My second Atonal piece

atonal :)

[ATTACH]10530[/ATTACH]

Very tense, intriguing, and awesome.

What is meant by atonal music, anyway? I thought it used to be using tones that aren't in the chromatic scale.

I am of course look at this on a midi, so I apologies for any mistakes I point out.

I like your motif. But what you do wrong is that you just carry on with the same idea, the consecutive quarter notes. You do change it chromatically, it is neat. But really, it is not enough.

Somehow when I listen to this piece I just do not find it atonal 'enough'. You could easily have used much more crunching chords and with that create a beautiful resolution.

There are some things that seem rather hard to play, maybe it is the midi again. Bar 28. It is hard to reach considering either the left hand or the right hand must take that C3. Although, once again, it could be the midi.

It was enjoyable, so do not take this too harshly. :)

Waiting for more of your music.

This isn't atonal at all, it's got some chromatics, but the consonance-dissonance relationship is pretty obviously there and handled in a tonal sense.

Wanna see what atonality sounds like? Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire, or Webern's 5 orchestral pieces, etc. Doesn't need to be 12-tone technique.

Hell, I'll do you one better:

YouTube - Glenn Gould - Webern

So, yeah.

This isn't atonal at all, it's got some chromatics, but the consonance-dissonance relationship is pretty obviously there and handled in a tonal sense.

Wanna see what atonality sounds like? Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire, or Webern's 5 orchestral pieces, etc. Doesn't need to be 12-tone technique.

Hell, I'll do you one better:

YouTube - Glenn Gould - Webern

So, yeah.

I wanted to say that, but could not bare the embarrassment if I were totally wrong.

What you should try to do is forget about chord relations.

Yes, atonal is not my style, if you hear my other music you will understand, and there is no goal for me to compose atonal music, the atonal project of mine is just for fun :)

You obviously have a great deal of musical talent, and I for one would like to hear you advance your music a bit, away from the neo-baroque you have been producing.

There are many, MANY routes to explore before actually hitting the "atonal" scene. Even within tonality itself, there are so many avenues.

While we're at it, there are methods of organizing sound that are not "tonal" per se, but which are also not entirely based on dissonance. You could write perfectly "non-tonal" music that is still highly consonant and melodic. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Or you could write "tonal" music where the tonic/dominant relationship is severed over the larger form, adapting aspects of cellular development with some basic counterpoint concepts, and actually create something that is yours, new and unique.

The sad thing is how so many people feel that they are required to make a leap from Bach to Boulez. There are myriad other "styles" and techniques to explore between those two extremes.

The sad thing is how so many people feel that they are required to make a leap from Bach to Boulez. There are myriad other "styles" and techniques to explore between those two extremes.

Uh, why CAN'T you just skip from Bach to Boulez? What's wrong with that? IF the composer wants to I don't see anything wrong with starting with Xenakis, Stravinsky, or anyone else. Plus, as far as I'm concerned there's also a million other ways that are just as valid as tonality and atonality. Musique concr

Sure, but just as taking japanese music out of context, it would be pointless to take western music out of context. If you want to write music like Boulez, you have to understand and see why Boulez is writing the music he writes, and how history lead to his point where people started thinking like Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage or Feldman.

And no one said that you either have to write tonal or atonal music. Qccowboy's post is really important in saying that you can as well create tonal music which sounds dissonant, and atonal music that sounds consonant. Ignorance is what makes people associate these two things, and this is why you should learn more about something before plunging into writing it (or like it). And part of that "learning" is learning about its historical and cultural context, which brings us back to all the in-between Bach and Boulez.

How would you feel learning how to solve integrals with complex numbers before learning how to add/multiply numbers or simplify an equation?

Thanks for you replies guys!

QcCowboy: i can try what you say, but i will still keep some of the baroque influnce, what do you suggest i do? or where should i start?

The simplest thing is to start getting acquainted with some more contemporary repertoire. It takes time (and a bit of money to buy CDs... but Naxos has quite inexpensive ones).

If you are attracted to fugal writing, other than studying countepoint and fugue, you can start getting your ear atuned to hearing non-baroque counterpoint. There is romantic-era counterpoint (Mendelsohn, Brahms, Faur

There are many, MANY routes to explore before actually hitting the "atonal" scene. Even within tonality itself, there are so many avenues.

You make it sound as if atonality was a "last resort if everything else fails". Do you really mean that?

The sad thing is how so many people feel that they are required to make a leap from Bach to Boulez. There are myriad other "styles" and techniques to explore between those two extremes.

We live in the 21st century, so I'd say Bach is much a larger leap than Boulez. Just because most people are more familiar with Bach's music than Boulez's music doesn't mean we can't start our "compositional adventures" in the time we're living, with contemporary music. Or should every composer be required to go through the whole history of music again, not being allowed to do more than hit a hollow tree with a stick in the first 10 years or so, until at 80, when you've done everything else it becomes acceptable to explore atonality? (Yes, I know I'm exaggerating.)

It's certainly good to know musical history, but our main focus as composers should be what music we want to make right now, in the presence. Whether that's free atonality, super-complexity, neo-classicism, or something entirely different is a different question. All of us are in some form influenced by musical history, but we can to some degree decide what parts of it are most relevant to our compositorial (is that the correct adjective?) interests.

