Relevancy of tonal compositions in the 21st century.

:>

ssc is always contradictory to the kernel of his mind.

'i hate pop music' is as passionate as hell, but nevertheless you were the first to deconstruct this passion...

guys, be what you are and what you want, but don't pretend and counterfeit.

and don't double standartisize.

if free thinking individuality seems not boring and so very interesting, then don't denounce my or anyone else's freedom to free think academically...

To SSC:

"I bet this is not so much about how it sounds, but how it threatens you (or rather, makes you feel threatened) in an artistic/critical way."

This is half true. It is indeed threatening to me in a critical way, but the sound itself also really does disturb me. It feels as if it "hurts" inside to hear these sounds. This bet, unlike all the others you have made so far, is incorrect.

"You forget one of the main traits of the late 1800 music (Liszt, Wagner, Grieg, Janacek, Zemlinsky, Wolf, etc) is the fact that tonality was becoming increasingly blurred on purpose."

The fact that I didn't mention my awareness of something does not make me unaware! It's easy to assume when I don't mention it, but I was going to add an aside regarding Liszt's later pieces "sans tonalitee".. I decided not to, as it was in a sentence that would have made it incoherent. I may be ignorant of many, many things, but do not assume I am ignorant of everything else just because of those.

I make knee-jerk reactions to so much "atonal" music because its character is just that to me... it shocks me. It will continue to shock me... and not in a "Eroica" sort of way. There is really no way to justify my ignorance, and I really do just loathe the idea of studying and researching atonal music because of the music itself. This is ridiculous, I realize, but I'm just human. If I don't care for an era, I don't research it or its beginnings. I should have said this, but I dislike Wagner and later Liszt, generally. There are certain lines, indescribable lines for my current knowledge, that they cross.

Heck, now I'm just being headstrong. The only reason I keep replying is to attempt to keep some foothold on my shattered pride in knowledge. The only point I really want to make now is that you are profoundly in error if you think that I asked about critics just so I could conform to what they want. I merely wished to find out what to expect from the modern academic/critical community, and I have absolutely no wish to follow them just because they are prominent. Even if their opinions happened to coincide exactly with my idea of "good music", I would keep making "good music" because I wish to, not out of some will to be a good boy for the masses.

I am sorry for being such a prude... but it is very difficult to let go of the lies I have told myself and others just to rationalize my views on post-Grosse Fuge music. I have been here not one full day, and already you have shattered a part of my arrogant resolve. Thank you! I still dislike Wagner, though.... but who knows. Maybe one day I will be sitting in the Met thinking of this same argument, listening to "Das Rheingold" for the seventh time.

I know what I want to say, but I am utterly horrid at saying it. Perhaps I'll just stick to musical phrases to say it, instead. Anything to avoid improving my knowledge of modern music, of course! That reminds me of the original purpose of this thread. In asking "is tonality irrelevant", there comes the other question I want to ask: is it even possible to define modern music? More or less, things from 1827-1886 could generally be called "Romantic", under that definition of "Romanticism", but what does "Modernism" mean? Is today's music even called "Modernism"? If you think I should just find out on my own, can you at least recommend avenues that I could use to find out? I am quite new to this sort of research, being only nineteen, after all.

sure, you might be existential type of free-thinker, it doesn't change nothing i've said :)

See...when you talk like that, it's really easy to dismiss you as a slightly-illiterate buffoon who uses big words, yet can't form a coherent sentence.

I'm not trying to change what you said. I don't really understand what you're trying to say. You believe that we, as humans, have no distinct personality? That we (through our lifetimes of influences and experiences) can't formulate our own distinct tastes?

Can you dumb it all down a bit for me?

...and of course academical thinking is bad, but learning music in academia is good?

nevertheless, i think free-thinking individuality is an oxymoron.

and still, it doesn't stop me from thinking that i get what you mean by that.

:)

It's certainly not an oxymoron, otherwise, I wouldn't play the way I do; compose the music I do; eat, sleep, think, talk, read...

Granted, some genetic dispositions help me along the way, but I prefer to look at the small picture (not historical or galactical)...

ssc is always contradictory to the kernel of his mind.

'i hate pop music' is as passionate as hell, but nevertheless you were the first to deconstruct this passion...

guys, be what you are and what you want, but don't pretend and counterfeit.

and don't double standartisize.

if free thinking individuality seems not boring and so very interesting, then don't denounce my or anyone else's freedom to free think academically...

Contradictory?

I simply know when passion makes for a good argument and when it doesn't. It's called moderation and context, not contradiction.

Can go that way, yes.

