Is atonal music dead?

So, you don't care about what people think? You will because it's people who decide what music rises the ranks and gets played. You can't actually tell me that you don't mind if all your work stays on your computer with nobody but your immediate friends and family hearing it, as opposed to being critically acclaimed by a world-wide audience.

If you want to make MONEY, you aren't going to try to make ART, you'll try to make MONEY.

MONEY lies in trends, popular stuff, etc etc. Then it doesn't matter what the composer wants, it matters what the target demographic wants.

I for one don't mind if all my work isn't performed (despite the fact it has been) if it means doing crap I don't want to do, or write what I don't want to write. I have the final say on how my music sounds like, screw what anyone else thinks or says, period.

So what if I don't become "famous" so what if I don't get loads of moneys? That's not why I write music at all, and I feel sorry for anyone who has this as their ultimate goal since chances are, it's mighty difficult to "get anywhere" unless you do the typical show business dance & game, and even then usually getting off the ground may as well take years or may never happen.

If your emphasis is on making money or pleasing audiences, you have your work cut out for you. Watch popular movies, see what the demographics consume, and just recycle and sell it back to them. It's pretty simple.

PS: To further push the point home, there is no middle ground between "what the audience wants" and the composer wants. If there is, it's by chance or the composer is specifically shooting to please the audience. But, really now, isn't this all obvious?

If your emphasis is on making money or pleasing audiences, you have your work cut out for you. Watch popular movies, see what the demographics consume, and just recycle and sell it back to them. It's pretty simple.

No thanks. I'd rather change how music is listened to.

I for one don't mind if all my work isn't performed (despite the fact it has been)...

I admire the sentiment but I would say for myself that I do want my works performed, and I work very hard to make that happen. I do not, however, do it for fame, money, et al., but for personal and professional satisfaction and growth.

...if it means doing crap I don't want to do, or write what I don't want to write.

I have, on very rare occasion, been asked to compose something (for money or gratis)... and they were things that I did not particularly want to write. You can write something that is still your work and for the audience, but I believe it's a balance. That's a personal choice, of course. If you choose not to do so, I support that as well.

I would caution y'all about being satisfied with your works not being played.

Music that isn't played isn't music... it's just paper.

I have, on very rare occasion, been asked to compose something (for money or gratis)... and they were things that I did not particularly want to write. You can write something that is still your work and for the audience, but I believe it's a balance. That's a personal choice, of course. If you choose not to do so, I support that as well.

But this is the best trick! To manage to find a way to please your client, as well as yourself. This is the best trick in the world!

I'm right now, writing a "song" for a choir about "summer"! The lyrics are fine, romantic, etc, nothing like me. The song is tonal, and needs to be tonal all the way.

It's up to me to take the challenge to the next level and make something that I enjoy making. ;)

I would caution y'all about being satisfied with your works not being played.

Music that isn't played isn't music... it's just paper.

And electronic music? And so on? There's also experimental stuff that don't necessarily need to be done to see what would happen.

Nevermind that shooting for a performance is fine, but I'd not stress that too much. Look at Ives' Symphonies nobody wanted to play. I mean, he didn't stop writing despite the fact nobody would play his music.

Cage also comes to mind, there's a lot of stuff you just have to "Do it yourself". Know a cellist? Write for cello. Know a singer? Write for that singer. Keep pieces "performable" just by actually knowing those who can or want to perform it. If you don't know anyone to play something, it's still OK to write it.

In fact, I'd say that writing stuff down is the single most important thing a composer can do. Hearing it back by real performers is always super fine and scraggy, but chances are that double symphony for 4 organs and 100 people choir isn't going to get performed ever, but it shouldn't stop you from writing such thing.

So, I'd be careful saying that whatever isn't played isn't music. Sure, if it's on paper it's not actual SOUND, but it's like plans for a building, just because the building hasn't been built, doesn't mean it never will be. Nevermind that once you have the plans you can build a thousand of the buildings with them. Same for a score.

I'd also be careful stressing so much on performance, since I'd rather people write what they want to write. You never know how it's going to roll, and having pieces finished is always a strong point even if you can not get a performance immediately or later it still means repertoire, experience, and so on.

