Is atonal music dead?

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

I think the question should rather be "is the concept that 'tonality is not a valid compositional element' dead?"

I believe we live in a period where composers of true talent will find ways of combining tonal elements as well as the more experimental (well, they WERE experimental at SOME point) techniques into a musical langauge that truly reflects the age in which we live.

The thing is, it is so darn difficult to still use tonal elements in a GOOD, new and original way. So I think the question that's still relevant today is: is it still possible to do something truly new and original with diatonicism (tonality) in a way that hasn't been done before?

(BTW, I prefer the terms "diatonicism/chromaticism" to "tonality/atonality" since the term "tonality" is mostly used to refer to functional tonality, whereas there is also a lot of music that uses tonality in a non-functional way - e.g., Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky, Reich, Adams, a lot of jazz, etc.)

Only a tiny handful of contemporary composers have really succeeded in integrating diatonicism or tonality into a completely new, original and personal harmonic language that is not simplistic or derivative (like the diatonicism of John Adams or Philip Glass). I can only think of Ligeti - whose later works often use simple diatonic melodic material in a dense, complex polyphonic context, creating a strange, fascinating kind of harmonic language that is neither tonal nor atonal -, and Claude Vivier - a highly underrated Canadian composer, unfortunately better known for having been murdered than for his music, which was written in a very personal, highly melodic idiom with wonderful, sophisticated spectral harmonies. And maybe some works by Wolfgang Rihm (for instance, there are some wonderful diatonic moments in Jagden und Formen).

I think the strange and complex relationships heard in contemporary musical compositions reflect the times that we live in. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find atonality to be a dark and menacing soundscape..which is not to say that it should not be appreciated. For me it has a dissociative and unsettling emotional quality..something which most people don't care to confront within themselves, because they prefer to retreat into the pleasures of material satisfaction...Im rambling, sorry ;]

I don't think styles ever really "die"... just assimilate...

Originally Posted by gianluca

Only a tiny handful of contemporary composers have really succeeded in integrating diatonicism or tonality into a completely new, original and personal harmonic language that is not simplistic or derivative (like the diatonicism of John Adams or Philip Glass). I can only think of Ligeti - whose later works often use simple diatonic melodic material in a dense, complex polyphonic context, creating a strange, fascinating kind of harmonic language that is neither tonal nor atonal -, and Claude Vivier - a highly underrated Canadian composer, unfortunately better known for having been murdered than for his music, which was written in a very personal, highly melodic idiom with wonderful, sophisticated spectral harmonies. And maybe some works by Wolfgang Rihm (for instance, there are some wonderful diatonic moments in Jagden und Formen).

I very much agree with these as excellent examples as a very successful use of diatonicism (I know almost nothing by Vivier, but I love, for example Ligeti's "Lontano" and "Melodien" and very much Rihm's "Jagden und Formen"). But I think there are alot more than these.

Kagel (who is in my opinion much too often put off as an "absurd" or even "conceptual" composer) has some marvellous music, which creates melodies out of simple triads (well, that doesn't actually mean it's diatonic, but is has a similar effect), but because of the very special, beautiful sounds he uses, they become something truly unique. His piece "1898" has fascinated and influenced me quite alot in my own music.

Messiaen is by no means a contemporary composer. Nevertheless I find him a good example of how to combine diatonicism, even modality in his case, with a very unique and original sound that is entirely "your own".

And then there's music that uses alternative tunings, which can create a form of diatonicism even if all chromatic steps are used equally, if the distances between two chromatic tones aren't the same for all tones. (I love "Çoğluotobüsişletmesi" by the not very well known composer Clarence Barlow, for example. But I hate having to spell that title so much )

I think things like this have a lot of potential still to explore.

And to the distinction between diatonicism and chromaticism the same applies at to "tonality" and "atonality": They don't have to be forcibly separate. I find something very beautiful about music where out of total chromaticism different zones of dianoticism emerge and vanish again.

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

I think the question should rather be "is the concept that 'tonality is not a valid compositional element' dead?"

Yes I think this is a good way to look at things. It allows us to get away from the idea that there is an inevitability to how music changes.

As far as tonality being difficult to come up with something new, this is always a problem in any music. Very few composers/writers/painters/etc. are able to really imprint their personality on their work in such a way that what they create is recognisably them. Avoiding the conventional is difficult. Actually it is part of the reason why I raised the question of atonality in the first place. I wondered whether atonality was still part of the convention of modern music in the same way that it was when I was student (deep in the mists of time).

Originally Posted by gianluca

The thing is, it is so darn difficult to still use tonal elements in a GOOD, new and original way. So I think the question that's still relevant today is: is it still possible to do something truly new and original with diatonicism (tonality) in a way that hasn't been done before?

This is no less true of non-tonal music.
The only problem is some people insist on accusing ANY use of tonality of being "unoriginal".
I could levy the exact same accusations at perpetrators of atonality, saying that nothing they are doing is original anyways.

Which, of course, is why I prefer to promote open-mindedness and tolerance and acceptance of ALL music that is at least attempting to reflect the world in which we live.

