# I find it difficult to listen to tonal music



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I have been listening to A LOT of *Ligeti* this past week. His music is extremely colourful and imaginative and never boring (even the first movement of his Cello Concerto) and after listening to heaps of his micropolyphonic works such as _Lontano_ and _Volumnia_ I have decided to move away from atonality and listen to Wagner's _Lohengrin_. Wagner was known for his extreme dissonance in works such as _Tristan und Isolde,_ but _Lohengrin_ to me seems very traditional in terms of tonality and always resolves its dissonances. I have been finding it rather difficult to listen to after spending so much time on micropolyphonic atonal music full of hypnotic cluster chords with vast amounts of colour. Atonal music just seems a lot more natural to my ears. I can only really listen to tonal music if it is made up of lots of dissonant suspensions like in the opening of Bach's _St. John Passion_ and even with _that_ I really work hard to enjoy it properly. It used to be my favourite work of JS Bach, so why am I finding it so hard on my ears now?!

I think I'll turn _Lohengrin_ off and listen to _Le Grand Macabre_ instead. Much more pleasing to my ears.

Why is tonality so hard to listen to?!?! I can't tolerate consonance any more!!! HELP ME!!!!!!


----------



## neoshredder

Listen to some VIvaldi and Corelli. That might cure you. I find the Romantic tonality tough to listen to for some reason. I guess we all have our weird taste when it comes to our music center of the brain.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Listen to some VIvaldi and Corelli. That might cure you. I find the Romantic tonality tough to listen to for some reason. I guess we all have our weird taste when it comes to our music center of the brain.


Corelli did some good dissonances. Vivaldi, I'm not sure if I want to listen to him. Stockhausen would be nice. :tiphat:


----------



## neoshredder

Pinnock has a great recording of Vivaldi's Concertos. Worth checking. Not as repetitive as some think here. Especially the first cd.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^I used to want that actually. Never got it though. I prefer Carter's Clarinet Concerto now.


----------



## science

Wow. This could get ugly. Have fun, man!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> Wow. This could get ugly. Have fun, man!


Yeah I agree. Some Vivaldi is quite ugly.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Yeah I agree. Some Vivaldi is quite ugly.


It's war now.


----------



## Andreas

I sense a connection here to the cheesy music thread.

I sometimes think of poetry: Poems that rhyme and poems that don't. There are people who would say, a poem that doesn't rhyme isn't a poem at all since All Poetry Must Rhyme. And there are others who can't stand poems that rhyme and think of them as cheesy and artificial.

Of course there are many others who enjoy both.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> It's war now.


It is?


----------



## Toddlertoddy

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Yeah I agree. Some Vivaldi is quite ugly.


Don't all composers have their ugly (or bad) music?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Toddlertoddy said:


> Don't all composers have their ugly (or bad) music?


All except *Ligeti* :tiphat:


----------



## neoshredder

Atonal music can be a good change of pace from the norm. But I don't think I could give up my love for tonal music. At least the good tonal music.


----------



## clavichorder

You must be insane or stupid or something, that goes against nature, its not natural, I'm scared. Exorcism perhaps? Maybe some atypical antipsychotics would help? Or perhaps you could get adjusted by the chiropractor and be rid of your brain subluxations?

edit, don't usually joke like this, hopefully not too out of character, have a good day  Atonality is pretty cool sometimes.


----------



## Toddlertoddy




----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Toddlertoddy said:


>


Thank you! I love those pieces! You saved me from all that tonal music that everyone else was recommending!


----------



## neoshredder

I'm not going to get mad when someone disses my favorite music. Just be glad you get joy from atonal music.


----------



## clavichorder

clavichorder said:


> You must be insane or stupid or something, that goes against nature, its not natural, I'm scared. Exorcism perhaps? Maybe some atypical antipsychotics would help? Or perhaps you could get adjusted by the chiropractor and be rid of your brain subluxations?
> 
> edit, don't usually joke like this, hopefully not too out of character, have a good day  Atonality is pretty cool sometimes.


See, I thought I'd attempt to take the criticism into my own hands with an over the top vibe about it. That way things would maybe take longer to deteriorate.

Anyway, if violadude was on and posting more, I think he could relate somewhat to your plight.


----------



## superhorn

This is truly weird ! It's the exact opposite of how most people react to music . I'm not knocking you for saying what you did in this thread, just extremely surprised that any one would say somethng like this .
Speaking of dissonance, Bruckner's 9th symphony is probably the most radical work of the late 19th centruy; it anticipates the dssonances of 20th century music to an amazing degree .There are passages in which it's difficult to find any tonal center at all, and the climax of the slow movement, the last Bruckner finished , is a searingly dissonant cluster of pitches . 
If Brahms had heard it , and he died in 1897, some years before the posthumous premiere in an appallingly bowdlerized form by one of Bruckner's acolytes, he probably would have said that the composer had gone insane ! And Bruckner was born in 1824, when Schubert and Beethoven were still alive !


----------



## aleazk

I don't know if your insistence has done a subliminal effect on me, but I have been listening to a lot of Ligeti too. And even more odd is that I have, as you, the same feeling of "disappointment" when I go back to tonal music!.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

superhorn said:


> This is truly weird ! It's the exact opposite of how most people react to music . I'm not knocking you for saying what you did in this thread, just extremely surprised that any one would say somethng like this .
> Speaking of dissonance, Bruckner's 9th symphony is probably the most radical work of the late 19th centruy; it anticipates the dssonances of 20th century music to an amazing degree .There are passages in which it's difficult to find any tonal center at all, and the climax of the slow movement, the last Bruckner finished , is a searingly dissonant cluster of pitches .
> If Brahms had heard it , and he died in 1897, some years before the posthumous premiere in an appallingly bowdlerized form by one of Bruckner's acolytes, he probably would have said that the composer had gone insane ! And Bruckner was born in 1824, when Schubert and Beethoven were still alive !


I have not heard any of Bruckner's symphonies. I might try and listen to that one though. Doe any of it sound like this?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> It used to be my favourite work of JS Bach, so why am I finding it so hard on my ears now?!
> 
> I think I'll turn _Lohengrin_ off and listen to _Le Grand Macabre_ instead. Much more pleasing to my ears.
> 
> Why is tonality so hard to listen to?!?! I can't tolerate consonance any more!!! HELP ME!!!!!!


I have some theories. 

One, I am like you too. There's lots and lots of tonal music that I don't like (not really hating though at its core). But not because it's _tonal _you see, and I can see for you it's the same. It's why you can listen to Lohengrin. You bore from it for other reasons, likely they were worn out, or simply become too predictable to your tastes, or lost the sense of color. Same with me, and with any piece.

Two, _dissonance can be addictive. _ Like a stimulant, once you try some, you may get "high," and from that time, you build a sort of tolerance for it. But tolerance always leads to needing larger doses for same euphoric effect, and you will want increasingly more and more. You may have found yourself going off the deep end in that respect, just immersing yourself in that style to your eyeballs. Thus, when you go back to Bach, it's like a withdrawal. The dissonance, although there, is different and with much less _intensity_, making you restless.

Although there are exceptions to my theories, I think there may be some truth in them.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I have some theories.
> 
> One, I am like you too. There's lots and lots of tonal music that I don't like (not really hating though at its core). But not because it's _tonal _you see, and I can see for you it's the same. It's why you can listen to Lohengrin. You bore from it for other reasons, likely they were worn out, or simply become too predictable to your tastes, or lost the sense of color. Same with me, and with any piece.


I think it's because they are tonal. I was listening to Mozart's 29th symphony the other day and the chord sequences hurt my brain. It was too bloody predictable! Even if music wasn't colourful, it would have to be atonal to please my ears.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Two, _dissonance can be addictive. _ Like a stimulant, once you try some, you may get "high," and from that time, you build a sort of tolerance for it. But tolerance always leads to needing larger doses for same euphoric effect, and you will want increasingly more and more. You may have found yourself going off the deep end in that respect, just immersing yourself in that style to your eyeballs. Thus, when you go back to Bach, it's like a withdrawal. The dissonance, although there, is different and with much less _intensity_, making you restless.
> 
> Although there are exceptions to my theories, I think there may be some truth in them.


Yes I think I might be high on atonality.


----------



## Taneyev

I found impossible to listen to atonal music.


----------



## jani

Odnoposoff said:


> I found impossible to listen to atonal music.


----------



## jani

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I have some theories.
> 
> Two, _dissonance can be addictive. _ Like a stimulant, once you try some, you may get "high," and from that time, you build a sort of tolerance for it. But tolerance always leads to needing larger doses for same euphoric effect, and you will want increasingly more and more. You may have found yourself going off the deep end in that respect, just immersing yourself in that style to your eyeballs. Thus, when you go back to Bach, it's like a withdrawal. The dissonance, although there, is different and with much less _intensity_, making you restless.
> 
> Although there are exceptions to my theories, I think there may be some truth in them.


A year ago i wasn't able to stand atonal music, but now i can actually enjoy it.


----------



## crmoorhead

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I have been listening to A LOT of *Ligeti* this past week.


Are any of us surprised?  I haven't heard a note of Ligeti so far, but I am eying up the 5 disc Ligeti Project boxed set to purchase with some of the money/amazon vouchers I recieved for my birthday. Can you suggest some additional Ligeti recordings that would supplement this well?


----------



## crmoorhead

jani said:


> A year ago i wasn't able to stand atonal music, but now i can actually enjoy it.


Although I don't listen to it as much as tonal music, atonal music was one of the things that got me interested in classical music in the first place. I read David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas and researched the references in one of the parts of the story from the PoV of a composer. It was the first time I had every heard of Twelve Tone/Serialist music and was immediately entranced by some YouTube videos of pieces by Webern.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

crmoorhead said:


> Are any of us surprised?  I haven't heard a note of Ligeti so far, but I am eying up the 5 disc Ligeti Project boxed set to purchase with some of the money/amazon vouchers I recieved for my birthday. Can you suggest some additional Ligeti recordings that would supplement this well?


That box set and the box set on Sony Classical will give you most of *Ligeti's* works. The Deutsche Grammophon set is also excellent and very cheap. Wergo has released some excellent recordings of *Ligeti's* works and I'll recommend their recording of the Chamber Concerto over the one by Boulez on DG. Also Le Grand Macabre sung in German (the original language) rather than English is available on Wergo.


----------



## superhorn

Composer of A.G., you're kidding when you say you haven't heard any Bruckner symphonies, aren't you ?


----------



## crmoorhead

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That box set and the box set on Sony Classical will give you most of *Ligeti's* works. The Deutsche Grammophon set is also excellent and very cheap. Wergo has released some excellent recordings of *Ligeti's* works and I'll recommend their recording of the Chamber Concerto over the one by Boulez on DG. Also Le Grand Macabre sung in German (the original language) rather than English is available on Wergo.


I have purchased the Ligeti Project one. The DG one is tempting, but there is too much overlap for me to consider buying it just yet. Le Grand Macabre may follow soon. I may purchase the Salonen version in English or wait until I can get the German in a better price. I'll let you know in a couple of weeks.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

crmoorhead said:


> I have purchased the Ligeti Project one. The DG one is tempting, but there is too much overlap for me to consider buying it just yet. Le Grand Macabre may follow soon. I may purchase the Salonen version in English or wait until I can get the German in a better price. I'll let you know in a couple of weeks.


The German version is excellent. I would recommend that one.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The German version is excellent. I would recommend that one.


Did Ligeti compose it in Tedesco?

Solo, perdutto abandonatto....

Martino piange


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The German version is excellent. I would recommend that one.


If I understand well...you can't stand Wagner... Wagner is quite tonal... Nor Richard Strauss, nor Mozart... Then you are not a dinosaur... But you are still limited... I prefer to stay in the middle, the same in politics... Not too much to the left, not too Much to the right... Then, because I am not limited, the sky is my limit

Superman


----------



## myaskovsky2002

You are cool, Martin. You are great, dude.

Nikolai Myaskovsky


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Thank you for your support, Nikolai. You know I love your music.

martin


----------



## eorrific

That's nothing new coming from you, CoAG. 

I also find it increasingly difficult to listen to works from the Classical and Romantic Era. They sound so predictable. Eugh! They always ends the same. Bang bang bang resolution.

EDIT : Not all, but most.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

eorrific said:


> That's nothing new coming from you, CoAG.
> 
> I also find it increasingly difficult to listen to works from the Classical and Romantic Era. They sound so predictable. Eugh! *They always ends (mistake!, end) * the same. Bang bang bang resolution.
> 
> EDIT : Not all, but most.


That is your [not very humble] opinion, try to say something smarter...next time, next time, ok? Just for a change.

Nitram


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

eorrific said:


> That's nothing new coming from you, CoAG.


Everyone says that it's "nothing new!" I used to be a Baroque and Classical (Sturm und Drang in particular) enthusiast too, but now it's all too......_tonal._ :lol:

I don't _get_ tonal music at the moment. It's all just weird. How on earth did composers manage to write music with such an ordered harmonic and melodic function for so long? Melody and harmony isn't the most important thing to my ears. It's rhythm and colour that really make me get into the music. A lot of tonal music is not interesting when it comes to colour and all the rhythms that are used are so conventional. Schumann's symphonies for example are intolerable to my ears at this moment for those very reasons.


----------



## Sid James

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I have been listening to A LOT of *Ligeti* this past week...


Well then you are a 'sinner.' But you redeem yourself with revering the two GODS of music (well, on this forum at least?) -



> ...I have decided to move away from atonality and listen to *Wagner's *_Lohengrin_. Wagner was known for his extreme dissonance in works such as _Tristan und Isolde,_ but _Lohengrin_ to me seems very traditional in terms of tonality and always resolves its dissonances.
> 
> ...I can only really listen to tonal music if it is made up of lots of dissonant suspensions like in the opening of* Bach's *_St. John Passion_ and even with _that_ I really work hard to enjoy it properly. It used to be my favourite work of JS Bach, so why am I finding it so hard on my ears now?!...


But if you turn from_ Lohengrin _to _Le Grand Macabre _and enjoy the latter more, you may need a doctor, or a witch-doctor to put a curse on you to worship 'he who has to be worshipped' (the guy with the funny hat, neck beard and extreme anti-semitic views who wrote the most long winded operas on the planet).



> ...
> I think I'll turn _Lohengrin_ off and listen to _Le Grand Macabre_ instead. Much more pleasing to my ears...


But as for this -



> ...
> Why is tonality so hard to listen to?!?! I can't tolerate consonance any more!!! HELP ME!!!!!!


Forget consonance or dissonance, listen to some TOTALLY WIERD ****...that is TOTALLY COOL cos not many people like it...eg. some noise music like _Merzbow_...makes Ligeti look totally passe...

*The above offer is only valid if you realise its all a (lame) joke.


----------



## millionrainbows

That's a clever counterpoint to the clichéd arguments in favor of sweet-sounding consonant music. I think the "preference" is arbitrary; that's the cerebral part.

All I can say about dissonance and consonance is that they are more than just 'preferences' or ideas; they have physical manifestations. The eardrum is a vibrating membrane. You could compare it to a pond of water, and sounds make 'ripples' on its surface. Consonance and dissonance are determined by intervals, and this means 2 notes sounded at once. This chart is interesting:

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

So what would our "pond" or eardrum look like if two guys were at its side, each on tapping the surface with his finger to create ripples? Both guys tapping at the same time, at the same rate, would create two waves which are essentially the same, creating one large ripple. This would be "unison" or 1:1 ratio.

If guy #1 taps twice for every time guy #2 taps once, the result is evenly spaced waves, one being larger where the taps coincided. This would be an "octave," or 2:1.

If guy #1 taps 3 times for every 2 taps of guy #2, five waves result. This is 3:2, or a perfect fifth. Every 5 taps, they coincide, making a larger wave.

The 'water' gets choppier as the waves increase in complexity. So, the eardrum is disturbed less by simple ratios. Since the ear, with its eardrum, is a physical organ, it would seem logical to conclude that more complex vibrations would 'fatigue' it more quickly. The engineers who designed suspension bridges found this out the hard way.






So, is dissonant music, like spicy Mexican food, a matter of preference only, or will the spices cause premature stomach problems?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Everyone says that it's "nothing new!" I used to be a Baroque and Classical (Sturm und Drang in particular) enthusiast too, but now it's all too......_tonal._ :lol:
> 
> I don't _get_ tonal music at the moment. It's all just weird. How on earth did composers manage to write music with such an ordered harmonic and melodic function for so long? Melody and harmony isn't the most important thing to my ears. It's rhythm and colour that really make me get into the music. A lot of tonal music is not interesting when it comes to colour and all the rhythms that are used are so conventional. Schumann's symphonies for example are intolerable to my ears at this moment for those very reasons.


What about my music, pal?





Or my friend Medtner





Or my friend Scriabin






Are all of them predictable...? I am not so sure.

All extremes are BAD.

Do you like Luigi Nono? I just cannot understand his music. He's not tonal at all... He is Weird!!! And Xenakis???? Wow. I don't understand them...

This is not that bad... LUIgi Nono





This is getting a little worse... More than 25 minutes listening to "this" and you can become... Loco. Loco (crazy).






Wow! This is even worse! Please listen to it everybody who says tonal music is boring. This is NOT boring, it is unbereable





Bonne écoute

Martin and Nikolai together


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sid James said:


> But if you turn from_ Lohengrin _to _Le Grand Macabre _and enjoy the latter more, you may need a doctor, or a witch-doctor to put a curse on you to worship 'he who has to be worshipped' (the guy with the funny hat, neck beard and extreme anti-semitic views who wrote the most long winded operas on the planet).


