atonal music is dead, its official.

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.

ilkhanid

philopus109 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.

Two words. Raymond Deane

fiachr_a

Six years on, is Irish atonal now dead?

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Locking this thread as it is six years old.

Posters can start a fresh thread if they wish to discuss the topic.