David Wolf posts an article by Michael Linton on why serialism rose after
World War II.  It's the usual collection of half-truths, in my opinion.
The thing that gripes me is that writers like Linton try to portray
themselves as champions of artistic freedom of expression (note the raising
of the Academic Boogeyman) and seem willing to extend it to every composer
except the serial ones.  He strongly implies that serial composers wrote
the way they did for reasons of career, which I'm sure is true in some
cases.  But it never occurs to him that a composer may find that the
technique suits his artistic needs and that the needs are paramount,
simply because Linton can't imagine anyone actually liking serial music.

This leads to a "have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too" view of Rochberg.  If
Rochberg wrote serially, he did so for reasons of career, but he had
integrity so he switched to tonality.  It's ridiculous.  Rochberg himself
has written, I think truthfully, about why he switched.  His emotional
needs were no longer satisfied by the serial language - that his grief
at the death of his child found its greatest accord with late, tonal
Romanticism, and he felt compelled to express himself in that way.

However, I find both the serial and the tonal Rochberg equally bland.  His
serial works and his tonal works were written for somebody other than me.
I see no "lightning" in his work.  His switch, as far as I can, see did
nothing for him artistically, however it may have ministered to his
pschological state.

And, by the way, don't sneer at the musical elite, especially if you can't
name them.  They're doing the best they can, poor things.

Did you ever notice how almost no one is willing to admit belonging to
a musical elite? How have our cultural values become that screwed up?
Furthermore, as Stirling Newberry points out, even those considered elite
feel powerless against the tide they feel is overwhelming all that is True,
Good, and Beautiful.

Steve Schwartz