Relevancy of tonal compositions in the 21st century.

I now realize that my personal musical style, HOWEVER it may develop, is always relevant, if only to me.

In all these threads, you're the first one to "get" it!!

Welcome to the dark side! :w00t:

Aww, thanks! It is nice to not have to wrangle with people who call you "idiot" over such things as musical preference.

To any moderators who look here: you can delete this thread if you want. I have gotten all I need from it. Further conversation would probably just result in argument.

Aww, thanks! It is nice to not have to wrangle with people who call you "idiot" over such things as musical preference.

To any moderators who look here: you can delete this thread if you want. I have gotten all I need from it. Further conversation would probably just result in argument.

Can leave the thread open, it'll die by not being bumped so no need to bother the mods. ... though it WOULD be safer to lock it just in case... :x

Well, I read Antiatonality's introductory post so far, and it doesn't seem too harsh just yet. I see that there was intense heat for about eight days, though, judging by how many pages there are. This should make for an interesting read. So far, I do agree with AA on the point of composition teachers being selective and favoritist regarding what they teach and/or what they focus on most heavily. It is a sham to not teach all music equally, I think, especially if it's a general composition class.

See there is a bit of confusion really about some things in musical education!

"Techniques of composition".

16-17th century: Counterpoint, pattern use, harmony

17-18th century: The same as above. Different language in harmony

18-19th century: More of the same, different language. Vast advancement in form.

20th century: So many different things!

I spent 3-4 years studying harmony, counterpoint and fugue. Morphology and history of music, for my diploma in piano. I think that this covered, up to a point, a major part of the techniques in composition in tonal composition. Since I know tonal harmony, counterpoint, etc, I can deal with such things. Can I be as good as Beethoven? HELL NO! But I don't care. I can't be as good as Messiaen either!

After the above, entering the university I started learning about all the 20th/21st century techniques, including serialism, contemporary harmony, clusters, graphic notation and whatnot!

In other words: At this point, in 2008, learning to compose "like Beethoven", you need to learn your harmony, your morphology, your counterpoint, and your 19th century Orchestration for classical orchestra! These are the tools that he had, these are the tools you get to work with. If you want to learn contemporary composition, you will learn about the newer techniques.

Simple as that!

_____________________

You enter an institution to learn new things, broaden your horizon and then be able to chose. Having chosen before you enter "I'm 18 and I only like tonal music" (not that this is you, Nord), is simply absurd and irrational (and immature btw).

Once you've learned about everything, up to a point, of course, you get to get out of the uni and think about what you want to do! This is why undergrad courses don't specialize very much in anything, this is why you can't do ONLY composition, when you are 18, nor ONLY performance, but take modules instead! This is why postgrad course are there, and this is why research is there as well. To take you further!

Thank you very much for your enthusiastic descriptions of requirements and other ideas, as well as your support! While you said your statement about the immaturity of wanting to hear only one type of music was not directed at me, I still feel responsible for the statement. It is obvious that I do not appreciate non-tonal or otherwise-tonal music as much as I should, but I will improve with study of that other music. This art of ours is far too special to me to just take piecemeal. To choose just one wouldn't be fair to all the other musicians, my brothers in history, for all their effort.

I already know precisely what it is I want to do and how I express myself. The second one will definitely change as I enter real, professional places of music education, but the first will always be my great and personal long-term goal. Music is my religion, and that is that. Words such as yours, though will cautionary, are of great inspiration to me all the same. :)

Nordreise...

What you believe about music will depend on what you believe about the world in general (ie, does ANYTHING have objective meaning/value? Is all relative?).

I think it may encourage you to consider music as communication. From that perspective, you have great freedom, yet great purpose: communicate whatever you like in any way you like.

After all, is this not music history? People with different values and passions select and expand the musical mediums that best convey their ideas/feelings/whatever.

---

By the way, even John Cage had something to communicate in 4'33". He had visited an anechoic chamber and found that he could always perceive SOME sounds (even his own heartbeat); there was no such thing as perfect slience. He wrote the piece to get people to listen to the silence. "Try as we may to make a silence, we cannot," he wrote. "One need not fear for the future of music."

Apparently, believed natural, "random" (as we would say) sounds to be music, and he wanted other people to be humble enough to recognize that music didn't begin and end with them. Perhaps this idea connected him to the old philosophers who spoke of the "music of the spheres" keeping the celestial bodies in line. At any rate, he had his concept of music--his message--and you can have yours.

