atonal music is dead, its official.

philopus109

Its official. The committee that selects the winner of the annual Pulitzer Prize for music finally agreed to consider something other than current widely accepted classical symphonic and instrumental music. Will someone tell those tax wasters in Aosdána and the like that the king has no clothes. The experiment failed because there was no musical truth about it.

banquo

Let the war begin!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TheBandit

philopus109 wrote: »

Its official. The committee that selects the winner of the annual Pulitzer Prize for music finally agreed to consider something other than current widely accepted classical symphonic and instrumental music. Will someone tell those tax wasters in Aosdána and the like that the king has no clothes. The experiment failed because there was no musical truth about it.

I don't know much about the pulitzer prize but i though Steve Reich is one of the most "widely accepted" comptemorary composers..am i wrong? How does him winning the pulitzer doesn't mean atonal is dead. I hope it's not dead or i'll be finding it hard to keep listening to new music

funky penguin

I'm very confused, whats this atonal thing?

banquo

I think Martin mentioned it once.

No, must have been someone else...

The Raven.

No, I really think it was him. I think he played it once too :cool:!!

'scorthy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for Funky Peguin, atonal music is that stuff that "joe Soap" says "their playing that piece out of tune". JK (lyric FM) in the afternoon sometimes plays examples of it from Schoenberg. I never liked it myself 'til I turn 40.
If I'm wrong please correct me.... I like correction...(sorry that should read I'm open to correction).

The Raven.

philopus109 wrote: »

Its official. The committee that selects the winner of the annual Pulitzer Prize for music finally agreed to consider something other than current widely accepted classical symphonic and instrumental music. Will someone tell those tax wasters in Aosdána and the like that the king has no clothes. The experiment failed because there was no musical truth about it.

I really don't understand what you are saying here. For instance, what do you mean by 'current widely accepted classical symphonic and instrumental music'?

In any case, for anyone who wants to listen to the piece, the full recording is on the Boosey & Hawkes website:

http://www.boosey.com/cr/sample_detail/Double-Sextet-2008/12585

It is twentieth century style music, but it is not actually atonal. It is a minimalist piece with three movements. Each movement has four harmonic sections built on four keys, D, F, A flat, and B, and their relative minor keys.

philopus109

Steive Reich and his classical techno is as much atonal as George Formby and his Ukalaley. Atonal music has simply failed to convince music lovers and many musicians of any instrinsic value, system, or educational worth other than what irrelevant and emotion-less compositions we can produce. It has at its root a dubious source and has grown into a mutated deformed animal. But its teeth has fallen out. It has failed to establish itself despite its many decades hovering around the concert halls. It is over.
None of the Aosdána Arts lickers could earn an honest living without having their musical egos (and genuine lack of ability) being financially propped up by those who left it to the Irish musical "Sturmabteilung" who guided us to this dead end. Millions of euro has been wasted on what is so distant and meaningless. Its time we ended this farce and now with the recession here, let the atonal brigade or the tone deafnals supported by the arts council, see if they can compose music that will get a second performance! Don't hold your breath.

funky penguin

Wow.

DadaKopf

philosopus109 wrote:

Steive Reich and his classical techno is as much atonal as George Formby and his Ukalaley. Atonal music has simply failed to convince music lovers and many musicians of any instrinsic value, system, or educational worth other than what irrelevant and emotion-less compositions we can produce. It has at its root a dubious source and has grown into a mutated deformed animal. But its teeth has fallen out. It has failed to establish itself despite its many decades hovering around the concert halls. It is over.
None of the Aosdána Arts lickers could earn an honest living without having their musical egos (and genuine lack of ability) being financially propped up by those who left it to the Irish musical "Sturmabteilung" who guided us to this dead end. Millions of euro has been wasted on what is so distant and meaningless. Its time we ended this farce and now with the recession here, let the atonal brigade or the tone deafnals supported by the arts council, see if they can compose music that will get a second performance! Don't hold your breath.

Whoa. Well, sounds to me like you should put your money where your mouth is and submit an article to something like The Journal of Music. At least start a debate that matters. There's no turning you.

Anyway, I cant see how Reich anything but tonal or melodic or whatever. He said this himself in an interview. Psychoacoustics? Sure, but atonal. No way. Seeing 'Music for 18 Musicians' live convinced me of this. Seeing a Morton Feldman piece convinced me of the purpose of atonal music, with all its possibilities and limitations. Perhaps you also think late-1950s to 1960s American jazz is atonal, too?

funky penguin

Just finished listening to it. Great piece of music. Love Reich.

