# Do you have to get used to atonality in order to appreciate it?



## PresenTense (May 7, 2016)

*Do you have to get used to dissonance/atonality in order to appreciate it?*

Or is it a matter of knowledge about music theory?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Yes, most people have to get used to the language of say, the Second Viennese School, to start liking it. It has nothing to do with music theory really. The more you listen, the more your ear becomes accustomed to their particular types of harmonies and melodies and the more your brain senses the patterns and relationships between the notes, rhythms etc. just like any other music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

violadude said:


> Yes, most people have to get used to the language of say, the Second Viennese School, to start liking it. It has nothing to do with music theory really. The more you listen, the more your ear becomes accustomed to their particular types of harmonies and melodies and the more your brain senses the patterns and relationships between the notes, rhythms etc. just like any other music.


This is my experience, to take an example I recall being completely disoriented by Webern's op 9 bagatelles and Schoenberg's 3rd quartet when I first heard them, but over time the music seems as natural as anything by Beethoven, Schubert etc.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I don't hear atonality at all, so I really can't answer your question literally, but I know from my own experience and that of others that where's no need to understand music theory to listen to and enjoy music that's called atonal.

As others said above, it's simply a matter of hearing the new kinds of harmonies and melodies and integrating them into your own musical mind. Then they will stop sounding like noise and start sounding like any other music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If you are from the tonal world, and are new to this, if you just listen over and over to something like Boulez' Piano Sonatas, they can get boring, because they have no harmonic meaning like tonal music does. If this music means something, you certainly can't hear it.

At first, it's just a series of gestures and clusters and sounds which go on and on. 

But then you read liner notes, and books, and then you get a rudimentary grasp of the serial process, what its goals are, and how it differs from tonal music. 

Then you can begin to accept it and have faith in it. This is an important step. You have to "believe" that this music represents real effort on both the composer's part, as well as the pianist, even though it makes no sense to your ears.

Then, if you get to look at a score, you see that every event, no matter how random sounding, is actually preplanned down to the smallest detail. It is actually rhythmically precise, even though it sounds random. Then you go back and listen again, and marvel at these new revelations, and try to apply them to the music. What kind of a freak is able to play this music? What memory this must entail. This guy's brain must be wired differently.

Then you start observing how some notes are in different registers, you might start listening for certain intervals, you might try to determine if melodic lines are present, or shorter events.

Are they are just events of sound? If they are too muddy or clustered in the bass to make pitch-sense, you realize they are just "sound" events, and you compare this with the electronic music you have heard in the past. 

Finally, you realize: this serial music will never be completely comprehensible to me, not like Beethoven. This music is like entering a labyrinth. This music was not meant to be transparent to me. This music does not operate on "musical meaning" the way tonality does. This music is structures which are built, and present themselves as sound-events. You are lost in a labyrinth.

Then you conclude: this music is a mystery, and will always remain somewhat of a mystery. This music will never be the same as that other tonal music. And if you have faith in it, you will return to it again and again.

Then, as you listen to more and more of this music, and try some Schoenberg, you realize: "meaning" is still there, but it's not the same kind of meaning as tonality. But it does mean something to me now. I'm getting some sort of feeling from it. It's creating a mood. It has colors.

Then you start seeing that some atonal music is Romantic, and some is more detached, like Baroque or Classical. Milton Babbit is like that. Schoenberg is full of feeling. Webern is more detached, but there is plenty of feeling as well.

Suddenly, you understand, and want the complete works of Webern, Berg, Schoenberg, Boulez, and Skallkottas. The you want expensive imports of Maderna and out-of-print Nono.

And that's the end of my story about the little boy who wandered off into the land of atonality.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It may depend on the pieces you listen to? My first listen to Second Viennese School was Schoenberg's Five Pieces For Orchestra, and I enjoyed them immediately. After that I listened to Serenade, Op 24, and that piece sounded pretty thorny and first. Berg's 3 Pieces for Orchestra sounded great right off, but not the Lyric Suite. And Webern's mature works took a bit more time to enjoy. 

