Quote from: Alan Howe on Yesterday at 21:35
Schoenberg's Op.31 is never going to be 'accessible' because it speaks an alien language; by contrast, Berg preserves enough musical language that is accessible in his VC for it to be appreciated. Sure, this language can be learned, but for me that's the point - it doesn't come at all naturally...Perhaps the allusion is to the mathematical formulae inherent in Serialism and the aural phenomena that result from its practical application.
It should be remembered that in terms of pitch-sounds all music is essentially a Pythagorean mathematical conceit (
http://www.davesabine.com/Music/Articles/PythagorasMathematicalTheoruminMusic/tabid/169/Default.aspx). Mathematics in some form has always been used to create music: medieval composers including Machaut, Dufay and Dunstable composed isorythmic motets and Bach clearly used mathematical constructs (
http://www.harpsichord.org.uk/EH/Vol2/No2/bachmath.pdf). Messiaen used prime numbers and there has been much discussion on the links between the Fibonacci Sequence and compositions as different as Debussy's
La Mer and the final movement of Bartok's
Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta.
There is some excellent introductory discussion in a Radio 4 programme,
Mathematics and Music in 2006, which is still available from the BBC (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003c1b9). Although not covered in any depth, a wide range of topics is discussed including numerology and the Golden Section.
I would also encourage anybody specifically interested in Serialism and its reception to read
Schoenberg, Serialism and Cognition: Whose Fault if No One Listens? by Philip Ball (
http://www.philipball.co.uk/docs/pdf/Ball_atonalism2.pdf).
In very basic terms, music is mathematical constructs and formulae: for example there is nothing inherently ‘sad’ in a minor triad or ‘happy’ in a major triad beyond our own conditioned extra-musical associations.