If you want some enjoyment, I have lately been uplifted by the very frank, even virile compositions of Robert Aldridge (bob aldridge). I got to meet him last summer. I recommend him because his philosophy is centered on AUDIENCE-BUILDING, in other words, he wants to draw more people into the classical music world by writing more accessibly. His works are getting in high demand (and he's published by Peters), and I think his earnestness about communicating might encourage you.

You enter an institution to learn new things, broaden your horizon and then be able to chose. Having chosen before you enter "I'm 18 and I only like tonal music" (not that this is you, Nord), is simply absurd and irrational (and immature btw).

"Immature." That's cute.

You enter an institution to learn new things, broaden your horizon, and then be able to choose. You also enter an institution with the expectation that you can learn more about the traditional methods of composition that are actually generalized in theory classes. You enter with the expectation that no matter what you decide, you'll have someone competent and well-versed in that particular area of your interest.

It should not be too much to ask of a professor of composition to go more in depth on the tonal language and its intricacies beyond what is loosely covered in theory. Like you said, broaden your horizon and then choose, but God help you if you choose the road less traveled today in most universities.

Once you've learned about everything, up to a point, of course, you get to get out of the uni and think about what you want to do! This is why undergrad courses don't specialize very much in anything, this is why you can't do ONLY composition, when you are 18, nor ONLY performance, but take modules instead! This is why postgrad course are there, and this is why research is there as well. To take you further!

What?

Am I the only one that thinks the standards for a degree in composition should be higher than that? Maybe we should be challenging ourselves to be able to write in the styles that we should all be well-versed in (like Beethoven, Wagner, and so on). Perhaps it's not okay to just get by sitting in a seminar listening to a piece and reading the score, then discussing it as a group. Maybe it's not okay to just meet one hour per week in a private lesson with a professor. Maybe, just maybe, it's better to get a more involved and stringent composition curriculum in motion that makes people do what Nikolas feels he is deficient in (writing like Beethoven).

I'm talking about raising the bar and improving the level of expertise and qualifications of composers. What are you advocating here, Nikolas? The last thing I want to do is misunderstand what it is you're trying to explain, but from where I'm sitting, that's a piss poor approach to composition education.

"Immature." That's cute.

You enter an institution to learn new things, broaden your horizon, and then be able to choose. You also enter an institution with the expectation that you can learn more about the traditional methods of composition that are actually generalized in theory classes. You enter with the expectation that no matter what you decide, you'll have someone competent and well-versed in that particular area of your interest.

Not true actually!

If I wanted to be a serialist, I would've ended in Paris. If I wanted electroacoustics I would attempt Birmingham. If I wanted tonal, music theater, I'd chase Ed Hughes.

For example all that.

You enter a certain university, after you've done some research on what the university does and who teaches in there. Someone searching for quartal/polytonal harmonic language, should go to QcCowboy. Someone searching more contemporary/dissonant language, should come to me. Someone wanting a more classical approach, could go to... I don't know who! :D

I'm posting it again:

WHAT are the 'traditional' methods of composition? Can you tell me? Cause I don't think I know anything in particular apart from the things I mentioned. Sure there's also analysis, but this is a universal tool for all 'genres'.

It should not be too much to ask of a professor of composition to go more in depth on the tonal language and its intricacies beyond what is loosely covered in theory. Like you said, broaden your horizon and then choose, but God help you if you choose the road less traveled today in most universities.

And yet again, you are basing your theories in your own experience. I've had an excellent teacher who taught me anything he could about tonal music, before moving on to other stuff!

LEARN, BROADEN YOUR HORIZON and then choose! If you're done with the uni, why should anyone bother with what you write? Hell, most people I know are not on the edge either!

What?

Am I the only one that thinks the standards for a degree in composition should be higher than that? Maybe we should be challenging ourselves to be able to write in the styles that we should all be well-versed in (like Beethoven, Wagner, and so on). Perhaps it's not okay to just get by sitting in a seminar listening to a piece and reading the score, then discussing it as a group. Maybe it's not okay to just meet one hour per week in a private lesson with a professor. Maybe, just maybe, it's better to get a more involved and stringent composition curriculum in motion that makes people do what Nikolas feels he is deficient in (writing like Beethoven).

I'm talking about raising the bar and improving the level of expertise and qualifications of composers. What are you advocating here, Nikolas? The last thing I want to do is misunderstand what it is you're trying to explain, but from where I'm sitting, that's a piss poor approach to composition education.