So yeah, I don't agree with what you said there at the end.

So, I'd be careful saying that whatever isn't played isn't music. Sure, if it's on paper it's not actual SOUND, but it's like plans for a building, just because the building hasn't been built, doesn't mean it never will be. Nevermind that once you have the plans you can build a thousand of the buildings with them. Same for an score.

I think that's what he's saying. Notes on paper isn't music any more than lines on paper is a building. Blueprints don't do anything unless someone actually builds your buildings. I could design the most elaborate, amazing building (also elaborately impractical) on paper, but that doesn't mean I'm a good architect.

But this is the best trick! To manage to find a way to please your client, as well as yourself. This is the best trick in the world!

I'm right now, writing a "song" for a choir about "summer"! The lyrics are fine, romantic, etc, nothing like me. The song is tonal, and needs to be tonal all the way.

It's up to me to take the challenge to the next level and make something that I enjoy making. ;)

I agree... I think that some people here do not realize that not every work is written as a "masterpiece". Some works, like it or not, are only "etudes".

For example, my work in the Major Works forum started off as an experiment that was prompted when someone asked me (off-handedly) why I never wrote anything with a harp part.

Not every work one writes is a gem, but every work written functions as an etude for the composer in some form.

I think that's what he's saying. Notes on paper isn't music any more than lines on paper is a building. Blueprints don't do scraggy unless someone actually builds your buildings. I could design the most elaborate, amazing building (also elaborately impractical) on paper, but that doesn't mean I'm a good architect.

...???????????

Blueprints do a whole loving lot, without them building the damn thing is impossible. Nevermind being a good architect has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Having your music performed doesn't ensure you'll be a "good composer" or any of that, in fact it can end up being the opposite depending on the experience.

Srsly.

PS: Think of it like, Having score = possible to perform something (regardless of probability). Having nothing = Impossible to perform it, since what is there to perform? I'd rather have SOMETHING than NOTHING. You never know when having a piece for 2 Violas you wrote on a whim is going to come handy, or that thing for Orchestra you wrote and put on the shelf. I've known people to quit writing something after they were told "haha lolz nobody will play this" more or less, which is very scrafty. One thing is not playing it because it's impossible (contra F on oboe...) but another is just because the right set of circumstances haven't come around. If the score is properly written, at least you can start TRYING to find performers if you want in the first place.

Having your music performed doesn't ensure you'll be a "good composer" or any of that, in fact it can end up being the opposite depending on the experience.

That was my point. I think the point of truth is when one comes to that realization. (In fact, there are several composers on this forum who are laboring under the delusion that their work is above reproach, suggestions, or commentary because, in their words, "I've had it performed".)

The whole theory vs. practice argument.

Nevermind that shooting for a performance is fine, but I'd not stress that too much. Look at Ives' Symphonies nobody wanted to play. I mean, he didn't stop writing despite the fact nobody would play his music.

That's a difficult topic, as there are basically two "types" of composers (which of course overlap): One, like Ives, or the Russian "Mighy Five" earns their money with entirely non-musical jobs and only composes in their spare time. The other tries to earn their living with composing. Both, in most cases, want to create art, but both have their ways of earning the money they need to live. Ives didn't need his symphonies to be played, as he earned money well enough in the insurance business. Composers like Haydn on the other hand wrote because it was "their job" and a certain compositorial output was expected from them.

I don't think such considerations necessarily make a composition less valuable, or less artistic and composers such as Bach were extremely good at "doing their duty" (and writing cantata after cantata because he had to) while still doing entirely his own thing and not bending to what the audience would have loved most to hear.

I'm not saying that "doing one's duty" is a necessity as a composer, not in the least. But I don't think it makes your compositions less personal and valid, as long as you know precicely what you want and don't make concessions where you feel it would corrupt your music.

I also find that "writing because you have to" has certain artistic advantages: If you only do what you want all the time, you might after a while notice that you begin repeating yourself in your musical articulations, as you keep writing in ways where you feel comfortable.

