on the ear at all, and they are welcome to do
so. (In fact, since I'm going on vacation, they can even do it behind my back.)

				Looking forward to picking this up again later,
					Tom Statler