Serialism/twelve tone/dodecaphony

[pies]

Can someone explain the the whole twelve tone compositional technique thing to me? I love lots of serialist works but feel ignorant since I'm uncertain about what these compositions are based on.
The wikipedia page on serialism is too long for me to read.

[minor9th]

In an extreme nutshell, 12 tone music begins with a melody (or tone row/series--hence the term "serial") comprised of the 12 chromatic pitches. No pitch can be repeated until all 12 are used. Most composers apply some rhythm and range shifts to add interest. These initial pitches then become the melodic material. The row is subjected to all sorts of variations: retrograde (played backwards), inversions (upside down, inside out), transpositions etc...you name it. To many ears, it's a cold/mathematic method that results in harsh, ugly music--seemingly randomly composed, when the exact opposite is true--it has very strict rules. Whether one likes the result is another story! Some composers, such as Frank Martin and Ernst Krenek tried to show that using 12 tone techniques does not have to result in "ugly" music. On the other end of the scale, some composers, such as Milton Babbitt, take it to an extreme level and serializes not only pitch, but rhythm and dynamics! I hope this helps.

[desordre]

 I have to add something to the explanation above.
 First of all, it's not necessary that a dodecaphonic composition begins with a melody presenting the row. For instance, in Schoenberg's opus 33, it is presented in three chords. 
 Other thing you must pay attention to is the repetition of tones: it happens often. Sometimes the series appears at various voices simultaneously (Schoenberg's opus 37: in the very beggining, 2nd violin, viola and cello share the series); sometimes, the composer uses more sophisticated processes such as troping, permutation, hexachords, elision, when the row is manipulated, reordered, overlapped.
 By the way, one shall know the meaning of the terms atonality, dodecaphony, and serialism. They're not the same. Atonal is a composition that is not tonal. Period. Of course, dodecaphonic and serial music are atonal. However, when someone talks about dodecaphony it implies the use of a series of 12 notes (as explained above), but there are series of less than 12 notes, hence not dodecaphonic. In the case of serialism, the term have a broad meaning: it refers either to orthodox serial music (Second Vienese School) or to other uses like Total Serialism (Boulez, Stockhausen).
 Mr. Minor9th refers to people who think this technique is "cold" or "mathematic", and this is a common mistake. Every composer that did use serialism done it in a different way, and the musical results are as different as (or even more) the ones between Bach, Handel, Telemann and Rameau (just to quote a few late Baroque masters, whose language is sometimes also refered as "cold" or "brainy"). It's important to say that many composers don't follow strictly the principles, bending the "rules" according to their intentions and styles.
 Last but not least! Mr. Pies, if you (or someone else) are interested in the serial method, a very good idea would be the reading of some textbooks. Here is a starting background:
FORTE, Allen. The Structure of Atonal Music.
RAHN, John. Basic Atonal Theory.
LESTER, Joel. Analytic Approaches to Twentieth-Century Music.
STRAUS, Joseph N. Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory.
PERSICHETTI, Vincent. Harmony: creative aspects and practice.
DALLIN, Leon. Techniques of Twentieth Century Composition: a guide to the materials of modern music.
SALZMAN, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music: an introduction.
ANTOKOLETZ, Elliott. Twentieth-Century Music.
GRIFFITHS, Paul. Modern Music and After: directions since 1945.
MORGAN, Robert P. Anthology of Twentieth-Century Music.

 Further, there are several articles and more specific books dealing with particular composer or method variants. Of course, the reading of scores is fundamental. In the Morgan anthology you have some examples, and there are other books like this. Anyway, a list of basics:

Schoenberg: Klavierstucke opus 23; Suite opus 25; Variationem fur Orchestra; Third and Fourth String Quartets; Moses und Aron; Klavierstucke opus 33a and 33b; Violin concerto.
Webern: String Trio opus 20; Symphony opus 21; Concerto opus 24; Variations opus 27 (piano); String Quartet opus 28; Cantata n.1 opus 29; Variations opus 30 (orchestra).
Berg: Lyrische Suite; Lulu; Violin Concerto; Der Wein;
Messiaen: Modes des Valeurs et Intensites
Boulez: Structures; Le Marteau sans Maitre; Piano Sonatas (in particular, the second).
Stockhausen: Kreuzpiel; Gruppen; Gesang der Junglinge; Punkte; Kontrapunkte.
Babbitt: Semi-simple variations; Three compositions for piano; String Quartets (specially n. 3); Partitions; Tranfigured Notes.
Stravinsky: Movements; Cantata; In memoriam Dylan Thomas.
Other works by: Krenek, Dallapiccola, Berio, Nono, Barraque, Bennett, Roslavets (a pioneer), Maxwell Davies, Ferneyhough, Gerhard...there are hundreds or thousands more... 
Any further help, please let me know. Best wishes!

