Is atonal music dead?

That is totally correct, but note that I didn't -only- say that the majority of listeners would classify it as atonal, but also that such randomly generated music wouldn't have a tonal centre. Would you classify totally random music as tonal, yourself?

The devil is in the details. Consider a more simple situation in which you pick at random three tones, and ascertain if they form a recognizable triad (certainly having a tonal center).

Without sacrificing generality, we can fix the first tone as C (generalizable because scale degrees are preserved upon transposition). Total possible outcome = (1)(12)(12) = 144 sets of threes (any one tone may be non-unique)

The following 12 triads are possible:

C E G

C Eb G

C Eb Gb

C E G#

A C E

A C Eb

Ab C Eb

Ab C E

F A C

F Ab C

F# A C

E G# B# (= E G# C)

Therefore the probability of finding any of these relative triads in 3 randomly picked tones is 12/144 or 1/12

But if a 'piece' consists of at least 12 triads (or 36 notes), statistically there is at least (12)(1/12) = 1 recognizable triad. Does it make the 'piece' tonal? The devil is in the details.

As I said, in randomly generated music there will be -passages- that have a tonal centre, and there certainly will be triads that also occur in traditionally tonal music. That doesn't make the piece as a whole tonal. You could build a whole piece out of major chords without having a tonal centre, if you don't connect them "logically". Debussy can't really be called atonal of course since in the background you can still sense forms of gravity towards the tonic most of the time, but his music goes in this direction, where chords, such as major seventh chords are no longer functional chords, but mixtures, like registration on an organ.

As I said, Sch

I honestly don't know. But an elegant distinction would be that there is pure atonality, and then there is tonality, which makes for the rest. And yes, apparently it would include randomly generated music.

Apart from these altogether would be non-tonality (or untonality?), i.e. pitch-independent sound palette. Percussions (cymbals, snare drum) come to mind.

Ho hum, this is still ignoring the fact that stuff like concrete music doesn't even have "tones" at all, or proper "pitches". Sure, there are different frequencies, but a lot of the stuff isn't tuned to A 440 or any of that.

Anyways, with regards to communication, I have to agree with Gardener there as usual and say that it's entirely relative to what it is that you want to express.

As for "there will always be tonalists(!?)" sure, so long as tonality remains popular and in the center of a lot of cultures. Change that, and you change everything.

I really have'em problems with arguments such as these where apparently it doesn't matter the actual will of the composer. If anyone wants to write atonal music they should as well, regardless of what anyone thinks. I'd say that "minding what you write" only matters if you have an objective goal, like incidental music or writing for an X audience.

Likewise, I don't think there's anything wrong with mixing things up. I certainly don't live in an age where you have to shove pieces in strict categories, so I presume nobody else does. What is a piece that is both tonal and atonal? Or even non-tonal and noise at the same time?

You can have your wah-wah funk guitars mixed with 12 tone technique, and then sonata motive-development ala Beethoven in the same piece. What then? Come on, this is an old-hat conversation.

Like I said before, any composition technique and aesthetic is nothing more than preferences and aids to actually write what you want to write. So obviously, none of it is going to die, none of it is going to become "stale" if there's at least one person that does it still, and there always is.

On top of this, there are MANY techniques and there are MANY MANY MANY ideas and aesthetics which aren't 18th-19th-20th century centric-european! Tonality, though popular, is also a million different things.

I would think twice before bunching Tom Jobim with Schumann or Brahms, though they're all "tonal". It's not what it is, it's how you use it.

Look at Hindemith or Bartok's conceptions of "tonality", which are nothing like Arvo P

It isn't dead, it is dying.

Taking a while to.

My view about music is that it no longer falls into a style of composition anymore as it did in the 18th and 19th centuries. Composers have enough music from the past to use as inspiration and framework to write pieces for them as opposed to writing for courts or churches. But who knows, all this may spark a new style of writing that changes music for the next 50-100 years. Its always difficult to tell what's gonna happen.

I am starting to think this entire debate is rather pointless. Even if "atonal" music is dead/was dying, would/does it matter? Just because something is unpopular doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. A lot of famous composers were branded as "weird" and "unpopular" at their time. During his lifetime, Debussy's music was thought to be "weird". He made use of modulations that weren't just to the dominant key or the relative minor and he used harmonies that were considered "dissonant" such as the major 7th and parallel fourth. Today, we consider Debussy to be fairly tame stuff and probably the most accessible composer of the 20th century (yes, he was born in the 19th century but even his early stuff like Clair De Lune wasn't written until right around the turn of the 20th century).

What about John Cage? I can't claim to know a lot about the man but even today, where people are much more open-minded musically than they've ever been, he has trouble finding an audience. I don't think we have to look further than this very forum to see that. People have gone so far as to label his compositional output non-music. Granted, I think, even by today's standards, Cage was a little out-there but I also think some of his works possesed great beuaty and innovation.

I can probably name a dozen other composers that were thought to be "strange" in their time that are now celebrated as geniuses (except for Erik Satie, who may never get the audience I think he deserves) but my point is...don't worry about what is "normal". Don't worry about what is "popular". Don't worry about what anyone else wants to hear besides yourself. Sure, there is always room for improvement but let's say....You like tone clusters. No, you REALLY like them. So, you decide to write an atonal piano sonata that pretty much involves the left arm mashing the piano keys at all times. Everyone who hears it tells you it's terrible and not music but you happen to think it's very good. Do not change it for them! Often, the people we regard as geniuses today are those who fought peer-pressure, didn't conform, and sought to create only what they themselves thought were good.