The idea, my dear friend, is that usually an 18 year old is NOT READY to choose! Do you realise that? The age limits are getting higher, the more we go forward IN TIME! It's fairly easy to understand it, I wonder why can't you! An undergraduate degree is not there to say that you have 'unlimited' knowledge of... composition, or performance, or whatever. Nor that you are specialised in anything, simply because they can't do that! They can't refuse other parts of musical knowledge, in order to concetrate on that. On the other hand, a masters degree, is assuming you already have all the general knowledge you need and you are ready to make a choice!

Really, I have people who write TONAL music in PhD level, there's nothing wrong with that! (Not only, I'll admit that, but they do that as well).

He have discussed this before, you know. Your piss poor approach to what education IS is YOUR problem, with YOUR experience.

I'm 31, I took all the coursed I needed to take, I have written tons of tonal stuff, and I still actually do. I'm nothing close to deficient to do what I actually do: BE A COMPOSER!

Are you one? Where's your music? Where's your works? Mine are all here.

____________________

And anyways, really.

You have your own mind about education, which you took, quit, or whatever you did (I don't know what you did). Let others choose wisely here, and not based their decisions on a biased bitter approach of a dissapointed guy, who apparently only has posted 1 of his works, and decided to kill the recording (or expired? I would be interested to hear the "Soldier Stories".

To be honest, I don't mind music which is dissonant through the majority of its life in time, as long as there are some resolutions. It just seems to wander for me, if it is.. ahem. "Post-tonal". There is no "coming home"; this is most important to my ear for the moment. Many of the older posters speak of wisdom, gained over many years of excruciating torture :) to enjoy contemporary music. There is a certain hostility in the sentence "if I were... * ... I'd still be writing tonal music", as if to write in just that style were bad.

I am sorry, but 'post-tonal' music (shall we call it that now?) bothers me.. it unsettles me beyond a level of unsettling that I think I could ever endure. I have listened to Arvo P

By the way, I realize that it may seem silly of me to drone on about what I prefer and my tastes of "writing" when I have only one tiny phrase posted on this website. However, I think it is also heinous of someone to wish to begin to study music without a certain taste. If not only because it's awesome to have diversity within music, then the taste must be there because it allows a more passionate approach!

If one begins passionately, even if only in a tiny area of common practice tradition (say composing music that only Vox Saeculorum would accept), and glues oneself to that tradition without fail, as the person learns he/she will inevitably gain passion for other, related styles. After that, the passion spreads to styles related to the styles that were only barely touching on High Baroque practice. It's like a musical domino effect, at least in my own experience.

The first common practice piece I ever heard was the first movement of Mozart's famous G major serenade/quintet. I'm sure you can guess the nick name :). I was eleven at the time. The next thing I heard was "In the Hall of the Mountain King", a totally completely amazingly different style. Next probably came "Night on Bald Mountain", then "The Planets", and after that I listened to the Brandenburg concerti and then Tchaikovsky's popular arranged Nutcracker and Swan Lake suites. After this I heard a record containing Rachmaninov's "Vocalise" and the Symphonic Dances, and about 2 months later Beethoven's 6th symphony. Last of all, when I was 15, I heard "Carmen".

My point in this inventory is to show you that we young ones don't always begin obsessed by Mozart! It is unfair of the older generations to think that they have a monopoly on wisdom, or at least on diversity of taste. For all musicians to truly be accepted and have a resuscitation of concert-going life, we must all work together and remember that no matter the age, we all love *ALL* music. Unless we're Antiatonality. :)

Not to stir the pot, but have you actually been diagnosed with synaethesia, or are you merely among the untold legions of only "self-diagnosed" synaethetes?

Not to stir the pot, but have you actually been diagnosed with synaethesia, or are you merely among the untold legions of only "self-diagnosed" synaethetes?

I underwent tests for synaesthesia when I was 10 and again at 12 at my local hospital's psychology department. There is also a neurological laboratory close at hand in Halifax, small as it is. I was diagnosed after several tests with sound and colour relationships.

