Is atonal music dead?

My view about music is that it no longer falls into a style of composition anymore as it did in the 18th and 19th centuries. Composers have enough music from the past to use as inspiration and framework to write pieces for them as opposed to writing for courts or churches. But who knows, all this may spark a new style of writing that changes music for the next 50-100 years. Its always difficult to tell what's gonna happen.

I am starting to think this entire debate is rather pointless. Even if "atonal" music is dead/was dying, would/does it matter? Just because something is unpopular doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. A lot of famous composers were branded as "weird" and "unpopular" at their time. During his lifetime, Debussy's music was thought to be "weird". He made use of modulations that weren't just to the dominant key or the relative minor and he used harmonies that were considered "dissonant" such as the major 7th and parallel fourth. Today, we consider Debussy to be fairly tame stuff and probably the most accessible composer of the 20th century (yes, he was born in the 19th century but even his early stuff like Clair De Lune wasn't written until right around the turn of the 20th century).

What about John Cage? I can't claim to know a lot about the man but even today, where people are much more open-minded musically than they've ever been, he has trouble finding an audience. I don't think we have to look further than this very forum to see that. People have gone so far as to label his compositional output non-music. Granted, I think, even by today's standards, Cage was a little out-there but I also think some of his works possesed great beuaty and innovation.

I can probably name a dozen other composers that were thought to be "strange" in their time that are now celebrated as geniuses (except for Erik Satie, who may never get the audience I think he deserves) but my point is...don't worry about what is "normal". Don't worry about what is "popular". Don't worry about what anyone else wants to hear besides yourself. Sure, there is always room for improvement but let's say....You like tone clusters. No, you REALLY like them. So, you decide to write an atonal piano sonata that pretty much involves the left arm mashing the piano keys at all times. Everyone who hears it tells you it's terrible and not music but you happen to think it's very good. Do not change it for them! Often, the people we regard as geniuses today are those who fought peer-pressure, didn't conform, and sought to create only what they themselves thought were good.

Now, I'm not implying that if you have to write bizarre music to be remembered later (after all, are there really that many people out there who remember Henry Cowell?). I'm just saying that we should all take an example from our compositional ancestors. And this isn't always the case either. Mozart is practically the epitome of common practice period composition and he's still remembered today as a genius. Granted, I don't think that title is entirely deserving but my opinion is irrelevant. Sometimes you're remembered for being strange and innovative, sometimes you're simply remembered for making music that people enjoy listening to. In all honesty, I'm more likely to fall in the latter than the former though both are long shots.

To wrap up, at the end of your life when you're reflecting back on it, what would make you happier: Knowing that you followed the rules, conformed, and made stuff that a lot of people enjoyed or knowing that you trusted your own voice and made music that *you* enjoyed? Forget about how many people are going to remember/listen to it after you're gone. It won't make a difference to you anyway, you'll be dead.

EDIT: If you have found a way to write music that both satisfies your artistic needs and satisfies the audience's listening needs then congratulations, you've found what almost all composers dream of and very few find.

Hey, I like Henry Cowell! I agree with everything else in your post though.

Yes Nirvana, I agree with you ( even though you write video game music) that you should write what satisfies your artistic needs as a first principle. And satisfying an imagined audience is something that many dream of and few attain.
I am pleased to have got that out of my system. I hope to post another, even more outrageous, suggestion on this forum soon.
Andrew

Cowell is amazing~ So is Satie.

I think that this has to be composer led. Composers need to write from where audiences tastes are not from some theoretical or academic starting point. I suppose I am suggesting that atonality is not a good starting from which to imagine the future of classical music.

You are dead right. We need more works like the Planet's suite that people can actually identify with, whilst the piece itself retains a high level of music competency. I don't think there would be many ordinary people (those who don't compose in this instance!) who wouldnt be able to enjoy Mars, the Bringer of war, or Debussy's Claire de Lune...

On the otherhand, the number of people who enjoy atonal works is probably about 0.01% of the general population (might be much higher in musician and composer circles). How can you possibly expect people to listen to something that to their ears, is simply a mess.

To illustrate the point further, take Bernstein.

In my opinion he is a musical genius (you can debate that all you want). The music for on the waterfront is completely masterful, but the average listener is only going to remember the opening theme, which is a simple melody. Take West Side Story, the orchestral version is actually brilliant (don't like the musical), contains striking harmonies, fantastic orchestration, good part writing etc. But what is West Side story famous for? MARIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAA!! I JUST MET A GIRL NAMED MARIAAAAAAAAAAA!

Essentially there has to be a balance between simplicity (the lyrical melody) and complexity (adventurous harmony, orchestration, counter-point). Erwartung may be a dextrous explosion of musical genius (to some people), but it's not the kind of music that the public want to hear, and its no wonder that classical music is relying on the 'old warhorses' as was mentioned earlier. We need more warhorses!!!

Originally Posted by almacg

On the otherhand, the number of people who enjoy atonal works is probably about 0.01% of the general population (might be much higher in musician and composer circles). How can you possibly expect people to listen to something that to their ears, is simply a mess.

-0.01% of the world population would still be more than half a million people. That's still not too bad.

- I know plenty of non-musicians who enjoy "atonal" music. And it's only a "mess" to many people because it's foreign to them. Mozart would probably be a "mess" to people who lived in medieval times. Young children often aren't so biased. They don't tend to care much about "tonality", they often just care whether it's exciting or boring.

I'm not saying that this should be the only standard according to which music should be judged, but simply that writing off certain music because you aren't already used to it seems like a poor justification to validate one kind of music over the other.

It is very true that many composers of the past -also- wrote pieces with the intention of reaching a broad public and maybe making some money. But if that had been their primary concern in all their pieces, a great majority of the awesome music of the past we enjoy today wouldn't exist, which would be a real pity.

And frankly, I don't care much about Bernstein. I enjoy listening to Webern more. And I too am a part of "the public".

I'm not writing it off whatsoever. If I was to attempt to write atonality off based on subjective criteria, I'd probably get shot down and offend lots of people (Oh its happened before... You learn from your mistakes!)

But frankly, I don't think an atonal work will ever inspire an entire nation, or indeed prompt 'the man on the street' to go out and listen to more classical music. People want a melody, and that's that!

At the end of the day the pieces I like the most, probably aren't going to be liked by the majority of people. But, the pieces that are liked the most in the classical repetoire all coincidentally enough, have a strong melody. Jupiter, what is it remembered for? The middle section. Pomp and circumstance, what is it remembered for? LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY! What is Ravel remembered for, Bolero? What is Debussy remembered for Claire de Lune. I could go on and on.

I don't think people should entirely write music that tries to appeal to the public whilst appealing to more critical observers, but if they want to be remembered, they have to write at least one! That's life basically!