And you don't have listen to second Viennese School for these harmonies. You'll find lots of dissonance in Bartok's string quartets, or Elliott Carter's works, Martinu, Milton Babbitt, etc.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Finally, you realize: this serial music will never be completely comprehensible to me, not like Beethoven. This music is like entering a labyrinth. This music was not meant to be transparent to me. This music does not operate on "musical meaning" the way tonality does. This music is structures which are built, and present themselves as sound-events. You are lost in a labyrinth.


Strange, I never had that realization. Maybe it's because I didn't ever think that the way something is constructed is more important than the way it sounds.

Boulez's music has plenty of musical meaning in just the same way tonality does: by constructing an ongoing dialogue based on the properties of musical intervals.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Strange, I never had that realization. Maybe it's because I didn't ever think that the way something is constructed is more important than the way it sounds.
> 
> Boulez's music has plenty of musical meaning in just the same way tonality does: by constructing an ongoing dialogue based on the properties of musical intervals.


Mahlerian! What a surprise to see you here! ...and so agreeable, as usual. Yes, I'm sure that your subjective experience trumps mine.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Mahlerian! What a surprise to see you here! ...and so agreeable, as usual. Yes, I'm sure that your subjective experience trumps mine.


My subjective experience was stated above as...a subjective experience! Yours was worded (_you_ realize, etc.) as if it was the way anyone would experience this music. Anyway, it's certainly true that Boulez's music, contrary to what you said, _CAN_ be understood harmonically and tonally if there are people who exist, such as myself, who hear it that way.

I think it's unhelpful to tell someone who's not interested in studying something they may or may not enjoy that they need to study it in order to gain enjoyment. It's also absolutely false, as listeners here have attested, that studying music theory is necessary to any kind of enjoyment of "atonal" music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

No. My advice would be not to even think about whether a work is "atonal." You don't need to know theory. Either it has ideas you find intriguing or it doesn't. Either it hangs together in a satisfying way or it doesn't. I usually know whether a work is worth my time on first acquaintance. Not everyone does. Trust your intuition and past experience.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I think it's unhelpful to tell someone who's not interested in studying something they may or may not enjoy that they need to study it in order to gain enjoyment. It's also absolutely false, as listeners here have attested, that studying music theory is necessary to any kind of enjoyment of "atonal" music.


Thanks! That's what I'm here for: to hurt people, and to spread untruths!

There are people who exist, such as myself, who want to understand music on an intellectual level.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> No. My advice would be not to even think about whether a work is "atonal." You don't need to know theory. Either it has ideas you find intriguing or it doesn't. Either it hangs together in a satisfying way or it doesn't. I usually know whether a work is worth my time on first acquaintance. Not everyone does. Trust your intuition and past experience.


So, if you were planning the music for your nephew's wedding, you'd put on Boulez? Either the wedding crowd will like it, or they won't. I'm sure they will "trust" their intuition as they spit on the ground.

"It's just like any other music."

"That was great, grandma. I haven't heard "Claire de Lune" in a while. Now play some Stockhausen Klavierstucke!"


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

The simple answer is no.

I know many people who like atonal music who know nothing about music theory

Two post that are examples of this:

http://www.talkclassical.com/42246-classical-music-grabs-people.html#post1022821

http://www.talkclassical.com/23223-tonal-atonal.html#post402351

My friend in the above knew nothing about music theory and could read a little music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are many people on TC who enjoy atonal and dissonant music who know very little about music theory so clearly one does not have to know music theory to enjoy those works. Some of those people may have immediately enjoyed those type of works, but as far as I can tell, most people have to listen for awhile to such works to eventually learn to enjoy them. In some cases such works may take a very long time with years of listening to a variety of related music in order to "learn the new language" and appreciate the music. 

Once one does appreciate or enjoy the music, the fact that particular works are atonal or have significant dissonance will not be part of the listening experience.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> So, if you were planning the music for your nephew's wedding, you'd put on Boulez? Either the wedding crowd will like it, or they won't. I'm sure they will "trust" their intuition as they spit on the ground.
> 
> "It's just like any other music."
> 
> "That was great, grandma. I haven't heard "Claire de Lune" in a while. Now play some Stockhausen Klavierstucke!"


