# Atonal Music?



## Zarzowski (Dec 24, 2007)

Salutem Punctis Trianguli,

What is your personal (not theorical) opinion on Atonal music?

Many people say "this is music for the intellectual " and others among them like Maestro Mozart said "Music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music"
or "Melody is the essence of music. I compare a good melodist to a fine racer, and counterpoints to hack post-horses".


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

I have no problem with atonal music per se, but it all depends on the context. 

I love Morton Feldman & Toru Takemitsu's atonal works in particular. Where I have a problem is where atonality is codified in to a system, where the system takes precedence over sound itself (Milton Babbitt took this to an extreme). Whereas Feldman and Takemitsu I find quite sensual & seductive in their approach (and Takemitsu is no purist and has no problem bringing in occasional tonal passages which drift in and out as if in a strange dream).

Some Schoenberg & Webern I don't mind, Penderecki and occasionally Ligeti are quite good (though they are more than just "atonal," but dealing with something beyond even any 12-tone system, but with microtones, etc.).

I'm not really sure why some people tend to steer away from dissonance-- not all atonality suggests doom and gloom or horror (though it is quite useful for those purposes certainly). I think there are certain extra-musical associations people make with dissonance and so rather than really hearing the music, they "hear" a certain idea about music. 

I couldn't live without certain atonal or highly dissonant composers or works. I personally think classical music is all the richer for it. 

~josh


----------



## QuestionMark (Dec 23, 2007)

I guess I view dissonance as a spice -- a little goes a long way. But building one's entire compositional framework on atonality (e.g. Schoenberg, Berg, Webern), is not my cup of tea. I simply think there are limits to the number of sound combinations and sequences that the human ear will find "pleasing" -- a very subjective word, I admit. And while most composers over the past few centuries have always introduced more and more "spice" into their music, dragging their audiences kicking and screaming to the "next level", I think 20th century composers have, by and large, finally hit the wall. The collective ear of the classical music audience simply won't tolerate any more.

What probably determines one's affinity for dissonance and atonality is one's reason for listening to music in the first place. For me, music is an emotional experience. I want to be moved, excited, etc. by what I hear. I want chills down the spine. For many, however, music is purely a cerebral experience. They are absorbed by a piece's 
construction, and all the technical minutiae that support it. Both, or a combination of the two, are certainly valid reasons for enjoying music.

The problem arises from the fact that mathematically, there are only so many combinations of sound that can be devised. So, as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to create music that sounds original. Contemporary classical (an oxymoron?) composers have been forced to push the boundaries of sound to such an extent that they have lost their audience. Many present day composers come from the ivory towers of academia, and live in constant, abject fear of having their work labeled with the big "D" -- Derivative. 

So in an effort to never sound derivative, "composers" assemble sequences of assorted drips and drops, squeaks and squawks, hoping against hope that the public will recognize their genius and accord them a place next to Bach and Mozart. Unfortunately (for them), the public seldom does recognize it. And for our ingratitude, we are, like school children, promptly excoriated by the musical elite for our pedestrian musical tastes. Orchestra directors, in particular, seem to feel some moral compulsion to "educate" us, embedding truly awful compositions among those they know will entice us to attend their concerts. As soon as I see the phrase "world premiere" in a program, I search desperately for the nearest exit. But often, I am held hostage by clever programming, so my ears must endure the assault, lest I miss what I really enjoy, like a Mozart symphony or a Brahms piano concerto.

I have always believed that art should be created for the pleasure of the artist. Simply catering to public taste results in schlock art. But artists need to face one brutal fact: their artistic legacy is wholly dependent on the public's acceptance, if not embrace, of their work. If today's composers are content with collegial plaudits at the next faculty tea, then by all means, they should continue to push the limits of atonal music. Of course, this will have the comcomitant effect of shrinking an already diminutive classical musical audience, particularly here in the States. The public, like it or not, remains the final arbiter of what will be considered great music, because without the public's assent, the music will not endure. And if the music does not endure, it can never be called "classical".


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

The most atonal I've ever really gotten to like is Mahler, although Ives' "Unanswered Question" springs to mind as a very interesting work. But I couldn't listen to atonal music forever. All the more power to those that can.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2007)

The term itself is troublesome, as per World Violist referring to Mahler as atonal, and QuestionMark doing the old bait and switch with "atonal" and "dissonant" (including the ploce with the two more common meanings of dissonant--"harsh sounding" and "needing (suggesting) resolution"). A lot of the time, the term isn't even descriptive; it's just used as a synonym for "whatever I don't like."

Anyway, though QuestionMark's post could provide me many happy hours of rebuttaling (or is it rebuttalling?), I think all I'll say now is that I gradually stopped going to symphony concerts because of being held hostage by clever programming that forced me to sit through hours of Mozart and Beethoven in order to taste five or ten minutes of Lutosławski or Berio.

One of the last symphony concerts I attended was in 1976. Programmed was the west coast premiere of John Cage's _Renga,_ with _Apartment 1776._ This was one of the peak experiences of my musical life up to that point (even beyond, for that matter). The rest of the concert? You guessed it: Mozart and Beethoven.

Don't get me wrong, I like quite a lot of Mozart and Beethoven. Even quite a lot that I don't like of theirs is great music. They were great composers; they give and will continue to give pleasure for quite a long time, I'm sure. And they really don't need me saying that!!

Most of the music I listen to and enjoy--viscerally, too, not "just" intellectually, is music that could only be called "atonal" if that word were stretched to mean "not tonal." Seems funny put like that, eh? But "atonal" was coined to describe the pre-dodecaphonic music of Schoenberg, and has since been used to describe dodecaphony and serialism alike, even though those are hardly "atonal." Even Schoenberg hated the term, you know, preferring "pantonal," which if a bit clunky is at least accurate.

Well, I've failed at my goal of writing a short post to this. So I might as well just answer the implied question.

I listen to a lot of electroacoustic music and a lot of live electronics and noise artists. Even the instrumental composers I favor write for a lot of other sounds that instruments can make besides tones. Breathing, clacks, clicks, buzzes, clangs, and so forth. Come to think of it, THAT's the kind of thing that should be called "atonal." It would really be a descriptive term that way. Oh well, too late!


