Is atonal music dead?

Hi I think I've been abit out of order with posting that list tbh. I would argue that tonality is far more meaningful (to me at least) than atonal works. However, rather than explaining why, I'll empathise with atonalists trying to get their works accepted into the standard repetoire.

If you're familiar with the proms, which is a huge collection of annual concerts held in England, you'll no doubt be aware of its success and popularity. Now the proms does play new works every year, but the majority are older works. I argue that the old works are better but that's irrelevent.
I think a positive step would be to try to organise a similar event, dedicated to atonal works. If such a thing was put on, the public could be introduced to more 'bizarre' harmonies and more contemporary musical idioms.
The Proms has inspired countless number of 'romanticists', maybe an huge atonal event would inspire a bigger atonal audience?

I'll be honest I don't particularly care how big the atonal audience is, but I feel sorry for people who think their work could be ignored, simply because people aren't used to listening to their musical style.

EDIT: I think if the audience are used to stranger harmonies, they might be more reluctant to tout The Pirates of The Carribean soundtrack as being an example of musical genius for example. Maybe musical standards on the whole would rise?

I would argue that tonality is far more meaningful (to me at least) than atonal works.

..'bizarre' harmonies and more contemporary musical idioms..

...simply because people aren't used to listening to their [atonal] musical style.

Well, you've set up a good question here. Let me ask you a question: do you think that you like and enjoy classical/romantic harmonies naturally? Do you think that if you were born in an experimental room, with no contact to music, and then they played you a piece by Bach and a piece by Schoenberg, that you would prefer the Bach one? Do you think that if you had grown up in a world where every musical thing was "atonal" (say, in the sense of the few middle Schoenberg pieces), like commercials, soundtracks, pop music, everything, do you believe that if you listened to a piece by Mozart then you'd say "oh my god, that is so much more beautiful than what we've been listening to!"? Do you think that if you were born in India, and had absolutely no contact with Western music whatsoever, and grew up listening to Indian music and ragas, you'd find the Western writing system to not be abstract and that a piece by Mozart would make more sense than a piece by Feldman (not to say that Feldman is atonal)?

Or is it that you've grown up in an environment and you had tonality forced upon you, due to various commercial and other reasons for which tonality has persisted so much in the popular world (and it's not just tonality that doesn't make it an incredibly artistic scene, but anyway, let's stick to tonality for now)? You're taking a very much defensive approach to "atonality", or anything that is not strictly (or less strictly, in case of romanticism) tonal.

Yes, it is true that the interval of a perfect fifth is natural in terms of waves and harmonic partials etc. And that is also true, the fifth has been an important interval throughout history, and also throughout various cultures in the world, and their history. However, the tempered 5th is slightly different than the pythagorean/just intonation 5th, which is supposed to be the "natural" one. Even so, one cannot claim that human beings find the 5th "more pleasurable" than, say, a tritone, because although the 5th will be a more regular wave and the tritone.

And what about people who enjoy music that is not tonal equally to music that is tonal? What about people who actually enjoy listening to a tritone as much as they do listening to a perfect fifth? Where do they belong? Are they unnatural products of small avant-garde circles in societies?

Also, your mention of the proms and that mostly romantic music dominates throughout the proms is fallacious (link and link). Just because such an event is organised by the BBC (and thus has a degree of "..success and popularity"), and just because most of the works played are classical/romantic/late romantic, that doesn't mean that contemporary music is not valid, or that classical/romantic/late romantic music is more valid/true than contemporary/modern music.

I argue that the old works are better but that's irrelevent.

On what grounds? If you try and compare an Intel 8080 processor to an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ processor, well, obciously enough the AMD processor is way "better" than the Intel one. However, we're taking things out of context here, because back in the 70's, when the 8080 processor was released, it was pretty much the state of art, as much as the state of art now is that AMD processor (or if not the particular model, then it's respective counterpart).

Just like you can't take science out of context, you can't take music out of context, or anything really out of its cultural and historical context (that also applies to the thread about 4'33", because apparently SimenN decided to ignore a whole school of music and a whole man's life and experiences when he attacked Cage's 4'33" in the other thread).

