Is atonal music dead?

Well, not exactly. That's one way to look at it, but the more time needed to write "for work" the less time you get for writing "for you." Not that occasionally you can strike a balance between both, but it's highly unlikely that happens often unless you just happen to love the hell out of the stuff you have to write for work.

Plus, I don't enjoy the idea of making something I love my JOB. Nevermind that after a while if you keep working on writing stuff you'll run out of material or forced into just recycling stuff. It's impossible to expect anyone to be always creative on-demand. Bach himself couldn't do it, nor could Haydn arguably.

I'm for the Ives, etc approach personally. You can also work teaching if you have a good enough education, which is fine by me too. I'd also be OK actually playing an instrument for a living, which a lot of composers have also done.

But for me composition has to remain "my thing." Otherwise, I'd get into fistfights with people daily (happened already) over stuff I want, and like I said, I DO and WILL have the final say on what I write (which has gotten me into problems before, but bring'em on!)

Just like when you write something and the musicians who are to perform it suggest changes and want to "play composer." I find that musicians have the right to an opinion, sure, and I like to hear it if they got it. But from that to actually changing what I wrote, is not something I do. I may do that if I'm writing something in conjunction with a musician, where we can exchange ideas and then it's fine. But after something is done, for me is done. I don't do "corrections" unless they're technical or for the sake of practicality (score clean up, etc etc.)

But I digress, lol. Derail.

PS: The whole "hearing music" thing is really hard to describe properly. The stuff I hear in my head always sounds better than the real performance anyways, hahahaha. Though, I've been positively surprised by performances where things were different than I intended. I like that aspect of performance as the main reason why I'd want something performed at all, so I can see how other people actually see/play the thing and how different it is from what I originally intended.

SSC, there is not a single composer who doesn't ultimately want their work to be heard by lots of people. I'm not implying we should only write for money!

You can still make art and have people enjoy it. It takes an exceptional work to be both popular and masterful (and of course lots of luck) but it's possible.

I can completely see where your coming from and I think on exactly the same lines, but I often change my work based on opinion (not public opinion, just friends and family). I would never go as far as intentionally sacrificing a piece's artistic merit so that it appealed to loads of people (ie dumbing down). You don't have to make something bad to make something popular however, but I still argue the importance of some kind of melodic hook or motif.

Originally Posted by almacg

SSC, there is not a single composer who doesn't ultimately want their work to be heard by lots of people. I'm not implying we should only write for money!

You can still make art and have people enjoy it. It takes an exceptional work to be both popular and masterful (and of course lots of luck) but it's possible.

I guess I'm not a composer then, eh? I'm happy that one person has listened and enjoyed something I wrote, that's all I can wish for and it has been the case (I hope!) so I'm pretty OK with not being heard by millions or transcending time and space, blah blah.

Would it be nice that my pieces were played all over the world? Maybe. I can't speculate on something so far fetched at the moment, and I wouldn't know if that'd be good at all since I'd be typecast into whatever gets played more often, which I probably wouldn't have any say on.

Originally Posted by SSC

Well, not exactly. That's one way to look at it, but the more time needed to write "for work" the less time you get for writing "for you." Not that occasionally you can strike a balance between both, but it's highly unlikely that happens often unless you just happen to love the hell out of the stuff you have to write for work.

Plus, I don't enjoy the idea of making something I love my JOB. Nevermind that after a while if you keep working on writing stuff you'll run out of material or forced into just recycling stuff. It's impossible to expect anyone to be always creative on-demand. Bach himself couldn't do it, nor could Haydn arguably.

Sorry for using me as an example (again), but:

My scholarship covers my Phd fees and a monthly stripend. I also work in computer games, by choice (and have the PhD by choice again). Although I am getting tired of (still) being a student and would like to dedicate full time to a job, I have to admit that mostly I'm quite happy with what I have to write, very much so!

As for something you love, your job, etc, it does seem a little outwordly really. Sorry.

I feel the exact opposite. I've spent all my life, pretty much, in music and could not see me do anything else! I simply don't know how anymore. All I know is... to compose (and teach and other things around music, like play the piano, for example).

I actually figured that one out 2-3 years ago: My younger son was just been born and my wife and I were struggling to get by. So I started searching for part time job! You simply won't believe what I tried. Tescos (super market) and Waitrose (again super market), IKEA (for fucks shake), night guard (I was in the military police). I failed in every single one job. Someone told me that generally jobs like that don't really like people with Masters degrees, etc, cause they know it's for a tiny bit and don't fancy people who generally don't give a shit!

Thing is though that then I pondered, why not try to compose something for money. And effortless enough it came! It was a great joy to see it happen and... I didn't fail!

I mean it simply makes sense. Study all those years music to become... a janitor? Wait a minute!?!?!???!

