Atonal Music

I'm trying to learn more about atonal music. One way I've had it explained to me, is "anything goes." Which I partially agree with. But then I hear about some atonal music that has rules to go along with it. Like the using all 12 tones before repeating them.

So I guess the real question I ask is, what ways is atonal music organized? Are there times when it isn't?

I'm also wondering, where is atonal music used? I mean, you're probably not going to listen to this at the dinner table, to help you relax. I don't hear a lot of atonal music being played in big concert halls. Are there movies that use it? I know some movie music is more dissonant than others, but I'm not sure whether I'd categorize it as atonal.

Also, who are some of the more famous composers of this style? Or some songs people like that fall under this category.

Thanks.

Wikipedia is your friend (until she lies behind your back the little...)

Atonal music, as well as other techniques, are very common in the outer reaches of Jazz, Rock, and Metal, and concerts of most "modern" music is highly atonal. Atonal, however, can be a relative term. The Requiem for a Dream soundtrack was mostly atonal, if memory serves.

However, atonality isn't necessarily harsh to the ears... I'd argue Harmelodics (ornette coleman's professed style) is an Atonal concept, and that's got some cool melodies and things.

Whoever explained atonality to you as "anything goes" had no idea what they were talking about.

First off, clarity: "atonal" means only "not tonal". Therefore, by the very strictest definition, music that is modal is "not tonal".

As for music that has no tonal center (which we will assume as the definition we are looking for of "atonality"), there are literally hundreds if not thousands, of ways of dealing with it, structurally.

There is very little non-tonal music that is not as highly ordered and "regulated" (if you will) as tonal music.

When Schoenberg began experimenting with non-tonal concepts, he very quickly came to the realization that SOME form of organizational principle was necessary.

While there is music that is alleatoric (ie: a lot of the specificities of exact pitch, or rhythm, are left up to the performer), more often than not, beneath all of the seemingly gratuitous "improvisation", there is still a firm set of "rules" which regulate what is happening.

12-tone (dodecaphonic) and serial music are among the earliest forms of non-tonal musical organization.

Remember that for music to be considered "tonal", the hierarchy of chords/tones in a scale has to be present. In tonal music, it is considered a given that the dominant leads to the tonic, that the subdominant or submediant prepare the dominant, that the leading tone moves inexorably towards the tonic, etc... these are the "rules" of tonality.

As soon as you start to extend these rules, creating "exceptions" if you will, you are moving away from "strictly tonal" music. Modality (the use of non-major/minor modes) was one means of achieving this. Many modes do not contain what could be perceived as a traditional leading tone, or even a dominant. This already creates an ambiguity, breaking the sense of "traditional" tonality.

For prime examples of this movement away from strict "tonality", the works of the French impressionists are 'de rigueure' in your studies. Their use of "non-functional" dominant 9th and 11th chords, of added note harmony, and non-resolving dissonance, were the first steps away from the traditional rules of tonal harmony. Some works by Debussy and Ravel push so hard the boundaries of tonality that they are in effect the precursors of atonality. (ie: Trois po

The first thing to keep in mind is that atonality is not a term used by the first so-called "atonal" composers themselves, but something they were called by others. Sch

EDIT: I was still writing this post when QCC posted his, so sorry for answering some things that he already answered (and probably better).

No problem.. the more info, the better.

Yeah, thanks guys. This is awesome.

I think the person explaining atonality was just oversimplifying it. That's all.

So now, I'm wondering. Is atonal music more often mathematics? Or is alot of it based on whether it sounds right or wrong? It seems like some atonal music is so structured, it's more of an equation than a song. While some, it still seems like music, but they aren't bound by as many rules. So which happens more often?

Music is a science and mathmatical to begin with, and then you throw in emotions, subjectivity, and artistry and you can have debates that never, ever end (I have been caught up in too many and don't plan on starting another).

Sounding right or wrong is up to the composer. I am writing a string quartet that when played back, I had a "wrong note." That wrong note created a prallel third between the violins when I wanted a parallel 4th (counter-balanced by what the cello was doing). Now, a few 100 years ago, the parallel 3rd would be correct and the parallel 4th (that I wanted) would be the devil's influence. I hope this makes sense.

Back to atonal structure, I have experienced it in many different ways. I am working on someone else's composition for piano that is atonal and it sort of drives me crazy because it really does feel like a bunch of random notes under my fingers, BUT I know what they were doing--each reiteration of the melody is simply a whole step above the preceeding iteration, but the archetecture of the melody makes it feel always random. It sounds random, too, unless you see the score and pick it apart to see what is really going on.

I have worked on other atonal pieces that even without a score you can tell what the formula is and it is very easy to "understand."

So, to sum it up, you can write atonal music with or without structure. I think larger, more mature works have structure, even if it's difficult to decipher, but I could be wrong.

My very early successful atonal piece was for flute and piano. While writing it, I thought I was being atonal and completely random. After analyzing my own work, while in fact it was atonal, I realized I subconciously wrote with the type of structure I had used in many other, more romantic-sounding compositions.

The only truly random atonal piece I have personally written was intentionally aleatoric. So, despite using a method to randomly come up with the notes, it was still on purpose, so is that still a structure?