I don't need a doctor. I just need someone to explain to me why people like tonality so much.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

myaskovsky2002 said:


> What about my music, pal?


I am unfamiliar with Myaskovsky.


----------



## Sid James

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't need a doctor. I just need someone to explain to me why people like tonality so much.


Well being serious for a moment, that's not easy to explain but I think a large part is people's valuing of tradition. I value tradition, so I listen to a good deal of 'tonal' music. But I don't exclusively value tradition, I also like music up to the present day, many types of it. I'm not a 'one trick pony' in my listening habits. So obviously, I value both tradition and pushing of boundaries. & a lot of the composers I really dig actually do both. I would argue that people who totally avoid certain types of music - whether new or not - are in the minority of the classical audience. I can't put numbers on it, but judging by this forum, what people listen to tends to be very eclectic (eg. as seen on 'current listening' thread). Of course, many people have an 'orbit' they revolve around and go farther out from that sometimes. I am not like you, eg. exploring Wagner, Ligeti, Bach in depth. I am more of an all rounder and really don't have much of a 'system' except strong preference for instrumental music.


----------



## millionrainbows

When you boil it all down, it all goes back to one note. Even "tonality" is not as tonal as one note; therefore, Lamont Young should be even more infathomable to our beleaguered thread-starter.
Other odd examples would be Stockhausen's "Stimmung," Terry Riley's "In C," Steve Reich's "Four Organs," Kenneth Gaburo's "The Flow of (u)."


----------



## science

Were not thirds and sixths once considered dissonant?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I'm sorry... You need to clck on the links, apparently I made a mistake.... Well, I guess you're getting used to my frequent mistakes. Please listen all!!!!!!!! It is important to Endure Luigi Nono until the end to rejoice...or to die and speak no more (Shakespeare).

Martin (Nikolai went to sleep)


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I am unfamiliar with Myaskovsky.


Please just listen to what Nikolai sent.

Martin


----------



## Kevin Pearson

Personally I don't think listening to tonality or atonality is the answer. There are only two solutions to your problem. 

1. Full frontal lobotomy
2. Death

The lobotomy would give you a complete mental reset and you probably would never have to worry about tonality, atonality or dissonance for the rest of your natural born days. The unfortunate side effect is that you also will have no clue who you even are any more (of course some around here might view that as a good thing). 

Death (the cessation of life) would free you from the constraints of the laws of physics and time. On the other side none of these things matter. Being free of your earthly vessel you would find that all the things you think are important are nothing. There is no tonality, there is no atonality, there is no dissonance. There is only what is and what is is what it is and nothing else can matter for you are deaf and dead. 

Kevin


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I choose option 3


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I am a regular guy, I like both. Both are nice, charming... Sometimes, predictable is good. Martha, for example.

This is






Sung in Hungarian

Martha (Flotow)

Now big screen for... In Italian...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ugh. Tonality.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Ugh. Tonality.


Ugh...extremism! Please take the time to LISTEN TO IT before saying "I don't like" it.

Also listen to Nikolai's music, is not predictable, I promise you

Thank you!!!


----------



## bigshot

When you get out into the sunshine on a reguar basis, Scubert and Mendelssohn will sound the best.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I choose option 3


When I was 17 I had the opinion that tonality was banal...many years after, I came back... It is incredible, but I noticed that nice atonality (not noise) is more limited than tonality... Of course it is just my perception. I enjoy Krenek deeply, his opera Karl V is entirely atonal... But I love Tristan und Isolde and the Ring... No contradictions here... Just ACCEPTANCE, just acceptance...

Martin, conciliant
Sleep well, schlaffen


----------



## Toddlertoddy

What about early Schoenberg?


----------



## Toddlertoddy

Does this count as tonal?





in D major





in C





in D major





in B flat major


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^ I can tolerate that


----------



## neoshredder

What do you think of Luigi Nono?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> What do you think of Luigi Nono?


I used to think he was pretty meh, but now I must listen to him more and more.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

jani said:


>


That sounds like one of my piano improvisations.


----------



## Andreas

It's interesting that composers like Penderecki, Górecki and Pärt returned to a tonal style after their avantgarde phase. It almost seems as if a person of spirituality can stand atonality only for so long. I'm sure there are many exceptions, though. 

Perhaps they were at a similar point where Schoenberg once was, when free atonality didn't satisfy him anymore. So you either invent an entirely new system, or you return to the old one. Makes sense, since systems are so comfortable. Again, there are probably many exceptions here as well.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That sounds like one of my piano improvisations.


I love this composer, he died when he was over 100... Listen to the suicide On a plane...

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Andreas said:


> It's interesting that composers like Penderecki, Górecki and Pärt returned to a tonal style after their avantgarde phase. It almost seems as if a person of spirituality can stand atonality only for so long. I'm sure there are many exceptions, though.
> 
> Perhaps they were at a similar point where Schoenberg once was, when free atonality didn't satisfy him anymore. So you either invent an entirely new system, or you return to the old one. Makes sense, since systems are so comfortable. Again, there are probably many exceptions here as well.


You ar e totally right, but their return was not necessarily positive. Schönberg's are kind of elementary and stupid... Like the song where he wishes a happy birthday to somebody, I still have the melody in my mind... The words start by "Arnold Schönberg..." in English. Penderecki's symphonies are just ok. Gorecki and Part are not my cup of tea. They are against my religion.

Sincerely,

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^ I can tolerate that


Ligeti was quite tonal.

Martin


----------



## PetrB

First world problem....

Besides, as my wonderful comp teacher said, "A piece is tonal if it works." Since I hear that way anyway, I fully agree with teach


----------



## Renaissance

I find it difficult to listen to Classical period music (second half of 18th century). It really bores me... The music is fine, I wish I could understand it, but I can't. I find it easier to listen to Ligeti and Xenakis rather than Mozart.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Wonderful! Terrific! Simply a genious!

Martin, amazed


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Renaissance said:


> I find it difficult to listen to Classical period music (second half of 18th century). It really bores me... The music is fine, I wish I could understand it, but I can't. I find it easier to listen to Ligeti and Xenakis rather than Mozart.


Mozart is a genious.

Martin


----------



## Renaissance

I didn't deny it. But I am having hard times trying to focus on his music, I don't know why. Haydn is a bit more to my taste. I love Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque, I love Romantic & Modern & Contemporary Eras as well, but I can't focus on the Classical one.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Renaissance said:


> I didn't deny it. But I am having hard times trying to focus on his music, I don't know why. Haydn is a bit more to my taste. I love Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque, I love Romantic & Modern & Contemporary Eras as well, but I can't focus on the Classical one.


Not my cup of tea. I love opera, maybe you don't, this can make a BIG difference.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I am a changing guy... I can be a fanatic for a guy(e.g. Hindemith) and after a while, I become kind of cold...I dampen (I hope is the word).

Rautavaara was the same... A few composers I keep in mind for a long while... I loved Ligeti for almost a year... Now I just like his music. Scriabin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Anton Rubinstein are probably my eternal loves,

Martin


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Mozart is a genious.
> 
> Martin


Mozart wrote fluffy predictable tonal music. He wrote little in the Sturm und Drang style which pisses me off.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Renaissance said:


> I find it difficult to listen to Classical period music (second half of 18th century). It really bores me... The music is fine, I wish I could understand it, but I can't. I find it easier to listen to Ligeti and Xenakis rather than Mozart.


That is brilliant! Well done!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I am listening to Liszt's Faust symphony for the Listening Club and parts of it are really grating on my nerves. I'll have to listen to a lot of cluster chords to cure me.


----------



## neoshredder

Nothing beats the sound of C and C# played at the same time. Extreme dissonance ftw.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Nothing beats the sound of C and C# played at the same time. Extreme dissonance ftw.


It's orgasmic. :tiphat:

Or perhaps _ear_gasmic. :lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

superhorn said:


> Composer of A.G., you're kidding when you say you haven't heard any Bruckner symphonies, aren't you ?


I'm not kidding. I really haven't heard any.


----------



## PetrB

Rameau is replete with a lot of 'dirty dissonances,' if you went to that you might find out how 'modern' he was....


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That is brilliant! Well done!


Yo escucho lo que venga.

Martin

Use google translator for this.... LOL


----------



## millionrainbows

Speaking generally, it seems to me that the distinguishing characteristic of the major portion of Ligeti's output (except the piano works) is that he does not deal with "pitches" per se, but chooses to create aggregates or "masses" of sound which are essentially un-pitched. That is, these 'blocks of sound' cover larger (and smaller) areas than our discreet 12-note division. I think Varèse was trying a similar thing. Xenakis also seems to conceive of music as big masses of "stuff" to be moved around.
The piano, with its discreet division of pitches, lends itself to being "pitch" oriented, but in Boulez' piano sonatas, I hear him using clusters of just "sounds."

And Ligeti, too; his main focus in the Etudes seems to be rhythm. In fact, I see much of Ligeti as being more rhythmic than pitch-focussed. Not rhythm in a traditional sense, but in seeing how "coincidences" occur within a field of two separate rhythmic threads. The metronome pieces exploit this coincident/phase effect. The Etudes, as well, require the pianist to play completely separate rhythms with each hand.

So, this juxtaposing of rhythmic lines is vaguely similar to minimalism, only freer, with the bonds loosened. I see the "irrational" rhythms created thusly (2:3, 7:5, etc.) to be Ligeti's connection Boulez/serialism, but leaving more open to chance, like Cage; since these rhythmic encounters are allowed to "happen" within certain parameters.

It's as if Ligeti has eschewed the total control of serialism's "digital" and discreet dimension, as exemplified by Boulez, in favor of an "analog" approach using curves, going "between the lines."

Which brings us to the next dilemma: if we _completely_ reject tonality and its legacy, the how do we reconcile the fact that Ligeti still uses traditional forms, such as string quartet, concerto, Piano Etude, etc? Does Ligeti feel "connected" to this tradition of tonal music, or does he simply want to "destroy it" from within?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

millionrainbows said:


> Speaking generally, it seems to me that the distinguishing characteristic of the major portion of Ligeti's output (except the piano works) is that he does not deal with "pitches" per se, but chooses to create aggregates or "masses" of sound which are essentially un-pitched. That is, these 'blocks of sound' cover larger (and smaller) areas than our discreet 12-note division.


That's micropolyphony for ya. :tiphat:


----------



## quack

I used to find it difficult to listen to really quiet music, but then I found the volume control, changed my life! Don't worry, tastes change i'm sure you'll find your way back into tonal seas. You can still enjoy Lohengrin in the intervening:





No matter how much I read up on tonal and atonal music I still don't understand the difference really. No, that's ok, there's really no need for you to try and teach me, I think i'll use that bit of my brain to learn something fun, like how to make soufflé. Is there any atonal pop, or rock?


----------



## neoshredder

Atonal Metal would be cool. Heavily distorted guitars with dissonance.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Atonal Metal would be cool. Heavily distorted guitars with dissonance.


I prefer heavy distorted oboes with dissonance.


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That's micropolyphony for ya.


But if Ligeti's "pitch material" is constantly moving, doing glissandos and such, then how can we make any analogies with "polyphony" or "microtones" when no single pitch is ever 'defined' as a stable frequency? It seems to me that Ligeti is only interested in sound, not musical "pitch." Then again, that's a best-case scenario for the case that Ligeti somehow "embodies" the case made by ComposerOfAvanteGarde, that his dislike for "tonal" music is somehow satisfied & exemplified by Ligeti. I'm not sure Ligeti would appreciate that, and after listening to his String Quartet No. 1, I hear a lot of "musical gestures" which use normally notated pitches. Does this mean that ComposerOfAvanteGarde would only find solace from his dreaded "tonal music" in later Ligeti? Certainly not in the "Etudes," as the piano is so discreetly pitched. Plus, I hear "musical pitch-gestures" in those, also.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

millionrainbows said:


> But if Ligeti's "pitch material" is constantly moving, doing glissandos and such, then how can we make any analogies with "polyphony" or "microtones" when no single pitch is ever 'defined' as a stable frequency? It seems to me that Ligeti is only interested in sound, not musical "pitch." Then again, that's a best-case scenario for the case that Ligeti somehow "embodies" the case made by ComposerOfAvanteGarde, that his dislike for "tonal" music is somehow satisfied & exemplified by Ligeti. I'm not sure Ligeti would appreciate that, and after listening to his String Quartet No. 1, I hear a lot of "musical gestures" which use normally notated pitches. Does this mean that ComposerOfAvanteGarde would only find solace from his dreaded "tonal music" in later Ligeti? Certainly not in the "Etudes," as the piano is so discreetly pitched. Plus, I hear "musical pitch-gestures" in those, also.


*Ligeti's* music is satisfying to my ears because it isn't blatantly tonal and doesn't follow the strict rules of melody and harmony like the stuff of the old composers.


----------



## Clementine

I agree, sometimes it can be difficult to listen to. Today I listened to Mozart, Schumann, Debussy, Vaughan Williams, and Prokofiev, and with a slight headache discovered that a dose of Corigliano and Ligeti was just what I needed.


----------



## Vesteralen

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't need a doctor. I just need someone to explain to me why people like tonality so much.


Why should anyone have to explain it to you?

There are a lot of things I like that I don't have to explain to anyone.

Just as you don't have to explain why you like atonal music. Enjoy it. Who really needs a reason?

(I'm assuming that you're not so childish as to have just started this thread to imply that something's wrong with everyone who appreciates tonality.......Then again, maybe you did.  )


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Vesteralen said:


> (I'm assuming that you're not so childish as to have just started this thread to imply that something's wrong with everyone who appreciates tonality.......Then again, maybe you did.  )


:devil:

.
.


----------



## Renaissance

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7279626/Audiences-hate-modern-classical-music-because-their-brains-cannot-cope.html#


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Renaissance said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7279626/Audiences-hate-modern-classical-music-because-their-brains-cannot-cope.html#


Dafuq did I just read


----------



## Renaissance

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Dafuq did I just read


That the average listener can't find patterns in atonal music and this leads him into confusion. :angel: Apparently this is not the case with you. As you said, you perceive old tonal music as boring and predictable. Maybe it has something to do with the cognitive processes happening in your brain. Maybe you are a genius !


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Perhaps he has one of those brains ala Young Frankenstein: "Abby Normal".:lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Renaissance said:


> That the average listener can't find patterns in atonal music and this leads him into confusion. :angel: Apparently this is not the case with you. As you said, you perceive old tonal music as boring and predictable. Maybe it has something to do with the cognitive processes happening in your brain. Maybe you are a genius !


That's the thing with patterns. Once you know them, there's no point being fascinated by them anymore. Patterns are predictable once you know what its basis is. I like the unpredictable! I throw myself in the deep end and go for the shock! Although I wouldn't call atonality a shock to me because I have always been intrigued by it for as long as I can remember. I have never hated atonal music, but I have hated predictable music.

A genius? Perhaps.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Renaissance said:


> That the average listener can't find patterns in atonal music and this leads him into confusion. :angel: Apparently this is not the case with you. As you said, you perceive old tonal music as boring and predictable. Maybe it has something to do with the cognitive processes happening in your brain. Maybe you are a genius !


A genius? No, just a too young guy who skipped some stages and really doesn't know enough, I lived this too. For 8 years I said NO to tonal music, not finding anything else (worth), I decided to go backwards in time and I started seriously to discover great IXX century's music. I like both, tonal and no tonal, but I am very picky in both cases. I like mainly opera. I "was the same kind of genius", when I was 14 I bought Wozzeck and Lulu... I started collecting all works from the second Viennese school. I am still doing that, my "new born" is Ernst Krenek. At the same time, I went deeper into Wagner, Mozart, Schreker,
Zemlinksy... I have just increased my "repertoire", I feel I know more than before. Actually I consider myself as a specialist-dilettante in Russian music, mainly opera. Finally, I never was a genious, just a regular guy looking for something new, I found it long time ago and now, even old stuff is new for me (e.g. Awesome Monteverdi). I call that REDESCOVERING. We always have something new to learn, we stop learning when we die...

God, I am still so ignorant!

Martin, ignorant and peaceful


----------



## Renaissance

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I like both, tonal and no tonal, but I am very picky in both cases. I like mainly opera. I "was the same kind of genius", when I was 14 I bought Wozzeck and Lulu... I started collecting all works from the second Viennese school. I am still doing that, my "new born" is Ernst Krenek. At the same time, I went deeper into Wagner, Mozart, Schreker,
> Zemlinksy... I have just increased my "repertoire", I feel I know more than before. Actually I consider myself as a specialist-dilettante in Russian music, mainly opera. Finally, I never was a genious, just a regular guy looking for something new, I found it long time ago and now, even old stuff is new for me (e.g. Awesome Monteverdi). I call that REDESCOVERING. We always have something new to learn, we stop learning when we die...
> 
> God, I am still so ignorant!
> 
> Martin, ignorant and peaceful


There is always place for discovering. I like both types (tonal and atonal) too, in fact it doesn't matter technique, era, composer, it is all just music, and thanks god I am an ignorant. There are many people who can't enjoy a Beethoven, or a Mozart because they know too much about the music theory behind them ! I think it is a pity. Ignorance makes us happy. Being an ignorant I can enjoy all things that sound good to my ears.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Renaissance said:


> There is always place for discovering. I like both types (tonal and atonal) too, in fact it doesn't matter technique, era, composer, it is all just music, ant thanks god I am an ignorant. There are many people who can't enjoy a Beethoven, or a Mozart because they know too much about the musica theory behind them ! I think it is a pity. Ignorance makes us happy. Being an ignorant I can enjoy all things that sounds good to my ears.


