# Tonal vs atonal (classical) music post-1945



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Which do you prefer / think is greater on the whole? What is the role of tonality in classical music today and into the future?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Atonal music shot its wad and lost; deservedly so. There have been many books and articles written on the subject, but in the end one truth remains: atonal music doesn't reach into the human heart. It's ugly, like a lot of modern "art" in many fields. Not that there are some interesting, even weirdly beautiful creations: I really enjoy the very atonal symphonies of Humphrey Searle. But the public, performers, and history has spoken: atonal music was a dead end. That only a small handful of atonal works are in the active repertoire says it all. The music critic and writer Michael Walsh lays it all out loudly and clearly. Highly recommended to all concerned about the state of the arts in 2020.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I know that I am not definitively able to distinguish between tonal and atonal music. Some music that I might think is atonal is likely tonal and vice versa. I also believe that many others cannot easily distinguish between the two. My understanding is that the designation atonal is made based on music theoretical investigation to determine whether a particular piece is best analyzed using common practice tonality methods or other methods.

Are you trying to understand whether people view music _that is very clearly tonal_ as greater or more enjoyable than music _that is not very clearly tonal but may in fact be_? Or are you actually trying to distinguish between atonal and tonal music?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t pay attention to whether it is one or the other as long as it is great music. I do like some traditionally tonal compositions from the contemporary era - like John Rutter’s Requiem - but I also like a great deal of atonal compositions. My line is drawn when what I hear stops being “music” (a.k.a organized sound) and starts to deal more with the methods of producing noises.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Atonal music shot its wad and lost; deservedly so. There have been many books and articles written on the subject, but in the end one truth remains: atonal music doesn't reach into the human heart. It's ugly, like a lot of modern "art" in many fields. Not that there are some interesting, even weirdly beautiful creations: I really enjoy the very atonal symphonies of Humphrey Searle. But the public, performers, and history has spoken: atonal music was a dead end. That only a small handful of atonal works are in the active repertoire says it all. The music critic and writer Michael Walsh lays it all out loudly and clearly. Highly recommended to all concerned about the state of the arts in 2020.


Just want to say that atonal music has reached my heart, at least. Contemporary music can be intuitive too, even my old mother can understand some of Ligeti and find it fun. Modern arts are also popular all over the world, Art Basel is always packed with people. History has not been decided.

Not every experiment ended in success, most ended in failure but that's OK, and that's the spirit of experiments.

The West has not been subverted, the subversion IS a part of the West. To externalize the subversion is a sign of insecurity of conservatives, nothing personal, just my two cents.

I respect people who hold on to conservative aesthetics. I too, love Homer, Bernini, and Mozart. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying the contemporary art, from Duchamp to Damien Hurst, as a form of "Western Zen". Berio is just as intuitive and exciting as Beethoven to me now. Stockhausen conducts Mozart too, you know, and it's pretty good.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I know that I am not definitively able to distinguish between tonal and atonal music. Some music that I might think is atonal is likely tonal and vice versa. I also believe that many others cannot easily distinguish between the two. My understanding is that the designation atonal is made based on music theoretical investigation to determine whether a particular piece is best analyzed using common practice tonality methods or other methods.
> 
> Are you trying to understand whether people view music _that is very clearly tonal_ as greater or more enjoyable than music _that is not very clearly tonal but may in fact be_? Or are you actually trying to distinguish between atonal and tonal music?


Here is a scientific, highly accurate way of distinguishing the two: if you can hum it, it's tonal. If that doesn't totally work, then if you don't want to ever hum it, it's probably atonal.


----------



## Ravn (Jan 6, 2020)

Unless we’re able to properly define what consitutes atonality, I don’t think I can answer the question. I think the lines are somewhat blurry since serialism went out of fashion. I mean, are Gubaidulina, Crumb, Chin and Saariaho tonal or atonal composers? Or what about Messian’s «Quatour pour la fin du temps»? Or Shaw’s «Partita for 8 voices»?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

One can try to be unique by doing something few others could ever do, or something few others would ever _want _to do. You may guess my position concerning the topic matter...


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Atonal music shot its wad and lost; deservedly so. There have been many books and articles written on the subject, but in the end one truth remains: atonal music doesn't reach into the human heart. It's ugly, like a lot of modern "art" in many fields. Not that there are some interesting, even weirdly beautiful creations: I really enjoy the very atonal symphonies of Humphrey Searle. But the public, performers, and history has spoken: atonal music was a dead end. That only a small handful of atonal works are in the active repertoire says it all. The music critic and writer Michael Walsh lays it all out loudly and clearly. Highly recommended to all concerned about the state of the arts in 2020.


