Views concerning atonal music

[Acciacatura]

I would like to hear yours’ opinion about composing, studying or listening to atonal music.


My personal opinion is a bit cruel. I think that composers lost their glamour after the Romantic period and during their quest in finding new elements for their music, they realized that they couldn’t reach the level of the previews Periods. I think that atonal music is the easy way of composing. I and my colleagues are not able to understand how this kind of music, which is very difficult most of the times to be played,(it is usually composed with music programs and composers don’t have in mind either the range of the instruments or the level of difficulty for the musicians which many times is impossible for them to perform it).

In my defense, I would like to discuss this aspect, not to prove that I am right, but in order to try to understand the importance of atonal music and how this kind of music is a nice hearing and generally its purpose.

Looking forward to reading your opinions.

[Classicala]

I think other will agree with me when I say that atonal music, strictly speaking, was predominant during the early part of the 20th century. Now we have a huge range of styles and techniques available to composers. The difficulty of play has nothing to do with tonality or atonality. I think the difficulty, with much modern music, is in the rhythms. I have difficulty understanding why a composer would divide a beat into 7 equal parts and have rests for all parts except the last. I cannot hear the different between that and a 16th note in a 1/4 beat.

I disagree that composers lost their "glamor" after the end of the romantic period. I can think of many contemporary works that are stunning in their depth and beauty.

[reith]

Yes, I think it was an era that had to be worked through and while closing a few blind alleys opened a lot more that led places. I think it's actually VERY difficult to compose effective atonal music. You are right that under the brolly of "atonal" people can slap anything down and call it music. But I think that music composed with good craftsmanship will be listenable, atonal or not.
It's just as difficult composing music along classical/romantic lines because the craft demands a good sense of form, melody, progression and development (things I'm not specially good at so I tend to cop out and work with motifs).

This all supposes truly atonal music is possible without it sounding just a mish-mash of sounds...but then, some extremely carefully thought-out serial music can sound like that too, until you're ready to study it in detail to get into its inner logic.

[Ballaw de Quincewold]

I'm not that you should generalize and stuff "atonal" music into a box like you have already done. Afterall, there is a huge amount of vastly different music that can be considered "atonal."

As for my opinion, I love atonality. The reason most people don't like it is because they don't know how to listen to it. They expect conventional things when they listen to any and all music and when these desires are not fulfilled they condemn the music. The only "contemporary" style that I am not fond of is integral serialism.

[Forte]

The problem with atonal music is that it is accessable to few. I guess only those listeners who take the time to listen again and again, analyze, finding patterns, form and direction are able to eventually derive any kind of pleasurable experience from atonal music. The greater majority of listeners are not interested in that kind of involvement in the music, they merely want to be entertained and have instant gratification. Because of generations of exposure to tonal, diatonic music in the West, most listeners simply don't know what to make of antonal music.

I think, as a composer, one has to decide what course one wants to take. Write tonal music, and chances are that your audience will be considerably larger than it would ever be than when you stick to purly atonal music.

My opinion is probably also not very popular amongst atonal composers, because in my very humble opinion, atonal music is in some ways much easier to compose than having to compose within the established frame of tonal music.

[Ballaw de Quincewold]

Originally Posted by Forte

The problem with atonal music is that it is accessable to few. I guess only those listeners who take the time to listen again and again, analyze, finding patterns, form and direction are able to eventually derive any kind of pleasurable experience from atonal music.

I derive pleasure from atonal music on first listening and the pleasure increases with multiple listens. The majority of "serious" musicians appreciate and listen to atonal music.

[reith]

Originally Posted by Forte

The problem with atonal music is that it is accessable to few. I guess only those listeners who take the time to listen again and again, analyze, finding patterns, form and direction are able to eventually derive any kind of pleasurable experience from atonal music. The greater majority of listeners are not interested in that kind of involvement in the music, they merely want to be entertained and have instant gratification. Because of generations of exposure to tonal, diatonic music in the West, most listeners simply don't know what to make of antonal music.