I appreciate the technical mastery of composers such as Beethoven and Mozart, but my brain wants the unpredictable. Rondo-sonata form finales, double fugues and perfect cadences are _not_ for me.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Renaissance said:


> There is always place for discovering. I like both types (tonal and atonal) too, in fact it doesn't matter technique, era, composer, it is all just music, and thanks god I am an ignorant. There are many people who can't enjoy a Beethoven, or a Mozart because they know too much about the music theory behind them ! I think it is a pity. Ignorance makes us happy. Being an ignorant I can enjoy all things that sounds good to my ears.


This is just BRILLIANT, you deserve 10 LIKES, i could just give you one.

Martin, sad


----------



## Renaissance

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Martin, sad


Well, if Martin is sad, that only means that he is not an ignorant


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I appreciate the technical mastery of composers such as Beethoven and Mozart, but my brain wants the unpredictable. Rondo-sonata form finales, double fugues and perfect cadences are _not_ for me.


Have you heard the Myaskovsky I posted? I guess not.

Unpredictable! You are not unpredictable at all! On the contrary, you are extremely predictable... I play chess, not very well, but enough to see that the girl is going to win.

A show off that becomes off show... Double LOL. Congrats Martin

P.S don't forget " you are a Genius!"


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Have you heard the Myaskovsky I posted? I guess not.
> 
> Unpredictable! You are not unpredictable at all! On the contrary, you are extremely predictable... I play chess, not very well, but enough to see that the girl is going to win.
> 
> A show off that becomes off show... Double LOL. Congrats Martin


I know that I am extremely predictable, but the music that I find interesting is certainly not predictable like a divertimento by Mozart.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Renaissance said:


> Well, if Martin is sad, that only means that he is not an ignorant


Alas! I am because I know 0.001 % of things I would want to know.... If just my memory were better, because I read a lot, I can't remember ten percent of what I read!

Martin, still ignorant


----------



## myaskovsky2002

BTW... I can't see the LIKE any more... Maybe the moderators cancelled this posinility just for me?

Martin,worried and puzzled


----------



## jani

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Alas! I am because I know 0.001 % of things I would want to know.... If just my memory were better, because I read a lot, I can't remember ten percent of what I read!
> 
> Martin, still ignorant


Have you tried to learn speed reading?!?! I have heard that when you learn it you remember much more about what you read.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

jani said:


> Have you tried to learn speed reading?!?! I have heard that when you learn it you remember much more about what you read.


No, I haven't.. I am very analytical and I read very deeply, I suppose this technique won't avoid me that, I have no idea. Did you learn that, did it work for you?

Martin


----------



## jani

myaskovsky2002 said:


> No, I haven't.. I am very analytical and I read very deeply, I suppose this technique won't avoid me that, I have no idea. Did you learn that, did it work for you?
> 
> Martin


I haven't tried it but this video made me curious


----------



## Andreas

Renaissance said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7279626/Audiences-hate-modern-classical-music-because-their-brains-cannot-cope.html#


Makes sense. I can't back this up with scientific evidence, but I've always felt that when a piece begins with, say, a c major chord, all the other remaining pitches of the c major scale are activated as well, they're on stand by and your brain sort of expects them to pop up at any time.

A certain key seems like the voice of a certain person. If you brother starts talking to you, you don't expect to suddenly hear you sister's voice coming out of his mouth. Modulations from one key to another are smooth transitions, especially if the keys are a fourth or fifth apart, since the pitches are almost identical.

For me, though, I find that Schoenberg for instance makes up for the unpredictability of the pitches by the strong sense of rhythmic continuity of his music. My guess is that arhythmic music would sound much more random and off-putting than atonal music. The rhythmic quality of Ligeti's etudes almost makes it seem tonal to me. Or is it perhaps because he's not avoiding consonances where they happen to occur within his patterns?


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Elementary needs, I couldn't see it completely, I had to eat (I am an animal), in a half an hour I have to go fetch my son ho lives in Montreal.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

July is an important month.

1 Canada
4 USA
9 Argentina
14 France
18 Uruguay

These are the dates I remember.

Martin


----------



## Petwhac

Andreas said:


> For me, though, I find that Schoenberg for instance makes up for the unpredictability of the pitches by the strong sense of rhythmic continuity of his music. My guess is that arhythmic music would sound much more random and off-putting than atonal music. The rhythmic quality of Ligeti's etudes almost makes it seem tonal to me. Or is it perhaps because he's not avoiding consonances where they happen to occur within his patterns?


I would agree with this. I think rhythm (with either an implied or actual pulse which can be regular or irregular) is the most fundamental element for comprehensibility in music.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I know that I am extremely predictable, but the music that I find interesting is certainly not predictable like a divertimento by Mozart.


Listen to Euripides, complicated people get involved in complicated problems.

Martin and Euripides


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Listen to Euripides, complicated people get involved in complicated problems.
> 
> Martin and Euripides


I'll look into it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Petwhac said:


> I would agree with this. I think rhythm (with either an implied or actual pulse which can be regular or irregular) is the most fundamental element for comprehensibility in music.


I think the whole topic of this thread as stated in the OP was that I can't stand patterns used in _tonal_ structure. I'm not bothered by rhythm. I am as much intrigued by the rhythms in Eine Kleine Nachtmusik as I am with the rhythms in Carter's String Quartets.


----------



## neoshredder

I need my share of comfort music. A good mix of tonal and atonal music is what I'm comfortable with. I wouldn't want to go without either.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I must say I think this is rather just one of my phases (like my feminist phases and Michael Nyman phases and Studio Ghibli phases and Doctor Who phases etc.) and in maybe even less than a few weeks I wouldn't be surprised if I was going on and on about the sheer brilliance of Mozart's flawlessly written symphony no. 41.


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> I would agree with this. I think rhythm (with either an implied or actual pulse which can be regular or irregular) is the most fundamental element for comprehensibility in music.


I agree, Petwhac, and I always use this example: if I banged out "Mary Had A Little Lamb" with my fist on a piano, it would still be recognizable, even though the pitches are way off. Rhythm is a more important part of melody, as far as comprehension goes.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I think the whole topic of this thread as stated in the OP was that I can't stand patterns used in _tonal_ structure. I'm not bothered by rhythm. I am as much intrigued by the rhythms in Eine Kleine Nachtmusik as I am with the rhythms in Carter's String Quartets.


This work, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, is QC. QC= quite corny

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I don't agree with Petwhac, rythm sometimes vary a great deal, Stravinsky had drastic changes.
However his music is quite understandable. I will post a video no one will see, natürlich. Peine perdue.






For me this is a master piece. Gergiev did a great job here! And the piano player is awesome.

Martin, jumping


----------



## Petwhac

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I don't agree with Petwhac, rythm sometimes vary a great deal, Stravinsky had drastic changes.
> However his music is quite understandable. I will post a video no one will see, natürlich. Peine perdue.
> 
> For me this is a master piece. Gergiev did a great job here! And the piano player is awesome.
> 
> Martin, jumping


You must have misunderstood me. I agree that is a great performance of a wonderful piece. At it's heart is syncopated rhythm against a pulse which is trademark of Stravinsky. Changes of time signature do not interupt the rhythmic flow and because he also has not abandoned tonal relationships the music is twice fold propelled forward in the breathtaking and wholly original fashion that is the genius of the master.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Petwhac said:


> You must have misunderstood me. I agree that is a great performance of a wonderful piece. At it's heart is syncopated rhythm against a pulse which is trademark of Stravinsky. Changes of time signature do not interupt the rhythmic flow and because he also has not abandoned tonal relationships the music is twice fold propelled forward in the breathtaking and wholly original fashion that is the genius of the master.


Great, pal!

Martin


----------



## millionrainbows

"Tonal" is too general. What _I'm_ tired of is Romanticism. I've been listening to older music lately, like chant and early Purcell. I'm tired of Romantic gesture.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

millionrainbows said:


> "Tonal" is too general. What _I'm_ tired of is Romanticism. I've been listening to older music lately, like chant and early Purcell. I'm tired of Romantic gesture.


Romanticism gets on my nerves after a while. Other than Wagner of course. 
:tiphat:


----------



## science

In the past week or so I've listened to 73 hours and just over 5 minutes of recorded music, not counting live music (Prokofiev's _Romeo and Juliet_) or DVDs (Chin's _Alice in Wonderland_).

In that time - classifying as inclusively as possible, so that Beethoven, Mompou, Milhaud, Enescu, Atterberg, Greek songwriters like Hadjidakis and Theodorakis, and early Schoenberg all count as "Romantic" - I've listened to 17 hours and 39 minutes of "Romantic music."

24.1%

I could certainly listen to less if it even began to grate on me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

millionrainbows said:


> "Tonal" is too general. What _I'm_ tired of is Romanticism. I've been listening to older music lately, like chant and early Purcell. I'm tired of Romantic gesture.


I've been finding that I am becoming more tolerant to tonality now. Romanticism (other than Wagner) I can't tolerate at the moment, but early Stravinsky is sounding nice. A little difficult at times (the diatonic melodies and consonant harmonies mainly) and I prefer the more dissonant sections more enjoyable. Polytonality I am beginning to enjoy again.


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've been finding that I am becoming more tolerant to tonality now. Romanticism (other than Wagner) I can't tolerate at the moment, but early Stravinsky is sounding nice. A little difficult at times (the diatonic melodies and consonant harmonies mainly) and I prefer the more dissonant sections more enjoyable. Polytonality I am beginning to enjoy again.


Generally speaking, I think the underlying impetus to much of the friction amongst music lovers is the same identity syndrome that I see in other areas of human activity, such as religion and politics, and I'll attempt to explain this.

Liking atonal, serial, or avant-garde music, or being religious, or having conservative taste in certain matters is not the exclusive domain of anyone, whatever they call themselves, nor should it, inversely, define anyone who does *not* hold the same views or like serial music. Modern music is not the exclusive domain of anyone, whatever they call themselves.

In politics, this is just the same as *religion*, which is not the exclusive domain of Republicans (or "independents," whatever they call themselves). Republicans such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson have tried to make it seem like *religion* is their exclusive domain, and that you can't be "pro-women's rights" or *gay* or a Buddhist, and still qualify as being "religious" and a good, moral person. This is the worst kind of propaganda, since it pretends to define a person's identity.
Yet, this method is a handy tool for creating the _perception_ that one is a member of an exclusive group; it defines one's identity, while at the same time defining the *other's* identitity by default, as being excluded from the club.

For example, country music is liked by liberal Obama-supporters too, and is not the exclusive property of conservatives and Republicans. I can be a "hippie" and still enjoy Merle Haggard's "Okie From Muskogee."

Also, a person can like George Jones and dislike John Wayne, and be a liberal Obama supporter at the same time.

Taste in music, or being conservative or religious is not the exclusive domain of anybody, regardless of their political outlook, sexual orientation, or personal quirks.

I'm saying this just in case anyone out there assumes that their musical taste somehow reflects or defines their political or religious identity to other people, or worse yet, that their taste is somehow their entitled, exclusive domain because of other "identity" or socially-defined factors.

This quest to protect and define one's identity, as well as define those who hold opposite views, seems to me to be the main driving force in all matters of *touting, selling, broadcasting, or persuading others * in regard to one's musical taste, especially when it involves "not liking" certain kinds of music. This "not liking" is really a hidden attempt to define those who do like certain music, and it reinforces the identity of the 'disliker,' who apparently is too insecure to be defined simply by their preferences.

Like what you like, and hate what you hate; you have my blessing! I'd rather hear about what you *like,* though, not what you *hate,* for obvious reasons.


----------



## neoshredder

I think what makes atonal so unique is that it is hard to remember a piece. Thus you won't have to be bothered with getting annoyed with certain melodies within the song. Everything is foreign. I would say rhythm plays a bigger importance to do this as well as dynamics.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've been finding that I am becoming more tolerant to tonality now. Romanticism (other than Wagner) I can't tolerate at the moment, but early Stravinsky is sounding nice. A little difficult at times (the diatonic melodies and consonant harmonies mainly) and I prefer the more dissonant sections more enjoyable. Polytonality I am beginning to enjoy again.


Yeah I would stick with early 20th century music like Bartok for tonality. I'm loving Bartok's String Quartets right now.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Romanticism gets on my nerves after a while. Other than Wagner of course.
> :tiphat:


Nothing but mediocrity gets on my nerves. I am open minded then I am rich.

Martin, rich


----------



## myaskovsky2002

neoshredder said:


> I think what makes atonal so unique is that it is hard to remember a piece. Thus you won't have to be bothered with getting annoyed with certain melodies within the song. Everything is foreign. I would say rhythm plays a bigger importance to do this as well as dynamics.


I am sorry, buT it is not true, maybe you have to listen to it more times... Schönberg said once, they could never whistle my music, alas, he was wrong. I could.

Martin, whistler


----------



## NightHawk

I believe any composer who wants to abandon 'yesterday's music' and inscribe a new point of departure for his/her own creative spirit is a healthy, even necessary thing.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Thank you! I love those pieces! You saved me from all that tonal music that everyone else was recommending!


----------



## Ukko

NightHawk said:


> I believe any composer who wants to abandon 'yesterday's music' and inscribe a new point of departure for his/her own creative spirit is a healthy, even necessary thing.


Um, "thing"?

_I_ believe that your belief is also mine, with the stipulation that the "point of departure" should be established in the music, at least until your audience is familiar with your weirdness.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

The more important source of weirdness is snobbism

Martin, simple


----------



## Petwhac

NightHawk said:


> I believe any composer who wants to abandon 'yesterday's music' and inscribe a new point of departure for his/her own creative spirit is a healthy, even necessary thing.


'Yesterday's music' is Cage, Stockhuausen, Boulez, Partch, Berio, Ligeti, Penderecki, Nono, Maderna, Scelsi, The Specturalists, New Complexity, Minimalism etc. 
I am greatly looking forward to new composers who want to abandon 'yesterday's music' and create something new. Ades and MacMillan don't cut it either.
I am bored of note clusters, glissandi, 'interesting' and 'stimulating' timbres, 15 notes played in the time of 7 divided by the sum of the square of the other 2 movements.
And believe me I've listened to plenty.
Ligeti and Berio are Ok in moderation.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

Next up is exquisite corpse for music (or has that been done already...?)


----------



## aleazk

Petwhac said:


> 'Yesterday's music' is Cage, Stockhuausen, Boulez, Partch, Berio, Ligeti, Penderecki, Nono, Maderna, Scelsi, The Specturalists, New Complexity, Minimalism etc.
> I am greatly looking forward to new composers who want to abandon 'yesterday's music' and create something new. Ades and MacMillan don't cut it either.
> I am bored of note clusters, glissandi, 'interesting' and 'stimulating' timbres, 15 notes played in the time of 7 divided by the sum of the square of the other 2 movements.
> And believe me I've listened to plenty.
> Ligeti and Berio are Ok in moderation.


...... but those are the best things!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

aleazk said:


> ...... but those are the best things!


Yes and we shouldn't ignore them. Us modern composers should evolve our style from the generations of composers before us and create something new ourselves based on the fact that all this stuff has happened before us.


----------



## neoshredder

Being the latest on the cutting edge is what I want to hear out of the new Composers. Borrowing ideas but also creating some yourself.


----------



## Andreas

Petwhac said:


> 'Yesterday's music' is Cage, Stockhuausen, Boulez, Partch, Berio, Ligeti, Penderecki, Nono, Maderna, Scelsi, The Specturalists, New Complexity, Minimalism etc.
> I am greatly looking forward to new composers who want to abandon 'yesterday's music' and create something new.


One wonders: somebody sits down with a pencil and a blank page of sheet music paper. What can they possibly do that's new? And not just new for the sake of being new, but new with a purpose. What a challenge!

Tonal, atonal, twelve-tone, serial, cluster, aleatoric, are we getting desperate yet?

Technology is not being of much help either. Magnetic tape, the synthesizer, the computer, yes. But now? Or perhaps these media haven't really been explored to their fullest potential yet?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The world needs a new school of composers. The last two _good_ ones were the French Spectralists and some time before that the Second Viennese School. Maybe next several composers can get together and combine serialism with spectralism for new ideas. :lol:


----------



## neoshredder

Try to find all the new composers nowadays on youtube. Try to go step above them. Yes I know it's not easy. Best to not waste energy thinking about everything has already been done. Play the music you think audiences will go for in the 21st century. Be futuristic. Technological. Use the electronics available. Go way out there. I don't know what else to say.


----------



## neoshredder

Kaija Saariaho is problably the latest Composer worth checking out. Unsuk Chin as well.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Thanks, neoshredder! I would love to be a step ahead of all the other composers of today. What a great idea!


----------



## aleazk

Andreas said:


> One wonders: somebody sits down with a pencil and a blank page of sheet music paper. What can they possibly do that's new? And not just new for the sake of being new, but new with a purpose. What a challenge!
> 
> Tonal, atonal, twelve-tone, serial, cluster, aleatoric, are we getting desperate yet?
> 
> Technology is not being of much help either. Magnetic tape, the synthesizer, the computer, yes. But now? Or perhaps these media haven't really been explored to their fullest potential yet?


well, yes, this will always be a valid question, and posed in that way seems very difficult, but I think that talented people always will find their way. If we, normal people, could imagine the new exciting developments in arts, we would all be artists . There will always be surprises.


----------



## Vesteralen

If you have something to say in music, say it.