The Mad Hatter

I don't like it, therefore it's bad!!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cornbb

philopus109, it sounds to me that you have more of a chip on your shoulder about Aosdána and the Arts Council then you do about atonal music. Classical/academic music exploded into a myriad of different styles in the 20th century, an awful number of which would fall under the "atonal" umbrella. I certainly don't like all of them myself, but I'd be of the opinion that many of these "experiments" were valuable additions to the world of music.

Exactly what intervals should be present in order for a piece of music to sound acceptable, and what ones should be blacklisted...?

philopus109

I have no chip on my shoulder about anyone in Aosdána or the Arts Council. I have a genuine and carefully constructed valid arguement about the failure of these groups who promote a self-centered and self interested cultural phenomenon that is alien, irrelevant and unfortunately dishonest to a society that wants to hear good contemporary music which espouses originality. Your reference to "what intervals are allowed" is the usual and tired but well exhausted excuse for an á la carte artistic freedom to the point of "whatever you're having yourself on the manuscript".

Atonal music has simply become a rudderless ship, lost, rusty and an ear sore. Concert goers have proven this fact. Can everyone be wrong? Everyone that is except those who are supposed to be curators and promoters of the arts? What is worse is that contemporary composers with arrogance, self delusion and at times, musical snobbery lost the game to the Hollywood composers who made their own calf out of downright plagiarism and incestuous music stuff who are looking at this atonal stuff with as much amazement as their bank managers! But at least they have kept us in the romantic period and not the Sibelius 5 diarrhoea that Aosdána thinks is acceptable and the arts council propagates. It is a scandal and dishonest to promote this meaningless tripe and is musical sabotage to have it on the Leaving Certificate as an example of modern music!

My view centres on the abject failure of an experiment that somehow grew into the only accepted contemporary musical art form and illogical progression that had over time evolved naturally with focus, beauty, and a natural inherent order that facilitated this journey of music down through the centuries. However this albeit valid experiment was hijacked and it became the golden calf but a false god nonetheless.

As one who has performed Messian's Vingt Regards and even did a post grad in it I will write about the so called structure of atonal music in another post but suffice it to say that it has proven itself to be a musical house of straw that has blown away whilst many are trying to replace it with the remnants. Are we to say to the great composers of the renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic and "some" 20th century that we have arrived now courtesy of your genius and creativity? Are we still so stuck as to assert that well, trust us, we are composers just like you? Yea, Berg felt the natural progression just like Weber got Hildegarde Von Bingen! I don't think so.

The game was up when John Cage wrote his 4 minutes 33 secs. It was right back at you guys and whatever your having yourself on the manuscript! Right back "nothing" to you! It was the pinnacle of a 20th century experiment. But that was it. Would children call it music? Are they not sophisticated either? Aosdána is meaningless to Irish society now because it has simply grown into something that is not Irish, not able to be Irish, not musical, not able to be musical and therefore, not relevant. It is a waste of taxpayers money.

When composers are trying to be creative just to get their compositions played, its time to smell the roses. Something went wrong but it stayed wrong big time. You can fool us all some of the time, and some of us all of the time, but you cannot fool all of us all of the time. Atonal music failed. The only benefit or fun is the musical group therapy it gives to the performers. The difference between the RTE symphony orchestra playing Ian Wilson or Siobhan O Dreary, and the Ballymun School project is that at least the kids get a good laugh. The RTE crew get paid so its no laughing matter! Well not in front of the intellectual golden calf purveyors! But you see its not just a calf, its really bull. Move on.

funky penguin

Seriously. Wow.

I can see where you're coming from, but that is one big ass blanket statement.

The Mad Hatter

Well, why don't we just go one step further? If the most important critical factor in music is - as you seem to think it is - audience reaction, then surely we should be supporting Westlife and U2 as the musical mascots of Ireland. Or, if you don't want to go that far, maybe just the syrupy, poppy, friendly classical that you get at galas and the like.

Or perhaps we should accept that there is an audience for atonal music - not as large as that for more well-known classical, but fiercely dedicated. Should these people be denied music they like because it's music you don't? No-one's making you listen to it, and let's face it - even with government support, atonal music would be dead without some audience. Premieres of works by Boulez (for example) can still fill concert halls. Hell, I've seen contemporary music fill venues in Sligo. In Sligo!

