Is atonal music dead?

Hi SSC,

Out of interest, could you give me some examples of Schoenbergs work where he didn't use a 'system' so to speak? I'd be interested to hear how mentally percieved atonal music sounds.

Personally I think the best piece of Schoenberg's that I've heard is Verklarte Nacht...! At least that's true so far.

Well, Verkl

Yep, Verklarte Nacht pre-dated atonality (at least in Vienna). It's a very Mahler-esque piece, and to be honest I prefer it over his atonal works.

I'll have a listen to the pieces you linked, thanks a lot!

On a side note - atonality didn't really catch on in England to the extent it did in other countries. The predominant composers were much more traditional in their harmonic approach (although they did do some astounding things). Maybe English people generally just find it harder to listen to atonal works..!?!

If you like Sch

Thanks I'll have a listen to that piece too.

Yes there are a few atonal composers, and I'm sure there will be many apsiring atonalists, but romanticism was as popular as ever throughout the first half of the nineteenth century and beyond. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what kind of music is favoured in this country today, but I'm hoping that if somebody wrote something Elgar-esque with perhaps a stronger sense of modernity, it would go down very well. Unfortunately, I am several years away from writing something that I think is good enough, let alone whether the majority of the country think its good enough..! But I live in hope!

Berg's music is a good example of "mentally percieved atonal music". Wozzeck continues to be an emormous success, despite its difficulty, with most opera companies and audiences.

And, by the way, isn't all music "mentally percieved"?

only if its dead to you

And, by the way, isn't all music "mentally percieved"?

Erm, at the risk of sounding totally ridiculous, I should have said 'mentally, musically, cognitized music'...!

Basically, I meant music that is composed in the mind (can of course be elaborated later), as apposed to something that is dictated more or less by a set of 'strategies'.

Right. I dont what to hijack the thread, but surely even music supposedly composed in the mind, as it were, is done using a set of strategies, unconscious, intuitive or not. They have developed from your experience of various musics. Serial technique is, much like fugue, a way of externalising intuition, so that the composer can focus more on the pure aspects of structure and logic in the music, and not be attracted to, or distracted by a momentary idea. I am not suggesting this is a "better" way, it is just "a" way; but to emphasise, all music is composed using strategies (or more accurately, conventions) at one level or another.

L.

Atonal music is not dead at all. It is alive and kicking! I'd even say writing atonally is still the way to go when it comes to contemporary art music. The most exciting and most innovative composers of today (Carter, Boulez, Birtwistle, Lachenmann, Ferneyhough, Kurtag, Jonathan Harvey, Olga Neuwirth, etc.) all compose in a more or less atonal idiom. I believe there are still endless new possibilities waiting to be explored within the atonal realm and the modernist aesthetic.

Or here, the six little piano pieces:

YouTube - 6 pieces for piano Op. 19 by Schoenberg (Beroff)

Just a side note - what a terrible performance of one of my favorite Schoenberg works. It seems like Beroff was just rushing through these pieces, while that typical Viennese expressionist touch (which these pieces need) was almost completely missing...

Just a side note - what a terrible performance of one of my favorite Schoenberg works. It seems like Beroff was just rushing through these pieces, while that typical Viennese expressionist touch (which these pieces need) was almost completely missing...

It was the first recording I could find on youtube, so I just took it. I understand what you mean, but I wouldn't call it terrible (well, the fourth -was- terrible). Personally I like Pollini's and Gould's interpretations, even though they're totally different. Pollini has a very clear and transparent way of playing them, bringing the different structures out beautifully. And Gould is, well, Gould. Either you love him or you hate him :D

I personally enjoy Gould more, but if you want to "understand" or analyse the piece, go for Pollini.

I believe there are still endless new possibilities waiting to be explored within the atonal realm and the modernist aesthetic....

Yes there are endless possibilities with atonal music. My concern would be that no-one wants to listen to them and that composing becomes little more than self indulgence. The composers you mentioned have a significant place in the repertoire of new music ensembles. But there are not many of those groups around. These composers are hardly represented in the concert hall programmes of most orchestras. They can hardly be said to represent , or even be part of, the repertoire of classical music as it is generally performed or recorded. Consequently atonal modernism is largely a style of music with its own following but has little connection to most classical music listeners. It relates to classical music in about the same way that Rap music does- a totally foreign music. Of course there are people who like classical music and Rap. But there are probably not that many whose tastes are so catholic. My feelings are that the composers mentioned have suffered the fate of the avant-garde: they have forged ahead along their own path while most listeners have taken a different direction and forgotten about htem altogether.

I think Im a boor (how'd u spell that?), I cant really appreciate atonal music. ah who cares, haha.

Atonal music is beautiful in that yes, possibilities are endless, but it sounds too incoherent to me, and I think alot of non-music savvy people out there will agree with me.

Atonal music is beautiful in that yes, possibilities are endless, but it sounds too incoherent to me, and I think alot of non-music savvy people out there will agree with me.

I think there is potential with atonal ideas, but for me an entirely atonal piece doesn't really do much for me.

Like ablyth said, I don't think the general public (who lets face it are the audience) really want to be intellectually challenged in the same way that composers or musicians do.

A good example of this is my mother (lol). Yesterday she told me that she only listens to a piece like Elgar's Cello Concerto for those great moments, but doesn't necassarily pay much attention to the rest of the music. Even with tonal works, I honestly think 99% of the general public will not consciously listen to every note, and will most likely phase in and out between these 'moments'. Truly, most people only listen out for a well written, well accompanied melody, and atonality doesn't really provide this for them. You've got to remember that most people don't think about music in the way that composers or songwriters do!