I think Nordreise's synaesthesia just goes towards highlighting the subjectivity that's at the core of this issue. Most people don't have access to a synaesthetic plane, so there is at least one more level of subjectivity with which to contend in this particular case, no?

You are correct sir, but the way I went about it was quite arrogant and chest-pounding, in a way that isn't excusable no matter what sort of configuration my brain has. ;)

I really hate getting into "what is music" arguments. When you get into the gear of argument, you often rationalize and say to yourself "well, since I'm wearing this suit I may as well use it to its full potential" and just argue about anything and everything, even if you know it makes no sense. No matter how old or wise we get, we always seem to get too involved and lose the original point. How embarrassing for me! I could have at least done some research before making wild claims. Just as I am in music (that is, completely passionate always), in argument I become too passionate. Thank you for not resorting to insults and personal attacks, though.

See...when you talk like that, it's really easy to dismiss you as a slightly-illiterate buffoon who uses big words, yet can't form a coherent sentence.

I'm not trying to change what you said. I don't really understand what you're trying to say. You believe that we, as humans, have no distinct personality? That we (through our lifetimes of influences and experiences) can't formulate our own distinct tastes?

i'm not sure if you are trying to insult me, but if you are, you do it the wrong way.

i just propose a view on human condition (a purely materialist view, in this case), which tries to get rid of concepts like personality, and which doesn't denounce things like individuality ans stuff. personality and individuality not interchangeable concepts. dogs and cats are individuals, but not persons as humans thoughts or still thinks they are. person is something that cannot be changed and even thought without freewill, but free will is something very suspicious in a materialist ontology. unless you can account for free will, you have no meaningful concept of what a person is.

another issue is how something like a person changes through time and whether we can say i'm the same person i used to be, or if someone can change radically.

you can formulate statements regarding your brain states, which are simply the basis of what you call taste. it's like a report. in time it changes (brain states) and the taste changes and you have different and maybe completely contradictory reports about your brain state.

Contradictory?

I simply know when passion makes for a good argument and when it doesn't. It's called moderation and context, not contradiction.

good for you to have simple knowledge of what is good argument.

i, on my side, just read the argument and see if it makes sense or no.

and, if it is fully dependent on its context, i might as well dismiss it.

for an argument that doesn't make a break in a context, is not an argument, but simple example and sample.

Heck, now I'm just being headstrong. The only reason I keep replying is to attempt to keep some foothold on my shattered pride in knowledge. The only point I really want to make now is that you are profoundly in error if you think that I asked about critics just so I could conform to what they want. I merely wished to find out what to expect from the modern academic/critical community, and I have absolutely no wish to follow them just because they are prominent. Even if their opinions happened to coincide exactly with my idea of "good music", I would keep making "good music" because I wish to, not out of some will to be a good boy for the masses.

I simply made the point about the critics because, honestly, if you don't care from the get-go, why really ask what to expect if you don't CARE? You're asking because you DO, in some manner, care (and this was my point.) As for my assumption concerning your ignorance, I'm not saying you were aware or unaware of any of this, but I'm simply citing it as evidence against your arguments.

I still dislike Wagner, though.... but who knows. Maybe one day I will be sitting in the Met thinking of this same argument, listening to "Das Rheingold" for the seventh time.

I don't like Wagner either, but my job isn't to like or not like Wagner, is to understand who he was and what he meant, who he influenced and what weight his music carried and still carries to this day. I say this a lot but: Taste has no place in musical education.

I know what I want to say, but I am utterly horrid at saying it. Perhaps I'll just stick to musical phrases to say it, instead. Anything to avoid improving my knowledge of modern music, of course! That reminds me of the original purpose of this thread. In asking "is tonality irrelevant", there comes the other question I want to ask: is it even possible to define modern music? More or less, things from 1827-1886 could generally be called "Romantic", under that definition of "Romanticism", but what does "Modernism" mean? Is today's music even called "Modernism"? If you think I should just find out on my own, can you at least recommend avenues that I could use to find out? I am quite new to this sort of research, being only nineteen, after all.

If it's terminology you're worried about, it's easy to clarify it. Modern is relative to context. If you want to talk about music being written right now or in the past 10 or so years, you use "contemporary." If you want to refer to the 20th century at large you can say "modern" and for the later half "post modern." But this is only terminology that is meaningful in a casual conversation. If you're shooting for real accuracy you aren't using any of these terms and instead you're talking about time frames and composers, not simple labels (though then the "technical" label for modernism would be what happened at the turn of the century, followed by the neo-classic/romantic and the post-modern. But this is also, of course, arguable as are all such labels.)

