20th century composers that used the traditional tonality

So does anyone know of any composers from the 20th century that used the traditional system of tonality as opposed to atonality? Even better if there are composers that emulated the style of the older eras (baroque, romantic and classical specifically)

That is a loaded question and answer right there. There are all kinds of examples and what not. Different ones did different things. The answer is yes. My question to you is what specifically are you looking for and why? That would give a better answer.

18 minutes ago, Ravels Radical Rivalry said:

That is a loaded question and answer right there. There are all kinds of examples and what not. Different ones did different things. The answer is yes. My question to you is what specifically are you looking for and why? That would give a better answer.

 

I am specifically looking for composers from the 20th century that composed music in the classical style (Mozart, Haydn etc) in contrast to the likes of Schoenberg and John Cage whom composed atonal, which is a genre that i personally despise. Simply put i am looking for 20th century composers who didn't emphasize atonality.

To be more specific i want composers who composed in the classical galant style 

It's old news, man, get with the times. Why would you want to listen to diluted classical music anyway, when you have the real thing?

I hate to break it to you, but you are ill-informed and closed-minded. Deadly traits on their own and absolutely catastrophic in unison… I don't blame you, but I speak from bitter experience, get over yourself and engage your mind.

Just now, Gylfi said:

It's old news, man, get with the times. Why would you want to listen to diluted classical music anyway, when you have the real thing?

I hate to break it to you, but you are ill-informed and closed-minded. Deadly traits on their own and absolutely catastrophic in unison… I don't blame you, but I speak from bitter experience, get over yourself and engage your mind.

 

I am sorry but i don't give a damn :(

Yes, i am closed-minded and ill-informed, so what? That is MY business, not anybody else. 

And what you mean by the real thing? What makes classical music composed in the 20th century any less "real" than classical music composed earlier? I think the one person that is ill-informed here is you, not me.

19 minutes ago, Gylfi said:

It's old news, man, get with the times. Why would you want to listen to diluted classical music anyway, when you have the real thing?

I hate to break it to you, but you are ill-informed and closed-minded. Deadly traits on their own and absolutely catastrophic in unison… I don't blame you, but I speak from bitter experience, get over yourself and engage your mind.

 

Damn dude. He never said that he thought the new stuff was crap. He never put atonality in a bad light. He just asked for a specific thing. Maybe his reason for wanting to know isn't value or judgment based. Maybe he just wants to find something in terms of research. Maybe he is interested. But still, even if he prefers the tonal and classical style over the newer iterations of things then that is a preference that isn't a problem to have. How bout you get over it and accept a fellow musician's taste for what they are. Also, I think you jumped to a conclusion right there that may have no bearing on reality.

26 minutes ago, RequiemLord said:

Yes, i am closed-minded and ill-informed, so what? That is MY business, not anybody else.

My words are motivated only by love…

26 minutes ago, RequiemLord said:

And what you mean by the real thing? What makes classical music composed in the 20th century any less "real" than classical music composed earlier? I think the one person that is ill-informed here is you, not me.

Classical music is a historical term, just like "atonal", which refers to a specific time period and particular geopolitical conditions. My question about why you would want diluted classical music when you have the real thing, in its full unabridged form, would be something like this:

Why would any 20th century composer, many of whom having experienced first-hand the death of tonality, write in a very particular obsolete style that does not belong to them? Why would they write in a style that has seen many masters better equipped to evaluate its problems than them, and whose possibilities have already been virtually exhausted? Is there any glory in discovering the Americas after having been beaten to the punch by many hundreds of years?

EDIT:

6 minutes ago, Ravels Radical Rivalry said:

Damn dude. He never said that he thought the new stuff was crap. He never put atonality in a bad light. He just asked for a specific thing. Maybe his reason for wanting to know isn't value or judgment based. Maybe he just wants to find something in terms of research. Maybe he is interested. But still, even if he prefers the tonal and classical style over the newer iterations of things then that is a preference that isn't a problem to have. How bout you get over it and accept a fellow musician's taste for what they are. Also, I think you jumped to a conclusion right there that may have no bearing on reality.

I do not think so:

43 minutes ago, RequiemLord said:

atonal, which is a genre that i personally despise

… also from the Top 5 Most Overrated / Underrated Composers thread:

43 minutes ago, RequiemLord said:

3. Arnold Schoenberg                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Atonal "music" is not music to my ears (sorry if i offended anybody with that.)