Most composers working today still write "atonal" music. The line between tonal and atonal is actually more blurred in 2020 than it was in Boulez's dogmatic heyday. For example, is Glass tonal when he uses tonal centers but (for the most part) completely ignores directional harmony? Are Schnittke or late Ligeti tonal in their unclassifiable melding of various systems? Perhaps you're talking about integral serialism, which _has_ died out. However, while that system was somewhat of an artistic dead end, composers in the last 50 years have built on its best qualities (new textural and rhythmic possibilities) to create some truly great music.



DaveM said:


> Here is a scientific, highly accurate way of distinguishing the two: if you can hum it, it's tonal. If that doesn't totally work, then if you don't want to ever hum it, it's probably atonal.


This reminds me of something Malcolm Arnold said in an interview once, an anecdote on (funnily enough) Humphrey Searle:

"I have the greatest admiration for Schoenberg, Webern, and particularly Berg, who did a great deal to enhance our musical language. But I used to say to a man who studied Webern, - a very great friend of mine, Humphrey Searle - 'You sing me a tune from Schoenberg!' And the strange thing was, he had such a perceptive ear and admired the man so much, he could!"


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Either/Or after 1945 is not a decision I need to make. A lot of people write books and critics have their opinions. I'm not interested in what Michael Walsh has to say. I can listen and decide for myself. And frankly speaking, I don't care for much of the new consonance rehash of recent decades. But I can only decide on the pieces I've listened to enough, not the entire post 1945 world of music so this poll is a useless exercise.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Atonal music shot its wad and lost; deservedly so.


Someone forgot to tell TC voters the news.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Both atonal and tonal post 1945 music have great works, mediocre works and works that are really not worthwhile. Can't vote.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> I know that I am not definitively able to distinguish between tonal and atonal music. Some music that I might think is atonal is likely tonal and vice versa. I also believe that many others cannot easily distinguish between the two. My understanding is that the designation atonal is made based on music theoretical investigation to determine whether a particular piece is best analyzed using common practice tonality methods or other methods.
> 
> Are you trying to understand whether people view music _that is very clearly tonal_ as greater or more enjoyable than music _that is not very clearly tonal but may in fact be_? Or are you actually trying to distinguish between atonal and tonal music?


If you do not believe you can distinguish well enough between tonal and atonal music, or are clear enough on the definitions of and implications of these terms, then you do not have to answer the poll. If you feel you can label enough music as being "tonal" or clearly "atonal" - even if this distinction may be subjective (such as in the "borderline" cases Portamento mentioned above) - then answer based on which group you prefer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What is the role of tonality in classical music today and into the future?


That's a really interesting question.

Tonality is the traditional harmonic language of music, so a more general way of posing your question is this: how should modern musicians take into account the past? Should they embrace it in some way (Helmut Lachenmann would be such a composer), or should they reject it and start afresh (maybe Salvatore Sciarrino would be an example of this)?

The question is particularly central because, over the past 100 years, we've seen that approaches to harmony which aren't tonal can be very expressive. So if a musician _limits himself_ to tonality, he's depriving himself of some powerful means of expression. I can't think of any _poetic _reason for a composer to want to do this.

In classical music, which is I guess what you had in mind, the problem is even more difficult because the tradition in Europe at least is bourgeois, exclusive. And maybe it has become stale too. These are both reasons for wanting to try and wash your hands of it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> *If you do not believe you can distinguish well enough between tonal and atonal music, or are clear enough on the definitions of and implications of these terms, then you do not have to answer the poll.* If you feel you can label enough music as being "tonal" or clearly "atonal" - even if this distinction may be subjective (such as in the "borderline" cases Portamento mentioned above) - then answer based on which group you prefer.


What if we don't believe _you_ can make (or have made) the distinction and are consequently confused about what you think your poll is asking? And of what value is a poll in which the choices are undefined and no one agrees on what they mean? IMO, if you aren't ready to define the central terms of your poll or at least to give some idea of what music you believe belongs in either category, then the poll isn't ready for prime time.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

To BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist:

It's a tough crowd.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> Someone forgot to tell TC voters the news.


That music is not a competion.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Is Terry Riley or LaMonte Young tonal? What about non-functional diatonic music like much of Shostakovitch or Gorecki's symphony 3?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

starthrower said:


> That music is not a competion.


Life is a competition.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Life is a competition.


