GMG Classical Music Forum

The Music Room => General Classical Music Discussion => Topic started by: some guy on October 09, 2017, 06:35:25 AM

Title: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 09, 2017, 06:35:25 AM
I recently saw a reply to a thread on the book of faces that retailed a common idea about music, so common and so unquestioned, that there was even a time when I just assumed it to be a fact, even though it tallied in no way with my own experience.

That idea is that starting with Schoenberg's atonal pieces, composers began alienating audiences with music that was (purposely) ugly and incomprehensible.

This is asserted with the full confidence that it details a historical fact.

There are lots of things about this idea that are wrong, but I would like to start anyway with its putative condition of being historically factual.

Anti-modernist sentiment is certainly a thing. You can see it anywhere, in any classical music board, in any lobby of any symphony hall, and, as I just found out, in Facebook. It started, however, in the nineteenth century, not the twentieth. There were anti-modernists before then, but the sentiment first started to become widespread right around the same time that the term "classical music" was coined, which was 1810.

The central musical battle of that century, as demonstrated in concert programs, was between the old view, which was that new music is fine and only to be expected, and the new view, which still is that only old music is fine and the concerts with new music are an unforgivable imposition on the "general audience," whatever that may be. I have seen it suggested many times that new music should be relegated to new music concerts, where its few and eccentric fans can listen to it all they want. Well, there are new music societies already, but even they are not a twentieth century phenomenon--they started in the nineteenth century, and were most certainly a response to the growing hostility to new music.

In fact, ideas about music and responses to new music that get are consistently identified as twentieth century phenomena began in the nineteen century. Threatening to cancel one's subscription if the local orchestra doesn't stop playing that hideous modern crap? Nineteenth century. Concert organizers advising performers to avoid this or that composer as being a huge audience turn-off? Nineteenth century. That living composers seem determined to be as ugly and off-putting as possible? Nineteenth century. New music as generally inhospitable and incomprehensible? Nineteenth century. There's not one single canard about modern music that cannot be traced back to its origin in the nineteenth century, long before Schoenberg was born much less writing any music.

But the idea holds sway. It has even morphed somewhat. As most pre-WW II music pisses off fewer and fewer people, the new date for music that alienates audiences has moved for some people to the late 1940s. I've even seen some, comfortable with 1947 to 1970, attribute audience alienation to some unspecified thing that happened in the 1970s. That one has not gotten any traction, yet, and the Schoenberg idea still manages to survive as the one true ur-alienation.

I would like it destroyed, if that is possible. It's probably not--there are still people who think that people in the past (whenever that was) thought that the earth was flat, there are still people who think that Richard III murdered his nephews, there are still people who think that the whole Galileo situation illustrates the struggle between religion and science--so I'm not sanguine. But still, whatever you think about "new" music, isn't historical accuracy better than historical inaccuracy?

I would think--hope--that whatever you thought about, say, astrology, that you would be intrigued to find out that astrology and astronomy were roughly coterminous (as were alchemy and chemistry) and not sequential. But maybe that's just me.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 09, 2017, 09:22:24 AM
I maintain that 12-tone music, and serial music, meaning generally 'music that is based on non-harmonic principles' has always sounded different by its very nature. It is non-harmonic and not based on the way we hear, which is harmonically.

We hear bass notes as being on the bottom, and higher notes as being on top of that; in other words, a harmonic 'model' of sound.

In addition to the harmonic factor, highly chromatic 12-tone and serially-based music, the chromatic is distributed more or less evenly and constantly, so no distinct tonal center emerges which lasts for any substantial time.

This subject is so general and vague that nothing will be 'proven' by any argument, since no 'facts'  exist, but at least I have identified some general characteristics of such music, namely Schoenberg's later 12-tone works, and have posited some logical reasons why this music often poses problems for listeners.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 09, 2017, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 09, 2017, 06:35:25 AM
Threatening to cancel one's subscription if the local orchestra doesn't stop playing that hideous modern crap? Nineteenth century.

Source?

Quote
Concert organizers advising performers to avoid this or that composer as being a huge audience turn-off? Nineteenth century.

Source?

Quote
That living composers seem determined to be as ugly and off-putting as possible? Nineteenth century.

Source?

Quote
New music as generally inhospitable and incomprehensible? Nineteenth century.

Source?

Quote
There's not one single canard about modern music that cannot be traced back to its origin in the nineteenth century

Source?

QuoteI would like it destroyed, if that is possible.

You are an intelligent person, you should know that ideas are never destroyed --- they are only abandoned; and the fact that they are abandoned is no proof they are false; it's proof only that the paradigm has changed, as per Thomas Kuhn.



Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2017, 10:36:26 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 09, 2017, 09:27:54 AM
Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?

You are an intelligent person, you should know that ideas are never destroyed --- they are only abandoned; and the fact that they are abandoned is no proof they are false; it's proof only that the paradigm has changed, as per Thomas Kuhn.

Read some Edward Hanslick, you will be able to go on from there yourself. :)

8)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 09, 2017, 11:02:13 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2017, 10:36:26 AM
Read some Edward Hanslick, you will be able to go on from there yourself. :)

Beside being a musical critic, Eduard (emphatically not Edward) Hanslick was also a composer. Did he compose anything resembling "absolute music"? Hell, no! --- he composed only Lieder.  ;D



Title: A little history
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on October 09, 2017, 12:14:43 PM
I'm sure the sources are easily found if you do a few searches on JSTOR or Grove or something like that, Florestan.

It does seem perfectly logical though; the 19th century gave us the idea of a 'canon' of 'great works' all new compositions had to live up to.....and if people didn't like it then that simply meant it was inferior to Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn and they simply wouldn't care. Beethoven's prominence to composers in the decades following his death, the influence on them and even the pressure to do something different from them I guess would just be one of those 'new versus old' tensions that the world of music had to deal with....
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2017, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 09, 2017, 11:02:13 AM
Beside being a musical critic, Eduard (emphatically not Edward) Hanslick was also a composer. Did he compose anything resembling "absolute music"? Hell, no! --- he composed only Lieder.  ;D

I don't care how to spell his name, honestly. He was one of the most influential people in music in the 19th century. He made and broke careers. He was hugely responsible for the idea and implementation of the concept of 'Canon of Western Music', and who should be in it and who shouldn't. His music was insignificant. His influence on the music of others was huge. I wouldn't tell you this stuff if I didn't think you should look into it. You know I don't care about it. For me, nothing happened after 1830. But I know it's important to other people. :)

8)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 09, 2017, 12:29:48 PM
I think for the first two thirds of the 19th century at least "new music" clearly dominated the concert programs. The theoretical idea of a canon did not imply that more than about a handful pieces each of Bach, Handel, Haydn and Mozart (a few more by him) were played, often heavily arranged to "modern" tastes. It was different for Beethoven. But his music was comparably "modern". Brahms's 1st symphony in 1876 came only a little more than 50 years after Beethoven's 9th.

And the people who were irritated by Beethoven's or Berlioz's music and called the latter "sterile algebra" did not really prefer Bach, but more conventional music of contemporary composers of the 1820s-40s.
So it was a different opposition than the one from the 1930s or so onwards when irritating new music (e.g. Berg) was only partly competing against less irritating new music (e.g. Strauss) but mainly against music that was 50 or more than 100 years old (Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner etc.)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 09, 2017, 01:33:45 PM
Florestan and I have had this conversation before, so he already knows that my source, anyway, is William Weber's The Great Transformation of Musical Taste. And his sources were concert programs, diaries and letters.

But that's as may be.

The point is that this is a very common notion, shared by almost everyone, and it is in the first place historically inaccurate.

In the second place, it bears very little scrutiny on other grounds. Was there a spike in anti-modernist thought after 1906, or 12 or 13. No.

Not surprisingly, as who would have been listening to these pieces of Schoenberg's and Webern's that were so off-putting? Only fans of modern music, attending those exclusive for fans only concerts. How would the "general audience" have heard any of that music at the time? It was not, by and large, being played at the concerts they frequented. Not that new music is any better known today. It is railed against by people who don't really have to listen to any of it, ever.

Oh well, it fits a narrative, and that narrative is not about to be given up lightly or willingly.
Title: A little history
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on October 09, 2017, 01:56:21 PM
I think that New Music is doing rather well particularly with the advent of platforms such as SoundCloud and other digital streaming and purchasing options, as well as a plethora of new music ensembles, festivals and commissioning programmes. I guess the internet certainly helps to create a larger audience for new music than was possible a hundred years ago.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 09, 2017, 11:05:38 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2017, 12:16:46 PM
I don't care how to spell his name, honestly. He was one of the most influential people in music in the 19th century. He made and broke careers.

Whose career did Hanslick make? Whose career did Hanslick break?

QuoteFor me, nothing happened after 1830.

You're worse than Hanslick. At least he championed Brahms.  ;D >:D :P
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Pat B on October 10, 2017, 11:39:29 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 09, 2017, 06:35:25 AM
That idea is that starting with Schoenberg's atonal pieces, composers began alienating audiences with music that was (purposely) ugly and incomprehensible.

There are lots of things about this idea that are wrong...

Clearly there was resistance to new music prior to Schoenberg.

My sense is that audience alienation from free-atonalism and serialism was both stronger and longer-lasting than that from other music before and since. But I don't know how to measure that.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: bwv 1080 on October 10, 2017, 05:01:34 PM
Nicholas Slominsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective is a great source for what Someguy is talking about.  For example:

"I push away Brahms contemptuously. His music is a noisy, reverberating void." [J.F. Runciman, Musical Record, Boston, January 1, 1900]

Sometimes the invective derives from unlikely sources, as when fellow composers feel compelled to take a swing at their defenseless colleagues. Thus a worked up Tchaikovsky inveighs against Brahms:

"I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius ... Brahms is chaotic and absolutely empty dried-up stuff. " [Diary, October 9, 1886]

Brahms could get in a dig of his own, as when he dubbed Verdi's music as "one perfect, authentic cadence after another."


https://vagrantmoodwp.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/it-is-the-music-of-a-demented-eunuch/
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 10, 2017, 11:08:23 PM
Quote from: Pat B on October 10, 2017, 11:39:29 AM
Clearly there was resistance to new music prior to Schoenberg.

My sense is that audience alienation from free-atonalism and serialism was both stronger and longer-lasting than that from other music before and since. But I don't know how to measure that.
Longer lasting is probably true. The collected "invectives" and criticisms both from earlier times as well as from other music of the early 20th century that has become fairly popular (e.g. Debussy's) make it at least doubtful that it was stronger initially.

But there are several factors that could be causes for the alienation that have very little to do with avantgardistic music, namely that the audience expanded and that there was more music the avantgarde was competing with.

The interesting thing for me is that avantgardistic visual art was far more radical from the early 20th century on than music but a lot of it has become a big business (and really popular: some reproductions will be found in petit bourgeois living rooms) whereas music that was avantagarde in 1917 can still be a hard sell.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 11, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
My sense is that audience alienation to the avant-garde in the twentieth century has very little to do with the music itself, just as it was in the nineteenth century. Be fair, if you're boycotting the concerts where the music of living composers is being played (the usual pattern for the 19th century), then you're not hearing the music you supposedly abhor. And given that there was no recording technology until quite late, and no youtube until quite late in the next century, you really did then have no chance to hear the music you were avoiding. Now at least it is slightly more difficult to avoid, though not at all any more than slightly.

I don't think that any strength or durability of anti-modernist sentiment that one might observe in the twentieth century is any more than just the natural result of that resistance being a hundred years old already before any "atonal" music by Schoenberg. In the nineteenth century, the sentiment was not largely accepted and supported by pundits. It was an active and contentious battle between the pundits. As I stated before, it seems to have been the defining battle of the nineteenth century as regards music. By the time Schoenberg was writing pantonal and twelve-tone music, the battle had been won. (Any outbursts of activity and contention after that were a good sign, I think. A sign that creative artists and their audiences were not going to give up on new music, no matter where it went. No matter, even, that it went in several different directions, either.)

I would only expect that a strong opinion largely divorced from direct experience would only grow stronger with time. After all, it doesn't need any fodder, really, to grow. That it got fodder in spades (to mix some nice metaphors, there) was just sheer good luck. It would not have been necessary, I don't think. How many concert audiences in the US have ever heard any music by Varèse, in concert? I'm a huge fan of new music, and I have heard the music of Varèse exactly three times in concert, once in San Francisco (Ionisation), once in L.A. (Equatorial), and once in Ostrava (Amériques).

I suppose I could count the botched up version of Déserts that the Green Umbrella in L.A. offered up once. But that bore little resemblance to whatever Varèse had written....

I was looking for it, and I hardly found any. How much less would someone trying to avoid it ever "have to" hear? None.

And Varèse has been dead over 50 years. Someone who's still alive but getting on in years has never been performed in the US (except for one time when he was here on a visit) is Helmut Lachenmann, who is considered a pretty big deal in Europe. I have only heard his music live in Europe.

Getting rid of false narratives is my idea of a first step towards de-demonizing new music. Giving audiences permission to like it instead of constantly reinforcing old and hoary prejudices. That there are so many here at GMG who have successfully broken free of those prejudices is a fine thing. That the prejudices continue to be things to have to break free of is not. When I first started to listen to new music, it was a source of unalloyed pleasure to me. I found out quickly that it was not so for some others, but then so few of my friends listened to classical music at all, it took some time to catch on that this dislike was a big effin' deal. But it still was only good as far as I could hear. I didn't like everything I heard, by no means. But it no more occurred to me to account for my dislike by bashing "new music" generally, than you would account for your dislike of Bruckner, say, or Buxtehude, by maintaining that all "Romantic" music is crap or all "Baroque" music is boring and repetitive.

Well, there's my dreamy little dream.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Pat B on October 11, 2017, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 11, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
My sense is that audience alienation to the avant-garde in the twentieth century has very little to do with the music itself, just as it was in the nineteenth century. Be fair, if you're boycotting the concerts where the music of living composers is being played (the usual pattern for the 19th century), then you're not hearing the music you supposedly abhor. And given that there was no recording technology until quite late, and no youtube until quite late in the next century, you really did then have no chance to hear the music you were avoiding. Now at least it is slightly more difficult to avoid, though not at all any more than slightly.

I don't think that any strength or durability of anti-modernist sentiment that one might observe in the twentieth century is any more than just the natural result of that resistance being a hundred years old already before any "atonal" music by Schoenberg. In the nineteenth century, the sentiment was not largely accepted and supported by pundits. It was an active and contentious battle between the pundits. As I stated before, it seems to have been the defining battle of the nineteenth century as regards music. By the time Schoenberg was writing pantonal and twelve-tone music, the battle had been won.

So your claim is that indiscriminate anti-new-music sentiment didn't start with Schoenberg, but it suddenly started dictating concert programming at the same time as Schoenberg, but that change had nothing to do with Schoenberg.

I am skeptical.

I just checked the forthcoming concert schedules on backtrack.com for a bunch of composers.

Second Viennese School:
Schoenberg: 75 listings
Berg: 63
Webern: 38

Darmstadt:
Berio: 21
Boulez: 17
Stockhausen: 7
Nono: 5
Kagel: 4
Maderna: 1

Other contemporaries of Schoenberg and younger composers:
Shostakovich: 408
Prokofiev: 312
Stravinsky: 306
Vaughan Williams: 102
Gershwin: 96
Copland: 72
Pärt: 71
Messiaen: 69
Barber: 68
Ligeti: 67
Adams: 45
Hindemith: 36
Glass: 25
Reich: 13
Schnittke: 13
Górecki: 6
Varèse: 5

For comparison:
Beethoven: 1111
Mozart: 901
Brahms: 730
J.S.Bach: 654
Schubert: 476
Haydn: 445
Schumann: 397
Mendelssohn: 375
Rachmaninoff: 315
R.Strauss: 274
Mahler: 273
Bruckner: 135

The numbers for Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky belie the notion that the alleged 1910 threshold in indiscriminate anti-new-music sentiment is the main reason Schoenberg didn't get as popular as Mahler.

Incidentally, I was wrong in another thread about Shostakovich, though I'm still doubtful that anti-American bias is what's holding back Piston, Hanson, et al.
Title: A little history
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on October 11, 2017, 03:22:18 PM
I'm curious to know why a composer as well known as Lachenmann hasn't had many performances in the USA, where the music of Eckardt, Ferneyhough (not American but certainly worked there for a while), Crumb etc seem to be/have been fairly big deals in New Music in that part of the world.......
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 11, 2017, 10:35:29 PM
Quote from: Pat B on October 11, 2017, 01:08:30 PM
The numbers for Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky belie the notion that the alleged 1910 threshold in indiscriminate anti-new-music sentiment is the main reason Schoenberg didn't get as popular as Mahler.

Another false, counterfactual notion is that "boycotting the concerts where the music of living composers is being played [was] the usual pattern for the 19th century".

Actually, Beethoven, Paganini, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak enjoyed during their lifetime a degree of popularity ranging from huge to remarkable --- and so did many a composer now forgotten or neglected. Mahler and R. Strauss, without being as popular, were no strangers to public acclaim either. And in the realm of opera the enthusiasm for the music of living composers was even greater.

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 12, 2017, 08:24:53 AM
I would be interested in serious sources of evidence of 19th century "boycotts" of living composers and/or concerts mostly dedicated to dead composers. There were clearly strong factions and lots of invective in the 19th century, but they usually involved living composers vs. different living composers.
It is very implausible that a unspecific and vague stance against any kind of new music was a stable feature of most of the 19th century. On the contrary, some of the music that was met with irritation and invoked invective like Beethoven and Wagner came to be revered only a few years later. Whereas virtuoso stars like Paganini or Thalberg depended on their actual performances and charisma and other composers like Spohr or Raff who used to be as famous as Beethoven or Brahms in their day were mostly forgotten after their deaths.

And as Pat hinted at: The explanandum is that not *any* new music that provoked scandal at the premiere mostly remained hermetic for large parts of the audience.
Le Sacre provoked scandal at the premiere (although this might have been more because of the actual staging than the music) but less than 40 years later bits of it could be used in a cartoon for kids! If one looks up the reactions to Debussy by conservatives whose ideal was Brahms or maybe Elgar they were as vicious as could be, but by the mid-20th-century Debussy became canon and fairly popular. Of course, Webern and Schoenberg have technically been canonized and their music is frequently played but nothing by them (and don't even start with Varèse or most avantgarde since the 1940s) is even remotely as popular as most of Debussy and Ravel or a lot of Stravinsky and Prokofiev. Of mid-20th century avantgardists, maybe some pieces by Messiaen and Ligeti "made it" by now but not many.

So if an old-fashioned conventional stance is responsible for rejecting new music since 150 years or more, why does it work far better against Webern or Boulez than against Ravel or Shostakovich? What explains the difference in their popularity?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 12, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
Quote from: Pat B on October 11, 2017, 01:08:30 PM
So your claim is that indiscriminate anti-new-music sentiment didn't start with Schoenberg, but it suddenly started dictating concert programming at the same time as Schoenberg, but that change had nothing to do with Schoenberg.
Um, no, that is not at all my claim. Anti-new-music sentiment didn't evince any change at all as Schoenberg's music was being written. If it grew, it was because it was already growing and just continued to grow.

How did you come up with "suddenly started dictating concert programming at the same time as Schoenberg" as something I have claimed?

What I'm claiming is the opposite, i.e., that Schoenberg's activities had no discernable effect on anti-modernist sentiment.

The only thing I've ever seen alleged about 1910 is that that is roughly when composers all rose up en masse to alienate audiences. That's not the only date that's been put forth, either. Note that that allegation is about composers, not about audiences. That's the allegation I'd like to destroy not promote.

As for Florestan's point, yes, lots of composers have enjoyed enormous success in their lifetimes, in spite of anti-modernist sentiment. So the successes of Beethoven, Paganini, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak are to be taken as evidence that the sentiment did not exist? Did not grow in strength and nastiness throughout the century? I've seen the same "argument" used to claim that racism and sexism were never as bad as some people said they were. Well, maybe you could have thrown in Cage and Stockhausen and Boulez, too, who also enjoyed popularity ranging from huge to remarkable. If you simply leave out the bad bits, if you include only the good bits, you can make a case for almost anyone enjoying enormous success. It's a gross distortion of reality, but since it feeds the narrative, I guess it will have its proponents. Oh well.

One thing is for sure, someone should have told Berlioz and Liszt that Beethoven was hugely successful, everywhere. Would have saved them decades of tireless promoting of his music in places where he was unknown or almost universally excoriated. But they never knew. Whatever could it have been that prompted them to do all this useless promotion?

For Jo498, that's what Weber's book does, looks at printed concert programs, at letters, and at critical reviews. In Haydn's time, the ratio of new to old was roughly 90 to 10. By 1870, the ratio had flipped. New music accounted for 10 percent only--this is looking at programs in the capitols of music, Paris, London, Vienna and so forth.

In any event, if recordings are any indication, Messiaen and Ligeti are hugely popular, as classical music goes. Classical music is generally speaking hugely unpopular in all its manifestations.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 12, 2017, 09:36:45 AM
Bottom line, Michael's indignation is directed not at an alleged 19-th century conspiracy against new music and living composers but at the fact that today not all people like the music he likes (actually, most people have never heard of a good deal of his favorite living composers).  He seems to be unable --- or unwilling --- to get over it and move on. That's all.  ;D >:D
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Pat B on October 12, 2017, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 12, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
As for Florestan's point, yes, lots of composers have enjoyed enormous success in their lifetimes, in spite of anti-modernist sentiment. So the successes of Beethoven, Paganini, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak are to be taken as evidence that the sentiment did not exist? Did not grow in strength and nastiness throughout the century?

There is a middle ground between "boycotting living composers was the usual pattern for the 19th century" and "anti-modernist sentiment did not exist."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Pat B on October 12, 2017, 10:03:36 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 12, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
Um, no, that is not at all my claim. Anti-new-music sentiment didn't evince any change at all as Schoenberg's music was being written. If it grew, it was because it was already growing and just continued to grow.

How did you come up with "suddenly started dictating concert programming at the same time as Schoenberg" as something I have claimed?

Second paragraph of Reply #15, where anti-modernist sentiment was not largely accepted in the 19th century, but the battle was later won, just in time for atonality.

I now see that your belief is that the change in programming was gradual, which wasn't clear before.

Quote
What I'm claiming is the opposite, i.e., that Schoenberg's activities had no discernable effect on anti-modernist sentiment.

That's not the opposite of my paraphrase at all, as should be clear from the third clause.

Anyway, I won't argue with this specific statement. I don't know whether it's true or not.

But earlier you said that the reaction to his music "has very little to do with the music itself." That's what I disagree with. The popularity attained by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky suggests that the response to Schoenberg has little, if anything, to do with his relative newness.

And since your claim now is that the change in programming was gradual, it is also relevant that composers working shortly before 1910 — Mahler, R.Strauss, Rachmaninoff — became quite popular.

Where you and I disagree is that I think the response to Schoenberg's music is primarily because of the music.

Quote
The only thing I've ever seen alleged about 1910 is that that is roughly when composers all rose up en masse to alienate audiences. That's not the only date that's been put forth, either. Note that that allegation is about composers, not about audiences. That's the allegation I'd like to destroy not promote.

Who made this allegation?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 12, 2017, 10:07:43 AM
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 09, 2017, 09:22:24 AM
I maintain that 12-tone music, and serial music, meaning generally 'music that is based on non-harmonic principles' has always sounded different by its very nature. It is non-harmonic and not based on the way we hear, which is harmonically.

We hear bass notes as being on the bottom, and higher notes as being on top of that; in other words, a harmonic 'model' of sound.

In addition to the harmonic factor, highly chromatic 12-tone and serially-based music, the chromatic is distributed more or less evenly and constantly, so no distinct tonal center emerges which lasts for any substantial time.

This subject is so general and vague that nothing will be 'proven' by any argument, since no 'facts'  exist, but at least I have identified some general characteristics of such music, namely Schoenberg's later 12-tone works, and have posited some logical reasons why this music often poses problems for listeners.

I don't think your argument is valid. It is true that how dissonant an interval sounds depends on how simple its relationship to the harmonic scale is. It is true that scheme of harmony in Western classical music incorporates this into its harmonic structure. It is not true that atonal music somehow ignores or contradicts this. There is more than one way to organize music based on consonant and dissonant intervals. Atonal doesn't "resolve" dissonances to consonances using the rules of common practice harmony. Atonal music organizes dissonant and consonant intervals using different schemes. It is not necessary to reference music to a fundamental tone in order to utilize the contrast between consonant and dissonant intervals to make music.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on October 12, 2017, 07:07:34 PM
Quote from: jessop on October 11, 2017, 03:22:18 PM
I'm curious to know why a composer as well known as Lachenmann hasn't had many performances in the USA, where the music of Eckardt, Ferneyhough (not American but certainly worked there for a while), Crumb etc seem to be/have been fairly big deals in New Music in that part of the world.......


