A little history

[Alek Hidell]

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.

[Mahlerian]

While that may be true, later developments in the 20th century superseded the idea that the best examples of atonal music are from Debussy, Strauss and Mahler.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.

Maybe 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.

Diatonic 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.

The 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.

I 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.

[Florestan]

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.

[Monsieur Croche]

~ Atonal means Never Having To Say You're Sorry ~

pb ©2017

[Tulse]

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!

[Turner]

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.

[Tulse]

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?

[Tulse]

~ 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.

[some guy]

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.

[Florestan]

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.

[Parsifal]

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.

[Mahlerian]

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.

[Mahlerian]

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.

[millionrainbows]

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?

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.

[millionrainbows]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[millionrainbows]

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.

"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.

[Mahlerian]

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.

So, 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.

[Monsieur Croche]

Modal = Music
Tonal = Music
Atonal = Music

What IS the problem, then?

   

[Uhor]

Moustaches

[Monsieur Croche]

Moustaches

We have razors for that.  You know, a blade sharp enough to remove that stache in a trice, or cut through B.S.  ;-)