Yes, in a dog eat dog world, bulldog is always the top dog.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I voted atonal, but I really meant avant garde.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

These are all good questions... keep them coming. I'm busy atm, but I'll deal with everyone's comments and clarify things in a bit. I wanted the OP to be a bit ambiguous (and provocative), so that people could be free to discuss about their own ideas on tonality without having me strictly define the term.



Bwv 1080 said:


> Is Terry Riley or LaMonte Young tonal?


The real question is, is it classical? Is it music? (I jest... I actually like listening to this stuff once in a while)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Yes, in a dog eat dog world, bulldog is always the top dog.


Not always, but my percentage keeps going up.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> Both atonal and tonal post 1945 music have great works, mediocre works and works that are really not worthwhile. Can't vote.


This. ............


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

> the poll isn't ready for prime time.


Yeah, come on, Brahms. The only polls we fancy seeing in this vicinity are of the "Bach or Beethoven?" or "best Mahler symphony?" asked-once-every-couple-weeks variety. Your poll is sorely unprepared for prime time.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Minor Sixthist said:


> Yeah, come on, Brahms. The only polls we fancy seeing in this vicinity are of the "Bach or Beethoven?" or "best Mahler symphony?" asked-once-every-couple-weeks variety. Your poll is sorely unprepared for prime time.


Yeah I know... I'm asking for the lesser of two evils. Just preparing people for November, that's all


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

There’s a lot of music that is in the grey area between tonal and atonal. It’s a spectrum.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> Atonal music shot its wad and lost; deservedly so. There have been many books and articles written on the subject, but in the end one truth remains: atonal music doesn't reach into the human heart.


while I like to hear music that it's touching, I have to say that some of my favorite music is music made for the mind, and I'm saying it in the most positive way possible. I know that people just see cerebrality as something pretentious and bad, but I don't see it this way. I've never been touched by a building in the way a sad song could make me cry, and still there are amazing and incredibly beautiful works of art.
Stravinsky said it perfectly:

"Most people like music because it gives them certain emotions such as joy, grief, sadness, and image of nature, a subject for daydreams or - still better - oblivion from "everyday life". They want a drug - dope -…. Music would not be worth much if it were reduced to such an end. When people have learned to love music for itself, when they listen with other ears, their enjoyment will be of a far higher and more potent order, and they will be able to judge it on a higher plane and realise its intrinsic value."

Personally, while in the past I've criticized a lot of atonal music (and still there are a lot of works that I don't like) I'm glad that we have both tonal and atonal music. I'm glad we had Anton Webern and Barbara Pentland as I'm glad we had Gerald Finzi and Alec Wilder.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It seems to me that the terms "tonal" and "atonal" have two meanings: each have a technical meaning that would be used by music theorists, and each have a popular meaning that is used by relatively ordinary folks kicking around ideas on a message board.

This comment:



ORigel said:


> I voted atonal, but I really meant avant garde.


... seems to reflect accurate knowledge of these two definitions.



mbhaub said:


> Atonal music shot its wad and lost


This does not appear true to me according to either definition. For the past fifty years at least atonal music has been a standard feature in film music.

Using the popular definition of atonality, I'm not sure there really has been that much "tonal" classical music since 1945.

Anyway, as for myself, I enjoy "weird" music much more than "pretty" music, so that's how I'll vote.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

For now, let's go with this:

*Tonal = written according to a pitch class hierarchy, specifically one which centralizes one pitch class as a focal point at any given time.*

This will include stuff (IMO) like most minimalism, pretty much everything by Shostakovich, a lot of non-diatonic / modal music, etc, etc. The music does NOT have to be based around a tonic-dominant polarity, tertian or functional harmony, or any other standard of the CP era. The only "key" feature is that there must be a single pitch class which serves as the "tonic". I do believe that, even if tonality is defined as precisely as possible, its application to music is quite subjective; hence you can decide for yourself regarding "borderline cases".

Is this better, EB?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> For now, let's go with this:
> 
> *Tonal = written according to a pitch class hierarchy, specifically one which centralizes one pitch class as a focal point at any given time.*
> 
> ...


So am I right to think that Scelsi's 3rd quartet is tonal?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> So am I right to think that Scelsi's 3rd quartet is tonal?


As tonal as they come.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

And so is Enno Poppe's Rad I suppose


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> And so is Enno Poppe's Rad I suppose


Not so sure about this one. There are some points in which it seems like the music maybe establishes a tonic (e.g. the beginning with C), but to my ears this piece sounds, for the most part, atonal.