Agreed. It seems to be about how music fits into your life. If someone wants it for mere aural wallpaper or entertainment then why should they have to 'work'? So they tend to music they like which might be diatonic, might not but yes, most people are happy with the language of the golden era(s) as it does seem to accord naturally with something within. Not sure what, but it's there!

But if someone gets pleasure from musical adventuring then tonal music will probably wear thin as their senses look for new avenues to explore. A mild, harmless form of hedonism!

My opinion is probably also not very popular amongst atonal composers, because in my very humble opinion, atonal music is in some ways much easier to compose than having to compose within the established frame of tonal music.

As I said earlier - yep, you're right in that 'composers' can splatter anything on their music staves and call it "atonal music". Anything, as long as it looks good on paper - and who's to question it? But there are composers who genuinely work at expressing themselves way beyond the conventional; who don't let up until the sound, the effect, the expression are as the composer wants them and feels that he/she have said what has to be said. That isn't to say that the listener wants them, but at least the work has some integrity.

[Ron Ofir]

I still haven't heard an atonal that I enjoyed so much that I can easily tell apart from any other piece I've heard, but I do enjoy hearing something new every once in a while. That said, at the moment I prefer listening to different kinds of music like Arabic, Indian, Sufi (sp?) and African than listen to atonal music.

[stevel]

I would like to hear yours’ opinion about composing, studying or listening to atonal music.

OK, you asked for it :-)

My personal opinion is a bit cruel. I think that composers lost their glamour after the Romantic period and during their quest in finding new elements for their music, they realized that they couldn’t reach the level of the previews Periods.

I think that that's not only cruel, but it's misinformed, arrogant, prejudiced and downright snobbery. There is this myth being perpetuated that somehow the Romantic period is the height of all things music. It's why every kid that decides they want to compose suddenly posts "How do a write a Symphony" or "I just wrote my first Symphony, Opus 1, please listen to it". I want you to know that there are people who say Renaissance a Cappella music, or Baroque Counterpoint (i.e. Bach), Mozart or Beethoven, etc. are the "height" of music creation. Who's right? None of you. Art is an ever-evolving part of culture that is shaped by the people, culture, events, and time in which it was created, and in which it is experienced (meaning things that were once great are now forgotten and vice versa, which blows a hugh hole in any such arguments as the one you're trying to present).

I think that atonal music is the easy way of composing.

You, like so many people are making a prejudiced opinion based on your misunderstanding of the word. Do you know what atonal means?

There are a billion 12-bar blues tunes out there. They are considered "tonal" music. There's no easier way of composing. The chord progression's set for you - pick a key and use cliches all you want.

You are one of the many people (sorry, I'm making an assumption here but I'm wording it this way to make a point to other readers as well) who think that "Atonality"= "blink, blonk, plbbbt, screee, flobit, smark" instead of "fa la la la la, la la la la". People think that "Atonal" means "unlistenable". I tell you what, I can think of probably 100 or so pop songs, all by people like Britney Spears, J Lo, or any Rap or Country artist I would consdier "unlistenable". There's plenty of Classical music that's "unlistenable". Many people think Bach is. Many think Bach is perfect. I think virtually any Organ music is "atonal" to me, as is a lot of Choral singing - especially the Romantic period kind with 50 sopranos caterwailing with super wide-vibrato that goes 1/4 tones sharp and flat - you call that "tonal"? It's pretty damn atonal if you ask me :-). Seriously though, do you know what Tonal and Atonal mean?

I and my colleagues are not able to understand how this kind of music, which is very difficult most of the times to be played,(it is usually composed with music programs and composers don’t have in mind either the range of the instruments or the level of difficulty for the musicians which many times is impossible for them to perform it).

So, you think ALL Atonal music is to hard to play? Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto (the famous one) was considered unplayable at the time. You're problem here is not with atonality, but the inability of composers to write correctly no matter the style. It is usually composed with music programs? Do you KNOW how many "composers" are out there using Finale and Garritan to produce yet another cliched and subl-quality mockery of a Romantic Symphony? They're writing whole notes tied over 10 measures for flute players on low C at fff. They have no f*#%ing clue. And they're writing works with 3 chords in them, all major. You seem to think this is a problem inherent in or caused by atonality, but it's RAMPANT in all styles!