The idea that atonal music is 'the only accepted contemporary musical art form' is absurd - tonal music continued to be written right throughout the twentieth century, and is still being written now. I don't think there's ever been a time in history that has shown quite as much support by composers for others - regardless of the type of music written by those composers. For the record there are plenty of minimalist Irish composers in the CMC and (particularly) the ICC, so it's hardly a form that's being ignored.

As for the natural progression - well, it's there for you to see. I'm not too sure Haydn would have liked the works of Mahler very much either (though I think Bach would probably have gotten where he was coming from). I hardly think that an American composer (a country that's always been kind of conservative in its tastes, Ives excepted) winning an American award is a sign of the death of atonality, though.

I am absolutely sick of this insanity that says that one kind of music is ok, but another kind is not. It's not a new thing - look at the absolute musicians and the programme musicians a hundred years ago, for example (and, predictably enough, they are about equally well-accepted now) - but you'd think that by now, with all the historical perspective we have and all the access we have to absolutely any kind of music we want, we would have grown up from such childish opinions.

LIVIA667

:P

I agree with Philopus. If atonal music was such a success it would be standard by now.
By the way there's nothing wrong with U2 at least you can listen it for an hour without having to stress yourself and looking at your watch to see the end of it. But lets just stick with the subject which is discussing CLASSICAL MUSIC. There's no need to condascend to popular music artists. They have proven themselves not like atonal composers.

I agree it was an experiment and it transformed itself to an "artform", where i believe not so talented people could perpetuate their ego.

To have an audience in Sligo!! ha ha ,well yeh thats great is that suppose to be a joke ,i laughed,sounds very cosy,
i hope it will make it to Donegal too. :eek:
I wouldn t call myself a dancer just because i performed in front of my school.

I beleive music should entertain and allow us to engage with it and not make you feel like wearing earplugs.
I hope it will die off because i hate when i go to the concert hall and some idiot stick atonal into a good program, just triing to promote it they ruin my night.

Doshea3

I am remaining silent in this argument because I think nobody is really communicating anything here. First of all, what is this 'atonal' music which you claim, Philopus, is dead? Is Steve Reich atonal? Is Messiaen atonal? Is Stockhausen atonal? Is Prokofieff atonal? 'Atonal' is a meaningless term. Bring it back to the basic meaning of the word and you'll realise it means nothing. And I'm not being pedantic here. There is no point in using 'atonal' as a blanket term for 20th century musical language, as there are as many variations in this as there are composers. There are plenty of more descriptive terms than 'atonal'. What about Langlais, Vierne, Messiaen, Busoni? Anyone who attempts to understand the evolution and diversification of musical styles will soon realise there is no tonal/atonal dichotomy. I refuse to partake in any argument which doesn't seem to be an argument at all.

Norrdeth

funky penguin wrote: »

Seriously. Wow.

I can see where you're coming from, but that is one big ass blanket statement.

Schneeer, ah, Brahms, ah, schneer.

Avin' the 12 tone schneeor.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Norrdeth

I agree I mean what is Atonal but a made up term to loosely define everything outside romantic tonality or modality.
I mean there is so much more to harmony than just black and white.
A word which might be more suitable would be pan-tonal.
I.e. loosely tonal or modal which revolves around a key pitch or centre.
However this pitch can change. Aurally most music has a home, or notes which want to go to some other notes.
The path each note or harmony takee is different for each person or composer so in actual fact I believe tonality is in the ear of the listener. Even 12 tone rows are tonal as they start on a certain note.

Atonal literally means no tones, no piece exists without tones. Not even 4'33" if you listen hard enough you will hear them. Therefore there is no such thing as Atonality. In my opinion.

The Mad Hatter

I'm going to break up and rearrange your post a little bit to reply - hope you don't mind.

LIVIA667 wrote: »

By the way there's nothing wrong with U2 at least you can listen it for an hour without having to stress yourself and looking at your watch to see the end of it. But lets just stick with the subject which is discussing CLASSICAL MUSIC. There's no need to condascend to popular music artists. They have proven themselves not like atonal composers.

Just for the record, I have no issue with U2 or with any popular music. U2 aren't my cup of tea, mind, but my approach to people who are dismissive of groups like U2 is identical to my approach to people like you and Philopus, who are dismissive of another genre. I wasn't trying to be condescending - I don't really see the point in distinguishing between classical music and non-classical. But I was making a point that popularity is not the only criterion by which we should judge music.

I agree with Philopus. If atonal music was such a success it would be standard by now.