What is your argument for this being tonal music?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Structured on a microtonal pitch hierarchy.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

All music is tonal. However, you may not like the tones being used!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> All music is tonal. However, you may not like the tones being used!


"Colour lies at the heart of Messiaen's music. He believed that terms such as "tonal", "modal" and "serial" are misleading analytical conveniences. For him there were no modal, tonal or serial compositions, only music with or without colour. He said that Claudio Monteverdi, Mozart, Chopin, Richard Wagner, Mussorgsky and Stravinsky all wrote strongly coloured music."


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> For now, let's go with this:
> 
> *Tonal = written according to a pitch class hierarchy, specifically one which centralizes one pitch class as a focal point at any given time.*
> 
> This will include stuff (IMO) like most minimalism, pretty much everything by Shostakovich, a lot of non-diatonic / modal music, etc, etc. The music does NOT have to be based around a tonic-dominant polarity, tertian or functional harmony, or any other standard of the CP era. The only "key" feature is that there must be a single pitch class which serves as the "tonic". I do believe that, even if tonality is defined as precisely as possible, its application to music is quite subjective; hence you can decide for yourself regarding "borderline cases".


Well that's just fine for people who have studied composition and can read music. Which, by the way, is not a pre-requisite for enjoying music. Can't I just listen to something and say yea or nay? My love of classical music has improved exponentially since I began searching out music written by others than the old masters. So, yes, I prefer music from the 20th Century and on. I'm glad I didn't know what atonal meant or how offensive it is to some who dismiss it out of hand. Might have scared me off. No, really it wouldn't have. For me, it just has to pass the ear test.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Generally post 1945 I prefer stuff that is 'tonal' in the sense of music like Partch, Takemitsu and Brouwer. Traditional tonal music that is pastiche of earlier styles I'm generally not that interested in, likewise for atonality.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> "[M]essiaen said that Claudio Monteverdi, Mozart, Chopin, Richard Wagner, Mussorgsky and Stravinsky all wrote strongly coloured music."


What does that mean do you think? I mean any performance takes on the colour of the instruments used. Cellists have played Chopin nocturnes, people have set lyrics to Chopin's etudes -- so colour doesn't seem to be of the essence there at least. People have made transcriptions of Wagner, Mozart . . .


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^^it'll be him referring to his synesthesia and how he perceives harmony as colour no doubt..


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> ^^^it'll be him referring to his synesthesia and how he perceives harmony as colour no doubt..


Oh, that makes it not very interesting then!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Oh, that makes it not very interesting then!


yep, it is utterly subjective, even musicians who have a similar synesthesia can't agree on what colours match what harmonies. Still, it floated his boat very well indeed...


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

This discussion seems to be yet another attempt at putting a single convenient and short-hand label on a large group of music, mostly written since Schoenberg, that I personally find to be generally ugly, uninteresting and unrewarding. Having invested a good deal of time in the attempt of understanding at least something about this group of music, I have come to find that it is quite diverse, but still generally to me ugly, uninteresting and unrewarding. (In other words, I have come to understand it somewhat, and yet not to really appreciate it any more than before. I generally find that it demands a great deal and provides little to nothing in return for the effort.)

Some people want to use the generic term of atonal for this music, for the lack of a better label, and some people want to deny any ability to use any label, perhaps with the idea that doing so diminishes the ability to discard it en masse (which it does not).

For some time, I tried to use the label of "academic" for such music, because it seemed to me that one fairly consistent trait was that it was written _by_ academics primarily _for_ academics, and to demonstrate theoretical ideas about music that may or may not actually be achieved in the product presented. The one consistent thing seemed to be that such music discarded traditional approaches and along with it any consideration for the audience. (The suggestion of such a title has also been generally dismissed by advocates of such music as derogatory.) Then, in reading notes about such music, usually in concert programs or liner notes, they started to use words like "fun," "beautiful" and "melody," such that the world seemed to have been turned upside down and words lost any meaning.

To me, the biggest reason that this debate is ongoing is that this new body of composition, whatever it might be called and however it might be categorized, demands acceptance by an existing audience and platform for delivery (namely concerts) while it also insists on dismissing the interests of a tradition that established that audience and platform. It is a little like a forced marriage, and the result is inevitably unhappiness and squabbles all around. (Or perhaps it is like a marriage where one of the partners suddenly takes up the habit of chain smoking, and demands doing so in the house while the other objects to the smoking. A change of habit or a divorce seems necessary.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I've gotten to the point where I don't pay attention to whether it is one or the other as long as it is great music. I do like some traditionally tonal compositions from the contemporary era - like John Rutter's Requiem - but I also like a great deal of atonal compositions. My line is drawn when what I hear stops being "music" (a.k.a organized sound) and starts to deal more with the methods of producing noises.