I wouldn't play Beethoven's _Hammerklavier_ at a wedding either, but sure, whatever, let's just judge modern music by the stupidest possible standards.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

Atonal music for me is like all other music: I like some of it and dislike some of it. I didn't have to listen to much classical music before appreciating Schoenberg, and yet there's still some that doesn't move me at all.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Adam Weber said:


> I wouldn't play Beethoven's _Hammerklavier_ at a wedding either, but sure, whatever, let's just judge modern music by the stupidest possible standards.


I would! The opening of that piece sounds perfect for the entrance of the bride!

Or maybe after the kiss.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

I had to ease into it, but it didn't take that long. You just need to find a piece that speaks to you. For me it was Magnus Lindberg's Kraft. Boulez and Schoenberg didn't come till later. I've found that the composer has more to do with whether or not I'll like a piece than whether it's tonal, atonal or what have you.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> So, if you were planning the music for your nephew's wedding, you'd put on Boulez? Either the wedding crowd will like it, or they won't. I'm sure they will "trust" their intuition as they spit on the ground.
> 
> "It's just like any other music."
> 
> "That was great, grandma. I haven't heard "Claire de Lune" in a while. Now play some Stockhausen Klavierstucke!"


If I hated my nephew I might.  But then I'd have to listen to Boulez and it would probably hurt my brain more than his.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

"Do you have to get used to atonality before you can appreciate it?"

Yes, I guess so. It's like learning a language isn't it? Native speakers get all the jokes and nuances of a language. But getting used to atonality can be done gradually. Another analogy is if you live in a quiet community for years speaking only English and then suddenly you take a plane to Istanbul or Delhi it's going to seem overwhelming and chaotic. Going overland from London to Istanbul won't seem shocking, but a natural progression. 

I mean, if you've only been listening to classical era music, or baroque and then you say to yourself "Let's try some Schoenberg or Berg" it's going to be quite an aural shock. Instead, if you work your way through the repertoire from Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, early Schoenberg then immerse yourself in atonal music the atonal music will seem quite a natural progression.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Even if you do understand the theory behind serial music, it won't help you when you listen, because it's not audible. Nobody can hear and remember 12 notes in a row, with no repeats. Serial music was not designed to be comprehensible in an audible way (harmonically) to the ear, and it is not based on harmonic hierarchy.

Tonal music is based on the way our ears hear, so it is comprehensible on a purely sensual level. You see the color red, and you know it's red, immediately. You taste mustard, and you know it's mustard.

Not so with serial music. It is not based on harmonic phenomena, but by ordered sets. The structure is hidden, in that it is based on abstract mathematical principles of ordering, not sensual phenomena.

The only way to"comprehend" serial music is to analyze it.

You can still listen to it, though, and be struck by its beauty. You can read about it, and understand its principles, and this will help you "believe" in it.

But you can't immediately "comprehend" it on a sensual level, like tonality. You just hear it.

But I don't think this is what all those people who "like it" will want to hear. They seem to think that if you listen to it and like it, that you have somehow "comprehended" it.

No, they just got used to hearing it. They like the way it sounds. That's great.

But that doesn't mean they "comprehend it" in any more profound way than someone who hears it and doesn't like it.

The processes of 12-tone and serial music are hidden, abstract concepts.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> "Do you have to get used to atonality before you can appreciate it?"
> 
> Yes, I guess so. It's like learning a language isn't it? Native speakers get all the jokes and nuances of a language. But getting used to atonality can be done gradually. Another analogy is if you live in a quiet community for years speaking only English and then suddenly you take a plane to Istanbul or Delhi it's going to seem overwhelming and chaotic. Going overland from London to Istanbul won't seem shocking, but a natural progression.
> 
> I mean, if you've only been listening to classical era music, or baroque and then you say to yourself "Let's try some Schoenberg or Berg" it's going to be quite an aural shock. Instead, if you work your way through the repertoire from Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, early Schoenberg then immerse yourself in atonal music the atonal music will seem quite a natural progression.