[mephisto]

Boulez: Piano Sonatas(in particular, the second).

Do you honestly like this piece?

[prometheus]

To many ears, it's a cold/mathematic method that results in harsh, ugly music--seemingly randomly composed, when the exact opposite is true--it has very strict rules. Whether one likes the result is another story!

One should note that while also applying these restrictions the composer is still searching for something she or he things is aesthetically pleasing. 'Normal' music also has restrictions. So the only difference is that the restrictions are more dramatic. It doesn't say something about how the composer tries to find things she or he finds pleasing.

[desordre]

 Dear Mephisto:
 Answering your question:

Do you honestly like this piece?

Yes, I really like this piece. Notice, anyway, that neither is my favorite Boulez' Sonata (I'm particularly fond of the third) nor is something that I love. Moreover, I think that is a piece where you can learn a lot.
 Best wishes!

[quantum]

There's also Ginastera Sonata No.1, Mvt 2.  The opening theme is 12 tone and is used to much effect in creating a hushed mysterious sound.  However the entire movement does not remain in 12 tone. 

[minor9th]

Dear Mephisto:
 Answering your question: Yes, I really like this piece. Notice, anyway, that neither is my favorite Boulez' Sonata (I'm particularly fond of the third) nor is something that I love. Moreover, I think that is a piece where you can learn a lot.
 Best wishes!

I like it very much. Didn't he write it as a theoretical exercise rather than something he expected people to play? I understand there are many passages/chords that are not playable as written.

[desordre]

 Dear Minor9th:

(...) Didn't he write it as a theoretical exercise rather than something he expected people to play? I understand there are many passages/chords that are not playable as written.

Boulez write this music as a concert piece, something to be played. If you permit me, it's not a theoretical exercise, but rather an aesthetical manifest. And, indeed, it's playable, as demonstrated in good performances like Henck's. Anyway, you're right: there are parts that are near impossible, but this is a consequence of total serialism. Stockhausen also has similar problems. Just to remind, in one of his pieces there is a six-note chord in the RH that requires two dynamic levels to two notes that are played by the same finger! Despite the fact that some people think that is a drawback, I guess that they were dealing with the limits of the instrument, as did Liszt one century earlier for instance. Some of their experiences were abbandoned by theirselves (Stockhausen, in particular, turned his attention most to electronics), but many features were incorporated in piano writing possibilities.
 Good to know that you like Boulez' works. Best wishes!
 

[desordre]

 Oh boy...
 In the bibliography I did present before, I forgot perhaps the most important book, and a great composer that is its author: George Perle's Serial Composition and Atonality.
 

[minor9th]

I'm certainly not labeling it a "theoretical exercise"--I read that comment in an article many years ago! I think it's a powerful and magnificent piece. I just wish I could have heard Pollini play it live in his prime. Who else has it in their current concert repertoire--Paavali Jumppanen?

[ahinton]

In the days when it was a fairly new piece, Boulez apparently performed it himself a few times. We know next to nothing about Boulez the pianist nowadays; it would be interesting to know how well he could play that piece...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

Do you honestly like this piece?

Yes, I can whistle it!

By the way, why do you use the word "honestly"?  Do you think he is lying to us?

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Thanks for this message, although I wish you would push "enter" a few more times and leave a bit of blank space.
I think too often people define and judge serial music based only on the theories.  Schoenberg himself had a lot of these theories which he came up in years that he was not really producing finished compositions.  Such as, not repeating the tones until all twelve of the row, or all twelve of the inverted row or whatever, had sounded; not doubling octaves, etc.  But if you look at his music, you will find that none of these so-called "rules" have been followed!  So how can the music be defined by them?  It is an absurdity at the least.