In my defense, I would like to discuss this aspect, not to prove that I am right, but in order to try to understand the importance of atonal music and how this kind of music is a nice hearing and generally its purpose.

I can't answer this without first knowing what you think Atonal music is.

You don't think "nice hearing" is like Beethoven? Haydn? Mozart? What about Debussy? Chopin? Wagner? What about Bach's Chorales? What about Palestrina? Josquin? Machaut? What about Monteverdi? Gesualdo? What about John Williams? What about Miles Davis?

There is not a name up there whose entire output is completely tonal. Furthemore, some of them are completely non-tonal. Some of them have an entire output that's non-tonal, some have significant portions of their career, or their works that are non-tonal, and some of them have only sections of a very few works that are non-tonal.

Atonal means, on a simple level, lacking a tonal center, and on a more precise level, lacking tonality (i.e. all of the things that define tonality as such). Have you heard the Chaos section of Haydn's "Creation"? Atonal. Have you heard the Prelude and Libestod from Tristan und Isolde? Atonal. Have you heard any Gesualdo? Atonal. Did you see Star Wars? Atonal. Have you heard any Drum Solos? Are they tonal or atonal?

What is it about atonality you dislike? Or is it that you don't dislike atonality, but that you dislike SOME MUSIC. You see, I don't like, dislike, or find any of it to be "nice hearing" or have a "general purpose". I dislike Country music. I dislike most Organ music. I used to say I dislike Jazz. Now I've discovered I like Ragtime, Big Band, Dixieland, and so on. But even then, I don't like all songs by all artists.

You want to say you dislike Asparagus and you want to find out what others see in it. You know what, I used to dislike asparagus. But what I found out was that I still dislike asparagus when it's cooked improperly, is not fresh. The problem was I had never had good asparagus until I had it cooked correctly. Now I love it - but I will not tolerate bad or poorly prepared asparagus.

No more than I'll tolerate poorly performed Mozart, Schoenberg, or Xenakis. You know what. I dislike Brahms. I've found nothing I really care for. Same with Broccoli - can't take it. I've given it a chance, but can't take it. Other things - Oysters, Scallops, Mushrooms, Pineapple - all things I didn't like before but now do because I finally had them prepared corrrectly (and I gave them a chance). Still don't like Clams, Turnips, or Peaches (God I hate Peaches - and I've tried these ones that people basically orgasm over when they eat them - still don't like them). So I think you're trying to look at Tonal music as Desserts, and Atonal music as Green Vegetables, when you should know there are probably some desserts you don't like, and some green vegetables you do like - it's not just the Sugar or lack thereof that is the only deciding factor.

I recommend you look at as many definitions of Atonality as you can find, and find as many types of examplse of Atonal works you can find and just see if you don't find (and I bet you will find) some works you like just as much as most of the tonal music you enjoy (and in fact more because there's plenty of Vivaldi to not like!).

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

I think other will agree with me when I say that atonal music, strictly speaking, was predominant during the early part of the 20th century.

Nope, atonality is the predominant form of music throughout history and worldwide. Tonality only existed for a period of about 250 years in Western Europe and to some extent America.

Now we have a huge range of styles and techniques available to composers. The difficulty of play has nothing to do with tonality or atonality.

Agreed.

I

think the difficulty, with much modern music, is in the rhythms. I have difficulty understanding why a composer would divide a beat into 7 equal parts and have rests for all parts except the last. I cannot hear the different between that and a 16th note in a 1/4 beat.

Funny, I see performances everyday where professional classical musicians can't even play 16th notes without rushing. And if you've ever listened to any music outside of the Western European tradtion you'll find that other metrical divisions besides multples of 2 are quite common.

I disagree that composers lost their "glamor" after the end of the romantic period. I can think of many contemporary works that are stunning in their depth and beauty

Agreed.

Steve