Also, Aaron Cassidy is a big deal over there too from what I have noticed..........forgot to mention him
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 13, 2017, 04:42:33 AM
I could only get some glimpses online of Weber's book. But his main point seems entirely different from some guys claims. It's that the popular mixes of late 18th and early 20th century concerts were transformed in to "serious" programs containing a certain number of "classics" and of course the establishment of such classics. This is of course true.

But it has almost nothing to do with rejection of difficult avantgarde music, even less a prejudice against any new music.

To the contrary, I'd say that precisely the transformation of music from transient entertainment into a serious art with a "canon" of classics and also the establishment of the concert as a space for such serious music (not mainly for virtuoso showing off) is what made difficult avantgarde music possible in the first place.
It seems  doubtful that without the transformation into a serious concert and the stressing of traditions from Bach through Beethoven to the respective contemporary "serious" composers there would have been any Schoenberg in the first place. Or if, he would have had it much harder to find any public audience. His music would have been like the Musical Offering, a piece of theory distributed by mail to the members of a learned society.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 13, 2017, 06:42:34 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 12, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
One thing is for sure, someone should have told Berlioz and Liszt that Beethoven was hugely successful, everywhere. Would have saved them decades of tireless promoting of his music in places where he was unknown or almost universally excoriated. But they never knew. Whatever could it have been that prompted them to do all this useless promotion?

The funny things is that by the time Berlioz and Liszt championed his music, Beethoven was already a dead composer, not a living one.

Quote
For Jo498, that's what Weber's book does, looks at printed concert programs, at letters, and at critical reviews. In Haydn's time, the ratio of new to old was roughly 90 to 10. By 1870, the ratio had flipped. New music accounted for 10 percent only--this is looking at programs in the capitols of music, Paris, London, Vienna and so forth.

What you fail to account for is the huge difference in taste from Paris to London to Vienna and so forth.

For instance, in Paris people routinely and enthusiastically flocked to hear Henri Herz and Sigismond Thalberg playing their new compositions, or to watch the latest Meyerbeer opera. How you or anybody else can claim that "boycotting living composers and new music" was "the usual pattern" in 19th century Paris is beyond me --- unless you consider that only "living composers and new music" which is to your liking qualify as such, which I strongly suspect to be the case.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 13, 2017, 06:46:16 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 13, 2017, 04:42:33 AM
I could only get some glimpses online of Weber's book. But his main point seems entirely different from some guys claims. It's that the popular mixes of late 18th and early 20th century concerts were transformed in to "serious" programs containing a certain number of "classics" and of course the establishment of such classics. This is of course true.

But it has almost nothing to do with rejection of difficult avantgarde music, even less a prejudice against any new music.

To the contrary, I'd say that precisely the transformation of music from transient entertainment into a serious art with a "canon" of classics and also the establishment of the concert as a space for such serious music (not mainly for virtuoso showing off) is what made difficult avantgarde music possible in the first place.
It seems  doubtful that without the transformation into a serious concert and the stressing of traditions from Bach through Beethoven to the respective contemporary "serious" composers there would have been any Schoenberg in the first place. Or if, he would have had it much harder to find any public audience. His music would have been like the Musical Offering, a piece of theory distributed by mail to the members of a learned society.

Excellent post.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 13, 2017, 08:48:08 AM
QuoteI have been...passionately fond of music while music was really good, and having lived in what I consider as one of its most flourishing periods. So great a change has taken place within a few years, that I can no longer receive from it any pleasure approaching that which I used to experience. The remembrance of the past is therefore infinitely more agreeable than the enjoyment of the present, and I derive the highest gratification music can yet afford me from hearing again, or barely recalling to mind what formerly gave me such unqualified delight.

Quote. . . The more affected the modern singer is, the more applause he meets with from the unfeeling multitude; and for these reasons you never meet with a man of fine taste and genius, at what is called in London the Professional Concert.

These quotes seem to support Michael's thesis alright --- except they're from the 18th Century!  ;D



Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 13, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
While I am of course grateful, and amused, that certain members who seem to be opposed to what I'm presenting are so determined to make my points for me, I have to say, really, not necessary. I can make those points myself.

But hey, continue if you must.

Otherwise, Jo498, your "glimpse" has given you a perhaps less than accurate idea of what the book is all about.

I've read the whole thing, start to finish, three times.

As I have already mentioned, I too subscribed to the notion that the negative audience reaction to "new" music began in the 20th century with Schoenberg and Stravinsky, even though my own experiences with new music were mostly quite positive. But after reading (reading is somewhat other than glimpsing), Weber's book, I had to jettison the notion, or, better, began to see it as merely a notion.

And in case it gets any traction, I should reiterate that my point (which is only retailing Weber's point) is that the anti-modernist sentiment that began around 1810 (18, Pat B, not 19) was not full-blown IN 1810. It took many decades, almost the entire rest of the century, to grow to its 20th century proportions.

I'd also, since this is also in danger of being covered over, like to reiterate that three main peaks of anti-modernism in the nineteenth century, in the 40s, the 60s, and in 1900, all preceded any "modernist" productions by either Schoenberg or Stravinsky.

The tale that anti-modernism was a result of the pieces it preceded is clearly just that, a tale.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Pat B on October 13, 2017, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 13, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
18, Pat B, not 19

I understood that from the beginning. You think the sentiment started in 1810 but that it being 100 years old in 1910 is what caused Schoenberg to not be programmed. Hence the distinction I made between the sentiment and the programming. A distinction which you have consistently ignored when responding to me.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 14, 2017, 03:11:32 AM
Pat,

Very quickly, as it's a nice day, and I should already be out in it. I started this thread as a reaction to seeing recently on the book of faces a common idea about twentieth century music, which is that the radical musics of Schoenberg and Stravinsky and others alienated audiences.

There are many and different things wrong with this idea, but the one I started with, for this thread, was that it was at the very least historically inaccurate. That is, that the alienation came much earlier and was not prompted by anything that the yet unborn Schoenberg ever did.

The sentiment did not start in 1810. Its roots go back to the first ancient music societies. But 1810 is a convenient marker for it as that is the year that the term "classical music" was first coined, thus tending to solidify the growing notion that old is better than new, which gradually, over the century, came to replace the earlier idea, which was that new is better than old.

It is difficult to keep up with all the various things that I am supposed to have said (and even the things that I am cleverly not saying but that constitute my real agenda, which only the illuminati know). I could spend all my time simply dealing with distortions and false attributions. I'd rather go wander about Zagreb on a warm and sunny day.

The connection made in Weber's book between the sentiment and the programming is that the printed programs of the nineteenth century show a persistent trend of concerts featuring fewer and fewer pieces by living composers as the century progressed, so that the ratio of new to old in Haydn's time, 90 to 10, had flipped by 1870 to 10 to 90--in some places the ratio was simply 0 to 100.

My point about programming is about the printed programs that Weber presents, what those programs show about the sentiment. The printed programs, along with all the other documents, show that the sentiment that Schoenberg supposedly sparked by writing such awful music had been around for at least a hundred years before his awfulness and for about 50 or 60 years before that.

The conclusion that Schoenberg's music caused the widespread alienation of audience and composer that we can still see today is simply a false conclusion.

That is, the programming follows the same arc as evidenced in other materials of the time, correpondences, reviews, articles, and books.

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 14, 2017, 04:47:11 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 14, 2017, 03:11:32 AM
Very quickly, as it's a nice day, and I should already be out in it. I started this thread as a reaction to seeing recently on the book of faces a common idea about twentieth century music, which is that the radical musics of Schoenberg and Stravinsky and others alienated audiences.

First, you reply hastily to Pat because it's a nice day and you should not waste it; second, you confess that you started this thread as a reaction to some post(s) you saw recently on Facebook. Am I the only one to sense the incongruity?

QuoteThe sentiment did not start in 1810. Its roots go back to the first ancient music societies.

In other words, "anti-modernist sentiment" has been a constant in music history --- and one might safely add, in art history in general.

Any more truisms in your stock?

Quote
But 1810 is a convenient marker for it as that is the year that the term "classical music" was first coined,

Who coined it? Where did it first appear in print? And in what context?

Quote
thus tending to solidify the growing notion that old is better than new, which gradually, over the century, came to replace the earlier idea, which was that new is better than old.

You contradict yourself every two paragraphs. First, it's "The sentiment did not start in 1810. Its roots go back to the first ancient music societies.". Then it's "the growing notion that old is better than new, which gradually, over the century, came to replace the earlier idea, which was that new is better than old." Would you be so kind as to make up your mind about which is which?

QuoteIt is difficult to keep up with all the various things that I am supposed to have said (and even the things that I am cleverly not saying but that constitute my real agenda, which only the illuminati know). I could spend all my time simply dealing with distortions and false attributions. I'd rather go wander about Zagreb on a warm and sunny day.

With this I wholeheartedly agree: yours getting out more and posting less would certainly be an improvement, both for your life and this board.  >:D

QuoteThe conclusion that Schoenberg's music caused the widespread alienation of audience and composer that we can still see today is simply a false conclusion.

Once again: yours having read that conclusion somewhere on Facebook prompted this whole diatribe against the 19th century, as if it was the century that turned upside down the course of Western music...

Risum teneatis, amici?

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 14, 2017, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 12, 2017, 10:07:43 AM
I don't think your argument is valid. It is true that how dissonant an interval sounds depends on how simple its relationship to the harmonic scale is. It is true that scheme of harmony in Western classical music incorporates this into its harmonic structure. It is not true that atonal music somehow ignores or contradicts this. There is more than one way to organize music based on consonant and dissonant intervals. Atonal doesn't "resolve" dissonances to consonances using the rules of common practice harmony. Atonal music organizes dissonant and consonant intervals using different schemes. It is not necessary to reference music to a fundamental tone in order to utilize the contrast between consonant and dissonant intervals to make music.

Someguy should write a book called "The History of Anti-modernist Sentiment".

@Scarpia: I'm not arguing against atonality. I like it.

What you say is true; Western classical incorporates integrated system-wide harmonic relations into its structure.

However, these harmonic relations and structures are comprehensive, and have more connected levels of relationship than atonal music, or music based on sets.

The consonances and dissonances in atonal music are comparative and relative, not comprehensive.

In tonal music the entire scale and all the triads built on those steps, and their functions, are based on relation to the tonic pitch.

In atonal and serial music, there is no unordered scale, so each note relation applies only to the preceding or following note, and this is based on intervals, not actual pitch identities (such as "G" as tonic). The sets can be transposed to any pitch, and still retain their intervallic relationship. This has nothing to do with a single tonic pitch center.

So, yes, in a good atonal composition, there can be comparative consonance and dissonance which can 'build tension' or 'resolve' it, so to speak, but this does not, as you seem to imply, make atonal music 'as harmonic' as tonal music, because it is not.

Atonal music, meaning 12-tone and set-based chromatic music, is not based on the same harmonic principles as tonality is.

Tonality means pitch identity, as cardinality, where the tonic pitch has primacy due to its identity as a specific note, such as G, C, and so on;

Atonal set music is based on quantities, not identity relations, and this means interval distances between pitches. This is purely relational and quantitative, not based on pitch identity, pitch centers, or key areas as such.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Pat B on October 14, 2017, 05:43:07 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 14, 2017, 03:11:32 AM
Pat,

I'd like to point out that I explicitly stated, in rough agreement with the point you're rehashing, that resistance to new music did not start with Schoenberg, my first sentence in this thread, Reply #12. As far as I can tell, everyone in this thread agrees. If people on Facebook are the ones who disagree, then maybe you should take that up with them.

What I disagreed with, as I tried to make clear in Reply #23, is your belief "that audience alienation to the avant-garde in the twentieth century has very little to do with the music itself." I think some new music is more alienating than other new music.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 15, 2017, 06:41:35 AM
Quote from: Pat B on October 14, 2017, 05:43:07 PM
I'd like to point out that I explicitly stated, in rough agreement with the point you're rehashing, that resistance to new music did not start with Schoenberg, my first sentence in this thread, Reply #12. As far as I can tell, everyone in this thread agrees. If people on Facebook are the ones who disagree, then maybe you should take that up with them.

What I disagreed with, as I tried to make clear in Reply #23, is your belief "that audience alienation to the avant-garde in the twentieth century has very little to do with the music itself." I think some new music is more alienating than other new music.

Some new music is more alienating than other new music.  Just like Wagner was more alienating than Liszt, and Liszt more alienating than Berlioz, and Berlioz more alienating than Mendelssohn, who was himself far more alienating than the countless mediocrities who regurgitated the past.

I'm surprised by how many people say the roots of Schoenberg's difficulty lie in his lack of melodies or lyricism, because those people who inveigh against the music so strongly clearly don't know it very well.  Schoenberg's music is very consistently melodic and lyrical.  I'm also surprised that people think atonality is something Schoenberg was trying to accomplish, because he never said that he was trying to do anything of the sort.  Atonality is a name given to music like that of Richard Strauss, Debussy, Mahler, Reger, Berg, Bartok, Stravinsky, and so forth.  Anything incomprehensible, dissonant, too modern, unmelodic, and so forth.  Music like that of Wagner, where if you exchange the flats and sharps at random, no one will be able to tell the difference.  Sometimes the name sticks around, sometimes it doesn't.  For reasons that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the music itself, Schoenberg has become uniquely saddled with it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 15, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 15, 2017, 09:55:58 AM
You can't control how people think, and I would be horrified if anyone could.  While there are those that may be alienated by new music (I think most simply don't listen and don't care) there is a small but devoted following for living composers.  As you said in a later post, classical music of all styles makes up a fraction among all music listeners.  Which is okay with me.  Fine art of any kind is similarly situated in the marketplace.

I am not sure I understand what you are worked up about.
I am not sure that I, in my own echt self, am worked up about anything.

Some of my detractors seem to be worked up. Some of my detractors have been portraying me as worked up.

Otherwise, false ideas are bad if only because they're false. True is better. If you need more, then how about this: false ideas make it difficult to live genuinely or responsibly. The particular false idea at issue here may not seem like any great shakes, though certainly the ordinary struggles of a contemporary artist aren't made any easier by ideas like this. Other things, like racism, say, are much more worthy of discussion and of being countered. I wouldn't argue with that, only point out that the little falsehoods are maybe easier to combat than the big ones. And maybe fostering an atmosphere in which falsities, no matter how small, can be recognized is an atmosphere in which falsities, no matter how large, can be successfully combated.

I dunno, sanantonio. I don't really understand what you want. Promoting one point of view over another does not seem like "controlling how people think." If it were, then no one would ever put forward any point of view about anything. And my point isn't even about whether or not any individual person will or will not (should or should not) like any particular piece by, say, Xenakis or Yoshihide. It's about what the historical record says. It's about simple logic: if an idea was current a hundred years or more before Schoenberg was born, then nothing Schoenberg did could have possibly engendered that idea.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 15, 2017, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 15, 2017, 11:34:45 AMI dunno, sanantonio. I don't really understand what you want. Promoting one point of view over another does not seem like "controlling how people think." If it were, then no one would ever put forward any point of view about anything.

Putting forward a point of view is not forcing anyone to accept it, and nor is making a reasoned argument.

Imagine this situation:

A speaker at a party tells a story with a very distinct running refrain, appearing in various guises throughout, but always easily related back to the common theme.  Episodes and anecdotes consistently relate back to it.  One of the audience members, however, does not speak or understand the language of the speaker.  When they meet afterwards, the listener tells the speaker that he is sorry that he was unable to follow her story.  She understands, knowing that the language was unfamiliar, so of course the story's recurring motifs wouldn't be prominent.  Pleasantries are exchanged and no ill will is aroused.

Now imagine that after the story was told, the audience member is angry, and goes around the party telling everyone who will listen that the speaker is a fraud.  Furthermore, when others describe to him the running motifs and import of the story, he ridicules them as self-deluded and pretentious.  After all, he is sure that what the speaker was using was not only not English, it was no language at all, but rather some kind of gibberish meant to sound important.  If he is given the chance, he even goes up to the speaker to challenge them directly and test them, trying to prove how much of a charlatan they are, to which the speaker reacts with a mixture of dismay and irritation, which the audience member assures himself is proof that she is in fact lying.

The latter is how people who rail against modern music as nonsense sound to people who enjoy it.  They insist that something that they did not follow cannot be followed by anyone, in spite of evidence to the contrary.  People don't generally do this with language because there is an understanding of the existence of other linguistic cultures.  People DO do this with music because there is something of an unconscious expectation that music should always follow patterns that are known, or at the least imitate them.  Even though the door is always open to become familiar with new patterns, the unfamiliar is often dismissed as inherently unpleasant or even frightening.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Uhor on October 15, 2017, 04:27:21 PM
Schoenberg had no patience for idiots. The need is to listen ahead.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 15, 2017, 07:34:24 PM
Quote from: Uhor on October 15, 2017, 04:27:21 PM
Schoenberg had no patience for idiots. The need is to listen ahead.

Most composers who are even a tiny bit in the stream of writing newer music, at least when heard behind closed doors discussing audiences, have little or no patience with the philistine or the more musically lazy listener, etc.  Some are better than others from hiding that lack of patience, or at least are generally tactful when speaking in public about audiences.  Though, if it is ones lot to be 'ahead of the masses' it would behoove one to accept that as ones personal status quo and not be too much of a jerk about it. (doh.) 

The general context of a (non-populist?) artist in relation to the society in which they live is pretty much as Edgard (Eddie ;- ) Varèse put it,
"Contrary to general belief, an artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs."

(If an artist is very much in their own time, then, while most around them are not, some impatience is completely understandable.)

P.s. Idiot, if used correctly, designates an irreversible condition and state: using the word in the above, even if it is a colloquialism all understand,  does not put anything at all worthwhile forward.



Best regards.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Alek Hidell on October 16, 2017, 05:51:35 AM
There are a few things that get often overlooked in discussions of "new music," which are the crucial changes that coincided with its beginnings in the early 20th century. It was Schoenberg's lot (along with, naturally, Berg and Webern and everyone who has followed in their footsteps) to be composing his music at just about the same time these changes were occurring.


The second of these is very much related to the first, of course. Prior to the 20th century, classical music was the only form of music considered worthy of intellectual or aesthetic attention (at least AFAIK). There were other forms, of course, such as folk/work songs and dance music, but these were considered "mere" diversions. No one organized or attended concerts of these kinds of music. Classical music was popular music, in the sense we think of it today.

But in the early 20th century the technology was developed to record performances of music and to sell such performances on record. And, a little later, to broadcast performances - either live or recorded - over radio. Jazz and the blues emerged (at least in the U.S.), followed in later decades by related genres such as country, bluegrass, R&B, and rock.

So "popular" music became much more diverse. There were many other musical "products" out there demanding public attention. So the popularity of music gets diffused. The same thing happened in jazz: as it moved into its own "modern" period in the early 1960s, rock & roll took off - so the "difficult" "new" music of Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor and the AACM, et al., suffers.

And it continues to today. What's "popular" in rock music today? In times past, everyone who liked the music had to have an opinion about the Beatles and the Stones and Dylan. Today, and for a long time heretofore, there is no artist about whom that can be said. There are genres and sub-genres and sub-sub-genres, each of which has its own devoted audience. Our man some guy will tell you that there is no shortage of audience for the kinds of music he likes (and the same situation pertains in "avant garde" jazz or free improvisation). Yet a lot of us have never even heard of most of the composers and/or musicians. "Popularity" itself has become a rather amorphous term.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 16, 2017, 07:16:40 AM
Only one slight alteration to point number two, "re-emergence."

Concerts in Haydn's time were called "miscellanies," with good cause. There'd be some glee and some arias and some chamber works and a movement of a symphony or two and maybe even a choral work. The lines between "popular" and "serious" were not at all distinct, and the two types, so to speak, were all jumbled together in concerts. Mostly those concepts were solidified in the nineteenth century.

Once "classical music" was coined, there was a new concept to fill, and oddly enough, opera arias and songs did not make the first cut. Mendelssohn's string quartets, yeah. Mendelssohn's lieder, naw.

The emergence of recording technology was inarguably crucial to how music would develop.

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 17, 2017, 12:16:21 PM
@someguy: I don't feel comfortable with the perception that we are discussing "ideas" which are "true or false", or that there is much logic involved here. I think this has more to do with human nature, which is far from logical.

Quote from: Alek Hidell on October 16, 2017, 05:51:35 AM
There are a few things that get often overlooked in discussions of "new music," which are the crucial changes that coincided with its beginnings in the early 20th century. It was Schoenberg's lot (along with, naturally, Berg and Webern and everyone who has followed in their footsteps) to be composing his music at just about the same time these changes were occurring.


  • The emergence of the recording industry and, a short time later, mass media such as radio; and
  • The emergence of "genres" of music for popular consumption.

The second of these is very much related to the first, of course. Prior to the 20th century, classical music was the only form of music considered worthy of intellectual or aesthetic attention (at least AFAIK). There were other forms, of course, such as folk/work songs and dance music, but these were considered "mere" diversions. No one organized or attended concerts of these kinds of music. Classical music was popular music, in the sense we think of it today.

But in the early 20th century the technology was developed to record performances of music and to sell such performances on record. And, a little later, to broadcast performances - either live or recorded - over radio. Jazz and the blues emerged (at least in the U.S.), followed in later decades by related genres such as country, bluegrass, R&B, and rock.

So "popular" music became much more diverse. There were many other musical "products" out there demanding public attention. So the popularity of music gets diffused. The same thing happened in jazz: as it moved into its own "modern" period in the early 1960s, rock & roll took off - so the "difficult" "new" music of Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor and the AACM, et al., suffers.

And it continues to today. What's "popular" in rock music today? In times past, everyone who liked the music had to have an opinion about the Beatles and the Stones and Dylan. Today, and for a long time heretofore, there is no artist about whom that can be said. There are genres and sub-genres and sub-sub-genres, each of which has its own devoted audience. Our man some guy will tell you that there is no shortage of audience for the kinds of music he likes (and the same situation pertains in "avant garde" jazz or free improvisation). Yet a lot of us have never even heard of most of the composers and/or musicians. "Popularity" itself has become a rather amorphous term.

I agree with most of this, but come to different conclusions. The proliferation of recording, and of technology in general, ushered in changes to "art" music, i.e. music which was supposed to be created apart from commercial, popular, considerations as a commodity.
The same thing happened in visual art;
with photography, realistic art was not needed;
with faster news, radio communication, newspapers, and telegraph, and faster travel, art no longer became a chronicler of events;
with cinema, art was reduced to a lesser form of still pictography;
So Picasso and Braque realized that visual art and painting had to re-define itself, so it became abstract.

The same with music; classical music was no longer the only game in town, so Schoenberg and other modernists knew that it had to re-define itself. "Art" music was no longer the ubiquitous monopoly it once was; with all the other flood of recorded music obscuring the landscape, "art" music, in order to remain "arty" and unique, and apart from the rest, had to be "special' and different.
Thus, the abandonment of tonality was a sure way to create this new difference. Popular music was tonal, and always would be, and tonality was the new "wallpaper" of the media and masses.
And atonality, and strange new pseudo-tonalities became the new, modern decor of modernism, and all that was "not popular."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 18, 2017, 11:25:56 AM
Hey, already in the middle ages you gotta have your recently invented polyphony "in the limits of moderation"... to keep god's approval, of course.

QuoteWith polyphony, musicians were able to achieve musical feats perceived by many as beautiful, and by others, distasteful. John of Salisbury (1120–1180) taught at the University of Paris during the years of Léonin and Pérotin. He attended many services at the Notre Dame Choir School. In De nugis curialiam he offers a first-hand description of what was happening to music in the high Middle Ages. This philosopher and Bishop of Chartres wrote:

When you hear the soft harmonies of the various singers, some taking high and others low parts, some singing in advance, some following in the rear, others with pauses and interludes, you would think yourself listening to a concert of sirens rather than men, and wonder at the powers of voices … whatever is most tuneful among birds, could not equal. Such is the facility of running up and down the scale; so wonderful the shortening or multiplying of notes, the repetition of the phrases, or their emphatic utterance: the treble and shrill notes are so mingled with tenor and bass, that the ears lost their power of judging. When this goes to excess it is more fitted to excite lust than devotion; but if it is kept in the limits of moderation, it drives away care from the soul and the solicitudes of life, confers joy and peace and exultation in God, and transports the soul to the society of angels.   