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Some Guy, I used to encounter the same sort of resistance in high school and university chorus-- I remember being so dismayed when the members were being downright uncooperative when we would go thru rehearsals of Bartok or Samuel Barber-- far from being "atonal"-- it just didn't fit into their preconceptions of what was considered "music" (and Bartok and Barber are quite conservative-- its not as if we were singing Ligeti!).

There are various levels of dissonance, but I often find that even the most "conservative" of modern composers are often met with resistance.

You could probably place modern composers at certain "levels" of dissonance, but you'd have to get pretty deep before you get to pices of music totally lacking a key centre or something even more "far out" than that. Something like this:

*Least dissonant = Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Holst, Mahler, early Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, middle-period Copland, Barber

Mildly dissonant = Stravinsky, early Copland (like the Piano Variations) & some late Copland, Britten, Bartok, Rorem

Moderately dissonant = Takemitsu, Feldman, Cage, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg

Very dissonant = Penderecki, Ligeti, Babbitt, Varese, Partch

*Hardly a complete list, but you get the idea. The first two groupings are hardly dissonant and yet you are lucky to get them on a concert programme just as much as Penderecki. It is as if there's little distinction made between Stravinsky & Varese-- its just "modern cacophany"-- and so you're lucky if you get a concert with something as simple (and tonal) as "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" on the programme. So how can people make any real judgement calls on what they like about a Stravinsky piece or why they don't like a piece by Ligeti? If no differentiation is made, after all.

This resistance is met by both musicians as well as listeners and yet it doesn't have to be that way. I love a lot of modern stuff and I don't listen to it as a "chore" but because I really enjoy the sonorities and absorbing the physicality of the sound and the joy of discovering new sounds. That isn't to say I have my favourites and there are some I don't like, but it is usually on very specific grounds, not just because it is very dissonant (it realy disturbs me when a composer is dismissed merely as a charletan). The sad thing is, I think my tastes in modern music are relatively conservative (I love Feldman, but I'm not so keen on Varese, for example), and yet even I end up being too far out for a lot of listeners (I was constantly disappointed by this fact when I was in uni).

That doesn't mean I spend all my time listening to Webern or George Crumb-- I probably still listen to quite a lot of older "traditional" music as well. I'm not saying we should exclude the great composers of the 18th & 19th centuries, but it is a shame that many listeners (and quite a few musicians) wish to plug their ears if it runs against the grain of those two centuries. It reminds me of "oldies rock" stations that keep playing "Hotel California" over and over and over again! Its fine music, but there's more to oldies than the bloody Eagles! LOL

I know none of this will convince people who can't stomach something more dissonant than Shostakovich, but I just don't see what is really so hard about listening to some very emotionally and sensually satisfying music like, say, Penderecki.

~josh


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

As an answer to a post about my referring to Mahler as "atonal": I didn't say directly that he was. I merely meant that sometimes he gets to the very edge of atonality, and that's about the farthest I've found myself being able to stand. I hope this clears things up.


----------



## Wolfy (Dec 26, 2007)

"sensually satisfying music like, say, Penderecki" 
as a human I get what emotional is. That too depending in the psychological history of the person. Like Question Mark said "The problem arises from the fact that mathematically, there are only so many combinations of sound that can be devised. So, as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to create music that sounds original. Contemporary classical (an oxymoron?)" I understand we we look for something new, not music any more, but simply "experimental" sounds. But when it is categorized under MUSIC then, I do have a problem with that. There are so many things that can be made new, still with in the Classical Music "rule" and for that reason, it is simply "atonal" (rude ) to the ear and us classical Musicians, to be used or be exposed to some noise that simoly wants to be labeled under "great music, intelligent and Scientifically "mathematically great" its just an Ego.


----------



## QuestionMark (Dec 23, 2007)

Some Guy, please. I did not intend to put myself out as an expert, nor was I trying to engage anyone in debate, so there's no need to spend hours rebutting me. I was simply offering an opinion. I absolutely respect yours and anyone else's love of modern music. As far as our common dissatisfaction with concert programming, I'll just say we should both consider ourselves fortunate to be living in the age of CDs.  

I'm not sure about the "bait and switch" reference, but I did not mean to equate dissonance with atonality. Here again, I'm no expert, so I apologize if I seemed to mix the two. I've always thought of dissonance just as Some Guy described: "harsh sounding", "suggesting resolution". Dissonance occurs everywhere, even in the music of the "old masters". This is what I was referring to when I compared it to a spice.

When I think of atonal music, I think of "keyless" music. And it was my belief that the "New Viennese" school, epitomized by Schoenberg, employed the twelve-tone row in order to achieve this. In other words, this is a conscious, deliberate, systematic compositional style, versus dissonance which is just another tool in the composer's toolchest. But if I've still muddied the waters, I stand corrected -- in advance. 

My main point was intended to be a non-technical one, and stems from an ulterior motive. I've always believed that anyone, regardless of education or economic status, can learn to enjoy classical music, if they can first learn "how" to listen to it. (I'll save that discussion for another thread). So, my goal is to remove the "members only" sign from the classical music world, and make it accessible to more people, particularly Americans. It just seems that much of the music written during the 20th century pushes the audience farther away, reinforcing the stereotype that classical music is unintelligible (i.e. unlisten-able), and the entire classical music world is open only to the most erudite and well-heeled among us.


----------



## Paganini.C.24 (Dec 26, 2007)

*interesting , and serious Topic*

Atonal music, is with out a doubt the experimental of classical music. It looks like atonal music is more and more getting in the nerves of many musicians, dotn know about listeners or what be. for school we had to play Penderecki and for our performance test, again Penderecki. Yes, a talented composer, clever in math.

I simply Cant stand his creativity when using the instruments at such FORCE that breaks the natural stage of their sound. as people, our brain is only able to take so much in sound.


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Just as non-classical music listeners have stereotypes of classical music, so many "traditionally-minded" classical music listeners have stereotypes of most music after Debussy, Schoenberg and Stravinsky as "intellectual" or "mathematical" or "experimental" or what have you. (the last thing I think about when experiencing ANY modern music is the "math" any more than when listening to Bach)

Just as many non-classical listeners wouldn't be able to know the difference between Vivaldi and Wagner, I am disappointed to find many classical music listeners wouldn't be able to know the difference between Stravinsky and George Crumb. This isn't because of the presumed elitism of "intellectual" composers but becuase of the provincialism of listeners stuck almost exclusively in the 18th & 19th century.