What Schoenberg was searching for, which he plainly stated many times in his own words, was a way of organizing music that didn't have to do with relating to a central chord.  Working on the Germanic tradition of turning small motives into big structures, he created motives not from harmonic relations but from the 12 chromatic pitches organized in a fixed way.

He also said that his interest as a composer was inspiration; he therefore wanted to find a system that would allow him to compose freely.  I believe he found this, not only because he said that after working with one row for a long time he was able to memorize and predict its inversions and retrogrades, but also because you will find his music does not follow any rule or theory as such.  One melodic line can freely mix a portion of the row in original form, in transposition, in inversion, etc.  Sometimes a melodic line follows the row all the way through, for instance in the piano concerto.  Mostly not! 

It always surprises me though i should now be the wiser, that people define this music by nonexistant principles!

Walter Ramsey

I have to add something to the explanation above.
 First of all, it's not necessary that a dodecaphonic composition begins with a melody presenting the row. For instance, in Schoenberg's opus 33, it is presented in three chords. 
 Other thing you must pay attention to is the repetition of tones: it happens often. Sometimes the series appears at various voices simultaneously (Schoenberg's opus 37: in the very beggining, 2nd violin, viola and cello share the series); sometimes, the composer uses more sophisticated processes such as troping, permutation, hexachords, elision, when the row is manipulated, reordered, overlapped.
 By the way, one shall know the meaning of the terms atonality, dodecaphony, and serialism. They're not the same. Atonal is a composition that is not tonal. Period. Of course, dodecaphonic and serial music are atonal. However, when someone talks about dodecaphony it implies the use of a series of 12 notes (as explained above), but there are series of less than 12 notes, hence not dodecaphonic. In the case of serialism, the term have a broad meaning: it refers either to orthodox serial music (Second Vienese School) or to other uses like Total Serialism (Boulez, Stockhausen).
 Mr. Minor9th refers to people who think this technique is "cold" or "mathematic", and this is a common mistake. Every composer that did use serialism done it in a different way, and the musical results are as different as (or even more) the ones between Bach, Handel, Telemann and Rameau (just to quote a few late Baroque masters, whose language is sometimes also refered as "cold" or "brainy"). It's important to say that many composers don't follow strictly the principles, bending the "rules" according to their intentions and styles.
 Last but not least! Mr. Pies, if you (or someone else) are interested in the serial method, a very good idea would be the reading of some textbooks. Here is a starting background:
FORTE, Allen. The Structure of Atonal Music.
RAHN, John. Basic Atonal Theory.
LESTER, Joel. Analytic Approaches to Twentieth-Century Music.
STRAUS, Joseph N. Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory.
PERSICHETTI, Vincent. Harmony: creative aspects and practice.
DALLIN, Leon. Techniques of Twentieth Century Composition: a guide to the materials of modern music.
SALZMAN, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music: an introduction.
ANTOKOLETZ, Elliott. Twentieth-Century Music.
GRIFFITHS, Paul. Modern Music and After: directions since 1945.
MORGAN, Robert P. Anthology of Twentieth-Century Music.

 Further, there are several articles and more specific books dealing with particular composer or method variants. Of course, the reading of scores is fundamental. In the Morgan anthology you have some examples, and there are other books like this. Anyway, a list of basics:

Schoenberg: Klavierstucke opus 23; Suite opus 25; Variationem fur Orchestra; Third and Fourth String Quartets; Moses und Aron; Klavierstucke opus 33a and 33b; Violin concerto.
Webern: String Trio opus 20; Symphony opus 21; Concerto opus 24; Variations opus 27 (piano); String Quartet opus 28; Cantata n.1 opus 29; Variations opus 30 (orchestra).
Berg: Lyrische Suite; Lulu; Violin Concerto; Der Wein;
Messiaen: Modes des Valeurs et Intensites
Boulez: Structures; Le Marteau sans Maitre; Piano Sonatas (in particular, the second).
Stockhausen: Kreuzpiel; Gruppen; Gesang der Junglinge; Punkte; Kontrapunkte.
Babbitt: Semi-simple variations; Three compositions for piano; String Quartets (specially n. 3); Partitions; Tranfigured Notes.
Stravinsky: Movements; Cantata; In memoriam Dylan Thomas.
Other works by: Krenek, Dallapiccola, Berio, Nono, Barraque, Bennett, Roslavets (a pioneer), Maxwell Davies, Ferneyhough, Gerhard...there are hundreds or thousands more... 
Any further help, please let me know. Best wishes!