Source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pérotin
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 19, 2017, 01:30:15 PM
Quote from: aleazk on October 18, 2017, 11:25:56 AM
Hey, already in the middle ages you gotta have your recently invented polyphony "in the limits of moderation"... to keep god's approval, of course.

Source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pérotin

The history of the audiences and critics of the arts is like a compendium of complaints from the plebes and petite bourgeoisie, each and all of them evidently whining about too much excitement.

Frail lot, they.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 20, 2017, 12:35:59 AM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 19, 2017, 01:30:15 PM
The history of the audiences and critics of the arts is like a compendium of complaints from the plebes and petite bourgeoisie, each and all of them evidently whining about too much excitement.

This is especially true all throughout the 18th century, but the 19th had its share, too, which such darlings of the aristocracy and clergy as Paganini, Liszt, Thalberg, Moscheles, Ernst, Herz, Wieniawski and Vieuxtemps being the target of much criticism and misunderstanding from the petty bourgeois and plebeian audiences and critics.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 20, 2017, 02:25:29 AM
For the benefit of John of Salisbury it is to be said that the step from monodic chant to early polyphony was maybe the steepest and most decisive step in western music and as the music in question was music for worship within a sacred service it was also a plausible concern that it would distract from the religious content. Of course this problem has haunted religious music for the ca. 900 years since then...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 20, 2017, 06:20:48 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 20, 2017, 02:25:29 AM
For the benefit of John of Salisbury it is to be said that the step from monodic chant to early polyphony was maybe the steepest and most decisive step in western music...

Indeed... my point was that, in line, I think, with was @some guy was saying, negative reactions to new developments in music have been here since... well, the birth of western music itself!... and not something "intrinsic" to some "obscure force" in 12-tone music...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 20, 2017, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: aleazk on October 20, 2017, 06:20:48 AM
Indeed... my point was that, in line, I think, with was @some guy was saying, negative reactions to new developments in music have been here since... well, the birth of western music itself!... and not something "intrinsic" to some "obscure force" in 12-tone music...

Well, the trend in Western music goes from simplicity to complexity, from monody to polyphony, from simple to prolific, from OMMMM to 12-tone chromaticism. Likewise, this is demonstrated by Minimalism's return to simplicity. This seems like an obvious "elephant in the room" which nobody wants to admit is there.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 20, 2017, 08:38:23 PM
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 20, 2017, 01:04:54 PM
Well, the trend in Western music goes from simplicity to complexity, from monody to polyphony, from simple to prolific, from OMMMM to 12-tone chromaticism. Likewise, this is demonstrated by Minimalism's return to simplicity. This seems like an obvious "elephant in the room" which nobody wants to admit is there.

A handful of composers working in the stylistic vein of minimalism (and only a handful) -- out of thousands of composers working in various other styles -- is not an elephant in the room.  It is just one of many critters jaunting about in the room of multiple styles, all plates spinning in the air at the same time.  If there is any 'signature sound' of our times within the classical arena, it is a multi-ring circus of a myriad of various styles, approaches and aesthetics.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 21, 2017, 05:53:06 AM
Last time I saw a score from a so called "minimalist" composer, was full of rather complex polyrhythms and polymeters... also, the changes are not even that slow... the people that know the music judge it by what it is, not by its easy name... i.e., I don't see any return to simplicity more than in a rather superficial way... if you are talking about something like A.Paart... I don't consider it as interesting music to be honest... and, probably, it only appeals to some wider audience precisely because of its soporific simplicity...

Also, I don't think the historical trend is about complexity... I think it's about ampliation of the musical vocabulary and what is allowed in music and what is not.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 21, 2017, 06:58:43 AM
Quote from: aleazk on October 20, 2017, 06:20:48 AM
Indeed... my point was that, in line, I think, with was @some guy was saying, negative reactions to new developments in music have been here since... well, the birth of western music itself!... and not something "intrinsic" to some "obscure force" in 12-tone music...
But "it's always been like that" is very different from some guy's disputed claim that in the beginning/middle of the 19th century there started a particular aversion to new music together with a canonization of "old" music and that this development was mainly responsible for the special hostility towards the modernists around/since 1900.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 21, 2017, 07:14:35 AM
What @some guy says is, I think, just a natural consequence of what I'm saying once the term and idea of classical music appears in history.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 21, 2017, 08:34:38 AM
The whole point of some guy's claim and the book he refers to is that the development in the 19th century was something new, not some standard "dialectic" that was played out every generation or three since the 12th century.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 21, 2017, 08:46:54 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 21, 2017, 08:34:38 AM
The whole point of some guy's claim and the book he refers to is that the development in the 19th century was something new, not some standard "dialectic" that was played out every generation or three since the 12th century.

+1 !!!!!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 21, 2017, 10:23:41 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 21, 2017, 08:34:38 AM
The whole point of some guy's claim and the book he refers to is that the development in the 19th century was something new, not some standard "dialectic" that was played out every generation or three since the 12th century.

I said "in line"... this because I think there's a bit of that... but also a bit of what I said...  and that the two feed each other.

@Some guy speaks of a movement that became widespread when the term classical music was coined... I agree with that... and I'm just saying that an important contributor, among other many things (like the birth of the Romantic movement in the arts at that time and their anti-intellectualism), to this is the thing I mentioned... seems rather obvious to me.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 21, 2017, 10:30:44 AM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 21, 2017, 08:46:54 AM
+1 !!!!!

1-1=0 :-)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 21, 2017, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: aleazk on October 21, 2017, 05:53:06 AM
Last time I saw a score from a so called "minimalist" composer, was full of rather complex polyrhythms and polymeters... also, the changes are not even that slow... the people that know the music judge it by what it is, not by its easy name... i.e., I don't see any return to simplicity more than in a rather superficial way...

...So Minimalism is not really "minimal?"or simple? That's a direct way of disposing of that comparison, but misleading, because it is myopic. Simplicity has more dimensions than that. Minimalism is simple, harmonically, by comparison to Wagner or Schoenberg, and Philip Glass makes up for this with rhythmic complexity. You're just looking at those aspects which contradict my assertion.

Quote from: aleazk on October 21, 2017, 05:53:06 AM...if you are talking about something like A.Paart... I don't consider it as interesting music to be honest... and, probably, it only appeals to some wider audience precisely because of its soporific simplicity...

I hope not, and I hope the beauty and simplicity of human voices harmonizing never loses its appeal, and that we don't become so skeptical that we lose the capacity to appreciate it...but I don't want to "appreciate" art, I want to love it, so I sympathize.

Quote from: aleazk on October 21, 2017, 05:53:06 AM...Also, I don't think the historical trend is about complexity... I think it's about ampliation of the musical vocabulary and what is allowed in music and what is not.

Well, I consider that a form of increasing complexity. 12 notes is more complex than 7 notes, and that's a fact, jack.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 12:34:55 AM
I have not read the book some guy mentions but from what I can glimpse online of the concert programs analysed there I disagree with his conclusion.

It is without a doubt true that the "miscellaneous programs" of mostly contemporary music slowly fell out of favor and that there was something close to the typical modern program established although in the 19th century these still contained a lot of contemporary music, such as Clara Schumann playing a recital of music by Beethoven and her husband or Brahms. (It was also recognized that music could not be fully appreciated at once or after only one listening; I think von Bülow sometimed conducted the same new Brahms symphony twice in one concert with a concerto or shorter piece in between.)

It is also true that some older music became "canonized".
[As far as I understand it the book mentioned shows the historical evidence and development of these two points.]

But all of this has very little to do with resentment or prejudice against modern music per se. It has far more to do with a prejudice against music as light entertainment dominated by virtuosos, divas and fleeting fashions and the resulting distinction between light music (dances, operetta, virtuoso paraphrases etc.) and serious music (symphonies, quartets, musical dramas etc.) that had not so clearly existed at the time of Mozart.

On the contrary, it is precisely the establishment of both the idea of "serious music" within a tradition that spans several centuries as well as the establishment of a concert/recital that was the proper place for the presentation and appreciation of such serious music that made the seemingly hermetic music of the modernists possible in the first place.
Or at least it is a very important factor. There was serious and hermetic music long before that, e.g. ars subtilior or late Bach, but this was not presented in commercial public concerts and while there was a peaceful coexistence between light and serious possible at the time of Haydn and Mozart, with Beethoven it became obvious that there was some music that is not ideally presented between an aria from the latest Rossini opera and a showpiece for fiddle turned upside down. [I don't think late Mozart and Haydn is ideally presented in such a frame but it had to manage at its time and it did. In Beethoven's time the older framework still dominated but its problems became more obvious.]

As almost always there was a co-evolution: You have a headstrong, serious and very influential composer like Beethoven who clearly shows that he is aware of his position in history, i.e. who is consciously putting himself not up against Rossini [if LvB did not explicitly call it "wälscher Tand" (cf. Meistersinger) he certainly thought along such lines] and the like but as an heir of Bach, Handel and Mozart and at the same time the most daring contemporary who claimed that his music would be played in 50 years. (Here it seems unclear if this refers to the technical and musical difficulty for his contemporaries (he talked about his op.106) or to its longevity, i.e. Beethoven [never very modest, except when comparing himself to the likes of Bach] basically claims that he will become a classic like Bach and Handel were at his time.) And you have the development of forms of presentation and ways of listening to music and thinking about music in historical context that fit this composer's music. They both influence each other and this gives rise to a historical context of music appreciation that makes the difficult music of some modernists possible.
(Cf. a similar discussion wrt Beethoven in the "unpopular opinions" thread.)

Look at the programs of "contemporary" (as opposed to "canonized") music of the 1820s (or better 1790s), "translate" that to the 1920s and imagine Berg's Orchesterstücke or Schönberg's violin concerto in a mixed program with hits from Léhar operettas and a pianist playing jazz improvisations (and maybe the audience drinking and dancing while the music plays). This is how concerts of the "contemporary" 18th/19th century music that were gradually abolished were like. Does anybody really think that this would be the better mode of presentation for the difficult avantgarde music by the 2nd Viennese school or even by Debussy, Mahler or Stravinsky?
(This is not to deny that in this time period there was some then contemporary music, such as Weill, Milhaud, Schulhoff that could have been done in such a context. There is nothing wrong with peaceful coexistence. But one cannot demand that every music must be appreciable in such settings.)

[edited for some grammar, clarity and more italics]
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 22, 2017, 01:00:19 AM
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LivelyColorfulFirecrest-size_restricted.gif)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 22, 2017, 04:08:22 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 12:34:55 AMBut all of this has very little to do with resentment or prejudice against modern music per se. It has far more to do with a prejudice against music as light entertainment dominated by virtuosos, divas and fleeting fashions and the resulting distinction between light music (dances, operetta, virtuoso paraphrases etc.) and serious music (symphonies, quartets, musical dramas etc.) that had not so clearly existed at the time of Mozart.

True.  The point is, however, that the animus against contemporary music, and specifically contemporary developments within music, has indeed existed in full force since the 19th century.  According to at least some contemporary reports that some guy has cited in the past, this extended to a suspicion of new works generally on the part of a portion of the audience.  Of course, many composers and critics had these attitudes, and their reactions, unlike those of audiences, are preserved in writing.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 12:34:55 AMLook at the programs of "contemporary" (as opposed to "canonized") music of the 1820s (or better 1790s), "translate" that to the 1920s and imagine Berg's Orchesterstücke or Schönberg's violin concerto [which dates from 1936] in a mixed program with hits from Léhar operettas and a pianist playing jazz improvisations (and maybe the audience drinking and dancing while the music plays). This is how concerts of the "contemporary" 18th/19th century music that were gradually abolished were like. Does anybody really think that this would be the better mode of presentation for the difficult avantgarde music by the 2nd Viennese school or even by Debussy, Mahler or Stravinsky?

Not as far as I'm aware, and I don't think that anyone was arguing for that, either.  Like I said, the programming being a mixture of serious works and light entertainment was not the main point.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 04:54:52 AM
From what I see the mixture programming and its abolition is the main point of the book some guy refers to. As I have not read the book, I am not sure but I still see no argument or historical evidence that lead from the abolishing of mixed (often light) programmes to the general suspicion against "modern music".
I do not deny that such existed. But I do not see the connection with the form of programmes. In fact, as I said, I think that the more serious programmes and the canonization of Bach and Beethoven were a precondition for the modernists (at least for some strains of modernism, others were a more contrary reaction to canon and tradition, above all Satie).
Of course, the serious programmes were also a precondition for a later development that could pose "classical" (older) music against modernist/avantgarde music.

But from what I have seen is that when Fétis is trashing Berlioz' music or Hanslick Wagner's or Bruckner's they never argue that instead of these composers Bach or Mozart should be played in concert (and never forget, when such old music was played in the 19th century is was often in arrangements/editions adapted to contemporary tastes) or that contemporary composers should write like Bach or Mozart. Rather it is other (admittedly often somewhat less daring and more conservative) roughly contemporary composers that are favored against the mid-19th century modernists.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 22, 2017, 05:08:13 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 04:54:52 AM
From what I see the mixture programming and its abolition is the main point of the book some guy refers to. As I have not read the book, I am not sure but I still see no argument or historical evidence that lead from the abolishing of mixed (often light) programmes to the general suspicion against "modern music".

I have not read the book, either, so my knowledge of it is also entirely secondhand.  My understanding is that it points out that the low point of contemporary music programming was in the middle of the 19th century, though, rather than the 20th century.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 04:54:52 AMI do not deny that such existed. But I do not see the connection with the form of programmes. In fact, as I said, I think that the more serious programmes and the canonization of Bach and Beethoven were a precondition for the modernists (at least for some strains of modernism, others were a more contrary reaction to canon and tradition, above all Satie).
Of course, the serious programmes were also a precondition for a later development that could pose "classical" (older) music against modernist/avantgarde music.

You are probably right there.  The conditions for an avant-garde existing within public concert life could not be present without a public concert life to present an avant-garde.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 04:54:52 AMBut from what I have seen is that when Fétis is trashing Berlioz' music or Hanslick Wagner's or Bruckner's they never argue that instead of these composers Bach or Mozart should be played in concert (and never forget, when such old music was played in the 19th century is was often in arrangements/editions adapted to contemporary tastes) or that contemporary composers should write like Bach or Mozart. Rather it is other (admittedly often somewhat less daring and more conservative) roughly contemporary composers that are favored against the mid-19th century modernists.

Isn't the same true of the vast majority of critics in the 20th century though?  Even someone like Pleasants who thinks that good "serious" music ended with Wagner some seven decades earlier (and considered all "serious" music of his time all equally tainted) favored the contemporary movement of jazz music.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 23, 2017, 09:57:34 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 22, 2017, 12:34:55 AM
I have not read the book some guy mentions but from what I can glimpse online of the concert programs analysed there I disagree with his conclusion.
Prudence would suggest that you do indeed read the book before expending so much effort into debunking the conclusions of the book, which I am simply reporting.

But since Prudence seems to be absent, I guess it falls to me to wonder about the strength of an agenda that doesn't even need more than a glance to produce a long and detailed rebuttal of...

...of what? That's what's missing from Jo498's multiple screeds, a what. If you would just read the book, maybe you would still have the same denials you have now, but at least there'd be an actual what to talk about.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Turner on October 23, 2017, 10:03:45 AM
Or as a help, you could give either a few, minuscule sentences/quotes from the book, or a few page references.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 23, 2017, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: Turner on October 23, 2017, 10:03:45 AM
Or as a help, you could give either a few, minuscule sentences/quotes from the book, or a few page references.
Do you seriously think it would help?

Have you been reading this thread at all? Have you listened for several decades to people whinging about music that they don't even know, and that they never have to hear? Why, I probably shouldn't even have started this topic. But hey, there's always a chance, eh? But no, I don't think "a few minscule sentences quotes" or a few references to pages in a book that no one has in their hands would really do a scrap of good.

No, I'm pretty sure that the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular, is just going to have to continue to be perpetrated without any miniscule quotes from a largish book.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 23, 2017, 01:44:17 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 23, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
Does it really matter?  what difference does it make?  New music will always have its audience.  So what if there are a bunch of people who don't like it and let you know.

Liking or not liking is really not the issue.  It's the falsehoods told and retold to justify that dislike to all and sundry that get so wearisome.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 23, 2017, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 23, 2017, 01:00:12 PM
Do you seriously think it would help?

Have you been reading this thread at all? Have you listened for several decades to people whinging about music that they don't even know, and that they never have to hear? Why, I probably shouldn't even have started this topic. But hey, there's always a chance, eh? But no, I don't think "a few minscule sentences quotes" or a few references to pages in a book that no one has in their hands would really do a scrap of good.

No, I'm pretty sure that the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular, is just going to have to continue to be perpetrated without any miniscule quotes from a largish book.

It may well be true that the current perceptions that new music is deliberately repulsive compared to works of the past is not new, and prevailed in the 19th century. Well, so what? Wagner, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner emerged from the 19th century and became widely admired. The same will presumably happened for music of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 23, 2017, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 23, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
I just don't see why that is something that needs a response.  Those who like new music don't care what is said and those that don't like it exist in an echo chamber.

Again, so what?

There's the rub. Evidently there are those (i.e. Mahlerian and some guy) who like new music but do care what is said about it.  Nothing to be done about it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Turner on October 23, 2017, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 23, 2017, 01:00:12 PM
Do you seriously think it would help?

Have you been reading this thread at all? Have you listened for several decades to people whinging about music that they don't even know, and that they never have to hear? Why, I probably shouldn't even have started this topic. But hey, there's always a chance, eh? But no, I don't think "a few minscule sentences quotes" or a few references to pages in a book that no one has in their hands would really do a scrap of good.

No, I'm pretty sure that the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular, is just going to have to continue to be perpetrated without any miniscule quotes from a largish book.

It´s been said here that you are doing an interpretation of some of the book´s content, and stating conclusions that aren´t really pointed to there. So I thought it would be quite easy to contradict that claim. I guess this could have been mentioned in my post above, but at least I have done that now.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 12:02:39 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 23, 2017, 01:00:12 PM
I probably shouldn't even have started this topic.

Finally, something you and I can agree upon.

Quote
the narrative that twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular

Please show us one single GMG member who has ever made this claim.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 12:06:18 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 23, 2017, 02:05:23 PM
There's the rub. Evidently there are those (i.e. Mahlerian and some guy) who like new music but do care what is said about it.  Nothing to be done about it.

AFAIC, the only result Mahlerian's incessant and relentless crusade against the use of "atonal / atonalism" had on me is a growing aversion to a certain portrait of Mahler...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 24, 2017, 01:44:40 AM
OK.

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both real.

Trickledown economics works.

The earth is flat.

No one should ever express any opinions about anything, unless they coincide with the opinions of Florestan (in which case they are no longer opinions but simply facts).

OK.

If that's the world you want, fine.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 01:51:45 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 24, 2017, 01:44:40 AM
OK.

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both real.

Trickledown economics works.

The earth is flat.

No one should ever express any opinions about anything, unless they coincide with the opinions of Florestan (in which case they are no longer opinions but simply facts).

OK.

If that's the world you want, fine.

Having a bad day, I presume?

None of this nonsense answer my question: which GMG member has ever maintained that "twentieth century music is fundamentally flawed, hence unpopular"?

As for expressing opinions, why not give us your opinions on actual musical works and performances, instead of rehashing your obsessions? Actually, I don't remember the last time you posted anything even remotely implying you did listen to some music. Not that you are alone in that, but for a guy who pretends to love music as much as you do the incongruity is striking.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 24, 2017, 03:37:53 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 24, 2017, 02:48:32 AM
The whining I have seen is from you.
Whinging, sanantonio, whinging. Different word, different meaning from whining.

Plus, if you have seen whining only from me, you just haven't been paying attention!!

Anyway, yes, of course there's lots of new music and lots of people enjoy it.

The point of this thread was quite other.

Lots of people know that trickledown doesn't work, too, but that doesn't mean that we should simply ignore it when a politician argues that it does work, should we?

And who cares if Richard III had his nephews killed or not? Or if Columbus were a hero or a monster? I mean, we would all get up in the morning same as ever, right? And we'd buy our groceries and pay our rents and no one's the worse for it, right?

OK.

I think wrong.

I think truth and accuracy are important. And I think there are consequences for perpetuating falsehoods and for being inaccurate.

Take Galileo. Widely regarded as the poster boy for the conflict between science and religion. Except of course that his situation had nothing to do with religion, not really, but with jealousy. (Yes, I'm over-simplifying.) The cardinals were jealous of his close relationship with the pope. So they started a smear campaign, which was successful, and which basically destroyed Galileo's career. OK. That's all ancient history. But how many people have used Galileo's experience to support their ideas about the baleful effects of religion?

Oh well.

This all seems to have devolved into a string of personal attacks against some guy. Who is, mind you, pretty well impervious. And who will continue to be the best judge of which opinions he will hold and how and when he will express them. Would you (or even Florestan) really and truly want it any other way? That is, would you and Florestan enjoy being held to the same strictures you've been suggesting should apply to my own sweet self?

And it is sweet, I would say, though for those who will never believe that, I have occasionally indulged in a spot of mild sarcasm from time to time. Y'all seem to have missed that aspect of my last post, eh? Going straight for the cause of the words rather than looking at what the words say. That'll mess you up every time, you know.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 03:50:29 AM
Subtle philological distinctions, trickledown economics, Richard III, Columbus, Galileo... anything works when it comes to avoid answering a simple ontopic question, ain't it?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 04:57:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 12:06:18 AM
AFAIC, the only result Mahlerian's incessant and relentless crusade against the use of "atonal / atonalism" had on me is a growing aversion to a certain portrait of Mahler...

Evidently, responding to others when they ask one about one's views constitutes an "incessant and relentless crusade" now.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 05:09:30 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 04:57:46 AM
Evidently, responding to others when they ask one about one's views constitutes an "incessant and relentless crusade" now.

Oh, please. Your latest battle in this crusade started with this salvo:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19564.msg1099610.html#msg1099610 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19564.msg1099610.html#msg1099610)

which was not at all a response to anybody's asking your views, not by a long stretch. The post you replied to was not even addressed to you. But you miss no opportunity to flog your favorite dead horse.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:02:52 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 05:09:30 AM
Oh, please. Your latest battle in this crusade started with this salvo:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19564.msg1099610.html#msg1099610 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19564.msg1099610.html#msg1099610)

which was not at all a response to anybody's asking your views, not by a long stretch. The post you replied to was not even addressed to you. But you miss no opportunity to flog your favorite dead horse.

It also has nothing to do with the word or concept of "atonality," but rather about the use of the 12-tone technique.  "Uses all notes equally, in the same order" is not an accurate description of the technique.  Millionrainbows said that this was a description of Schoenberg's music, and I corrected him.

Like some guy said, it's about accuracy and truth, not opinions or taste.

I would challenge you to articulate what my position is, if you feel you've heard it so often that you tire of it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 06:13:56 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:02:52 AM
Like some guy said, it's about accuracy and truth, not opinions or taste.

(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:02:52 AM
I would challenge you to articulate what my position is, if you feel you've heard it so often that you tire of it.

Piece of cake. Your position is that "atonal / atonalism" originated and are used as derisive and highly inaccurate terms and their use should be discarded. Also, that there is no difference whatsoever between "tonal" and "atonal" music, twelve-tone included.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:33:27 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 06:13:56 AMPiece of cake. Your position is that "atonal / atonalism" originated and are used as derisive and highly inaccurate terms and their use should be discarded.

The negative connotations are really secondary.  The main reason is that the terms atonal and atonality are meaningless, and describe no quality about the music whatsoever.

Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 06:13:56 AMAlso, that there is no difference whatsoever between "tonal" and "atonal" music, twelve-tone included.

Here you are incorrect about my views.

There are differences between tonal and non-tonal music.  Tonality is a specific system of using triads in functional progressions, as developed in Europe from the 17th through 19th centuries.

All other music is non-tonal, including that sometimes called "atonal."  Music written using the 12-tone method can be tonal or otherwise, though because the technique developed after the 19th century, it's usually not.

What music called "atonal" does have in common with tonal music is the presence of centers, points of rest towards which the music gravitates.  I suspect the confusion comes because many people think that the presence or absence of centers is what distinguishes tonality and atonality, and because I hear centers in "atonal" music, they think I am saying that it is tonal.  In their definition, perhaps that is true, but that doesn't mean that I don't make a distinction between tonal and non-tonal music.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 06:43:03 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:33:27 AM
There are differences between tonal and non-tonal music.

And yet in another thread you wrote:

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 20, 2017, 01:01:54 PM
Except that that's not the way any of Schoenberg's, or anyone else's, 12-tone music actually works.  Why don't people just use their ears and hear that it's exactly the same as any other music, aside from the term?

and

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 20, 2017, 02:51:19 PM
Yes, it is different from other pieces of music in the same way that other pieces of music are different from each other.

