Is atonal music dead?

- Atonality and melody are not exclusive. Melodic-linear thinking is entirely independant of what kind of tonality you use.

- There are quite a few famous pieces that are not remembered because of melody. In fact I believe that Bolero, which you mentioned, wouldn't be very popular without the constant underlying rhythm, which is probably much more essential to the effect of the piece than the melody. The only reason why people even remember the melody is that it's repeated like a million times.

- And really, I don't think one should write music "to be remembered" in the first place.

Atonality is a dangerous term. If we take it to mean lack of a tonal center, we are left with very little music, much of which can be interpreted as polytonal anyway - even if the composer did not intend it, the relationships are still there, like a folk song using the mixolydian mode even though the writer didn't know it. For the very small amount of music that is truly, completely atonal, I would say that stylistically by its extremely limited nature atonality has reached a dead end; there is only so much you can do without alluding to some tonal center or other. I can't think of a single "atonal" piece where a tone added to the end couldn't provide a resolution.
Therefore, I consider most "atonality" to really just be extreme modality/chromaticism, perhaps with multiple hierarchically organized tonal centers, regardless of the composer's intent. It's like chaos: it only appears to be without order.

As for "atonality" as in non-major-minor harmonic language, it is very much alive. Personally I prefer a mixture of bitonal neo-impressionism as my pallet, although I explore most styles in my work.

Originally Posted by Gardener

- Atonality and melody are not exclusive. Melodic-linear thinking is entirely independant of what kind of tonality you use.

I would merely humbly suggest that the very nature of melodic contour implies a sense of tension that can be interpreted and labeled as tonality, albeit a veiled one.

To me, all of Schönberg's music is created out of a "sense of tension". This does of course come from some feeling of "tonal gravity", but the gravity centre is unstable and (almost) always evades the listener. (Actually not unlike Wagner.) But I often hear Schönberg in a rather "traditional" sense anyways. I think it's pretty much impossible to write any music that doesn't even for -moments- develop hierarchies, even though pieces like Boulez's "structures" come rather close.

As I said before, I don't find the term "atonality" easy to define, but if we want to use it I think it can very well encompass music that does create harmonic tensions, even centers, but keeps them extremely unstable. Otherwise we couldn't even call most serialist music atonal.

It is in any case evident that at least -dodecaphonic- music and melody are not exclusive, which is so clearly demonstrated by Berg. Still, dodecaphony was developed as a technique to help with "atonical composition".

Melodic-linear thinking is entirely independant of what kind of tonality you use.

Not quite sure I've understood you properly. Do you mean that melody and harmony are independent? That's certainly not true with tonal music, where the harmony dictates the melody and vice versa.

The Bolero does have a catchy repetitive rhythm, but it is the entire effect of the piece that made it so successful. If the melody was completely abstract, the piece would not have been successful.

Being remembered isn't necassarily a goal, since you won't be around to appreciate your own rememberance once you're dead. But surely, you want your music to be heard by as many people as possible. The only way to do this is to succumb to simplicity to a degree. I tell you now, if I played a piece of Boulez to an average listener, there is very little chance they would enjoy it. Not everyone wants to be bombarded by extreme dissonance without resolution. Truthfully, a very, very small part of the population want this.

Sure, you shouldn't write music only on the basis of being successful, but I personally want to write something that is a) bloody good, and b) popular! I don't want my friends to listen to my music, and say 'Alex... wtf?!!' I want the average person to be able to indentify with it in some way, and the only way to do this is to write a damn good melody, even if a lot of the piece is complicated and extremely competently written. I don't think I'm alone in this way of thinking!

Originally Posted by almacg

Not quite sure I've understood you properly. Do you mean that melody and harmony are independent? That's certainly not true with tonal music, where the harmony dictates the melody and vice versa.

You are right, I worded this poorly. Yes, melodies depend strongly on harmonies, of course, and therefore on the underlying tonality. The type of your melodies is certainly not independant of the tonality. What I wanted to say is that the question -whether- you write melodies or not, is principally independant of tonality.

For me, melodic composition is primarily thinking in lines and deals with how one note leads to the next to create a coherent flow, in contrast to a blocky, vertical, or pointillistic approach where the individual musical moments "speak for themselves" and are more individual "objects in space", than part of a linear stream.

Of course, in reality it's almost never one or the other, as both aspects are connected. And many composers have even seen it as an ideal to combine both aspects as equally as possible. But somtimes, the audible effect of the music may go strongly in one direction.