If you're happy with that, that's fine, but personally I also write music to discover areas that are new to me, to explore, to expand my musical experience. And this can sometimes be easier if there's something from the outside "forcing" you into something where you might not feel totally comfortable and at home first, but which may lead to musical insights that you couldn't have got otherwise. I don't really like it when in my own music every note feels totally natural and logical. I much prefer it when I find elements in it that are somewhat strange to me, that I don't really understand myself, but which invite me to explore them more.

I've quite often written for instruments which I didn't pick myself, but for which I was given the opportunity of a performance. Actually, it's already been quite a while since I wrote my last piece that was entirely "my own idea" (even though I really want to do such a piece again now). In any case, this fact has often forced me to think about musical questions I had avoided until then and the pieces which have resulted out of this have generally been great experiences I wouldn't have wanted to miss.

I don't think you have to write for a performance. You can write whatever you want for whatever reason, really. But a life performance is always something entirely different to just looking at a score and the actual, physical experience of listening to your music is one of the main reasons I write. And while the act of writing music is a musical act independantly of whether it is actually performed, I think I got to agree with the sentiment that ultimately something is only music when it reaches its intended goal, i.e. usually a performance. Leaving aside very conceptual things, music is about sound in the end, no matter if it's a piano sonata, an electronic piece, written as a very free graphical score to be turned into music in whatever way one likes, or even three movements of ”tacet".

Of course it's a highly difficult topic, as you can hardly say that the later life of Beethoven was without music, despite the lack of anything audible for his ears. But maybe we have to be consistent and say that Beethoven's later life was in fact without music, as strange as this must feel to us (and despite the fact that Beethoven probably didn't feel as if his life was without music). But I think in the end it's probably just a question of terminology.

Well, not exactly. That's one way to look at it, but the more time needed to write "for work" the less time you get for writing "for you." Not that occasionally you can strike a balance between both, but it's highly unlikely that happens often unless you just happen to love the hell out of the stuff you have to write for work.

Plus, I don't enjoy the idea of making something I love my JOB. Nevermind that after a while if you keep working on writing stuff you'll run out of material or forced into just recycling stuff. It's impossible to expect anyone to be always creative on-demand. Bach himself couldn't do it, nor could Haydn arguably.

I'm for the Ives, etc approach personally. You can also work teaching if you have a good enough education, which is fine by me too. I'd also be OK actually playing an instrument for a living, which a lot of composers have also done.

But for me composition has to remain "my thing." Otherwise, I'd get into fistfights with people daily (happened already) over stuff I want, and like I said, I DO and WILL have the final say on what I write (which has gotten me into problems before, but bring'em on!)

Just like when you write something and the musicians who are to perform it suggest changes and want to "play composer." I find that musicians have the right to an opinion, sure, and I like to hear it if they got it. But from that to actually changing what I wrote, is not something I do. I may do that if I'm writing something in conjunction with a musician, where we can exchange ideas and then it's fine. But after something is done, for me is done. I don't do "corrections" unless they're technical or for the sake of practicality (score clean up, etc etc.)

But I digress, lol. Derail.

PS: The whole "hearing music" thing is really hard to describe properly. The stuff I hear in my head always sounds better than the real performance anyways, hahahaha. Though, I've been positively surprised by performances where things were different than I intended. I like that aspect of performance as the main reason why I'd want something performed at all, so I can see how other people actually see/play the thing and how different it is from what I originally intended.

SSC, there is not a single composer who doesn't ultimately want their work to be heard by lots of people. I'm not implying we should only write for money!

You can still make art and have people enjoy it. It takes an exceptional work to be both popular and masterful (and of course lots of luck) but it's possible.

I can completely see where your coming from and I think on exactly the same lines, but I often change my work based on opinion (not public opinion, just friends and family). I would never go as far as intentionally sacrificing a piece's artistic merit so that it appealed to loads of people (ie dumbing down). You don't have to make something bad to make something popular however, but I still argue the importance of some kind of melodic hook or motif.

SSC, there is not a single composer who doesn't ultimately want their work to be heard by lots of people. I'm not implying we should only write for money!