You should not interpret this as an invitation to further elaborate your theories*, God forbid! I have zero interest in them. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of your approach.

* although, of course, you will do exactly that.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:49:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 06:43:03 AM
And yet in another thread you wrote:

and

You should not interpret this as an invitation to further elaborate your theories, God forbid! I have zero interest in them. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of your approach.

I admit that I was overgeneralizing for effect.  Yes, it is distinguished from some music, like that of Mozart, Mendelssohn, or Mahler, by the fact that it does not use functional triadic progressions.

But it is not distinguished from, say, Perotin or Josquin or Debussy or The Beatles or dance-pop or Shostakovich or Prokofiev on that basis.  In fact, like their music, Schoenberg's has melody, harmony, form, and everything else that makes music musical.  The fact that it doesn't use that specific system of functional triadic progressions is not especially meaningful or relevant.

If you are so uninterested in my position, why the constant ridicule and personal attacks?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:52:49 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 24, 2017, 06:51:55 AM
For you, maybe, but for others that is the main reason they do not like it.

So they dislike all of those other things I listed for the same reason?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 07:02:33 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 06:49:04 AM
If you are so uninterested in my position, why the constant ridicule and personal attacks?

I neither ridicule nor attack you. What I find annoying --- and I am far from being alone in that, although I might be the only one to openly object to it --- is your not missing any opportunity for coming back again and again to, and going on again and again about, this topic which admittedly seems to be of the utmost importance for you but which has zero relevance for the GMG community at large and for most people's enjoyment of their preferred music.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 07:27:00 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 07:02:33 AM
I neither ridicule nor attack you. What I find annoying --- and I am far from being alone in that, although I might be the only one to openly object to it --- is your not missing any opportunity for coming back again and again to, and going on again and again about, this topic which admittedly seems to be of the utmost importance for you but which has zero relevance for the GMG community at large and for most people's enjoyment of their preferred music.

In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

But I am a composer, and also a lover of Schoenberg's music.  These issues reflect directly on my artistic life, and a discussion of them is anything but a mere play of abstractions to me.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Turner on October 24, 2017, 07:38:28 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 07:27:00 AM
In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

But I am a composer, and also a lover of Schoenberg's music.  These issues reflect directly on my artistic life, and a discussion of them is anything but a mere play of abstractions to me.

Though the techical aspects go beyond me, I think there's absolutely nothing annoying in you popping in - and this actually not very often - with some usually interesting and informed entries. I think the vast majority will agree.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 07:53:04 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 07:27:00 AM
In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

I must have sounded more drammatic than I intended. There's no need to apologize, really.

Instead, look at it this way: you have stated your position multiple times by now. People either already agree or disagree with you. Further discussion will result only in your stating the same position again and people again agreeing or disagreeing with you. No settlement of the matter will ever be reached, because it is unreachable. Dead end for both parties. I'm sure you have better things to do than to correct each and every error, real or perceived, that comes under your eyes.

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 07:27:00 AM
But I am a composer

Then I think that it would be much more interesting to post some of your music than to theorize about it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 24, 2017, 08:04:06 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 07:02:33 AM
I neither ridicule nor attack you. What I find annoying --- and I am far from being alone in that, although I might be the only one to openly object to it --- is your not missing any opportunity for coming back again and again to, and going on again and again about, this topic which admittedly seems to be of the utmost importance for you but which has zero relevance for the GMG community at large and for most people's enjoyment of their preferred music.

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 07:27:00 AM
In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

But I am a composer, and also a lover of Schoenberg's music.  These issues reflect directly on my artistic life, and a discussion of them is anything but a mere play of abstractions to me.

Florestan let you off easy, I would have said again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Your war against the dictionary is indeed tedious. You can't seem to recognize that the word "atonal" used informally has a meaning which is easily understood by almost anyone familiar with classical music, and that your notions about a technical definition of tonality are irrelevant to this.

It is a matter of context. There are many words (energy, catalyst, translate, object) which have a very specific technical definition in a narrowly defined field, but which have a different but related definition in general usage. If a chemist can't understand the use of the word "catalyst" in a general context and starts spouting equations, then it is the chemist who fails to understand, not his or her interlocutors. If you can't understand the meaning of "atonal" in a general context, then you are the one who is incapable of using the word correctly, even though you are "a composer."


Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 08:19:43 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 24, 2017, 08:04:06 AM
Florestan let you off easy, I would have said again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Your war against the dictionary is indeed tedious. You can't seem to recognize that the word "atonal" used informally has a meaning which is easily understood by almost anyone familiar with classical music, and that your notions about a technical definition of tonality are irrelevant to this.

It is a matter of context. There are many words (energy, catalyst, translate, object) which have a very specific technical definition in a narrowly defined field, but which have a different but related definition in general usage. If a chemist can't understand the use of the word "catalyst" in a general context and starts spouting equations, then it is the chemist who fails to understand, not his or her interlocutors. If you can't understand the meaning of "atonal" in a general context, then you are the one who is incapable of using the word correctly, even though you are "a composer."

I understand what is meant, but what is meant does not apply to the music it is used to define.  That is to say, atonal music is not actually "atonal," as that term is understood by the general population.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 24, 2017, 08:30:17 AM
The word "atonal" is defined by the music that it is applied to. Atonal music is Schoenberg's dodecaphony, and anything that sounds like Schoenberg's dodecaphony.

And Florestan is right, this is pointless.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 08:48:01 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 24, 2017, 08:30:17 AM
The word "atonal" is defined by the music that it is applied to. Atonal music is Schoenberg's dodecaphony, and anything that sounds like Schoenberg's dodecaphony.

But I thought the word atonal was supposed to mean "lacking in any kind of centricity whatsoever."  Judging by articles and Youtube videos aimed at lay audiences, this is the way the term is understood.  And yes, this definition doesn't apply to Schoenberg's music.

Also, it's routinely applied to plenty of things that don't sound even remotely like Schoenberg: Cage, Xenakis, Messiaen, spectralism...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 24, 2017, 08:52:29 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 08:48:01 AM
But I thought the word atonal was supposed to mean "lacking in any kind of centricity whatsoever."  Judging by articles and Youtube videos aimed at lay audiences, this is the way the term is understood.  And yes, this definition doesn't apply to Schoenberg's music.

Also, it's routinely applied to plenty of things that don't sound even remotely like Schoenberg: Cage, Xenakis, Messiaen, spectralism...

Merriam Webster:

Quotemarked by avoidance of traditional musical tonality; especially :organized without reference to key or tonal center and using the tones of the chromatic scale impartially

Now I'm finished.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 09:04:44 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 24, 2017, 08:52:29 AM
Merriam Webster:
Quotemarked by avoidance of traditional musical tonality; especially :organized without reference to key or tonal center and using the tones of the chromatic scale impartially

Now I'm finished.

Where does that definition say "sounds like Schoenberg's dodecophony," which is what you said the definition was two posts earlier?

It's true that Schoenberg's music avoids traditional musical tonality, but it does distinctly have centers, just not in the sense that functional progressions do.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 24, 2017, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 09:04:44 AM
Now I'm finished.


Where does that definition say "sounds like Schoenberg's dodecophony," which is what you said the definition was two posts earlier?

It's true that Schoenberg's music avoids traditional musical tonality, but it does distinctly have centers, just not in the sense that functional progressions do.

The term was coined to describe Schoenberg's music. The dictionary definition tries to describe what aspects of Schoenberg's music are relevant. It fleshes out "sounds like."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 24, 2017, 09:37:07 AM
Um, no. The term was coined before Schoenberg had written any of his pantonal pieces. The term first appeared in a graduate thesis that inveighed against the highly chromatic (but still tonal) musics of Wagner and immediately after. Good example of the value of having accurate historical facts upon which to build one's opinions.

Otherwise, I would say that "avoids" gives a false impression of things. Creators are generally more positive in that they make things, they do things. Nothing to do with avoiding. Everything to do with making. Sometimes there are trends which historically involve reactions against previous patterns, but to make those reactions into the whole reason for doing things fundamentally distorts the situation.

Dodecaphony and serialism don't avoid anything. There are some patterns that they don't typically use, but that doesn't mean avoiding, which has negative connotations, no?

Defining "atonal" (and Scarpia could easily have used a music dictionary and not Merriam-Webster, which gets things like this wrong from time to time) by what it avoids misses the point of what different systems do indeed do, which is provide certain kinds of opportunities.

One might as usefully define a plant as "a living entity that avoids centresomes" or "a living entity that avoids a central nervous system." Or, even closer to this particular discussion, one might define an elephant as an animal that avoids living in the ocean or a dog as an animal that avoids having a long, long neck.

I wonder if anyone back in the day (meaning a period of time longer than twenty four hours) ever defined "tonality" as "the avoidance of melody"? That might have been fun, eh?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 24, 2017, 09:54:56 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 24, 2017, 09:37:07 AM
Um, no. The term was coined before Schoenberg had written any of his pantonal pieces. The term first appeared in a graduate thesis that inveighed against the highly chromatic (but still tonal) musics of Wagner and immediately after. Good example of the value of having accurate historical facts upon which to build one's opinions.

Um, no. The obscure etymology of a term which acquired a different meaning in common usage has no bearing. Good example of the value of not being a pedantic ass.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 24, 2017, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 24, 2017, 09:37:07 AM
Um, no. The term was coined before Schoenberg had written any of his pantonal pieces. The term first appeared in a graduate thesis that inveighed against the highly chromatic (but still tonal) musics of Wagner and immediately after. Good example of the value of having accurate historical facts upon which to build one's opinions.

Otherwise, I would say that "avoids" gives a false impression of things. Creators are generally more positive in that they make things, they do things. Nothing to do with avoiding. Everything to do with making. Sometimes there are trends which historically involve reactions against previous patterns, but to make those reactions into the whole reason for doing things fundamentally distorts the situation.

Dodecaphony and serialism don't avoid anything. There are some patterns that they don't typically use, but that doesn't mean avoiding, which has negative connotations, no?

Defining "atonal" (and Scarpia could easily have used a music dictionary and not Merriam-Webster, which gets things like this wrong from time to time) by what it avoids misses the point of what different systems do indeed do, which is provide certain kinds of opportunities.

One might as usefully define a plant as "a living entity that avoids centresomes" or "a living entity that avoids a central nervous system." Or, even closer to this particular discussion, one might define an elephant as an animal that avoids living in the ocean or a dog as an animal that avoids having a long, long neck.

I wonder if anyone back in the day (meaning a period of time longer than twenty four hours) ever defined "tonality" as "the avoidance of melody"? That might have been fun, eh?

This is almost too good. It is also really funny.
 
So much has been romanticized /glamorized about artists "having to destroy what came before in order to create the new," -- and I'm certain that stems from romantic era hyperbole (Ziggy Freud and Jung included) that 'having to avoid' anything while making a new piece sound new seems to be a rather popular notion.  It is absolute nonsense of course. 

When one runs to a non-musical dictionary for many a musical term which is so conditionally specific, and you find there a brief and pithy entry where the same term in a music dictionary takes up qualifying paragraphs, well, that is what you get... a layman's shortcut, because it is deemed they wouldn't get the rest anyway, or will go elsewhere to get the full and real dope.  It is rather shocking that people who allege to want to talk about classical music somewhat intelligently don't concede some terms are not to be sought in other than specialized dictionaries or other specialized tomes, and make the effort to go the distance to fully understand the term and what it does and does not cover or imply.  Romantic and atonal might just top the list of terms so misused and abused, lol.

Thanks for the post, and the chuckles.


Best regards.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 24, 2017, 01:50:07 PM
My pleasure, monsieur. :)

Otherwise, Scarpia, you made a claim: "The term was coined to describe Schoenberg's music."

Then I pointed out that the term was not coined to describe Schoenberg's music. Was that really out of line?

It was in fact coined to describe the music this grad student didn't like (R. Strauss and Scriabin among others)--which continues to be one of the common usages of "atonal."

So yeah. False claim. If pointing that out gets me pegged as pedant, then OK.

As for the ass part, I should introduce you to my ex's. They would totally agree with you.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 24, 2017, 01:54:05 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 24, 2017, 01:50:07 PM
My pleasure, monsieur. :)

Otherwise, Scarpia, you made a claim: "The term was coined to describe Schoenberg's music."

Then I pointed out that the term was not coined to describe Schoenberg's music. Was that really out of line?

It was in fact coined to describe the music this grad student didn't like (R. Strauss and Scriabin among others)--which continues to be one of the common usages of "atonal."

So yeah. False claim. If pointing that out gets me pegged as pedant, then OK.

As for the ass part, I should introduce you to my ex's. They would totally agree with you.

Touche, I should have said "came into use" not "coined. I read somewhere the claim (perhaps not accurate) that the term was first used by music critics to ridicule Schoenberg.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 24, 2017, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 24, 2017, 01:54:05 PM
Touche, I should have said "came into use" not "coined. I read somewhere the claim (perhaps not accurate) that the term was first used by music critics to ridicule Schoenberg.

It first came into common use around 1918 or so to ridicule all of modern music, from Mahler to Strauss to Debussy to Reger to Stravinsky to Bartok, and yes, Schoenberg and his school as well, including their earlier works.  You can see this broad sense reflected in an essay by Alban Berg from 1925 here:
QuoteConsidered from such a universal point of view, how basically different is the image of other contemporary composers, even those whose harmonic language has broken with the domination of the triad. The musical means listed above can naturally be demonstrated in their music too. But we never find them, as we do in Schönberg, united in the work of a single personality, but distributed amongst the various groups, schools, generations and nations and their respective representatives.[...]One composer's 'atonality' consists in setting false basses under primitively harmonized periods; others write in two or more (major or minor) keys simultaneously, but the musical procedures within each one often betray a frightening poverty of invention.

http://www.schoenberg.at/index.php/en/alban-berg-ueber-schoenbergs-musik-2

The sense here is that atonality encompasses what we would today call bitonality and "wrong-note" neoclassicism as well as total chromaticism.

More from Berg in the 1920s:
https://blog.oup.com/2013/09/what-is-atonal-a-dialogue-alban-berg-music/
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 24, 2017, 04:56:38 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 24, 2017, 01:54:05 PM
Touche, I should have said "came into use" not "coined. I read somewhere the claim (perhaps not accurate) that the term was first used by music critics to ridicule Schoenberg.

I work on fora almost exclusively from memory (for the benefit of the exercise it brings), but here goes anyway. 

The etymology of the word, is the Latin "A" (= without) coupled with "Tonal," the latter having a direct connection to common practice tonality and meant to substitute for the phrase 'diatonic triadic harmony' and that further yet specifically referring to the Tonic triad within the common practice context, i.e. 'no diatonic triad tonic' is all it really means.  'No diatonic triad tonic' IS quite applicable to music as early as Wagner (or at least, four evenings of four hours each to 'arrive back home in Eb Major is getting there, or away from, for a Very Long Duration, whichever way you care to think of it.)  We all now know Wagner in the context of our more general later current usage as 'still tonal,' while we also know he blew the lid of common practice tonality in one fell swoop within the opening measures of his Tristan und Isolde.

Without the over-elaborate qualifications, the word literally means 'Without Tones' which makes no sense or nonsense when it is applied to music.  Therein, I think, lies the rancor from many within academia / pedagogy.  It is woefully inaccurate, a misnomer that inevitably leads to a lot of additional qualifying explanations to be clearly understood.  Harmony textbooks and the teacher-lecturers all go to these lengths when presenting and explaining "Atonal," and much of that is truly unnecessary back-tracking to undo all the misconceptions that many a well-versed and prepared college music major has when presented with it.

In its originally intended meaning, it can be used to describe Wagner, Debussy, etc. so is of not much real worth or use (had nothing to do with dodecaphonic serial music because it did not exist when the term was coined), though the distinction of 'before and after Wagner' when studying harmony, common practice and later changes / developments makes it a somewhat necessary concept, at least.

I can not think of another theoretic-technical term that creates within the community such a schism, irritation, frustration etc. exactly because from the moment it came into being it was such a confused neologism, and a literally inaccurate construction at that.

Topping this all off is the gloriously ironic fact that it seems a 19th century petty pedant academic Teutonic twit grad student first coined the term to specifically use as a pejorative.  It may be the only term in the entire lexicography of musical terms to own such a dubious distinction!  (Ach du lieber, grad students, lol.)

Ergo -- all the dither and flap.


Best regards.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 24, 2017, 05:35:52 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 24, 2017, 05:23:52 PM
I've been on GMG for a while and only since Mahlerian joined did the word come under attack (by him).  Somehow this community discussed music for years without it ever being a bone of contention.

If you've studied harmony formally, college level, just about anywhere, you would probably have found out differently -- it is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the professional musical / academic community.  (I thought I had made that clear in my post.  If not, I apologize for the omission.)  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades.

That said, most also say how dreadfully inaccurate it is, then remind all that the term has been in use for so long that we all have to just accept it -- well, yeah, but not accept it at all passively or quietly. :-)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 24, 2017, 08:02:34 PM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 24, 2017, 05:35:52 PM
If you've studied harmony formally, college level, just about anywhere, you would probably have found out differently -- it is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the professional musical / academic community.  (I thought I had made that clear in my post.  If not, I apologize for the omission.)  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades.

That said, most also say how dreadfully inaccurate it is, then remind all that the term has been in use for so long that we all have to just accept it -- well, yeah, but not accept it at all passively or quietly. :-)

Languages have use for vague terms as well as very specific terms. It is just an adjective, after all. If someone remarks that a work or passage is atonal, I have no trouble understanding what they might mean. When Mahlerian follows up with 17 posts explaining that there is no such thing as atonality, I reach for the scroll bar.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 09:19:07 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 24, 2017, 01:50:07 PM
It [the term "atonal"] was in fact coined to describe the music this grad student didn't like (R. Strauss and Scriabin among others)

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 24, 2017, 04:56:38 PM
Topping this all off is the gloriously ironic fact that it seems a 19th century petty pedant academic Teutonic twit grad student first coined the term to specifically use as a pejorative. 

The "19-th century" "petty pedant teutonic" "twit" "grad student" was actually the 26-year old Joseph Marx (an Austrian) working in 1907-09 on his philosophy doctoral dissertation. And far from being a detractor of Scriabin, he was in fact his admirer (as he was of Debussy) and his own music is influenced by the two.

As for Richard Strauss, he was so upset by Marx's dislike and criticism that even many years after he felt the urge to present him a portrait bearing the following remonstrance:

To my dear friend and adored colleague Josef Marx in heartfelt remembrance

Devotedly yours

Richard Strauss

Garmisch (Germany), 13.3.1933


Talk about accuracy and facts...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 24, 2017, 05:35:52 PM
If you've studied harmony formally, college level, just about anywhere, you would probably have found out differently -- it is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the professional musical / academic community.  (I thought I had made that clear in my post.  If not, I apologize for the omission.)  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades.

Allen Forte was Battell Professor Emeritus of the Theory of Music at Yale. He also taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Yale Summer School of Music and Art, and the Eastman School of Music.

Here are two books he published by Yale University Press

(https://yalebooks.yale.edu/sites/default/files/styles/book_jacket/public/imagecache/external/bb54b8441e5fe3a01720c60c06a89b94.jpg?itok=sobpS-P7) (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYrRodIm0zLMz5STLkdBpuwwGgu83ggI93hIa3WYuCxJP7UpK0)

Bryan R. Simms is Professor Emeritus of Musicology at the University of Southern California. He was appointed to its faculty in 1976 and served there for thirty-eight years prior to his retirement in June 2014. Before coming to USC he taught at the University of Denver and at Yale University, where in 1971 he received a Ph.D. in musicology. He was formerly editor of the Journal of Music Theory and Music Theory Spectrum, and he has served on the Council of the American Musicological Society and Executive Board of the Society for Music Theory.

Here's one of his books, published by Oxford University Press:

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuPnPVyDKYBFlR5AiveRqBtOnFQVqm4hYKkwTAWpchXlsqxdcA)

John Rahn is a music theorist, composer, bassoonist, and Professor of Music in the University of Washington School of Music, Seattle. A former student of Milton Babbitt and Benjamin Boretz, he was editor of Perspectives of New Music from 1983 until 1993 and since 2001 has been co-editor [...]

Here's one of his books, published by Schirmer Books

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_Ercct7teWWrdzzzNQjPBEw7CdgdV-UNbd55ezS-VhlkXTI7A)

Among George Perle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Perle)'s books there is this one, published by University of California Press

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41wTx9ewT3L._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

I could go on like that ad nauseam, but I won't.

Now, either these people (with impeccable academic credentials, two of them composers themselves) deliberately misled the audience by using in the title of their books (printed by venerable academic publishing houses), without anything so much as a minimal caveat, let alone "bundles of additional explanations", a term they loathed / despised / disliked / knew it would spawn misconceptions, or they weren't aware of any pejorative / negative / inaccurate / misleading connotation it might possess (and neither were the respective editorial boards, for that matter). Pick your choice.

EDIT: typos corrected.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Jo498 on October 25, 2017, 12:15:36 AM
As far as I remember in German there is/was a usage of "atonikal" for Wagner, Debussy etc. without clear functional tonality (from Tonika for tonic), "freie Atonalität" (free atonality) for e.g. pre-dodecaphonic Schoenberg to distinguish from the "stricter" Dodecaphony. Also "Serielle Musik" is usually reserved for serialism in the stricter sense that encompasses also durations etc, not only pitches. So Zwölftonmusik is usually never called "seriell".

As several by now established and neutral terms for styles and epochs started with somewhat different, often derogatory meanings and (like "baroque") might even retain these meanings in some contexts (but not in others) I do not see such a special case with "atonal".
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 25, 2017, 03:44:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 10:55:46 PM
Pick your choice.
Some possibilities may have been left off, the most obvious being that any caveats will most likely be inside, not on the covers.

Regardless, "the academy" is no more monolithic than "the audience." Each category is full of all sorts of individuals with widely differing ideas and points of view.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 04:26:25 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 25, 2017, 03:44:34 AM
Some possibilities may have been left off, the most obvious being that any caveats will most likely be inside, not on the covers.

Regardless, "the academy" is no more monolithic than "the audience." Each category is full of all sorts of individuals with widely differing ideas and points of view.

Millionrainbows was sent into a veritable tizzy on another, no longer existing, forum after I revealed that Forte considered Stravinsky's Rite of Spring an atonal work.

Pearle also co-signed the article in the New Grove defining atonality, and it's full of caveats.  From the conclusion:

QuoteAtonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and the basic concept of serialism.  It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant category.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 04:30:01 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 25, 2017, 03:44:34 AM
Some possibilities may have been left off, the most obvious being that any caveats will most likely be inside, not on the covers.

Read Forte's own Preface to The Structure of Atonal Music and let us know how many caveats you have found: https://www.scribd.com/document/221113785/Forte-The-Structure-of-Atonal-Music (https://www.scribd.com/document/221113785/Forte-The-Structure-of-Atonal-Music).

Quote
"the academy" is no more monolithic than "the audience." Each category is full of all sorts of individuals with widely differing ideas and points of view.

Tell that to Monsieur Croche. It's him who wants us to believe that "[the term "atonal"] is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the musical / academic community.  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 04:52:33 AM
QuoteAtonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and the basic concept of serialism.

This formulation logically implies that all atonal compositions are serial, which is not true. Think of it this way: P is class of objects (atonal compositional practices) defined by features X (the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality) and Y (the basic concept of serialism). The connector *and* necessarily implies that an object in the P class have *both* X and Y features, otherwise it wouldn't belong to that class. And since we know for a fact that not all atonal compostions are serial, the above phrase makes a false claim.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 05:07:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 04:52:33 AMThis formulation logically implies that all atonal compositions are serial, which is not true. Think of it this way: P is class of objects (atonal compositional practices) defined by features X (the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality) and Y (the basic concept of serialism). The connector *and* necessarily implies that an object in the P class have *both* X and Y features, otherwise it wouldn't belong to that class. And since we know for a fact that not all atonal compostions are serial, the above phrase makes a false claim.

You're quibbling with a source (Pearle) whom you yourself cited as trustworthy.  Furthermore, you're misreading it.   It says that atonality is separate from serialism.  It's meant to be understood as: "whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and [the absence of] the basic concept of serialism."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 05:16:58 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 05:07:04 AM
You're quibbling with a source that you yourself cited as trustworthy.

You're wrong. I did not cite the article in the New Grove defining atonality. You cited it.

Quote
Furthermore, you're misreading it.   It says that atonality is separate from serialism.  It's meant to be understood as: "whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and [the absence of] the basic concept of serialism."