Standard where? It's permeated quite a bit more than you seem to realise, and has had its impact on concert music (or else it wouldn't be played at you every time you go to the concert hall, as you said below), film music (let's face it - without atonality, there'd be no impact in horror), pop music (certain scandinavian metal bands, post-punk groups such as early-days Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and of course Radiohead, to name a few examples) and even jazz.

I agree it was an experiment and it transformed itself to an "artform", where i believe not so talented people could perpetuate their ego.

I believe that in any music (or indeed any art) you will have talented people and not-so-talented people competing for audiences. I don't think you can dismiss all artists of one genre - even a genre you don't like - with statements like the above. Everyone is unique and strange and clever and stupid and a whole list of other things, and this holds true for composers as well as for anyone else.

To have an audience in Sligo!! ha ha ,well yeh thats great is that suppose to be a joke ,i laughed,sounds very cosy,
i hope it will make it to Donegal too. :eek:
I wouldn t call myself a dancer just because i performed in front of my school.

Well, yes, but we're not talking about an audience made up of friends and family. We're talking about an audience of dedicated listeners taking time out to hear works by composers they enjoy.

I've just remembered as well that there's a major annual festival of contemporary music in Drogheda, which tends to sell out every year.

I beleive music should entertain and allow us to engage with it and not make you feel like wearing earplugs.

Yes, but the fact is that it does entertain some people. Different strokes and all that.

I hope it will die off because i hate when i go to the concert hall and some idiot stick atonal into a good program, just triing to promote it they ruin my night.

Well I'm afraid it won't. Any time in history that music has had any sort of audience - regardless of what audiences or critics thought of it at the time - that music has stayed with us, and it will be the same with atonal* music.

In the mean time, there's nothing stopping you from leaving the concert during the interval.







*I'm aware of Schoenberg's accusation of 'atonal' meaning 'without tones' which is true of 4'33" and a couple of pieces by Varése, as well as quite a lot of newer compositions, but I'm using it as a broader umbrella term here. I find this useful because it saves us from becoming too bogged down in terminology and for giving us a name for the thing we're attacking/defending. I'm also aware that there are huge varieties in types of atonal music, but we can deal with them later on, I suppose. Also, words do have this nasty habit of meaning things we don't intend them to.

philopus109

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are right, don't listen to it! However the following is what Irish composers and concert goers who do not support atonal rubbish have to listen to and put up with:
It is offending to my ears and my pocket that the Irish State has let contemporary music composition be dictated to by a bunch of blind (and deaf!) musical aristocrats. Atonal music (for want of a better description but lets me honest here because we all know what we are discussing) and its purveyors has the following dictatorial position:
If you are a composer and want support from the Arts Council, they will not support you unless you compose this gibberish atonal stuff, because they, just like Stalin did when he was not to be contradicted with his taste in music that might contradict an overall direction of his communist policy, have their way of dealing with you, i,e, take a hike. The same applies to Aosdána, all of the composers on that titanic and sunk wreck will not write music that would attract even a moderate audience and a composer will not be appointed to it unless he or she does!! Therefore I and many Irish people have a right to ask for these agencies to either be reformed or disbanded. So don't think your comments are washing here because the Irish state is sponsoring this rubbish at the expense of many Irish composers who are afraid to stand up lest they be labelled.

Well I am not afraid because the truth is the truth and atonal music and its hideous "a la carte menue, a packet of chewing gums and whatever you're having yerself" has failed and well you know it. The proof is the ecstatic tiny number within the tweed jackets and scarfs brigade who know each other so well at this point because they are so dedicatedly few.

As an experiment atonal music was interesting but as the only accepted art form for contemporary composers it is a joke however it is not funny any more. Its time to call a halt to this farce. And please leave the usual suspects of U2 or Boyzone silly comparisions aside as they, as you well know have nothing to do with contemporary music. I'm not a fan of them either. I am not on a "crusade against entire sub-genres of modern music". That is not true nor are the many supporters I meet at concerts. I enjoy Stravinksy, Britten and many modern composers like my music loving associates. I am on a crusade against state sponsored musical rubbish that has a small number of people with a dishonest eloquence mixed with a cocky attitude of, "trust us, we know better than the audience who don't show up, don't buy our CD's, dont buy our scores, but we know better, just keep on giving us the money you pop lover!". The majority of the contemporary music centre should be turned into paper recycling plant. What a waste. We have our own musical Taliban in this country in Merrion Square and Aosdána. It would do us a cultural favour to sack them and donate the money to the Tallaght Band!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Doshea3

Philopus, reading your most recent post I think I am inclined to agree with what I see as the crux of your argument, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the musical status quo (which certainly exists in this country) which says new music is no use unless it is fiercely dissonant is bad for music as an artform. This is something I've believed for a long time. However, you seem to be outright attacking 'atonal' music in its entirety with alarming zeal. (I am having images of people picketing outside the Concert Hall holding signs that read 'GOD HATES ATONALITY'.)