[mephisto]

Yes, I can whistle it!

By the way, why do you use the word "honestly"?  Do you think he is lying to us?

Walter Ramsey

I do not think that I am genuis, I do often make mistakes. Just wanted to say this.

The reason why I said honestly was because, I think Boulez 2nd sonata is a piece that some people "want" to like, to be intelectual or sophisticated. And desordre hadn`t yet written that he liked the piece. Just that it was an important piece if you wanted to understand serialism.

[ramseytheii]

I do not think that I am genuis, I do often make mistakes. Just wanted to say this.

Whuh??

The reason why I said honestly was because, I think Boulez 2nd sonata is a piece that some people "want" to like, to be intelectual or sophisticated. And desordre hadn`t yet written that he liked the piece. Just that it was an important piece if you wanted to understand serialism.

There is probably some social cache to be gained from being associated with such thorny modernist works, but I think a person wanting to like something is not inherently dishonest!  The flip side of liking something is not liking something, not pretending to like it.  And by throwing in the word "honestly," would you really expect anyone to say, Nope!  Just tryin to be sophisticated!

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult though I find the whole thing a bit silly.

This from Charles Rosen:

"...irrationality springs not simply from a distatse for a style we cannot understand or appreciate, but from an unacknowledged or unconscious distress at being shut out from the comprehension of something that we dimly feel we ought to be able to admire...

Typical of this irrational reaction is the belief that a work we do not understand must be devoid of all meaning.  Ned Rorem, for instance, has written that nobody really likes the music of Elliott Carter: his many admirers only pretend to like it.  They must therefore be lying.  This truly loony statement is a characteristic expression of resentment, of hatred for an art that one does not understand - or, rather, for an art that one is unwilling to understand."

(italics by

Walter Ramsey)

[ahinton]

This from Charles Rosen:

"...irrationality springs not simply from a distatse for a style we cannot understand or appreciate, but from an unacknowledged or unconscious distress at being shut out from the comprehension of something that we dimly feel we ought to be able to admire...

Typical of this irrational reaction is the belief that a work we do not understand must be devoid of all meaning.  Ned Rorem, for instance, has written that nobody really likes the music of Elliott Carter: his many admirers only pretend to like it.  They must therefore be lying.  This truly loony statement is a characteristic expression of resentment, of hatred for an art that one does not understand - or, rather, for an art that one is unwilling to understand."

(italics by

Walter Ramsey)

And who in his/her right mind would argue with an intelligence as highly developed as that of Charles Rosen? Rosen has known Elliott Carter for many years and performed some of his piano music; I would not be at all surprised if he knows Rorem as well. What he cites here is an especially sad example of one fine composer making a most unworthy remark about responses to the work of another fine composer who happens to be very different from him; Rosen's unconcealed admonition is therefore all the more appropriate and necessary.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

When talking about dodecaphonic composers, we should not forget someone, who is said to be Schönbergs favourite student:

Hanns Eisler

When he studied with Schönberg in Vienna (1919 - 1923 ?), he wrote some very interesting twelvetone pieces

For piano

Sonata op.1 (dedicated to Arnold Schönberg)
4 Pieces  op.3
8 Pieces  op.8

as well as some Songs and Chamber music

https://www.hanns-eisler.com/biography.htm

[mephisto]

Whuh??

There is probably some social cache to be gained from being associated with such thorny modernist works, but I think a person wanting to like something is not inherently dishonest!  The flip side of liking something is not liking something, not pretending to like it.  And by throwing in the word "honestly," would you really expect anyone to say, Nope!  Just tryin to be sophisticated!

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult though I find the whole thing a bit silly.

This from Charles Rosen:

"...irrationality springs not simply from a distatse for a style we cannot understand or appreciate, but from an unacknowledged or unconscious distress at being shut out from the comprehension of something that we dimly feel we ought to be able to admire...