Its like my dad who will only listen to rock'n'roll up to about 1966 because everything past that point isn't even "music." My issue here is not merely a matter of personal taste, but a refusal to accept most modern music as even worth the trouble, or that it is not even "music."

I'm hardly an intellectual giant LOL but I love listening to modern stuff, atonal or otherwise. Some I like more than others, certainly, but I don't have any problem listening to Penderecki (ages ago I was privileged to hear his Stabat Mater in concert and it was one of the most emotionally overwhelming experiences-- the last thing that interested me was his methods). I just don't understand why people would rather stick to their stereotypes rather than actually get a firsthand experience of the wide variety of modern music that exists. Its a lot easier to listen to than you think, and emotionally satisfying too.

~josh


----------



## QuestionMark (Dec 23, 2007)

Fool on the Hill, I take exception to a couple of your statements. A stereotype usually implies a lack of information, or an unwillingness to dig beneath the surface. I have listened to a good deal of 20th century music and happen to find it boring and unappealing. Not all, but nearly all.

Many years ago I practically made a project of repeatedly listening to the "Rite of Spring", based on a friend's insistence that I would eventually come to love it. Well, I did develop great respect for Stravinsky's orchestration, and I agree that the music is very evocative of a primordial world. But I did not grow to love it. It was interesting (an intellectual concept), but there was no emotional connection whatsoever. 

I also don't believe all "traditionally-minded classical music listeners" are "stuck" in the 18th and 19th centuries simply because we don't happen to like 20th century music. This is akin to saying I'm stuck in "non-country/western" music because I don't like C & W. I might enjoy a song now and then, and I do enjoy a little bluegrass from time to time. But sorry, my fondness overall for C & W is probably not going to grow to any measurable degree, no matter how often I listen to it. 

I think you may be equating personal taste with closemindedness. I would hope that no one would reject any music out of hand. But I've tasted enough samples of fruitcake to know I don't like it. I've heard of folks who do -- more power to them. And while I could spend my precious remaining years suffused in the music of Bartok, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg, I don't find this a productive use of my time -- especially when I've only heard a tiny fraction of the baroque, classical, and romantic periods.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, so I'll bow out of this thread. If anyone knows of a piece of music that might get me out of my rut, however, I'm open to suggestions.  

QM -- The musical Luddite.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

I somewhat agree with QuestionMark- ultimately, I think, the emotional connection to music is more important than "intellectual" gratification. Atonal music is just like "tradtional" classical music: some composers you like, some you don't. I like Steve Reich but not George Crumb in the same way that I like Corelli but not Vivaldi. Each pair of composers might have the same "intellectual" merits, but the emotions of a piece will always determine whether I put on the CD or not.


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

QuestionMark, I only think the C&W analogy isn't quite accurate. This is why I used my dad as an example-- its not a matter of not liking a particular KIND of music, but rather liking a particular kind of music only to a certain point in its development (there's a big difference). So my dad LOVES rock music-- UP to 1966. Beyond that, it all stops for him & he won't listen to it, or if he does, he's not really LISTENING to it-- his ears have already made up his mind for him.

The problem is not listening to a different kind of music, but the same kind of music, but only up to a certain point in its development. Modern classical music is, like it or not, is also "classical" music, and is firmly rooted in that tradition, no more than Louis Armstrong and Ornette Coleman are both "jazz."

I don't find The Rite of Spring (a very tame work with hummable melodies) "intellectual" at all-- no more "intellectual" than the complex motivic development of a theme by Beethoven. And a very stirring piece of music to boot (it makes my heart race and oddly enough the ending brings me to tears).

My problem is lumping most modern music as being "intellectual" and not even able to discern the difference between, say Stravsinky & Schoenberg (or for that matter, early Stravinsky with his later works)-- its all labelled as merely "experimental" and "intellectual" -- I've never understood this-- because it is a stereotype. Listening to a piece of music and actually absorbing it has a lot to do with a willingness to engage with the music at hand, not just hearing it repeatedly as a chore (of you approach it as a chore, then it will be only a chore).

That doesn't mean we have our preferences, of course, but I find the dismissal of the majority of modern music *as "intellectual" *to be bogus (even some of the more conservative ones like Stravinsky). At the very least, I know I find many modern pieces are emotionally satisfying, atonal or otherwise. The last thing I think about is tone rows and such. There are modern pieces that I DON'T find emotionally satisfying also, but its NOT because the composer is "modern" or "intellectual"-- its because the composer fell down on the job.

For the most part, I think because our ears are so habitually tuned to the western scale, we have a hard time really disgesting anything that appears to run contrary to that. There are certain habits we get used to, certain associations we tend to make when we hear a melody in a major key played slowly or a minor key played loudly and fast. When we get to stuff that doesn't "fit" with those habits (emotional syntax?), we might feel cut adrift and we think "Why is he doing this?" Oftentimes we might feel since we can't connect to it emotionally, therefore it MUST be just some sort of intellectual game the composer is playing.

I'd say going in gradually is the best way to go. I'm teaching my girlfriend a little "Music 101" music history course, so the progression will not be too abrupt-- you don't jump from Robert Schumann to William Schuman overnight! LOL That's how I learned when I was younger (thanks to the public library-- this was long before the days of the internet).

As far as dipping into some modern music that isn't too wild, here are some pieces of music I would recommend (in this order from least dissonant to more dissonant), just to get a better flavour-- this is FAR from any complete listing but this does not get into some really heavily atonal areas, just an appetiser so to speak:

*Debussy: The Afternoon of a Faun *(Michael Tilson Thomas' recording is the best IMO)
*Debussy: The Preludes for piano, book I *("Footprints in the Snow" especially comes to mind)
*Stravinsky: The Firebird & Petrushka 
Schoenberg: Transfigured Night
Stravinsky: Apollon musagetes
Copland: Appalachian Spring
Copland: Symphony No. 3
Britten: Sinfonia da Requiem
Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra
Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring
Webern: Passacaglia
Schoenberg: Five Pieces for Orchestra*

... and from THERE things start getting more explicitly "atonal." These are all, in my opinion, very easy, accessible, emotionally rewarding pieces of music. Once you get into the more dense music of Penderecki, Takemitsu, Cage or Feldman, its easier to engage with.

