My goodness! (Lasto or Cottage?)

[Primula Baggins]

That's probably a decent summation, River.

And, just saying: solicitr, I think you might be surprised how many people of the liberal persuasion are not moral relativists at all.

[Pearly Di]

Well, I still don't have a clue as to what 'serialism' is.

I will say, for the record, that I don't care for a lot of modern art or modern music.

And that I am very suspicious of 'post-modernism'.

I will also say that Turner, whom I regard as one of the very greatest of English painters , met with scorn and derision for his work, which was thought of as scandalous. A later age rightly recognised his amazing genius.

So, you know, the traditionalists didn't always get it right. They didn't get Turner, and I have to wonder what on earth was wrong with their eyesight. Couldn't they see how great he was????????

I'm sure that is relevant to this discussion somehow.

But I still don't know what serialism is.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Which Foucault was a swinger? Oh yes, they both were.

[elfshadow]

In Chaucer's defense, the Middle English that he wrote is relatively easy to understand compared to that of his contemporaries.


And I'm sorry to say that my poor little brain has absolutely no comprehension of the actual subject of this thread. So I think that this is all I will be able to contribute.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I can take Glass and Adams for short spells. The saving grace of Webern is his brevity but serialism seemed more of an intellectual exercise than anything. It doesn't stir my juices.
However, it's an old complaint that changes in art forms equal moral decline. Dictators seem particularly fond of the notion.
Schoenberg was deeply informed about tonality and his early works were richly harmonic but as I know little about music theory I had better defer to those better qualified.

Di, as far as I can make out serialism was about establishing patterns of notes on the musical stave using a limited number of notes. It was a self imposed discipline rather similar to the recent film-making rules of the Dogma group.

[solicitr]

but serialism seemed more of an intellectual exercise than anything. It doesn't stir my juices.

Yes. Pure theory, devoid of emotional content or evocation.

Yet for half a century on this side of the pond it was the *only* form tolerated by Uni music faculties (except for crusty oldsters like Copland).

PD, this isn't talking about 'modernism' or artistic revolutions in general. They're almost always opposed by the traditionists, after all. Serialism is a special case.

[WampusCat]

I'm no defender of Serialism, but I think it is too great a leap to compare that souless intellectual exercise to the current moral sense.

For one thing, I think we are in some ways becoming more, not less, moral. In some ways our values are stronger and truer, more centered in good.

Just a few examples:

We've gone from a society that held blacks as slaves, then treated them as second-class citizens, to electing a black man president. I frankly never expected to see that in my lifetime.

We've gone from a society where women were viewed as property and not even allowed to vote to a one where women can aspire to any position, receive as fine an education as any man, buy property, run a business ... This too is a moral advance.

We are more likely than generations past to question the violence of war. We are more likely to understand our obligation to care for the poor and the elderly. We are more likely to see the humanity and decency of those who are different from us, whether the difference is in faith, race or sexual preference.

We are using technology to form communities across national borders and find common ground.

I see these developments as movements toward morality, not moral decay. And certainly not the equivalent of Serialism.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you, Wampus. That definitely helps put things in perspective.