Typical of this irrational reaction is the belief that a work we do not understand must be devoid of all meaning.  Ned Rorem, for instance, has written that nobody really likes the music of Elliott Carter: his many admirers only pretend to like it.  They must therefore be lying.  This truly loony statement is a characteristic expression of resentment, of hatred for an art that one does not understand - or, rather, for an art that one is unwilling to understand."

(italics by

Walter Ramsey)

You are making and elephant of a bie.

There was no profound insight behind my chose of words.

I will never say a bad thing about Boulez, altough I don`t think that I have ever heard classical music that I like less than his music. And I find it difficult to understand how someone can actually love his music.

1 year ago I wrote 2 pages were I wrote why I didn`t like Boulez` music(at that time I had only heard the 2nd piano sonata). I did never in this text write a single bad word about the composers. I even wrote that I don`t consider him a bad composers. I just pointed out that I didn`t understand his music.

The problem was that I had decided that I would love the piece before I listened to it. This was in the time when I was starting to listen to a lot of 20th century music(starting with Scriabin and Debussy, going on to Ligeti and Penderecki). I did always find it stupid that people would hate all these 20th century composers and call their music random notes. And at that time I didn`t know anything about Boulez, I decided to love his music(e.g I wanted to like his music). But I was very dissapointed, but as you can see I will never write a bad word about him

[ramseytheii]

You are making and elephant of a bie.

There was no profound insight behind my chose of words.

I will never say a bad thing about Boulez, altough I don`t think that I have ever heard classical music that I like less than his music. And I find it difficult to understand how someone can actually love his music.

1 year ago I wrote 2 pages were I wrote why I didn`t like Boulez` music(at that time I had only heard the 2nd piano sonata). I did never in this text write a single bad word about the composers. I even wrote that I don`t consider him a bad composers. I just pointed out that I didn`t understand his music.

The problem was that I had decided that I would love the piece before I listened to it. This was in the time when I was starting to listen to a lot of 20th century music(starting with Scriabin and Debussy, going on to Ligeti and Penderecki). I did always find it stupid that people would hate all these 20th century composers and call their music random notes. And at that time I didn`t know anything about Boulez, I decided to love his music(e.g I wanted to like his music). But I was very dissapointed, but as you can see I will never write a bad word about him

Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive.  I just wanted to address something that you even reinforce in this post, "I find it difficult to understand how someone can actually love his music."  It's a very candid comment on your part, and I at least appreciate it; no music is for everyone!  But even though you don't like the music, I hope that you can overcome the difficulty of understanding why people do, and not be stuck with such suspicions that express themselves in vocabulary like "honestly" and "actually."

Rosen puts himself in the detractor's shoes:

"I myself, for example, do not care for the music of Messiaen, and am put off by its air of unctuos piety: when I am mean-spirited, I even describe his opera as St Francis Walking on the Birds.  But when I reflect that some of the finest musicians today like Peter Serkin adore Messiaen, I realize that I, too, would learn to love his music if I decided to put my mind to it.  The admirers of Messiaen are clearly right: what they hear in his music is really there."

(italics copyright Walter Ramsey)

I think that your initial approach of deciding to love the Boulez sonata before you heard it is a good one.  After all, if someone goes into something new determined to hate it, that determination usualyl pays off; why shouldn't it work the other way around too?

Rosen goes on:

"Taste is, after all, a matter of will, of moral and social decisions.  To take a famous example from the modernist tradition in literature, we are assured that Joyce's Ulysses is a difficult masterpiece, and we try it, determined to prove our cultural superiority by our appreciation.  After the initial repugnance for much of the book experience by most readers, many of us have succeeded in the end in deriving great pleasure from all of it.  Similarly, in the history of music from Bach to the present, by repeated listening we have learned to love the music that has at first puzzled or even repelled us."

Walter Ramsey

[mephisto]

I have tried to like the work. I have listened to it 5 times; considering that the piece last for about 30 minutes that is quite a lot.

I do understand that there is musical value in the piece, if it wasn`t, then people like Pollini wouldn`t play the piece.