Sure, but just as taking japanese music out of context, it would be pointless to take western music out of context. If you want to write music like Boulez, you have to understand and see why Boulez is writing the music he writes, and how history lead to his point where people started thinking like Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage or Feldman.

What? Why not just copy what you think sounds neat? How's that for a method? Screw history, all that matters in the end is the music. Knowing how people came up with the ideas is nice and all, but you know what? You'll only know if the composer himself said it, or you know them in person. It's a lot more practical to base studies on the musical result you like, be that Bach, Boulez, or Hendrix.

If you're going to go the historic way, you might as well be prepared to face a huge number of problems with factual accuracy, etc etc. If it helps a composer know what like better, or compose more like how they want to, fine. But otherwise history should be just there for those who want to look at it, not mandatory or a "requirement". LISTENING to the music should be the only real requirement, no matter what.

I agree with Gardener on his stance, as usual.

Hehe just to respond on this, my plan is not to make a jump from Bach to Boulez.

I will stay with the Baroque influence, and mabye develope myself to something between baroque and modern! And to know the old music is a very importent thing, all we know today is buildt on the old music, tonality, harmonies. they where expanded in the romantic period and later removed to no tonality. I belive the old ways will come again and be popular in due time! The majority of people would rather listen to Mozart then Boulez, that is why the old music is still so know to all the people, and that is a fact.

All music is good, i belive so, but in 2008 i belive the composer has the liberty so compose what he/her likes best. We are the lucky ones, Bach could not choose style. We can so all music should be accepted :)

Musique concr

SimenN - this is pretty cool! :thumbsup: I have to admit I like this more than your tonal creations :D Can you elaborate more about the piece? What was the inspiration, what were your objectives?

hehe, thanks, to bad you dont like my tonal work, it in those works i used a lot of time and effort, well there is actulay nothing about this piece, i just did if for fun , to try something new, that all, there is nothing behind as an explonation or something, i did the oposite of what im regular doing, use a lot of cromantic and dissonace :) Thank you and glad you liked it :)

I do like your tonal works, but your treatment sounds a little unconventional. But maybe that's why it benefits in 'atonal' idiom? To my ears it does!

What? Why not just copy what you think sounds neat? How's that for a method?

Could you possibly do the same with maths, physics, chemistry, or any of the sciences and social sciences? If you wanted to create a theory based on Freud's theory of Psychosexual development, you'd have to study Freud's theories very extensively, to understand their cultural and historical context, before taking what you "like" from them (or what you think is true) and expanding on it or using it in your own theory.

It's the same with music. If you want to actually write music and not just copy-paste other composer's music, you have to understand their music, understand how they came to write this, where and when they lived, and how this applies to the contemporary world. As I said, you can't take things out of context, because they lose a lot of their meaning and importance. If that's what you want to do, take things out of context and diminish their value because you don't really care or can't be bothered learning anything more than what you need, then go ahead and do it, but it won't be as grounded and as strong as if you actually put some effort in learning more about these techniques/elements in the music of other people that you liked.

Could you possibly do the same with maths, physics, chemistry, or any of the sciences and social sciences?

...

It's the same with music.

Bad Moves entry

That's a pretty false analogy. It's entirely 100% OK to copy-paste stuff, and it's entirely OK to ignore everything about a composer except for the four chords that sounded nice to you and copy'em.

Building up so much formal junk on something so simple as "I like this, I'm going to use it" is unnecessary and arguably impractical. If the composer ends up with something they like, and represented what they wanted, then they succeeded. Sure, it's nice to know things in more detail and depth, but it's not such a necessity to writing music.

On top of all this, there's no real reason to even care about context or anything of the such when looking at possible musical material. A composer can create their own context, and that context overwrites whatever other contextual baggage the material may have carried when other composers used it.

More over, this "If you want to actually write music and not just copy-paste other composer's music..." statement is either badly put together or taken literally just plain wrong. The act of writing music can include just copying-pasting other composer's music. Collage technique, anyone? If we get really technical, we can say that using a C major triad is "copying" the first person to have used it, and so on and so forth with every single musical material. In the end, everything is a copy of a copy in the first place, be it a conscious copy or otherwise.

So, what is "actually writing music" in this sense? 100% original material? Or is there some quasi-esoteric standard which dictates what music is copy-paste and what is "actually written music" as you put it.

It must not be forgotten that, music is in essence just a bunch of noise that we find pleasing or likable. It is a form of art, and such is free from functional regulations and standards applied to something like Mathematics or Psychology. In essence, given the lack of empirical facts governing music as a whole, it is safe to say that it is entirely free from any sort of judgment system governing its quality OR relevance.

Personally, I think this is unnecessary complexity based on unfounded dogmatic and almost elitist standards. If someone hears something they like, they should as well use it and to hell with all the other crap such as context or history so long as they do what they want to do in the end.