You say you enjoy Stravinsky. What about his post-neoclassical works?

What's so wrong about 'atonal' music in your view? Is it the overly contrived music which lacks any sort of sonic appeal that you don't like? Or is it anything with more than moderate dissonance? There are many incredible works and composers from the 20th century that I enjoy very much (and as many that I don't enjoy), but you can't just say that 'atonal music is dead'. I still don't know what you're talking about when you mention atonal music. A bit of clarity might help this argument go somewhere.

philopus109

Doshea3. Have a look at this and you will what type of stuff the Aosdána arts lickers use and where they get their inspiration from!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs&feature=email

Doshea3

Very cleverly done.

Philopus, I have no idea what your musical background is, and so please don't think I'm being condescending because of this. However, I remember a time (and I think most people will have had similar experiences) when I found 'atonal' music (I'm talking specifically about Schoenberg) unbearable. But giving it a chance and taking the time to listen and learn I grew to appreciate it a lot. Schoenberg is a fascinating composer, and all one has to do is trace the compositional development throughout his life in order to see why Schoenbergian atonality (and later Webern's innovations on his techniques) was a logical and necessary progression in modern music which in turn inspired the work of the great modern composers.

Blame Wagner. Without him there would never have been any Nazis or atonality (both of which are clearly on the same rung of the evilness ladder). Or perhaps blame the jews and the global conspiracy (Schoenberg was one of them after all). But whoever's fault it is this is the heritage of modern music, and if you don't like it, fine. But there's no point in going on a crusade trying to convince us all that atonality is a 'failed experiment' when we already know that this is not true for the vast majority of music-lovers, performers and composers (even if you have strong feelings against some of them).

The Mad Hatter

Philoplus: Your arguments seem to be that there is no such thing as a talented composer of atonal music; that concert programmers suddenly develop musical idiocy when adding modern music to their concerts; that the community of composers actively rejects music by non-atonal music and that there is no audience for atonal music beyond those who write it. None of these arguments have a basis in reality.

For the record, the path from Bach to Schoenberg is much easier to trace than that from Bach to Stravinsky (though said path still exists, obviously).

Also, Steve Reich is one of the few composers I can think of who has written music that is genuinely atonal (ie. without tones): Come Out, It's Gonna Rain, Clapping Music and Pendulum Music, to name a few.

ilkhanid

Atonal is too wide a term to be useful, but in the narrow sense what is dying if not dead- and I shed no tears for it-is the dogmatic trends of 12-note or serial music and those musics that followed them. Many of these composers had an arrogant, dismissive attitude to any music they considered old-fashioned. The fact is,things like melody and rhythm that Milton Babbit and Pierre Boulez sniffed at are deeply fundamental to people and were never going to be replaced. Babbit said "Who cares if you listen". Well, how many people care about Milton Babbit now? Or Darmstadt? Or any of those academic,introverted trends?

electrogrimey

I think I finally understand Philoplus' problem, which seems to be directed more or less solely at Aos Dána. Would I be right in guessing in that you had a bland, neo-classical composition turned down as it wasn't anything original, and have since crusaded against them? That's the only thing that makes sense to me, as your arguments definitely don't...

philopus109

Mister Grimey, Ive never submitted anything to Aosdána looking for their approval. As you are not aware, one does not get approval from Aosdána for anything. It is not part of their remit. If you ever get involved in the arts you should start by researching the current music agencies and their functions. Looking at your other posts, I think this is unlikely. Atonal music is dead and we are now into a different musical period unlike yourself who probably still gets a musical kick out of the bear and the big blue house TV show. If you have any comment to make re the post, do your homework first.

electrogrimey

philopus109 wrote: »

Mister Grimey, Ive never submitted anything to Aosdána looking for their approval. As you are not aware, one does not get approval from Aosdána for anything. It is not part of their remit. If you ever get involved in the arts you should start by researching the current music agencies and their functions. Looking at your other posts, I think this is unlikely. Atonal music is dead and we are now into a different musical period unlike yourself who probably still gets a musical kick out of the bear and the big blue house TV show. If you have any comment to make re the post, do your homework first.