If your goal is just to be different, you are not going to make much of a mark.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Vesteralen said:


> If you have something to say in music, say it.
> 
> If your goal is just to be different, you are not going to make much of a mark.


What if I have to say "I want to be different?" That's not the reason why I compose anyway, I compose because I want to add some stuff to the world. I don't "want to be different" as such, I'd rather say that I want to be original in my approach to music composition. I want to write atonal music _and_ tonal music in a modern context and reflecting what my current thoughts are.


----------



## aleazk

There's an accepted view that says that if you are very interested in originality, you will end doing crap and not art. That's not true. I mean, yes, many times ended in crap, not all experiments in art must end in something interesting (after all, they are experiments, there's a place for the unexpected in them). But when they result in something interesting, you have art in one of its most powerful expressions. So, it's like some kind of game: you need to play to know how it will end.


----------



## Vesteralen

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What if I have to say "I want to be different?" That's not the reason why I compose anyway, I compose because I want to add some stuff to the world. I don't "want to be different" as such, I'd rather say that I want to be original in my approach to music composition. I want to write atonal music _and_ tonal music in a modern context and reflecting what my current thoughts are.


Then, I'd say "Go fot it!"


----------



## Vesteralen

aleazk said:


> There's an accepted view that says that if you are very interested in originality, you will end doing crap and not art. That's not true. I mean, yes, many times ended in crap, not all experiments in art must end in something interesting (after all, they are experiments, there's a place for the unexpected in them). But when they result in something interesting, you have art in one of its most powerful expressions. So, it's like some kind of game: you need to play to know how it will end.


No problem with that. It's just that there is a difference between just wanting to make a name for yourself and actually having the need to express yourself in music. If you want to express yourself in tonal music molded into established structures, fine. You're going to have a tough time making it in a field that a lot of people view as filled up already. If you want to express yourself in the newest ways possible, fine. It still isn't going to be easy to make an impact, but if you've got something to say, say it.


----------



## DeepR

The logical next step is more electronic music. I laugh at these modern composers trying to create exotic sounds and noises with traditional instruments. It's ugly and can be done far better with electronic means.


----------



## jani

DeepR said:


> The logical next step is more electronic music. I laugh at these modern composers trying to create exotic sounds and noises with traditional instruments. It's ugly and can be done far better with electronic means.


Some pro composers should compose a concerto for electric guitar.


----------



## Petwhac

jani said:


> Some pro composers should compose a concerto for electric guitar.


There's one by David Bedford.

Actually, I thought there was but I just searched it and it didn't show.

Mmmm.
I think there are quite a few others, but I haven't heard them.


----------



## jani

After a quick search i was able to find this!
I am listening to it while i am posting!


----------



## Guest

Andreas said:


> One wonders: somebody sits down with a pencil and a blank page of sheet music paper. What can they possibly do that's new?


Well, if they're using pencils and blank sheet music paper, perhaps very little.

Like the request for an electric guitar _concerto._

Just asking for a "concerto" is to look backwards in time.

Something like this is more like it:


----------



## jani

some guy said:


> Well, if they're using pencils and blank sheet music paper, perhaps very little.
> 
> Like the request for an electric guitar _concerto._
> 
> Just asking for a "concerto" is to look backwards in time.
> 
> Something like this is more like it:


I just wasted three minutes of my life.


----------



## Petwhac

I get that sound in my studio without trying to!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Я не люблю этот груп


Мартин


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The world needs a new school of composers. The last two _good_ ones were the French Spectralists and some time before that the Second Viennese School. Maybe next several composers can get together and combine serialism with spectralism for new ideas. :lol:


I'm looking for some more things to be done with microtonality & alternate tunings, like some of the things Wendy Carlos did on "Beauty In the Beast." However, this will probably best be realized with electronic keyboards and computers. It seems like a lot of the major areas of Western orchestral sound have been staked out, and all that is geared for ET. Like the Historically informed movement, different instruments must be used. Does the HIP movement qualify as 'new school?'


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

HIP is old school, but still awesome. It's been around since the fifties but started growing popular in the seventies did it not?


----------



## Philip

These anti-threads are brilliant.


----------



## neoshredder

This thread might be more accurate if it said 'I find it difficult to listen to Romantic Tonal Music'. But Atonal is cool no doubt. More should give it a try.


----------



## Andreas

I used to be sceptical of polystylism, but now I look at it differently.

I used to think polystylism simply meant rehashing old ideas and mixing them up instead of creating something new. It seemed that with polystylism, one admitted that the end of the road was reached. A cheap cop-out.

Now, though, I feel that there might be some truth to the end-of-the-road idea after all. And that polystylism perhaps only means that composers now realize that they have a full arsenal of means and methods at their disposal.

Now, composers can go nuts combining all these different styles in all different kinds of ways. And weren't Bach's Mass in B Minor or the Goldberg Variations polystylistic works, too?

I'm still not quite sure if this is the only way out. And polystylism certainly shouldn't be an excuse for creating meaningless random collages. But I'd think it's possible to create a totally unique style not by figuring out something completely New and Unheard Of but by picking and choosing and arranging.

Sorry if this was off-topic.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Schnittke is cool.  I think polystylism may get boring quickly though nowadays. I'd much rather see new ways of approaching composition than old ones. Even polystylism today is a bet rehash (not that it's rehash already! :lol


----------



## BurningDesire

DeepR said:


> The logical next step is more electronic music. I laugh at these modern composers trying to create exotic sounds and noises with traditional instruments. It's ugly and can be done far better with electronic means.


First of all, its not ugly, and its not "done far better" with electronic instruments, its just different.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

DeepR said:


> The logical next step is more electronic music. I laugh at these modern composers trying to create exotic sounds and noises with traditional instruments. It's ugly and can be done far better with electronic means.


Well, your opinion is *WRONG. *


----------



## Petwhac

Andreas said:


> I used to be sceptical of polystylism, but now I look at it differently.
> 
> I used to think polystylism simply meant rehashing old ideas and mixing them up instead of creating something new. It seemed that with polystylism, one admitted that the end of the road was reached. A cheap cop-out.
> 
> Now, though, I feel that there might be some truth to the end-of-the-road idea after all. And that polystylism perhaps only means that composers now realize that they have a full arsenal of means and methods at their disposal.
> 
> Now, composers can go nuts combining all these different styles in all different kinds of ways. And weren't Bach's Mass in B Minor or the Goldberg Variations polystylistic works, too?
> 
> I'm still not quite sure if this is the only way out. And polystylism certainly shouldn't be an excuse for creating meaningless random collages. But I'd think it's possible to create a totally unique style not by figuring out something completely New and Unheard Of but by picking and choosing and arranging.
> 
> Sorry if this was off-topic.


Today our ears are bombarded daily from the moment we are aware, by pop songs, jingles, film and TV background music (which can be tonal or atonal, western or non western) games soundtracks, electronic sounds, orchestral and chamber music and sound design.

Whether or not it is possible to create a COHERENT musical language or style that incorporates all those influences and that can be used intuitively, I am sceptical. 
Composers have to do their own thing and fight for attention among the clique of enthusiasts for their particular style.

The only thing I require from a new work is that it draws me in enough to want to revisit it and that it has it's own particular something. It doesn't have to be novel or ground-breaking but it has to have some unique quality that gives it an identity of it's own. Stravinsky and Poulenc, to name two famous 'neo-classical' composers created works that were wholly original and unique to themselves and who's 'voice' is instantly recognizable.

What we want is excellence isn't it?


----------



## brianwalker

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I think I'll turn _Lohengrin_ off and listen to _Le Grand Macabre_ instead. Much more pleasing to my ears.
> 
> Why is tonality so hard to listen to?!?! I can't tolerate consonance any more!!! HELP ME!!!!!!


You are being insincere.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

N


brianwalker said:


> You are being insincere.


Insincere? No... We have the right word for this in Russian. Дурак.

Мартин


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Why is tonality so hard to listen to?!?! I can't tolerate consonance any more!!! HELP ME!!!!!!


Try running the signal of all your tonal music through an Eventide Harmonizer set at a minor second. This way, everything will sound dissonant.


----------



## neoshredder

The problem is tonal music just doesn't come natural to the ear.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tonality is based on one note and its subsidiary harmonics; everything is related to this one note, or root. 
Serialism and its offshoots relate notes locally to other notes, not all to one note. 

So metaphorically speaking, tonality is a Newtonian gravitational idea, in which "God" or the "1" is at the center, perceived by the "faith" of the ear, which hears "In the image" of the "1" harmonic; 

Serialism removes the underlying assumption of "1" and creates a universe in which all notes are equal, decentered, creating localized areas of gravity, but by and large a "floating" world, in which "identity" and "being" (factors of "being in time") have been replaced by quantity, and "being in time is disregarded." 

What is identity replaced with? Structures, events, simultanities, the non-linear space of the ear in darkness.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> So metaphorically speaking, tonality is a Newtonian gravitational idea, in which "God" or the "1" is at the center, perceived by the "faith" of the ear, which hears "In the image" of the "1" harmonic...What is identity replaced with? Structures, events, simultanities, the non-linear space of the ear in darkness.


I can't believe that two people fell for that ridiculous metaphor!


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> I can't believe that two people fell for that ridiculous metaphor!


haha, a couple of hours earlier, when I was reading your post, I was going to ask what the hell did you mean with that nonsense. At least you are not like Babbitt and his 'five-dimensional musical space', in analogy with spacetime...


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> haha, a couple of hours earlier, when I was reading your post, I was going to ask what the hell did you mean with that nonsense. At least you are not like Babbitt and his 'five-dimensional musical space', in analogy with spacetime...


Ahh, but with your Babbitt reference, you have revealed a crucial point.

Actually, at one time, Man's scientific concepts of the universe, as in pre-Renaissance ideas of the Earth being at the center of the solar system, reflected analogous ideas in his religion, i.e., that Man & God are at the center, and that Man is "special" in this regard. In fact, many "scientific" ideas had to be congruent with Church doctrine; hence, Galileo's assertion that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system was seen as heresy. This is historical fact. If science was seen through the filter of religion, then why not art and music?

However, I have seen fundamentalist thinkers run with these ideas, asserting that Serialism reflected a "Humanist" or secular philosophy, even atheistic, in which the absence of tonal gravity was equated with a "Godless" philisophy. They run with this theory as if religion still played a crucial role in other, non-religious areas such as music and art.

We have since come to realize that science, like music, has its own agenda, and its own reasons, which have nothing to do with religion.

What about art, and music in particular? Art was once intimately entwined with religion (as science was), and was used as a tool for religious reasons.

Is this the reason so much resistance is given to "modern" music, which seems to have taken-off in a similar direction as science, with its own mathematical models and language? Do traditionalists still see music as entwined with, if not religion, then with an older paradigm in which Man's "spirit" is at the center of focus?

In other words, should music be a "spiritual" pursuit, and is this why Milton Babbitt's "Five-dimensional musical space" seen as way too scientific, way too "unconcerned" with Man's spirit?


----------



## mmsbls

When I read your post, I immediately thought of a famous hoax (in certain specific circles) of postmodern literary ideas by the physicist, Alan Sokal. Gravity (general relativity) played a major part in that one as well. Although his was much more elaborate, much of your wording was eerily similar.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> What do you think? Do different approaches to art reflect an entire ideological belief system?


This is interesting, and I think it is the key question with regard to Babbitt's beliefs. Maybe in this form:

Do different ideological belief systems in music (serialism vs the rest of music) reflect an entire new approach to art?

My answer is: I don't think so. Babbitt says that if the process of composition is well done, that is a criteria for liking the work of art, the piece composed by this method. So, basically, he's saying that yes, a different ideological belief system in music like serialism reflects an entire new approach to art. As I said before, Babbitt says that he considers unfair the criticism towards modern music, particularly that which says it is 'too technical'. He argues that in the field of mathematics, the extreme technification is seen as something 'admirable' by the great public, but in music as something 'decadent'. He's clearly interested in mathematics, he cites a lot of concepts from physics and mathematics (for example, he talks about 'musical events' which form a 'five dimensional space' because each event can be represented or parametrized by five parameters, pitch-class, register, dynamic, duration and timbre; this is a clear paralelism with general relativity, in which events, which are points in space at an instant of time, form a four-dimensional space, spacetime, because each event can be locally parametrized by four real numbers, this is the basic idea of spacetime as a differentiable manifold, defined as a set locally homeomorphic to R^n and 'smooth'). He thinks that music is no different from mathematics and that a 'layman' should not say 'I don't like that music' in the same way as he can't say 'I don't like that mathematical theorem', i.e., the value of the theorem does not depend on taste.
It's a view that I don't share at all. First, those paralelisms with mathematics are of a very superficial nature. 'musical events' form a 'five dimensional space' because each event can be represented or parametrized by five parameters, pitch-class, register, dynamic, duration and timbre, that's only a very loose similitude with the definition of a differentiable manifold, that's not mathematics. On the other hand, I think that the whole idea of music as a 'science' is ridiculous. Music is an art. As Aldous Huxley said, the difference between art and science is that science deals with those similar sensations that everybody feels toward the same thing (for example, everybody feels the heat of fire), while art deals with much more complex sensations, where the subjectivity has a great role. Sure, you can do whatever you want, but do not claim that composing music is like demonstrating a theorem. I mean, if music has this capability for exploring the deep subjectivity of a person, why deny it in the wake of the value of the method of composition. I think that's one of the huge differences between Ligeti and his serialist friends like Boulez, for example. While the serialists were talking about mathematics and the action of a homeomorphism in the five dimensional musical space, Ligeti was composing awesome music like his Requiem or Atmospheres, inspired, as Ligeti said, in the fear of death, the human being confronted with the eternity, etc. Ligeti also used mathematics, but only as an inspiration, never as a goal, as he said (see the interview that I have posted in the composers forum). If you are interested in homeomorphisms, go and study mathematics then. But, please, do not come here to try to sell us some pseudoscience that you have invented. Music can be intellectual, but by its own nature as an art, this intellectuality is of a very different nature than that of mathematics.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> We have since come to realize that science, like music, has its own agenda, and its own reasons, which have nothing to do with religion.
> 
> What about art, and music in particular? Art was once intimately entwined with religion (as science was), and was used as a tool for religious reasons.
> 
> Is this the reason so much resistance is given to "modern" music, which seems to have taken-off in a similar direction as science, with its own mathematical models and language? Do traditionalists still see music as entwined with, if not religion, then with an older paradigm in which Man's "spirit" is at the center of focus?
> 
> In other words, should music be a "spiritual" pursuit, and is this why Milton Babbitt's "Five-dimensional musical space" seen as way too scientific, way too "unconcerned" with Man's spirit?


Science studies the physical reality, which is _objective and independent of human beings_.
Music is an art and is, intrinsically, a human phenomena, that cannot be dissociated from human culture.
Also, Babbitt's mathematical claims are nonsense, and I'm a mathematical physicist.


----------



## BurningDesire

aleazk said:


> This is interesting, and I think it is the key question with regard to Babbitt's beliefs. Maybe in this form:
> 
> Do different ideological belief systems in music (serialism vs the rest of music) reflect an entire new approach to art?
> 
> My answer is: I don't think so. Babbitt says that if the process of composition is well done, that is a criteria for liking the work of art, the piece composed by this method. So, basically, he's saying that yes, a different ideological belief system in music like serialism reflects an entire new approach to art. As I said before, Babbitt says that he considers unfair the criticism towards modern music, particularly that which says it is 'too technical'. He argues that in the field of mathematics, the extreme technification is seen as something 'admirable' by the great public, but in music as something 'decadent'. He's clearly interested in mathematics, he cites a lot of concepts from physics and mathematics (for example, he talks about 'musical events' which form a 'five dimensional space' because each event can be represented or parametrized by five parameters, pitch-class, register, dynamic, duration and timbre; this is a clear paralelism with general relativity, in which events, which are points in space at an instant of time, form a four-dimensional space, spacetime, because each event can be locally parametrized by four real numbers, this is the basic idea of spacetime as a differentiable manifold, defined as a set locally homeomorphic to R^n and 'smooth'). He thinks that music is no different from mathematics and that a 'layman' should not say 'I don't like that music' in the same way as he can't say 'I don't like that mathematical theorem', i.e., the value of the theorem does not depend on taste.
> It's a view that I don't share at all. First, those paralelisms with mathematics are of a very superficial nature. 'musical events' form a 'five dimensional space' because each event can be represented or parametrized by five parameters, pitch-class, register, dynamic, duration and timbre, that's only a very loose similitude with the definition of a differentiable manifold, that's not mathematics. On the other hand, I think that the whole idea of music as a 'science' is ridiculous. Music is an art. As Aldous Huxley said, the difference between art and science is that science deals with those similar sensations that everybody feels toward the same thing (for example, everybody feels the heat of fire), while art deals with much more complex sensations, where the subjectivity has a great role. Sure, you can do whatever you want, but do not claim that composing music is like demonstrating a theorem. I mean, if music has this capability for exploring the deep subjectivity of a person, why deny it in the wake of the value of the method of composition. I think that's one of the huge differences between Ligeti and his serialist friends like Boulez, for example. While the serialists were talking about mathematics and the action of a homeomorphism in the five dimensional musical space, Ligeti was composing awesome music like his Requiem or Atmospheres, inspired, as Ligeti said, in the fear of death, the human being confronted with the eternity, etc. Ligeti also used mathematics, but only as an inspiration, never as a goal, as he said (see the interview that I have posted in the composers forum). If you are interested in homeomorphisms, go and study mathematics then. But, please, do not come here to try to sell us some pseudoscience that you have invented. Music can be intellectual, but by its own nature as an art, this intellectuality is of a very different nature than that of mathematics.