If that were the case, the phrase would still be making a false claim, because it would logically imply that no serial work can be atonal.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 05:21:27 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 05:16:58 AM
You're wrong. I did not cite the article in the New Grove defining atonality.

I meant George Pearle, the co-author of the article (and edited my post to reflect this).  If you're seeking to impugn the credibility of The New Grove Dictionary, though, all I can say is good luck!

Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 05:16:58 AMIf that were the case, the phrase would still be making a false claim, because it would logically imply that no serial work can be atonal.

You're assuming that atonal has a specific definition other than the one which the New Grove dictionary provides.  That being the very point under discussion, your assumption begs the question.  At any rate, the authors set out their reasons for excluding serial music in the introduction:

QuoteWhile serial music is, by the first definition, atonal, it differs in essential respects from other atonal music and is discussed in the articles SERIALISM and TWELVE-NOTE COMPOSITION; it is, therefore, not considered here.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 05:36:13 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 05:21:27 AM
I meant George Pearle, the co-author of the article (and edited my post to reflect this).

You mean George Perle, I presume

Quote
If you're seeking to impugn the credibility of The New Grove Dictionary, though, all I can say is good luck!

I'm seeking no such thing. I took the phrase you quoted and analyzed its logical implications. The inescapable conclusion is that it makes a false claim.

QuoteYou're assuming that atonal has a specific definition other than the one which the New Grove dictionary provides.

On the contrary, I took the New Grove definition at face value.

Quoteserial music is, by the first definition, atonal

This is in stark, blatant and obvious contradiction with their own definition of atonal music as you read it,  which defines atonal music by, among other things, an *absence* of the basic concept of serialism. We have thus the curious case of an object P (serial music) which is by definition Q (atonal), yet which doesn't meet one of the necessary conditions (absence of serialism) set out in the definition of Q.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 05:48:17 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 05:36:13 AM
You mean George Perle, I presume

Yes, my mistake.

Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 05:36:13 AMI'm seeking no such thing. I took the phrase you quoted and analyzed its logical implications. The inescapable conclusion is that it makes a false claim.

On the contrary, I took the New Grove definition at face value.

Except that you assume beforehand that however atonal is defined, serial compositions must be atonal, and the article makes no such claim.  You cannot say that you take the article at face value if you do not go along with its own basic assumptions, which are internally coherent.

Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 05:36:13 AMThis is in stark, blatant and obvious contradiction with their own definition of atonal music as you read it,  which defines atonal music by, among other things, an *absence* of the basic concept of serialism. We have thus the curious case of an object P (serial music) which is by definition Q (atonal), yet which doesn't meet one of the necessary conditions (absence of serialism) set out in the definition of Q.

That earlier quote was from the conclusion.  The quote just cited was from the introduction.  I'll expand it out:

QuoteAtonality.  A term which may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg.  (While serial music is, by the first definition, atonal, it differs in essential respects from other atonal music and is discussed in the articles SERIALISM and TWELVE-NOTE COMPOSITION; it is, therefore, not considered here.)

http://www.musictheory21.com/documents/atonality-new-grove-dic.pdf

The authors then continue to employ definition two throughout, and the conclusion is based on this (Atonality thus roughly delimits...).
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Turner on October 25, 2017, 05:59:34 AM
The thread in question:
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:00:43 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 25, 2017, 05:46:20 AM
Floristan, serial music is a subset of atonal music. 

Yes, I know that.

Quote
The Grove article is stipulating that while serial music is atonal it has unique attributes from other atonal music and serial works are distinguished from the general atonal labeling.

I have no objection to that. But in whatever reading one takes it, their definition of atonal music leads to conclusions contrary to reality. Judge for yourself:

1. My reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is not serial cannot be atonal. This is false.

2. Mahlerian's reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the absence of the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is serial cannot be atonal. This too is false.

And then they state that serial music is by definition atonal. By whose definition, I wonder, because by their own it doesn't qualify.

Quote
  Somewhat like all kittens are cats but not all cats are kittens.

Except that their definition implies that no kitten can be cats and no cats can be kitten.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:05:01 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 05:48:17 AM
Except that you assume beforehand that however atonal is defined, serial compositions must be atonal,

I assume no such thing.

Look, my logical analysis of the phrase you quoted is in plain sight for anyone to see. I even reiterate it in my reply to sanantonio. Feel free to show where I am wrong in that analysis.

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 06:13:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:05:01 AM
I assume no such thing.

Look, my logical analysis of the phrase you quoted is in plain sight for anyone to see. I even reiterate it in my reply to sanantonio. Feel free to show where I am wrong in that analysis.

Fine.

Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:00:43 AM
Yes, I know that.

I have no objection to that. But in whatever reading one takes it, their definition of atonal music leads to conclusions contrary to reality. Judge for yourself:

1. My reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is not serial cannot be atonal. This is false.

2. Mahlerian's reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the absence of the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is serial cannot be atonal. This too is false.

I wonder why you hold onto your misreading of the quote, because that would be horrible English syntax:  "X is defined by the absence of Y and Z" never means "X is defined by the absence of Y and having Z," because then the normal way of writing it would be "X is defined by the presence of Z and the absence of Y."  Furthermore, I showed how my reading is consistent with the rest of the article, while yours would not be.

Why would it be false, anyway?  They're defining atonal, they say serial is separate, and they proceed under that assumption.  Like I said, it's internally consistent.  It's only problematic if you assume beforehand that serial music has to be atonal.

Also, changing the wording to "is defined by" is slightly distorting the original.  It says that "Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices..."  Which isn't saying that atonality has a specific definition so much as that it's a catch-all term for a whole bunch of things that have these qualities in common.  This is backed up by their saying that "It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant category."

Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:00:43 AMAnd then they state that serial music is by definition atonal. By whose definition, I wonder, because by their own it doesn't qualify.

As I showed earlier, they say that sometimes the term is used in that way.  They then say that they won't use it in that way.  No contradiction whatsoever, unless, again, you assume that serial music has to be atonal.  Then you're not taking them at face value, but inserting your own preconceptions of what the term must necessarily mean.

I'll point out that their use of definition 2 in their list is quite common in academic circles, and definition 3 (limiting "atonal" to the post-tonal, pre-serial music of the Second Viennese School) is also quite common.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:14:06 AM
Bottom line, as to not derail the thread (not that there is much to derail, though): that atonal / atonality are losely defined terms and can have different meanings in different contexts, it is perfectly true --- one thing is clear, though: any music which is tonal is not atonal and any music which is atonal is not tonal.  :laugh:

What is not true is Monsieur Croche's claim that "the academic world" loathes / despises / dislikes the term.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 06:19:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:14:06 AM
Bottom line, as to not derail the thread (not that there is much to derail, though): that atonal / atonality are losely defined terms and can have different meanings in different contexts, it is perfectly true --- one thing is clear, though: any music which is tonal is not atonal and any music which is atonal is not tonal.  :laugh:

That, of course, depends on the definition of both terms.  There are plenty of definitions of tonal that include atonal music as well.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 06:13:55 AM
I wonder why you hold onto your misreading of the quote, because that would be horrible English syntax:  "X is defined by the absence of Y and Z" never means "X is defined by the absence of Y and having Z," because then the normal way of writing it would be "X is defined by the presence of Z and the absence of Y."  Furthermore, I showed how my reading is consistent with the rest of the article, while yours would not be.

Good grief!

I'll repeat the whole damn thing as clearly as I can.

Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and the basic concept of serialism.

So, we have a class of objects P (atonal compositional practices) who is defined by two features: (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality, and (2) the absence of the basic concept of serialism.

According to this definition, any object which has features (1) and (2) belongs to P and any object which lacks one, or both, of the features (1) and (2) does not belong to P.

Serial music lacks feature (2) because the absence of the basic concept of serialism is conspicuously not one of its feature.

Therefore, serial music does not belong to P, ie serial music is not atonal.

This is false, and the whole reasoning has nothing whatsoever to do with the assumption that serial music has to be atonal, which is nowhere to be seen in the above.

If you do not understand it this time either, too bad: I really can't present it in a more clear manner, but I call as my witness anyone who has had a basic course in logic.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 06:33:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:30:37 AM
According to this definition, any object which has features (1) and (2) belongs to P and any object which lacks one, or both, of the features (1) and (2) does not belong to P.

Serial music lacks feature (2) because the absence of the basic concept of serialism is conspicuously not one of its feature.

Therefore, serial music does not belong to P, ie serial music is not atonal.

This is false, and the whole reasoning has nothing whatsoever to do with the assumption that serial music has to be atonal, which is nowhere to be seen in the above.

Why is it false?  Serial music is not atonal.  That's fine with Perle in his article.

What's wrong with serial music not being atonal by definition?  As I said, a definition of atonal that excludes serial music is common in the academic world.

Look, the logic is as follows:

If C, then A and B
Not B [that is, it is serial]
Therefore not C

This is a standard modus tollens argument.  In itself, the logical form is indisputable.  In order to dispute it, you have to bring in an outside assumption that the first premise is incorrect.

(Clarified logical form)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:38:00 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 06:19:46 AM
There are plenty of definitions of tonal that include atonal music as well.

I'm out of here, in dire need for a strong drink. ;D
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:40:51 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 06:33:21 AM
What's wrong with serial music not being atonal by definition? 

Ask the writers of that article. It is they who claim that serial music is, by the first definition, atonal. You cited that claim yourself.

Now, I need a double one.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 25, 2017, 06:46:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 25, 2017, 06:40:51 AM
Ask the writers of that article. It is they who claim that serial music is, by the first definition, atonal. You cited that claim yourself.

Yes, by the first definition of three set out at the beginning of the article.  The definition you've been raking over the coals is from the conclusion.

The three definitions set out at the beginning are:

1 - All music that is not tonal.

2 - All music that is neither tonal nor serial.

3 - The post-tonal, pre-serial music of Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg.

Their article uses definition 2, not definition 1, and the conclusion is based on the contents of the article, not on definition 1.  When they say atonality "roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices," they are using their second definition for this, and, in line with the introduction, ignoring serialism.

As I said, both this definition and definition 3 are in common use.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 25, 2017, 10:53:57 AM
I agree with sanantonio on this:
Quote from: sanantonio on October 25, 2017, 05:46:20 AM
Floristan, serial music is a subset of atonal music.  The Grove article is stipulating that while serial music is atonal it has unique attributes from other atonal music and serial works are distinguished from the general atonal labeling.  Somewhat like all kittens are cats but not all cats are kittens.  also, the Grove article is alluding to the historical development of atonal music: first there was free atonal music then there was serial music, which had specific structural and compositional aspects not shared by free atonal music.

What's confusing things here is Mahlerian's very academic, specific use of "tonal" to mean only functional CP-era music. "Tonal" must be used in a general sense to indicate any music with harmonic tone-centricity (CP tonality, all folk & ethnic music, popular music, Indian raga, etc).

"Atonal" is not a specific indicator or defining term, but should be used only to generally exclude music which is not derived from a tone-centric hierarchy (this includes Forte's use to indicate music or analysis based on set theory).Therefore, any music which exhibits tone-centricity, whether it is CP tonal or not, cannot be called 'atonal' without confusion, if Mahlerian's definition is used.

Also note that tonal hierarchies are created with scales, not sets or rows or series, because of the generally tonal characteristics of scales: usually, scales are presented as having a starting note (indicating the tone center or tonic), they usually cover an octave (indicating a set of in-octave relations to a tonic pitch, which automatically produces a set of "functions"), and they are unordered (meaning that notes can be repeated, and also that they have a "place" identity in the octave which is fixed to that specific note name).

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 25, 2017, 02:01:01 PM
I for one would like some notice that things are confused around here.

I have seen some wilful obscurantism, but none of it's been particularly confusing. It has all been clearly in the service of humpty-dumptyism.

Otherwise, if--IF--things were confused here, it certainly wouldn't be a specific, academic thing, quite the contrary. it's the loose, vague, non-academic fuzzinesses that make for confusion, which is why there has been a fairly consistent push-back against terms like "atonal" ever since it was coined.

Otherotherwise, what is up with these locutions (unsupported, too, what's worse): "must be used" and "should be used only"?

To which the only possible response is not "oh, OK" but "why?" or perhaps "says who?"
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 25, 2017, 02:01:40 PM
Quote from: Turner on October 25, 2017, 05:59:34 AM
The thread in question:

Well met indeed!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 25, 2017, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 25, 2017, 02:01:01 PMit's the loose, vague, non-academic fuzzinesses that make for confusion

Vague, non-academic fuzzinesses is what makes language a living thing.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Uhor on October 26, 2017, 01:51:08 AM
And then a surge of gamma rays hit the Earth, the end.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Turner on October 26, 2017, 02:58:43 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 25, 2017, 02:01:01 PM
I for one would like some notice that things are confused around here.

I have seen some wilful obscurantism, but none of it's been particularly confusing. It has all been clearly in the service of humpty-dumptyism.

Otherwise, if--IF--things were confused here, it certainly wouldn't be a specific, academic thing, quite the contrary. it's the loose, vague, non-academic fuzzinesses that make for confusion, which is why there has been a fairly consistent push-back against terms like "atonal" ever since it was coined.

Otherotherwise, what is up with these locutions (unsupported, too, what's worse): "must be used" and "should be used only"?

To which the only possible response is not "oh, OK" but "why?" or perhaps "says who?"


Your posts generally gain a lot from dealing more specifically with the subject matter.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: bwv 1080 on October 26, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 25, 2017, 10:53:57 AM
I agree with sanantonio on this:
What's confusing things here is Mahlerian's very academic, specific use of "tonal" to mean only functional CP-era music. "Tonal" must be used in a general sense to indicate any music with harmonic tone-centricity (CP tonality, all folk & ethnic music, popular music, Indian raga, etc).

"Atonal" is not a specific indicator or defining term, but should be used only to generally exclude music which is not derived from a tone-centric hierarchy (this includes Forte's use to indicate music or analysis based on set theory).Therefore, any music which exhibits tone-centricity, whether it is CP tonal or not, cannot be called 'atonal' without confusion, if Mahlerian's definition is used.

Also note that tonal hierarchies are created with scales, not sets or rows or series, because of the generally tonal characteristics of scales: usually, scales are presented as having a starting note (indicating the tone center or tonic), they usually cover an octave (indicating a set of in-octave relations to a tonic pitch, which automatically produces a set of "functions"), and they are unordered (meaning that notes can be repeated, and also that they have a "place" identity in the octave which is fixed to that specific note name).

Mahlerian's usage of the word is within accepted definitions - tonal refers to functional harmony not simply all music with a central tone.  Modal is the common term there.  Now, I think he is overly restrictive in what he terms functional harmony - most Jazz and popular music styles derived from it use functional harmony and are therefore tonal.  All of this is a gray area as theory is extracted post ante from existing musical styles.  Renaissance music is a gray area, sort of pre-tonal / modal where you do have cadential formulas that dont appear in Medieval music and form the basis of Baroque styles.  Then there are modal 20th century pieces, like Miles Davis' So What which uses triads and 7th chords but with no harmonic function, just to outline the dorian mode.  Then you get into terms like pandiatonic to describe alot of neoclassical stuff like Stravinsky where diatonic scales are used without any regard for traditional harmony.   While the narrow theory definition is legitimate, most people casually use the word tonal to describe anything that seems to audibly pull to a central pitch, which is fine for most purposes
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 26, 2017, 12:45:36 PM
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's anecdotal.

So San Antonio has been talking about music for 50 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and everyone knew what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

OK. Hard to gainsay anecdotal evidence without calling people liars, but the thing is I too have been talking about music for a little over 55 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and no one agreed about what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

So now it's just San Antonio's anecdote against mine. And that level of discourse is indeed a bit silly.

But there you have it. I remember when I first ran across the term "atonal." It seemed to be used to refer to certain kinds of music, but by what I could derive from the definition itself, it could equally well have been used to describe other kinds of music. I never understood why Varese's music was never referred to as atonal, for instance.

And by the time I saw his music referred to as atonal, I was so over that word. I have observed at least six different meanings for the word, ranging from the "music I don't like" meaning to "music that does not use the logic of tonality to produce its effects." (With varying references to dissonance and chromaticism in some of the other meanings.)

The problem with all of them, as indeed is the problem with the term itself, is that they're all more or less negative. Even the most strictly neutral still has the "not this" air about it. Not what it does, whatever "it" is, but what it does not do, what it "avoids." This does not (!) seem to me to be a useful way to go about defining things.

"A tree is a kind of thing that does not have fur and does not mate with other trees" just doesn't give any useful information about what a tree is. And there are lots of things--the other problem with "atonal"--that don't have fur and that don't mate.... And that are quite remarkably different from trees.

That is, I understand perfectly why Mahlerian criticizes the term. What I find very peculiar is how many people argue so vociferously and so protectively for a term that is so demonstrably valueless. What, I wonder, would Florestan or San Antonio stand to lose if they lost the term "atonal."

I really can't see that they'd lose a damned thing.

Maybe that's where we should take this benighted discussion next. Why are some people so protective of the term? What do they think they'd lose if the term didn't exist. Never mind Mahlerian's psychology. What about Florestan's?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 26, 2017, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 26, 2017, 12:45:36 PM
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's anecdotal.

So San Antonio has been talking about music for 50 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and everyone knew what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

OK. Hard to gainsay anecdotal evidence without calling people liars, but the thing is I too have been talking about music for a little over 55 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and no one agreed about what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

So now it's just San Antonio's anecdote against mine. And that level of discourse is indeed a bit silly.

But there you have it. I remember when I first ran across the term "atonal." It seemed to be used to refer to certain kinds of music, but by what I could derive from the definition itself, it could equally well have been used to describe other kinds of music. I never understood why Varese's music was never referred to as atonal, for instance.

And by the time I saw his music referred to as atonal, I was so over that word. I have observed at least six different meanings for the word, ranging from the "music I don't like" meaning to "music that does not use the logic of tonality to produce its effects." (With varying references to dissonance and chromaticism in some of the other meanings.)

The problem with all of them, as indeed is the problem with the term itself, is that they're all more or less negative. Even the most strictly neutral still has the "not this" air about it. Not what it does, whatever "it" is, but what it does not do, what it "avoids." This does not (!) seem to me to be a useful way to go about defining things.

"A tree is a kind of thing that does not have fur and does not mate with other trees" just doesn't give any useful information about what a tree is. And there are lots of things--the other problem with "atonal"--that don't have fur and that don't mate.... And that are quite remarkably different from trees.

That is, I understand perfectly why Mahlerian criticizes the term. What I find very peculiar is how many people argue so vociferously and so protectively for a term that is so demonstrably valueless. What, I wonder, would Florestan or San Antonio stand to lose if they lost the term "atonal."

I really can't see that they'd lose a damned thing.

Maybe that's where we should take this benighted discussion next. Why are some people so protective of the term? What do they think they'd lose if the term didn't exist. Never mind Mahlerian's psychology. What about Florestan's?

Now I'm insulted that I'm not included in your menagerie of troglodytes that "vociferously" argue for the term atonal.

No one is telling you to use the word "atonal" if you don't understand it. Why are you telling me I can't use it because you don't understand it?

I know it is not a very specific term. I wouldn't expect someone to categorize music as "atonal" after studying the score for a year. I'd expect something more specific. But if I hear a piece of music and it does not give the impression of being organized around a tone center and/or traditional harmony, then I would describe it as atonal. I might also have caused to say "it is hot outside" and not that "the temperature outside is 34.3 degrees Celsius."


Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 26, 2017, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 26, 2017, 01:11:58 PMI know it is not a very specific term. I wouldn't expect someone to categorize music as "atonal" after studying the score for a year. I'd expect something more specific. But if I hear a piece of music and it does not give the impression of being organized around a tone center and/or traditional harmony, then I would describe it as atonal.

You see, I have never had the experience of hearing music that didn't sound organized around some center or other.  The center may have varying degrees of clarity, sure, but the fact of a center just seems inherent to the organization of tones, period.  If I did experience that, I would perhaps understand what atonality sounds like.

Traditional harmony, on the other hand, I am quite familiar with.  I can hear it and identify its characteristics.  I can write it, I can write it in multiple parts, I can write outside of it, whether using modal or post-tonal techniques.  But atonality?  I have never heard it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 26, 2017, 01:27:24 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 26, 2017, 01:22:14 PM
You see, I have never had the experience of hearing music that didn't sound organized around some center or other.  The center may have varying degrees of clarity, sure, but the fact of a center just seems inherent to the organization of tones, period.  If I did experience that, I would perhaps understand what atonality sounds like.

Traditional harmony, on the other hand, I am quite familiar with.  I can hear it and identify its characteristics.  I can write it, I can write it in multiple parts, I can write outside of it, whether using modal or post-tonal techniques.  But atonality?  I have never heard it.

What is boils down to, you are a colorblind person objecting to the term "red."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 26, 2017, 01:30:58 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 26, 2017, 01:27:24 PM
What is boils down to, you are a colorblind person objecting to the term "red."

I am partially colorblind (and would never say such an idiotic thing), and no, it's not that I don't hear a lack of tonal centers, it's that I hear tonal centers.  You're telling me that red doesn't exist because you don't see it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 26, 2017, 01:37:25 PM
You're telling me you see no distinction between a classical piece where every section closes on a perfect cadence and Schoenberg dodecaphony?

I can give you a dozen mathematical expressions for energy. It doesn't mean I don't understand when Donald Trump called Jeb Bush "low energy."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 26, 2017, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 26, 2017, 10:05:13 AMThe whole argument, here, is silly.

+1
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 26, 2017, 01:40:35 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 26, 2017, 01:37:25 PM
You're telling me you see no distinction between a classical piece where every section closes on a perfect cadence and Schoenberg dodecaphony?

For god's sake, I just said that I could do that two posts ago.

The differences are immediately and audibly apparent.  The works use harmony and melody in different ways.  But they both have centers that I can hear and point to as gravitational points in their pieces.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 26, 2017, 01:59:46 PM
So you can't reconcile yourself to the fact that when normal people say a piece is atonal, they mean it has one of those other nontraditional types of tonal organization?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 26, 2017, 02:27:09 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 26, 2017, 01:59:46 PM
So you can't reconcile yourself to the fact that when normal people say a piece is atonal, they mean it has one of those other nontraditional types of tonal organization?

Who's saying they can't reconcile anything?  I said that I don't hear music as atonal, that I have never heard atonality, and that the term atonal is, as far as I can tell, nonsensical.  It has no relationship to the music it's applied to.  It doesn't indicate any particular kind of harmony or melody, nor even the fact of whether or not the harmony is traditional.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 26, 2017, 03:47:59 PM
Really guys?

Seriously?

Scarpia, with his "normal" people?

San Antonio with his not caring, over and over and over again about someone else's opinion about something?

Come on. Surely you all have something more substantial than that.

What is it with all this "anyone who has an opinion different from mine should just shut up about it"?

Try this--if you don't like hearing critical views of the term atonal, why don't you just stop reading them? Why does it have to be the people with those views who have to shut up?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 26, 2017, 03:56:09 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 26, 2017, 03:47:59 PMTry this--if you don't like hearing critical views of the term atonal, why don't you just stop reading them?

You have a point there. I have resolved to stop, but somehow I get pulled back in.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Turner on October 26, 2017, 10:10:05 PM
I´m not going to dwell on who has been or is being 'obscurantist' regarding questions and issues here etc. etc., but I´ve ordered the Weber book that was mentioned a very long time ago & hope to give it a fair read-through, time permitting. And l´ll also try to check out if the stated interpretation of it holds.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 26, 2017, 10:50:38 PM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 26, 2017, 03:53:51 PM
I have a radical idea: let's all use the words we want and not tell each other which ones we should or should not use.

Some guy people would find such a world dull and boring. For them, floging dead horses and shooting strawmen seems more exciting than anything else.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 26, 2017, 03:55:42 PM
You should shut up about it because you have been repeating yourself ad nausueum and have failed to convince anyone.

He's not alone, actually. But Mahlerian at least has a long record of actually discussing, and listening to, music. Some guy on the other hand seems not to be interested in anything else than rehashing his obsessions (atonal is a pejorative term, program music is a hoax, modernism has been persecuted ever since the Fall).

Quote from: Scarpia on October 26, 2017, 03:56:09 PM
You have a point there. I have resolved to stop, but somehow I get pulled back in.

Hereby I solemnly and publicly resolve to stop. Scout's honor!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Tulse on October 27, 2017, 09:36:03 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 26, 2017, 03:55:42 PM
You should shut up about it because you have been repeating yourself ad nausueum and have failed to convince anyone.

I'm convinced. Whilst I do not understand music theory, it is apparent that 'atonal' and 'cacophonous noise' are terms used interchangeably by many.