Sorry, I apologise, I meant the Arts Council, not Aosdána. Am I still wrong? In that you have been turned down by the Arts Council or some such organisation, and that this is your reason for anger against Aosdána etc? Because one can fairly argue about the popularity and merits of atonal music, but unless you have a personal "beef" with the Aosdána, I wouldn't see why anyone would have a problem with them. They are a group of Ireland's most talented artists/musicians, a few of whom I personally know and respect. Could you please explain your problem with them? Besides the blanket statement that atonal music is dead because you say it is.

And as for these childish personal remarks...I don't know what to say. How can you expect to know about my musical education by looking over my posts? You know nothing of it. Just because I happen to like electronic music you think I would have no knowledge or training in the classical world? And the Bear in the Big Blue house remark is just pathetic.

tSubh Dearg

Right folks, this is a first warning to all involved in this discussion to play nice. No sniping, I expect people to be civil to each other.

There will be consequences if this cannot continue in a mature fashion.

Sanguine Fan

I am entering this debate rather late, I know. This, plus the fact that I am a mere lay person, i.e. non-musician, who happens to love listening to classical music makes me hesitant to throw in my "tuppence ha'penny worth". However, I find the discussion intriguing for several reasons so here goes.

How do the powers-that-be in the classical music world judge the merits of a new composition? Must it conform to a certain style in order to be deemed acceptable? Is this at the heart of the original poster's argument about atonality?

Some months ago I watched a drama-documentary on BBC 2 about Tchaikovsky. In one scene, Tchaikovsky played his new piano concerto (the first) for a couple of musical big-wigs. They lambasted it and Tchaikovsky stormed out vowing not to change a note of his new work. To the ears of the eminent professors Tchaikovsky's concerto clearly sounded strange and vulgar. Yet today it is one of the most popular works in the classical repertoire.

The music of Schoenberg, however, has not attained anything like the same level of popularity despite being around for almost as long as Tchaikovsky's. What does this say about Schoenberg's style of writing? Is it inherently always going to appeal to a small exclusive audience? Or, given another century or two, will the ears of ordinary punters like myself become attuned to its dissonance?

If the success of Jenkins' The Armed Man, for instance, is anything to go by I wouldn't hold my breath. As far as 'modern' music is concerned, audiences generally seem to prefer compositions that contain recognisable forms which echo the 'romantic' classical music of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Yet, there is no doubt that the likes of Reich, Glass and Part have managed to communicate with reasonably-large audiences too, while producing music that clearly sounds nothing like that of the great romantics.

Perhaps time is the best judge of what is worthwhile and lasting versus music that is merely fashionable or elitist. This year we commemorate the death 250 years ago of George Frederic Handel, not just because he contributed to the evolution of classical music, but because his compositions have touched the hearts and minds of countless listeners and performers in a way that transcends analysis.

funky penguin

A good question might be why a recording of this 20th century piece (made in 1992 - 15 years after its composition) has sold over one million copies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKk-w_0SpSw

Anyone want to hazard a guess? I'm stumped!

ilkhanid

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

The music of Schoenberg, however, has not attained anything like the same level of popularity despite being around for almost as long as Tchaikovsky's. What does this say about Schoenberg's style of writing? Is it inherently always going to appeal to a small exclusive audience? Or, given another century or two, will the ears of ordinary punters like myself become attuned to its dissonance?

If the success of Jenkins' The Armed Man, for instance, is anything to go by I wouldn't hold my breath. As far as 'modern' music is concerned, audiences generally seem to prefer compositions that contain recognisable forms which echo the 'romantic' classical music of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Yet, there is no doubt that the likes of Reich, Glass and Part have managed to communicate with reasonably-large audiences too, while producing music that clearly sounds nothing like that of the great romantics.