For example I make a very big point in separating the 19th century into to halves, the first half are the early romanticists (Schubert, late Beethoven, etc) and the later half is late romanticists and the beginning of modernism (Schumann, Chopin, Grieg, Wagner, etc.)

There's a good reason to do it as well, the division in style and tendencies ARE a factor here so there is a good solid historical and objective ground from which to guide this rather simple separation, if only for the sake of organizing the tendencies and keeping them easy to access in retrospective.

But, when it comes to writing music right here and now, what you're calling things isn't so important as actually knowing what they are and what they mean. Labels can be discussed ad nauseum, but the history they signify isn't a democracy and without that measure of objectivity it would be pointless to even GET to labeling anything at all.

If you wanted to form your own opinion you should just quite simply look at wikipedia's definitions/opinions on the topic, as a starting point. But you can read all sorts of books or come up with your own terminology if you want. It doesn't really change anything much.

In any case, get out of the "comfort" zone and actually learn even the stuff you don't like, taste-wise. It's all part of a balanced musical education in spite of your personal reservations on the topic. Forget trying to be academic about modern music, when really all you need is to listen to things until something sticks. You never know and never will if you aren't giving it a chance.

i'm not sure if you are trying to insult me, but if you are, you do it the wrong way.

I wasn't trying to insult you...merely trying to get you to use proper grammar, syntax, spelling, etc - erhaps there's a language barrier. You're presenting a confusing and convoluted concept, in an incoherent and incomprehensible manner.

Really, I have no idea what you're talking about. How can dogs or cats be individuals, but not humans?

i just propose a view on human condition (a purely materialist view, in this case), which tries to get rid of concepts like personality, and which doesn't denounce things like individuality ans stuff. personality and individuality not interchangeable concepts. dogs and cats are individuals, but not persons as humans thoughts or still thinks they are. person is something that cannot be changed and even thought without freewill, but free will is something very suspicious in a materialist ontology.

^^

to me sounds like a lot a bullshit, in a garbled presentation.

Which, I suppose is a useful debate tactic...if you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em!!

Anyway, I give up.

SSC, mentioning your penchant for separating the 19th century into two halves interests me greatly. All my life I have been fascinated by two things: maps and history. Divisions are of great import to me, so I naturally asked my question re: relevance and separation between tonality and atonality. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, that distinction isn't as easily made as the distinction between where France sits and where Germany sits.

You are correct in that my primary concern is to attempt to make the best impression to others, even if it is to the detriment of how I feel about something. Always I have had a conflict inside me of presentation vs. inner reality; even now, my primary concern is whether I have offended others or inconvenienced them with my arguments. This is very unlike me, at least the 'me' that prefers rationality and curiosity above patriotic outburst. Usually I am incredibly inquisitive. For example, even though I find Wagner lacking in things which I consider aesthetically pleasing, I end up reading about him (yes, I have plunged into Wikipedia very heavily), then suddenly about the Tristan chord, and before you know it I'm reading about people as far apart as Boulez and Ligeti, Cage and Xenakis. The grand thing about being human is that even though I may say I feel distaste for their music, the classification of history and their place within it fascinates me to no end. I hope this doesn't sound too hypocritical, but .. what does that matter if I'm finding things out?

Either way, in your distaste for attempting to classify atonal vs. tonal, you have classified Chopin, Wagner, and Schumann into a general camp opposite Schubert, Beethoven, et. al. Interesting. ;)

erhaps

Really, I have no idea what you're talking about. How can dogs or cats be individuals, but not humans?

i do make spelling mistakes, which are usually mistypings, as well as you in this case, but i don't seem to get stuck on it.

i didn't say humans are not individuals, i said person is not the same as individual. i said cats and dogs are individuals but not persons, not in a way humans thought and still think about concept of a person.

to me, what i say, is not in any sense garbage and bullshit, if that's how it sounds to you, well, i cannot change that unless we continue discussing.

but apparently you don't want and that's sad, but ok.

Either way, in your distaste for attempting to classify atonal vs. tonal, you have classified Chopin, Wagner, and Schumann into a general camp opposite Schubert, Beethoven, et. al. Interesting. ;)

Classifications and separations exist for ease of reference. But of course, if you're talking about Schumann or Chopin which are right "in the middle" of the transition from the beginning of romanticism to the tendencies later made extreme by Wagner or Liszt, it's difficult to put them really anywhere. Likewise, classifying someone like Janacek is complicated if you're using as reference other composers at the time. Likewise with Faur

i do make spelling mistakes, which are usually mistypings, as well as you in this case, but i don't seem to get stuck on it.