In all wanting to do "what I want" and being all about fist fighting (!) about it, seems a tad arrogant! Simply enough. Why? Because noone is right 100%, because you do need to find the balance yourself to be happy, because you don't compose to get yourself out, this is autism, or masturbation, and can be done in the toilet, you compose to get yourself out TO THE PUBLIC, to communicate, to speak, if you want (otherwise, really why do you compose?). So the public also gets a say in this, even if you want to be 100% indiependant, etc.

And Bach, Beethoven and all da sh@t were all dependant of other sources and didnt' always do what they wanted.

Being a composer and being creative has nothing to do with "I want to write now, so I do, or I don't want so I won't". It never has been this way and I sure hope that it never does!

Gosh this post ended more aggressive than it should! Sorry... :-/

Yes I know that the chances of anybody - regardless of talent - having their works played in a huge orchestral, televised event are very, very low. That doesn't mean that we should give up on this hope. I personally have to believe that I can eventually achieve this, even if I have huge doubt, because otherwise there wouldn't be much point in writing. I don't know why I feel this way but I simply cannot express how important it is for me to ultimately fulfill this goal. Simply put, you have to aim high!

Another idea is that, if you write something accessible it might afford you a bit of popularity, which will give you the chance to write the music YOU want, and have it heard! It might sound like selling out, but think of Ravel and his Bolero. Ravel is a highly competent composer, who has written some extremely enjoyable work. He hated the Bolero, but it ensured that his name became widely known. We all know the Bolero is simplistic (still imo a great piece of music) but would we be listening to The Tombeau de Couperin if it wasn't for the Bolero?

Oh btw SSC I greatly admire the fact that you write the music you want to in your spare time. I do the same, but every now and then I try to do some kind of documentary music to get my name known a bit, or just to get some experience. In all honestly, depsite the fact that what I came up with was not a symphonic masterpiece, it was actually good for what it was. I totally agree that at the end of the day, you must write works that come from your very soul and in a sense define who you are (musically!), but you can still make a techno-ish computer game piece your own, even if it doesn't represent you greatest musical ideas.

Originally Posted by nikolas

I mean it simply makes sense. Study all those years music to become... a janitor? Wait a minute!?!?!???!

Yes, I understand YOUR particular position and indeed in your case it makes absolute sense.

But, using me as an example, I only got into music after having studied other junk (unix/linux system administration, blah blah blah, IT junk) and I had a job and did freelance work in that field. After I got into music, I still did that (and then I left the continent lol.)

Plus, I do a TON of other things besides writing music, of which I have worked in more than one occasion for cash. I like music, I think music is great, but music is only a fraction of all the stuff that I do and am at the end.

So, everyone's experience is different and I can understand your position precisely because I had an entirely different life experience. In your case, it was the wisest thing to do, in my case it's an option as I can work in a lot of other junk with a reasonable degree of proficiency (I've even written articles for newspapers, magazines, done translations, designed websites...)

I don't believe in dedicating my life to any one single thing, but to every single thing. So, with that in mind, I hope is clear why I have the attitude towards music and such that I do, and it's clear why in your case it wouldn't make any sense.

PS: Added of course to the fact that I don't have kids, and in fact I have no idea what I'll be doing in a year or even where I'll be in two or three years. Right now a lot of stuff could happen in my life which would change it in a lot of ways, and it's always been that way so I've learned to be versatile. So...!

Oh... I didn't know that SSC! Fair enough!

Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh

I think that's what he's saying. Notes on paper isn't music any more than lines on paper is a building. Blueprints don't do shit unless someone actually builds your buildings. I could design the most elaborate, amazing building (also elaborately impractical) on paper, but that doesn't mean I'm a good architect.

In fact, it does... An architect doesn't build the buildings he designs. He juts designs/draws them, and gives them to someone else who will overview the builders while creating this building. So, a composer would give the score to a conductor who would overview the players play it.

So you may be a bloody good composer, even if your music doesn't get performed. What if you have a score in front of you, and no music? Is it a piece of music? Or if a recording of it has been made somewhere, sometime, by some people (but to which you have absolutely no access to) makes it suddenly music? What if you die and you still haven't listened to a recording of that piece, and someone else had - can you claim by the end of your life that that piece of paper that the particular composer wrote is not music because you haven't heard a performance of it? :S

Atonal music isn't dead. Serialism, maybe, but not atonality in general. You'd be hard-pressed to find a modern composition that doesn't incorporate some amount of atonality, or at least a shaky tonality. And music is still music, it's just not sound until it's played. There's a difference between music on paper, and sound you can hear. Without the music on the paper in the first place, you can't hear it besides in your head because it's not there to be played. Like I said, music is still music when it's on paper.
EDIT:
I'm kind of sleepy lol, so some of what I just wrote might not make sense. XD

Originally Posted by robinjessome

Rachmaninov is likely just as unrecognizable a name as Henry Cowell. Once you stray from Bach, Beethoven, Mozart: the BIG THREE in classical music, John Q. Public doesn't know anyone.

This is very true, especially for 20th and 21st century music. I don't think you can really evaluate the quality of a composer's music based on how well-known that composer is.