Now, I'm not implying that if you have to write bizarre music to be remembered later (after all, are there really that many people out there who remember Henry Cowell?). I'm just saying that we should all take an example from our compositional ancestors. And this isn't always the case either. Mozart is practically the epitome of common practice period composition and he's still remembered today as a genius. Granted, I don't think that title is entirely deserving but my opinion is irrelevant. Sometimes you're remembered for being strange and innovative, sometimes you're simply remembered for making music that people enjoy listening to. In all honesty, I'm more likely to fall in the latter than the former though both are long shots.

To wrap up, at the end of your life when you're reflecting back on it, what would make you happier: Knowing that you followed the rules, conformed, and made stuff that a lot of people enjoyed or knowing that you trusted your own voice and made music that *you* enjoyed? Forget about how many people are going to remember/listen to it after you're gone. It won't make a difference to you anyway, you'll be dead.

EDIT: If you have found a way to write music that both satisfies your artistic needs and satisfies the audience's listening needs then congratulations, you've found what almost all composers dream of and very few find.

Hey, I like Henry Cowell! I agree with everything else in your post though.

Yes Nirvana, I agree with you ( even though you write video game music) that you should write what satisfies your artistic needs as a first principle. And satisfying an imagined audience is something that many dream of and few attain.

I am pleased to have got that out of my system. I hope to post another, even more outrageous, suggestion on this forum soon.

Andrew

Cowell is amazing~ So is Satie.

I think that this has to be composer led. Composers need to write from where audiences tastes are not from some theoretical or academic starting point. I suppose I am suggesting that atonality is not a good starting from which to imagine the future of classical music.

You are dead right. We need more works like the Planet's suite that people can actually identify with, whilst the piece itself retains a high level of music competency. I don't think there would be many ordinary people (those who don't compose in this instance!) who wouldnt be able to enjoy Mars, the Bringer of war, or Debussy's Claire de Lune...

On the otherhand, the number of people who enjoy atonal works is probably about 0.01% of the general population (might be much higher in musician and composer circles). How can you possibly expect people to listen to something that to their ears, is simply a mess.

To illustrate the point further, take Bernstein.

In my opinion he is a musical genius (you can debate that all you want). The music for on the waterfront is completely masterful, but the average listener is only going to remember the opening theme, which is a simple melody. Take West Side Story, the orchestral version is actually brilliant (don't like the musical), contains striking harmonies, fantastic orchestration, good part writing etc. But what is West Side story famous for? MARIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAA!! I JUST MET A GIRL NAMED MARIAAAAAAAAAAA!

Essentially there has to be a balance between simplicity (the lyrical melody) and complexity (adventurous harmony, orchestration, counter-point). Erwartung may be a dextrous explosion of musical genius (to some people), but it's not the kind of music that the public want to hear, and its no wonder that classical music is relying on the 'old warhorses' as was mentioned earlier. We need more warhorses!!!

On the otherhand, the number of people who enjoy atonal works is probably about 0.01% of the general population (might be much higher in musician and composer circles). How can you possibly expect people to listen to something that to their ears, is simply a mess.

-0.01% of the world population would still be more than half a million people. That's still not too bad.

- I know plenty of non-musicians who enjoy "atonal" music. And it's only a "mess" to many people because it's foreign to them. Mozart would probably be a "mess" to people who lived in medieval times. Young children often aren't so biased. They don't tend to care much about "tonality", they often just care whether it's exciting or boring.

I'm not saying that this should be the only standard according to which music should be judged, but simply that writing off certain music because you aren't already used to it seems like a poor justification to validate one kind of music over the other.

It is very true that many composers of the past -also- wrote pieces with the intention of reaching a broad public and maybe making some money. But if that had been their primary concern in all their pieces, a great majority of the awesome music of the past we enjoy today wouldn't exist, which would be a real pity.

And frankly, I don't care much about Bernstein. I enjoy listening to Webern more. And I too am a part of "the public".

I'm not writing it off whatsoever. If I was to attempt to write atonality off based on subjective criteria, I'd probably get shot down and offend lots of people (Oh its happened before... You learn from your mistakes!)

But frankly, I don't think an atonal work will ever inspire an entire nation, or indeed prompt 'the man on the street' to go out and listen to more classical music. People want a melody, and that's that!

At the end of the day the pieces I like the most, probably aren't going to be liked by the majority of people. But, the pieces that are liked the most in the classical repetoire all coincidentally enough, have a strong melody. Jupiter, what is it remembered for? The middle section. Pomp and circumstance, what is it remembered for? LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY! What is Ravel remembered for, Bolero? What is Debussy remembered for Claire de Lune. I could go on and on.

I don't think people should entirely write music that tries to appeal to the public whilst appealing to more critical observers, but if they want to be remembered, they have to write at least one! That's life basically!

- 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.

- 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 Sch

Melodic-linear thinking is entirely independant of what kind of tonality you use.[/Quote]

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!

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.

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.