I don't think it's a good idea, or analogy, to compare serialism with tonality as "a different language."

"Getting used to" atonality is not the same thing as a comprehension of its structural principles. You can't do it by hearing it. The principles are not audible in the way tonality's are. It's great that you like atonal music, but that doesn't mean you "understand it."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> I would! The opening of that piece sounds perfect for the entrance of the bride!
> 
> Or maybe after the kiss.


…or maybe for the shower scene afterwards. (thanks to McLeod)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Even if you do understand the theory behind serial music, it won't help you when you listen, because it's not audible. Nobody can hear and remember 12 notes in a row, with no repeats. Serial music was not designed to be comprehensible in an audible way (harmonically) to the ear, and it is not based on harmonic hierarchy.
> 
> Tonal music is based on the way our ears hear, so it is comprehensible on a purely sensual level. You see the color red, and you know it's red, immediately. You taste mustard, and you know it's mustard.
> 
> ...


I don't understand you at all.

Look, when I listen to Moses and Aaron it feels as sensual as, I dunno, Monteverdi's Orfeo or Puccini's Fanculla. So what is it you're saying exactly? Today I listened to Boulez Sonata 2 and it felt as sensual as . . . let's say the Bach 3 part ricercar from Opfer or the Debussy etudes.

So what am I missing about what you're saying? You must have a point that I'm missing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I don't understand you at all.
> 
> Look, when I listen to Moses and Aaron it feels as sensual as, I dunno, Monteverdi's Orfeo or Puccini's Fanculla. So what is it you're saying exactly? Today I listened to Boulez Sonata 2 and it felt as sensual as . . . let's say the Bach 3 part ricercar from Opfer or the Debussy etudes.
> 
> so what am I missing about what you're saying -- you must have a point that I'm missing.


Yes, atonal music is a sensual experience, I don't dispute that. After all, it is art, and it must be beautiful in a sensual way. But that doesn't mean you "comprehend" the principles which went into constructing it, because they are not audible. That shouldn't interfere with your enjoyment of it as music. But don't imply that because you like it (as others have done), that you comprehend it on a deeper level of its structural principles.

With tonality, the harmonic tensions are audible as directly connected to the tonal hierarchy upon which it is based, and this connection is pervasive and apparent in other ways, and always audible in terms of harmonic phenomena.

While serialism has harmonic tensions, they are individual and isolated, and not indicative of any other principles. Serialism is not a comprehensive, integrated language as tonality is. There is no "harmonic provision" in serialism. The vertical harmonic dimension is a "loose goose" and is not part of the tone row, which is essentially a horizontal linear aspect.

In other words, tonality's "comprehensibility" is built-in to the way it sounds, because all its principles are based on audible harmonic phenomena.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

PresenTense said:


> Or is it a matter of knowledge about music theory?


Most definitely, one must have an understanding of atonal theory to see how the lines relate. It is more a musical exploration than musical pursuit for enjoyment as far as I am concerned.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

For me millionrainbows has put it very well but I for one like my music with eyebrows ie Atonal


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Most definitely, one must have an understanding of atonal theory to see how the lines relate. It is more a musical exploration than musical pursuit for enjoyment as far as I am concerned.


What do you mean by "see how the lines relate"? Like in a fugue? Because you don't need training to enjoy a fugue, and the same goes for atonal music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Adam Weber said:


> What do you mean by "see how the lines relate"? Like in a fugue? Because you don't need training to enjoy a fugue, and the same goes for atonal music.


I disagree because most people can identify the melodies in a Bach fugue by listening, but will the atonal subject challenging unless the listener has some theoretical knowledge of twelve tone.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I disagree because most people can identify the melodies in a Bach fugue by listening, but will the atonal subject challenging unless the listener has some theoretical knowledge of twelve tone.


I know jack squat about twelve-tone technique and I still enjoy the music. Either I'm deluding myself or, God forbid, _you're wrong_.