It seems to me that there are certain elements of music that audiences in general require before they can consider auditory material 'music' at all. Perhaps not all of these at the same time, but people always want to hear some degree of melody and recognizable rhythms. People also want to be able to 'hold' a certain amount of music in their heads, to be able to remember it and predict the way it may go, in a way. A certain element of predictability seems to be regarded as desirable for comprehension. That would explain why the music of say,Harrison Birtwhistle or Elliot Carter will be unlikely to command a general acceptance.
Music is not like the other arts in one respect. Music apears to be more fundamental to people's sense of identity and well-being than other arts, more 'necessary', if you like. It has a social aspect, a connection with pleasure and memory deeper than painting ,sculpture, literature etc can provide. Because of this , I think that people have greater demands on music and refuse to accept innovations that they would accept in other fields of endeavour. Sorry if this is a bit wooly.
Here is a link to an interesting article
http://www.musdoc.com/classical/2007/10/i-care-if-you-listen.html
l

Sanguine Fan

ilkhanid wrote: »

people always want to hear some degree of melody and recognizable rhythms. People also want to be able to 'hold' a certain amount of music in their heads, to be able to remember it and predict the way it may go, in a way. A certain element of predictability seems to be regarded as desirable for comprehension.l

I would agree with the first part of your argument, assuming that you are referring to those prepared to engage with a challenging piece rather than regard music as aural wallpaper. The dilemma for composers is to continue to push the boundaries without losing their audience. This conundrum seems to be at the heart of that interesting article on Milton Babbitt. At what stage, though, does attempted innovation simply result in sounds that are not recognisably musical? On the other hand, pandering to audience expectations leads to The Armed Man!

I'm not sure about the requirement for predictability. However, I can speak only for myself. What I love about much of Schubert's music, for instance his piano sonatas, is its unpredictability, its improvisatory nature. It is almost as if one is eavedropping as he doodles at the keyboard, completely spellbound by his muse. As a child of the Sixties, I can recall waiting with eager anticipation for the next Beatles' record. I knew it would be different to the last one, but I also knew it would be wonderful, which it (almost) always was. Nevertheless, you may be right in another sense given the awful sameness of symphony concert programmes. Surely there is a limit to how many times anyone would want to listen to Beethoven's Fifth in a lifetime?

I am sure there is a sizeable audience for "new" music, as long as it does not sacrifice 'musicality' for innovation. Of course, it is impossible to define musicality objectively. Perhaps that is the problem. The appreciation of music is deeply personal and one person's musicality might be another's "white noise" - and vice versa.

I'm sure every music lover has had the experience, when half-listening to the radio, of catching a snatch of some new piece that seems to penetrate to the core of one's being. It is impossible to analyse but the result, for me at least, can be a fruitless trawl through the Internet to try to find out more about the music I have just heard. Perhaps the music of Elliott Carter or Milton Babbitt has this effect on some people. If so, it only goes to demonstrate that there can never be a consensus, even among aficionados of classical music, as to what constitutes worthwhile or 'acceptable' music. For an illustration of this, see funky penguin's post above about Gorecki...

ilkhanid

An interesting post, but-as usual-I think I expressed myself badly when I mentioned 'predictability'.:o I didn't mean that audiences want the 'same old stuff' but that they want the music to follow a thread or a possible course, that does'nt contradict their sense of what is necessary or appropriate. So most orchestral music exists in the recent past, the immediate present and the possible future, a conceptual period of time with a duration of up to 20 (?) seconds. The radical composers violated that-so to speak-agreement by composing music whose argument could be followed only by themselves or by an elite, specially trained.It plunged ordinary listeners into a world where the 'present'-as in a few seconds- was all there was, and a long-term view of the music was impossible. I don't know if anybody can make sense of what I am trying to say, but some things are difficult to express in print without specialist knowledge...sorry.

Sanguine Fan

ilkhanid wrote: »

some things are difficult to express in print without specialist knowledge

I would go further and say that trying to 'explain' music in words is probably futile. Art speaks for itself and music even more so. That said, we have no other means of expressing our thoughts on the subject so confusion is undoubtedly a risk.

That said, you seem to be drawing a distinction between music that follows a certain pattern or 'order' and compositions where there is no discernible 'thread' which the listener can follow. Sometimes, when I listen to a piece of modern music, I imagine someone bashing piano keys randomly. It is like listening to chaos.

However, it is difficult for a non-specialist non-musician to articulate why such-and-such a modern piece is so awful. All we can do is vote with our feet and steer clear of CDs and concerts featuring such stuff. Meanwhile the composer feels misunderstood and perhaps derives consolation only from the belief that one day his/her genius will be recognised.

I don't know if this is remotely close to what you are getting at.

The Mad Hatter

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

That said, you seem to be drawing a distinction between music that follows a certain pattern or 'order' and compositions where there is no discernible 'thread' which the listener can follow. Sometimes, when I listen to a piece of modern music, I imagine someone bashing piano keys randomly. It is like listening to chaos.