You can still make art and have people enjoy it. It takes an exceptional work to be both popular and masterful (and of course lots of luck) but it's possible.

I guess I'm not a composer then, eh? I'm happy that one person has listened and enjoyed something I wrote, that's all I can wish for and it has been the case (I hope!) so I'm pretty OK with not being heard by millions or transcending time and space, blah blah.

Would it be nice that my pieces were played all over the world? Maybe. I can't speculate on something so far fetched at the moment, and I wouldn't know if that'd be good at all since I'd be typecast into whatever gets played more often, which I probably wouldn't have any say on.

Well, not exactly. That's one way to look at it, but the more time needed to write "for work" the less time you get for writing "for you." Not that occasionally you can strike a balance between both, but it's highly unlikely that happens often unless you just happen to love the hell out of the stuff you have to write for work.

Plus, I don't enjoy the idea of making something I love my JOB. Nevermind that after a while if you keep working on writing stuff you'll run out of material or forced into just recycling stuff. It's impossible to expect anyone to be always creative on-demand. Bach himself couldn't do it, nor could Haydn arguably.

Sorry for using me as an example (again), but:

My scholarship covers my Phd fees and a monthly stripend. I also work in computer games, by choice (and have the PhD by choice again). Although I am getting tired of (still) being a student and would like to dedicate full time to a job, I have to admit that mostly I'm quite happy with what I have to write, very much so!

As for something you love, your job, etc, it does seem a little outwordly really. Sorry.

I feel the exact opposite. I've spent all my life, pretty much, in music and could not see me do anything else! I simply don't know how anymore. All I know is... to compose (and teach and other things around music, like play the piano, for example).

I actually figured that one out 2-3 years ago: My younger son was just been born and my wife and I were struggling to get by. So I started searching for part time job! You simply won't believe what I tried. Tescos (super market) and Waitrose (again super market), IKEA (for gently caresses shake), night guard (I was in the military police). I failed in every single one job. Someone told me that generally jobs like that don't really like people with Masters degrees, etc, cause they know it's for a tiny bit and don't fancy people who generally don't give a scraggy!

Thing is though that then I pondered, why not try to compose something for money. And effortless enough it came! It was a great joy to see it happen and... I didn't fail!

I mean it simply makes sense. Study all those years music to become... a janitor? Wait a minute!?!?!???!

In all wanting to do "what I want" and being all about fist fighting (!) about it, seems a tad arrogant! Simply enough. Why? Because noone is right 100%, because you do need to find the balance yourself to be happy, because you don't compose to get yourself out, this is autism, or masturbation, and can be done in the toilet, you compose to get yourself out TO THE PUBLIC, to communicate, to speak, if you want (otherwise, really why do you compose?). So the public also gets a say in this, even if you want to be 100% indiependant, etc.

And Bach, Beethoven and all da sh@t were all dependant of other sources and didnt' always do what they wanted.

Being a composer and being creative has nothing to do with "I want to write now, so I do, or I don't want so I won't". It never has been this way and I sure hope that it never does!

Gosh this post ended more aggressive than it should! Sorry... :-/

Yes I know that the chances of anybody - regardless of talent - having their works played in a huge orchestral, televised event are very, very low. That doesn't mean that we should give up on this hope. I personally have to believe that I can eventually achieve this, even if I have huge doubt, because otherwise there wouldn't be much point in writing. I don't know why I feel this way but I simply cannot express how important it is for me to ultimately fulfill this goal. Simply put, you have to aim high!

Another idea is that, if you write something accessible it might afford you a bit of popularity, which will give you the chance to write the music YOU want, and have it heard! It might sound like selling out, but think of Ravel and his Bolero. Ravel is a highly competent composer, who has written some extremely enjoyable work. He hated the Bolero, but it ensured that his name became widely known. We all know the Bolero is simplistic (still imo a great piece of music) but would we be listening to The Tombeau de Couperin if it wasn't for the Bolero?