I think there is potential with atonal ideas, but for me an entirely atonal piece doesn't really do much for me.

Like ablyth said, I don't think the general public (who lets face it are the audience) really want to be intellectually challenged in the same way that composers or musicians do.

I know and went to school with many musicians who went to music school to, for lack of a better word, become tradesmen, not musicians. They had no interest in new works, they had no interest in pushing music forward... all they wanted to do was play the same crap that's been played for 300 years. At one point, half the winds in the orchestra dropped out because they got sick of playing dead, boring music... the strings threw fits anytime music was passed out that was remotely modern - and in their eyes, 1920's was "modern". After speaking with one of my string friends in the orchestra at the time, she even admitted to me that the string section deliberately played "modern" pieces poorly so as to discourage the conductor from programming them.

A good example of this is my mother (lol). Yesterday she told me that she only listens to a piece like Elgar's Cello Concerto for those great moments, but doesn't necassarily pay much attention to the rest of the music. Even with tonal works, I honestly think 99% of the general public will not consciously listen to every note, and will most likely phase in and out between these 'moments'. Truly, most people only listen out for a well written, well accompanied melody, and atonality doesn't really provide this for them. You've got to remember that most people don't think about music in the way that composers or songwriters do!

Then again, I don't write particularly atonal music (though I'm writing one now that could be attributed somewhat as such), I consider atonality a technique, not a genre. Does that make me a bad composer?

Well, that's symphony orchestras for you. Often the most conservative and apathetic kind of music institution you'll find these days. (No clue whether it always was like that.) I'm sure there are exceptions of course.

Oh, there are definitely exceptions. There are orchestras that actively promote new music, but they are few and far between. That's one reason I'm always puzzled that so many student composers spend so much time trying to write for orchestra. Where is it going to be played? Why are their teachers not pointing this out?

EDIT: I have to self-edit here... Learning to write for orchestra is important, as all the lessons learned can be applied to any kind of music you write. Perhaps I should have indicated that I am puzzled that student composers spend too much time exclusively writing for orchestra, as if it were the be-all and end-all goal of composition. :EDIT

While the orchestra as an institution is not dead, it certainly is attempting a slow suicide through apathy.

And then there's always the chance of making a chamber orchestra, or a big ensemble piece. These things are much more within reach than a symphonic orchestra.

Less people you need, the better your chances.

They had no interest in new works, they had no interest in pushing music forward...

flint, I'm sure a symphony orchestra would play a new work if whomever made the decisions thought it was a good piece of music. The decision makers aren't necassarily going to have good taste however..!

For the time, Mars the Bringer of war might have seemed very contempary and new, but it got played. Nothing to do with it sounding old, more to do with it sounding good. If you want something played it's in your interest to make it accessible. Accessible doesn't have to mean boring either.

As for musicians not wanting to push music forward, they would rather it be pushed in a direction that resulted in them making more money. I.e by playing music that the general public will want to go and see. 'Innaccessible' music is not profitable for musicians in the grand scheme of things, and I guarantee they'd rather play a new piece of music that, rather than isolating composers and musicians from the audience, inspires an entire generation to go and see more classical works.

More performances means more money for musicians. Tschaikovsky's piano concerto no.1 is a widely loved piece of music, which will inevitably still get performed a fair bit. Whether or not you think Boulez' piano sonata is moving music in the right direction is irrelevent, because a piece like that generally makes people think that composers and musicians have simply lost touch with their audience. They would rather listen to Elgar's Cello Concerto again than listen to a new piece of avante garde music, and I personally would too.

I agree that learning to write for orchestra is important. However, I think that with the advances in sampling technology and computers what you will be learning to do is write for orchestra so that a computer can realise it. I think that this is where I am heading as a composer. Getting a radio broadcast of a recording that you have realised yourself is much easier than finding an interested orchestra. But your music has to sound like an orchestra so the old techniques of good orchestration still apply. And I think that starting from where your mother's ( or wife/girlfriend/husband/partner/etc.) tastes are is a good point. If your music cant relate to the people you are closest too, who are you relating to?

tastes are is a good point. If your music cant relate to the people you are closest too, who are you relating to?

I think the best music would relate not only to your close friends/family, but to musicians and composers. In other words, music that everybody enjoys. These are the pieces that have stood the test of time.

However, I think that with the advances in sampling technology and computers what you will be learning to do is write for orchestra so that a computer can realise it.

I think in all honesty, a piece can only fulfill its potential, when played by real musicians. Plus I would argue that it is difficult to get down what you have in your head on a computer, because the sound of a fake orchestra kinda restricts your musical thought. I have used a computer for every piece I've written so far, but now I am learning to write music properly so I can get down what's in my head without having to hear an inferior version of it played back to me!

After all, are there really that many people out there who remember Henry Cowell?

Yes. Most of them are professional musicians or music theorists, but that was the case even when Cowell was alive.

I like atonal as long as it doesn't make my ears bleed, something like John Adams.

Yes. Most of them are professional musicians or music theorists, but that was the case even when Cowell was alive.

Outside of musical circles I doubt hardly anybody has heard of him at all. Rachmaninov on the other hand...

Outside of musical circles I doubt hardly anybody has heard of him at all. Rachmaninov on the other hand...

Rachmaninov is likely just as unrecognizable a name as Henry Cowell. Once you stray from Bach, Beethoven, Mozart: the BIG THREE in classical music, John Q. Public doesn't know anyone.