Is Atonality, For Many, A Mask To Hide His Tonal Disability?

You people are harming yourselves. Accept the fact that the word atonal will be misinterpreted, misunderstood, and other mis- words until the end of civilized humanity by most people in most places most of the time. If there are those that want to stereotype atonal music and lump it into a clusterfuk of a genre without gaining the benefit of a plethora of beautiful music then it's their loss. 

Honestly, does it matter if you classify music as "tonal" or "atonal"?!?! 

One, two.

 

^ That's one of many possible ways your example can be construed because there is of course no 1:1 relationship between music and language. But "one, two" what? What are you trying to say?

?

I see you didn't understand the example. You could've just said so.

You see, in serialism, you assign numbers to musical parameters. Let's say C is 1 and D is 2. The 1 and 2 represent the order in which the tones show up. I can make a follow-up piece with the order inverted, 2 then 1. Or maybe just 2 and 2, and so on.

I can also serialize dynamic. For example, 1 is C + forte and 2 is D + Fortissimo. I can make different rows with different meanings, like a row only for the rhythm or one only for the dynamic, or like I just did one that combines certain aspects. If I were to make dynamic separate, then 1 + 1 would be then a forte C, while 2 + 2 would be fortissimo D. Or, 1 (pitch row) + 2 (dynamic row) = Fortissimo C.

Do you understand now?

It's been fun and all but I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. Have a good one.

It's been fun and all but I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. Have a good one.

Just another one to the pile, then! Thread was a waste of time anyway, so at least I had a laugh.

Persians don't self identify as arabs because they're not arabic. They're persian. Historically very distinct peoples with incredibly different cultures, not to mention completely distinct ancestry. it is only relatively recently that islam became a majority religion there, and that is just about the only common denominator. In fact, Persia is pretty much the traditional enemy of the arabic people, seeing as the fact that the Persian empire has conquered the middle east on numerous occassions.

So, your analogy basically shows that you know nothing about these people and feel fine equating them with each other because all brownies look alike.

Racist. And stupid.

Stupid racist.

I read recently one definition from a web site that atonal means "any music that lacks a system of tonality." System is the operative word. Serialism is a system, so that disqualifies it from being atonal. Or pointalism, or any other ism. Because isms are systems. Even music that comes out of left field probably has a system, or methodology, that the composer used to wrangle it into some kind of order. The majority of music appeals to order. Even music that intentionally rejects order - like Cage or Parch or Stockhausen- will have order imposed upon it by the listener, the force is that strong.

The answer to the OP's main question is yes.  Some people will use "complexity" in lue of solid traditional harmony. Because you can fool some of the people some of the time, etc. It's human nature. But one of the hardest things a composer needs to do is sit down and write a simple song, something with lasting emotional appeal, just to see how hard it is. They should teach that in modern schools. I suspect It would have most students running back to the safety of their tone rows.

Yes, people who compose atonal music tend to be compositionally disabled, and even if their lives depended on it could not compose anything that appealed to anyone outside academia, I would be willing to bet money. Reddit's MusicTheory mods will ban you for admitting it sounds bad. What kind of music requires censorship like that -- only bad music.

What kind of music requires censorship like that -- only bad music.

There are people attempting to shove this kind of music down our throat - and there were also dictators who banned it outright. That tells us nothing about the music itself - but a lot about the people doing the censorship on either way.

Personally I'm no longer wasting my time attempting to apologize for not composing atonally or in any other "modern" or "post-modern" style whatsoever. I'll just keep doing my thing.

Composers shouldn't have to apologize for any kind of music they write (be it "tonal" or "atonal"). People who keep fanning the flames by calling out composers who differ from them and labeling them "disabled" are probably too insecure about their own music, and need to project that insecurity by denigrating others.

A bad composer of tonal music might accidentally write atonal music, and vice versa, but there's no reason why one type should be considered easier or better than the other. 

Composers shouldn't have to apologize for any kind of music they write (be it "tonal" or "atonal"). People who keep fanning the flames by calling out composers who differ from them and labeling them "disabled" are probably too insecure about their own music, and need to project that insecurity by denigrating others.

By "fanning the flames", you mean admitting our opinions? By "denigrating" you mean criticizing? If I built a car that's dangerous to drive and tried to sell it to people, and you tried to warn people how dangerous the car was, would you be "denigrating" me?

I don't know exactly what the original poster meant, but when I say "disabled", I mean atonal composers tend (with exceptions) to be objectively (not a matter of opinion) unable to compose music which appeals to anyone outside academic circles.

... unable to compose music which appeals to anyone outside academic circles.

... and even inside these very circles, as Leonard Bernstein once put it, a few people feign liking it, if only because of snobbery and the need to feel "in". But hey, if bad composers are unapologetic and think so highly about themselves, why do we have to bow to them, let alone pay any attention?