I question whether we, as listeners, have the right to declare whether a work is "music" or not. That seems to take the power too far. Of course, we can "not like it" and refuse to engage with it, but I think it's going too far to "dispute" whether or not something is defined as music, when it is clearly presented as music.

If we are going to provide a definition of the terms, for me they refer to a past era in which there was a dialectic going on between tonal and non-tonal music (which is now over).

For me, "atonal" refers to a type of music in which tonality is not the primary concern.

However, since the time-period in which this was a relevant concern has long passed, it's misleading to apply the terms to newer music in which pitch and tonality are still NOT the main concerns.

Now, IMHO, the emphasis has changed into a matter of "music based on pitch" vs. "Music based on sound."

So instead of trying to decide whether Ligeti or Cage are "atonal" or not, they clearly fit into the category of "music as sound", or "art" music, or whatever you want to call it.

As my background is in visual arts, I see the real problem with acceptance of newer kinds of music is because newer composers (John Cage is a perfect example) have borrowed approaches, freedoms, and concepts from the much freer area of the visual arts and painting. Many listeners do not, therefore, wish to apply the conceptual tools to handle the idea of "art" music.

The area of music has always been slower than the visual arts to apply change.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I question whether we, as listeners, have the right to declare whether a work is "music" or not. That seems to take the power too far. Of course, we can "not like it" and refuse to engage with it, but I think it's going too far to "dispute" whether or not something is defined as music, when it is clearly presented as music.


Who does get to decide this question? There is a great deal of music that I consider music, although I do not appreciate it at all, and then there is stuff that is so beyond my basic understanding of what music is that I think it hard to apply the term. At some point, the very idea of something called music loses any meaning. If everything is music, then nothing is music. There must be some limits if the word is to have any utility or purpose. That it may be used or denied in fairly casual ways is merely the consequence of language and the nature of communication.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I see no problem with putting _any _attempt at writing a sound scheme for instruments under the label of "music".

It will put all of it in a competition, and the masters will look even greater when contrasted with unlistenable and useless garbage.

The atonal composers are in a minority nowadays. All it takes is a glance at something like Westworld Scoring Competition, which attracted 11,000 composers entering. Very little was atonal in there.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> I see no problem with putting _any _attempt at writing a sound scheme for instruments under the label of "music".


. . . presumably also including the human voice as an instrument. Are there any limits on what would be considered an instrument? Is any thing that can be used to produce sound an instrument? Does the nature of the sound produced necessarily need to reflect, to some extent, an intended effect?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I would have liked an option to say "both" - tonality or its absence is not an important determinant of what I like and dislike. I voted atonal because I think most of the composers I really value from the period in question wrote atonal music. But that goes against some great masters such as Britten.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

JAS said:


> . . . presumably also including the human voice as an instrument. Are there any limits on what would be considered an instrument? Is any thing that can be used to produce sound an instrument?


Anything can be an instrument---just that most choices of objects are more or less garbage.

I recently considered implementing striking a wooden board with high-heeled shoes as a percussion effect. I ultimately decided against it because it didn't fit with the rest of effects being symbolic, and not 1:1 with reality, but I can imagine it being blended with a bass drum for a unique colour in an unrelated composition.

As for unorthodox use of instruments... the other day I spent a lot of time researching the possibility of having the 2nd violins play a passage with a plucked tremolo with a mandolin pick. It seemed barely doable (nicely) for a soloist, but teaching 16 people do it on a professional mandolinist level in five minutes would be a recipe for a disaster, so I abandoned it.

For me, a lot of "experimental" music is more or less having such considerations, but instead of reaching reasonable conclusions in their own minds, it ends with people yelling "Yeeee-haw!" and testing it on someone's ears and tax money instead.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I wonder what great tonal music has been written since the end of the war especially if you take away the postwar music by Soviets Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Khachaturian.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

larold said:


> I wonder what great tonal music has been written since the end of the war especially if you take away the postwar music by Soviets Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Khachaturian.


Morton Feldman, Laurence Crane, Louis Andriessen, John White, Howard Skempton, Frederick Rzeweski, Antoine Beuger, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Wolfgang Rihm, Helmut Lachenmann. Giacinto Scelsi if Brahmswasamelodist is to be believed.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

larold said:


> I wonder what great tonal music has been written since the end of the war especially if you take away the postwar music by Soviets Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Khachaturian.