I hope this adds to the conversation; I am in a rambling mood today...

So now, I'm wondering. Is atonal music more often mathematics?

not more often than not, but it is a wholly acceptable way to do it. But I've don't tonal pieces using strict mathematics too...

Or is alot of it based on whether it sounds right or wrong?

Yeah, and sometimes "right" is "wrong," if that makes any sense.

It seems like some atonal music is so structured, it's more of an equation than a song. While some, it still seems like music, but they aren't bound by as many rules. So which happens more often?

If you asked this at different points in history, you'd get different answers. You have people like Milton Babbitt, who used tons of serializations in his music, and people like Scriabin who used very few...

If it means anything, I prefer "mathematical" composing for computer...

The only example I can think of right now of mathematics in music is from Xenakis' stuff. Really complex junk I doubt even he listened to very often, but are fascinating anyways.

Xenakis is fun to look at.

His music, not his face, I mean.

Xenakis rocks. And his electronic music is some of the best I know.

But yeah, as has been said: "Atonal" music can be formulaic, but just as well purely intuitively composed. And in 90% of all cases it's a mixture between structural foundations and intuition. (I actually really hate the word "intuition", but I'm tired and a bit drunk and don't want to think of another word, so deal with it!) I can't say in which direction the exact average leans, but there's definitely plenty of "atonal music" of all shades.

Interestingly, the extremes on both sides often sound the most similar. If you compare some pieces by Cage which are entirely created by random decisions with some earlier Boulez pieces in which every musical parameter follows strict formulas (like "Structures"), you'll notice that they don't sound that differently. When the degree of complexity is so extreme, pretty much all humans are simply incapble of still hearing the structures and it begins to sound arbitrary. That's probably one of the reasons the strictest forms of serialism didn't prevail beyond the 1950s. The later Boulez/Stockhausen/Nono pieces, while sometimes still complex, make use of techniques that are much more free, sometimes involving random processes or some very simple elements.

Xenakis' music is a bit of a special case there: It applies very complex mathematical models (mathematically much more advanced than the structures of any other composer I know), yet in a more direct fashion than the serialist composers, resulting in music that is both "strange" (since it doesn't use the musical cliches we're so used to and is extremely "blunt" and direct at doing its own thing) yet very straightforward and clearly directed at the same time. It's probably more comparable with the music of Ligeti and Penderecki, as they all use the sounds of an ensemble/orchestra as many-sided sound masses, in contrast to the the more typically serialist way of treating them chamber-musically as independant voices.

People like Brian Ferneyhough (who by the way is highly influenced by Xenakis), who still complex in a highly complex fashion today, have quite different approaches to combine high complexity with relative clarity than the serialist composers of the 1950s. For example to emphasize the role of musical gestures and physical movements in contrast to "mere note sequences".

For a modern example of pure "as you feel it," you could look at the Japanese noise artist Merzbow, since we're on computer musicians.

Now that's atonal..... and a-everything.

Xenakis rocks.

True.

And I had the pleasure of studying with the only pianist (that I know of) who is learning and recording all of the piano music of Xenakis. It's ridiculously amazing how impossible the music seems but so easy to watch being performed.

/threadjack

Unlike Stockhausen's which is impossible to watch and play all the same...

Though Klavierstuck X is amazing.

Threads like this really disappoint me. They demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of what composition is all about. Of course 'atonal' (for want of a better word) music is structured. i guess my music's not really featured a strong 'tonal' presence since my early 20s, simply because it's not relevant to anything. There are so many aspects that are part of the compositional landscape: melody & harmony of course, timbre, behaviour, density, dynamic range, forms of interaction & reaction...

Much of the time - & i say this without any intended unkindness - those who find it hard to 'understand' 'atonal' music are simply those you have some way to go before reaching a more mature comprehension of what music is, & - more importantly, what it can be.

simply because it's not relevant to anything.

That's the only part of your post I disagree with.

Ex-penumbrae, I feel that you have missed the purpose of this thread. It is not a misunderstanding of atonal music. Or even a lack of understanding really. This is a thread in which we are to learn more. In this thread, we have discussed how "atonal" music can be structured and how it isn't sometimes. We've discussed some composers of different styles of "atonalism." This is a place where we are either explaining or trying to learn. And you come in saying that this thread is a dissappointment because people don't understand composition. Realize, everyone has to start somewhere. So don't complain at the people trying to learn more. That just doesn't make sense my friend.

I don't believe that this thread shows at all a complete lack of awareness of anything. Every one here has contributed something to this thread, even if they are just opinions. Which, art really is opinionated, isn't it?

Also, some of us may not have this "mature comprehension," but we are trying. Which is why I put up this thread. So that I can build my comprehension of music. Which I'm almost sure everyone at this site is trying to do.

Another side of atonality is free jazz.. Peter Brotzmann is nuts on that, so's John Zorn, or his cohort Trevor Dunn.

Also of interest is the Rova Quartet... they're a ... sax? quartet that does avant music. They have an album with Fred Frith that's nuts.

And then stuff like grindcore, which is its own thing