I'm not wanting to stir up any trouble-- I just don't get the whole "intellectual" label thing-- I think people make this stuff out to be a lot more "difficult" than it really is.

~josh


----------



## QuestionMark (Dec 23, 2007)

You're not causing trouble, Josh -- I welcome your commentary. And even though I said I was done with this thread, you're obviously on to me, and know how to bait me.  

First, I stand by my C&W analogy. I agree that it's an entirely different genre, but I think the distinction is irrelevant. My only point was that I can feel no more of an emotional connection to modern classical than I can to C&W. But I'll admit it wasn't the best analogy.

I take issue with your repeated insistence that we dinosaurs (i.e. your dad and me) simply refuse to open our minds to music we don't like. I was about 16 when I was listening to the "Rite of Spring", and approached it just like I would any other new piece of classical music. In fact, I was listening to as many different composers as possible. Even though my parents had exposed me to a lot of classical music, I couldn't associate a work with any composer, and didn't know one musical period from another. So during my teen years, I was pretty much a blank slate -- bring it on. I wanted to hear it all, and certainly did not consider it a "chore".

But hey, after 40 years of listening, I guess certain patterns begin to emerge. And if I still gravitate toward earlier music, I think that says something about my taste in music. 

I was a little taken aback when you wrote about your dad and pre-1966 rock music: "Beyond that, it all stops for him & he won't listen to it, or if he does, he's not really LISTENING to it-- his ears have already made up his mind for him." A big smug, if not arrogant, if you ask me -- which you didn't. The gist of that statement is: If someone cannot learn to like what I like, they've got a problem. They're closing their mind, they're not really listening, they're viewing it as a "chore", yada yada. I won't speak for your dad, but if you were my son, I'd prefer you tell me that I'm uneducated, tone deaf, unsophisticated, whatever. But please don't make assumptions about motivations.

By the way, you and your dad are both wrong. There's been no good rock music since 1970. The golden age of rock was between 1966 and 1970. Just so you know. 

Mark


----------



## QuestionMark (Dec 23, 2007)

Josh, forgot to thank you for the list. I will definitely check some of these out.


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

QuestionMark, about the C&W analogy-- it would be a better analogy if, say you really loved Hank Williams, Sr. era stuff but not like Ronnie Milsap or Alabama maybe-- they are part of the same thread just as Bach and Stravinsky are part of their same thread. That's my only beef with the C&W analogy. Maybe I was unclear on that!

And age is no factor at all when I mentioned dad (my mum does like newer rock music and even SHE thinks dad gets overly hostile when any post-1966 music is going, "it is just noise"). I think we are only as young or as old as we think we are  My point is there is a musical tradition and when listeners basically assign a cutoff date, it is all arbitrary and anything that is past that is regarded as "noise" etc. and so it becomes an alibi for refusing to actually sit and listen to the music (there's a huge difference between criticising a piece of music and just labelling it).

I have no problem with people preferring one period of music over another-- that's only natural. My problem is the REASONS typically invoked ("intellectualism," "experimental," "charletanism" or "noise") are usually just walls set up as a sort of "musical embargo."

I have this problem with Mahler. I have a sort of love-hate relationship with him. LOL I find it hard to emotionally connect with his music over several years. Only recently have I begun to connect with JUST the final movement of The Song of the Earth, and its a chamber arrangement. But I've never made the assumption that its because Mahler was "cold" (on the contrary, he's quite "hot"-- its the WAY in which his passion is displayed that I find sometimes a bit overly sentimental). But that's MY problem, not his. It doesn't necessarily make Mahler a poor composer.

I may never learn to really like Mahler-- and that's OK. Finally getting "into" The Farewell is a hopeful sign though. 

But lets say I never even got that far. Let's say I just couldn't "do" Mahler-- I just couldn't make that connection. *That, in an of itself is not being closed-minded. *BUT let's say instead that I simply labelled him as "just another over-blown sentimental late romantic" and THAT was my reason for not liking him-- THAT would be a dishonest assessment I think-- *and THAT is being closed-minded.

*So my point is, if people don't like modern classical, maybe its because they can't emotionally connect with it certainly, but that's not necessarily because the composer is just too "intellectual" or "experimental" (or worse, "he's just pulling the wool over our eyes," an all-too-frequent excuse I've heard).

[BTW, I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but this is something I have experienced time & again with many classical listeners and so it raises hackles when I hear "modern music" and "intellectual" in the same sentence]

And as far as Mahler goes, I'm not returning to his music again and again because I feel I have some sort of "obligation" to, but because I have a feeling that, given time, I will be rewarded for it. This is something I've experienced time & again (and not just with music). Its just another personal back-burner project of mine LOL

None of this has to do with "sophistication" or being "unsophisticated" (if anything, I am very opposed to the whole notion of "sophistication"-- I think its a disastrous notion that should have nothing to do with ANY classical music!). I think the whole notion of "intellectualism" and "sophistication" is a distraction from what's really going on in the ear. Likewise, I think as far as 12-tone music goes, people make too much a big deal about the inner workings of all those tone-rows rather than listening to the music itself. We should just leave analysis of Beethoven and Schoenberg to the theorists.

~josh

p.s. I hope you are surprised by at least some of those pieces (some which I'm sure you've heard already, besides the Rite, I mean!  )


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2008)

Josh said 

"Let's say I just couldn't "do" Mahler-- I just couldn't make that connection. That, in an of itself is not being closed-minded. BUT let's say instead that I simply labelled him as "just another over-blown sentimental late romantic" and THAT was my reason for not liking him-- THAT would be a dishonest assessment I think-- and THAT is being closed-minded. "

Very astute, that. 

Indeed, I usually don't talk about people I don't like at all. For one, what if I'm wrong? I have been. I used to not like Mahler. OK, but I also used to refer to him as "a citified Bruckner." Silly!

I used to not like Scelsi. This was after I had the twentieth century pretty securely under my belt. But I would say silly things about how crappy and boring Scelsi was. Hah. Maybe I was crappy and boring, eh? Scelsi, as I've come to find out, is perfectly splendid and lovely.

