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