I have composed about 5 pieces my self that are strictly based on serialism(in my own system based on what I understand about Schoenberg`s system), All of these pieces were composed away from the keyboard. I can`t see how these pieces are inferior to Boulez in any other way(I do not like my own pieces either, i just composed them to see if I could compose music in the style of Boulez).

I do love Schoenberg, by the way.

[jazzmaniac]

Hey, I love Schönberg too.  I used to compose 12-tone music for piano before during my early years in the music college.  I find it fun to do, doing inversions, retrograde, hexachords, mirrors, etc.  Schönberg's 12-tone pieces are cool, but if you haven't listened to most of his students' compositions like that of Webern's and Berg's, I suggest you do.  In my opinion I think Webern surpassed his teacher when it comes to new ideas in his compositions.  His 12-tone music is not as "strict" as Schönberg's but more clever, I think.  I like Webern's compositions because most of them are really short (some even lasting for few seconds) but are very straight to the point.

Also, it's interesting to listen to 12-tone and serial music of Stravinsky.  Yeah, Stravinsky!  He's not really a 12-tone composer but he tried doing that some years after his rival died -- Schönberg.  Interesting to see how a composer changes his own style.

[iumonito]

I can`t see how these pieces are inferior to Boulez in any other way.

Of course you don't.  That's precisely what's going on.

People who don't get it have always complained that the new music is not beautiful.   Beethoven's 9th and late quartets, Stravinsky's Sacre and Antheil's Ballet Mechanique have been the victims.  Fortunately Bernstein was not burned alive for "Maria" (who would have though an augmented fourht could be so pretty?)

I recommend you try to write some music in the classical style, then compare it to Mozart.  I suspect the distance between your effort and Wofie's would be comparable to that between your effort and Pierre's.

on the other hand, who cares?  if you don't like it, don't listen to it anymore.  you are not missing out on anything.

[mephisto]

Hey, I love Schönberg too.  I used to compose 12-tone music for piano before during my early years in the music college.  I find it fun to do, doing inversions, retrograde, hexachords, mirrors, etc.  Schönberg's 12-tone pieces are cool, but if you haven't listened to most of his students' compositions like that of Webern's and Berg's, I suggest you do.  In my opinion I think Webern surpassed his teacher when it comes to new ideas in his compositions.  His 12-tone music is not as "strict" as Schönberg's but more clever, I think.  I like Webern's compositions because most of them are really short (some even lasting for few seconds) but are very straight to the point.

Also, it's interesting to listen to 12-tone and serial music of Stravinsky.  Yeah, Stravinsky!  He's not really a 12-tone composer but he tried doing that some years after his rival died -- Schönberg.  Interesting to see how a composer changes his own style.

Yes, in Stravinsky`s Movements for piano he composes in the 12 tone style.

I do really loveAlban Berg, but I haven`t heard much of Webern who may be the key in understanding Boulez.

[jazzmaniac]

I like Alban Berg too!  Have you tried his Sonata for piano (Mäßig bewegt)?  Alban Berg went towards writing pieces with that romantic touch, not very 20th century, though, which I think is nice.  I like Webern's orchestral pieces, try listening to "Im Sommerwind" and also his bearbeitung (re-working) of Bach's "Fuga ricercata a 6".

Hey, this is a piano piece I wrote some time ago for an audition to get admitted to a music college (I did get admitted).  This is in 12-tone style, some of you would recognize my Prime row here, but it's not in strict 12-tone style, I sometimes repeat notes.  This is short, and elementary, I even have some repeated motifs and phrases.  Lately I haven't been composing for piano, only for "chamber" instruments.  I hope you guys can try this one out and even critique it, tell me what you think.   

[mephisto]

Yes the Berg sonata is great, such a  masterpiece. To bad he didn`t write more for piano. I haven`t tried my hands on it yet, but I am definetly interested.

Your composition looks interesting Mine was a bit more juvenile to say the least.

[jazzmaniac]

Thanks, Mephisto.  I actually have my younger piano students in mind when I was composing that piece, though.  I wanted to write pieces for them, and this one I give to some of my young students for study to make them like 20th century music.  Not many pianists like 20th century works, though.  Some of them like Bartok but not mostly, they want to study Chopin, Liszt, or Beethoven instead.