I'm not saying atonal music isn't challenging for the average listener--it is. But the idea that it's unenjoyable or inscrutable, that's bunk.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Adam Weber said:


> I know jack squat about twelve-tone technique and I still enjoy the music. Either I'm deluding myself or, God forbid, _you're wrong_.
> 
> I'm not saying atonal music isn't challenging for the average listener--it is. But the idea that it's unenjoyable or inscrutable, that's bunk.


I did not say it is unejoyable or inscrutable in this thread. Those were your words.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I did not say it is unejoyable or inscrutable in this thread. Those were your words.


Me: "Because you don't need training to enjoy a fugue, and the same goes for atonal music."

You: "I disagree..."

I'm hardly putting words in your mouth.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Adam Weber said:


> I'm not saying atonal music isn't challenging for the average listener--it is. But the idea that it's unenjoyable or inscrutable, that's bunk.


I'd wager it's wishful thinking, too.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Adam Weber said:


> Me: "Because you don't need training to enjoy a fugue, and the same goes for atonal music."
> 
> You: "I disagree..."
> 
> I'm hardly putting words in your mouth.


Semantics. As I wrote, I never used the words "unejoyable" nor "inscrutable". Pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2016)

PresenTense said:


> Do you have to get used to dissonance/atonality [snip]?


Just stop there: ask no further. The answer is "Yes".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I can only quote Saint-Saens: "Why cannot we understand that in art, as in everything else, there are some things to which we must not accustom ourselves."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, atonal music is a sensual experience, I don't dispute that. After all, it is art, and it must be beautiful in a sensual way. But that doesn't mean you "comprehend" the principles which went into constructing it, because they are not audible. That shouldn't interfere with your enjoyment of it as music. But don't imply that because you like it (as others have done), that you comprehend it on a deeper level of its structural principles.
> 
> With tonality, the harmonic tensions are audible as directly connected to the tonal hierarchy upon which it is based, and this connection is pervasive and apparent in other ways, and always audible in terms of harmonic phenomena.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that's helpful. It's as if your saying that the method of construction of atonal music is hidden from the listener. And that made me think of how the exact opposite idea was part of modernist architecture.

I have a friend who was an architect on London's Royal Festival Hall, a concrete structure where the bolt holes are often visible as part of the design. My friend has some good stories about how the builders just couldn't get their heads round the idea that the finish of the bolt holes matters, and that you're not just going to hide them.

Anyway I'm not able to comment on your last (very strong) idea, "_all_ its principles are based on audible harmonic phenomena" _therefore_ tonal music is comprehensible.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Ask the spectralists.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PresenTense said:


> Or is it a matter of knowledge about music theory?


Here's how I see it. You have to get used to dissonance. And you have to get used to consonance. None of these things are natural. 
And neither are a matter of knowledge (savoir), more like knowledge (connaître)

Notice how the big problem that many people have with Schoenberg Webern etc has nothing to do with dissonance, but rather to do with the idea that the melodies don't seduce them. How to listen to music which is not based on long memorable ravishing melodies is also something which is acquired through experience.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Adam Weber said:


> Me: "Because you don't need training to enjoy a fugue, and the same goes for atonal music."
> 
> You: "I disagree..."
> 
> I'm hardly putting words in your mouth.


No, I was referring specifically to your usage of the words "unenjoyable" and "inscrutable". Not my usage in any posts.

But semantics aside, my opinion is that a solid education in music theory of twelve tone technique is indispensable with some appreciation of the form. I can see the point of twelve tone / atonal music development in the course of music history. It completes the "picture of development". Personally from a musical enjoyment point of view, it usually does nothing to me except appropriate usage in the great genre of opera as done by Berg, Puccini and many others.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> No, I was referring specifically to your usage of the words "unenjoyable" and "inscrutable". Not my usage in any posts.
> 
> But semantics aside, my opinion is that a solid education in music theory of twelve tone technique is indispensable with some appreciation of the form. I can see the point of twelve tone / atonal music development in the course of music history. It completes the "picture of development". Personally from a musical enjoyment point of view, it usually does nothing to me except appropriate usage in the great genre of opera as done by Berg, Puccini and many others.