I only recently heard something by Boulez that I liked. At least with him, I was cool enough to just say "great composer; I don't like his music, yet. Love Carter, though!" So at least I learned something. 

The biggest benefit to opening one's mind is having all those new and wonderful things to enjoy. Debussy was right. It's all about the pleasure. Anyway, here's to QuestionMark's and World Violist's and all the rest's continued enjoyment of good music.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

What a good thread, I somehow missed it when it started. I found myself reading every word of every post, which I must admit that I rarely do after stumbling upon a thread that is well underway.

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, just a few points:



fool on the hill said:


> Where I have a problem is where atonality is codified in to a system, where the system takes precedence over sound itself.


Couldn't have said it any better myself. As many composers of the 20th century are guilty of this crime, perhaps this is where the label of "intellectual" music comes from.



QuestionMark said:


> Many years ago I practically made a project of repeatedly listening to the "Rite of Spring", based on a friend's insistence that I would eventually come to love it. Well, I did develop great respect for Stravinsky's orchestration, and I agree that the music is very *evocative of a primordial world*. But I did not grow to love it. It was interesting (an intellectual concept), but there was *no emotional connection whatsoever*.


I have some simple advice for you on this point: Go and see the ballet. Because the Rite is such a "standard" nowadays in concert halls and textbooks alike, we sometimes tend to forget that it is ballet music, one that Stravinsky maybe never envisioned being performed in concert (the first performance in concert was in 1924, 11 years after the premiere of the ballet). I think that when seen as a ballet production, one hardly even registers the "atonality" or the "intellectual concept" behind the music, as one is swept away by the incredible connection that a good choreographer can make between the dancers and the rhythm.

... Zarzowski had a question ... somewhere way up at the top ...

I like music that uses atonality as a tool to express something. I don't like atonal music that is an extension of a codified system.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2008)

Interesting points about "atonality" codified into a system.

Interesting because they all completely ignore the great, hulking, magnificent, overbearing, monstrous, huge, gigantic, freakin' obvious fact that TONALITY is an incredibly complicated SYSTEM.

(I don't use too many adjectives, do I?)

Anyway, kids, the music you adore, the music you find emotionally satisfying, the music that sends you into ecstasies of bliss, does so because it's a _system._

(Don't make me remind you of this again. I'll send you all to bed without your suppers, I will.)


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

I'm going out on a limb here and will generalize:

The tonal system is beautiful and emotionally satisfying because it is based on the "natural" feeling of a tonic sonority, departure from it and return to it.

By contrast, atonal systems are NOT satisfying because they are based on abstractions that carry no "natural" process as the one described above, and therefore cannot be "fealt" or understood intuitively.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

Nice sidestep of the whole "system" issue!!

No, really. Look at me, biting on it. (And mixing metaphors, too. It's a whole cornucopia of linguistic delights.)

But seriously, this whole tonal center, return, emotionally satisfying and beautiful business looks good on paper, but experience has proven over and over again that it's all my eye.

That is, over and over again, listeners have found beauty and emotional satisfaction in music that has no sense of tonality at all, that's some of it not even made up of tones, for that matter. Many listeners, though to be fair, it would only take one listener to destroy that nice theory.

(That limb LOOKED so strong and safe, too. But no. Rotten inside. Try to fall on a pile of leaves, maybe.... )


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Whoa, lemme back up here... Kurkikohtaus and Some Guy you both have good points but hang on-- What I mean about "the system taking precedence over the sound itself" I'm talking about the system (ANY system, tonal, atonal, aleatory, etc) becoming an end in itself rather than a means to an end. If its a means to an end, then I don't have a problem with it myself.

So you got Schoenberg, Webern, Berg and some others who have used serialism as a means to an expressive end. Schoenberg even said there was plenty more music to be written in the key of C (and he wrote some tonal music as well as late as the 1940s). I believe it was Berio who was Steve Reich's teacher who basically said, "you don't want to write serial music? That's OK, do what YOU feel you need to do"). I wouldn't say a majority are guilty of this, at least not if were talking the "big composers" of the 20th century, but certainly there ARE some lesser composers who taught in universities starting around the 50s (who were _insistent _on serial music)-- Milton Babbitt would be a prime example I think.

And tonal music does have its own formal rules-- no parallel 5ths, various other rules in voice leading, etc. Many aspects of a classical piece can really only be observed on the score but not by the ear (such as modulation/tonicisation).

And enjoyment of other musics (Indian classical music or Japanese honkyoku & gagaku music) can be emotionally satisfying too, where traditional western harmony is of course non-existent. To a large degree I think it has to do with what we are USED to hearing and whether or not we are willing/able to assimilate that musical vocabulary inside.

I think this is a bigger can of worms and grrrrr I have other things going on right now so I have to run fo now! 

~josh


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

fool on the hill said:


> What I mean about "the system taking precedence over the sound itself" I'm talking about the system (ANY system, tonal, atonal, aleatory, etc) becoming an end in itself rather than a means to an end. If its a means to an end, then I don't have a problem with it myself.


But how could you possibly tell? I mean, just from listening. You could read about a piece, I guess, and conclude that, from reading about it. But then aren't you letting someone else's ideas influence how you listen?

I dunno, fool. I guess you're gonna have to finish up that other bidness right fast-like and come gallopin' back here ta this most interestin' thread, pronto!

(The tonal system's much much more complex that "no parallel fifths" (a rule that's not a rule) and voice leading. And modulating is one of the more obvious _sounding_ elements, I'd think. Nope. There's no doubt. You're going to have to come back quickly to us here!!)


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

OK, back from getting paid for counting beans. LOL

SomeGuy, this would be my very generalised answer (how could it be otherwise?), but I think any composer who sounds like they're just "going through the motions" in a piece would be an indication that its not written as a means of expressing something (regardless of what Stravinksy or Cage might say). 

Otherwise how could you tell the difference between a noteworthy composition by Webern and a mediocre contemporary of his? Or a noteworthy composition by Mozart and a mediocre contemporary of his?

That would go for ANY piece of music written in any form, whether we're talking about tonal, atonal, aleatory, what have you-- that judgement applies to all music-- the only difference is context. If the composer is merely "going through the motions" (whether its to just make sure that tone row gets finished or to make sure the sonata-allegro form is adhered to) then that's a far cry from a a composer who makes new "laws" or breaks the old ones, or modifies them or perhaps merely "fulfills" those laws in a very satisfying way. 

