Set Theory and Serialism

Notes on the Bibliography

Readings for this course will be largely drawn from, but will not necessarily be limited to, items on the attached bibliography. Obviously we will not be reading all of this material; it is provided to you as a research resource. Owing to the centrality of this topic to the work of both theory majors and composition majors, however, such students would be well advised to at least skim through all of these writings at some point before they graduate.

This bibliography is heavy on theory and light on analysis. In this it reflects the current state of the literature–analytical papers, especially good analytical papers, are comparatively hard to come by. There was no single litmus test which determined whether an analytical article would be included here or not. Some I selected because I think they say some important things about the pieces they discuss, some because they are historically important since they influenced the development of the field, and some because they address–even if incompletely and indirectly–technical matters inadequately dealt with in the theoretical literature proper. Some of the articles on "rotation," for example, fall into the latter category. The technique is fundamental to most of Stravinsky's late works and, at least in spirit, was crucial to postwar Darmstadt-style serialism (although not all Europeans would acknowledge the fact). Those interested in the theoretical side might want to read Rogers 1967 before tackling Morris 1988 (Mead's "Some Implications . . ." articles present some information on the subject too); those interested in the influence of the technique on Euro-serialism might wish to glance at Messiaen's The Technique of My Musical Language (not listed in the bibliography) to get a sense of the historical origins of that movement, and how its approach to technical matters was influenced by Messiaen (who was probably more important as a teacher than as a composer), particularly his idiosyncratic aesthetic stance and his reading and misreading of medieval and Renaissance technique.

I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied with this list, nor do I think there is a single ideal way for a relative newcomer to tackle this literature. New disciplines such as this tend to have literatures which are rather disheveled when compared to more mature disciplines. Small bits of very important information find themselves lodged in articles of otherwise marginal interest; early articles may assert a false claim which gets corrected only in a later article, not necessarily by the same author; some articles are historically significant for what they emboldened others to pursue, rather than for what they themselves were able to accomplish; some suggest interesting and potentially significant lines of inquiry which are yet to be followed up; and so on and so forth. For this reason I think a largely chronological approach is the most advantageous to begin with, despite its disadvantages in other respects. Indeed, not a few of the entries in the bibliography have been included for largely historical reasons.

I think the easiest point-of-entry, however, is through the books rather than the articles, since the former will provide a framework within which the frequently more detailed work of the latter can be better understood; specifically Perle 1972, Forte 1973, and Rahn 1980, read in the chronological order just given, would make a good foundation (Rahn 1980 will be familiar territory, of course). Either Lewin 1987 or Morris 1987 might follow; neither, however, are "introductory" in the sense of the first three.

For a number of reasons you will find it very useful to read reviews of these books more or less concurrently with reading the books themselves. Here follows a summary of those reviews listed in the bibliography (there are others, too).

Review of Perle 1972

Boretz 1963

Reviews of Forte 1973

Clough 1965

Benjamin 1974

Browne 1981b

Review of Rahn 1980

Morris 1982c

Reviews of Lewin 1987

Slawson 1987

Rahn 1987a

Alphonse 1988

Clough 1989

Reviews of Morris 1987

Peel 1989

Dembski 1989

Dubiel 1990a

Mead 1991

Comments

(1) Clough 1965 is not really a review of Forte 1973; it's a critique of Forte 1964. However, since Forte 1973 grew directly out of Forte 1964, I include it here. Readers might benefit from glancing at both Forte 1964 and Clough 1965 before reading Forte 1973.

(2) Dembski 1989 is not, strictly speaking, a review of Morris 1987; it's about the book's reception history. I recommend it.

(3) Lewin 1977b does not, strictly speaking, review Forte's work, but it is concerned with some important (although not immediately obvious) distinctions between Forte's idea of "interval" and Lewin's.

One warning about Morris 1980: it contains an appalling number of typographical errors, many more than I have ever seen in a book produced by a reputable academic press; in so technical a book the errors are nontrivial, rendering parts of the text incomprehensible to all but the already initiated. I shall distribute an errata sheet compiled by Morris and others.

Disclaimer: Not to belabor the point, but I trust that it is clear that inclusion in this bibliography does not constitute an unqualified endorsement on my part.

–S. Peles