By "fanning the flames", you mean admitting our opinions? By "denigrating" you mean criticizing? If I built a car that's dangerous to drive and tried to sell it to people, and you tried to warn people how dangerous the car was, would you be "denigrating" me?

 

I don't know exactly what the original poster meant, but when I say "disabled", I mean atonal composers tend (with exceptions) to be objectively (not a matter of opinion) unable to compose music which appeals to anyone outside academic circles.

Your car analogy is asinine...unless "atonal" music is causing fatalities, or other serious damage, that I'm unaware of. 

Your car analogy is asinine...unless "atonal" music is causing fatalities, or other serious damage, that I'm unaware of. 

I guess triggering headaches on me doesn't count as "serious damage" :p .

By "fanning the flames", you mean admitting our opinions? By "denigrating" you mean criticizing? If I built a car that's dangerous to drive and tried to sell it to people, and you tried to warn people how dangerous the car was, would you be "denigrating" me?

 

I don't know exactly what the original poster meant, but when I say "disabled", I mean atonal composers tend (with exceptions) to be objectively (not a matter of opinion) unable to compose music which appeals to anyone outside academic circles.

Really? Like who? That sounds like a very broad assumption with no bases behind it. 

You are aware that Schoenberg wrote a text book on functional harmony and at the end of his career wrote tonal music, that Ligeti was a master at tonal counterpoint, Pendereski began and ended his career as a tonal composer, even John Cage has a tonal piece or two. In fact most, if not all, composers who primarily write in a non-tonal fashion have roots in tonality; and you have to be write non-tonal music and to even understand it. Unless that statement was directed to amateur composers on this site or others, to make the statement that "atonal composers tend to be objectively unable to compose music which appeals to anyone outside academic circles" is an egregious assumption that comes from mainly from pure ignorance of 20th century music history. Its akin to the assumption Picasso didn't know how to paint through merely looking at his later paintings. 

And again, I make the point that this is a debate kept alive by those who are 90 years late to the discussion. Many of these composers are long dead, and their music and influence has proven to withstand the test of time. In the professional plural-stylistic music world, the atonal v. tonal debate is long gone and the verdict has been rendered; both tonal and non-tonal styles are equally valid. One can see this to be true as many professional composers of the 21st century are neither one or the other. The only ones who are still bent out of shape by this are those composers who have failed to either understand the real world we live in as composers, or have failed at their own compositional goals and proceed to blame one style for turning away their potential audience. 

... You are aware that Schoenberg wrote a text book on functional harmony and at the end of his career wrote tonal music, that Ligeti was a master at tonal counterpoint, Pendereski began and ended his career as a tonal composer, even John Cage has a tonal piece or two....

I've been paid for my compositions by people outside of academic circles, and your assertion here "sounds like a very broad assumption with no bases behind it." How much are people willing to pay for atonal music? What is its market value?

But Picasso appeals to many outside academic circles, so it doesn't really seem akin.

I don't know what you mean by this. There's an inbred, bureaucratic, academic world which often engages in folly, pouring resources into programs with no value outside academia; and then there's a world outside academia, where music is valued according to people's individual preferences, and you never hear anyone demanding atonal music in this real world.

If you want to record the sound of someone vomiting and call it "music", I won't argue that your music is "invalid" -- and some bureaucrat in government or academia will probably award you with a grant for it. I'll just point out that your "music" appeals to no one outside academic circles.

 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by this. There's an inbred, bureaucratic, academic world which often engages in folly, pouring resources into programs with no value outside academia; and then there's a world outside academia, where music is valued according to people's individual preferences, and you never hear anyone demanding atonal music in this real world.

 

If you want to record the sound of someone vomiting and call it "music", I won't argue that your music is "invalid" -- and some bureaucrat in government or academia will probably award you with a grant for it. I'll just point out that your "music" appeals to no one outside academic circles.

 

So basically your argument is that music that doesn't appeal to the general population is drivel, and should be eradicated...? 

So basically your argument is that music that doesn't appeal to the general population is drivel....

I didn't say or mean that.

 

 

 

I've read the book and two others by him, and I didn't take them as signs of any ability.

 

 

But how highly are their tonal attempts valued outside of academic circles?

 

 

I've been paid for my compositions by people outside of academic circles, and your assertion here "sounds like a very broad assumption with no bases behind it." How much are people willing to pay for atonal music? What is its market value?

 

 

But Picasso appeals to many outside academic circles, so it doesn't really seem akin.

 

 

 

It depends which jury you ask, and if you ask the jury of people outside academic circles, atonal music is virtually worthless.

 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by this. There's an inbred, bureaucratic, academic world which often engages in folly, pouring resources into programs with no value outside academia; and then there's a world outside academia, where music is valued according to people's individual tastes, and you never hear anyone demanding atonal music in this real world.