The problem is there is no universal musical language. There are ones which individual listeners might be more accustomed to and prefer because of that familiarity, and a majority of those listeners doesn't constitute as "universal" either. Just as tonal music is culture bound, so is serialism, minimalism and every other -ism. 

So I would have a problem with a contemporary composer adapting the language of Mozart or Wagner because its artificial (neo-classicism is not guilty of this because it borrows from classicism but adds its own modern quirks to it-- it is very obviously not merely a replication of classical language). It would be like dressing up in 18th century garb. It makes no sense-- there were historical and cultural conditions that led to music sounding this way or that and what its functions were in society-- it was a natural outgrowth of a particular place and time. If I really want to listen to a composer who sounds "retro" like Brahms, then I'll listen to Brahms.

By the same token, serial music came about in a particular historical situation. It was all part of the zeitgeist, whether people like it or not. Schoenberg made some silly assertion that the 12-tone system would assure the predominance of the Austrio-German place in music forever but the fact is, it too was just a part of a larger cultural outgrowth. How many composers today would write STRICTLY serial music in THIS day and age? Schnittke for example INCORPORATED serialism, but you don't get out-and-out serialism with him. 

All this goes just as well for all the other arts-- as Ezra Pound said, you have to "Make it new." And if you don't, then why should I listen to some composer who is just going thru the motions of a sonata-allegro form when I can listen to Beethoven do it better and more creatively? Why should I listen to a composer go through the motions of a a 12-tone series and all its permutations when I can listen to Webern do it better and more creatively? Beethoven and Webern wrote the way they did out of NECESSITY, not out of a need to follow a set of rules. 

Nothing is more boring than to hear a modern composer just go thru the exercise of plodding thru a tone row with no sense of direction and having nothing new to say-- and nothing is more boring than to hear a modern composer just go thru the academic motions of trudging thru a sonata-allegro in the key of C major with nothing new to add. 

How in the world can I tell that? I really don't know to be honest-- but (to use yet another analogy!) its probably a lot like gaining familiarity with good wine-- the more good quality wine you experience, the more you are able to discern between an OK wine and a really great wine. And having someone TELL you that a particular wine is great isn't the same thing as actually tasting it. You broaden your tastes and you know experientially that this wine is far better than that one. The less wine you are exposed to, the less likely you are to make out that difference. 

I know this probably opens up more cans of worms than it does settle any of the other one's that have already been opened, and these are just provisional thoughts really. This gets bloody complicated because now we're getting into abstract stuff with aesthetics and its gets dizzying... LOL

~josh


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2008)

Fool,

No, that sounds OK. The wine paragraph particularly. You listen and listen and get a sense of things, just as you taste and taste and get a sense of that thing. Anyway, it certainly sounds no longer like you're just lumping all the serial beans together in the same category!

(Speaking of beans, though, you know, there'll be more beans tomorrow. I hope I haven't ruined Christmas for you now...!)

Anyway, Kurkikohtaus, I'd recommend some "atonal" music for you, but unfortunately, it all* sounds fine to me, so I'm not sure how to pull out this or that piece for your particular delectation. I guess I just have to reiterate that if anyone can take pleasure in it, then it is pleasurable. 

some guy


*All the good stuff, that is.


----------



## Ephemerid (Nov 30, 2007)

Actually, I used the wine analogy from recent personal experience-- my girlfiend REALLY knows wine,  whereas I've never been that fond of wine before. So from now on, SHE picks out the wine until I can figure out the ones I like most-- I never knew what I was missing all these years!  

~josh


----------



## Egregious Professor (Oct 23, 2007)

It should be remembered that Schoenberg himself abominated the word "atonal" as "_semantic nonsense, since it implies music written without tones._" He preferred the term "*pan-tonal*," and we try to follow him there whenever we can.

Another thing - completely unrelated to Schoenberg, but worth mentioning - is this. There are many chords in Bach which, taken in isolation, are full of dissonance. Sometimes if one starts playing one of his works from the middle of a bar one feels quite lost for a second or two. So the perception of what is "painful to the ear" depends to quite a large degree upon *context*.


----------



## tenor02 (Jan 4, 2008)

some guy said:


> Interesting because they all completely ignore the great, hulking, magnificent, overbearing, monstrous, huge, gigantic, freakin' obvious fact that TONALITY is an incredibly complicated SYSTEM.
> 
> (I don't use too many adjectives, do I?)
> 
> ...


the system of tonality = music theory.
music theory = music theory. not actual composition. If every rule in music theory was followed then music would have no future. You can only make so many combinations of the 7 different available chords.

Anyway, personally i believe that atonal music was just an excuse to keep pushing music forward into the 20th century and that eventually music would have naturally developed into it, and hopefully by then our ears would be accustomed to it. Bleh, to sum it up- i think that atonal music was rushed in it's introduction and development and could have happened much more naturally.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

These are my observations and opinions on atonal music.

Firstly, atonal, or serialism/12 tone is merely a system whereby composers can realise their compositional ideas. Aren't modes such as major and minor similar systems? My point is that from a compositional viewpoint, atonality should be recognised as intelligent music.

Secondly, to say that a style is for the interlectual will not only alienate the style, but also the ensamble and performers and this must be stopped at all costs. It is my firm belief that all music is ready to be enjoyed by all, and a clouded impression of a particular style will make people reluctant to enjoy it.

Lastly, atonality is not my favourite genre, but there's a time and a place for everything. When I'm in the right mood, Berg Lyric Suite or Violin Concerto goes on!


----------



## stevesachse (Sep 4, 2008)

I'm fond of atonal music, and I happen to write a lot of it. My problem is that the term is somewhat ambiguous and biased. Most people think atonality automatically implies extreme dissonance, when in fact it really just means music operating outside of the major/minor realm. That can be as dissonant as you choose or not. Really, a lot of it is music based on intervals and the sounds they create. 

There are so many kinds. Bartok and Scriabin wrote atonal music that is much different than the music written by composers like Milton Babbitt or Roger Sessions. And their music is different still from Elliot Carter or Mario Davidovsky. I like 'good' music, and that can be atonal or not. I personally just like exploring with sounds and compositional approaches, pre-planned or not.