From the interviews I've read and heard of Babbitt he was never trying to equate music with mathematics, he was just trying to criticize that people assume that modern music is just technical things and unemotional, machine-like. He was making the analogy that when math gets complicated, people trust the experts in that field, but when music gets really difficult and complex, people just call it garbage and dismiss it, and assume the artists are just experimenting or are weird or only care about mathematics. I never get the vibe that thats all Babbitt cares about. He's not unsympathetic to the fact that serialist music can be extremely difficult to follow. I like his quote "I don't understand the morality that would insist that it is more moral to stoop to conquer the masses, rather than to set a standard to which they might aspire." Some things take time and effort to enjoy.

I recommend this documentary about Babbitt, it gives you a better picture of him and his musical ideas and personality.


----------



## aleazk

Yes, I agree with what you say, and with many of Babbitt's points. It's just that when I read his famous article 'Who Cares if You Listen', I found some of the math-related things as rather pretentious and I perceived some tendency from his part to consider this 'scientific validation' of art, which I think is nonsense. On the other hand, I agree with some of his points about the complexity of modern music and that a serious listener should be very well informed before criticizing the work; it's short minded to criticize modern music with anachronic arguments. In fact, I agree with almost all of Babbitt's points. My problem is that air of pretentiousness that I have felt with certain aspects of his speech. But the majority of his points are independent of this. Maybe you have found that as some kind of linguistic resource from his part for reinforce his points, may be, but I don't liked stated in that way, as a physicist, I perceived some dishonest use of precise concepts in order to make more 'erudite' an article (an article with interesting points, where there's no need of using those artifacts), that's all.


----------



## Ravndal

DeepR said:


> The logical next step is more electronic music. I laugh at these modern composers trying to create exotic sounds and noises with traditional instruments. It's ugly and can be done far better with electronic means.


I agree with this.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> When I read your post, I immediately thought of a famous hoax (in certain specific circles) of postmodern literary ideas by the physicist, Alan Sokal. Gravity (general relativity) played a major part in that one as well. Although his was much more elaborate, much of your wording was eerily similar.


I haven't read the Sokal, nor have I plagarized his ideas. This is not a hoax, merely a metaphor. In the end, I'm calling for recognition of the validity of "separation of Church and state," but as applied to the arts and music. I think modernism has largely already done this.

But for those who see everything in the context of religion, this is a daunting task. Any "separation" is seen as a denial of those views.


----------



## Petwhac

BurningDesire said:


> From the interviews I've read and heard of Babbitt he was never trying to equate music with mathematics, he was just trying to criticize that people assume that modern music is just technical things and unemotional, machine-like. *He was making the analogy that when math gets complicated, people trust the experts in that field, but when music gets really difficult and complex, people just call it garbage and dismiss it, *and assume the artists are just experimenting or are weird or only care about mathematics. I never get the vibe that thats all Babbitt cares about. He's not unsympathetic to the fact that serialist music can be extremely difficult to follow. I like his quote "I don't understand the morality that would insist that it is more moral to stoop to conquer the masses, rather than to set a standard to which they might aspire." Some things take time and effort to enjoy.


So does this mean that Babbit considers himself an expert in the field of musical composition? That we should _trust _him?

Yes, serial music is hard to follow, if indeed follow is what we're supposed to do. If a speaker or writer wishes us to follow their train of thought or argument or whatever it is we are supposed to follow, they had better make sure that it's logic and purpose are *evident*.

_"I don't understand the morality that would insist that it is more moral to stoop to conquer the masses, rather than to set a standard to which they might aspire."_ 
Does he believe he is setting a standard? Really?
People will use any argument conceivable to justify their own position or taste.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> ...First, those paralelisms with mathematics are of a very superficial nature...On the other hand, I think that the whole idea of music as a 'science' is ridiculous. Music is an art...Sure, you can do whatever you want, but do not claim that composing music is like demonstrating a theorem...If you are interested in homeomorphisms, go and study mathematics then. But, please, do not come here to try to sell us some pseudoscience that you have invented. Music can be intellectual, but by its own nature as an art, this intellectuality is of a very different nature than that of mathematics.


Well, that's not how Pythagoras and his Greek buddies, who invented the 12-note division of the octave, saw it. The Greeks considered music as part of the Quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. It is well known that music has always had an intimate relationship with mathematics.



aleazk said:


> I think that's one of the huge differences between Ligeti and his serialist friends like Boulez, for example. While the serialists were talking about mathematics and the action of a homeomorphism in the five dimensional musical space, Ligeti was composing awesome music like his Requiem or Atmospheres, inspired, as Ligeti said, in the fear of death, the human being confronted with the eternity, etc. Ligeti also used mathematics, but only as an inspiration, never as a goal, as he said (see the interview that I have posted in the composers forum).


Hmm, it's interesting that, because you obviously like Ligeti, he gets singled out for preferential treatment in your assertions to "keep music pure" of mathematics. If you'll read the liner notes to Xenakis' piano music (mode 80), it is revealed that Xenakis also has a healthy perspective on art and mathematics.

In fact, if the end result is music, then how can you criticize any art as being "too scientific" or "too mathematical," since, as listeners, our subjective experience is more important than how the art was created, and the end goal of art is art?


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> So does this mean that Babbit considers himself an expert in the field of musical composition? That we should _trust _him?...Yes, serial music is hard to follow, if indeed follow is what we're supposed to do. If a speaker or writer wishes us to follow their train of thought or argument or whatever it is we are supposed to follow, they had better make sure that it's logic and purpose are *evident*.


I see here the attitude that "art and music should cater to my own spiritual or aesthetic needs." It's the paradigm of "I am at the center of the experience of music, so music should design itself around satisfying or entertaining me," just as the old paradigm of religion placed Man at the center of all.

Modernism produces the same alienation of the old pre-Reformation Church, in which Mass was conducted in Latin, and Bibles were not available, as only priests could read them. Petwhac is calling for a "reformation" in modern art, so that a democratic equality is available to all. Thanks to mass media and democracy, this has already happened, and has given us a large museum of recordings, opera DVDs, and Lady Gaga.

Classical music, "the old way," is still available to all, in the "living museum" of recordings & performances of older music. The post-modern era took away the power structure of CM, if it ever really was as "pure" as they make it seem.

Now, it's modernism's turn to be in the alienating "ivory towers" of "pure art." For the rest of you, there's a large backlog of recordings, Andrew LLoyd Weber, opera DVDs, and Kubrick's use of Ligeti, which only complicates things. Plenty to go around for all.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> The logical next step is more electronic music. I laugh at these modern composers trying to create exotic sounds and noises with traditional instruments. It's ugly and can be done far better with electronic means.


If you are obliquely referring to Ligeti, I don't agree that it's "ugly" in the same sense as you, but I do see the limitations of traditional instruments (and muscians) when it comes to producing sounds outside the normal boundaries of 12-note division of the octave. However, this didn't stop Ben Johnston.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> In fact, if the end result is music, then how can you criticize any art as being "too scientific" or "too mathematical," since, as listeners, our subjective experience is more important than how the art was created, and the end goal of art is art?


Quite, and how can you criticize any art as being too.......well, how can you criticize any art at all? Our subjective experience is indeed the most important thing. Some don't 'get' Tchaikovsky and some don't 'get' Xenakis.


----------



## aleazk

_Well, that's not how Pythagoras and his Greek buddies, who invented the 12-note division of the octave, saw it. The Greeks considered music as part of the Quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. It is well known that music has always had an intimate relationship with mathematics._

Well, I know about music, physics and mathematics and I can tell you what an 'intimate relationship with mathematics' is. The majority of the well known 'relations' between music and mathematics are very simple and superficial, and I would not call that an 'intimate relationship'. An intimate relationship with mathematics is the fact that spacetime is a four-dimensional differentiable manifold, not the Pythagorean numerology that you think is an 'intimate relationship with mathematics' (if you don't know it, Pythagoras believed that numbers have 'mystical' powers). Please, show me the paper in which Babbitt shows how he interprets musically the 'curvature of the five-dimensional musical space'.

_In fact, if the end result is music, then how can you criticize any art as being "too scientific" or "too mathematical," since, as listeners, our subjective experience is more important than how the art was created, and the end goal of art is art?_

This is amusing, since when music people believe they are scientists?? , I don't care a crap about the 'scientific content of music' because it's _inexistent_. Artists who believe they are scientists!!, what a waste of talent!. Also, you deny the subjective experience of music?? , that's really odd. So, musicians (with very poor mathematical training) are more worried about mathematics than art?, something is really wrong here. You are very confused between the intellectual aspects of art and the intellectuality of mathematics, they are of a very different nature. I love complex music, and if music were 'mathematical' I would love that too (it would be very easy for me, since my speciality is precisely topology and differential geometry, the topics that Babbitt has chosen for his nonsense). Really you are trying to dismiss me with this "then how can you criticize any art as being "too scientific" or "too mathematical," please, but, please, explain me with all the details the mathematics that I'm missing here (I work with this every day, so I don't think I will dismiss something because is too mathematical). So, I want a full explanation of why "too scientific" or "too mathematical" is an artistic merit in the first place. Second, how this complex mathematics is thoroughly used in music composition. Third, what if think the result is crap music, independently of your method?, you are going to say that I must like the music because the method of composition is nice and complex?


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> I see here the attitude that "art and music should cater to my own spiritual or aesthetic needs." It's the paradigm of "I am at the center of the experience of music, so music should design itself around satisfying or entertaining me," just as the old paradigm of religion placed Man at the center of all.
> 
> Modernism produces the same alienation of the old pre-Reformation Church, in which Mass was conducted in Latin, and Bibles were not available, as only priests could read them. Petwhac is calling for a "reformation" in modern art, so that a democratic equality is available to all. Thanks to mass media and democracy, this has already happened, and has given us a large museum of recordings, opera DVDs, and Lady Gaga.
> 
> Classical music, "the old way," is still available to all, in the "living museum" of recordings & performances of older music. The post-modern era took away the power structure of CM, if it ever really was as "pure" as they make it seem.
> 
> Now, it's modernism's turn to be in the alienating "ivory towers" of "pure art." For the rest of you, there's a large backlog of recordings, Andrew LLoyd Weber, opera DVDs, and Kubrick's use of Ligeti, which only complicates things. Plenty to go around for all.


I'm not calling for anything. It is you who are calling for what you consider to be right and true in art to be acknowledged by all. I'm afraid Stockhausen, Xenakis, Grisey, Radulescu are already becoming the new 'old way'.
There is nothing museum like in CM because great work is created anew every time it is performed.

You seem to suggest that a performance of a non-modernist work is on a similar plane to a recording of Lloyd Webber or Lady Gaga. How so?

Modernism has had it's turn and alienating it certainly was. I wonder if there will be a millionrainbows 100 years hence on a forum saying " for the rest of you there's a large backlog of recordings of Boulez, Babbit and DVDs of Gruppen..." Except of course the backlog will not be very large at all.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> I haven't read the Sokal, nor have I plagarized his ideas. This is not a hoax, merely a metaphor. In the end, I'm calling for recognition of the validity of "separation of Church and state," but as applied to the arts and music. I think modernism has largely already done this.
> 
> But for those who see everything in the context of religion, this is a daunting task. Any "separation" is seen as a denial of those views.


I think you should read Sokal's book, since is dedicated to people like you and Lacan, people who (mis)use mathematics to give certain airs of 'erudition' to their speech, but it's pure pseudoscience (Lacan even confuses basic definitions, like the definition of a compact space).


----------



## SottoVoce

aleazk said:


> it's pure pseudoscience (Lacan even confuses basic definitions, like the definition of a compact space).


This is not what Dmitri Tymoczko or Noam D. Elkies think. Both don't think that the connection between complex mathematical concepts and musical theory is "superfical". You might know Noam D. Elkies as one of the people who contributed greatly to proving Fermat's Last Theorem. Dmitri Tymockzo's work on the relationship was actually the first music-theory article ever published by Science Magazine. There is even a whole scholarly journal devoted to the subject (http://www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal?show=editorialBoard&journalCode=tmam20) Of course, music is not mathematics, but it's completely ridiculous that there could be a strong relationship between the two.

Making a comparison between the connection between math and music and Lacan's use to mathematics is comparing apples to oranges, not even considering that even Lacan didn't take his mathematical approach seriously, he used it as an act of postmodern trickery and irony, themes that seem very prevalent in the movement. Sokal, and many other scientists, seem to be misunderstanding the postmodern movement a little bit, even if there are a few more than usual idiots in the movement (the Social Text being some of those idiots). Doesn't mean the whole movement is unfounded; some of the earliest postmodernists were Wittgenstein and Nietzsche.


----------



## aleazk

SottoVoce said:


> This is not what Dmitri Tymoczko or Noam D. Elkies. Both don't think that the connection between complex mathematical concepts and musical theory is "superfical". You might know Noam D. Elkies as one of the people who contributed greatly to proving Fermat's Last Theorem. Dmitri Tymockzo's work on the relationship was actually the first music-theory article ever published by Science Magazine. There is even a whole scholarly journal devoted to the subject (http://www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal?show=editorialBoard&journalCode=tmam20) Of course, music is not mathematics, but it's completely ridiculous that there could be a strong relationship between the two.


I have read that kind of things. Is not as simple as publishing something to be true. I think all that is meaningless, since the object of study (music perception) is ill defined in the first place, simply because it cannot be defined. They are trying to work like you work in physics, i.e., creating mathematical models of physical concepts (in this case, musical concepts). For those concepts who are well defined (like the 'distance' between chords), you will be able to do something (like those metric space models), but if you try to set up a mathematical model that tells you which distances are 'prefered' by the ear, sorry, but you will fail, simply because 'prefered' by the ear has no objective meaning at all!.


----------



## SottoVoce

aleazk said:


> I have read that kind of things. Is not as simple as publishing something to be true. I think all that is meaningless, since the object of study (music perception) is ill defined in the first place, simply because it cannot be defined. They are trying to work like you work in physics, i.e., creating mathematical models of physical concepts (in this case, musical concepts). For those concepts who are well defined (like the 'distance' between chords), you will be able to do something (like those metric space models), but if you try to set up a mathematical model that tells you which distances are 'prefered' by the ear, sorry, but you will fail, simply because 'prefered' by the ear has no objective meaning at all!.


I don't think anyone is saying that we can find a mathematical way of which chords are 'objectively' better than others, in fact tonal theorists tend to make this point much more frequently than serialists as they tend to say that the tonal system is inherent in musical nature. I know Dmitri is very interested in four dimensional concepts in music analysis, and he uses Chopin's Prelude no. 4 (not exactly the most mathematical piece of art) in order to demonstrate this. He isn't trying to create a system in which we can measure artistic merit over another, because as you say that would be completely ridiculous. He's trying to consider some of the mathematical properties of music that really help us understand why this art in all it's abstraction and complexity is so rewarding.

In summary, none of the people above, either Babbitt, Dmitri, Elkies, etc. have thought to create a system that can tell us what chords are preferred from the other. Personally, I think Babbitt, irregardless of his serialist methods or his mathematical approaches to art, is one of the greatest composers that we've had in the post-1945 music. I think his original approach to music only adds, but isn't the complete basis, of his great music. His music just simply doesn't spell out formulaic, mechanical music to me.


----------



## aleazk

SottoVoce said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that we can find a mathematical way of which chords are 'objectively' better than others, in fact tonal theorists tend to make this point much more frequently than serialists as they tend to say that the tonal system is inherent in musical nature. I know Dmitri is very interested in four dimensional concepts in music analysis, and he uses Chopin's Prelude no. 4 (not exactly the most mathematical piece of art) in order to demonstrate this. He isn't trying to create a system in which we can measure artistic merit over another, because as you say that would be completely ridiculous. He's trying to consider some of the mathematical properties of music that really help us understand why this art in all it's abstraction and complexity is so rewarding.
> 
> In summary, none of the people above, either Babbitt, Dmitri, Elkies, etc. have thought to create a system that can tell us what chords are preferred from the other. Personally, I think Babbitt, irregardless of his serialist methods or his mathematical approaches to art, is one of the greatest composers that we've had in the post-1945 music. I think his original approach to music only adds, but isn't the complete basis, of his great music. His music just simply doesn't spell out formulaic, mechanical music to me.


I have nothing against Babbitt's music or serialist music in general. I find the _musical_ ideas of serialization of pitch, rhythm, dynamics, pretty interesting. I use tone rows in some of my compostions and I play to serialize other aspects as well. My problem is with this mathematical philosophy and the 'mathematization' of music. We clearly don't agree in the utility of this philosophy. Time will say, I suppose. I have studied mathematics, physics and I'm an amateur composer, I have my own reasons for not liking this philosophy. Since the mathematical topics covered in these theories are quite advanced (differential geometry), I suppose you have a good mathematical training, since otherwise it would be difficult to follow these articles. So, you may have your reasons to like those theories as I have mine for being skeptical. As I said, time will say. Maybe I'm completely wrong, no problem, it would be interesting. Regards.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> Well, I know about music, physics and mathematics and I can tell you what an 'intimate relationship with mathematics' is. The majority of the well known 'relations' between music and mathematics are very simple and superficial, and I would not call that an 'intimate relationship'. An intimate relationship with mathematics is the fact that spacetime is a four-dimensional differentiable manifold, not the Pythagorean numerology that you think is an 'intimate relationship with mathematics' (if you don't know it, Pythagoras believed that numbers have 'mystical' powers).


Quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. From WIK: In modern applications of the liberal arts as curriculum in colleges or universities, the quadrivium may be considered as the study of number and its relationship to physical space or time: arithmetic was pure number, geometry was number in space, music number in time, and astronomy number in space and time. Morris Kline classifies the four elements of the quadrivium as pure (arithmetic), stationary (geometry), moving (astronomy) and applied (music) number.

Sounds plausible to me.


----------



## aleazk

I'm off of this debate for a while; millionrainbows, I have read your blog and I think you are very fluent in music theory. I agree with what you have written about Babbitt's article. My disagree is on a very subtle point that may be a matter of interpretation of the article anyway. What I want to clarify is that my points are against Babbitt's philosophy and not to his music or serial music in general, since you seemed to interpret that. As I said, I'm interested, to some extent, in the sonorities of serial music.


----------



## millionrainbows

The "subjective/objective" idea is also a problem. Science is ideally objective, while religion, especially in the Eastern sense, is ideally subjective. I'm saying that Art doesn't have to always align itself with subjectivity and religion, especially since music has its own language of symbols and presuppositions. If Milton Babbitt's matrixes are used to generate new permutations of pitch-rows for use in his art, that shouldn't be relevant to someone listening to the end result. It simply shouldn't matter whether music is produced using mathematics.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> The "subjective/objective" idea is also a problem. Science is ideally objective, while religion, especially in the Eastern sense, is ideally subjective. I'm saying that Art doesn't have to always align itself with subjectivity and religion, especially since music has its own language of symbols and presuppositions. _If Milton Babbitt's matrixes are used to generate new permutations of pitch-rows for use in his art, that shouldn't be relevant to someone listening to the end result. It simply shouldn't matter whether music is produced using mathematics._


That's basically my point!  maybe the problem is in the word 'subjective', when I use that word, I'm thinking in something very broad, not necessarily 'emotions' (in the romantic period sense) or these kind of 'cliché' arguments.


----------



## mmsbls

Perhaps someday (not soon) we may understand the physics of musical enjoyment, but I agree that we presently cannot use math and science to determine what people enjoy musically. The interesting question is to what extent math or science can be used as a compositional tool. Does using mathematical techniques allow one to create wonderful or interesting music?

It's conceivable that using math as a tool for composition might produce wonderful music. Inversion or retrograde techniques are simple math procedures that are useful. The problem is that there is presently too large a divide between complex math concepts and the musical result. As an example, I will discuss the Xenakis work, _Pithoprakta_. I posted about a short part of the work here.

Xenakis basically used random numbers generated by computer to map a physical process (in this case the speeds of air molecules at specific temperatures) onto a musical piece. The process was quite interesting and, I believe, well conceived. I found the details fascinating. I then listened to the work, and, for me, I found nothing special/interesting/enjoyable about the musical result. It doesn't matter that I personally did not enjoy the result. The question is how Xenakis felt about the result. He essentially experimented with a mathematical/scientific technique. Did he vary his procedure and compare the result? Did he try to correlate changes in the procedure with results (his feeling for the music)? In other words did he "learn" how to better compose with this tool? As far as I can tell, he did not.

The importance of math or science to music is in the ability of composers to create wonderful music - not just to utilize interesting math or science. To me it is not obvious that these techniques actually allow composers to create better (more interesting/beautiful/enjoyable) music. Maybe someday they will, but I think that will require a long process of detailed experimentation to understand the process.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> The interesting question is to what extent math or science can be used as a compositional tool. Does using mathematical techniques allow one to create wonderful or interesting music?


All mathematics does is create models of things. Tones are frequencies; does that mean we're being "mathematical" if we hear A440? No...but the "math" is there if you can see it, and use it.

Tonal music is mathematical in nature, you just don't think about it, you use your ears. But what are your ears doing? Well, they hear octaves as 2:1 and as having the same pitch identity, but you don't think about it, your ears and brain are hard-wired to hear it.

All the intervals can be expressed as fractions (3/4), or as ratios (3:4). But they were distinguishable as such before we ever knew that. So, sound, and the ears, came to these conclusions first.

You're throwing everything off-track by talking about math as a compositional tool, *before *the sound was made. That makes math sound _*separated*_ from sound; but it isn't. Music is just sound. Math is just a model of things.

Xenakis' music is just sounds. There's no math "in" it. Can you hear the math? I can't. Whether or not he used mathematics in composing it should be irrelevant to any listener, if they are using their ears to hear it. (apologies to John Cage)


----------



## millionrainbows

"I find it difficult to listen to tonal music."

Why is this difficult? Are you really listening, or are your desires and expectations distracting you? The music is just sounds, after all. Does the music sound contrived, as if we're supposed to hear it a certain way? Does it sound artificial? Does it represent something else? Is it supposed to be great art? Does it evoke memories? If there is a voice, does the voice bring cultural or social associations to mind? Etc, etc.

Or is it just sound?


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> You're throwing everything off-track by talking about math as a compositional tool, *before *the sound was made. That makes math sound _*separated*_ from sound; but it isn't. Music is just sound. Math is just a model of things.


I'm not sure what you mean by "throwing everything off-track". Math can be used as a computational tool by composers in creating music, and it can be used by scientists to understand the human response to music (for example in creating scientific models). I find both uses very interesting although the latter is enormously difficult and will require a long time to produce good results. As I stated, I'm not sure how useful the former is given our relatively poor understanding of the latter.

One can argue that music is sound, but generally we are more interested in how that sound interacts with the brain. Math is not a model. Math is used to create models.



millionrainbows said:


> Whether or not he used mathematics in composing it should be irrelevant to any listener, if they are using their ears to hear it.


I basically agree although I'm not sure what you mean by using their ears to hear.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "throwing everything off-track". Math can be used as a computational tool by composers in creating music, and it can be used by scientists to...etc....Math is not a model. Math is used to create models....I basically agree although I'm not sure what you mean by using their ears to hear.


Oh, I suppose that by "off track" I mean that instead of actually _listening_ to Xenakis, we end up discussing how mathematics can be used, etc. This goes hand in hand with "using your ears to hear" instead of your brain, or ideas of what we want the music to be, etc. In the end, it's very Zen, influenced by John Cage's approach to sound.

*I think this would be a good time for me to do a little apologizing,* if needed, or to explain some things which might give everyone here some perspective.

I just came off of a long stint at another CM forum, and the short of it is: all of the members I have encountered here at Talk Classical are exceptionally well-mannered.

I go back there to the old forum and lurk, just to see what's happening, and my recent visit only reinforces this. There was an attempted thread about Xenakis, and it turned into a public bashing. I had forgotten how rude these people were! For the most part, cruel-hearted bullies who can get away with almost anything...And the worst part is, I was becoming like them!

It looks like I won't have to "defend" modern music any more, because most of you are not out to attack it, and most of you seem to have a varied appetite for all music, as I do. You will never know how much this tolerant attitude means to me, and how valuable that is! You have all given me a new perspective. I was in the wrong place!

Thank you, to all the friends I have made here, and for the super-nice welcomes I received. I feel like I have come home from a long, tedious war! This forum is so much better! We can post images! Wow!

I'll do my best to keep from sliding into negativity. It looks like that job will be easy, as I received so much positive input.


----------



## ArthurBrain

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've been finding that I am becoming more tolerant to tonality now. Romanticism (other than Wagner) I can't tolerate at the moment, but early Stravinsky is sounding nice. A little difficult at times (the diatonic melodies and consonant harmonies mainly) and I prefer the more dissonant sections more enjoyable. Polytonality I am beginning to enjoy again.


Funny, I typed in a search for 'weird tonal music' on google earlier, and one of the first suggestions to come up was a link for this thread....

I can relate to an extent as I've never been into classical music written before the 20th century in the main, where the barriers of what was 'acceptable' within the framework of tonality were torn apart. Predictable tonal music bores me rigid to be honest. It was Stravinsky's bombshell 'The Rite Of Spring' that left a lasting impression on me with it's invigorating rhythm and harmonic structure including bitonality. As a kid I was blown away by it.

I find tonality interesting when the predictability of chords/resolutions are 'played with' including surprise key changes, an ethereal aspect or combinations of simultaneous ideas aka polytonality. The first movement of Philip Glass's Symphony No 2 is one I enjoy for the latter even if Glass is pretty predictable and repetitive overall.

I notice you have Ligeti as an avatar. A favourite composer of mine although it's one of his more 'tonal' pieces that remains a perennial listen:






Although several others do also including Volumina, Atmospheres, Apparitions and this gem IMO:


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> "I find it difficult to listen to tonal music."
> 
> Why is this difficult? Are you really listening, or are your desires and expectations distracting you? The music is just sounds, after all. Does the music sound contrived, as if we're supposed to hear it a certain way? Does it sound artificial? Does it represent something else? Is it supposed to be great art? Does it evoke memories? If there is a voice, does the voice bring cultural or social associations to mind? Etc, etc.
> 
> Or is it just sound?


Perhaps you missed my early glib response to the OP, "First world problem."

Go ahead and expand and expound on the whole discussion, but know you are 'responding' to a highly postured self-conceit of a teenager obsessed with Ligeti. - that is all the OP really is.


----------



## BurningDesire

Petwhac said:


> So does this mean that Babbit considers himself an expert in the field of musical composition? That we should _trust _him?
> 
> Yes, serial music is hard to follow, if indeed follow is what we're supposed to do. If a speaker or writer wishes us to follow their train of thought or argument or whatever it is we are supposed to follow, they had better make sure that it's logic and purpose are *evident*.
> 
> _"I don't understand the morality that would insist that it is more moral to stoop to conquer the masses, rather than to set a standard to which they might aspire."_
> Does he believe he is setting a standard? Really?
> People will use any argument conceivable to justify their own position or taste.


Babbitt was an expert in the field of composition. He was a superb musician and composer. Most composers would say that they are trying to write the best music they can. You could say that is like setting a standard. They write at their own standards for what makes a piece of music great. Sometimes this leads to music that is challenging to listen to, sometimes not so much.


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> So does this mean that Babbit considers himself an expert in the field of musical composition? That we should _trust _him?
> 
> Yes, serial music is hard to follow, if indeed follow is what we're supposed to do. If a speaker or writer wishes us to follow their train of thought or argument or whatever it is we are supposed to follow, they had better make sure that it's logic and purpose are *evident*.
> 
> _"I don't understand the morality that would insist that it is more moral to stoop to conquer the masses, rather than to set a standard to which they might aspire."_
> Does he believe he is setting a standard? Really?
> People will use any argument conceivable to justify their own position or taste.


One of the problems with comparing music and language. A speaker is most likely trying to convey a specific, unambiguous idea. Music expresses something vague and it's up to the listener to decide what that is.


----------



## Petwhac

violadude said:


> One of the problems with comparing music and language. A speaker is most likely trying to convey a specific, unambiguous idea. Music expresses something vague and it's up to the listener to decide what that is.


Well, I tend to agree more with the Mendelssohn view that music actually expresses something quite particular and that it is words that are vague and unsatisfactory in trying to describe what it is.


----------



## Crudblud

PetrB said:


> "First world problem."


Really getting sick of seeing/hearing those words in that particular order.


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> Well, I tend to agree more with the Mendelssohn view that music actually expresses something quite particular and that it is words that are vague and unsatisfactory in trying to describe what it is.


I don't think that makes sense at all.

When I say "cat", no one has any doubt what exactly I mean, they all get a picture of a cat in their head. If they got a picture of a dog in their head, they would be wrong, confused and would need to be taught what a cat actually is.

When someone listens to a Mendelssohn symphony, any one could get any number of emotions or pictures in their head and not any would be either right or wrong but just different.

How can the former be more vague than the latter?


----------



## Ramako

violadude said:


> I don't think that makes sense at all.
> 
> When I say "cat", no one has any doubt what exactly I mean, they all get a picture of a cat in their head. If they got a picture of a dog in their head, they would be wrong, confused and would need to be taught what a cat actually is.
> 
> When someone listens to a Mendelssohn symphony, any one could get any number of emotions or pictures in their head and not any would be either right or wrong but just different.
> 
> How can the former be more vague than the latter?


What kind of cat do you imagine?

Sorry about that, but I would argue that music is a much more precise communicator of emotions when the composer intends it to be. Of course people can have different reactions to it, but I would say that is because people have different reactions to different emotions.

Of course words are more precise in describing objects, but in terms of emotions, it seems to me that music wins out - not that I'm saying that that applies to all music, or that music is only about emotions.

In terms of describing objects of course "a picture is worth a thousand words".


----------



## violadude

Ramako said:


> What kind of cat do you imagine?
> 
> Sorry about that, but I would argue that music is a much more precise communicator of emotions when the composer intends it to be. Of course people can have different reactions to it, but I would say that is because people have different reactions to different emotions.
> 
> Of course words are more precise in describing objects, but in terms of emotions, it seems to me that music wins out - not that I'm saying that that applies to all music, or that music is only about emotions.
> 
> In terms of describing objects of course "a picture is worth a thousand words".


The emotion is probably felt more precisely than words can communicate, but exactly which emotion is being expressed is still more vague and imprecise than what a word can communicate.

For example, a speaker can get in front of a crowd, say words that express anger and everyone will have a good idea of what is being expressed, there probably won't be much controversy about whether the speaker means anger or not.

But if someone went in front of the crowd with a boombox and played Berg's violin concerto, some people might be feeling like it's mysterious, sad, dark. Each of those feelings will probably be more powerful and direct to each person feeling it than they would be if those feelings were spoken of by a speaker, but exactly what is being expressed is still vague and the people in this crowd wouldn't be as unified in their thoughts or interpretation of what is being presented as the former crowd.


----------



## SottoVoce

violadude said:


> I don't think that makes sense at all.
> 
> When I say "cat", no one has any doubt what exactly I mean, they all get a picture of a cat in their head. If they got a picture of a dog in their head, they would be wrong, confused and would need to be taught what a cat actually is.
> 
> When someone listens to a Mendelssohn symphony, any one could get any number of emotions or pictures in their head and not any would be either right or wrong but just different.
> 
> How can the former be more vague than the latter?


I agree. If you want to communicate a particular expression or a particular emotion, then music is the wrong way to do it; it's too abstract to have any concrete meaning outside of itself. This can be further evaluated when you read Wittgenstein's philosophy, where he talks about what language can and cannot do, especially in the Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus.

Wittgenstein actually cared about music deeply (he thought listening to the Choral Symphony was a turning point in his life), and while he thought that music was important on a profound level, he didn't think it's importance can be deduced similar to how a language is, as a way of concrete communication of things outside our internal world, including particular emotions, feelings, etc. Of course music breeds emotion, but to say that the composer even sets out to bring out a certain emotion similar to how a dramatist or a novelist would is a bit too concrete for the most abstract art-form there is.

Language "paints a picture of the world", in his words, and "the limits of our language are the limits of what we can communicate". If there is any importance in music, it's not in any form of linguistic communication; maybe it's metaphysical, maybe mathematical, who knows? What a great mystery it is. I tend to think that the abstract is one of the only ways to get at the true nature of things. Concepts, propositions, seem very truthful to me in a way that concrete expression isn't. And this is why I love music so very much, because I don't think it needs to have any linguistic meaning to be important. Concrete expressions means nothing to the nature of existence.

This is a beautiful aphorism from the beginning of the treatise:



> And whatever a man knows, whatever is not mere overheard rumbling and roaring,
> can be said in three words.. - Kürnburger


This is what music is to me.


----------



## Guest

I quite like the sound of that "overheard rumbling and roaring" bidness, myself.

That is a significant part of what music means to me. 

Anyway, Sotto, I found your comments about music and language and abstraction to be spot on and thus quite refreshing to read. Thanks for that!


----------



## Petwhac

SottoVoce said:


> I agree. If you want to communicate a particular expression or a particular emotion, then music is the wrong way to do it; it's too abstract to have any concrete meaning outside of itself. This can be further evaluated when you read Wittgenstein's philosophy, where he talks about what language can and cannot do, especially in the Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus.
> 
> Wittgenstein actually cared about music deeply (he thought listening to the Choral Symphony was a turning point in his life), and while he thought that music was important on a profound level, he didn't think it's importance can be deduced similar to how a language is, as a way of concrete communication of things outside our internal world, including particular emotions, feelings, etc. Of course music breeds emotion, but to say that the composer even sets out to bring out a certain emotion similar to how a dramatist or a novelist would is a bit too concrete for the most abstract art-form there is.
> 
> Language "paints a picture of the world", in his words, and "the limits of our language are the limits of what we can communicate". If there is any importance in music, it's not in any form of linguistic communication; maybe it's metaphysical, maybe mathematical, who knows? What a great mystery it is. I tend to think that the abstract is one of the only ways to get at the true nature of things. Concepts, propositions, seem very truthful to me in a way that concrete expression isn't. And this is why I love music so very much, because I don't think it needs to have any linguistic meaning to be important. Concrete expressions means nothing to the nature of existence.
> 
> This is a beautiful aphorism from the beginning of the treatise:
> 
> This is what music is to me.


Yes, all quite true.
I don't believe it is the aim of music to communicate anything in a linguistic sense, How could it? And it is quite unnecessary for a composer to have any desire to communicate _emotion_ at all.

To me music is like poetry. What does the poet _add _by not writing prose? If the purpose of art is to communicate concrete verbal ideas there would be no need for anything but prose. No need for dance, sculpture, music or painting.

It isn't that music is the most abstract art form but rather it is an art form that _can only be _abstract. Where as painting and sculpture can be abstract or representational. I am ignoring those instances when music tries, usually crudely, to represent the physical world.