EDIT: I think the only reason I wish to pursue music as much as I do is because of this condition. Otherwise, I'm hardly a Mozart or Mendelssohn, or even a Jay Greenburg ;). My ability to learn actual theory is limited, and I am as slow as anyone in soaking it up. It's the sounds that shudder deep within my nerves, causing an unbearably colourful sensation. I apologize that I cannot explain further, but it's like knowing how to understand your native language. How does one tell another what it's like to "know" English or German? It's the same with tonality, except perhaps less pronounced. :)

Messiaen had synaesthesia, and none of his pieces are tonal (he used his modes of limited transposition) but really revolve around tension/resolution - you might want to check out some of his work. We had a girl in one of our classes with acute synaesthesia, and she felt some strange connection with his pieces... I'd be curious to know if you do too!

or anything from turangalila is a good starting point. I also like his piano etudes and 20 regards sur l'enfant jesus.

Let me know if you like it!

Bolanos, it is certainly something. Isn't that a good word to use when you're not sure? ;) This makes me think of Mahler's most explosive moments, but mixed with something. There are no real colours here, except of course the huge F-sharp major explosion at the conclusion. This is a bizarre coincidence because F-sharp major is a bright reddish feeling to me, and conclusion has the name "Joy of the *Blood* of the Stars"! As for the actual music, that synthesizer-like keyboard instrument (I thought "organ" at first, but perhaps Ondes Martenot?) doesn't .. jive with me instantly. It's an acceptable background noise, but that's just my preference for traditional acoustic instruments.

The entire finale as a whole has more of a purely white light feeling to it. This isn't the calm white light of E major, but a gigantic universal light. It's more like the light of the sun mixed with the core of every galaxy, every quasar - everything at once. This might just have something to do with the sheer size of the orchestra, but the chaotic "everything at once" embodied by constant chromatics lends to the "entire cosmos" feeling I have.

Synaesthesia is not as pronounced in me as you might think. It's not a universal level of perfect pitch that every synaesthete has. In particular, my mind seems 'tuned' to the F and F-sharp chords and scales most intensely. I absolutely have no words to explain it, other than that F minor and F-sharp minor are two things so special to me that they're a part of me. Sometimes, due to the similarity in "colour" between B-flat major and D major, for example I become confused between two keys. This is why music such as the Messiaen symphony appears to break down in my eyes; it has no centre except for the very, very different ones that he has created himself!

The way my condition (I really hate talking about it constantly.. I feel like I'm bragging :() works, it seems to evolve as I soak up different ways of music. If I hear Messiaen's systems enough, maybe it will become second nature to me, just as hearing the old tonal system has become part of my way of being. You never know! Either way, I did not feel any special affinity for or identity with the Messiaen regarding its colouration, but the emotional content and the sheer size of its orchestration, not to mention his ability to mix seemingly tonal or modal melodies with constant harmonic shifts, gives me happiness! It at least contains SHADE and LIGHT, something which I sorely miss in music such as the Berg piano sonata, which always feels like a dark abyss, swirling down and down for eternity into black.

I underwent tests for synaesthesia when I was 10 and again at 12 at my local hospital's psychology department. There is also a neurological laboratory close at hand in Halifax, small as it is. I was diagnosed after several tests with sound and colour relationships.

I must admit that I nearly did a Brahms-at-Liszt's-house when I heard the Webern symphonie's first movement. No offense, but without a centre that I am used to pulling me towards the end, it just wandered in my ear. I am not sure what to say about music like this, or indeed even if I consider it music. Perhaps I'm just inexperienced, and need to study the score to see its intricacies. However, intricacies or not I just don't like it.. yet.

I always try to leave the "yet" in ;).

I must admit that I nearly did a Brahms-at-Liszt's-house when I heard the Webern symphonie's first movement. No offense, but without a centre that I am used to pulling me towards the end, it just wandered in my ear. I am not sure what to say about music like this, or indeed even if I consider it music. Perhaps I'm just inexperienced, and need to study the score to see its intricacies. However, intricacies or not I just don't like it.. yet.

I always try to leave the "yet" in ;).

Then you have the right basic idea. There is nothing wrong with having preferences in music or prefering older traditions and asthetics in music. If what you really enjoy is work from the classical-romantic era then that's what you listen to and write. Never force yourself into something you don't enjoy. However, the important part is to never close yourself off to new music. Maybe you don't enjoy the Webern symphonie now (which I rather liked myself, I must say) and that's fine, but perhaps a few years down the line, your musical tastes will change and you will enjoy it. It's important to treat your musical ear as a living, breathing being. Over time, it will grow and develop. Don't isolate it, let it roam free. You'll be surprised what you might discover.

Bias is a dangerous thing.