The music of Vaughan Williams, Herrmann, Rózsa, Hovhaness, Alwyn, Williams, Goldsmith... for a start


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> If everything is music, then nothing is music. There must be some limits if the word is to have any utility or purpose. That it may be used or denied in fairly casual ways is merely the consequence of language and the nature of communication.


This sounds very objective, but it's not. This is _your _subjective construct.

Music can be defined as 'organized sound.' I think if you're flexible enough to accept that, then you're ready for Varese, Cage, musique concrete, electronic music, Ferneyhough, Birtwistle, etc.

I'm not interested in whatever 'utility' or 'purpose' that you have concocted in your mind. If a composer presents it as music, I'm willing to accept it as such.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> if Brahmswasamelodist is to be believed


if the notion that Brahmswasamelodist is to be believed


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> This sounds very objective, but it's not. This is _your _subjective construct.


It is not a statement of opinion. It is simply logic. (That is why it not only sounds objective, but really pretty much is.) No word that has such an open definition has a practical meaning. (There are already sufficient words that convey the idea of anything, in various contexts, so no real need to ruin another perfectly good word by stripping it of meaning.)



millionrainbows said:


> Music can be defined as 'organized sound.' I think if you're flexible enough to accept that, then you're ready for Varese, Cage, musique concrete, electronic music, Ferneyhough, Birtwistle, etc.


So the distinction you make for music versus sound is the idea that it is somehow organized. The word organized does not even fit all of the composers listed, or does so broadly enough that it also has no meaning. (I presume that spoken word is somehow excluded from your definition, or perhaps not.) We also find the same problem with the word "art," which has been so abused as to become useless.



millionrainbows said:


> I'm not interested in whatever 'utility' or 'purpose' that you have concocted in your mind. If a composer presents it as music, I'm willing to accept it as such.


Nor really am I all that interested in yours, beyond the minor entertainment value.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> Nor really am I all that interested in yours, beyond the minor entertainment value.


My 'definition' includes the composers who created the music, so it's not an isolated subjective opinion like yours is. Yours is totally subjective and personal, and tends to exclude certain kinds of music and their audiences.

My definition of music does not pretend to be objective, but it includes the inter-subjective experience of those who created it and call it music, and which is shared by others who empathize. All art is inter-subjective.

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

Your definition of music is exclusive; it rejects music which falls outside of your subjective definition. Therefore, it tends to isolate certain kinds of music and audiences.

Being isolationist does not show empathy or tolerance for other diverging kinds of music or people, as we can observe from the way our own president has behaved, when he encourages isolation and alienation of others. I think we all agree on a common sense level that "being a good citizen" means being tolerant and cognizant of the feelings of other people.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> My 'definition' includes the composers who created the music, so it's not an isolated subjective opinion like yours is. Yours is totally subjective and personal, and tends to exclude certain kinds of music and their audiences.


Mine is shared by most of the world, throughout recorded history. It is hardly more subjective and self serving than yours.



millionrainbows said:


> Your definition of music is exclusive; it rejects music which falls outside of your subjective definition. Therefore, it tends to isolate certain kinds of music and audiences.


Merely blathering nonsense. Exclusivity of meaning is hardly a failure. The meaning does reject what falls outside of that meaning, which is actually the whole point. A dog is not a cat, and a pair of shoes is not a symphony. It does isolate somewhat, but that is what meaning does.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Not sure how to answer, as my favorite post-1945 music is generally not conventionally tonal but not really atonal either.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I tend to gravitate toward atonal, but there are some tonal pieces I like.

Unlike the previous poster, I have no problem with atonal music "reaching into my heart". If be "reaching into my heart" he means becoming emotionally moved.

Just because music is not obviously beautiful, does not mean there is not deeper beauty to find. 

Not to mention, I find a great deal of catharsis to be found with many pieces that the previous poster may find ugly. Again, beauty does not have to be obvious to exist.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Those who say less tonal music is "ugly" and can't "reach the heart" have clearly never listened to Charles Ives:


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Morton Feldman, Laurence Crane, Louis Andriessen, John White, Howard Skempton, Frederick Rzeweski, Antoine Beuger, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Wolfgang Rihm, Helmut Lachenmann. Giacinto Scelsi ... Vaughan Williams, Herrmann, Rózsa, Hovhaness, Alwyn, Williams, Goldsmith._

Aside from Vaughan Williams I'd question whether much of this is "great," the quality I questioned. However I realize art is in the ear of the listener.