It is hard to discuss these things without actual examples so perhaps I could use the example of the climax of the 1st movement of the Eroica- as it is a well known work. Those strident dissonant chords that come towards the end of the development section and resolve into the pulsing marcato strings, don't _mean_ anything. They have an effect, they sound climactic, they make me feel something quite particular but I do not have the words to describe it. Words are too blunt an instrument to describe that 'thing' which is specific to those bars of that work, that exists nowhere else in music. But the reality of the effect of that passage on me and millions of others cannot be denied. This is what I believe Mendelssohn was alluding to.


----------



## Ramako

Petwhac said:


> It isn't that music is the most abstract art form but rather it is an art form that _can only be _abstract.


The whole post is very good, but I particularly like this statement. I'll have to think about this one.


----------



## Petwhac

BurningDesire said:


> Babbitt was an expert in the field of composition. He was a superb musician and composer. Most composers would say that they are trying to write the best music they can. You could say that is like setting a standard. They write at their own standards for what makes a piece of music great. Sometimes this leads to music that is challenging to listen to, sometimes not so much.


I would be very pleased if you could suggest a particular work of Babbitt's that convinces _you personally_ of his superbness as a musician and composer. I am not denying that he was. He very well might have been but perhaps there is a work of his which demonstrates this. 
I am intrigued by what makes someone an expert in a field such as musical composition and if you think Babbitt was setting a standard for only himself or for others too.


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> I would be very pleased if you could suggest a particular work of Babbitt's that convinces _you personally_ of his superbness as a musician and composer. I am not denying that he was. He very well might have been but perhaps there is a work of his which demonstrates this.
> I am intrigued by what makes someone an expert in a field such as musical composition and if you think Babbitt was setting a standard for only himself or for others too.


This piece is really groovy.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^ Some of that reminds me of Copland.


----------



## Petwhac

violadude said:


> This piece is really groovy.


In what way?


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> In what way?


Keep listening and you'll find plenty of rhythmic and thematic coherence. One example I can point out right away is starting around :40 there are a series of patterns that relate directly back to the opening theme.


----------



## Petwhac

violadude said:


> Keep listening and you'll find plenty of rhythmic and thematic coherence. One example I can point out right away is starting around :40 there are a series of patterns that relate directly back to the opening theme.


I am listening and will listen more. But just because a composer can be rhythmically and thematically coherent and develop patterns does that make him an expert or superb? These sorts of procedures one would expect from an undergraduate composition student.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Petwhac said:


> I am listening and will listen more. But just because a composer can be rhythmically and thematically coherent and develop patterns does that make him an expert or superb. These sort of procedures one would expect from an undergraduate composition student. I have heard much much music of this sort but I will listen more and see if it has anything I can't find in Berg, Bartok, Wuorinen etc.


You can say that for just about any composer really.


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> I am listening and will listen more. But just because a composer can be rhythmically and thematically coherent and develop patterns does that make him an expert or superb. These sort of procedures one would expect from an undergraduate composition student. I have heard much much music of this sort but I will listen more and see if it has anything I can't find in Berg, Bartok, Wuorinen etc.


What? Babbit's style doesn't sound anything like Berg or Bartok. Therefore, it has things you can't find in those composers.


----------



## Petwhac

violadude said:


> What? Babbit's style doesn't sound anything like Berg or Bartok. Therefore, it has things you can't find in those composers.


I edited that bit out of my post because it wasn't fair as I don't know it in detail but still not finding anything to write home about. I shall download and listen some more.

Opening does remind me of Bartok quartets though.


----------



## Petwhac

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> You can say that for just about any composer really.


Even bad ones.


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> I edited that bit out of my post because it wasn't fair as I don't know it in detail but still not finding anything to write home about. I shall download and listen some more.
> 
> Opening does remind me of Bartok quartets though.


Well, maybe you just aren't as easily as impressed as I am.


----------



## SottoVoce

I also admire this piece by Babbitt very much.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I watched a documentary on Milton Babbitt last Wednesday and I think that I'm getting interested in his music a lot more now.


----------



## neoshredder

I guess we are all addicted to tonal music. Nothing wrong with atonal music as far as I am concerned.


----------



## nikola

I think there is simple explanation to your 'problem', ComposerOfAvantGarde.
Since you're composer and spending so much time with listening to and composing music, your ear probably started to find tonal music 'predictable' and that's why it's probably boring to you now. 
But still, atonal music could never give me any stronger feelings whatsoever... 
That's why I don't think I could like it that much since it's not that natural to human ear... or, I'll be fair and I'll say- to my ear. 
Even that piece you send me that I actually did like very much isn't quite atonal, right? 
I think that atonal music makes sense when it's incorporated into tonal music. 
Since I'm not musician I can't say is there 'good' and 'bad' atonal music. When I listen to this Milton Babbitt for example, I'm thinking "well, I could also compose such crap"  
I think that such music can be 'good' if you watch it from mathematical point of view and that could be only reason why this could be 'good', while my unexperienced composition would seem obviously from mathematical point of vierw that I didn't follow some specific form, so it would be 'crap' I guess. But at the end of the day, to some casual ear it is all the same crap. 
I don't see meaning of music to be meaning to music itself. I can even understand that some artist wants to compose something that will make sense to him and probably to few other people... that's fine... like Picasso for example.. I actually like many of his works, but still, hard to compare painting with music. But I think that music is made for people... not for music because music doesn't care and it's not made for other musicians. It's made for listener (sure, musicians are listeners too.. you are listener too ofcourse). Music cares for music only when someone could experience it. If there is music alone in space floating like a rock it means nothing without human being to hear it. It is dead thing then (although we can say that nothing in universe is dead, so if music would exist on it's own like there is in space some music even when planets move we can say that everything is alive and everything is meaningful).
Still, at the end of the day, I like to hear composition that I will like and find interesting on any level.


----------



## Moira

I still battle with a lot of atonal stuff, although I like to think I keep an open mind. However, I am more critical about tonal music than I was three decades ago. Possibly that's just one of the joys or penalties of age and experience.


----------



## pendereckiobsessed

I have had the same thing happen to me before! I was listening to 




when my ear heard the piece as consonant and cute and cuddly, like Mozart. I could not stop laughing at how cute it sounded to my ear. The next few days I could not understand tonal music AT ALL, and I would get a headache. Except stuff like Bartok. That I could listen to without getting a headache. I understand what you mean COAG


----------



## neoshredder

I like the title 'What is the Point of Tonal Music' better.


----------



## neoshredder

I still find this the most interesting phase. Funny how much a year changes your listening habits.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> I still find this the most interesting phase. Funny how much a year changes your listening habits.


The last thing I listened to that was atonal was some George Crumb yesterday. Some excerpts from Ancient Voices of Children. I like tonality too now.


----------



## chalkpie

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I have been listening to A LOT of *Ligeti* this past week. His music is extremely colourful and imaginative and never boring (even the first movement of his Cello Concerto) and after listening to heaps of his micropolyphonic works such as _Lontano_ and _Volumnia_ I have decided to move away from atonality and listen to Wagner's _Lohengrin_. Wagner was known for his extreme dissonance in works such as _Tristan und Isolde,_ but _Lohengrin_ to me seems very traditional in terms of tonality and always resolves its dissonances. I have been finding it rather difficult to listen to after spending so much time on micropolyphonic atonal music full of hypnotic cluster chords with vast amounts of colour. Atonal music just seems a lot more natural to my ears. I can only really listen to tonal music if it is made up of lots of dissonant suspensions like in the opening of Bach's _St. John Passion_ and even with _that_ I really work hard to enjoy it properly. It used to be my favourite work of JS Bach, so why am I finding it so hard on my ears now?!
> 
> I think I'll turn _Lohengrin_ off and listen to _Le Grand Macabre_ instead. Much more pleasing to my ears.
> 
> Why is tonality so hard to listen to?!?! I can't tolerate consonance any more!!! HELP ME!!!!!!


Ha. Just saw this thread.

Hey, If Boulez can do it, anybody can 

First off, Ligeti is a musical *DIETY* on the level of any composer in the history of music to my ears, so he has that going for him. I dig me a ton of avant classical, but very few composers move and amaze me like Ligeti does. So he is special to begin with.

I go through stages with this, but happy my ears are at the point where I could dig any classical at any time, but I more of a modern guy for sure. Modern doesn't mean no tonality necessarily....Zappa perfected this balance. Its just "What's for dinner tonight?" only music instead of food.

Right now I am binging on Sibelius, and I wouldn't change one thing in regards to his approach to music. I will say my least favorite era of classical is roughly 1750 until Wagner and Debussy showed up  When Bach left us, it was never the same.


----------



## Vaneyes

This link to a video interview with Alex Ross could play on both sides of the tonal/atonal fence. I guess it boils down to curiosity, patience, understanding, etc., etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/vi...val-alex-ross-alan-rusbridger-video-interview


----------



## Blancrocher

Vaneyes said:


> This link to a video interview with Alex Ross could play on both sides of the tonal/atonal fence. I guess it boils down to curiosity, patience, understanding, etc., etc.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/vi...val-alex-ross-alan-rusbridger-video-interview


Thanks for posting this--having spent half my day rereading The Rest is Noise, I look forward to the video.

However, a glance at the public comments beneath the video suggests it will solve nothing!

:lol:


----------



## KRoad

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Why is tonality so hard to listen to?!?! I can't tolerate consonance any more!!! HELP ME!!!!!!


Self-discipline and sleeping with your hands above the blankets will help you..., but only if you really want to be saved. Do you? Really? The decision is yours ComposerOfAvantGarde, and yours only!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

chalkpie said:


> Ha. Just saw this thread.
> 
> Hey, If Boulez can do it, anybody can
> 
> First off, Ligeti is a musical *DIETY* on the level of any composer in the history of music to my ears, so he has that going for him. I dig me a ton of avant classical, but very few composers move and amaze me like Ligeti does. So he is special to begin with.
> 
> I go through stages with this, but happy my ears are at the point where I could dig any classical at any time, but I more of a modern guy for sure. Modern doesn't mean no tonality necessarily....Zappa perfected this balance. Its just "What's for dinner tonight?" only music instead of food.
> 
> Right now I am binging on Sibelius, and I wouldn't change one thing in regards to his approach to music. I will say my least favorite era of classical is roughly 1750 until Wagner and Debussy showed up  When Bach left us, it was never the same.


Whoa

We are the same 

I've been listening to *Sibelius* as a way to help me rediscover pre-20th century music and I must say....1750 to Wagner would probably be my least favourite time in classical music too!


----------



## BurningDesire

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Whoa
> 
> We are the same
> 
> I've been listening to *Sibelius* as a way to help me rediscover pre-20th century music and I must say....1750 to Wagner would probably be my least favourite time in classical music too!


What about Chopin? What about the Russians who were hugely influential on Debussy?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

BurningDesire said:


> What about Chopin? What about the Russians who were hugely influential on Debussy?


Ah, I didn't say I didn't like them, I said they were my least favourite. 
I listened to lots of Chopin yesterday actually and I can't say he is my favourite composer but there are a few works which I really like very much. Still, I do prefer other eras to classical and early/mid romantic.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Ah, I didn't say I didn't like them, I said they were my least favourite.
> I listened to lots of Chopin yesterday actually and I can't say he is my favourite composer but there are a few works which I really like very much. Still, I do prefer other eras to classical and early/mid romantic.


So much great music in those 100 years. I don't understand how that could be anyones least favorite. CPE Bach, Mozart, Boccherini, Beethoven, Hummel, Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann.  I'd easily take that over Medieval and Renaissance combined. Or even the early Baroque.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> So much great music in those 100 years. I don't understand how that could be anyones least favorite. CPE Bach, Mozart, Boccherini, Beethoven, Hummel, Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann.  I'd easily take that over Medieval and Renaissance combined. Or even the early Baroque.


And...Haydn puts us over the top. Way over. Yes indeed, not a bad 100 years.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I'm craving something again...............:devil:


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I don't see music as tonal or atonal. Kind of like how some people say they don't see skin colors. One extreme is dull without the other.


----------



## PetrB

Take two aspirin, drink plenty of fluids, and call me in the morning.


----------



## Woodduck

Andreas said:


> It's interesting that composers like Penderecki, Górecki and Pärt returned to a tonal style after their avantgarde phase. It almost seems as if a person of spirituality can stand atonality only for so long. I'm sure there are many exceptions, though.
> 
> Perhaps they were at a similar point where Schoenberg once was, when free atonality didn't satisfy him anymore. So you either invent an entirely new system, or you return to the old one. Makes sense, since systems are so comfortable. Again, there are probably many exceptions here as well.


Systems are not merely comfortable. They are necessary for the communication of meaning. Art is more than perceptual play; music is more than playing with sounds, however interesting they are in themselves. System is order consciously employed. If art is to communicate meaning it must employ an ordered arrangement of signs which are perceived as carrying significance as a function of of that arrangement - a system of signs or, by analogy, a language with a grammar and a vocabulary. All systems, by virtue of being orderly, accept certain principles, which are limits that determine how the components of that system are used. The particular principles of any system of signs derive their capacity to function as vehicles of communication from both innate physiological responses in the receiver and from conventional expectations which the sender (artist) and receiver share. _Tonality_ in music is a system of signs of this nature, a system rooted both in physiological responses to consonance and dissonance and in conventional understandings of how these consonances and dissonances can be structured in time to give aesthetic enjoyment, evoke emotions, and convey meaning (and by "meaning" I do not necessarily intend anything which can be expressed in words).

I think some composers return to tonality because they feel a need for a system which, by virtue of both its innate powers and its accumulated associations, will enable them to evoke emotions and meanings which they find they cannot express without it. Others, conceivably, may simply be tired of searching for novel effects and want the challenge and pleasure of exercising their skills in a language which they inherited from their culture and which they and their listeners share.


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> Systems are not merely comfortable. They are necessary for the communication of meaning. Art is more than perceptual play; music is more than playing with sounds, however interesting they are in themselves. System is order consciously employed. If art is to communicate meaning it must employ an ordered arrangement of signs which are perceived as carrying significance as a function of of that arrangement - a system of signs or, by analogy, a language with a grammar and a vocabulary. All systems, by virtue of being orderly, accept certain principles, which are limits that determine how the components of that system are used and for what purpose. The particular principles of any system of signs derive their capacity to function as vehicles of communication from both innate physiological responses in the receiver and from conventional expectations which the sender (artist) and receiver share. Tonality in music is a system of signs of this nature, a system rooted both in physiological responses to consonance and dissonance and in conventional understandings of how these consonances and dissonances can be structured in time to evoke emotions and communicate meaning.
> 
> I think many composers return to tonality because they feel a need for a system which, by virtue of both its innate powers and its accumulated associations, will enable them to communicate certain emotions and meaning which they find they cannot express without it.


I think the refreshing thing about the more "atonal" stuff is that it's not so easy for the mind to make references with every melodic line. That's why some people find that the really "tonal" stuff can get boring, as our minds have already been there and found the associations. It's much harder to do that with genres like the Avante Garde, which to me carries the true pioneers of art.

More so, there's always an open and bold adventurousness that's not afraid to leave the familiar and comfortable melodies/harmonies alone to explore new grounds. A lot of them purposely compose pieces that are hard to associate with ordinary mental patterns, and most people are afraid of that. That's why those composers are the real explorers of art, because we're not getting anywhere by sticking to what's familiar. Now... I adore old-music, don't get me wrong, but the Avante Garde is without a doubt the cutting edge of the art world.


----------



## PetrB

"How Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farm?"


----------



## KenOC

I used to have a recording of this from over a hundred years ago. Taught it to my kids who loved to sing it in the car, with sound effects. Can't believe it still exists!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I'm finding that appreciation of as many styles as possible has become a lot easier for me in recent months, but atonality and other non-traditional usages of tonality really strike a chord with me as being something undeniably special and attractive in a curious way....I resurrect this thread mainly to say this and also when I listened to some Dvorak a little while ago I found the predictability of the chord hierarchy of his time slightly nauseating at the moment, but this is probably just a phase haha.


----------



## Woodduck

Vesuvius said:


> I think the refreshing thing about the more "atonal" stuff is that it's not so easy for the mind to make references with every melodic line. That's why some people find that the really "tonal" stuff can get boring, as our minds have already been there and found the associations. It's much harder to do that with genres like the Avante Garde, which to me carries the true pioneers of art.
> 
> More so, there's always an open and bold adventurousness that's not afraid to leave the familiar and comfortable melodies/harmonies alone to explore new grounds. A lot of them purposely compose pieces that are hard to associate with ordinary mental patterns, and most people are afraid of that. That's why those composers are the real explorers of art, because we're not getting anywhere by sticking to what's familiar. Now... I adore old-music, don't get me wrong, but the Avante Garde is without a doubt the cutting edge of the art world.


I understand the appeal of music which doesn't use customary principles of organization, harmonic or otherwise. That can mean not only "atonal" music but music of other cultures (or even early music in the Western tradition). Sounds which lack familiar expressive associations may be fascinating, or evocative or moving in ways we can't expect or imagine. It's all interesting and valid. I can't say, though, that I perceive being "avant garde" or "cutting edge" as having any peculiar or intrinsic value, much less superiority, as a creative goal. Anyone can be different; that in itself requires little thought. I'm more impressed by the artist who, beginning with a deep immersion in and comprehension of the meaning-system of his culture, forges out of that language something beautiful, powerful, and new - new by virtue, not of difference pursued for its own sake, but of the artist's irresistible inner need to speak the language in his own way. Lesser artists may play around with ideas and try novel things. Great artists make people see new truths in what they thought they already knew, take them farther into themselves, and widen the ground on which they already stand.