For you it may be like listening to chaos, but bear in mind that your experience as a listener is not universal. Some people find it as difficult to listen to fugues, or Mahler's symphonies. Others love modern music - and it's a type of love and devotion that's depressingly rare in classical music generally btw.

It may be a niche market, but surely that doesn't mean that it should be ignored.

Sanguine Fan

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

For you it may be like listening to chaos, but bear in mind that your experience as a listener is not universal.

I didn't mean to suggest that my experience is universal. I was simply trying to describe my reaction to certain types of contemporary music. I suppose I am looking for the Holy Grail, that is, new music which is challenging and represents a development on what has gone before and is, at the same time, comprehensible and appealing to the listener. By listener, I mean someone who is willing to meet the composer halfway, which implies that the composer is also prepared to consider his/her audience's needs.

Perhaps it is no longer possible or necessary to consider classical music as continuing to evolve in a steady stream and we must live with the fragmentation and diversity that have grown over the last century or so. Audiences are fragmented too but at least anyone can now access, and expand, their own musical tastes very easily through downloads and streaming, without feeling constrained by what the concert hall or record shop have to offer.

Norrdeth

funky penguin wrote: »

A good question might be why a recording of this 20th century piece (made in 1992 - 15 years after its composition) has sold over one million copies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKk-w_0SpSw

Anyone want to hazard a guess? I'm stumped!

I got an answer, listen! This music speaks for its self and touches on some of the most primal of human emotions, grief and loss.
Its appeal is transitory to style + me likey!

ana ng

funky penguin wrote: »

A good question might be why a recording of this 20th century piece (made in 1992 - 15 years after its composition) has sold over one million copies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKk-w_0SpSw

Anyone want to hazard a guess? I'm stumped!

Cynical answer: payola-style saturated promotion on Classic FM; pop-music style video; overblown emotions in the music (emphasised by the video) are designed for mass-appeal; catchy title.

Classical music lover: It just touches something deep and elemental in my soul. I can empathise easily with it - my cat just died for instance, and it reminds me of this loss. Plus it's kind of catchy, isn't it?

Norrdeth

No time for cynics!
So I'll take the classical answer please! =D

ilkhanid

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

I didn't mean to suggest that my experience is universal. I was simply trying to describe my reaction to certain types of contemporary music. I suppose I am looking for the Holy Grail, that is, new music which is challenging and represents a development on what has gone before and is, at the same time, comprehensible and appealing to the listener. By listener, I mean someone who is willing to meet the composer halfway, which implies that the composer is also prepared to consider his/her audience's needs.
.

Of course, much of the problem can be attributed to the fact that many of the 20th century composers we have mentioned had no intention of meeting the public halfway. They regarded this as an unacceptable compromise. As I said above,music-more than any other art form-is associated with pleasure, memeory and emotion and modernistic composers rejected this, opting instead for a rigourously intellectual approach, a music purged of the-as they saw it-decadent emoting and drama of the old orchestral music.

funky penguin

What was it Rachmaninov called it? Thinking with the head, not the heart. Worked extremely well for him.

Personally when I write a piece the main thing I always ask myself is...would I liszten to this? Its the most important thing in my opinion. WHY would you write something you couldn't stand listening to? But then of cours it becomes subjective.

I remember a talk by ian Wilson, where he basically said all that, and that he loves listening to his own pieces. I couldn't believe him! I really disliked the works he played and refused to believe that he could sit down at home, relax with a glass of wine and turn on his recording of Sax and tape (I THINK thats what it was :P ).

But I'm sure he'd say teh same things about my pieces. Isn't music fantastic!

ilkhanid

I think Rachmaninov managed to keep both sides going, heart and head.
But the extremists had no time for the former. It seems they saw music as an austere discipline more akin to mathematics than the sensuous, emotional,social activity that most people enjoy.
One thing that made the modernists persevere in such an extreme course is that they were historicists. They believed that (musical ) history had a pre-determined end, with the old music being inevitably replaced by the new.
This they shared with like-minded people in other areas, such as the modern architects and the painters who believed that abstract painting would replace representational art. Of course those who had a more flexible approach look better today.

Sanguine Fan

ilkhanid wrote: »

One thing that made the modernists persevere in such an extreme course is that they were historicists. They believed that (musical ) history had a pre-determined end, with the old music being inevitably replaced by the new.

This is interesting. Can you suggest any resource which supports and expands your point? It reminds me a bit of Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West.