I can't tell what you mean by any of that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Adam Weber said:


> I know jack squat about twelve-tone technique and I still enjoy the music. Either I'm deluding myself or, God forbid, _you're wrong_.
> 
> I'm not saying atonal music isn't challenging for the average listener--it is. But the idea that it's unenjoyable or inscrutable, that's bunk.


You're jumping the gun here. I didn't say that atonality, i.e. serial and 12-tone music is not enjoyable, or not beautiful. But it is different from tonality.

Tonality's tensions and resolutions, its harmonic goals, its resting points, its melodies, are all audibly comprehended in term of sensual phenomena; the harmonic principles on which it operates are comprehensible also as audible, sensual sound.

12-tone and serial music are not. Their structural principles are abstractions not based on sensual, audible harmonic phenomena, so it can't be "comprehended" by the ear alone in terms of how it is structured, or on what principles it operates.

What do you think "comprehension" means? It means more than simply "liking" it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You're jumping the gun here. I didn't say that atonality, i.e. serial and 12-tone music is not enjoyable, or not beautiful. But it is different from tonality.
> 
> Tonality's tensions and resolutions, its harmonic goals, its resting points, its melodies, are all audibly comprehended in term of sensual phenomena; the harmonic principles on which it operates are comprehensible also as audible, sensual sound.
> 
> ...


I don't comprehend how tonality works either. I can identify certain aspects of theory that we relate to its workings, but I could at the same time use those aspects and subvert them so that the tonal center that we thought applied no longer does.

So I don't see why it's a problem that I can't articulate why the music of Schoenberg or Boulez or Webern sounds harmonic to me. It's based on the same natural principles of the ear and the tone.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Thanks, that's helpful. It's as if your saying that the method of construction of atonal music is hidden from the listener. And that made me think of how the exact opposite idea was part of modernist architecture.
> 
> I have a friend who was an architect on London's Royal Festival Hall, a concrete structure where the bolt holes are often visible as part of the design. My friend has some good stories about how the builders just couldn't get their heads round the idea that the finish of the bolt holes matters, and that you're not just going to hide them.
> 
> Anyway I'm not able to comment on your last (very strong) idea, "_all_ its principles are based on audible harmonic phenomena" _therefore_ tonal music is comprehensible.


Wow, I'm glad you even agree with me to this point.

Interestingly, Steve Reich said that the reason he didn't like serial music is because its principles were "invisible," so he went to Minimalism because all of its processes are there on the surface, and fully visible (audible).

I think this underscores a characteristic of 12-tone and serialism that most of its "defenders" do not care to see emphasized: that 12-tone music is abstract in nature, based on "brain" principles for the most part. It has its elements of sound and harmonic tensions, but these are not inherent or built-in to the language, or even audible as such, as tonality's are.

In fact, the 12-tone method is still an "unfinished" language, in that it doesn't have a pervasive, integrated way of providing for the vertical/harmonic aspects of music. These are left to the composer, and whatever solutions he can come up with. This is no doubt part of its appeal to composers as well; with each work, these problems must be solved anew.

Babbitt, Perle and other serial thinkers have tried to create a more comprehensive syntax by working with "special case" rows which will produce result which are controllable within certain parameters.

This is not to say that it cannot produce beautiful results in the right hands. And I find it very enjoyable, and a nice break from the comfort and predictability of tonal music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't comprehend how tonality works either.


But your ear intuitively does "comprehend" tonal music in terms of pure sound, even if you are saying your brain doesn't. Is that what you mean by "comprehend"?

Just like seeing the color red, or tasting mustard, the ear hears octaves as being basically the same pitch. That's called "octave equivalency," and we all have this kind of sensual comprehension.



> I can identify certain aspects of theory that we relate to (tonality's) workings, but I could at the same time use those aspects and subvert them so that the tonal center that we thought applied no longer does.


Yes, you could.



> So I don't see why it's a problem that I can't articulate why the music of Schoenberg or Boulez or Webern sounds harmonic to me.


It sounds harmonic to me as well. I never disputed that. It has all kinds of harmonic tensions and resolutions and colors.