Oh btw SSC I greatly admire the fact that you write the music you want to in your spare time. I do the same, but every now and then I try to do some kind of documentary music to get my name known a bit, or just to get some experience. In all honestly, depsite the fact that what I came up with was not a symphonic masterpiece, it was actually good for what it was. I totally agree that at the end of the day, you must write works that come from your very soul and in a sense define who you are (musically!), but you can still make a techno-ish computer game piece your own, even if it doesn't represent you greatest musical ideas.

I mean it simply makes sense. Study all those years music to become... a janitor? Wait a minute!?!?!???!

Yes, I understand YOUR particular position and indeed in your case it makes absolute sense.

But, using me as an example, I only got into music after having studied other junk (unix/linux system administration, blah blah blah, IT junk) and I had a job and did freelance work in that field. After I got into music, I still did that (and then I left the continent lol.)

Plus, I do a TON of other things besides writing music, of which I have worked in more than one occasion for cash. I like music, I think music is great, but music is only a fraction of all the stuff that I do and am at the end.

So, everyone's experience is different and I can understand your position precisely because I had an entirely different life experience. In your case, it was the wisest thing to do, in my case it's an option as I can work in a lot of other junk with a reasonable degree of proficiency (I've even written articles for newspapers, magazines, done translations, designed websites...)

I don't believe in dedicating my life to any one single thing, but to every single thing. So, with that in mind, I hope is clear why I have the attitude towards music and such that I do, and it's clear why in your case it wouldn't make any sense.

PS: Added of course to the fact that I don't have kids, and in fact I have no idea what I'll be doing in a year or even where I'll be in two or three years. Right now a lot of stuff could happen in my life which would change it in a lot of ways, and it's always been that way so I've learned to be versatile. So...!

Oh... I didn't know that SSC! Fair enough! :)

I think that's what he's saying. Notes on paper isn't music any more than lines on paper is a building. Blueprints don't do scraggy unless someone actually builds your buildings. I could design the most elaborate, amazing building (also elaborately impractical) on paper, but that doesn't mean I'm a good architect.

In fact, it does... An architect doesn't build the buildings he designs. He juts designs/draws them, and gives them to someone else who will overview the builders while creating this building. So, a composer would give the score to a conductor who would overview the players play it.

So you may be a bloody good composer, even if your music doesn't get performed. What if you have a score in front of you, and no music? Is it a piece of music? Or if a recording of it has been made somewhere, sometime, by some people (but to which you have absolutely no access to) makes it suddenly music? What if you die and you still haven't listened to a recording of that piece, and someone else had - can you claim by the end of your life that that piece of paper that the particular composer wrote is not music because you haven't heard a performance of it? :S

Atonal music isn't dead. Serialism, maybe, but not atonality in general. You'd be hard-pressed to find a modern composition that doesn't incorporate some amount of atonality, or at least a shaky tonality. And music is still music, it's just not sound until it's played. There's a difference between music on paper, and sound you can hear. Without the music on the paper in the first place, you can't hear it besides in your head because it's not there to be played. Like I said, music is still music when it's on paper.

EDIT:

I'm kind of sleepy lol, so some of what I just wrote might not make sense. XD

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.

This is very true, especially for 20th and 21st century music. I don't think you can really evaluate the quality of a composer's music based on how well-known that composer is.

This is very true, especially for 20th and 21st century music. I don't think you can really evaluate the quality of a composer's music based on how well-known that composer is.

Of course you can't! But, a composer who produces incredibly sophisticated music and who is incredibly popular must be doing something right!

Of course you can't! But, a composer who produces incredibly sophisticated music and who is incredibly popular must be doing something right!

Something like marketing? Contacts? Selling an image? Catering to a niche market?

Warning: I'm going to do some serious business internet ranting below, so grab on to your hats.

What the gently caress is "incredibly sophisticated" because I'm sure as hell you don't mean Stockhausen or Xenakis and that sort of thing (considering your tastes.) So? Sophisticated?

I mean, I'd argue the most absurdly simple sonatina from Clementi is the epitome of complexity and sophistication just to throw off your argument there.

Either you agree with what the guy said, or you don't, but your mediocre answer is just irritating. Popularity has

ZERO

to do with what is exactly popular, and more to do with culture and mass-marketing systems, demographic catering, and so on. People's goddamn preferences are entirely arbitrary, there's no goddamn objectivity in any of it.

