Is atonal music dead?

Originally Posted by gianluca

Just a side note - what a terrible performance of one of my favorite Schoenberg works. It seems like Beroff was just rushing through these pieces, while that typical Viennese expressionist touch (which these pieces need) was almost completely missing...

It was the first recording I could find on youtube, so I just took it. I understand what you mean, but I wouldn't call it terrible (well, the fourth -was- terrible). Personally I like Pollini's and Gould's interpretations, even though they're totally different. Pollini has a very clear and transparent way of playing them, bringing the different structures out beautifully. And Gould is, well, Gould. Either you love him or you hate him

I personally enjoy Gould more, but if you want to "understand" or analyse the piece, go for Pollini.

Originally Posted by gianluca

I believe there are still endless new possibilities waiting to be explored within the atonal realm and the modernist aesthetic....

Yes there are endless possibilities with atonal music. My concern would be that no-one wants to listen to them and that composing becomes little more than self indulgence. The composers you mentioned have a significant place in the repertoire of new music ensembles. But there are not many of those groups around. These composers are hardly represented in the concert hall programmes of most orchestras. They can hardly be said to represent , or even be part of, the repertoire of classical music as it is generally performed or recorded. Consequently atonal modernism is largely a style of music with its own following but has little connection to most classical music listeners. It relates to classical music in about the same way that Rap music does- a totally foreign music. Of course there are people who like classical music and Rap. But there are probably not that many whose tastes are so catholic. My feelings are that the composers mentioned have suffered the fate of the avant-garde: they have forged ahead along their own path while most listeners have taken a different direction and forgotten about htem altogether.

I think Im a boor (how'd u spell that?), I cant really appreciate atonal music. ah who cares, haha.

Atonal music is beautiful in that yes, possibilities are endless, but it sounds too incoherent to me, and I think alot of non-music savvy people out there will agree with me.

Originally Posted by david ckwee

Atonal music is beautiful in that yes, possibilities are endless, but it sounds too incoherent to me, and I think alot of non-music savvy people out there will agree with me.

I think there is potential with atonal ideas, but for me an entirely atonal piece doesn't really do much for me.
Like ablyth said, I don't think the general public (who lets face it are the audience) really want to be intellectually challenged in the same way that composers or musicians do.

A good example of this is my mother (lol). Yesterday she told me that she only listens to a piece like Elgar's Cello Concerto for those great moments, but doesn't necassarily pay much attention to the rest of the music. Even with tonal works, I honestly think 99% of the general public will not consciously listen to every note, and will most likely phase in and out between these 'moments'. Truly, most people only listen out for a well written, well accompanied melody, and atonality doesn't really provide this for them. You've got to remember that most people don't think about music in the way that composers or songwriters do!

Originally Posted by almacg

I think there is potential with atonal ideas, but for me an entirely atonal piece doesn't really do much for me.
Like ablyth said, I don't think the general public (who lets face it are the audience) really want to be intellectually challenged in the same way that composers or musicians do.

Judging from many debates I've seen between musicians/composers, there's not a huge amount of musicians who particularly want to be challenged, either.

I know and went to school with many musicians who went to music school to, for lack of a better word, become tradesmen, not musicians. They had no interest in new works, they had no interest in pushing music forward... all they wanted to do was play the same crap that's been played for 300 years. At one point, half the winds in the orchestra dropped out because they got sick of playing dead, boring music... the strings threw fits anytime music was passed out that was remotely modern - and in their eyes, 1920's was "modern". After speaking with one of my string friends in the orchestra at the time, she even admitted to me that the string section deliberately played "modern" pieces poorly so as to discourage the conductor from programming them.

Originally Posted by almacg

A good example of this is my mother (lol). Yesterday she told me that she only listens to a piece like Elgar's Cello Concerto for those great moments, but doesn't necassarily pay much attention to the rest of the music. Even with tonal works, I honestly think 99% of the general public will not consciously listen to every note, and will most likely phase in and out between these 'moments'. Truly, most people only listen out for a well written, well accompanied melody, and atonality doesn't really provide this for them. You've got to remember that most people don't think about music in the way that composers or songwriters do!

That doesn't bother me at all, really. I write for me, or I write for musicians. I don't write to give ear candy to the general public. In my eyes, listening is an active, not a passive, experience.

Then again, I don't write particularly atonal music (though I'm writing one now that could be attributed somewhat as such), I consider atonality a technique, not a genre. Does that make me a bad composer?

Well, that's symphony orchestras for you. Often the most conservative and apathetic kind of music institution you'll find these days. (No clue whether it always was like that.) I'm sure there are exceptions of course.

Oh, there are definitely exceptions. There are orchestras that actively promote new music, but they are few and far between. That's one reason I'm always puzzled that so many student composers spend so much time trying to write for orchestra. Where is it going to be played? Why are their teachers not pointing this out?

EDIT: I have to self-edit here... Learning to write for orchestra is important, as all the lessons learned can be applied to any kind of music you write. Perhaps I should have indicated that I am puzzled that student composers spend too much time exclusively writing for orchestra, as if it were the be-all and end-all goal of composition. :EDIT

While the orchestra as an institution is not dead, it certainly is attempting a slow suicide through apathy.

And then there's always the chance of making a chamber orchestra, or a big ensemble piece. These things are much more within reach than a symphonic orchestra.

Less people you need, the better your chances.

They had no interest in new works, they had no interest in pushing music forward...

flint, I'm sure a symphony orchestra would play a new work if whomever made the decisions thought it was a good piece of music. The decision makers aren't necassarily going to have good taste however..!

For the time, Mars the Bringer of war might have seemed very contempary and new, but it got played. Nothing to do with it sounding old, more to do with it sounding good. If you want something played it's in your interest to make it accessible. Accessible doesn't have to mean boring either.

As for musicians not wanting to push music forward, they would rather it be pushed in a direction that resulted in them making more money. I.e by playing music that the general public will want to go and see. 'Innaccessible' music is not profitable for musicians in the grand scheme of things, and I guarantee they'd rather play a new piece of music that, rather than isolating composers and musicians from the audience, inspires an entire generation to go and see more classical works.

More performances means more money for musicians. Tschaikovsky's piano concerto no.1 is a widely loved piece of music, which will inevitably still get performed a fair bit. Whether or not you think Boulez' piano sonata is moving music in the right direction is irrelevent, because a piece like that generally makes people think that composers and musicians have simply lost touch with their audience. They would rather listen to Elgar's Cello Concerto again than listen to a new piece of avante garde music, and I personally would too.

I agree that learning to write for orchestra is important. However, I think that with the advances in sampling technology and computers what you will be learning to do is write for orchestra so that a computer can realise it. I think that this is where I am heading as a composer. Getting a radio broadcast of a recording that you have realised yourself is much easier than finding an interested orchestra. But your music has to sound like an orchestra so the old techniques of good orchestration still apply. And I think that starting from where your mother's ( or wife/girlfriend/husband/partner/etc.) tastes are is a good point. If your music cant relate to the people you are closest too, who are you relating to?