Those who can do this will be the Bachs and Beethovens and Chopins and Wagners of the future. Those who can't, won't. In the long run, the merely avant garde artist becomes an also-ran. But that's not to say that what he produces can't be fun during whatever life-span it has.


----------



## Itullian

KenOC said:


> I used to have a recording of this from over a hundred years ago. Taught it to my kids who loved to sing it in the car, with sound effects. Can't believe it still exists!


Harry Dean Stanton sang this in Kelly's Heroes.


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> It's interesting that composers like Penderecki, Górecki and Pärt returned to a tonal style after their avantgarde phase. It almost seems as if a person of spirituality can stand atonality only for so long. I'm sure there are many exceptions, though.


A lot of the 'spiritual' / 'spiritual minimalist' style of those composers who lived under a Soviet regime has as much to do with the outlawing of Religion, which never died, and a near sentimental association with older Church modal music when the climate changed and they were permitted to once again write more directly 'spiritual' works. More correctly, that direction taken by Part et alia could better be called 'neomedieval' vs. any other tag it is known by.

If you think but one moment, it is by and large _only_ ex Soviet regime composers who went down the path into that rather specific mode, and they are very similar in the sharing of a lot of stylistic similarities because of going directly back to that antique religious music of their shared tradition, i.e. highly based upon or extremely referential to Eastern Orthodox musical style, i.e. old modes. The movement to, and the style, is nearly unique to this group from that time and place.

But, "It almost seems as if a person of spirituality can stand atonality only for so long." ???
_patently insupportable_.

I'm sure there are many exceptions, though." Yes, as coming from all contingents other than the ex Soviet camp.


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> But, "It almost seems as if a person of spirituality can stand atonality only for so long." ???
> _patently insupportable_.


Paraphrasing here, but "I don't hear tonal or atonal music, only music with or without color." - Olivier Messiaen


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> Paraphrasing here, but "I don't hear tonal or atonal music, only music with or without color." - Olivier Messiaen


....and color, by definition, is _chromaticism_

Checkmate, Stamiz. :lol:


----------



## Piwikiwi

violadude said:


> ....and color, by definition, is _chromaticism_
> 
> Checkmate, Stamiz. :lol:


Not for someone with synesthesia


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> ....and color, by definition, is _chromaticism_





Piwikiwi said:


> Not for someone with synesthesia


A-yep! Not necessarily to the synasthete... and of those so afflicted, Messiaen was one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I understand the appeal of music which doesn't use customary principles of organization, harmonic or otherwise. That can mean not only "atonal" music but music of other cultures (or even early music in the Western tradition). Sounds which lack familiar expressive associations may be fascinating, or evocative or moving in ways we can't expect or imagine. It's all interesting and valid. I can't say, though, that I perceive being "avant garde" or "cutting edge" as having any peculiar or intrinsic value, much less superiority, as a creative goal. Anyone can be different; that in itself requires little thought. I'm more impressed by the artist who, beginning with a deep immersion in and comprehension of the meaning-system of his culture, forges out of that language something beautiful, powerful, and new - new by virtue, not of difference pursued for its own sake, but of the artist's irresistible inner need to speak the language in his own way. Lesser artists may play around with ideas and try novel things. Great artists make people see new truths in what they thought they already knew, take them farther into themselves, and widen the ground on which they already stand.
> 
> Those who can do this will be the Bachs and Beethovens and Chopins and Wagners of the future. Those who can't, won't. In the long run, the merely avant garde artist becomes an also-ran. But that's not to say that what he produces can't be fun during whatever life-span it has.


---
So well-expressed. . . and for art in general, not just music.

I'll take the Scottish colloquialisms of Robert Burns over the monumental pretension of Joyce's _Ulysses_ any day; or, _mutatis mutandis_, for the subject at hand: Ralph Vaughan-Williams' _Tallis Fantasia _over the arid, doctrinaire nonsense of the Darmstadt School.


----------



## violadude

Ya...I mean...I was being tongue in cheek.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Systems are not merely comfortable. They are necessary for the communication of meaning. Art is more than perceptual play; music is more than playing with sounds, however interesting they are in themselves. System is order consciously employed. If art is to communicate meaning it must employ an ordered arrangement of signs which are perceived as carrying significance as a function of of that arrangement - a system of signs or, by analogy, a language with a grammar and a vocabulary. All systems, by virtue of being orderly, accept certain principles, which are limits that determine how the components of that system are used. The particular principles of any system of signs derive their capacity to function as vehicles of communication from both innate physiological responses in the receiver and from conventional expectations which the sender (artist) and receiver share. _Tonality_ in music is a system of signs of this nature, a system rooted both in physiological responses to consonance and dissonance and in conventional understandings of how these consonances and dissonances can be structured in time to give aesthetic enjoyment, evoke emotions, and convey meaning (and by "meaning" I do not necessarily intend anything which can be expressed in words).
> I think some composers return to tonality because they feel a need for a system which, by virtue of both its innate powers and its accumulated associations, will enable them to evoke emotions and meanings which they find they cannot express without it. Others, conceivably, may simply be tired of searching for novel effects and want the challenge and pleasure of exercising their skills in a language which they inherited from their culture and which they and their listeners share.


---
I for one don't listen to my music in a Chinese room of arid syntax, but rather in a human one resonating with tacitly-understood meaning and briming with emotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> I understand the appeal of music which doesn't use customary principles of organization, harmonic or otherwise. That can mean not only "atonal" music but music of other cultures (or even early music in the Western tradition). Sounds which lack familiar expressive associations may be fascinating, or evocative or moving in ways we can't expect or imagine. It's all interesting and valid. I can't say, though, that I perceive being "avant garde" or "cutting edge" as having any peculiar or intrinsic value, much less superiority, as a creative goal. Anyone can be different; that in itself requires little thought. I'm more impressed by the artist who, beginning with a deep immersion in and comprehension of the meaning-system of his culture, forges out of that language something beautiful, powerful, and new - new by virtue, not of difference pursued for its own sake, but of the artist's irresistible inner need to speak the language in his own way. Lesser artists may play around with ideas and try novel things. Great artists make people see new truths in what they thought they already knew, take them farther into themselves, and widen the ground on which they already stand.
> 
> Those who can do this will be the Bachs and Beethovens and Chopins and Wagners of the future. Those who can't, won't. In the long run, the merely avant garde artist becomes an also-ran. But that's not to say that what he produces can't be fun during whatever life-span it has.


Well, your making your point by assuming that Avante Garde artists are doing so "simply to be different," and that's just not so. I'm talking about the artists who really spark the evolution of art, and bring the expression of something formless closer to our experiential world. I mean, you want to keep playing _only_ Beethoven for the rest of your life? I'm sure some do, but I certainly don't. No doubt it's beautiful, but it's a limitation like everything else - and I'm thankful for those who are brave enough to forge new kingdoms.

Every genre has their disingenuous artists. Of course a love and ability to express something genuine is needed. I thought that was a given….


----------



## Woodduck

Vesuvius said:


> Well, your making your point by assuming that Avante Garde artists are doing so "simply to be different," and that's just not so. I'm talking about the artists who really spark the evolution of art, and bring the expression of something formless closer to our experiential world. I mean, you want to keep playing _only_ Beethoven for the rest of your life? I'm sure some do, but I certainly don't. No doubt it's beautiful, but it's a limitation like everything else - and I'm thankful for those who are brave enough to forge new kingdoms.
> 
> Every genre has their disingenuous artists. Of course a love and ability to express something genuine is needed. I thought that was a given….


You praise the "Avant Garde" as those who "purposely compose pieces that are hard to associate with ordinary mental patterns," and claim that such people "are the true pioneers of art." Granted that all innovation in any area of life (and all new experience of any kind) creates "new mental patterns," I don't think that this is what art is, or ought to be, setting out to do. Your "cutting edge" art, as you characterize it, may achieve a striking degree of novelty, absorb people's attention as they try to "understand" the maker's intentions and their own responses, get lots of press, and even stimulate the art world to paroxysms of impenetrable prose. None of that will ensure it's vitality through the days, years, decades, or eras to come.

A "love and ability to express something genuine" is not at all a given in the art world. Anyone who lived through a goodly portion of the 20th century, as I did, can have no illusions about that. The point of my remarks was not to decry innovation (after all, who was more innovative than that old Beethoven guy you suggest that I'm stuck listening to over and over?), but to point out that the idea of innovation you appeared to be offering seemed not to be grounded in any concepts which would explain how "newness" is related to "value." To me that is a very interesting question.


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> You praised the "Avant Garde" as those who "purposely compose pieces that are hard to associate with ordinary mental patterns," and claim that such people "are the true pioneers of art." Granted that all innovation in any area of life (and all new experience of any kind) creates "new mental patterns," I don't think that this is what art is, or ought to be, setting out to do. Your "cutting edge" art, as you characterize it, may achieve a striking degree of novelty, absorb people's attention as they try to "understand" the maker's intentions and their own responses, get lots of press, and even stimulate the art world to paroxysms of impenetrable prose. None of that will ensure it's vitality through the days, years, decades, or eras to come.
> 
> A "love and ability to express something genuine" is not at all a given in the art world. Anyone who lived through a goodly portion of the 20th century, as I did, can have no illusions about that. The point of my remarks was not to decry innovation (after all, who was more innovative than that old Beethoven guy you suggest that I'm stuck listening to over and over?), but to point out that the idea of innovation you appeared to be offering seemed not to be grounded in any concepts which would explain how "newness" is related to "value." To me that is a very interesting question.


It seems we're at a standstill with understanding here. Everything in life changes and progresses. All I'm saying is there are artists who are more geared towards being the conquistadors of the art world. You're really not going to here anything different from someone performing Beethoven's 13th string quartet for the umpteenth time. This shouldn't be so hard to understand. The value of art is to be able to "genuinely" express the dynamics and evolutions in existence, and you can't do that by sticking with the same limiting structures for centuries.

For the second part - Maybe there's an issue of comprehending the context of what I'm saying. I meant it should be automatically sought after if the artist is being honest and not simply trying to fulfill some silly egoic image. That's always the first thing that shows itself to me.


----------



## Blancrocher

Vesuvius said:


> You're really not going to here anything different from someone performing Beethoven's 13th string quartet for the umpteenth time.


Maybe the 14th, though--I heard a very strange performance of it by the "Brooklyn Rider" Quartet in a recording from last year.

This is just by the way, of course.


----------



## millionrainbows

"Musicians often use the term _tone color _when referring to the characteristic quality of a tone which enables one to tell different instruments apart. "Tone color," or _timbre_ (pronounced "tam-ber"), is the characteristic pattern of overtones unique to every instrument, which gives an instrument its own distinct sound. The point here is to make the distinction between "tone color" (which is really tone texture) and other general uses of the word color, and color hearing, which is the ear's perception of pitch color.

Some people have a perception of musical tones which extends beyond the sense of hearing and "overflows" into other senses, particularly the sense of sight. That is, when they hear a musical tone, they may simultaneously see an actual _visual_ color. This extremely rare and peculiar phenomenon is called _synesthesia,_ which means that one of the five senses is stimulated through a different sense outside its own field of perception. The synesthetic individual literally "sees" a color when he hears a tone.

*
*Further, individuals with the sense of color hearing (perfect pitch) do not _see_ colors when tones are played (this is synesthesia), but rather discriminate between colors which are _heard_*. *This situation has no direct connection with the ability of perfect pitch. A person with perfect pitch does not see a visual color when he hears a tone; rather, he hears the sound color (pitch color) of the tone. Visual color and pitch color can both be referred to as color because they both mean a certain quality which allows one to discriminate among wave frequencies.

It should be clear by this analysis that color hearing (perfect pitch) is completely separate from any kind of visual color association to music. Perfect pitch is the perception of pitch color and has no concern with any kind of visual color experience or association. Pitch color is a quality which is heard and is merely analogous to the way the eye sees and discriminates between visual colors."

David Burge


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> I for one don't listen to my music in a Chinese room of arid syntax, but rather in a human one resonating with tacitly-understood meaning and briming with emotion.


That sounds like a real tea party.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds like a real tea party.


Tea, espresso, German-chocolate creme brulee, high spirits, infectious bonomie, strong opinions, and caffeinated Gemutlichkeit. . . well, for starters. _;D_


----------



## Blake

Blancrocher said:


> Maybe the 14th, though--I heard a very strange performance of it by the "Brooklyn Rider" Quartet in a recording from last year.
> 
> This is just by the way, of course.


Meh, nothing to do naked cartwheels about.


----------



## Blancrocher

Vesuvius said:


> Meh, nothing to do naked cartwheels about.


It's true that I didn't feel the need to acquire the cd after giving it a listen on Spotify, but some may enjoy it in any case. It's a unique approach.


----------



## Blake

Blancrocher said:


> It's true that I didn't feel the need to acquire the cd after giving it a listen on Spotify, but some may enjoy it in any case. It's a unique approach.


I know. Old music is beautiful, and I'm glad people are keeping it alive. I'm just trying to make a point.


----------



## hpowders

After listening to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto almost exclusively for 3 days, going back to tonal music was a bit of a shock.
It's like all of a sudden being forced to use a different part of one's brain.


----------



## neoshredder

hpowders said:


> After listening to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto almost exclusively for 3 days, going back to tonal music was a bit of a shock.
> It's like all of a sudden being forced to use a different part of one's brain.


Interesting how you can train your brain like that to prefer certain styles. 3 days without tonal would seem like torture for me.


----------



## Kingfisher

hi I am a new member
I like this thread as it gives me the chance to check out new music i.e Ligeti.
I am new to atonal music and looking forward to that journey.
will search out Stockhausen as well
any other composers I should start with?
Regards
Phill
Happy composing


----------



## hpowders

neoshredder said:


> Interesting how you can train your brain like that to prefer certain styles. 3 days without tonal would seem like torture for me.


You get used to it. You hear sounds that seemed like random noise all of a sudden making sense.
Then I went back to Haydn and I almost got dizzy!


----------



## DrKilroy

I have to try this "3 days without tonal" project. 


Best regards, Dr


----------



## hpowders

I went 5 days without tonality.

It's the least I could do for Lent.

Now, I can barely remember my name.


----------



## shangoyal

3 days of atonal can be cured by a liberal helping of Bach.


----------



## hpowders

Kingfisher said:


> hi I am a new member
> I like this thread as it gives me the chance to check out new music i.e Ligeti.
> I am new to atonal music and looking forward to that journey.
> will search out Stockhausen as well
> any other composers I should start with?
> Regards
> Phill
> Happy composing


Try the first movement of Schoenberg's Piano Concerto with Uchida/Boulez. I was surprised at how good it is.


----------



## neoshredder

DrKilroy said:


> I have to try this "3 days without tonal" project.
> 
> Best regards, Dr


I hope there are no long term side effects.


----------



## Mahlerian

shangoyal said:


> 3 days of atonal can be cured by a liberal helping of Bach.


Comparing Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra with Bach's Art of Fugue may end up leading one to hear the similarities rather than the differences (both famously use the B-A-C-H signature, for one).


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm curious; do these people who must have their tonality ever get freaked-out or anxiety-ridden when Bach makes one of his chromatic excursions? The tension must be unbearable.

In fact, I witnessed a sad case of this, after the listener had been exposed to Richard Strauss' _Metamorphosen_ and Schoenberg's _Pelleas und Mellisande._ We had to sedate the poor thing, put them in a darkened room, and put on some LaMont Young oscillator drone music, in order to re-center them to the tonic.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> After listening to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto almost exclusively for 3 days, going back to tonal music was a bit of a shock.
> It's like all of a sudden being forced to use a different part of one's brain.


I've found that if one does enough exclusive immersion in the more recent harmony and 'atonal' music(and the newer shapes and forms) it can give a somewhat startling perspective when you then go back to the older rep. It becomes possible, at least for a moment, to feel how startling and 'new,' that music might have been to its contemporary audiences.


----------



## Vasks

hpowders said:


> I went 5 days without tonality. Now, I can barely remember my name.


The fact that you do barely remember your name means that you should have gone a sixth day for total obliteration.

You do not need to thank me for the above advice. :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Vasks said:


> The fact that you do barely remember your name means that you should have gone a sixth day for total obliteration.
> 
> You do not need to thank me for the above advice. :lol:


I've started back at day one again. Schoenberg. Ordered some Lutoslawski. Woke the guy up who was selling it. I think I made his year. I bet he never thought anyone would buy it. :lol:


----------



## neoshredder

I think I might do a 3 day only listen to Baroque music.  I'll see how it goes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> I think I might do a 3 day only listen to Baroque music.  I'll see how it goes.


In my current situation I can listen to a Zelenka requiem and then have to turn straight to Beat Furrer!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm curious; do these people who must have their tonality ever get freaked-out or anxiety-ridden when Bach makes one of his chromatic excursions? The tension must be unbearable.
> 
> In fact, I witnessed a sad case of this, after the listener had been exposed to Richard Strauss' _Metamorphosen_ and Schoenberg's _Pelleas und Mellisande._ We had to sedate the poor thing, put them in a darkened room, and put on some LaMont Young oscillator drone music, in order to re-center them to the tonic.


For the most part yes, I must have my tonality - and yes, I get freaked out when Bach makes one of his chromatic excursions, and the tension is unbearable - exquisitely so. That is exactly what's supposed to happen, and it's tonality that makes it happen. Hurrah for d-minor!


----------