As it regards Charles Ives (above) post-1945 he didn't write much if anything after 1945. The compositions cited above were composed 1915, 1916 and 1904.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The only real viable role of what we now know as "classical tonal music" and its trappings (orchestral sounds, musical gesture, no incessant drum beat) is _cinema,_ which is what opera became.

Of course, there's always room for "sound designers" or Danny Elfmans to add "scary noises" and atonality for effect.

As far as post WWII serialism, this was an intellectual, artistic effort to explore new areas of music, and to expand the syntax of music, of interest mainly to experts and aficionados. As "art" music, therefore, it has no utilitarian use like cinema music does. It is "worthless" in that regard, because it is "purely art," designed only for "sublime contemplation" as high art, not as background mood music for cinema.

So stop expecting "art" to be "useful" in some way. If you want tonal classical music, go back to the past, or go see a movie.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> The only real viable *place to find* what we now know as "classical tonal music" and its *characteristics *(orchestral sounds, musical gesture, no incessant drum beat) is _cinema,_ which is what opera became.
> 
> Of course, there's always room for "sound designers" or Danny Elfmans to add "scary noises" and atonality for effect.
> 
> As far as post WWII serialism, this was an intellectual, artistic effort to explore new areas of music, and to expand the syntax of music, of interest mainly to experts and aficionados. As "art" music, therefore, it has no utilitarian use like cinema music does. It is "worthless" in that regard, because it is "purely art," designed only for "sublime contemplation" as high art.


I replaced two phrasings and deleted the last sentence, and the result is quite agreeable.



millionrainbows said:


> So stop expecting "art" to be "useful" in some way. If you want tonal classical music, go back to the past, or go see a movie.


Are you saying this as a practical observer, or a philosopher?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The only real viable role of what we now know as "classical tonal music" and its trappings (orchestral sounds, musical gesture, no incessant drum beat) is _cinema,_ which is what opera became.


Entertainment or pleasure in more general terms are perfectly viable roles.



millionrainbows said:


> As far as post WWII serialism, this was an intellectual, artistic effort to explore new areas of music, and to expand the syntax of music, of interest mainly to experts and aficionados. As "art" music, therefore, it has no utilitarian use like cinema music does. It is "worthless" in that regard, because it is "purely art," designed only for "sublime contemplation" as high art, not as background mood music for cinema.


Or really for any traditional purpose.



millionrainbows said:


> So stop expecting "art" to be "useful" in some way.


Demand rejected. It is fine if there are people who want to create and even listen to such stuff, but they should really stop expecting a broad audience to embrace or support it.



millionrainbows said:


> If you want tonal classical music, go back to the past, or go see a movie.


I do.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Are you saying this as a practical observer, or a philosopher?


As far as I can tell, MR has never done any _practical_ thing in his life, at least not intentionally.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> As far as I can tell, MR has never done any _practical_ thing in his life, at least not intentionally.


I think he works in a factory making musical instruments. Wind chimes.

Anyway, more interesting, what do you think of the way Lachenmann uses tonal music in this piece? Lachenmann more than any other artist I know has explored ways of making his art embrace tradition, in ways which don't rob it of authenticity and integrity. So even in his "instrumental musique concrete" phase of the 1970s, he claimed the form, the structure, of the music was traditional even though the sounds and harmonies weren't.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Why label music tonal, atonal, classical, etc.? Those labels are reductive, encourage preconceived expectations, and can act to stifle curiosity and enjoyment, IMO.

Duke Ellington famously refused to allow his promotional material to use the word "jazz." He often said he wrote and performed _his_ music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> . . . what do you think of the way Lachenmann uses tonal music in this piece? . . .


Lachenmann's main theme sounds very Japanese to me, perhaps intentionally (given the image). Parts of it are interesting, but too much of it is far too disruptive or intrusively jangled for my taste. (I did not get all the way through on my first listen, but may try again later, after a couple of meetings this morning.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I think he works in a factory making musical instruments. Wind chimes.


Does being a regularly performing drag queen count as "practical?"


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I think he works in a factory making musical instruments. Wind chimes.
> 
> Anyway, more interesting, what do you think of the way Lachenmann uses tonal music in this piece? Lachenmann more than any other artist I know has explored ways of making his art embrace tradition, in ways which don't rob it of authenticity and integrity. So even in his "instrumental musique concrete" phase of the 1970s, he claimed the form, the structure, of the music was traditional even though the sounds and harmonies weren't.


great fun....a little deranged, but great too.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> ...what do you think of the way Lachenmann uses tonal music in this piece? Lachenmann more than any other artist I know has explored ways of making his art embrace tradition, in ways which don't rob it of authenticity and integrity. So even in his "instrumental musique concrete" phase of the 1970s, he claimed the form, the structure, of the music was traditional even though the sounds and harmonies weren't.