Ad hom attacks on Some Guy and Mahlerian do not make this go away.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2017, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2017, 10:50:38 PMHe's not alone, actually. But Mahlerian at least has a long record of actually discussing, and listening to, music. Some guy on the other hand seems not to be interested in anything else than rehashing his obsessions (atonal is a pejorative term, program music is a hoax, modernism has been persecuted ever since the Fall).

I don't agree with this. Some guy has plenty to say about music. (Maybe about music you aren't interested in.)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Tulse on October 27, 2017, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 27, 2017, 09:59:45 AM


Welcome to GMG.  You chose one of the more argumentative threads to make your second appearance.

Thanks! Yes, it is no coincidence. The quality of debate and musical appreciation is much better here than on the other main site.

I plan to hang around for a bit.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 27, 2017, 10:58:26 PM
Quote from: some guy on October 26, 2017, 12:45:36 PM
So San Ant has been talking about music for 50 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and everyone knew what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

OK. Hard to gainsay anecdotal evidence without calling people liars, but the thing is I too have been talking about music for a little over 55 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and no one agreed about what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

Tossing in my mere multiple decades of experience, my return to school in the late 70's (after conservatory piano performance and a decade working) as a theory and comp major landed me in a large state school in northern California which at the time had a very strong classical music department.  It was arch conservative only in what is needed and demanded by the craft, while for the rest it was fully up to date, progressive at that, and very on top of what was current, and forward looking. 

There, the profs all disliked the conventional term Atonal for the many reasons stated in this thread, that:
it is literally a misnomer;
it is in the negative;
it barely and too loosely applies and does not truly differentiate anything much specific that is actually helpful.

-- all that both in the textbooks and from the profs in class. Many clarifications had to be given to dispel a truckload of deep-seeded misconceptions about the term, the text containing, virtually, admonishments as to How & What Not To Think Of IT. 

These were not backwater teachers; they were actively working and performed contemporary composers as well as teachers (one who later won a Pulitzer Prize for classical music), nor were their students crudely ill-prepared rubes. The concern over a fully applicable and clear definition of atonal has to be different depending upon where one trained. 

Later, I met numbers of European musicians 10 to 20 years younger than me who had grown up in a different place and slightly later time enough, say, to hear Prokofiev et alia and 'all that' as 'just more normal music' vs. 'difficult.'  They told me the subject of Atonal was treated with similar attention and care in its initial presentation to them as I had experienced.  (This all at a time when set theory was in use and had barely just been 'defined.')

Chronologically close enough in sync with the era when I went through undergrad and grad levels, San Ant's saying he has never been through any such kerfuffle re Atonal in his training is literally news to me, i.e the first time I have heard it from any of my peers (who had studied at various and sundry; Juilliard, Curtis, The Conservatory of the Hague, Royal College of Music, others.}  All those varied musicians, Americans and Europeans, had similar experiences when first confronted with "atonal" at the undergrad level, and some as late as the late 90's. 

Quote from: some guy on October 26, 2017, 12:45:36 PM
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's anecdotal.

Yeah, that.  Perhaps if I had managed to acquire 250 to 300 professional musicians as acquaintances (vs. ca. 200), I might have had a higher probablity of hearing of like experiences to that which San Ant had.

Quote from: some guy on October 26, 2017, 12:45:36 PM
That is, I understand perfectly why Mahlerian criticizes the term.

Indeed.  A lifetime of study and contacts within the professional community has yielded many repeats of all and more of, not Mahlerian's personal complaints -- but instead those are the cumulative plural complaints as compiled through the reading of many theory texts, contacts including teachers, professors, and uni/conservatory students.  {Mahlerian is just reporting the accumulated historic news on this wide consensus of opinions on the word, the shortcomings of the word as coined, its lack of much effective usefulness as it stands.

"Don't kill the messenger," and "Don't shoot the piano player."  ~  Please, we need the messenger as usher and the pianist as musician to perform both serial-tonal and non-serial atonal music at your funeral.

I can not think of one other music theoretic term of definition that is inherently pejorative, nor any other neologism that is such a patent misnomer so sloppily widely applied to anything from Wagner to Boulez and beyond.  Among many of the complaints I've heard repeatedly voiced is, "It should really be replaced, but since it has been in place so long we're probably stuck with it." (More a hopeless wail, really.)

As to that joker wild card some clown laid down on the table re: 'normal' people using the word however they wish (Humpty-Dumpty - like), well, ha ha freakin' ha, do give us all a break. That's like trying to shift the discussion, its participants and observers in this thread from a music discussions site to a sort of Lumpen Land (there, maybe filled with that audience the British conductor spoke of, "They know nothing of music, but they do love the noise it makes.")  When, via fora, I read some allegedly well informed person say the double inverted fugue in the Stravinsky Symphony of Psalms is atonal, he is either off his rocker, orrrr, he means Atonal -- as Some Guy put it -- "Not your grandma's tonal anymore."  Another had stated "Prokofiev is atonal." there again, off their rocker -- or "Not your grandma's Tonal anymore?  (I've never heard or read of Prokofiev -- any of it -- being any kind of atonal.)

The term is in place.  Rather than snippily advise another member to 'just not read this thread,' it might do better for the thread and the world at large if that person instead just stopped using the word atonal until they cared to make enough mental effort to use it in its apposite varied applications -- at the least when participating in a thread, and that will require of them using it more accurately with all the subset conditionals it has which have it covering Wagner through the present.  At least one would think they would have sense enough in an environment where people have signed up to discuss music with moderate intelligence and clarity, and in that context their only means of so doing via the written word....  Its kinda like, "You Must Be This Tall To Ride This Ride."


Always best regards.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 28, 2017, 07:28:46 AM
Last time I used the term atonal was ten years ago and before studying music theory... I used to think that Prokofiev was "very (?) atonal" LOL
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:26:28 AM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on October 26, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
Mahlerian's usage of the word is within accepted definitions - tonal refers to functional harmony not simply all music with a central tone.  Modal is the common term there.  Now, I think he is overly restrictive in what he terms functional harmony - most Jazz and popular music styles derived from it use functional harmony and are therefore tonal.  All of this is a gray area as theory is extracted post ante from existing musical styles.  Renaissance music is a gray area, sort of pre-tonal / modal where you do have cadential formulas that dont appear in Medieval music and form the basis of Baroque styles.  Then there are modal 20th century pieces, like Miles Davis' So What which uses triads and 7th chords but with no harmonic function, just to outline the dorian mode.  Then you get into terms like pandiatonic to describe alot of neoclassical stuff like Stravinsky where diatonic scales are used without any regard for traditional harmony.   While the narrow theory definition is legitimate, most people casually use the word tonal to describe anything that seems to audibly pull to a central pitch, which is fine for most purposes

I agree that "tonal" is not useful as a precisely defined term, so it becomes necessary to use it in a general sense, as pulling to a central pitch. It follows that "atonal" is just as general: as music NOT pulling to a central tone.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 28, 2017, 10:37:52 AM
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:26:28 AM
I agree that "tonal" is not useful as a precisely defined term, so it becomes necessary to use it in a general sense, as pulling to a central pitch. It follows that "atonal" is just as general: as music NOT pulling to a central tone.

Ah-hah. Now I understand, the harmony from the early-mid baroque through the Common Practice era is Amodal music!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 26, 2017, 02:27:09 PM
...I don't hear music as atonal...I have never heard atonality, and...the term atonal is, as far as I can tell, nonsensical.  It has no relationship to the music it's applied to. 

I don't hear 12-tone music as being tonal, except in certain cases, such as Dallapiccola and Berg, in certain places, and those only 'hint' at tonality.

Works I do hear as definitely atonal:

Schoenberg: Pierot Lunaire, String Trio, Violin Concerto, Piano Concerto, Erwartung, Suite for Piano op. 25
Berg: Lyric Suite, Wozzeck
Webern: Symphony, Bagatelles

I don't see how any of these works above could be called "tonal," and any connection would be nonsensical, involving some sleight-of-hand tonal analysis bordering on the absurd.

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 26, 2017, 02:27:09 PMIt doesn't indicate any particular kind of harmony or melody, nor even the fact of whether or not the harmony is traditional.

Again, "atonal" is a general, exclusive term; it doesn't have to define a particular kind of harmony or melody, but only denotes the absence of tonal harmony based on a harmonic hierarchy. Music with this absence is immediately and easily recognizable by 99% of listeners.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 10:47:11 AM
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:42:02 AM
I don't hear 12-tone music as being tonal, except in certain cases, such as Dallapiccola and Berg, in certain places, and those only 'hint' at tonality.

Works I do hear as definitely atonal:

Schoenberg: Pierot Lunaire, String Trio, Violin Concerto, Piano Concerto, Erwartung, Suite for Piano op. 25
Berg: Lyric Suite, Wozzeck
Webern: Symphony, Bagatelles

I don't see how any of these works above could be called "tonal," and any connection would be nonsensical, involving some sleight-of-hand tonal analysis bordering on the absurd.

Sorry, I don't hear it.  I can hear complex harmonic relationships, shifting centers, melodic/harmonic interaction, and so forth.  I can't hear atonality in any of those works.

This is not to say I hear tonality, of course.  Tonality requires functional triadic harmony and the specific hierarchical relationships of the major and minor scales, and the works cited above consistently employ the full chromatic alongside non-triadic harmony.

But I can't hear atonality in them, and I certainly can hear centers.

Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:42:02 AMAgain, "atonal" is a general, exclusive term; it doesn't have to define a particular kind of harmony or melody, but only denotes the absence of tonal harmony based on a harmonic hierarchy.

If that were true, then atonal would be correctly applied to pre-Baroque music as well as pop/rock music.  This isn't the way the term is used.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:47:22 AM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 28, 2017, 10:37:52 AM
Ah-hah. Now I understand, the harmony from the early-mid baroque through the Common Practice era is Amodal music!

Well, "modal" music was based strictly on melodic formulas, had no harmony, and no function: only linear melody, so I guess you could say that as a gross generalization.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:59:13 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 10:47:11 AM
Sorry, I don't hear it.  I can hear complex harmonic relationships, shifting centers, melodic/harmonic interaction, and so forth.  I can't hear atonality in any of those works.

I can hear complex harmonic relationships in those works too, but that's not tonality: that's relative. There is no underlying, system-wide "deep" system of tonality apparent.

You will never hear "atonal" music or 'atonality', except as an absence of tonality.

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 10:47:11 AMThis is not to say I hear tonality (in those works), of course.

And this is because you have a strict definition of tonality, which you state:

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 10:47:11 AMTonality requires functional triadic harmony and the specific hierarchical relationships of the major and minor scales, and the works cited above consistently employ the full chromatic alongside non-triadic harmony.

Indian raga has no harmonic functions, but I hear it as being very, very tonal. The same with minimalism.

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 10:47:11 AMBut I can't hear atonality in them, and I certainly can hear centers.

You will not ever hear any music as being "atonal" except as it is an absence of tonality.

By the general Harvard Dictionary definition, you are hearing tonality if you hear tonal centers sustained through time long enough to be attributable to a tonal hierarchy in place.

But all I hear (in those works) is momentary, instantaneous, local tonal points: not system-wide, deep tonality which comes from an hierarchy.

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 10:47:11 AMIf that were true, then atonal would be correctly applied to pre-Baroque music as well as pop/rock music.  This isn't the way the term is used.

"Atonal" is not meant to be applied as an identifier or descriptor, only as an exclusive term, so your hypothetical example is not applicable. You will not ever hear any music as being "atonal" except as it is an absence of tonality.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 11:03:16 AM
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:59:13 AMIndian raga has no harmonic functions, but I hear it as being very, very tonal. The same with minimalism.

Explain the "deep, system-wide system" of tonality in this, if you can.

https://www.youtube.com/v/6V1hokSS4TU

Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 10:59:13 AMYou will never hear "atonal" music or 'atonality', except as an absence of tonality.

And, like I said, I have never once heard that in anything, if I am using your definition of tonality.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 11:03:16 AM
Explain the "deep, system-wide system" of tonality in this, if you can.

This Philip Glass piece, "Music in Fifths," is tonal in a very general sense. It's certainly not atonal, because it keeps reinforcing a tone center.



Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 11:13:32 AM
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 11:12:06 AM
This Philip Glass piece, "Music in Fifths," is tonal in a very general sense. It's certainly not atonal, because it keeps reinforcing a tone center.

That's just restating the conclusion.  You said that in order to be tonal, it has to have a deep, system-wide system of tonality.  How is that achieved in this piece, which lacks in any kind of harmony in the traditional sense?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 11:13:32 AM
That's just restating the conclusion.  You said that in order to be tonal, it has to have a deep, system-wide system of tonality.  How is that achieved in this piece, which lacks in any kind of harmony in the traditional sense?

The piece is melodic, not harmonic. In that sense, it has no "deep, system wide" harmonic consequences (chords, functions, voice leadings, and other harmonic devices) which result. Since it is totally melodic, like Thai or Indian raga, it has no harmony, but is still tone-centric, and thus tonal.

You're really trying hard to find a way around this, aren't you?  ;D
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 28, 2017, 01:12:01 PM
As I was reading this:
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 11:20:09 AM
The piece is melodic, not harmonic. In that sense, it has no "deep, system wide" harmonic consequences (chords, functions, voice leadings, and other harmonic devices) which result. Since it is totally melodic, like Thai or Indian raga, it has no harmony, but is still tone-centric, and thus tonal,
I was thinking this:

Quote from: millionrainbows on October 28, 2017, 11:20:09 AM
You're really trying hard to find a way around this, aren't you?  ;D
Funny how apt it is for the attempt to describe Glass's piece as "tonal," especially coming after the begrudging admission that since (since!) modal music is melodic it would be referred to as "atonal."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: arpeggio on October 28, 2017, 06:18:59 PM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 28, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
I am baffled with the bru-ha-ha over the word atonal.  It is a simple word, really, that is usually applied to music written in the 20th century that uses freely devised combinations of notes, instead of harmonies people have grown accustomed to for centuries.  It also is not written in a "key", i.e. one of the major or minor keys.  It also avoids using diatonic triads or other recognizable chords in any fashion.  Often atonal music is more linear with the harmonic combinations almost accidental.  Atonal music was a gradual development as composers began to stretch the boundaries of tonal music more and more until the connection was severed entirely.

As a consequence some unsophisticated listeners have heard atonal music as "ugly" since it frustrates their expectations about how music should sound.  After all, the music they've heard was in some degree tonal and when confronted with music that does everything to avoid adhering to tonal expectations they can't help but lash out with some trite dismissal.  Once they knew that the music they did not like was called atonal, well, they now had a convenient term to fling about in derision.  That listener is completely irrelevant, imo, and should not be held up as the standard bearer of how the word atonal is mostly used.  Even though I know that it is used like that by ignorant people, I don't think that is the primary usage of the word.

Also, the academic tendency to define labels as narrow as possible has complicated this discussion since most people aren't aware of the specialized usage in academic circles for words like atonal or serial.  For me, 12-tone music and serial music, e.g. Schoenberg, Webern, Berg and their later followers, is certainly atonal and if you need another label, sometimes also serial.  I don't concern myself with academic conceits.

However, I don't use either word much when I talk about music since I avoid labeling music in general and prefer to simply describe what it sounds like to me, or if I like it or not, or other music it is related to in sound.  At the same time when I hear someone say that Schoenberg's music is not atonal, or that no music is atonal - I cringe and then laugh.  That kind of statement is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

Wow.  This exactly how I feel about it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 08:57:41 PM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 28, 2017, 04:28:25 PMAs a consequence some unsophisticated listeners have heard atonal music as "ugly" since it frustrates their expectations about how music should sound.  After all, the music they've heard was in some degree tonal and when confronted with music that does everything to avoid adhering to tonal expectations they can't help but lash out with some trite dismissal.  Once they knew that the music they did not like was called atonal, well, they now had a convenient term to fling about in derision.  That listener is completely irrelevant, imo, and should not be held up as the standard bearer of how the word atonal is mostly used.  Even though I know that it is used like that by ignorant people, I don't think that is the primary usage of the word.

You have it precisely backwards.

The music of Mahler, Debussy, Reger, and Schoenberg, among many others, was called atonal by "ignorant people" who thought it was ugly because it frustrated their expectations about how music should sound.

They discovered that this music ignored the common consonances and progressions and reveled in dissonances, and thus called it atonal, to connote its musical anarchy.

The colloquial understanding of the word has it linked with ideas of unmusicality, screeching noise, tunelessness, and so forth.  Don't believe me?  Look at the page of synonyms brought up by Dictionary.com: discordant, harsh, loud, strident, cacophonous, dissonant, inharmonious, jarring, squawking, and finally, unmusical.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/atonal?s=t

Any attempt to salvage the term as a technical one is foolhardy, because it's untrue if taken literally and too overladen with negative connotations to communicate anything else.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 28, 2017, 04:28:25 PMAt the same time when I hear someone say that Schoenberg's music is not atonal, or that no music is atonal - I cringe and then laugh.  That kind of statement is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

I didn't say that no music is atonal.  I said that I have never heard atonality in the sense that people seem to use the term, and that I have never seen a definition of "atonal music" that wasn't either self-contradictory or a subset of the user's definition of "tonal music."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:10:00 PM
It completely puzzles me as to why Mahlerian is still putting up such a fight over this word. The only person who views the word negatively is you, Mahlerian. Everyone else here on GMG doesn't have a problem with the word and has accepted the term as everyday language or, at least, as this ongoing discussion has indicated thus far.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 09:21:28 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:10:00 PM
It completely puzzles me as to why Mahlerian is still putting up such a fight over this word. The only person who views the word negatively is you, Mahlerian. Everyone else here on GMG doesn't have a problem with the word and has accepted the term as everyday language or, at least, as this ongoing discussion has indicated thus far.

What good does the word do you or anyone else?  It's meaningless, tells you nothing whatsoever about the melodic or harmonic construction of the music, and is misleading if taken literally.

The only thing I've ever seen come out of it is misunderstanding and negativity.

If you say it helps you to communicate, tell me what, precisely, it serves to communicate.  What aspect of any music whatsoever does the word atonal convey?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:30:53 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 09:21:28 PM
What good does the word do you or anyone else?  It's meaningless, tells you nothing whatsoever about the melodic or harmonic construction of the music, and is misleading if taken literally.

The only thing I've ever seen come out of it is misunderstanding and negativity.

If you say it helps you to communicate, tell me what, precisely, it serves to communicate.  What aspect of any music whatsoever does the word atonal convey?

If someone doesn't understand the term then it's not your problem, it's the problem of the person who doesn't understand it. The term simply means 'without a tonal center.' That's it.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:30:53 PM
If someone doesn't understand the term then it's not your problem, it's the problem of the person who doesn't understand it. The term simply means 'without a tonal center.' That's it.

But as I've said before, defined broadly, Schoenberg's music (and that of Boulez, Carter, etc.) does have tonal centers, while defined narrowly, pre-Baroque music, folk music, or pop/rock music would be considered atonal under your definition.

I am aware that that's what people understand atonal to mean, but it has no relationship to the way it's used.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:48:40 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 09:36:51 PM
But as I've said before, defined broadly, Schoenberg's music (and that of Boulez, Carter, etc.) does have tonal centers, while defined narrowly, pre-Baroque music, folk music, or pop/rock music would be considered atonal under your definition.

I am aware that that's what people understand atonal to mean, but it has no relationship to the way it's used.

Well, don't worry about other people's usage of the word. Accept that some people have to put a label on something in order for them to understand it. I'm by no means a musical illiterate, but I also don't find it useful to argue with people who want to use a term I don't agree with.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 09:56:32 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:48:40 PM
Well, don't worry about other people's usage of the word. Accept that some people have to put a label on something in order for them to understand it. I'm by no means a musical illiterate, but I also don't find it useful to argue with people who want to use a term I don't agree with.

How can the term help people with understanding if it leads them not to hear tonal centers in some music?  You would think that being able to hear the centricity, the tendencies of the musical material and the way it is employed, would be more helpful.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 09:56:32 PM
How can the term help people with understanding if it leads them not to hear tonal centers in some music?  You would think that being able to hear the centricity, the tendencies of the musical material and the way it is employed, would be more helpful.

That's to be left up to the individual. Good night.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 29, 2017, 03:36:21 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:10:00 PM
It completely puzzles me as to why Mahlerian is still putting up such a fight over this word. The only person who views the word negatively is you, Mahlerian. Everyone else here on GMG doesn't have a problem with the word and has accepted the term as everyday language or, at least, as this ongoing discussion has indicated thus far.
This last comment is patently untrue, not only for GMG in general but for this thread in particular. (Check your "ignore" list, maybe. Maybe the only person who has a problem with the term and is also not on your list is Mahlerian.)

But let's just say that Mahlerian IS the only one. If that were true, then I would think that that would mean that it does NOT puzzle you that he takes on those who are mistaken. I wonder. If you lived in seventeenth century Italy, would you have criticized Galileo because "everyone else here believes in geocentrism"? Surely you don't want to promote "everyone else-ism" as an argument for the validity of any idea.

In any event, I would like to point out, again, that it is not Mahlerian who is putting up a fight over this word. Mahlerian has pointed out the word's inutility, with support from theory and logic and personal experience. It is only when he mentions this that other people then react by putting up a fight over his observation. And not even over the observation but over some supposed coercion, which, on the face of it, is absurdity piled on preposterousness. How is it possible that any member of GMG could coerce any other member or group of members by simply making an observation?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 29, 2017, 04:40:55 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 04:16:03 AM
He alleges the "word's inutility".   But what he has described is his ability to hear tonal cetners in music others call atonal, complaining that the word doesn't say anything specific about the music and pointing out how ignorant people have mis-used the word from the 19th century onward.  Both you and he act as though this argument should be definitive.   It isn't.

I suppose we are confused why are you both are trying so hard to convince us of the word's "inutility" when a number of us do not share your opinion, and will no doubt remain unconvinced.
Again, the same logic applies. There is only need to try to convince if you do not agree. If you did share our opinion, then there would be no need for any convincing. Is this really that hard? If everyone agrees on something, then logically there will be no convincing at all. Convincing is exactly and precisely and logically and plainly only for when people do NOT agree on something.

"Confused" would only be appropriate if everyone agreed and some person or persons was trying to convince the rest of the truth of what the rest already think is true.

As for definitive, anyone advancing any argument is very likely to think that it is definitive, no? If you were not convinced of an argument's validity, you probably wouldn't put any effort into its advancement.

Or?

But that's as may be. What is more to the point is that focussing on Mahlerian's and my beliefs in our arguments (as if believing in one's arguments were aberrant) and having only a laconic "it isn't" as a rebuttal to those argument is not even trying to be convincing.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: arpeggio on October 29, 2017, 05:01:07 AM

I have not read every post in this thread so forgive me if am addressing something that has already been mentioned.  Also I am really not an expert about this so please forgive any weak remarks.

In a sense it appears to me both sides are right.

At times I will hear tonal centers in atonal music.  I think the reason for this is as I have gotten older I have had more experience listening to atonal music.  I never really understood Schoenberg until I was in my fifties.  Then it was like a floodgate.  Music by Webern or Sessions or Carter or Husa or many others started to make sense to me.  So it depends on an individual experiences that effect his perceptions of music.

The best description of the 12 tonal system are the Bernstein lectures on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n6p7_0g7k0&index=2&list=RDolwVvbWd-tg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n6p7_0g7k0&index=2&list=RDolwVvbWd-tg)

In it Bernstein stated that it is next to impossible to compose truly atonal music.  He presented a few examples of Schoenberg's music that were 12-tone but still sounded tonal.  I have read other essays over the years that try to make the same point.

I keep thinking of the William Schuman story about in Macon, Georgia his music is atonal.

Some of us may hear tonal centers, some may not.  So what.  The bottom line is whether or not we enjoy the music.

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 29, 2017, 06:02:09 AM
A lot of modern highly chromatic music has tonal centers, as Mahlerian points out. And one doesn't need to be an "expert" to  notice them.

Just check this piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRALrBqln8s

All of the chromatic action revolves around a center note.


Or this other example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OE7UmKmix0

Note the textural change at 2:00 minutes. At that point, after the introduction which lasts from 0:00 to 2:00 minutes and which doesn't have a stable tonal center, a clear center tone is established and everything revolves around it for a long while. This piece is serial music, something to note...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mirror Image on October 29, 2017, 06:05:17 AM
Quote from: some guy on October 29, 2017, 03:36:21 AM
This last comment is patently untrue, not only for GMG in general but for this thread in particular. (Check your "ignore" list, maybe. Maybe the only person who has a problem with the term and is also not on your list is Mahlerian.)