 

Anyone can get people to buy their music regardless of what it is. I have been commissioned multiple times and I write mainly non-tonal music as well as some tonal music. 

People do pay and still pay to hear non-tonal music. The music these composers wrote were not premiered by university ensembles but by professional ensembles during those ensembles concert season. They have been subsequently been re-performed and even recorded multiple times over. Many of these composers have had residencies with professional ensembles.  Ligeti's and Pendereski's most chromatic and non-tonal music makes up the entire film score of movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and many more; as well as appearances in Eyes Wide Shut, Shutter Island, and even the radio version of Hitch Hiker's guide to the galaxy. Pendereski and other none tonal composers have Grammys and Pulitzer Prizes. All these composers have numerous awards and still sell records, lots of records. If we are going by that standard of value I guess that means they have a lot of value outside of academia. 

True they are not selling out stadium tours or have records going platinum, and majority of the worlds population know non of these composers. But then again no composer is, tonal or not. Even Whitacre, the rock star of tonal choral music is barely known outside of the academic choir world. No one is chomping at the bit for Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart either. And strictly tonal composers are barely even getting notice anywhere; they may sell a few scores but again, anyone can do that. 

When you talk about value to the real world in regards to classical music in general v. non-tonal music, you might as well be comparing one penny to one and a half pennies. Because in the real world, no one wants a classical score full of strings and brass, they want dance anthems full of tats and donkey. 

side note: its ironic how academia is blamed for the rise of atonality, when students in academia rarely even come across atonal music in their own studies. Its is instead professional ensembles in the "real world" that make up 98% of all recordings, readings, and premiers of atonal music. 

... no composer is, tonal or not. Even Whitacre, the rock star of tonal choral music is barely known outside of the academic choir world. No one is chomping at the bit for Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart either. And strictly tonal composers are barely even getting notice anywhere; they may sell a few scores but again, anyone can do that. 

When you talk about value to the real world in regards to classical music in general v. non-tonal music, you might as well be comparing one penny to one and a half pennies. Because in the real world, no one wants a classical score full of strings and brass....

I don't know how you mean "classical music" above. Orchestral music is important to movie-goers, whether they realize it or not. Without their orchestral soundtracks, I doubt Star Wars, Titanic, and countless other movies would have had the same appeal. Producers, I think on behalf of the people watching movies, are paying real big money for tonal soundtracks, and rarely atonal.

Tonal dance anthems.

Man, did anybody hear about that Beethoven guy? Op. 59, No.1? Lul. That's not even music.

I've read the book and two others by him, and I didn't take them as signs of any ability.

That says more about you than it does about Schoenberg. A lot more.

 

[some rubbish] academic circles [some more rubbish]

I don't know what this obsession with academic circles, and the music not appealing to people outside them, is. What academic circles? The ones who study the music? What are you basing this information on? Your university? Your next-door-neighbour? Something you read on the internet? In the papers? Are you just assuming? or making stuff up? What?

And who are the people outside of these that it should be appealing to? Pop music enthusiasts? Dilettantes? Idiots? Deaf people? And why? Why should anything need to appeal to people who don't understand anything about it? What kind of appeal do great novels like Ulysses have to some guy who knows nothing about literature and just wants to read his Stephen King books in peace?

And I'm wondering, when you continually go on about tonal music appealing to people outside of academic circles, what are you lumping into that category? Film music? Debussy? Bach? How deep of an appreciation do people have of, say, the latter? I've known plenty of people—musicians or not—who praise Bach to the sky, and yet don't know why it's good; that's just what they've heard from the academic circles. There are plenty of moments in Bach which are wanting, and lots of pieces by Beethoven that are just horrible, but, regardless of this, the music which seems to be widely known (in Beethoven's case, the opening of the fifth symphony, Fur Elise, some moments from the piano sonatas, &c.) is for purely superficial reasons. Everybody can whistle the opening of that little Fur Elise bagatelle, but how many of them can whistle the theme of the Art of Fugue? How many people have read the Twilight series, vs Moby-Dick?

Whatever about that; I don't expect you've thought about what you're saying. It seems that you already had your mind made up about what kind of music appeals to you, and then you fabricated some rubbish to rationalise the decision in your own mind. You've made plenty of statements which are purely factual errors, and whatever doesn't fall into this category is either vague and meaningless or some variation of 'cuz I like it.'

The last time I went to a concert of atonal music it was in a theatre loft and I think I saw about three people (out of a hundred+) that looked like they had spent any time in an academic circle.

The next one I'm going to is in a symphony hall

What are you basing this information on? Your university? Your next-door-neighbour? Something you read on the internet? In the papers? Are you just assuming? or making stuff up? What?

I'm basing it on my experience. Are you denying it? If so, what are you basing your denial on? Your university? Your next-door-neighbour? Something you read on the internet? In the papers? Are you just assuming? or making stuff up? What?