I'm not harping on misspellings. It's the general air of incomprehensibility in your posts. "dogs and cats are individuals, but not persons as humans thoughts or still thinks they are" does not make any sense. Try and express your ideas clearer, please.

i didn't say humans are not individuals, i said person is not the same as individual. i said cats and dogs are individuals but not persons, not in a way humans thought and still think about concept of a person.

to me, what i say, is not in any sense garbage and bullshit, if that's how it sounds to you, well, i cannot change that unless we continue discussing.

but apparently you don't want and that's sad, but ok.

I'm happy to discuss... I just don't have any clue what you're talking about. I also don't want to wreck this thread with these diverging conversations.

The purpose of this thread was originally to establish whether my fear of being utterly rejected for the music I intend to make was grounded in fact, or if it is simply fear without realistic hope of coming true. Would you say it is reasonable to assume that current academic/critical mindsets, adjusting for all the history of music up to this very point, would be more negative toward or positive toward a well-written, personal, and passionate tonal work with precedents in the music of Schubert and Brahms?

The assumption was that: no matter the intensity, skill, or craft of a tonal work which resembles the Brahmsian idiom of mid-to-late-19th century music, it would be refused based solely on the fact that serialism, dodecaphony, et. al. are more recent, and thus, out of human nature, exert a greater influence on the critics today. Do you believe this to be true, or do you believe it is merely alarmist on my part? That is all I really wish to know! "Relevant" was just a word I used, albeit mistakenly, at first.

I'm not harping on misspellings. It's the general air of incomprehensibility in your posts. "dogs and cats are individuals, but not persons as humans thoughts or still thinks they are" does not make any sense. Try and express your ideas clearer, please.

I'm happy to discuss... I just don't have any clue what you're talking about. I also don't want to wreck this thread with these diverging conversations.

i think i cleared that sentence in a previous post.

plus i didn't try to wreck this thread, i just offered author of it other take on issues of tonality/atonality and things.

what i was arguing for was a materialist (and a hardcore materialist) point of view, which (if it's true) makes historical explanations to be just second-handed or secondary story telling about, in this particular case, musical phenomena.

for, if mind and brain are identical, and there's no history except for the material -in a strict sense - one, there is no real difference between individual preferences in a historical sense. simply put - you don't choose what you like, though you might change it. and, having in mind, that you don't choose, it's pretty logical that you shouldn't take things like taste very seriously.

that puts the whole of historical, social and humanist sciences in jeopardy.

plus, i do not say i believe it, i'm just laying down an argument and waiting till someone posts objections to it. and if i see that there are some things hardcore materialism can't account for, i would rethink its arguments and see where they go wrong.

The purpose of this thread was originally to establish whether my fear of being utterly rejected for the music I intend to make was grounded in fact, or if it is simply fear without realistic hope of coming true. Would you say it is reasonable to assume that current academic/critical mindsets, adjusting for all the history of music up to this very point, would be more negative toward or positive toward a well-written, personal, and passionate tonal work with precedents in the music of Schubert and Brahms?

The assumption was that: no matter the intensity, skill, or craft of a tonal work which resembles the Brahmsian idiom of mid-to-late-19th century music, it would be refused based solely on the fact that serialism, dodecaphony, et. al. are more recent, and thus, out of human nature, exert a greater influence on the critics today. Do you believe this to be true, or do you believe it is merely alarmist on my part? That is all I really wish to know! "Relevant" was just a word I used, albeit mistakenly, at first.

Let's not mistake that showing an influence by composers such as Brahms, Boulez or Bach is something TOTALLY different as writing LIKE them.

That's the key difference in acceptance in the (non-bullshit) academic composition world/critique/etc, how much of YOU in is in your music? There's no easy way to go about it, but it's not based on what's newer, it's based on how much is really what you're bringing to the table rather than just copy/pasting models and established parameters (INCLUDING modern conventions.)

I've been gone a while to get away from this academic climate that fumigates these forums.

It's all fine and dandy to make the claim that art should be appreciated in all forms. Seldom have I found academics who make this proclamation ever really take a dose of their own medicine, much less the reality of what such proclamations actually create.

Let me be perfectly clear. This notion of freedom to create has a limit in the academic environment. What one hand gives in artistic license the other hand takes in artistic subjectivity. This makes for a plethora of conflicting and overly critical judgments of works within these circles to the point that almost all credible objectivity is lost in a subjective climate.

SSC makes it a point to explain that "you can have it both ways." The real point to be made here is that you should have it both ways, but you don't. I find it funny that academic minds wish to discredit the past avant garde movement as "a thing of the past which has no bearing on the present." I'll believe that when all authorities from that time who still teach today are dead and gone - and I truly wish no ill will upon these men and women - because this mentality exists and persists still today without a doubt.