But let's just say that Mahlerian IS the only one. If that were true, then I would think that that would mean that it does NOT puzzle you that he takes on those who are mistaken. I wonder. If you lived in seventeenth century Italy, would you have criticized Galileo because "everyone else here believes in geocentrism"? Surely you don't want to promote "everyone else-ism" as an argument for the validity of any idea.

In any event, I would like to point out, again, that it is not Mahlerian who is putting up a fight over this word. Mahlerian has pointed out the word's inutility, with support from theory and logic and personal experience. It is only when he mentions this that other people then react by putting up a fight over his observation. And not even over the observation but over some supposed coercion, which, on the face of it, is absurdity piled on preposterousness. How is it possible that any member of GMG could coerce any other member or group of members by simply making an observation?

You're simply making mountains out of molehills, some guy. The negative connotations surrounding the term are those who perceive it as being this way. I don't accept the negativity and, if you do, then that's your clearly your own problem as the term isn't going anywhere.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 06:51:08 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 06:22:18 AMFor an atonal work to have sections where one note is emphasized does not make it tonal.  Tonality is created from a system of harmonic movement and the establishment of key centers, not simply a "tonal center" which may focus on one note for a section of the work, or even the entire work.  The Boulez work certainly does not exhibit tonality.  Tonality exhibts an hierarchy of harmonic movement, with the Tonic triad (I) as the "home" and most stable harmony and the Dominant triad (V) being the most unstable harmony, that "wishes" to resolve to the I, or return home.

That is one use of the word tonality, but "tonal center" is often used, as it was previously in this discussion, to simply mean a point of stability to which the music returns.

It is certainly true that Boulez's music does not use the triadic progressions of common practice tonality.  Neither does Debussy in his maturity.  Or much of pop/rock music.  These use alternate hierarchies.  So-called atonality is almost always nothing other than a use of non-triadic harmonic hierarchies.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 06:22:18 AMSimilar to Rorschach tests people can look at ink blots and see pictures.  The things is, they don't all see the same images, which is why the test is instructive; it is subjective.

So the perception of tonality is something you consider primarily subjective, or is it rather the perception of atonality that is subjective?

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 06:22:18 AMYou and Mahlerian may hear tonality in an atonal work such as this one by Jean Barraqué.  But I don't, nor do I care to.  I enjoy atonal music as it is, I don't try to find tonal centers, nor do I find the lack of a tonal center a deficit.  To the contrary, it is a wonderful attribute.

But why assume it isn't there?  And how are we defining "atonality" here?  In contrast to common practice tonality as above, or as meaning revolving around a central tone?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 29, 2017, 07:24:41 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 06:22:18 AM
For an atonal work to have sections where one note is emphasized does not make it tonal.  Tonality is created from a system of harmonic movement and the establishment of key centers, not simply a "tonal center" which may focus on one note for a section of the work, or even the entire work.  The Boulez work certainly does not exhibit tonality.  Tonality exhibts an hierarchy of harmonic movement, with the Tonic triad (I) as the "home" and most stable harmony and the Dominant triad (V) being the most unstable harmony, that "wishes" to resolve to the I, or return home.  As atonal music developed certain "rules" were created to insure that a composer could avoid this hierarchy if he wished.  You can find these basic rules in any textbook on 12-tone music. 

Similar to Rorschach tests people can look at ink blots and see pictures.  The things is, they don't all see the same images, which is why the test is instructive; it is subjective. 

You and Mahlerian may hear tonality in an atonal work such as this one by Jean Barraqué.  But I don't, nor do I care to.  I enjoy atonal music as it is, I don't try to find tonal centers, nor do I find the lack of a tonal center a deficit.  To the contrary, it is a wonderful attribute.

Yes, I know what common practice tonality is. And, then, it seems you agree with Mahlerian et all in considering tonality as a term reduced to common practice tonality. The point is that if we use a very broad meaning for the term (as, e.g., @mr here), then we can find tonal centers even in serial music, which is supposedly the "atonal" music par excellence...

Thus, to avoid this nonsense a composer of serial music should say "oh, yes, I compose 'a-commonpracticetonality music' "?. Nonsense again, just call it serial music, son. Period. It's not serial? Call it highly chromatic music. It's modal? Call it modal music then. But, please, do not put all of these very different types of music into that bag called "atonal music", aka, "just weird music I don't like and doesn't sound like tonal romantic music which I love".

As for the tonal centers in the mentioned examples, they are there, as one can easily see in the actual score...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 07:54:29 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 07:41:20 AM
I am not sure if hierarchies is something a composer working in an atonal style would strive for, at least not if he were aiming for a pure atonal style.  It may be something subconsciously he creates but it would vary from composer to composer.  I don't think it is an attribute of atonal music in the abstract, which ideally would avoid all references to tonality.  Of course a hallmark of extended composition is the architectural/formal problem to be addressed (which is how Total Serialism came to be).  A composer might choose to establish repeating thematic sections and hierarchies, or not, depending upon his aesthetic and artistic goals.  But I don't think that a 12-tone composer who uses formal attributes associated with sonata form is writing a tonal piece of music.

You're assuming that "atonal" composers strive to write "atonal music."  Not only is this incorrect, it is very easily proven incorrect.  Composers of "atonal" music, such as Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Sessions, Carter, Babbitt, and so forth, have been the most vociferously against the term, precisely for the reason that they did not feel it applies to their music in any meaningful way.

Again, I do not assume any such thing as "atonal music in the abstract," and nor should you, given that the existence of any kind of atonality is the point being argued.  You can't argue that "atonal music is thus, therefore atonality exists."

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 07:41:20 AMFor the tonal works of the 17th-18th century, it can objectively be demonstrated.  It becomes less so during the latter half of the 19th century, and during the 20th the break with tonality is complete (at least in some works).  For someone to hear tonal centers or harmonic hierarchies in a work by Milton Babbitt, e.g., I think would be subjective.  It is true that sometimes a composer who writes primarily in an atonal style will flirt with incorporating tonal elements, as a way of bringing that quality to the music.  But I am separating atonal music as it exists in the real world and atonal music in the abstract.

How is tonality such that it can be objectively demonstrated in some works but not in others?  I find Milton Babbitt's music tends to create quite clear centers, and at the conclusions of his works he asserts them quite strongly.

Furthermore, I use exactly the same musical sensibility and kind of listening to hear these centers as the ones in common practice music, despite the differences in presentation and in the methods used for assertion.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 07:41:20 AMI don't assume it is there or not there, I simply don't listen for it (and find it a distraction if it should appear).  I think tonality has a standard definition, as does atonality.  Because a word is defined as the lack of the defining attribute of another word does not disqualify the word from use.  We accept "amoral", "atypical", and other similar words.

Neither term has a single standard definition.  Didn't you read the earlier discussion, where the New Grove article on Atonality was picked over?  Some definitions of Atonal separate it from Serial, others don't.  Some definitions of Tonal separate it from Modal, others don't.  There is no one standard definition, and furthermore, to assert that there is again begs the question, by simply stating your conclusion as if it were a premise.

Anyway, I don't "listen for" centers, either.  They're simply present in my consciousness here as in all other music.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 29, 2017, 07:56:13 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 07:48:16 AM
I just listen to the music; I don't look for tonal centers or the lack of tonal centers. 

Now you are telling people how they should talk about music.   Are you really that much of a control freak?

I'm just saying that those tonal centers are there. You can care about them or not while listening, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.

And, what? I'm just pointing out what are the existing terms in case someone wants to refer to that music. Of course, in your room, you can use whatever term you want, but in a public forum deviced to have informed conversations about music, better to stick to the accepted terminology coined by the professionals of music.

Also, can we refrain from ad hominems, please...
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 08:18:18 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 08:09:29 AM
Whether they accept the word or not, they each wrote a type of atonal music.  Rufer's Composition with Twelve Notes Related Only to One Anothe is nothing more than an attempt to codify Schoenberg's method of composition for pedagogical purposes.

Again, this argument begs the question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).  You really don't seem to understand that a question-begging argument is not only not a particularly persuasive one (unless one already accepts the conclusion), it has no argumentative force whatsoever.

Imagine the following argument (in a hypothetical world where the existence of unicorns is a matter for serious debate):

- All unicorns have horns.

- Therefore this unicorn in my backyard has a horn.

- Therefore there is a unicorn in my backyard.

It's a silly example, but really, this is what you're arguing.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 08:09:29 AMI did not create the concept of atonal music, I also do not have a need to rid a discussion of music of it.

That's not the point.  You are assuming the existence of atonal music in order to demonstrate that atonal music exists.  Furthermore, you call upon composers who disagreed with you for justification of your views, and then brush it off when this disagreement is pointed out.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 08:09:29 AMBecause the music of Haydn more clearly demonstrates the harmonic hierarchies of the tonal system of keys then does the music of Scriabin.

Of course.  But we are not talking about the tonal system of keys.  We are talking about centricity.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 08:09:29 AMWhile it is true that specialists like to argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, definitions of both terms appear in a general dictionary.

This is a completely irrelevant example.  Neither of the terms in question is under discussion, nor are their definitions questioned (though perhaps their existence).  Again, you assert something false (that Tonal and Atonal are terms with clear, widely accepted definitions) and then simply ridicule me when it is disproven.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 09:37:33 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 09:25:39 AM
Music does exist which was designed to not exhibit the conventions of tonality.  Textbooks have been written encapsulating the operations of 12-tone composition, explaining the four row forms: Primary, Retrograde, Inverse, Inverse-Retrograde.  Composition students are advised to avoid using triads or diatonic scale segments in their row constructions.  The more the music is alien to tonality the better.  Those students became working composers.

However, if you wish to find a different term for this music be my guest.  But I am satisfied with the term atonality.

The 12-tone method was invented by a composer who did not consider his own music, or any music, atonal.  You can't use its existence to bolster your argument that some music was designed to be atonal.

The way the method is taught is really irrelevant in that regard.

I don't wish to find a different term for "this music," because atonal doesn't designate any kind of music whatsoever.  There is no need for a term for something that is not distinguished from other things in any meaningful way.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 09:25:39 AMNo, you are talking about centricity, I am talking about tonality, which consists of a system of keys as opposed to atonality which does not utilize that system.

Modal music also does not use that system of keys, and nor do the other things I've cited in the past.  Are Debussy, The Beatles, Daft Punk, Perotin, and Machaut also atonal, then?

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 09:25:39 AMI did not intend to ridicule you with my angels/pin metaphor.  But one can easily find the words Tonality and Atonality in a dictionary which would seem to disprove your allegation that Tonal and Atonal are terms without clear, widely accepted definitions.  After all, dictionaries compile words and define how they are widely used and understood.

As I said, tonal and atonal are variously defined, and the fact that dictionary definitions exist in no way implies that those definitions are clear or that they align with the truth of the matter.  As I cited earlier, the premier resource on music, the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, says that "it remains to be seen whether [atonal] is a useful or relevant category" and defines it merely by the characteristics of the many kinds of music to which it is applied.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Tulse on October 29, 2017, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 28, 2017, 09:10:00 PM
The only person who views the word negatively is you, Mahlerian. Everyone else here on GMG doesn't have a problem with the word and has accepted the term as everyday language or, at least, as this ongoing discussion has indicated thus far.

Rubbish! Reread the thread and please don't speak for me.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 10:30:18 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 09:59:50 AM
It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion how Schoenberg labeled his own music or any music.  The fact remains that the term atonal has been used to describe music like Schoenberg's, Webern's and others.

Yes, and wrongly, according to them.  The term atonal has also been used to describe Prokofiev, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mahler, Strauss, and Reger.  I assume that you do not think the mere fact that the term has been used to describe something means that it is accurately used.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 09:59:50 AMI've bolded the bit where we disagree: obviously there is music designated as atonal.  Books have been written about it.

Yes, but the music so designated has no specific qualities that separate it from other music.  As far as I am aware, there is no "atonality" such that compositions that have a certain quality are atonal and those that do not are not.  See the following:

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 09:59:50 AMThis is where I find you disingenuous.  Modal music is labeled modal, not atonal.  Debussy's music uses enough of the elements of tonality, triads and scales, that would keep his music out of the atonal camp.  The Beatles did not write atonal music, not catchy enough.  I haven't listened to Daft Punk, but can say that their music is not atonal since the widely accepted understanding of atonal music is 20th century classical music written in a manner that purposely avoids the conventions of tonality and can include 12-tone music, serialism, and other music composition methodologies developed to create such music.

It's not disingenuous.  You said that atonality was defined by not using a specific system of keys and an associated hierarchy of harmonies based on the dominant-tonic relationship.  None of the things I mentioned use that system of keys, and in fact they avoid the conventions of that system, presumably intentionally in the case of those that came after the dominance of that system.

Provide a new definition of atonal, if you do not want to include those things.  Don't use ad hoc exeptions, especially as triads and diatonicism aren't nearly as uncommon in 12-tone music as you seem to imagine.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 09:59:50 AMI know you've said all that, more than once.   You can find my responses earlier in the thread.

Your dismissals do not count as responses.  All of your arguments can be boiled down to "atonal music exists, therefore atonal music exists."
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: aleazk on October 29, 2017, 10:34:04 AM
Quote from: Tulse on October 29, 2017, 10:16:39 AM
Rubbish! Reread the thread and please don't speak for me.

Hey, maybe I'm not a person...  :-\
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 10:45:51 AM
Quote from: aleazk on October 29, 2017, 10:34:04 AM
Hey, maybe I'm not a person...  :-\

Well, as Scarpia said earlier, you're not a "normal" person.  You may simply be hearing deficient.  As a color-blind person lacks the ability to identify certain colors, you seem to have the inability to hear past tonal centers to the non-existence of tonal centers in certain pieces.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 10:57:49 AM
We next went to the school of languages, where three professors sat in consultation upon improving that of their own country.

The first project was, to shorten discourse, by cutting polysyllables into one, and leaving out verbs and participles, because, in reality, all things imaginable are but norms.

The other project was, a scheme for entirely abolishing all words whatsoever; and this was urged as a great advantage in point of health, as well as brevity. For it is plain, that every word we speak is, in some degree, a diminution of our lunge by corrosion, and, consequently, contributes to the shortening of our lives. An expedient was therefore offered, "that since words are only names for things, it would be more convenient for all men to carry about them such things as were necessary to express a particular business they are to discourse on." And this invention would certainly have taken place, to the great ease as well as health of the subject, if the women, in conjunction with the vulgar and illiterate, had not threatened to raise a rebellion unless they might be allowed the liberty to speak with their tongues, after the manner of their forefathers; such constant irreconcilable enemies to science are the common people.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 11:07:07 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 10:55:21 AM
I know of scholarly books about the atonal music of Webern and Schoenberg, but not books for which the title is something like "The atonal music of ..." Prokofiev, Debussy, Stravinsky, Mahler, Strauss, and Reger.  If someone somewhere sometime used the term atonal to describe their music, they used it inappropriately unless they were describing a short passage in a larger work.

The term was invented to describe music like that of Debussy, Strauss, and Mahler!

As for Stravinsky, the book by Allan Forte, cited earlier, The Structure of Atonal Music, spends a lot of time on The Rite of Spring.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 10:55:21 AMWe've already been around this bush: atonal music is that which is written to avoid the conventions of tonality - that is its special quality that separates it from tonal music.

Except as above and below where we are discussing music that is written to avoid the conventions of tonality, which you yourself defined as a system of keys based on the hierarchical harmonic relationships of dominant and tonic.  You do not see that music as atonal.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 10:55:21 AMJust as modal music uses triads, all of which are also used in tonality, and often with the same function - atonal music doesn't as a rule, and only rarely uses diatonic triads and never with the same purpose.  Just because somewhere in Debussy's music he avoids tonal relationships it does not make his music atonal.  There is a distinction between music which occasionally avoids tonal relationships and atonality, which is an system of composition with the intention for the total avoidance of tonality.

Not somewhere, everywhere.  Debussy's entire style is based on the subversion of traditional harmonic hierarchies.  Triads are not really pertinent.

There's that "intention" again.  We already went over the fact that the most prominent of "atonal" composers repeatedly and strongly emphasized that their music was in no way atonal, that it was an outgrowth of prior practices and not a rejection of them.

If we can speak of intention in regards to the Second Viennese School, it is not the intention to write atonal music.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 10:55:21 AMThere is no need for a new definition.  As I've said some 12-tone composers purposely include tonal elements but this does not mean that there are other composers who avoid even the hint of tonality.

I don't consider a triad a tonal element any more than the letter A is an English element as opposed to a French one.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 10:55:21 AMYou wish to undermine the term atonality based on some exceptions while I recognize the many examples of atonal music which are not exceptional.

No, I don't wish to undermine anything.  I have yet to find a single work of music that I can define as atonal, based on the definition of atonality you provide, or even one that is not tonal, based on the definition of tonality you use.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 11:11:26 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 11:07:07 AM
The term was invented to describe music like that of Debussy, Strauss, and Mahler!

Who invented it? Where and when did it first appear in print, and in what context?

Clear and documented answers, not speculation and hearsay, please!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 11:28:29 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 11:11:26 AM
Who invented it? Where and when did it first appear in print, and in what context?

Clear and documented answers, not speculation and hearsay, please!

I'll let you answer that.

Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2017, 09:19:07 PM
The "19-th century" "petty pedant teutonic" "twit" "grad student" was actually the 26-year old Joseph Marx (an Austrian) working in 1907-09 on his philosophy doctoral dissertation. And far from being a detractor of Scriabin, he was in fact his admirer (as he was of Debussy) and his own music is influenced by the two.

You can note that in 1907 when the first version of the thesis was written, Schonberg had not yet written any music without key signatures.

As for the early application to Debussy, Strauss, and Mahler, I can find this citation, which refers to a study by Reti:

QuoteChanging perceptions.  After a musical style has been in existence for a time, the perception of it changes—first for a few individual listeners and later for the general listening public.  Chopin's music was once characterized as "a motley surface of ranting hyperbole and excruciating cacaphony,"9 but we don't hear it that way today.  Nor do we regard Strauss, Reger, Mahler, and Debussy as atonal composers, although the term was originally applied to their music.10

http://www.thinkingapplied.com/tonality_folder/tonality.htm#.WfYrn2hSzIU

I will say, pace the author cited above, that Debussy is still cited as atonal in some sources, such as Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 11:33:11 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 11:28:29 AM
I'll let you answer that.

Thanks. Can we then agree that a doctoral dissertation is hardly the place where a pejorative term is employed?

Quote
As for the early application to Debussy, Strauss, and Mahler, I can find this citation, which refers to a study by Reti:

http://www.thinkingapplied.com/tonality_folder/tonality.htm#.WfYrn2hSzIU

Have you read that study? According to my sources, Joseph Marx's music was heavily influenced by Scriabin and Debussy, and he was good friends with Strauss. Can we then agree one more time that "pejorative" was the last thing Marx had in mind?

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Alek Hidell on October 29, 2017, 11:44:18 AM
I am uninterested in arguments about what "atonality" is or isn't. I do agree with Mahlerian that it's far too loosely used. But the technical arguments here are (a) beyond my ken and (b) only tangentially related to the original post.

I know the kind of music some guy likes (well, one kind he likes): it's composers/performers like Ferrari and Dhomont and Oliveros (et al.). Their music is probably closer to true "atonality" than Schoenberg or Webern. (At least, to my ears it is - I lack the technical knowledge of music to know it for sure.) I know the sound-world because I am a fan of avant-garde jazz/free improvisation, with which there is often considerable overlap. And there you have music with no "melody" or "rhythm" in the sense usually associated with those terms.

I can't speak for some guy, of course, but I get my hackles up when people speak of (so-called) "atonal" music as garbage, unlistenable, noise, This Is Why Trump Won, etc. - and further imply that not only do they not like it, I shouldn't either.

THAT is the sticking point for me.

And even if I say I like it, they say I don't really, I'm just claiming I do so that I can appear more "scholarly" and oh-so-hip. And then they point to sales figures, how audiences in the concert hall shrink when modern works are programmed, say this is why classical music is so unpopular today, and so on.

For whatever reason, it isn't enough for them that they think the music is no good - they want it to be objectively true, so that no one "should" like it.

I am sure that some guy hears/reads this a lot. He genuinely enjoys this music, and gets very tired of hearing how "no one" listens to it, it's garbage, it's noise for noise's sake, it has no artistic value, etc. And he wants to push back - vain though the effort will be (sorry, some guy ;)) - against the notion that the style of "modern music" is to "blame" for the decline of classical music's popularity, is a sign of the decline of the West, or whatever. (some guy, please correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't want to presume to speak for you.)

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 11:33:11 AM
Thanks. Can we then agree that a doctoral dissertation is hardly the place where a pejorative term is employed?

Students can be quite acerbic.  I've read entire papers trying to take down this or that piece of music as being inherently nonsensical.

Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 11:33:11 AMHave you read that study?

I may have at some point.  Do you think there is good reason to believe it is mis-cited?

Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 11:33:11 AMAccording to my sources, Joseph Marx's music was heavily influenced by Scriabin and Debussy, and he was good friends with Strauss. Can we then agree one more time that "pejorative" was the last thing Marx had in mind?

Is his music Atonal like theirs, though?  I don't know, I'm not familiar with it, unlike, say, Schmidt, who was friends with Schoenberg, incidentally.  As a composer, I've been critical of some things that I can still be influenced by.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 11:46:41 AM
Students can be quite acerbic.  I've read entire papers trying to take down this or that piece of music as being inherently nonsensical.

Were they written in Austria in the first decade of the 20th century?

QuoteDo you think there is good reason to believe it is mis-cited?

No. I would just like to see the context out of which that citation was taken.

Quote
Is his music Atonal like theirs, though?  I don't know, I'm not familiar with it, unlike, say, Schmidt, who was friends with Schoenberg, incidentally.  As a composer, I've been critical of some things that I can still be influenced by.

"Critical of" is one thing. "Pejorative" is quite another. I'll take your own example: you have been critical of some things; did you ridicule them by using pejorative terms? If not, what makes you think Marx did exactly that?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 29, 2017, 12:38:39 PM
Quote from: Alek Hidell on October 29, 2017, 11:44:18 AM
I am uninterested in arguments about what "atonality" is or isn't. I do agree with Mahlerian that it's far too loosely used. But the technical arguments here are (a) beyond my ken and (b) only tangentially related to the original post.

I know the kind of music some guy likes (well, one kind he likes): it's composers/performers like Ferrari and Dhomont and Oliveros (et al.). Their music is probably closer to true "atonality" than Schoenberg or Webern. (At least, to my ears it is - I lack the technical knowledge of music to know it for sure.) I know the sound-world because I am a fan of avant-garde jazz/free improvisation, with which there is often considerable overlap. And there you have music with no "melody" or "rhythm" in the sense usually associated with those terms.

I can't speak for some guy, of course, but I get my hackles up when people speak of (so-called) "atonal" music as garbage, unlistenable, noise, This Is Why Trump Won, etc. - and further imply that not only do they not like it, I shouldn't either.

THAT is the sticking point for me.

And even if I say I like it, they say I don't really, I'm just claiming I do so that I can appear more "scholarly" and oh-so-hip. And then they point to sales figures, how audiences in the concert hall shrink when modern works are programmed, say this is why classical music is so unpopular today, and so on.

For whatever reason, it isn't enough for them that they think the music is no good - they want it to be objectively true, so that no one "should" like it.

I am sure that some guy hears/reads this a lot. He genuinely enjoys this music, and gets very tired of hearing how "no one" listens to it, it's garbage, it's noise for noise's sake, it has no artistic value, etc. And he wants to push back - vain though the effort will be (sorry, some guy ;)) - against the notion that the style of "modern music" is to "blame" for the decline of classical music's popularity, is a sign of the decline of the West, or whatever. (some guy, please correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't want to presume to speak for you.)

You have most eloquently, and without insult to any, completely nailed near to 100% of the underlying personal dynamics of what I see in just about every thread on Atonal, "Atonal vs. Tonal" (like a race or a boxing match <g>), and any variant thereof.

+1... or as we used to say, Bravo!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 29, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
Quote from: Alek Hidell on October 29, 2017, 11:44:18 AM
I am uninterested in arguments about what "atonality" is or isn't. I do agree with Mahlerian that it's far too loosely used. But the technical arguments here are (a) beyond my ken and (b) only tangentially related to the original post.

I know the kind of music some guy likes (well, one kind he likes): it's composers/performers like Ferrari and Dhomont and Oliveros (et al.). Their music is probably closer to true "atonality" than Schoenberg or Webern. (At least, to my ears it is - I lack the technical knowledge of music to know it for sure.) I know the sound-world because I am a fan of avant-garde jazz/free improvisation, with which there is often considerable overlap. And there you have music with no "melody" or "rhythm" in the sense usually associated with those terms.

