Quote:
Originally Posted by QcCowboy
I think the question should rather be "is the concept that 'tonality is not a valid compositional element' dead?"
I believe we live in a period where composers of true talent will find ways of combining tonal elements as well as the more experimental (well, they WERE experimental at SOME point) techniques into a musical langauge that truly reflects the age in which we live.
|
The thing is, it is so darn difficult to still use tonal elements in a GOOD, new and original way. So I think the question that's still relevant today is: is it still possible to do something truly new and original with diatonicism (tonality) in a way that hasn't been done before?
(BTW, I prefer the terms "diatonicism/chromaticism" to "tonality/atonality" since the term "tonality" is mostly used to refer to functional tonality, whereas there is also a lot of music that uses tonality in a non-functional way - e.g., Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky, Reich, Adams, a lot of jazz, etc.)
Only a tiny handful of contemporary composers have really succeeded in integrating diatonicism or tonality into a completely new, original and personal harmonic language that is not simplistic or derivative (like the diatonicism of John Adams or Philip Glass). I can only think of Ligeti - whose later works often use simple diatonic melodic material in a dense, complex polyphonic context, creating a strange, fascinating kind of harmonic language that is neither tonal nor atonal -, and Claude Vivier - a highly underrated Canadian composer, unfortunately better known for having been murdered than for his music, which was written in a very personal, highly melodic idiom with wonderful, sophisticated spectral harmonies. And maybe some works by Wolfgang Rihm (for instance, there are some wonderful diatonic moments in
Jagden und Formen).