So a composer can only control the "popular" appeal of what they're doing if they COPY what CULTURE arbitrarily dictates is POPULAR.

I'm going to repeat that:

So a composer can only control the "popular" appeal of what they're doing if they COPY what CULTURE arbitrarily dictates is POPULAR.

Is this clear?

Good.

If you want to be popular, you'll just have to sacrifice whatever would make you un-popular in favor of things that'd make you popular.

It TAKES CONTROL AWAY FROM THE COMPOSER to try to be POPULAR.

Why? It's the same'ol argument of "Well, tradition/culture/MTV says this is cool, so I have to use it as to be perceived as "cool." It has nothing to do with the composer's instinct, intuition, none of that. It's the EXACT OPPOSITE. It's taking CONTROL away from the composer and giving it to some random cultural variable!

And there are MANY composers, myself included, that rather like having goddamn control over the music they produce. If it makes us unpopular, so be it! That scraggy is irrelevant so long as our music sounds like we want it to sound.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.

I respect people who have as a goal to be popular, trendy, cater to whatever demographic or tradition niche, so on and on. They're free to do what they want, and I enjoy a lot of music composed with these things in mind. It's not wrong, there's nothing wrong with it.

Get that scraggy through your thick head, before I keep cursing and getting out of line.

There is no wrong or right, there is only music.

Thank you.

ps: I wrote this as a reply to a whole lot of posts that talk about this same sort of thing, with the same sort of irritating attitude, just in case anyone wonders if it's an overreaction, it ain't. scraggy like this accumulates with every retarded post on the interwebs~

If you want to be popular, you'll just have to sacrifice whatever would make you un-popular in favor of things that'd make you popular.

Absolutely not! I don't see how the majority of the variations on a theme of Paganini could be classed as clamouring for popularity. Now the bit that everybody loves, the 18th variation, is certainly not a sacrifice of compositional ability when it is placed alongside complex, exciting, enthralling music. Even in it's own right, it is highly competent, near flawlessly exectuted, and incredibly moving. I doubt that there are many people who wouldn't be moved by it.

Now is my perception of what is incredibly sophisticated based solely on my environment? I'm not so sure to be honest; I prefer the idea of clever melody and clever harmony in tandem, as opposed to one or the other. However my idea of what a clever harmony and what a clever melody is very subjective so I'll agree with you to an extent.

Also, Rachmaninov, early Scriabin, Rimsky Korsakov and the rest of the Russian composers of the time, were hardly only writing works that the public wanted to hear. There's no way I can except that Rachmaninov knew he was selling out with his piano concertos. He wasn't throwing out complete rubbish just to put food on his table.

So a composer can only control the "popular" appeal of what they're doing if they COPY what CULTURE arbitrarily dictates is POPULAR.

Or, they can do something new, and discover that people like it. Otherwise how have we gone from Bach to Benny Goodman? Seriously.

If a composer does something new, and discovers that no one likes it, but doesn't like whatever is currently popular, then try something ELSE new and see if people like that.

Or, they can do something new, and discover that people like it. Otherwise how have we gone from Bach to Benny Goodman? Seriously.

If a composer does something new, and discovers that no one likes it, but doesn't like whatever is currently popular, then try something ELSE new and see if people like that.

Something new, eh?

Because certainly, I'm sure nobody in the baroque period, classic, romantic, etc didn't just bang their pianos out of frustration, or played wrong notes. The difference is they never thought that could be considered valid means of expression (though there ARE experiments, it's been always considered that Mozart or Haydn's experiments were always disguised as "jokes" or "parodies" as it'd be safer on their reputations than if they stood behind them as proper experiments.)

There's nothing new under the sun, there has never been. The question is, is it really people that do new things, or is that people perceive things that have always been around differently (or at all) as time moves on?

PS: Haha, what you're talking about "doing something new and seeing if people like it" is actually manipulating trends by introducing new elements into the popular/trend canon. It still doesn't do anything to help the popularity vs composer problem since if everyone was able to manipulate the public like that we wouldn't be having this conversation!