I can't speak for some guy, of course, but I get my hackles up when people speak of (so-called) "atonal" music as garbage, unlistenable, noise, This Is Why Trump Won, etc. - and further imply that not only do they not like it, I shouldn't either.

THAT is the sticking point for me.

And even if I say I like it, they say I don't really, I'm just claiming I do so that I can appear more "scholarly" and oh-so-hip. And then they point to sales figures, how audiences in the concert hall shrink when modern works are programmed, say this is why classical music is so unpopular today, and so on.

For whatever reason, it isn't enough for them that they think the music is no good - they want it to be objectively true, so that no one "should" like it.

I am sure that some guy hears/reads this a lot. He genuinely enjoys this music, and gets very tired of hearing how "no one" listens to it, it's garbage, it's noise for noise's sake, it has no artistic value, etc. And he wants to push back - vain though the effort will be (sorry, some guy ;)) - against the notion that the style of "modern music" is to "blame" for the decline of classical music's popularity, is a sign of the decline of the West, or whatever. (some guy, please correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't want to presume to speak for you.)


What then is the cause of the decline (in popularity) of classical music?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Pat B on October 29, 2017, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Alek Hidell on October 29, 2017, 11:44:18 AM
I am uninterested in arguments about what "atonality" is or isn't. I do agree with Mahlerian that it's far too loosely used. But the technical arguments here are (a) beyond my ken and (b) only tangentially related to the original post.

I know the kind of music some guy likes (well, one kind he likes): it's composers/performers like Ferrari and Dhomont and Oliveros (et al.). Their music is probably closer to true "atonality" than Schoenberg or Webern. (At least, to my ears it is - I lack the technical knowledge of music to know it for sure.) I know the sound-world because I am a fan of avant-garde jazz/free improvisation, with which there is often considerable overlap. And there you have music with no "melody" or "rhythm" in the sense usually associated with those terms.

I can't speak for some guy, of course, but I get my hackles up when people speak of (so-called) "atonal" music as garbage, unlistenable, noise, This Is Why Trump Won, etc. - and further imply that not only do they not like it, I shouldn't either.

THAT is the sticking point for me.

And even if I say I like it, they say I don't really, I'm just claiming I do so that I can appear more "scholarly" and oh-so-hip. And then they point to sales figures, how audiences in the concert hall shrink when modern works are programmed, say this is why classical music is so unpopular today, and so on.

For whatever reason, it isn't enough for them that they think the music is no good - they want it to be objectively true, so that no one "should" like it.

I am sure that some guy hears/reads this a lot. He genuinely enjoys this music, and gets very tired of hearing how "no one" listens to it, it's garbage, it's noise for noise's sake, it has no artistic value, etc. And he wants to push back - vain though the effort will be (sorry, some guy ;)) - against the notion that the style of "modern music" is to "blame" for the decline of classical music's popularity, is a sign of the decline of the West, or whatever. (some guy, please correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't want to presume to speak for you.)

Has any poster on good-music-guide.com written that you (or anyone else) shouldn't enjoy "atonal" (using any definition of the term) music?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Alek Hidell on October 29, 2017, 04:58:34 PM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 29, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
What then is the cause of the decline (in popularity) of classical music?

I can't claim that the emergence of "atonal"/serial/dodecaphonic/what-have-you music played no part, but I think a much bigger cause is what I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread: the emergence, at almost the same time, of the recording industry and various genres of music. This gave people a much broader variety of music from which to choose.

Think about it: prior to the 20th century, classical music was just about the only game in town. There was folk/dance music, and religious music, but these were not (AFAIK) thought of in artistic terms, certainly not in the same way that classical music was. There were no concerts of folk music. If you wanted to hear religious music, you went to a church service.

But in the early 20th century, the blues developed. Jazz developed. Later, country and rock developed. And with these, the availability of recordings (or performances on the radio and, later, on TV) brought these new musics to the mass audience. Too, a scholarly tradition grew up among these other genres and they began to be thought of in the same aesthetic terms as classical music. You could study jazz in college. You could go to a concert of folk music.

So classical music had to suffer. I mean, even the most "mainstream" classical recordings today hardly sell anything compared to what's in the Billboard Top 40. Surely, if classical music lost popularity only because of its "modern" developments, the old standbys (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc.) should continue to be as popular as they used to be, right?

And, for all I know, maybe they are. How many people in centuries past really studied/listened to/liked classical music? It's not like they had very many opportunities even to hear it. How "popular" was it, really? I don't know if there's really a way to quantify it and make any kind of meaningful comparison to what's "popular" now.

The very same thing happened in jazz. It, too, lost its "popularity" as its avant-garde movements got underway around 1960 (Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Coltrane's late period, etc.) and some claim that these "atonal" developments killed the music. Again, I can't claim that these developments had no effect, but I don't think it's a coincidence that jazz's loss of (relative) popularity came at the same time that rock & roll was beginning to gain mass acceptance, especially with the coming of the Beatles.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Alek Hidell on October 29, 2017, 05:01:38 PM
Quote from: Pat B on October 29, 2017, 04:41:08 PM
Has any poster on good-music-guide.com written that you (or anyone else) shouldn't enjoy "atonal" (using any definition of the term) music?

(Sorry for two posts in a row.) No, fortunately they have not. I see the attitude much less here than in other places, which is partly why I joined up.

But I have definitely seen it (not directed to me, but to others) on Talk Classical, and in other places where people discuss the merits of music, such as in Amazon reviews.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 06:45:56 PM
Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
While that may be true, later developments in the 20th century superseded the idea that the best examples of atonal music are from Debussy, Strauss and Mahler.  Music has been written since then which far and away went into non-tonal areas they never ventured, and systems of atonlaity have been developed.  They were taking liberties with tonality, stretching the boundaries of functional harmony and in some ways went beyond tonality.  But compared to a composer like Elliott Carter, or Brian Ferneyhough, not to mention someone like Morton Feldman, the music of Debussy, Strauss and Mahler sounds very tame.

Again.  At the time of Le Sacre, people responded to it as a radical departure from tonality and the music they had heard up to then.  But later works went so much farther that by comparison the Rite is no longer shocking.  As music develops the bar moves as to what is considered new, atonal, shocking etc.  Because of the developments from Schoenberg through the Darmstadt school, the understanding of atonal music has narrowed and solidified.  At least for me it has.

Both of these depend on how it sounds, but the point initially was about the use of the word.  You said that the music which is atonal can be known definitively to be atonal because it is called atonal, but now you are backtracking and saying only some things which are called atonal are "really" atonal.

Also, the description of the Rite as atonal comes from Forte (previously cited in this thread as a witness for the existence of atonality) in the 1970s, after the Darmstadt School and Carter were well-known and often performed.

But you seem to have gotten at my point, which is that atonal isn't really a description of anything about the music, but about how the music is perceived by some people.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 12:10:03 PMMaybe they did not wish their music to be called "atonal" but they certainly wished to write music beyond the constraints of tonality.  And Schoenberg systematized his method in order to almost guarantee an avoidance of tonality.  A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Again, I agree that the Second Viennese School, like Debussy and Scriabin and Stravinsky, sought to expand the bounds of music, and avoided traditional harmonic formulae.  But far from avoiding any hint of centricity, as is commonly implied, Schoenberg went out of his way to create distinct pitch hierarchies for each piece.  The frequent repetition of notes, the use of familiar relationships such as the perfect fifth and the leading tone, and the resolution of each line's internal tensions all exist constantly on the surface of the music.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 12:10:03 PMDiatonic triads have functions in the tonal system which is what creates the harmonic hierarchy in tonality.  When they are used outside of that hierarchical system they still retain the whiff of tonality and are familiar sound combinations for listeners.

Sure, and you can find them throughout Schoenberg and Berg, too, though just like in Stravinsky and Debussy (or jazz music, for that matter), there is no need for unfamiliar combinations of tones to be treated as requiring resolution.

They share some of the vocabulary of tonal music, but not the grammar.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 12:10:03 PMThe comparison to a letter is inapt.  A better analog would be to words and sentences.  To apply this analog to atonal music, it uses "letter combinations" that are not known "words" and which cannot be interpreted as "sentences" since the "rules of grammar" and "vocabulary" have been completely ignored.  Atonal works create their own vocabulary and grammar.  Each work must be understood on its own terms, whereas tonal works share a vocabulary and grammar which makes them all sound familiar to listeners since it is the music they've heard for the last 300 hundred years.

As I said, the music of Debussy, The Beatles, Perotin, and so forth, may share some of the vocabulary, but none of the grammar of tonal music.  The norms of a Bach Prelude or Mozart sonata do not in any way apply to Hey Jude, at the level of what can be considered a structural sonority or even and especially at the level of chord-to-chord motion and function.

Quote from: San Antonio on October 29, 2017, 12:10:03 PMI am not responsible for your listening experience. My own is quite different.

These issues really don't depend on any single person's listening experience, either yours or mine.  If atonal is a description of the way some listeners perceive a piece of music, but not other listeners, then it cannot be said to be an objective element of that piece.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 06:45:56 PM
Also, the description of the Rite as atonal comes from Forte (previously cited in this thread as a witness for the existence of atonality) in the 1970s, after the Darmstadt School and Carter were well-known and often performed.

You're wrong. I mentioned him, together with others, as a witness for the use of the term "atonal" in scholarly books written by academics, contrary to Monsieur Croche's assertion that the academic world loathes / despises / dislikes it. Whether atonality per se exists or not, I'll leave it to you and others debate / decide, who are interested in such irrelevant and inconsequential intellectual games. I am not.

And since some posters here have acknowledged that no GMGer ever claimed that "atonal music" should not be listened to or enjoyed by those who listen to and enjoy it, but there are some other boards where this claim has been made, maybe it's high time to take this whole kerfuffle where it really belongs: to those boards and to those making the claim. It's beyond me why GMG should be flooded with these threads which bring here even old feuds started elsewhere, as you admitted yourself being the case with you and millionrainbows.



Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on October 30, 2017, 01:19:38 AM
~ Atonal means Never Having To Say You're Sorry ~


pb ©2017
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Tulse on October 30, 2017, 02:07:27 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 29, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
What then is the cause of the decline (in popularity) of classical music?

Is there a decline in the popularity of classical music? I find that very hard to believe in a time of:

(i) numerous accomplished living composers developing music in all sorts of ways,
(ii) access for the unwashed to cheap streaming and recorded music, and
(iii)festivals all over the world performing new music.

When do you consider that classical music was more popular than today? When it was based in Vienna?

I don't have the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if classical music is more popular today in China than in the whole of the world in the nineteenth century!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Turner on October 30, 2017, 02:09:13 AM
It is simply correct that atonal has been used as a non-derogatory headline term by leading academics too. Some have been mentioned, another one is an undisputed expert regarding Schoenberg, Jan Maegaard, this on several occasions, but sometimes followed by explanations. It is easy to find further, non-derogatory examples of the use of the word. And it doesn't even seem to be a thing of the far, bygone past only.

As already said, Schoenberg opposed the term fiercely himself.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Tulse on October 30, 2017, 02:12:36 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2017, 10:13:31 PM

And since some posters here have acknowledged that no GMGer ever claimed that "atonal music" should not be listened to or enjoyed by those who listen to and enjoy it, but there are some other boards where this claim has been made, maybe it's high time to take this whole kerfuffle where it really belongs: to those boards and to those making the claim. It's beyond me why GMG should be flooded with these threads which bring here even old feuds started elsewhere, as you admitted yourself being the case with you and millionrainbows.

And yet you and others seem to be enjoying the debate, or if not, why do you persist in posting? Is it a power and control thing?
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Tulse on October 30, 2017, 02:33:02 AM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 30, 2017, 01:19:38 AM
~ Atonal means Never Having To Say You're Sorry ~


pb ©2017

VICTOR HUGO: The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we love atonal music; loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves.

LEO TOLSTOY: All, everything that I understand, I only understand because I love atonal music.

LES MISERABLES: And remember, as it was written, to love atonal music is to see the face of God.

COLIN FIRTH: It's a very dangerous state. You are inclined to recklessness and kind of tune out the rest of your life and everything that's been important to you. It's actually not all that pleasurable. I don't know who the hell wants to get in a situation where you can't bear an hour without atonal music.

HELEN KELLER: The best and most beautiful atonal music cannot be seen or even heard, but must be felt with the heart.

ANGELITA LIM: I saw that atonal music was perfect, and so I loved it. Then I saw that atonal music was not perfect and I loved it even more.



Title: Re: A little history
Post by: some guy on October 30, 2017, 03:02:40 AM
Quote from: Tulse on October 30, 2017, 02:12:36 AM
And yet you and others seem to be enjoying the debate, or if not, why do you persist in posting? Is it a power and control thing?
Yes.

Otherwise, I loved the series of famous quotes about atonal music, especially the last one. Made me grin.

And to Alek, yes, you got everything right.

And to α | ì Æ ñ, lovely to see more posts from you.

That is all.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on October 30, 2017, 04:22:17 AM
Quote from: Tulse on October 30, 2017, 02:12:36 AM
why do you persist in posting?

In the vain and desperate hope that you (plural) will finally come to your (plural) senses and realize what a foolish position you (plural) promote and defend. But since it is by now absolutely clear that it will never ever happen, any such future attempt would be a huge waste of time.

By all means, go on and out of your (plural) way with this all-out war against a word. But if you dream of winning it, I'm afraid GMG or any other internet board is not the right place. You should fight it in academia and mass media --- and good luck with that!

Over and out. For good.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Parsifal on October 30, 2017, 09:53:15 AM
It brings to mind a word from the field of applied math, "Chaos." The term was coined by James Yorke to describe a class of mathematical equations which describe dynamics with a certain type of instability (the Lorenz system, a double pendulum, etc). The term has since invaded the popular imagination as "chaos theory," combining the general definition of the word with a vague idea of the mathematics. Chaos in the applied math sense is so narrowly defined that you will rarely encounter a real world example of it. However, you may hear "chaos theory" invoked whenever something is complicated and unpredictable. You will hear, for example, that the stock market is example of chaos theory. This is not so, but any mathematician or scientist who launches into pedantic explanation of "chaos" when the word is used in its general sense would be considered deranged. "Chaos" is the "Atonal" of applied math.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 30, 2017, 10:11:44 AM
Quote from: α | ì Æ ñ on October 29, 2017, 10:27:46 PM
Where does Bernhard Lang fall into all of this? (if he does)  0:)

Like any composer, he's atonal to those who think the word means something, and music to everyone else who actually listens.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 30, 2017, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on October 30, 2017, 09:53:15 AM
It brings to mind a word from the field of applied math, "Chaos." The term was coined by James Yorke to describe a class of mathematical equations which describe dynamics with a certain type of instability (the Lorenz system, a double pendulum, etc). The term has since invaded the popular imagination as "chaos theory," combining the general definition of the word with a vague idea of the mathematics. Chaos in the applied math sense is so narrowly defined that you will rarely encounter a real world example of it. However, you may hear "chaos theory" invoked whenever something is complicated and unpredictable. You will hear, for example, that the stock market is example of chaos theory. This is not so, but any mathematician or scientist who launches into pedantic explanation of "chaos" when the word is used in its general sense would be considered deranged. "Chaos" is the "Atonal" of applied math.

You seem to think that "atonal" is a word with a specific meaning used by music theorists and a looser but related meaning used by non-academics.

It's the opposite.  Atonal is a term that's treated as if it were a specific technical term by people outside of the profession, while by people within the profession it's considered a very loose and unhelpfully vague term with a lot of fuzziness as to application and meaning.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 30, 2017, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 28, 2017, 09:21:28 PMIf you say it helps you to communicate, tell me what, precisely, it serves to communicate.  What aspect of any music whatsoever does the word atonal convey?

This reveals a basic misuse of the term 'atonal.' It conveys an absence of tonality. It will never convey a specific "aspect" like you want it to, in a simplistic one-to-one correspondence, like your other literal definitions.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 30, 2017, 11:26:32 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 06:45:56 PMBut you seem to have gotten at my point, which is that atonal isn't really a description of anything about the music, but about how the music is perceived by some people.

It is a description of the net result and gestalt of the music, which is perceived by the ear/brain as not being or sounding tonal. This split you are making seems tenuous; many qualities which are 'objectively' present in music are also 'perceived' as such, such as tone-centricity and harmonic 'pull' to a center.

Quote from: Mahlerian on October 29, 2017, 06:45:56 PMIf atonal is a description of the way some listeners perceive a piece of music, but not other listeners, then it cannot be said to be an objective element of that piece.

Atonal is not an objective term. This does not invalidate it as a valid descriptor. If some listeners don't hear themes, or tone rows, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: millionrainbows on October 30, 2017, 11:34:49 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 30, 2017, 10:22:42 AMAtonal is a term that's treated as if it were a specific technical term by people outside of the profession, while by people within the profession it's considered a very loose and unhelpfully vague term with a lot of fuzziness as to application and meaning.

"Atonal" was never meant to be a specific, objective descriptor. It only denotes the absence of tonality, and is used as a convenience. You are criticizing the term for what it is not, and never was.

When Forte uses "atonal" to describe his method of analysis, it does have a specific meaning, because atonal theory uses set theory instead of conventional tonal analysis, and applies this to any kind of music, including quasi-tonal music such as Rite. It could be used to analyze Mozart as well; the C major scale is just one "set" of many seven-note sets.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Mahlerian on October 31, 2017, 08:27:46 PM
Quote from: α | ì Æ ñ on October 31, 2017, 08:04:18 PM
Something makes me feel that "serialism" as a tangible concept, evolved out of fear.

I'll explain:


When you are exploring a territory head-first like this, at that time in history. There is not only the fear of rejection (which can't be avoided, as that is just subjectiveness) but that need to place out the trail of pebbles to be able to justify the artistic decisions (problem is, nothing needs justifying in art, even the most questionable stuff).

That was probably part of it, but it was part of larger currents from the era.  During WWI, and in its immediate aftermath, Schoenberg found himself faced with an artistic crisis.  He wasn't able to finish anything large-scale, and all that we have from those years is the (substantial) fragment of Die Jakobsleiter and a few very minor trifles.  The 12-tone method unlocked a new wellspring of creativity.  So there was a personal angle to it, definitely.

But that method and its "objective" qualities are also in line with the other developments happening in European music.  There were the Neoclassicism of Stravinsky (who had gone through a crisis of style of his own) and the "New Objectivity" of Hindemith, with their emphasis on finding the new in the traditional.  The 12-tone method could be seen as a formalization of the principles already in use by Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern in their works since 1908, and they found in its basis in motivic/intervallic manipulation the connection to tradition that they sought.

The way the method was reinterpreted by the post-WWII generation was something quite different, with different causes altogether, and I don't think that either the Darmstadt serialists or the American 12-tone composers wanted to do the same thing, either.

Quote from: α | ì Æ ñ on October 31, 2017, 08:04:18 PMSo, then again there are these pre-conceptions that are drilled into people, even online. That modern music is "academic", or in their eyes: emotionless sounds made for people to only appear "smart". (however that contradictory statement even works  ::) )

Aka, Schoenberg's:idea backfired big time.

Indeed.  You also have to remember that he really didn't care about the adulation of critics and theorists; he would have much preferred the love of the general listener.  And yet the lie persists that he despised listeners and sought approbation from academics.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 01, 2017, 12:51:27 PM
Modal = Music
Tonal = Music
Atonal = Music

What IS the problem, then?

::)  ::)  ::)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Uhor on November 03, 2017, 12:29:15 AM
Moustaches
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 03, 2017, 07:17:34 AM
Quote from: Uhor on November 03, 2017, 12:29:15 AM
Moustaches

We have razors for that.  You know, a blade sharp enough to remove that stache in a trice, or cut through B.S.  ;-)
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2017, 02:32:37 AM
Quote from: Tulse on October 30, 2017, 02:07:27 AM
Is there a decline in the popularity of classical music? I find that very hard to believe in a time of:

(i) numerous accomplished living composers developing music in all sorts of ways,
(ii) access for the unwashed to cheap streaming and recorded music, and
(iii)festivals all over the world performing new music.

When do you consider that classical music was more popular than today? When it was based in Vienna?

I don't have the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if classical music is more popular today in China than in the whole of the world in the nineteenth century!

There seems to be a general consensus that from the time the general public began attending concerts (and amateurs were buying sheet music for home play and pleasure) to the present day, the percentage of the public who regularly, to some degree anyway, consume classical music remains at about 3% (that's right, just 3%.) The current population being what it now is does mean "More people than ever before are listening to classical music."

"Back then," at least until ca. 1830, almost all classical music consumed was current, contemporary music of the day, with living composer's works taking the slot vacated when even 'the greatest' of composers died.  Music history has these repeat stories, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven all falling quickly off current programming of the day once they had died.  Once the older rep became something the public was made aware of, then began the 'split' between consuming more and more of the old over the years, vs. solely new works.

Another huge difference to me, made possible by buying single tracks to upload, is a lot of today's public has never been in a concert hall for a live classical concert, and they are cherry-picking their favorite single movements from complete works, the vast majority Not From the modern or contemporary rep. 

More people than ever, then, and from wider ranging places not exclusive to Europe, the U.S. or 'the west,' the general percent of the population consuming about the same 'as yore,' but  with a very different stat as to what they are listening to, and how.  Ergo, it is both a plus and a minus :-)

Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on November 04, 2017, 10:38:26 PM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2017, 02:32:37 AM
Another huge difference to me, made possible by buying single tracks to upload, is a lot of today's public has never been in a concert hall for a live classical concert, and they are cherry-picking their favorite single movements from complete works, the vast majority Not From the modern or contemporary rep.

The funny thing is that, during the period in which new music prevailed over old, live concerts consisted mainly of single movements extracted from larger works or composed ad hoc, operatic arias and ensembles, or variations / potpourris / fantasies on operatic themes, taking the pride of place.

Testifies none other than William Weber.  ;D

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/82606/frontmatter/9780521882606_frontmatter.pdf (http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/82606/frontmatter/9780521882606_frontmatter.pdf)

Scroll down for a lot of 19th century concert programs. I am curious how many of us would go today to such a concert.  :laugh:
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2017, 11:10:10 PM
Quote from: Florestan on November 04, 2017, 10:38:26 PM
The funny thing is that, during the period in which new music prevailed over old, live concerts consisted mainly of single movements extracted from larger works or composed ad hoc, operatic arias and ensembles, or variations / potpourris / fantasies on operatic themes, taking the pride of place.

Testifies none other than William Weber.  ;D

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/82606/frontmatter/9780521882606_frontmatter.pdf (http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/82606/frontmatter/9780521882606_frontmatter.pdf)

Scroll down for a lot of 19th century concert programs. I am curious how many of us would go today to such a concert.  :laugh:

I know that older performances were a serious olio of snippets, lol. 

Some think Mendelssohn deliberately made his violin concerto in the then innovative form of three movements with the 2nd and 3rd marked 'attaca,' (tantamount to 'segue' -- i.e. it must be presented 'all the way through') in order to prevent it being presented in 'bits and pieces.'

Since then, we've all come to realize that listening to one movement of a formalist work in three or more movements is like seeing just one act of a three or more act play, i.e. you just won't get the overall sense built into the work unless you listen to the whole thing!
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on November 05, 2017, 07:18:28 AM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 04, 2017, 11:10:10 PM
Since then, we've all come to realize that listening to one movement of a formalist work in three or more movements is like seeing just one act of a three or more act play, i.e. you just won't get the overall sense built into the work unless you listen to the whole thing!

Well, yes and no, depending on the work(s). Just the other week I've listened to Haydn's Paris Symphonies and a (heretical) thought crossed my mind. Supppose the six symphonies are disassembled in their constitutive movements and then these are shuffled randomly to reconstitute a symphony. For instance, we could get the first movement from The Bear, the second movement from The Hen, the minuet from The Queen and the finale of the 87th. Question(s): would it make any difference? Would this concoction be any less coherent than the originals? Would an unprevented listener be able to feel and tell that there is something wrong with it? At first sight I'm tempted to answer in the negative.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Florestan on November 05, 2017, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on November 05, 2017, 07:32:30 AM
The juxtaposition of the substituted keys for the various movements might be jarring.

If that's the only problem, it can be solved by selecting movements in the right key.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 05, 2017, 10:53:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 05, 2017, 07:43:36 AM
If that's the only problem, it can be solved by selecting movements in the right key.

Right;  falls under the category of Intelligent programming; the same factors included when programming several full pieces back to back, or any number of any kind of selections to be presented.
Title: Re: A little history
Post by: Uhor on November 05, 2017, 10:29:13 PM
Just transpose everything to D major, the key of keys so they say.