… as well as this ridiculous sentence:

43 minutes ago, RequiemLord said:

To be more specific i want composers who composed in the classical galant style 

For what type of research would one ask this question? It is akin to asking what Baroque composers wrote in the style of Perotinus. Completely absurd at best…

My intent is not hostile, I am reasonably well read on the history of music and consider his reasons for shunning "atonal music" to be poorly justified. I hope we have not become so afraid of each other that we cannot bear confrontation even in the name of knowledge.

7 minutes ago, Gylfi said:

My words are motivated only by love…

Classical music is a historical term, just like "atonal", which refers to a specific time period and particular geopolitical conditions. My question about why you would want diluted classical music when you have the real thing, in its full unabridged form, would be something like this:

Why would any 20th century composer, many of whom having experienced first-hand the death of tonality, write in a very particular obsolete style that does not belong to them? Why would they write in a style that has seen many masters better equipped to evaluate its problems than them, and whose possibilities have already been virtually exhausted? Is there any glory in discovering the Americas after having been beaten to the punch by many hundreds of years? 

 

Yes there is glory in it. My Lord there certainly is glory in it. 

Certain things represent an absolute and carry with it a meaning and a presentation of an idea. You don't have to follow the trends of mankind to find new and exciting things. You don't have to ditch an old art form simply because it is old. This is a ridiculous idea. Art is an expression of worldview and philosophy. It is an expression of the artist. If the artist doesn't find a certain set of techniques to be a valid way to express his true self then why would he sacrifice true art to just jump on a bandwagon. If nobody ever resisted where we cam from then how would we know what it is that we are? How would we ever further ourselves. How would we ever have an overall appreciation for the larger picture?

10 minutes ago, Gylfi said:

My words are motivated only by love…

Classical music is a historical term, just like "atonal", which refers to a specific time period and particular geopolitical conditions. My question about why you would want diluted classical music when you have the real thing, in its full unabridged form, would be something like this:

Why would any 20th century composer, many of whom having experienced first-hand the death of tonality, write in a very particular obsolete style that does not belong to them? Why would they write in a style that has seen many masters better equipped to evaluate its problems than them, and whose possibilities have already been virtually exhausted? Is there any glory in discovering the Americas after having been beaten to the punch by many hundreds of years?

 

Nope, tonality is not dead yet, if tonality was actually exhausted there would not be anything like pop, hip hop, rock and all the other genres that depend on tonality but still stand today. I am sorry but you are totally not understanding me, its better that we never talk again, farewell.

1 minute ago, Ravels Radical Rivalry said:

Gylfi, just get over it. The world isn't full of robots who are programmed to follow the trends of social change and progressive likings. It is varied and vast. People like whatever they like and they have whatever reason they want to like and want whatever they want and like. *end of discussion*

 

If you do not wish to continue, I will honor your wishes, but I feel there was much left untouched.

2 minutes ago, Ravels Radical Rivalry said:

Gylfi, just get over it. The world isn't full of robots who are programmed to follow the trends of social change and progressive likings. It is varied and vast. People like whatever they like and they have whatever reason they want to like and want whatever they want and like. *end of discussion*

 

You sum up what i am thinking much more clearly, thanks!

Just now, Gylfi said:

If you do not wish to continue, I will honor your wishes, but I feel there was much left untouched.

 

Stop being all cryptic and stuff, nobody cares.

I will give you one absolutely fantastic example before dipping from this fruitless reputation of opinions. There is a man named Jonathan Leshnoff who is composing a ton of brilliant music these days. His music is not of the trends or the era necessarily. It is routed more in later romanticism. However, he is using that style and those techniques and all to create something extremely gorgeous and personable and creative. It is not copycat. It is a new creation. However, it isn't Christopher Rousse, George Crumb, Arvo Part or anything like it. It isn't "pushing the boundaries of music" like you would prescribe to it that it should, but it really actually is. His violin concerto is about one of the most achingly beautiful things I have ever heard. His brand new piece about letters sent back and forth from soldiers and citizens in WWI will leave you shell shocked and destroyed emotionally. Everything about him and his art is perfectly original and valid even though it doesn't really relate to our current world trends. 

