I believe that one of the main reasons some composers and critics are so keen on taking a stand against serialism is because of its dominance. There is nothing wrong with the style itself if taken in context. I have enjoyed music written in that style when the composer uses the series melodically (such as Schoenberg and Berg) rather than mathematically. The important point is that serialism is the last of the dominant styles.
Up until the early sixties, classical music could be divided between dominant style (i.e. serialism) and an avant-garde that would by definition not be taken seriously. But the style explosion that occurred in the early sixties was a musical revolution. What the new pieces had in common was a totally different approach to performing and relating to an audience – very long pieces, many hours for instance, or Charlotte Moorman performing in the nude with her cello – and the redefinition of the building blocks of a piece, such as tonal center, continuity, rhythm and tuning. The use of equal temperament and the A=440 reference pitch were in question. Many different movements emerged from this revolution, the main one being minimalism, but it never really became the dominant style, as it would have in the past, because serialism was held in place by academia and institutions, so it continued to exist simultaneously. To these two major trends, newer experimental, microtonal, post-minimalist, totalist and other less definable styles flourished but were never fully acknowledged.
This phenomenon is similar to what happened in art in the beginning of the 20th century: once figurative painting was put in question, the new styles emerged, such as geometric abstraction, expressionism, cubism, abstract lyricism, abstract expressionism, conceptual art and pop art. Greg Sandow, in his artsjournal blog, recently made an interesting comparison between serialism and abstact painting like the work of Jackson Pollock. I would see more of a parallel between geometric abstraction like the work of Mondrian, Albers and Ellsworth Kelly and serialism, and put Jackson Pollock in the realm of free improvisation as in free jazz. What is interesting is to look at our music scene and apply a curatorial perspective to what is happening? Letâ€™s consider serialism as a style of the past â€“ nevertheless, as valid as impressionism was at the time. What is objectionable is stylistic dominance. In the arts, it is widely understood that there is no unity of style and no necessity for it. I am asking for the same freedom for composers as visual artists have. We are a culture of cultures, every piece unwittingly refers to so many others, but reorients the viewer or listener towards a certain goal. But people like to see things in opposites: serialism vs. post-classic, downtown vs. uptown â€“ maybe because Western ethics are based on the opposition of good and evil, whereas Eastern ethics focus on unity or â€œonenessâ€. The enlightened perspective is to see where the opposites connect â€“ like the Yin Yang sign, where the white and black are perfectly balanced within a circle. I tend to see everything as closely related, even uptown and downtown. As a matter of fact, the tables are beginning to turn on downtown. Some composers seem keen on having â€œdowntownâ€ material, they donâ€™t want to be called â€œuptownâ€. People are beginning to crave the political correctness, the uncompromising authenticity the downtown tag carries. And there is a seductive element in downtown music, is playful, itâ€™s full of surprises and twists, and not so hard on the ear and nerves as some earlier 20th century music. But as downtown is being stylistically co-opted, a kind of fake downtown is likely to form and someone will have to sort out whoâ€™s real, while, from a practical standpoint, downtowners are still being ghettoized and cut off from the institutions. What we need is the end of stylistic dominance, and the openness to accept new forms of expression.