As for popularity: I have often experienced that if you truly write the music you want to hear yourself, it is likely that you won't be the only one who enjoys it. Maybe there are some really weird composers out there who have such a unique taste that nobody else shares it to -any- degree, but for most of us this doesn't apply. But even if it -was- that way, I'd still rather write the music I like myself and accept the fact that it won't become popular. The point I've raised before is that there simply isn't something like "the audience". There are larger audiences, smaller audiences up to the audience that consists only of yourself. You will never meet the taste of everyone, but if you at least write music you can enjoy yourself, you at least know you have met the taste of -someone-. There is no writing "for the audience". There's just writing for a larger or a smaller audience.

As I said, the audience of a Boulez sonata is not huge in comparison to the world population, but it -is- significant. Why shouldn't the thousands, ten-thousands, hundred-thousands of people who do like to listen to "atonal" music not also get what they like? There's hardly a lack of traditionally tonal music out there. It's not like the world's population is forced to listen to Boulez every day because it's the only music that exists. (But of course I really -would- like if people wouldn't just listen to one and the same type of music all their lives without any curiousity what else there is out there.)

If your aim is to reach "the largest audience possible" of course, you might be better off forgetting about classical music right away.

I completely understand what you just said, and I certainly respect you views. Popularity isn't necassarily a measure of artistic merit, but if you write one 'sell-out' piece (I personally don't think tonal music is selling out) that goes down really well, then you may well be set for life. Ravel hated the Bolero, Holst hated the fame of The Planets, but those pieces financed them for the rest of their lives. Of course, music isn't about money, but if you write a piece that becomes well known, much loved, and well played, you will have a greater degree of freedom todo whatever you want.
For me personally - it sounds a little shallow - but I do ultimately crave huge musical popularity (but in all honesty, what composer doesn't want this!?). There's nothing wrong with being famous for a real achievement, like a symphony or film score. I personally feel it's possible to write something brilliant whilst not comprimising artistic merit to a great degree. I don't know what your opinion of tonal music is, and I'm certainly not trying to force you to write tonally, but it's certainly more agreeable with the majority of people. However, I have a lot of respect for someone who is willing to completely go against the grain like yourself, and I wish you the best of luck with your future success!

To a degree though, writing agreeable 'epic' music, that maintains extreme competency (at least in the media world) is a bit against the grain anway, since film music is generally not what it used to be imo.

Originally Posted by almacg

I don't know what your opinion of tonal music is, and I'm certainly not trying to force you to write tonally, but it's certainly more agreeable with the majority of people.

Oh, I'm in no way against tonality. Actually, I wouldn't call my own music atonal. It has its own tonality, sometimes clearer, sometimes less, even if it's never in a minor or major key. And I don't think I'm "going completely against the grain". (And honestly, I don't know of -any- composer who does in all aspects.) My own music is very traditional in many aspects. My points are in no way meant to pit "tonality" against "atonality", in contrary! I rather think that making such clear distinctions ultimately isn't fruitful.

I can understand your points quite well in any case.

Ah I see!

Out of interest, do you write anything that combines atonality (at least what would be percieved as atonal) with tonality? I know you said you don't particularly like Bernstein - and to be honest I don't like everything he's written, far from it - but the On the Waterfront Suite combines atonal sections with very tonal sections incredibly well. (Maybe the atonal sections could be defined as merely being very dissonant!?) I think ultimately dissonance should be used as a potent weapon to enhance consonance, but again that's a very personal opinion.

I think almacq's notion of balance is a good one because there always competing purposes in writing a piece of music: something that interests the composer to write; something that interests the audience; originality; understanding; purpose; etc. Trying to meet all the possible criteria is difficult.
I don't think that I suggested composers shouldn't write atonal music. Obviously it still comes back to your notion of audience. If you are a student and your composition teacher is a well-known composer of mostly atonal music, I think it would be reasonable to assume that that person is your primary audience and you will write something to meet their expectations.
In the long term, a composers' first aim should always to be to satisfy themselves even before you start to think about an audience. If what you write doesn't interest you, then it is unlikely to interest anyone else. So if writing atonal music is what does it for you then that is the path you should follow.
I suppose one of the things that makes me wonder is the number of well established composers who suddenly "saw the light" in the 1980's and 1990's and changed musical styles. This was not always that positive a move. Penderecki is one composer whose early pieces are much more interesting than his new style pieces (and thankfully usually shorter and more to the point). It is a bit like the old-style Stalinists who suddenly became new-style democrats about the same time.
More to the point though, I am probably thinking about Schoenberg who, around the time he was developing 12-tone theory, said that in few years schoolboys would be whistling tone rows in the street. Later on he did write an essay in which he recognised that there was very little audience for his music. But i think that there was an early assumption, at least by Schoenberg, that atonality would achieve a measure of public acceptance.

Schoenberg had some crazy ideas. And he gave up on his own system anyways, and went back to writing atonality instinctively... which I think is a lot more interesting than any system.