> It's based on the same natural principles of the ear and the tone.


If by "it" you mean just the sound itself, I agree. That doesn't mean that it was _constructed_ on the same harmonic principles in the same way as tonality.

As a system, 12-tone is NOT based on a harmonic tonal hierarchy, as tonality is. As a consequence, it doesn't produce music that is pervasively the manifestation of harmonic principles, either. 12-tone is not even a totally comprehensive syntax.

They are both sound, however. They can both have dissonances and consonances which ebb and flow. That is the nature of sound, not of the 12-tone method.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> You're jumping the gun here. I didn't say that atonality, i.e. serial and 12-tone music is not enjoyable, or not beautiful.


I never said you said that. I was responding to ArtMusic.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Adam Weber said:


> I never said you said that. I was responding to ArtMusic.


Well, what I said was part of the discussion, and I am assuming that ArtMusic largely agrees. So in principle, you are also addressing me.

That's life on the forum.

You did say this:


> I'm not saying atonal music isn't challenging for the average listener--it is. But the idea that it's unenjoyable or inscrutable, that's bunk.




Speaking now on behalf of all who have participated, I don't think anyone has said that atonal music is unenjoyable. Inscrutable? that depends in what sense you mean that.

Schoenberg's music is full of meaning and emotion for me, and it is all audible as sound. That doesn't mean I understand its construction in the same intuitive way I understand tonality, because tonality manifests its principles pervasively and continuously, via audible harmonic principles manifest as sound. 
The principles behind 12-tone are hidden abstractions. It still sounds nice, though.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, what I said was part of the discussion, and I am assuming that ArtMusic largely agrees. So in principle, you are also addressing me. That's life on the forum.


Yeah, no... I'm not addressing everyone who even remotely agrees with a poster when I respond to them. That way leads madness.

If I respond to you, or mention you, I'm responding to you. If I respond to someone else, and don't mention you, I'm not.

You can of course respond to and address those posts (that's "life on the forum"), but you can't claim I said you said something when I clearly didn't.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> As a system, 12-tone is NOT based on a harmonic tonal hierarchy, as tonality is. As a consequence, it doesn't produce music that is pervasively the manifestation of harmonic principles, either. 12-tone is not even a totally comprehensive syntax.
> 
> They are both sound, however. They can both have dissonances and consonances which ebb and flow. That is the nature of sound, not of the 12-tone method.


You see, that's the problem. The 12-tone method is *not a system*. It's a way of composing. It has certain consequences, granted, but as Schoenberg said, "And then you compose as before. You use the same melodies, harmonies, continuations, developments, and so forth, as before."

Your mistake is in believing that because some of the results are different from traditional tonality, that they operate on different principles.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Do you have to get used to atonality to appreciate it?

Hahaha 

You have to get used to any music to appreciate it, though depending on your prior musical interests to hearing a piece for the first time, your preferences will change.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> You see, that's the problem. The 12-tone method is *not a system*. It's a way of composing. It has certain consequences, granted, but as Schoenberg said, "And then you compose as before. You use the same melodies, harmonies, continuations, developments, and so forth, as before."
> 
> Your mistake is in believing that because some of the results are different from traditional tonality, that they operate on different principles.


I listened to Stockhausen after a Mozart Fantasia last night, all I can think about the "problem" people seem so uptight about is that:
"Atonality" is fundamentally no different to "Tonality", it's just another way of stacking notes


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Xenakiboy said:


> I listened to Stockhausen after a Mozart Fantasia last night, all I can think about the "problem" people seem so uptight about is that:
> "Atonality" is fundamentally no different to "Tonality", it's just another way of stacking notes


I think there are two very separate matters that you wrote, which you have considered as one equivalent thought. The part about "people seem so uptight" and the part about "another way of stacking notes". The latter is technically correct, and I agree with it. However, to someone who never has any musical training, "another way of stacking notes" will mean nothing to them other that what their ears tell them, which to most people, is indeed resultant of being "uptight" that you describe. So you see, two separate issues; one is technical ("stacking of notes", musical training required) and the other is people's reaction to it and the two does not necessarily need to be related at all.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> I think there are two very separate matters that you wrote, which you have considered as one equivalent thought. The part about "people seem so uptight" and the part about "another way of stacking notes". The latter is technically correct, and I agree with it. However, to someone who never has any musical training, "another way of stacking notes" will mean nothing to them other that what their ears tell them, which to most people, is indeed resultant of being "uptight" that you describe. So you see, two separate issues; one is technical ("stacking of notes", musical training required) and the other is people's reaction to it and the two does not necessarily need to be related at all.