I didn't say atonality wasn't valid!
To me personally dissonance followed by resolution makes much more sense. Life is all about taking the bad in order to appreciate the good even more. (But that's just a stupid analogy!)
Well despite what you have said, Mars the Bringer of War could easily be described as bizarre, and when I first listened to it aged 4, I loved it. I wasn't even building towards it, my favourite music was Dire Straights for some reason...! In fact, I loved many classical works, and still do and I know that by the age of 4 I would not have appreciated atonality. I think you're right in implying that a person's taste is heavily related to their musical surroundings, but your first musical experiences can shape your entire future musical appreciation.

Free dissonance to me is a hard thing to enjoy. I am not completely blind to it, but at the end of the day western culture has revolved around the melody. I don't think this will ever change, it is embedded in our heritage and I personally don't want this to change.
As an example of the importance of the melody. Take a chord of F major with a base note of Csharp. To the average person who can't see the melodic possiblities or the possible harmonic progressions, it will probably sound quite bad. Stick a good melody over the top and bang, they will suddenly find the chord completely acceptable to listen to. It's a pyschological thing, I don't fully understand it, but to me this is the reason why harmonic complexity has to be controlled by a melody, or some kind of controlled harmonic progression, perhaps ultimately leading to a resolution or semi-resolution.

Your AMD analogy doesn't work tbh. New technology leaves old technology reduntant, but Shostakovich's 5th symphony doesn't make his 4th one less valid!

Originally Posted by almacg

Your AMD analogy doesn't work tbh. New technology leaves old technology reduntant, but Shostakovich's 5th symphony doesn't make his 4th one less valid!

LIES! His 4th one is TOO SLOW, it takes AGES to boot windows (ugh!)

LOL

This whole topic really has led us to the conclusion that, some people like certain music, and some people don't... I think we knew that anyway!

Despite this, I still maintain that there should be some kind of 'atonal proms'. The original idea behind the proms was to make orchestral music popular with the audience. The same thing could be done specifically with atonal music. The pieces could go from highly accessible to less accessible, gradually increasing the audiences ability to appreciate higher levels of dissonance.

I thought that that was what the proms did ( apart form providing an excuse for English people to get up and sing Land of Hope and Glory).
Anyway, I think your point about the top 300 favourites is a good point. It tells you where the listening audience is. Even if everyone who listens to Classic Fm has their own list of 300 composers that is completely different there is evidently some commonality of opinion as to what classical audiences like. This does not mean you have to let it direct what you do. But it seems doubtful that composers can "educate" audiences. Listeners have choice and they use it. They have no responsibilities and all the privilieges ( I might have said this before). They mostly get their music for free and if they don't like it they can switch off or switch over. There was a time when composers thought they were leading public opinion onto new realms of sensibility. I'm thinking of Boulez's comment about the "necessity" of 12-tone technique. I think now we understand that the listening public is not so passive or pre-occupied by the same things that composers are.

I still think you can teach your audience to an extent. If over the period of you career you acquire 'fans' people will be much more likely to listen to your work and give your stranger harmonies a chance.

Jw goes into some pretty strange harmonic ideas in Minority Report for example. He's got so many fans that people are simply more likely to listen to his work! A relatively unknown composer, producing the same kind of work might not be so readily accepted. Now I just need to find some fans..

I'm not implying that you have to be famous before you unleash your most difficult work, but it would certainly helpif you had some kind of a following. You might have to 'sell out' to some extent to ge this following. (If you see tonal music as selling out that is)

The post also raises another interesting point, has tonality had it's day? I don't think so. At any point in the history of music - after a signifigant musical discovery for example - composers could have assumed that tonality had exhausted itself. I think it's a mistake to believe that it will ever exhaust itself, as long as tonal composers try to push the boundaries. I just had the pleasure of listening to a new symphony through the naxosmusiclibrary network written by Ethan Haimo. It's a new work; its tonal, and yet it sounds modern - a real achievement. Unfortunately I would still argue that a more recognisable theme would give it more grounds to 'succeed' with the public; all the famous symphonies have had some kind of catchy melody or hook.

ablyth:

I'm thinking of Boulez's comment about the "necessity" of 12-tone technique.

Way to go, you're thinking of a quote that was said 50 years ago in a time where composers (and artists in general) were seeking a completely new way of doing things and by a composer who felt that he had to be as extreme as that in order to progress things forward. What's worse, I doubt even Boulez himself would agree with what he said even 10-15 years after he said that. For Christ's sake, I even disagree with things I used to say last year.

I think now we understand that the listening public is not so passive or pre-occupied by the same things that composers are.