----------



## charles_arthur_bosch (Aug 18, 2008)

*atonal music*

Music is organized sound, and atonal music is music. It can be either good or bad. I find much of the stuff they play on NPR to be trite, stereotypical twentieth century same old same old, trying to be revolutionary. But then, a lot of atonal music is indeed revolutionary. If you haven't seen the Metropolitan Opera's Peter Grimes, by Benjamin Britten, I would recommend watching it with an open mind.

I have been listening to classical music since I was a child, and after a certain point, the greats become predictable (although still great), and the ears longs for something different. I think atonal music satisfies that need.

However, I think the greatest composer of our day, who will be remembered as such, is Arvo Part, who has restored a since of beauty to the arts, while still taking us in a progressive direction.

Atonality is a wonderful development, but as stated previously, it depends on what you do with it.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Dodecaphonic music is atonal*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-tone_technique

Martin


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2011)

Martin, you resurrected a two and a half year old thread to post a wikipedia article?

For shame!!


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*mmm....*

I am sorry, I am bored...I think my honeymoon with "this" is over...I was more active before...I was unfairly banned...Now you have sites managed by moderators....like the sexiest tenors...the most boring site ever...
==============

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*by the way*

Arvo Part su..s. I do not like his music very much (some exceptions though).






Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Atonality still?*

_Schönberg and Berg deprecated the use of the term Atonality. Berg concluded a 1930 radio talk on the subject with these words: "Antichrist himself could not have thought up a more diabolical appelation than atonal". A negative concept etymologically, the term was first applied by hostile critics as derisive description of this new style, but, as often happens, a pejorative term became accepted._

Are we still insisting with this old negative term?

Référence (sic): Webster's New world Dictionary of music, Slonimsky, 1998

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Then...*

I prefer the word Dodecaphonic to describe the second Viennese technique...Atonal maybe is negative.

Not from Wikipedia this time but from an old book I kept in my library.....
Comments will be MORE than welcome.

Martin


----------



## Nonchalant (Jan 13, 2018)

I find it strange that people have referred to atonality as “abstract” in here. I’ve heard this before and have never understood it. The music of Mozart is no less abstract than that of Babbitt. Though they each follow a different system with different rules, neither tries to represent anything sonically in the physical world. 

I think that through consistent exposure to tonal music in daily life, people subconsciously read its rules as a language and therefore understand the emotional expression of it in a way that they cannot in atonal music— something like trying to read poetry in a foreign language. If dodecaphony was as pervasive, your average listener would absolutely hear a missing pitch in a series as “off” for example. 

I suppose for this reason I can’t blame people for not immediately liking atonality. I could however blame them if they attempt to dismiss it as less-musical. I listen to both and I sincerely can’t name one as being inherently “more emotional” than the other.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Nonchalant said:


> I find it strange that people have referred to atonality as "abstract" in here. I've heard this before and have never understood it. The music of Mozart is no less abstract than that of Babbitt. Though they each follow a different system with different rules, neither tries to represent anything sonically in the physical world.
> 
> I think that through consistent exposure to tonal music in daily life, people subconsciously read its rules as a language and therefore understand the emotional expression of it in a way that they cannot in atonal music- something like trying to read poetry in a foreign language. If dodecaphony was as pervasive, your average listener would absolutely hear a missing pitch in a series as "off" for example.


I like many atonal works but this is the old "one day, milkmen will whistle my tunes like Puccini" Schoenberg said a long time ago. And it didn't happen. And I don't think that's because of lack of exposition.


----------



## Nonchalant (Jan 13, 2018)

Interesting! Why do you think it didn’t happen?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Nonchalant said:


> Interesting! Why do you think it didn't happen?


I believe that Schoenberg failed to forecast the invention of grocery stores.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In fact I quite often whistle the tune from the start of Moses und Aaron, einziger, ewiger, allgegenwärtiger . . . " I am not a milkman however.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> In fact I quite often whistle the tune from the start of Moses und Aaron, einziger, ewiger, allgegenwärtiger . . . " *I am not a milkman however*.


This immediatey disqualifies you. No-one critical of Schoenberg will believe that a humble milkman would know anything about "Moses und Aaron, einziger, ewiger, allgegenwärtiger . . . " let alone whistle it.

Window-cleaners however...that's a different thing. I don't know what ours used to whistle, but it was less tuneful and more complicated than Schoenberg.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Nonchalant said:


> I find it strange that people have referred to atonality as "abstract" in here. I've heard this before and have never understood it. The music of Mozart is no less abstract than that of Babbitt. Though they each follow a different system with different rules, neither tries to represent anything sonically in the physical world.
> 
> I think that through consistent exposure to tonal music in daily life, people subconsciously read its rules as a language and therefore understand the emotional expression of it in a way that they cannot in atonal music- something like trying to read poetry in a foreign language. If dodecaphony was as pervasive, your average listener would absolutely hear a missing pitch in a series as "off" for example.
> 
> I suppose for this reason I can't blame people for not immediately liking atonality. I could however blame them if they attempt to dismiss it as less-musical. I listen to both and I sincerely can't name one as being inherently "more emotional" than the other.


There were a few discussions about this before. According to Prokofiev, atonal music has no future since it can't be built upon, as tonal music can. Also the humans more naturally react to tonal music emotionally according to some, such as minor keys sound sad, while atonal expresses only chaos/instability, uncertainty to most. I think it would take a lot of training to detect a missing tone in dodecachpony, if it is possible at all, because you need to first be able to recall all 12 tones to know which is missing, and the brain is more prone to make harmonic associations as in tonal music, than picking out what is missing. There is no frame of reference in dodecaphony, but usually many different intervals, which is what the brain picks up rather than absolute tone frequencies.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Originally from 2007-8, this thread was resurrected in 2011 and now again in 2018. And yet it has never been locked. It might be the greatest zombie thread in TC history. Someone needs to vow right now to bring it back in 2024 or so.



stevesachse said:


> I'm fond of atonal music, and I happen to write a lot of it. My problem is that the term is somewhat ambiguous and biased. Most people think atonality automatically implies extreme dissonance, when in fact it really just means music operating outside of the major/minor realm. That can be as dissonant as you choose or not. Really, a lot of it is music based on intervals and the sounds they create.
> 
> There are so many kinds. Bartok and Scriabin wrote atonal music that is much different than the music written by composers like Milton Babbitt or Roger Sessions. And their music is different still from Elliot Carter or Mario Davidovsky. I like 'good' music, and that can be atonal or not. I personally just like exploring with sounds and compositional approaches, pre-planned or not.


