|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.222.105.47
In Reply to: RE: Now, that's just nuts. posted by rbolaw on May 11, 2016 at 12:50:56
No Schoenberg, no Rosenman (or Jerry Goldsmith). Is that what you're arguing? Really? Let's see if I can re-construct the argument:Do I have it right? I won't say this argument is nuts, but. . . a syllogism it is not, especially since I daresay that most folks would not agree with at least a couple of the premises! ;-)
- Rosenman studied with Schoenberg (and Sessions and Dallapicola)
- Rosenman wrote some serial music
- Rosenman also wrote some tonal music
- Rosenman wrote some music influenced by atonality
- Rosenman composed science fiction music (a claimed "lighter" genre)
- The Twilight Zone is an example of this science-fiction genre
- Some episodes of the Twilight Zone were humorous
- Rosenman (Jerry Goldsmith too!) is unthinkable without Schoenberg
- Therefore, the Twilight Zone music would not be the same without Schoenberg
- (implied?) And 12-tone / serial music can evoke humor and/or lighter, more carefree states
BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I just checked, and could find only one episode of the Twilight Zone that used Rosenman's music. Are there more? And that particular episode of the Twilight Zone ("And when the Sky was Opened" - my wife and I know all of the episodes tolerably well) didn't seem to me particularly light or humorous, but of course I could always be missing the finer points of interpretation. ;-)
Follow Ups:
All of the musical relationships I describe in my last post occurred to me entirely by listening, before I had any idea who and what was responsible for the things I was hearing. I'm not one of those people who claims there is a relationship between A and B and then searches for examples to prove it. In fact I'm too lazy to be especially good at that, and The Twilight Zone may not be the best example of what I'm talking about, just a very early and classic example, and a personal favorite.
Instead, I hear relationships and later (maybe years later) do some research to try to figure out why that relationship is there. I knew by listening that Schoenberg remained a devoted disciple of 19th century classical and romantic music even while he partly or fully abandoned the concept of key by listening to his music. Later I learned serialism was an invention that helped him do that.
I knew by listening that some others, not everyone, followed Schoenberg's lead in abandoning key, and especially after 1950, began to move away from other fundamental Western musical concepts. Later I learned that some of these had adopted but also greatly expanded and changed Schoenberg's ideas about serialism, and others had moved in different directions entirely.
And I knew by listening that popular culture had begun to absorb the ideas of Schoenberg and his successors by the late 50s and 60s. I later learned, and wasn't surprised, that some key figures behind this openly acknowledged they were influenced by Schoenberg and his successors, or were actual students of them. I don't mean to overstate this influence, it's just one of many, but I hear it.
By making serialism your bête noire, you simultaneously overstate and understate its significance. It's just one aspect of the decreasing emphasis on key and unambiguous tonal centers that we see throughout the 20th century. That trend began well before the 20th century. You could argue that adoption of the equal tempered scale, with its imperfect intervals, was an equally important step away from the concept of key and towards tonal ambiguity.
Schoenberg's serialism was significant as a formal system to assist in an ongoing trend away from the concept of key, much like the cubism of Bracque and Picasso assisted in moving away from earlier systems in the visual arts. Of course serialism and cubism had their limitations, but they were flexible and could be used in conjunction with the earlier systems, so they served their purpose. Schoenberg and especially Picasso, who lived and worked much longer, both moved away from their famous systems later in their careers.
But these systems had their impact. While all Western music is not strictly atonal, key simply does not rule the roost the way it did before serialism. And while all Western art is not strictly abstract, realism does not rule the roost the way it did before cubism. And for a host of reasons, that is unlikely to change. So stop wringing your hands over it already.
Finally, I really meant that Leonard Rosenman and Jerry Goldsmith are examples of hugely successful and influential composers of popular/light entertainment music both of whom were significantly influenced by the second Viennese school (yes, they had other influences too). Exactly what their contributions were to The Twilight Zone in particular, I do not know. You tend to interpret things very literally and narrowly, but in questions like artistic styles or influences, I don't think that generally works well.
Edits: 05/12/16
Nevertheless, I do want to comment on one statement: "By making serialism your bête noire, you simultaneously overstate and understate its significance." As I stated before, I'm a happy camper these days, as serialism and its influence recede further and further into the past. I also disagree with your contention that there has been a "decreasing emphasis on key and unambiguous tonal centers that we see throughout the 20th century". As I see it, this "decreasing emphasis" was more like a temporary dip, and now tonality is back in most of the minimalist writing - at least what I've heard - these days. Maybe there are other trends I'm less aware of, but for sure I'm not hearing stuff today that sounds like post-Webern serialism - or at least not so much! ;-)With regard to realism in art, I just have to shrug and say that, as a complete amateur in this field, I think that realism has not really been a goal of artists since the early 19th century. But, just as with serialism not being the only (or even the best) answer as to how music needed to develop in the early 20th century, so too with cubism: you don't have to dump the baby with the bathwater! You can have an artist such as, say, Raoul Dufy, whose style is hardly realistic, but whose work is nevertheless very identifiable and personal and is still compelling to a large public. IOW, the way forward isn't necessarily cubism, just as the way forward in music wasn't the dead-end of serialism. In any case, there are enough remnants of realism in cubism to make the analogy kind of weak. In fact, I'm not sure there really is a good painting analogy with serialism in music. I'm tempted to say someone like Jackson Pollock, but that's not really a good one either, since abstract expressionism lacks the systematic theoretical basis of serialism. (If anything, it seems more like atonal pre-serialism.) Or perhaps Pollock's work is more like aleatoric music. Or perhaps these art analogies are too much of a stretch to be useful. ;-)
Raoul Dufy, Regatta at Cowes, (1934)EDIT: Of course, there's one sure-fire painting/music analogy. That would be Thomas Kinkade, the Lawrence Welk of painting! ;-)
Edits: 05/12/16
The only thing I will add to this conversation is to comment that the current trend back towards neb-romanticism, although it did start towards the very end of the 20th century, is really more a current, 21st century happening - especially the sheer numbers of composers writing more tonal music again is much greater right now even than in the 90s.
One slightly strange speculative thought - it could be argued that minimalism is a form, or at least an outgrowth, of serialism - it certainly employs many of the same basic compositional principles and processes, though towards a different end.
I suppose that's where we really disagree: Movements like serialism and cubism, like all movements, do appear and then eventually fade away, but for me their impact is long term. Serialism was a notable step in a long term trend in decreasing importance of keys and tonal centers. Cubism was a notable step in a long term trend away from the importance of accurate or even recognizable depictions of specific objects recognizable from everyday life and towards abstraction. There is still music where key is very important, in fact it still is in most music. There is still art that is not abstract, maybe most art. But the era, from the Renaissance until the late 19th century, where certain traditional keys and scales reigned supreme in all Western music, and Western art had to accurately depict directly recognizable scenes from life, is over.
I love Dufy's work, btw.
Edits: 05/12/16
Something we can probably both agree on, since we're making parallels between music and art: Thomas Kinkade, the Lawrence Welk of painting.
And I have to admit that, if this were music, it would be tonal! ;-)
Soon to be released on the Cantaloupe Music label (no joke!):
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: