As Mark Carroll abundantly makes clear, the beliefs surrounding serial music have changed drastically in the post-war classical discipline. No longer is atonal (but still structured) music a socially degenerating force, but instead an uncreative one. Carroll uses Boulez’s words to encapsulate this belief in musical stagnation: “[those who] in the name of liberty, forbid themselves to be prisoners of the [serial technique]” (Carroll, 14).What was once regarded as avant-garde is now mundane and a hindrance to composers. This concept is then furthered by Greenburg, who insinuates that the new avant-garde (that which is “defined against existing convention”)  is what will lead culture away from “ideological confusion and violence” (Carroll, 16). Although the way serial music is categorized has changed, the belief that it is inherently violent still persists within certain circles. However, from what I understand, this concept of violence has been inverted. (Atonal) serial music used to be referred to as ideologically violent towards the masses, as it was a separating force between believers in formalism and proletarian ideals. Now, the ideological violence seems to stem from its hindrance of progress for composers.