I agree that directly comparing development in music with development in sciences is not too useful. While it may be the purpose of (musical) creativity to make something new, it doesn't have to follow a continuous development over the centuries, build on everything that is already known and "get further" on an established path, such as the sciences do. Sometimes the people who have stood outside the "train of continuous development" have created some of the most original music, such as Charles Ives or Conlon Nancarrow.

We also should keep in mind that the concept of "knowing ones history" exists only since the 19th century or so. Composers before that knew extremely little of the music that existed before their time. Of course they also studied the music of their contemporaries, but in the end the music that was even available to them was extremely limited. (And the same can be said to some degree about the music that was written, for example, in the Soviet Union, by people like Shostakovitch, or later Gubaidulina, Ligeti etc. Even though Ligeti wrote his well-known pieces only after he had come to Western Europe of course, where he certainly also studied lots of other music.)

And I certainly don't think copying stuff is wrong. I really admire the music of people like Schnittke and Zimmermann who focused on collage techniques. Those composers didn't "only" copy though. They took music and arranged it into a new piece, and by that made it their own music. If you just take some Couperin and publish it as your newest music, then whats the point of composing? (Unless you're going for "readymade" art or something. But even then you're turning something existing in your own in some way, and not just using it as it already is.)

So I don't think the issue is that music should be 100% original, but that it should have some originality.

I also think that there's more reason to try to "understand" something that mere general interest. You can certainly just take a bar of a Beethoven sonata that sounded nice to you, but if you actually tried to figure out what in particular you like about this bar, you could much more effectively incorporate that element in your own music and combine it with other elements, than if you had to paste in that bar every time in your music you want that particular effect. By analysing a Nancarrow piece you love you might get to realize that it's particularly the rhythm that fascinates you, or in particular tempo-polyphony. You might then just take the effect of different streams of time that diverge and come together, but in a totally different form than Nancarrow. OR you might realize that it's not so much tempo-polyphony that interests you in Nancarrow, but his use of the player piano, and start exploring the realms of mechanical music performance in your own music. OR you're interested in how he incorporates elements of popular culture in his music, how he combines swing with classical rhythmic concepts, and complex counterpoint with Blues.

Of course those are just rather simple examples. But the composers who write with a collage technique generally know a lot about the music they use and its original context. I'd even think that the context of music plays even a much larger role to them than to other composers, as that's one of the prime elements they play with. The decisions of which music they combine with which is certainly very "informed" in the cases of Schnittke and Zimmermann.

With that I don't mean that there's a canon of musical knowledge that is an absolute must for every composer. What a composer "must" know about music is very much determined what his musical intentions are. Not even to mention that most that speak out for such a canon have a rather, excuse me, old fashioned view of what it should encompass. Reading Fux, but not Adorno or Stockhausen, studying Berlioz' orchestration, but not Grisey's or Ligeti's, knowing how to build a sonata, but not how to use aleatorics and room acoustics, being able to notate a Bach choral from ear, but not being able to analyse electronic music by ear, and so on. Creating an universal canon of musical knowledge for composers today is, in my opinion, no longer possible.

Which, of course, makes academic education for composers very difficult today.

You can certainly just take a bar of a Beethoven sonata that sounded nice to you, but if you actually tried to figure out what in particular you like about this bar, you could much more effectively incorporate that element in your own music and combine it with other elements, than if you had to paste in that bar every time in your music you want that particular effect.

...

Creating an universal canon of musical knowledge for composers today is, in my opinion, no longer possible.

Which, of course, makes academic education for composers very difficult today.

That's a pretty good idea. Just slam in out of nowhere a measure from a beethoven sonata in between something totally nonrelated "for the effect!" Hahaa~

And yeah, for everything else, though I could argue that it is practically impossible to copy something and with that copy claim art without personal input of any sort therefore creating not "just" a copy. So, technically, it is impossible to have 100% unoriginal music, since for it to be music (in this sense) it has to be declared to be the output of a person, and not just a copy. Same thing if you declare, for example, birds singing or the garbage truck outside to be your "piece of music". Those are entirely unoriginal things, but so long as it's declared as art/music, it gains the attribute that it's original from the concept basis that it's something made by someone and thus original as before that someone said concept/connection/music did not exist as it has been defined now.

LONG SENTENCES!

Anyways, you can copy Couperin, but the moment you claim your copy to be something other than just a copy, it stops being just a copy. Such is the nature of this definition/redefinition nonsense and creating context. If that's acceptable to some, that's an entire different issue.

That's of course true, but the question is whether that will truly stay very interesting to you as a composer if you do just that. I mean, if you take one Couperin and make it your own, and then do the same thing with a Stravinsky piece, and then with the Burmese national anthem, then you technically might not just be copying another composer, but you start to copy yourself. Personally I think "take a piece of art and say it's your own" is art, but only a single time, after which it becomes pretty boring.

That's of course true, but the question is whether that will truly stay very interesting to you as a composer if you do just that. I mean, if you take one Couperin and make it your own, and then do the same thing with a Stravinsky piece, and then with the Burmese national anthem, then you technically might not just be copying another composer, but you start to copy yourself. Personally I think "take a piece of art and say it's your own" is art, but only a single time, after which it becomes pretty boring.

I guess. :>