I think I might like his instrumental musique concrete stuff.

This sounds post-modern, like a pastiche. I don't understand the appeal. I definitely don't want to own the recording.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> Why label music tonal, atonal, classical, etc.? Those labels are reductive, encourage preconceived expectations, and can act to stifle curiosity and enjoyment, IMO.


These labels aren't meant to stifle; they are used as a convenience, mainly by record stores.



> Duke Ellington famously refused to allow his promotional material to use the word "jazz." He often said he wrote and performed _his_ music.


Duke Ellington is jazz. He transcends it at times, but it's jazz. It wouldn't have any place in a Ken Burns documentary on Country Music.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

JAS said:


> Lachenmann's main theme sounds very Japanese to me, perhaps intentionally (given the image). Parts of it are interesting, but too much of it is far too disruptive or intrusively jangled for my taste. (I did not get all the way through on my first listen, but may try again later, after a couple of meetings this morning.)


The opening tune is Sakura

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


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Everyone bitches about atonality, but I think the lack of discernible meter is actually more of the issue. Only the most raving atonophobe could find this objectionable






but this later work loses any sense of regular metrical patterns (trigger warning here for atonophobes)










Similarly, Schoenberg's Piano Concerto has a more or less conventional sense of meter


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Everyone bitches about atonality, but I think the lack of discernible meter is actually more of the issue. Only the most raving atonophobe could find this objectionable...


Hey, as long as you can dance to it, it's fine with me. :lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think I might like his instrumental musique concrete stuff.
> 
> This sounds post-modern, like a pastiche. I don't understand the appeal. I definitely don't want to own the recording.


Yes I know what you mean about pastiche, I feel much the same. The earlier instrumental musique concrete music is very serious, which I like. This cello concerto is the key work, the piece which marks the transition -- bad sound but with all Lachenmann's music it's good to see the way the sounds are made.






And this is the piece which came after -- now very few sounds are made conventionally.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I just want to post this here because it's so good, a clarinet concerto by Lachenmann. I really don't see how anyone can say that atonal music isn't rich and beautiful if they've heard this.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Everyone bitches about atonality, but I think the lack of discernible meter is actually more of the issue. Only the most raving atonophobe could find this objectionable
> 
> but this later work loses any sense of regular metrical patterns (trigger warning here for atonophobes)
> 
> Similarly, Schoenberg's Piano Concerto has a more or less conventional sense of meter


Agon does not sound atonal, the other two pieces do to my ears. I'm not sure if meter is the larger issue, but it is certainly part of what can make music sound cacophonic.



Mandryka said:


> Anyway, more interesting, what do you think of the way Lachenmann uses tonal music in this piece? Lachenmann more than any other artist I know has explored ways of making his art embrace tradition, in ways which don't rob it of authenticity and integrity. So even in his "instrumental musique concrete" phase of the 1970s, he claimed the form, the structure, of the music was traditional even though the sounds and harmonies weren't.


This Lachenmann piece is quite revealing, like Cage's tonal piece _In a Landscape_, I think they show that when not hiding behind novelty and using more traditional approaches these two are just not very good composers. Just my opinion.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Much of Schoenberg's music seems to be a blend of tonal and atonal elements. Unlike Lachenmann and Cage, some composers that lean towards atonality such as Schoenberg and Carter have clearly shown they are good composers within a tonal framework.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Here is a scientific, highly accurate way of distinguishing the two: if you can hum it, it's tonal. If that doesn't totally work, then if you don't want to ever hum it, it's probably atonal.


For what it's worth, I frequently get the first theme of Schoenberg's 3rd string quartet stuck in my head and feel an urge to hum it.

The brain has more processing power than you think.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

tdc said:


> Like Cage's tonal piece _In a Landscape_, I think they show that when not hiding behind novelty and using more traditional approaches these two are just not very good composers. Just my opinion.


I think what "In a Landscape" shows is, at his core, Cage's musical sensibilities are more exploration than they are complex. In a landscape is simple, yes, but I find it quite beautiful and serene. It reminds me of floating in a world free from problems. So I wouldn't call it a bad piece, just not very deep (or something, maybe deep is not the right word). It's similar to Satie's Gymnopedie 1 and that's a very famous piece.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Speaking of John Cage "Two5" is nice.

View attachment 140134


----------