When I first started composing, I had only had contact with tonal, common practice pieces. I'd never heard an antonal piece in my life. Then one day I came upon one, and absolutely hated it. I honestly thought that this composer had no idea how to write music. It was too discordnant, too harsh, too random to be made by an intelligent person. I stayed away from atonal music for quite some time.

Then I came upon another piece of music that would change my musical momentum, even if I didn't realize it at the time. It was also an atonal piece, but this one was different. It was melodious, and suspenseful, and dare I say thought-provoking. But how could these two piece be so different and still be labeled "atonal"? I did some thinking, and even tried to write a few atonal pieces myself (usually resulting in failure), and came to the realization that it is very difficult to make atonal music sound good; it is a very special skill.

When I listened to another atonal piece with this attitude, and saw the clashes and "randomness", not as mistakes and unpleasantness, but as another layer of complexity, adding the music, not taking away from it. Then my mind just sort of openned up to atonal music, not as an expression of emotional resonance, but as an expression of intellectual resonance. (resonance isn't a great term, but I can't think of a better one.)

It will probably be harder for you to adjust to atonality, having synaesthesia and all (which sounds really cool to me, by the way), but it's probably just a familiarity issue. I would suggest trying to write atonal music, even if it is like "a knife cutting through your mind". No pain, no gain... Right? :thumbsup: Maybe not.

I'm with Nikolas on this one - if I had only taken classes that I wanted to take in college, I would probably still be writing purely tonal music. Having taken the time to learn about contemporary music, I now enjoy writing all kinds of music, and can appreciate both tonal and post-tonal music (I hate the word "atonal" - it doesn't really mean anything to people who know what they're talking about. How can one clump serialism and spectralism in the same group?).

I've had contemporary music shoved down my throat. It didn't matter whether I liked it or not. My issue is not with the music itself. Don't mistake my position. I enjoy works like the St Luke Passion by Penderecki or many a George Crumb work. I enjoy listening to them a lot, and I think the Penderecki's and the George Crumb's of the world need to be there.

My issue is with the discipline or lack thereof within the education model where composition is concerned. From what I find here, it's not much different in many other places. I'm creative, but my creativity thrives on a structured learning model over time. Maybe this is different for other people here, but for the most part, the vagueness of such things as "unorthodox", for example, drives me absolutely nuts! The goal to be unorthodox or to encourage it almost seems like asking someone to become delusional in how they think about their music - departing from the reality that there is no such thing as unorthodox music today.

Whether that's a good thing or not is really for another day. There are good cases to be made for and against this idea of being unorthodox and creating what is "new". My point, though, is that pushing toward a natural, musical voice before that voice matures through disciplined study AND execution of the tradition of tonality is an undisciplined approach in my book. Two years of theory is not what one should ever classify as a thorough, disciplined study of tonal music.

All music departments offer courses in common-practice tonal music, most record labels work exclusively with tonal music, most concerts have far more common-practice music than contemporary, many performers will not (or are unable to) work on contemporary music. And you say "tonal music" is the road less traveled in today's universities?? It's obvious that composing music purely in the style of the past is no longer valid - the masters have done it far better than we can - but the fact that people are being pushed to write original and unique music does not mean that that everyone is being pushed to write in the same "atonal" style.

As a composition student (bachelors or masters) in most universities, yes! That's precisely what I'm saying.

I think you believe that everyone is being pushed towards a certain style, while in reality people are being ushered away from certain historical norms. If, after learning what else is out there, you choose to stay and write common-practice music, good for you!! (You can be a hollywood composer), but how can you really make that decision with such a closed-minded attitude?

I have higher expectations. I don't think that is a closed-minded attitude. A music theorist is going to know more about tonal music than a composer who doesn't like writing it. All the composer has to do is say, "Teacher, it's old and I don't want to have to learn anymore about it." And done. The instructor whips out a piece of paper and starts listing tons of contemporary works. But enter the student who says, "Teacher, I really like the kind of tonal language used in contemporary film scores and popular music." The approach is entirely different and is often the same response given to the first student - a list of contemporary works that aren't indicative of the kind of music the student wishes to explore. In other words, the treatment of the two students should be equal. Structure must be maintained at some level, and I think that level should be higher than what it is currently.

I know, man - I used to be there. I hated all modern music, even some Chopin and Schubert because of its complex harmonic language. As I learned, I gradually grew to love almost everything (serialism kind of bothers me, but it has undoubtedly served an important purpose in the development of contemporary music). It's pretty clear to me from your posts that you don't know much about modern music, and yet you hate it so much! It makes you look pretty stupid from where I'm sitting.