There is a way of writing tonal music that is a reflection of the 21st century. Regardless of whether Gianluca appreciates it or not.

And there is a way of writing non-tonal music that is perfectly passé and out-of-date, a reflection of a world we no longer live in, an artistic pretention of "newness" that in no way takes into account the last 50 years of history.

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

This is no less true of non-tonal music.
The only problem is some people insist on accusing ANY use of tonality of being "unoriginal".
I could levy the exact same accusations at perpetrators of atonality, saying that nothing they are doing is original anyways.

Which, of course, is why I prefer to promote open-mindedness and tolerance and acceptance of ALL music that is at least attempting to reflect the world in which we live.

There is a way of writing tonal music that is a reflection of the 21st century. Regardless of whether Gianluca appreciates it or not.

And there is a way of writing non-tonal music that is perfectly passé and out-of-date, a reflection of a world we no longer live in, an artistic pretention of "newness" that in no way takes into account the last 50 years of history.

YES. YES. A thousand times YES.

Though, I could as well argue about the last point, I don't think it's necessary at this rate.

I don't get your point. They can recognize music as...music? I guarantee anyone can recognize music written by any composer - tonal or otherwise.

I meant they can recognise it, not simply as being music, but as something they have heard and enjoyed before. Whereas, if you get somebody to listen to a bit of Kagel, chances are they won't have heard it before, and won't enjoy it.

Hall of Fame Top 300 - Numbers 1 to 80 - Classic FM

This is a list as voted for by the British public (the orchestral music loving side public). Almost the same pieces get voted into the top 100 every year, because they are popular pieces of music and remain so today. There are a few composers on the list I don't recognise, but I highly doubt they are atonal composers.
Of course, I personally disagree with many of the choices on this list, but essentially this list was voted for by the people who go to orchestral music concerts. That there doesn't appear to be a single atonal piece on the list implies that generally, the public do not want to listen to atonal works. Whether you think this is a good thing or not is barely relevent.
I recognise that in England, atonality has always been frowned upon, although there have been many English atonal composers, who simply havn't had much or any public success.

The thing is, it is so darn difficult to still use tonal elements in a GOOD, new and original way.

Debussy could have said this, Williams could have said this, Prokofiev could have said this! I could say it right now, but I won't because it isn't true!

Bringing up a poll about which music is the most liked by people and deducting from the results that the people like listening to music they already know is pointless. Naturally pieces that a lot of people know will be on top of such a list. You can hardly vote for a piece of music you haven't heard... If you wanted a clear result about whether people enjoy tonal music or atonal music more, take 10 tonal pieces, 10 atonal pieces, have everybody listen to them and then let them vote for one of them. (I'm not saying "atonality" would win in such a case of course, just that your poll doesn't really show anything.)

But of course it's true for a lot of people that they like listening to stuff they already know or which at least sounds familiar. Definitely not for everybody though and I'm not just talking of professional musicians. It would be a sad state if no person had any curiosity whatsoever, which luckily isn't the case. There are more people than you might think who are very willing to experience something new now and then.

They might not want to listen to Stockhausen day in and out, but they might still go to a concert under the right circumstances and especially if the newspapers write glowing reviews about the performance. They might not like everything, but there will be some things they can discover and even appreciate and they might even feel a bit proud of having "accepted the challenge" (I've seen that quite a few times). It's like reading Joyce or Proust, where you think "Ha! I did it!" when you're through. Or like climbing a mountain. And if you keep climbing mountains it will soon become more than "just" a challenge, you will begin to actually enjoy the scenery, the loneliness, the fresh air, the physical exertion. And if you're climbing a secluded mountain without paths where not many people walk, you might even get the feeling that you're somewhere where no human ever walked before and you're just like Columbus!

Many people are of course too lazy to climb mountains, but definitely not everyone.

I think the fear of "the public won't like it" is sometimes irrationally high when it comes to "atonal" music. That it's not the music the audience hears most of the time doesn't mean they're totally unable to "comprehend" or enjoy it. Don't underestimate your audience. I think a great part of the fear of new music comes from the fact that the musicians, publishers and concert managers always are so terribly careful about it and almost apologetic if they choose to take it into a concert program. And they always try to "make amends" to the public by adding some Mozart. They are practically telling the audience "This is hard to hear music! We're so sorry for that!" instead of treating it naturally, like any other music, which wouldn't create this aura of difficulty and intellectualism. Treat your audience as grown up people. Let -them- decide whether they like the music that was played or not.

Yes that would be a better experiment, but like you said pointless due to subjectivity. I wasn't trying to claim objectivity, just pointing out the fact that classic fm listeners voted for nothing but tonal works. I don't agree with many of the choices, as you no doubt won't either.

Originally Posted by Gardener

There are more people than you might think who are very willing to experience something new now and then.

I think that's a little condescending. People are willing to experience something new, as long as they enjoy it. Same goes for every human being alive. I am willing to experience something new and I have listened intently to atonal works, and yet I have only gained a dislike of them so far.