It's not a technical issue, people like to think so but it's not. Music's basic use is to express something (as a side note, emotional expression isn't the only important expression). There is a huge misconception on the validity of the expression in "atonal" music. I think that the thing known as polystylism has made a good point that constance and dissonance (to use musical terms) are equally valid and compliment eachother.

It doesn't take a composer or musician to appreciate this either, it shouldn't be treated as so.

Try comparing the range of expression from all the current eras of classical music to popular genres: jazz, blues, rock, funk, R&B, electronic, Metal, pop, hip hop, Soul, Reggae. I think they can be all appreciated equally, despite the fact that they don't attempt the same musical landscape (but they can be fused together)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You see, that's the problem. The 12-tone method is *not a system*. It's a way of composing. It has certain consequences, granted, but as Schoenberg said, "And then you compose as before. You use the same melodies, harmonies, continuations, developments, and so forth, as before."
> 
> Your mistake is in believing that because some of the results are different from traditional tonality, that they operate on different principles.


Even if 12-tone had the same principles as tonality, it would be equivalent to a non-tonal situation, as in totally chromatic tonality, or "free atonality." That's the reason Schoenberg invented it; to handle total chromaticism.

Total chromaticism is such a weakened state of tonality that it is for all intents and purposes, atonal. There is no tonal center, because too many notes are being used all the time. That's why it got the name "free atonality!" Duhh….

But at least "free atonality" is more flexible, in that one could repeat notes freely and in any order, and not even use a tone row.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

I've spent a fair amount of time performing atonal works in an orchestra, so you could say I'm acclimated to it. Some of it intrigues me, and some of it is complete bunk. If I'm going to wreck my embouchure playing something difficult, I'd much rather do it on Mahler 2 than on some atonal piece where your high-register acrobatics seems to serve no purpose except "create sound pictures." Don't try to make yourself like it; either you like it or you don't. 
But really, did anyone NOT think this would turn into another debate between Mahlerian and millionrainbows? Geez! I vote that we hold an in-person, one-on-one debate between them and stream it live!


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

Gordontrek said:


> Don't try to make yourself like it; either you like it or you don't.


I think there's a fine line between 'trying to make oneself like something' and 'getting to know the idiom'. If I had made my decision of liking/not liking 'atonal' music (a term I don't like using) based on my initial exposure, I would've missed out on a lot of pieces I love from the bottom of my heart now, but not immediately. And that applies to a lot of composers, starting from Haydn, and going through Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Bartók and Stravinsky all the way to Messiaen. Some music took time, but in many cases my patience was greatly rewarded!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I know many people scorn the concept of using music as a background, but listening to atonal/12 tone/hyper-chromatic music in the background helped me adjust to its sound - making it more "natural" once I focused on a piece. I could then simply respond to it as a work of music. I also found this easier to do with chamber music than orchestral music. I remember an early moment in my music appreciation history when I first "got" the Bartok quartets. 

I use natural in quotes, because our (Western music) brains have, for the most part, grown up primarily with tonal music (whether it be Mozart, Cole Porter, Paul McCartney or Katy Perry) in both the foreground and the background, so it seems natural. I wonder how a Mozart quartet would sound to someone raised on Gregorian chants.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Getting used to" 12-tone and serial music is one thing; comprehending it is another.

There is no problem with tonal music; we don't have to "get used" to it. I think this is _not_ just because we have heard it so much, although that might be a factor, but because _in itself, it is a natural way of making music,_ using harmonic principles which make sense to the human ear.


----------

