Leaderboard

It's not my intention at least to make anybody feel bad about their opinion. I'm only a humble crusader for knowledge and self-betterment. It is strange that in the arts you find such hostility to any discourse about knowledge. Do you know what happens in chess when you play from the heart, using only moves that you like? You get your subjectivity neatly handed to you and will continue to fail unless you make yourself well read on the chess literature, master the basic techniques that need to be second-nature, and develop a keen strategic mind. Then you will know the immensely greater pleasure that is achieved by playing from the mind as well as the heart. There are equally strange developments in chess as there are in music, but no grandmaster today throws up his arms proclaiming the death of chess and calls for the good old Romantic days. Why? Well, because when you sit down to play with someone that is versed in modern playing styles, you are playing against an opponent that knows more than you and has a better chance of outplaying you. When is ignorance ever a virtue? It is undoubtedly very exciting to see fast games with brilliant sacrifices as well slow games with solid defensive play, but it is also exciting to see the struggle between two players in an "atonal" chess game - the excitement is just located elsewhere. Is the analogy intelligible at all?

Well, he was already during his lifetime, despite contemporaries like Stravinsky, Bartok and Shostakovich being better received (as were Rachmaninov and R. Strauss despite being staunch Romantics). And we can't deny how his developments (as those by Berg and Webern, among others) led directly to the 50s and 60s with Boulez and Cage taking the torch, and how his legacy carried on up to the 80s-90s. That doesn't mean any of us must like them or embrace them in any way, either as composers or as mere listeners. Or that we must prefer this style to be regarded as "relevant". Even Lutoslawski and Penderecki eventually shook off the urge to "write modern" and went on to build their own voice. Fat chance I'll ever like that compositional style or choose that road as a composer. Yet, as Tchaikovsky once said about Wagner, one can't fully escape such a powerful influence, no matter how much one actually despises it.

I'm not sold on it. :) How much of a "knowledge foundation" is enough to be allowed to form an opinion? OP @RequiemLord said he tried "again and again" to appreciate atonal music. He made sure "to listen some different works of atonal music to judge for [himself]". Is that not enough? Perhaps a B.Mus degree is the minimum requirement to form opinions about what music you dislike. How I FEEL about something is perfectly valid. I don't need to know it or understand it to know that, right now, this is something I like. What's not "holy" about that?! I might change my opinion as I start to explore something, I might grow to like something I initially dismissed; I may end up disliking something. A deeper understanding may help sway an opinion, but the organic instinct and emotion of how I feel about something isn't overly affected by how much I know about it. I don't like atonal music. I understand, to a very high level what's going on in it and the process behind it. I still don't have to like it. And I guess this is my point. There's a difference between how you FEEL about something, and being able to appreciate it in and of itself. I respect contemporary musics, and can see how/why others might like it...but it's not for me. *shrug*

Well, if your opinion happens to go against what is regarded as "politically correct", a few people will go all out to make you wish you didn't have it.

I don't think it's bad to not like atonal music. There was a time when people had to feign that they did like it, possibly as some weird form of snobbery. And there were also people like Pierre Boulez, that openly bullied composers into atonalism. But, as with most other things, trust your gut. You'll find some surprisingly good things in such a serial piece as Alban Berg's Violin Concerto. And you'll also find a lot of crap in tonal musicians.

There is only one thing Schoenberg ever wrote that I liked. I will link you to it to see if you can get into it. However, even though I have been defending your opinion and right to it it does sound like there probably a lot of stuff out there that you don't even know exists and could probably get into. There is always stuff people don't know about. It is the adventure of life. It is the people who think they are so much better then everyone because they think that they literally have a grasp on EVERYTHING that are the real losers and miserable people. What did you think of the Leshnoff I linked?

These comments are funny. I don't know if they're supposed to be, or sarcastic, or what. But not liking Bach? That's like a child not loving his father. It's like an aviator dismissing the Wright Brothers.

Hello,This is my new soundtrack, inspired by the Brave New World novel. I hope, you will like it. :)

So i have tried again and again to appreciate atonal music but nonetheless i have never been able to find it comfortable, it is always just noisy and unpredictable to my ears.

How can it ever be bad to be you ? Since liking something or not liking something is the same as just being, who you are. it makes no sense that not liking something should ever be bad. That is just nonsense. Different people will neccesarily like different things.

My previous point still applies.

Have you tried listening to them with scores? I think you'll find it a lot more fascinating, and they MAY lead to a slight liking to them, but not necessarily. Are we grouping atonality and aleatoric music together? If not, atonality shows up in a lot of cool places because, if done correctly, no tonal center is present, therefore the modulations in those pieces are always super cool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFIGoB7rK70&index=4&list=LLzCprbu2shhd8_JMyDEBIMQ This is Rautavaara's first piano concerto. It's definitely atonal, but that doesn't mean it has to sound ugly. Last piece of advice, try to imagine the emotion behind some atonal/aleatoric works rather than directly how they sound. Lutoslawki's cello concerto has a lot of political angst and it's very evident. Bloch's Schelomo (not always atonal) has melody lines that are so beautiful despite the orchestration around it. So to answer your question, no, but you may be listening to the wrong things.

There isn't much of any of his stuff on youtube or for listen around the internet, but that will give you a great idea of what he is like and what people are missing out on if they don't know about him.

My short answer answer to this question is: top 5 underrated 1. Samuel Barber 2. Alexander Scriabin 3. Camille Saint Saens 4. Aram Khachaturian 5. Marjan Mozetich Honorable Mentions: Vincent d'Indy, Edward Grieg, Aaron Copland, Eric Whitacre, Jules Massanet, Alberto Ginastera, top 5 overrated 1. Mozart 2. Berlioz 3. Brahms 4. Schoenberg 5. Elgar Honorable Mentions: Haydn, Vivaldi, Johann Strauss, Phillip Glass, Charles Ives, John Cage, George Crumb, John Corigliano And I just want to mention my favorite newer composers who are still writing and producing and to my opinion don't get enough credit for what I believe to be continuing classical music in the write vein. Those would be: 1. Adam Schoenberg 2. Michael Gandolfi 3. Christopher Theofanidis 4. John Adams 5. Jennifer Higdon 6. Robert Aldridge 7. Jonathan Leshnoff

I am sorry but i don't give a damn :(

That is a loaded question and answer right there. There are all kinds of examples and what not. Different ones did different things. The answer is yes. My question to you is what specifically are you looking for and why? That would give a better answer.

I'm glad you re-uploaded this. It's one of my favorite works on the site. Looking forward to the new waltzes.