Also, next time we bump this, can we bring this guy back too? This is his only post, ever. To be fair, some of my posts have been funnier. But this is a pretty strong one-and-done.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

It's better than a new thread every six months right?


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2018)

Shouldn't this thread be in the Tiresome Arguments sub-forum?


----------



## Nonchalant (Jan 13, 2018)

Yikes! The topic still fascinates me, but since you all seem so eager to drop it, I will also do so.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Nonchalant said:


> Yikes! The topic still fascinates me, but since you all seem so eager to drop it, I will also do so.


Not all are eager to drop it. It is my favourite topic on this board. 

I don't know if it's just me, but it has been increasingly harder to define from tonal music.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I understand what you are saying about The Rite of Spring originally being intended as an ballet and not concert music. I had a similar experience after watching as opposed to merely listening to Stravinsky's ballet Les Noces. I didn't really like it that much until I saw it performed as a ballet on YouTube and I somehow "got it" in a way I didn't' when just listening to the music.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

*Berg concluded a 1930 radio talk on the subject*

"Hooked on Dodecaphonics" by Alban Berg.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I have no problem with extreme dissonance, and that's what a lot of Ives' music is based on; pure, unresolved dissonance for the sheer love of the sound it makes. I love dissonant jazz chords, too, with altered fifths.

Babbitt was a good composer, and did construct his music so it "sounded" pleasing. He used register, and forms of the row he liked. It's very crafted and satisfying to my ear.

If you like sound itself, you can get into atonality, and into John Cage. I like sound itself, including dissonance.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I have a problem with music that is dissonant for its own sake, but with all the great composers, it is only a by product, their music is still organized, but with no priority to make it sound consonant or please the ear in a traditional sense. Even aleatoric music is more distinguished if it limits certain parameters to avoid total randomness.


----------



## Lady composer (Aug 23, 2018)

Couldn't agree more, and I studied it. Since then, I got into cognitive science and music cognition - wish I could've done that instead as it really explains a lot, and avoids 'you do not know enough about it to appreciate it' type of discussions. How we hear music has much more to do with how we organise and categorise sonic data. As to composers: if they claim they do not care about the audience, they lie. If you put your composition out there to be performed, you think it has value and you want approval. But the catch is - no one owes it to you


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't think that music should "coddle" me, or be easy on my ears. I think it should be whatever it is, without my input. Then I can approach it freshly, without bias or expectations, on its own terms, not mine. My motto is "live and let live." After all, who am I in the larger scheme of things?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think that music should "coddle" me, or be easy on my ears. I think it should be whatever it is, without my input.


I don't think that music should "throttle" me, or make me want to have my ears removed. I think it should be whatever it is, unless it wants me to listen to it.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't listen to a lot of purely atonal music, since I prefer music that is quasi tonal; music with non-functional harmony. I often find it very difficult to get into. I love Schoenberg's Violin and Piano concerto but the effort it took to digest those two was a bit much for me


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm a bit of a masochist by nature, so I like dissonant and atonal music during my "discipline" sessions with my dominatrix.
I've been a very, very bad boy, and I don't deserve to be coddled by Mozart or pretty tonal music. I'm sorry. Please, you can ad-hominem me all you want, I won't report it. Punish me.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

You are not accidentally a good boy?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm a bit of a masochist by nature, so I like dissonant and atonal music during my "discipline" sessions with my dominatrix.


Whatever you and your dominatrix do in the private confines of your home is your business (or, technically, I suppose it is the Dominatrix's business, but no one else need know), as long as you don't run for political office. If you do run for political office, I would suggest buying off anyone you might know who is aware of your atonal music interests. As we have seen, some things are just too difficult to explain.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I imagine an atonal music fan is more likely to get into office than say...an atheist or someone batting for the same team.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm a bit of a masochist by nature, so I like dissonant and atonal music during my "discipline" sessions with my *dominatrix*.


Name and phone number please. Prefer the whip and dissonant music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> Whatever you and your dominatrix do in the private confines of your home is your business (or, technically, I suppose it is the Dominatrix's business, but no one else need know), as long as you don't run for political office. If you do run for political office, I would suggest buying off anyone you might know who is aware of your atonal music interests. As we have seen, some things are just too difficult to explain.


Now I'm confused. I thought from a different thread that the government was foisting atonal music upon us.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Now I'm confused. I thought from a different thread that the government was foisting atonal music upon us.


They are, but it is a secret. Shhhhhh. (We are mostly kidding after all, or at least I presume so. I don't think that the government is foisting atonal music on us. I mostly blame another nefarious group: music academies.)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Now I'm confused. I thought from a different thread that the government was foisting atonal music upon us.


Funny you should mention that! In Germany a local authority has recently decided to foist Schoenberg's Op. 11 on commuters in a certain train station on the theory that it will repel the drug addicts and their suppliers who have been loitering there:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/arts/music/atonal-music-deutsche-bahn-drugs-trains.html

For fairness and balance I should mention that when I lived in Cincinnati, the authorities tried using Mozart to repel stoners hanging around outside businesses near the University of Cincinnati. Reputedly it was unsuccessful because too many of them seemed to like it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Funny you should mention that! In Germany a local authority has recently decided to foist Schoenberg's Op. 11 on commuters in a certain train station on the theory that it will repel the drug addicts and their suppliers who have been loitering there:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/arts/music/atonal-music-deutsche-bahn-drugs-trains.html
> 
> For fairness and balance I should mention that when I lived in Cincinnati, the authorities tried using Mozart to repel stoners hanging around outside businesses near the University of Cincinnati. Reputedly it was unsuccessful because too many of them seemed to like it.


There's a thread about that. As for stoners in Cincinnati, it is no surprise they liked Mozart as enhanced music enjoyment is a regularly reported effect of cannabis. They would probably have enjoyed Schoenberg, too.


----------