Oh please. If you want me to give you an in depth analysis of a contemporary work, name it. I'll give you a full 10 or 20 pages of material on it. I might even give you a background of the composer and other composers who influenced that piece. I didn't grow to hate contemporary music. I GREW to hate the way it is pushed on composers as a mandate rather than structurally developed in the discipline of composition as something to attain over the life of one's career - a goal as opposed to a curriculum focus. There's a big difference.

Take Haydn for example. It wasn't until the very end of his career that some of his most exploratory works were written, skewing harmony and making for some very interesting music. But that was a slow, gradual, disciplined development of his musical voice over his lifetime. Today, that's what students are expected to develop while they study at a university. The difference being that Haydn had the basics down in an executable way that brought him to a point later in his life where his more inventive works relied upon the underlying discipline.

The standards for discipline in learning the basics need to be higher. That's what I'm getting at.

OH COME ON!!!!

You are taking your own experience and applying it universally to all colleges, all universities, everywhere! Give me a break, will you?

you do enjoy bypassing certain posts, don't you? I already told you: Tell me what would you like to learn about tonal music, apart from harmony, counterpoint, history, morphology and use of patterns, as well as analysis of classical, or neo-classical, or romantic, anyways tonal works?

When you analyse tonal music, what do you do? You search for the theme, patterns, harmonic language, you do a harmonic analysis, you do a form analysis, etc. There is no 'special' technique that is used, such as 'serialism', or 'quartal harmony', or 'musique concrete', etc, when writing tonal music.

DON'T GET ME WRONG. I love listening to tonal music, as much as many other styles. I know it's hard to compose tonal music, and by all means, I'm not saying it's "EASY" in any way! BUT I AM SAYING that the tools required to write tonal music are already the ones I mentioned.

Unless you feel differently, and decide to NOT bypass my post again and the core of what I'm saying and discuss the matter at hand!

Give me examples: You enter a masters degree, designed to learn tonal composition, nothing else. What will they teach you? Remember, modal is not tonal, atonal is certainly not tonal, quartal is not tonal, harmony with 2nds is not tonal, the golden ration is probably used but still remains mostly in more contemporary idioms. Tell me what were you looking for that you didn't get! TELL ME! What did you expect? Someone to let you write 5 sonatas and 3 symphonies in order to learn how to develop material properly? This is the one thing that cannot be taught! It can be developed through analysis, but not taught. It's not right, nor fair to the student, to take them by the hand and go "This is what you should do", or "In your shoes I'd do that...".

Your illconcived notion on what education should be, is YOUR problem, not the problem of the education.

________________________

Not that there are no bad teachers, or that being obsessed with contemporary music, or shovving down the throat of the students whatever the teacher wants is right either!

I'm standing in the middle, and you can check with my students (composition ones), for whom I prepare for EVERY single lesson, for at least 2 hours! I don't have templated for various students and work towards to what the students want. I still try to recommend material, and introduce them to various composers and works, but according to you, my attempt would be at least considered bad education. ;)

I take such immense offense when those who look down on tonal music say things like: "well, if you like tonal music, hey you can compose Hollywood movie scores!". I realize that this may not be an offensive thing to say, depending on individual Hollywood composers, but realistically the music of masters like Rachmaninov and Vaughan Williams, coming as they did at a time when film was beginning, are far beyond simple modern Hollywood scores.

It seems elitist, arrogant, and just terribly awkward to imply that tonal composition is just for movie scores. This implies that it is banal, "popular" (I mean sweet dance tune and pop music "popular"), and that it appeals to the largest number of people just for the sake of appealing. I am not saying that anyone has insulted me thus in this thread, but it is part of my original "relevance" question. To have plain old pre-Mahler tonal style music disdained as "Hollywood movie music" is just a slap in the face for someone who regards 'music for music's sake' as a serious mantra, not just a motto for incidental works!

This tonal subject gave me a pleasant shock this evening. I was checking my e-mails and saw a "Youtube comment reply" notification. A few days ago, I had left a comment on a video featuring the intermezzo from "Cavalleria rusticana" with some pictures of Tuscany. This person who replied to my comment said:

"I woke up shaking, shivering, crying, the morning after my father's very recent death... this was playing through my head... yet I hadnt heard it for years...