Basically, the commodities that modern technology has offered are making people more dull and more reluctant to changes. Aside from the obvious negative effects that technology has to our physical health, by making us walk/exercise less, produce food in mass quantities using genetic mutation because they are more easily produced, making nuclear weapons and killing millions with the press of a button, or by shooting tons of CO2 in the atmosphere each year, there is also some harm done in our intellectual selves as well (by no means I want to imply that I am not thankful for all the technologies and technological achievements of the 20th century - I just think that many people, mostly in the top, are very greedy, and ignorantly and greedily sacrifice health in favor of money and personal gain. It's not the technology that is bad, it's what we sometimes do with it that is bad.)

Back in the day of Mozart, if Bach wasn't played in a concert near you, you wouldn't listen to Bach. If all they played was contemporary music of the time, that's all you would get, and because you would be born in a world where this kind of music would be the only music you would listen to, you would be born having gotten used to this kind of music, whether that was Bach, Vivaldi and Corelli, in their time, or Mozart, Beethoven, Spohr and Schubert in their time respectively.

Now, if there were no CDs, no LPs, no radios, no means of recording music whatsoever, and all that was played in concerts around you was Boulez, Feldman, Birtwistle, Ligeti, Xenakis and a million other composers, then this is the kind of music you'd listen to. This is the kind of music you'd grow up with, and this is the kind of music you'd like. Of course, Bach was played in Mozart's time, but not remotely close to as how many times Mozart and his contemporaries were played (or maybe not his exact contemporaries, but people who lived a few years earlier etc). Just as in todays concert halls you see many names of composers who lived before the 1920's. However, taking a good look in todays concert music, you'll see that the music played by good orchestras/ensembles in the big concert halls (and not only - I am just mentioning good orchestras because the reasons many small orchestras or orchestras in places which are not very active culturally might find it hard to a) find contemporary/modern scores, and b) much more difficult to play a piece by Ferneyhough than a piece by Mozart) includes at least one work composers in the 20th century, if not more. To be honest, I've only been to one concert which didn't include a work by a living composer or a composer who died in the last 10 years.

..and if they don't like it they can switch off or switch over.

That very thing you just said sums it all. As Dumbledore said in the first Harry Potter (and please don't bother bashing me on how I quoted a director of a school of magic in a fictional book), "a time will come when people will have to choose between what is easy, and what is right." (or something along these words anyway)

Furthermore, contemporary composers don't really care about what "most people think", because what most people think is basically guided by a faulty and biased interpretation of music, forced to them by the commercial world and mass media. If you take a look at the contemporary music scene, and by this I mean all performers, composers and people who perform, compose and like contemporary music and have a basic knowledge of 20th century music, then you'll see that the audience which appeals to this kind of composers is quite large.

Furthermore, you have to ask yourself, "why do these composers, like Birtwistle or Carter, still compose music in the way they do? Since it's not popular, it doesn't appeal to most people, it doesn't sound nice, and since people can just switch to another channel, why do they bother writing this kind of music? Do *they* even like it?"

When you find an answer to that question, you will have found out a lot about contemporary music. On the other hand, if you keep ignoring or diminishing the value of a whole 100 years of music just because you personally don't like any or some of it, then you have to reconsider your way of thinking.



almacq:

You keep insisting in atonality. You ignore thousands of composers in the 20th century, whole schools of composition and some of music's greatest masterpieces by saying that we should also have just "atonal proms". On the other hand, if you include all of that under the title of "atonality", that's just awful.


*sigh*

Over and out.

Well I thought you of all people would want a concert dedicated to your type of music?
Or am I just completely crazy?

So, you don't care about what people think? You will because it's people who decide what music rises the ranks and gets played. You can't actually tell me that you don't mind if all your work stays on your computer with nobody but your immediate friends and family hearing it, as opposed to being critically acclaimed by a world-wide audience.

And yes, I am speaking generally about 'atonality', what is percieved as atonal will differ greatly from person to person, but I think if we're shrewd enough we can tell a completely atonal piece from a tonal one.. Yes, you could argue that everything has some kind of reference to a key, but you know what I'm talking about...

Originally Posted by almacg

And yes, I am speaking generally about 'atonality', what is percieved as atonal will differ greatly from person to person, but I think if we're shrewd enough we can tell a completely atonal piece from a tonal one.. Yes, you could argue that everything has some kind of reference to a key, but you know what I'm talking about...

Well, considering that the majority of people appear to think that Sacre du Printemps is "atonal, I wouldn't put too much trust in the general level of "shrewdness".