It is the equivalent of affirmative action. The music that was once frowned upon for its nuance and nontraditional elements is now hailed for its creative brilliance, so much so that the encouragement and enthusiasm for the age old tonal system has become more lackluster than ever. Some can be very hard pressed to find that enthusiasm for the use of tonal elements in music, or worse, assume that it is thoroughly taught from beginning to execution in theory alone. It is the affirmation of nontraditional musical techniques that supercedes the necessity of traditional compositional technique.

What is the reasoning behind my view that this affirmation takes place in the world of music today? Beyond my own experiences, it is pervasive in every form of art today. How this differs from the past has more to do with technology and the commodification of art than it does with the purpose of art, but my point remains that the harm that results from this exceeds the value created by the art we see today. Look at fashion (my wife and I are huge Project Runway fans, but I often find myself disagreeing with the importance judges place on 'newness' over quality and aesthetic). This is similar in most artsy, commercial-based forms of media, but where now in this day and age is art most prolific compared to the past? Is a concert work today as much of an event today in contrast to the time of Mozart, Beethoven, or even Wagner? Of course not! To believe otherwise is just foolish because we live in a completely different age with a wholly different aesthetic to contemplate.

Newness is an illusory and obsessive (more compulsive) pursuit, which is why when I hear discussions such as these and read the verbage of self-appointed authorities on the issue (like SSC - who insists that you do your research instead of voicing your own personal, subjective thoughts and debating the matter on those merits), I see the playing field becoming evermore consumed by those who would insist that nothing is wrong.

This is either a delusional opinion or a self-serving affirmation (or defense, call it what you will) of atonality. What is almost humorous to me is that such banter about atonality being the "unprivileged other" (Linda Dusman - "Unheard-of: Music as Performance and the Reception of the New") is the defensive position one takes. At the same time, those who would have such expectations of these authorities to encourage the use of both tonal and atonal approaches encourage the latter over the former - an affirmative stance. Even worse still are the universities that encourage such individuality in an educational environment - specifically in the classroom, not in the work of the instructor as a professional.

There is certainly nothing wrong with an instructor composing in a manner of their own personal individuality. When it affects how they teach, rather what they teach and more importantly what they prefer to teach as opposed to what they should teach, the line is crossed. Instructors are no longer educators at that point. They are advocates and salespeople representing their interests and preferences as opposed to the world of music on the whole. This is great for those who share similar interests. This is problematic for those who don't. And after an entire generation of such avant garde influence, one is foolish to believe finding alternatives is possible in most circumstances.

But let us be clear on the realities and the larger picture. It is not so clear cut as we would like it to be, maybe as it should be, so lets not dismiss such discussion simply on the basis that history doesn't view it that way (SSC). It may be a perception of some that it occurred naturally, but the resonance of the time still impacts us today. You need only look to those academics who discard such discussions as nonsense, look to their music, to their influences, and consider from where these ideas resonate.

I see what you are trying to say now. Thank you for having such patience!

I've been gone a while to get away from this academic climate that fumigates these forums.

I LOL'd.

[off topic]

I LOL'd.

Me too - we went for a good month without one of these threads...and now, this guy pops back in just when we get mired in a fresh one! Coincidence?!

:hmmm:

[/off topic]

To be absolutely clear, "Anti-Atonality" isn't an alternate account of mine, or anything. I can see how suspicious this might look, but I haven't seen that name before.

Well honestly I think the OP didn't really mean to start fights or to annoy anyone. They're self-conscious enough about the stuff they think they're doing wrong or could improve that I really can't comment on that because I don't have anything to say.

I THOUGHT this thread would therefore be rather painless. Guess I was wrong, now it can become loltastic.

PS: Nord; We know it's not you. This is some guy who got his donkey handed to him in a thread way back, etc etc. Ignore it. :>

This Anti-Atonality person seems to have had his reputation precede him by quite a large margin. :P At least he seems quiet for now. Shame we'll probably have to have this thread closed if there are troll wars and such. :(

This Anti-Atonality person seems to have had his reputation precede him by quite a large margin. :P At least he seems quiet for now. Shame we'll probably have to have this thread closed if there are troll wars and such. :(

Don't take it from me really, see it for yourself:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/modern-condition-music-15614.html

It's no surprise we're all a little tired of these types of threads. :>

I see.... but this particular thread has had its purpose run through: I now realize that my personal musical style, HOWEVER it may develop, is always relevant, if only to me. There are many ideas coursing through me, so ... screw what's relevant and what isn't. They'll just have to listen. ;)

Thank you for your advice... now here's hoping Antiatonality doesn't become a corrupter of the nice memory of this thread!