2 minutes ago, Ravels Radical Rivalry said:

I will give you one absolutely fantastic example before dipping from this fruitless reputation of opinions. There is a man named Jonathan Leshnoff who is composing a ton of brilliant music these days. His music is not of the trends or the era necessarily. It is routed more in later romanticism. However, he is using that style and those techniques and all to create something extremely gorgeous and personable and creative. It is not copycat. It is a new creation. However, it isn't Christopher Rousse, George Crumb, Arvo Part or anything like it. It isn't "pushing the boundaries of music" like you would prescribe to it that it should, but it really actually is. His violin concerto is about one of the most achingly beautiful things I have ever heard. His brand new piece about letters sent back and forth from soldiers and citizens in WWI will leave you shell shocked and destroyed emotionally. Everything about him and his art is perfectly original and valid even though it doesn't really relate to our current world trends. 

 

Thanks, will make sure to check him out, this might be exactly what i am looking for!

There isn't much of any of his stuff on youtube or for listen around the internet, but that will give you a great idea of what he is like and what people are missing out on if they don't know about him.

31 minutes ago, RequiemLord said:

Nope, tonality is not dead yet, if tonality was actually exhausted there would not be anything like pop, hip hop, rock and all the other genres that depend on tonality but still stand today. I am sorry but you are totally not understanding me, its better that we never talk again, farewell.

Not diatonicism, tonality with a capital T. Die Große Tonart. Besides, popular genres actually rely to a large extent on modes, and even when the use of tonality is superficially similar it is in a completely different context. Tonality is the lifeblood of baroque and classical music, and the poison of Romanticism. It determines everything from the shape of the melodies, to the rhythm, to the global architecture. That type of thinking is dead, it has no place in the modern world.

36 minutes ago, Ravels Radical Rivalry said:

Yes there is glory in it. My Lord there certainly is glory in it. 

Certain things represent an absolute and carry with it a meaning and a presentation of an idea. You don't have to follow the trends of mankind to find new and exciting things. You don't have to ditch an old art form simply because it is old. This is a ridiculous idea. Art is an expression of worldview and philosophy. It is an expression of the artist. If the artist doesn't find a certain set of techniques to be a valid way to express his true self then why would he sacrifice true art to just jump on a bandwagon. If nobody ever resisted where we cam from then how would we know what it is that we are? How would we ever further ourselves. How would we ever have an overall appreciation for the larger picture?

It would certainly be a terrible waste to, as you say, ditch an old art form because it is old; that is not what I am advocating at all. But, as soon as it is out there and its original audience is gone and replaced with a new one, it is necessary to comment on it, otherwise you are literally preaching to the choir. Study it and learn from it, think as they thought, how they applied their technical knowledge to create art relevant to a new world. You can't ignore the "trends of mankind", they are already there and paint everything that concerns us.

Speaking of relevancy, here's a relevant quote:

"When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves."

- Confucius.

Just now, Gylfi said:

Not diatonicism, tonality with a capital T. Die Große Tonart. Besides, popular genres actually rely to a large extent on modes, and even when the use of tonality is superficially similar it is in a completely different context. Tonality is the lifeblood of baroque and classical music, and the poison of Romanticism. It determines everything from the shape of the melodies, to the rhythm, to the global architecture. That type of thinking is dead, it has no place in the modern world.

It would certainly be a terrible waste to, as you say, ditch an old art form because it is old; that is not what I am advocating at all. But, as soon as it is out there and its original audience is gone and replaced with a new one, it is necessary to comment on it, otherwise you are literally preaching to the choir. Study it and learn from it, think as they thought, how they applied their technical knowledge to create art relevant to a new world. You can't ignore the "trends of mankind", they are already there and paint everything that concerns us.

Speaking of relevancy, here's a relevant quote:

When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.

- Confucius.

 

DIDN'T READ  *DANCES*

7 minutes ago, RequiemLord said:

DIDN'T READ  *DANCES*

Well, you know, Confucius was a pretty smart guy. Here's another one for you:

"Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star."

EDIT: I'm sorry, that comment was disrespectful. Let me explain something:

If you think your position is strong enough to withstand the worthless criticism of cultureless bigots such as myself, it should not be necessary to run away from an argument in fear. Pretend as you want, that is exactly what you are doing.

32 minutes ago, Gylfi said:

Well, you know, Confucius was a pretty smart guy. Here's another one for you:

"Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star."

EDIT: I'm sorry, that comment was disrespectful. Let me explain something:

If you think your position is strong enough to withstand the worthless criticism of cultureless bigots such as myself, it should not be necessary to run away from an argument in fear. Pretend as you want, that is exactly what you are doing.

 

Ok.

What is the point of having today's composers compose in the "galant" classical style...?

Also, not all 20th century music is "atonal" (or similar to Cage, Schoenberg, et al.)...