"as if a golden light shines from all directions"

...indeed... thank you."

This has moved me very deeply, for I was the one who said "as if a golden light...". To have such a response from tonal music is very common place in my world, and my experience. If any one can find a comment, quote, or even a Youtube reply that is so full of emotion, so indicative of an overwhelming response on the listener's part, directed at what you'd call atonal, I shall listen to that work as many times as I must to feel it. This is the essence of everything I hold dear!: human response to music, human emotions overwhelming someone just from a simple melody. This is not something I have yet seen from post-tonal/atonal works, though I admittedly have little experience.

Instead of arguments (as I do not particularly care for antagonism) for or against this or that, I want an example of atonal music totally moving someone. Even if it's just you, whoever replies, I would like something to justify its existence in my mind. Anecdotes or quotes will do, but something along the lines of that youtube comment is really all I need to justify the existence of a single piece of music. To move just one person in my whole life with something I create would give me validation. Even if the entire universe really does explode at the end of time; even IF Brahma himself does fall asleep and we all wink out, I can die without a care for the meaning of life if I have touched someone with music.

Aren't I just so melodramatic? No matter, I mean it utterly.

I think this is true to an extent, although you have to factor in the approach of the classicists in the 18th century whose music, which we tend to find quite beautiful, was written in a fairly mechanised fashion and probably not intended to evoke an emotional response, particularly. (I can't remember why I think I know this, so someone is likely to correct...)

This is a standard argument in music history classes that couldn't be more wrong, but is relatively easy to grasp, so it is still taught. That, and Charles Rosen's assertion that the only worthwhile music from the Classical Era is that of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, makes short work of a crucial 75 year period in Western music -- certainly these three composers taken together wrote so much music that it would take the ordinary listener a matter of months to hear it all, listening to one piece after another. Who has the time?

The Classical approach to form was adopted mainly so that composers could write longer, more substantial compositions without having to string them together out of very short movements. J.S. Bach's organic and mathematically derived sense of development was unique and the long, continuous movements in the Mass in B Minor highly exceptional. The norm, as exemplified by a Telemann oratorio or Handel opera, was a work built out of more than a hundred short bits. Formal development schemes helped cure that, but it wasn't the only thing that happened in the eighteenth century.

The whole period was oriented towards genre, almost more than any other historical period in music; since abstract titles and forms were used to contain and identify the music, the genres are not familiar to us, but were to audiences then. A lot of the music produced in the 18th is also highly eccentric, quirky and aggressive; particularly composers who subscribed to the "sturm und drang" ethos -- Kraus and Beck, for example -- and C. P. E. Bach's music hardly seems phoned in. Even though Joseph Haydn was one of principal advocates of formal schemes, he tended to break the rules just as often as he adhered to them; his genius is in the great variety of ideas that he tried.

The Classical period is Western music's best kept secret; C. P. E. Bach --whose music is restless, exploratory, sometimes murky and always challenging -- is the dominant figure left out in a triumvirate view of the era. Through him, a deeper understanding of Haydn, contrasting the work of Johann Christian Bach with Mozart, and a grasp of genre and the political and literary makeup of the period, one sees not the enternal triad of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, but C. P. E. Bach running in a straight line from his father to Beethoven. Not to mention dozens of other interesting figures too numerous to mention here. To miss out on the rediscovery of the classical period would mean not to experience the most exciting developments in scholarship today.

Uncle Dave

Your ill-conceived notion on what education should be, is YOUR problem, not the problem of the education.

QFT.

Needs repeating, lots.

I was told by a friend of mine just recently that atonal music isn't supposed to be 'moving' to people, saying this in response to my question earlier. He is a lover of many atonal masterpieces, so this was not a negative criticism on his part. Do others agree with this statement? If so, and atonal/post-tonal does not have pleasantry to the ear and emotionally moving qualities as its purpose, then what is the purpose? This is totally subjective, but that's my point; I want to know music's purpose and relevance to you, any of you!

The reason atonal/post-tonal/whatever you wish to call all that music separate from common practice doesn't yet totally click with me is precisely its lack of sentimentality. Then again, it may contain a different sense of emotion, a differently sentimental quality that I can't detect yet. Isn't this getting so marvelously biased? :)

If so, and atonal/post-tonal does not have pleasantry to the ear and emotionally moving qualities as its purpose

Uh, pleasantry to the ear and emotionally moving qualities aren't the same thing.